No. You can't breed an organism into anything you want. For example you couldn't turn frogs into horses just by breeding the frogs that seem most "horse-like".
You can't? Fish-born first amphibians were probably quite a bit more like a frog than they were horse. Yet, somehow, generation by generation, some of them became more and more "mammal-like", and then eventually some of the early mammals became more and more "horse-like", and now we have horses. Evolved from pre-frogs.
Sure, it's taken billions of years, and even if it'd be done by hand-picking the most "horse-like", instead of natural selection, it would still take millions, but existing evidence would like to point that it's most certainly possible to turn frogs into horses by selective breeding.
I don't find Universe-wide grey goo scenario with invidual cells almost infinitely smart, and all linked, very probably, but let's assume it was true.
You claim that even one of these organisms would be as smart as "universe full of world's greatest geniuses", and yet, at the same time you claim even a gigantic network made of almost limitless number of the same things would be just as stupid as bacteria with nothing else in mind than breeding and making itself larger.
They would have a goal, whatever that might be.
Some might call it a monster, but vast being of omnipotent reasoning- and other capabilities is what most people call the God. Maybe it already happened, in some other universe, and having totally assimilated an studied all its secrets, they've bored, and made other realities for fun and experiment. Or maybe it was this universe and the so-called "dark matter" is composed of these nano-gods.
No. It's the other way round. Time is a disadvantage.
Defects have managed to slip in dog breeds exactly BECAUSE it's happened during a long period of time.
One bad gene from there, another here, none of them may cause any illness on their own, or if it does, it's not understood to be hereditary, so it's not caught and the end result is used in yet another generation, thus, with time they accumulate, and finally reach a critical mass where bad health is the result. We've made multitude of errors and not catch them 'till they have spread.
With genetic engineering, wham, it's ready. No time for small defects cumulate during thousands of years, if you've made "multitude of errors", you can see them NOW, right from the very first "prototype" invidual before you've cursed a whole species or breed with them.
People are always forgetting natural selection doesn't work toward any particular goal of "good (for humans, or anyone)". Only survival. In the world of today, stupid masses are obviously smart and fit enough to stay alive.
Introduce a real pressure that threatens the species and things will start to change.
Thus, depending on the definition of word "SAVE US", genetic engineering may well be the only thing that can make us change towards something "better", instead of staying only as good as we need to be to survive.
And it ended typically for the show, his girlfriend (whom with he was rather, ahem, active, due to good health induced by nanobots) accidentally cut herself on shard of glass and at the very end her wounds vere "magically" healing...
Or, of course I might be wrong and there is very similar one in both series.
Are they? I haven't noticed. It's not like those words didn't exist before the car models came out.
Navigator and Explorer are quite obvious names for both car and web browser, that's what you DO with them, they're named after purpose, not each other.
Both Lynxes are named after cat, trying to catch the same image small and fast (and the browser even succeeds at being that;))
And I didn't know native americans had Ford Thunderbirds hundreds of years ago when they invented the things. Talk about high tech. It's just a cool word.
Firebird assosiates neatly with phoenix, and it too has a meaning that predates any car.
On all w9x and NT systems running on FAT32 it is equal to root exploit.
Even on NT & NTFS systems what percentage of users runs windoze constantly as Administrator? 90%? More? That's obviously not (or at least not totally) M$:s fault, but that doesn't negate the damage potential.
What's the heck is wrong or "abuse" with "organ farms"? Organ transplants are very good medical technology and have saved LOTS of people even in the current limited form that has lots of problems, the least of them not being immunological reactions and shortage of donors and thus organs.
Human organ cloning would solve both problems and has potential to tremendously raise quality and span of MANY lives. If the replacement part is grown with your own DNA there's no need to deliberaly keep your immune system and sub-optimal level and be more suspectiple to diseases, and there'd be no more people who die because there just is no donors to be found in time.
Note that I'm talking about cloning of invidual organs, not raising whole human clones that are then killed and harvested for bits and pieces.
I think it's quite a bit more justified application of biotechnology than mail-order kids made just perfect for you from hand-picked selection of genes. I for one am eagerly waiting for a day this one's ready for use.
It's random. Mother Nature just kills the bad results afterwards, THAT is the way to remove bad and promote good portions. But Mother Nature doesn't care about inviduals, only about whole. Humans can't, of course, use the same mechanism(s) because of ethics and other such cultural burdens.
Sexual production is favoured exactly because of its randomness, combining DNA from two different inviduals can create almost limitless number of (very slightly) different variants, whereas one invidual duplicating itself can create descendant different from itself only with mutation.
He said on web pages. Obviously applets. And he's right, they suck, even a fast and small applet feels very slow because of time it takes to start jvm.
Backend isn't on web pages, or in web pages, it's generating those web pages.
I had this - on RH8. Seems like there's something here...
It mostly happened with galeon and not Mozilla (but then again, I didn't use Moz very much) and it DID sometimes happen on ctrl-w as well, you can guess how damn annoying that is.
