I use a similar setup, but I found OneNote frustrating for teaching. It's simply too cluttered for my liking. In addition, when exporting PDFs, it does a terrible job of page breaks, often breaking in the middle of a line of my writing.
So, I've switched to xournal on Linux. It doesn't do OCR, but I never used that much anyways. It just, very simply, gives you pages of lined paper to write on, and allows you to annotate PDFs. Exporting PDFs is simple. Since I switched to Linux, the author has created windows binaries for xournal, but I have no compelling reason to go back, so I haven't.
I've also set up Dropbox on my linux machine and one of my webservers, and written a script so that PDFs I've created during class automatically appear on my course webpage within a few minutes - zero hassle!
Except it will be the same situation - say, the employer sends in the information too late to make it onto your prefilled form, you cheat and don't pay taxes on it, and then the IRS gets the paperwork and reviews your file. You'll still get busted, just with less paperwork ahead of time!
Seems to me it would be good to find out if the government thinks such things... although the hassle of correcting them may not be worth it. For years, the government sent mail to me as Mrs., despite the fact that my first name is David. The hassle of convincing them that I was actually Mr. took about 2 years.
Of course, here in Canada we get a $100 monthly benefit for each child. If the government thinks I have 27 kids, more power to them!
Or, it could be some guy who doesn't like Jesse Hirsh much, wanting to bump the Anarchives story up nearer the top of Google's search results to tick him off. In which case, thanks for helping.
In what app? It certainly doesn't in Safari. I couldn't get option-click to do anything different than the regular click in any of the apps I currently have open.
Umm, sorry, but your numbers are a bit off. There's 18,000 pieces or so in the Eiffel tower - which is indeed in the same order of magnitude as the number of human genes. But there's a lot of the genome that falls outside those genes, and there's a lot more base pairs per gene than bolts per piece. According to the Eiffel tower's website, there's 2.5 million rivets holding it together. There's 3.2 billion base pairs. Not exactly a comparable situation.
This, I think, is bang-on. I'm a high school choir teacher, and it's amazing how many students show up at choir without ever having really sung before - except perhaps a bit of half-hearted singing along with their iPods. Given how long singing (by everyone, not just the professionals) has been a part of cultures worldwide, I think that's a bit of a tragedy.
My favourite bit is how he talks about Youtube running a "Rick-Rolling" campaign.. I suppose perhaps he means the April Fools thing last year, but still...
That would be the general idea, yes. But, unless I'm missing something, there's no actual clinical treatment for doing that for skin yet. If I am reading correctly, the only "production-ready" stem cell treatments are involving cancer (specifically leukemia and other blood-related cancers) - there's been some success at replenishing bone marrow after a round of chemo knocks out all of the existing marrow.
And deal with anti-rejection drugs? I'd rather not.
Clearly it's rather early on, but this does seem like a promising advance... it would be interesting to see if the same technique could be used in other areas - delivering useful genes to somatic cells, cancer cells, etc. It might have interesting implications for gene therapy research.
There was certainly no shortage of control groups (they did several controls, apparently following standard protocol for this type of research, according to the original journal article).
As for the "healthy womb" hypothesis, I think that the interesting thing is the specificity of the effect - the offspring show the same changes in a specific biochemical pathway (that compensated for a genetic defect) that the mother had as a result of the enriched environment. Not to say that it couldn't be just a healthy womb effect, but the specificity of the whole thing seems to point elsewhere.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the original article (J. Neuroscience) to suggest that the offspring were kept with the parents. It's a bit short on methodology, because they're using standard protocols that are just referenced from other papers, but it seems like the offspring are "whisked off" to their own cages.
Actually, I've just taken a peek at the original article in J. Neuroscience, as posted in the comments below.
The interesting thing is that this seems to be passed on at embryogenesis - so it's quite distinct from learning. It's also quite distinct from other epigenetic inheritance studies, which have demonstrated that some of mom's behaviour can result in changes in the offspring's tissues. If this is in fact happening at the embryo stage, it is a whole different pathway.
Slashdot Mirror
One wonders how much BMW paid to have "the Mini Cooper" used to describe this thing... :)
I use a similar setup, but I found OneNote frustrating for teaching. It's simply too cluttered for my liking. In addition, when exporting PDFs, it does a terrible job of page breaks, often breaking in the middle of a line of my writing.
So, I've switched to xournal on Linux. It doesn't do OCR, but I never used that much anyways. It just, very simply, gives you pages of lined paper to write on, and allows you to annotate PDFs. Exporting PDFs is simple. Since I switched to Linux, the author has created windows binaries for xournal, but I have no compelling reason to go back, so I haven't.
I've also set up Dropbox on my linux machine and one of my webservers, and written a script so that PDFs I've created during class automatically appear on my course webpage within a few minutes - zero hassle!