Let them run. It's their choice, sometimes things do require bit studying or work, you don't get anywhere excepting others will do everything for you.
Free/Open software works because users who contribute their time and skills and make software better. If people don't even bother to read documentation, those people will never bother to contribute to any project or otherwise help make software better either. We don't need them.
I'd rather see developers doing what they best do, coding, making software better, than using half of their (valuable) time answering stupid questions that have all been asked and answered million times before.
Obviously there's no need to be rude, but if something is documented, what the heck is wrong with telling someone that this has been already discussed multiple times and you should look there and here, just pointing where to look instead of doing it in behalf of them? They might even learn something, which is not the case with latter option.
Emulator is emulator is emulator. Whether or not it's been included with the OS or is enabled by default.
There's no difference between NT and Linux that's been somehow set up so that it automagically uses dosbox or dosemu to run dos.exe or.com files
There's nothing in "fundamental design" of WinNT derivatives that prevents ripping of the DOS compability layer, win32 stuff would continue working just fine.
Re:Let's hear it for legacy free!
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
Had not.
Remember how it begun? IBM specifically did BIOS that was copyrighted and/or patented so nobody could use it to make compatible machines. Compaq had to reverse engineer BIOS to legally create first IBM PC clone, and if law trends back then would've been like today, that still wouldn't have saved them from court.
The standards and multitude of other vendors came later, and it certainly wasn't IBM's original vision or wish.
CD-R(W|OM). You know, the neat silver colored disks that have weird rainbow effects and all.
They invented 'em about the same time 1.44M floppies became commonplace, nowadays some nice company has even developed way to write to the originally read-only puppies and is selling drives and disks to do that for dirt cheap.
Did I mention they are bazillions times faster and hold about five hundred times more data? You can also boot from one on just about any modern pc!
Next and previous buttons would be easily doable with any browser extension thingy, or even as JavaScript (mere word usually brings out worst of some people, but it's OK when used for good:)) bookmarklets.
Might not even need any cooperation on the writers part if the proggie had any logic in it, the link IS usually named next, after all.
It'd still be PITA compared to one-page article...
Yeah, I've examined the material very thoroughly. Holes? What holes? Every last one of those supposed "holes" has zillion times more reasonable explanation than the so-called "hole" itself.
Not that it has ever bothered you conspiracy theory loonies.
Yeah, it's NOT safe for prolonged exposure. Newsflash: moon is close, going there and back is a short trip, not prolonged exposure.
Yeah, if sun goes boom with people up there, you're a goner. Newsflash: most of those can be predicted, and as short a trip as going to moon and back can be planned between any major solar activity.
What comes to nobody going there again, well, nobody has wanted to pay for it. Why would anyone want to go there (excepting the race mentality)? It's pile of rock. It's not free you know, you can't just strap a rocket motor on an old tin can and have a vessel capable of reaching the Moon. Russians specifically are not exactly known for their endless riches right now, nor the past few decades. Feel free to finance your own lunar mission if you've got billions to spare.
There is no evidence that it's safe up there. Quite contrary, everyone knows its not safe up there.
Slashdot Mirror
No. You can't breed an organism into anything you want. For example you couldn't turn frogs into horses just by breeding the frogs that seem most "horse-like".
You can't? Fish-born first amphibians were probably quite a bit more like a frog than they were horse. Yet, somehow, generation by generation, some of them became more and more "mammal-like", and then eventually some of the early mammals became more and more "horse-like", and now we have horses. Evolved from pre-frogs.
Sure, it's taken billions of years, and even if it'd be done by hand-picking the most "horse-like", instead of natural selection, it would still take millions, but existing evidence would like to point that it's most certainly possible to turn frogs into horses by selective breeding.
I don't find Universe-wide grey goo scenario with invidual cells almost infinitely smart, and all linked, very probably, but let's assume it was true.
You claim that even one of these organisms would be as smart as "universe full of world's greatest geniuses", and yet, at the same time you claim even a gigantic network made of almost limitless number of the same things would be just as stupid as bacteria with nothing else in mind than breeding and making itself larger.
They would have a goal, whatever that might be.
Some might call it a monster, but vast being of omnipotent reasoning- and other capabilities is what most people call the God. Maybe it already happened, in some other universe, and having totally assimilated an studied all its secrets, they've bored, and made other realities for fun and experiment. Or maybe it was this universe and the so-called "dark matter" is composed of these nano-gods.
No. It's the other way round. Time is a disadvantage.
Defects have managed to slip in dog breeds exactly BECAUSE it's happened during a long period of time.
One bad gene from there, another here, none of them may cause any illness on their own, or if it does, it's not understood to be hereditary, so it's not caught and the end result is used in yet another generation, thus, with time they accumulate, and finally reach a critical mass where bad health is the result. We've made multitude of errors and not catch them 'till they have spread.
With genetic engineering, wham, it's ready. No time for small defects cumulate during thousands of years, if you've made "multitude of errors", you can see them NOW, right from the very first "prototype" invidual before you've cursed a whole species or breed with them.