Owning her name would be tantamount to owning her period.
And really, why would anyone want to own that? Yuck!
Still trying to figure out how any of those things could be considered "downright criminal", but I wouldn't want to spoil the griping-fun.
Except it will be the same situation - say, the employer sends in the information too late to make it onto your prefilled form, you cheat and don't pay taxes on it, and then the IRS gets the paperwork and reviews your file. You'll still get busted, just with less paperwork ahead of time!
Seems to me it would be good to find out if the government thinks such things... although the hassle of correcting them may not be worth it. For years, the government sent mail to me as Mrs., despite the fact that my first name is David. The hassle of convincing them that I was actually Mr. took about 2 years.
Of course, here in Canada we get a $100 monthly benefit for each child. If the government thinks I have 27 kids, more power to them!
Or, it could be some guy who doesn't like Jesse Hirsh much, wanting to bump the Anarchives story up nearer the top of Google's search results to tick him off. In which case, thanks for helping.
In what app? It certainly doesn't in Safari. I couldn't get option-click to do anything different than the regular click in any of the apps I currently have open.
Umm, sorry, but your numbers are a bit off. There's 18,000 pieces or so in the Eiffel tower - which is indeed in the same order of magnitude as the number of human genes. But there's a lot of the genome that falls outside those genes, and there's a lot more base pairs per gene than bolts per piece. According to the Eiffel tower's website, there's 2.5 million rivets holding it together. There's 3.2 billion base pairs. Not exactly a comparable situation.
Yup. I got the WDEF B virus in 1992 on a floppy disk on my Mac (I think it was an SE/30) running System 6.2. I still have that floppy somewhere.
This, I think, is bang-on. I'm a high school choir teacher, and it's amazing how many students show up at choir without ever having really sung before - except perhaps a bit of half-hearted singing along with their iPods. Given how long singing (by everyone, not just the professionals) has been a part of cultures worldwide, I think that's a bit of a tragedy.
Why do you need anything aside customers jumping ship from MS's OS? Seems to me that's grounds enough for a suit right there.
That would seem like an odd thing for him to have said, since the book came AFTER the radio series.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
And, let's not forget about the text adventure game! Possibly one of my favourite ways to enjoy the story, and you can play online too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game.shtml
Mind if I call them "Bruce", just to keep it simple?
Exactly. Then we'll use bottle caps for currency.
Ooops... apparently I just hit the thread-depth limit. Sorry about that! :)
You're a retard who can't form a coherent argument. Thanks.
Umm, you do realize you're replying to yourself, right?
An interesting tidbit... on the "news" section of the FPFC site, it shows a short video clip of Waterman ranting about his 11 quid...
http://vimeo.com/3836793
My favourite bit is how he talks about Youtube running a "Rick-Rolling" campaign.. I suppose perhaps he means the April Fools thing last year, but still...
That would be the general idea, yes. But, unless I'm missing something, there's no actual clinical treatment for doing that for skin yet. If I am reading correctly, the only "production-ready" stem cell treatments are involving cancer (specifically leukemia and other blood-related cancers) - there's been some success at replenishing bone marrow after a round of chemo knocks out all of the existing marrow.
And deal with anti-rejection drugs? I'd rather not.
Clearly it's rather early on, but this does seem like a promising advance... it would be interesting to see if the same technique could be used in other areas - delivering useful genes to somatic cells, cancer cells, etc. It might have interesting implications for gene therapy research.
Oh, and there's a news story linked from Nature's front page on the topic:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090227/full/458019a.html
It also links to a second paper at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07864.html
Not without being a university student (or something like that)...
However, the abstract is available here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07863.html
There was certainly no shortage of control groups (they did several controls, apparently following standard protocol for this type of research, according to the original journal article).
As for the "healthy womb" hypothesis, I think that the interesting thing is the specificity of the effect - the offspring show the same changes in a specific biochemical pathway (that compensated for a genetic defect) that the mother had as a result of the enriched environment. Not to say that it couldn't be just a healthy womb effect, but the specificity of the whole thing seems to point elsewhere.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the original article (J. Neuroscience) to suggest that the offspring were kept with the parents. It's a bit short on methodology, because they're using standard protocols that are just referenced from other papers, but it seems like the offspring are "whisked off" to their own cages.
Actually, I've just taken a peek at the original article in J. Neuroscience, as posted in the comments below.
The interesting thing is that this seems to be passed on at embryogenesis - so it's quite distinct from learning. It's also quite distinct from other epigenetic inheritance studies, which have demonstrated that some of mom's behaviour can result in changes in the offspring's tissues. If this is in fact happening at the embryo stage, it is a whole different pathway.