Ah, but it works.
People are always forgetting natural selection doesn't work toward any particular goal of "good (for humans, or anyone)". Only survival. In the world of today, stupid masses are obviously smart and fit enough to stay alive.
Introduce a real pressure that threatens the species and things will start to change.
Thus, depending on the definition of word "SAVE US", genetic engineering may well be the only thing that can make us change towards something "better", instead of staying only as good as we need to be to survive.
You have total freedom to say whatever you wish but you also have a responsibility for what you said.
Why should talking be any more free from possible consequences than any other action?
So what? That's why the CPU is there. To do something.
And if you are watching TV, you're not doing anything else with the box anyway.
It was actually The Outer Limits episode.
And it ended typically for the show, his girlfriend (whom with he was rather, ahem, active, due to good health induced by nanobots) accidentally cut herself on shard of glass and at the very end her wounds vere "magically" healing...
Or, of course I might be wrong and there is very similar one in both series.
Are they? I haven't noticed. It's not like those words didn't exist before the car models came out.
;))
Navigator and Explorer are quite obvious names for both car and web browser, that's what you DO with them, they're named after purpose, not each other.
Both Lynxes are named after cat, trying to catch the same image small and fast (and the browser even succeeds at being that
And I didn't know native americans had Ford Thunderbirds hundreds of years ago when they invented the things. Talk about high tech.
It's just a cool word.
Firebird assosiates neatly with phoenix, and it too has a meaning that predates any car.
Ever heard of modules? Linux kernel has supported them for a while. No need to even reboot.
On all w9x and NT systems running on FAT32 it is equal to root exploit.
Even on NT & NTFS systems what percentage of users runs windoze constantly as Administrator? 90%? More? That's obviously not (or at least not totally) M$:s fault, but that doesn't negate the damage potential.
You've got a computer that's one hundred percent semiconductors?
Most I've seen to date include quite a bit more metals and probably even carbon (in plastic) than silicon chips.
What's the heck is wrong or "abuse" with "organ farms"? Organ transplants are very good medical technology and have saved LOTS of people even in the current limited form that has lots of problems, the least of them not being immunological reactions and shortage of donors and thus organs.
Human organ cloning would solve both problems and has potential to tremendously raise quality and span of MANY lives. If the replacement part is grown with your own DNA there's no need to deliberaly keep your immune system and sub-optimal level and be more suspectiple to diseases, and there'd be no more people who die because there just is no donors to be found in time.
Note that I'm talking about cloning of invidual organs, not raising whole human clones that are then killed and harvested for bits and pieces.
I think it's quite a bit more justified application of biotechnology than mail-order kids made just perfect for you from hand-picked selection of genes. I for one am eagerly waiting for a day this one's ready for use.
It's random. Mother Nature just kills the bad results afterwards, THAT is the way to remove bad and promote good portions. But Mother Nature doesn't care about inviduals, only about whole. Humans can't, of course, use the same mechanism(s) because of ethics and other such cultural burdens.
Sexual production is favoured exactly because of its randomness, combining DNA from two different inviduals can create almost limitless number of (very slightly) different variants, whereas one invidual duplicating itself can create descendant different from itself only with mutation.
He said on web pages. Obviously applets. And he's right, they suck, even a fast and small applet feels very slow because of time it takes to start jvm.
Backend isn't on web pages, or in web pages, it's generating those web pages.
Snopes doesn't refute that sodas contain acid, they refute the ridiculous claim of the "everything you put in it will be dissolved in few days".
And so do you. As you said, it won't happen in 4 days. 4 weeks, or even 4 months is probably closer.
Nobody keeps cola in their mouths for weeks before swallowing! No dissolved teeth.
If biotech goes fast enough, they may even be able to grow/clone your own teeth for implants instead of artificial ones...
I had this - on RH8. Seems like there's something here...
... yet.
It mostly happened with galeon and not Mozilla (but then again, I didn't use Moz very much) and it DID sometimes happen on ctrl-w as well, you can guess how damn annoying that is.
Haven't seen it happen on RH9
Let them run. It's their choice, sometimes things do require bit studying or work, you don't get anywhere excepting others will do everything for you.
Free/Open software works because users who contribute their time and skills and make software better. If people don't even bother to read documentation, those people will never bother to contribute to any project or otherwise help make software better either. We don't need them.
I'd rather see developers doing what they best do, coding, making software better, than using half of their (valuable) time answering stupid questions that have all been asked and answered million times before.
Obviously there's no need to be rude, but if something is documented, what the heck is wrong with telling someone that this has been already discussed multiple times and you should look there and here, just pointing where to look instead of doing it in behalf of them? They might even learn something, which is not the case with latter option.
Not much different from RH8 except that they are working on Mozilla out of the box now as well.
Enabled by default, I think they look good, but that's a matter of taste.
Emulator is emulator is emulator. Whether or not it's been included with the OS or is enabled by default.
.exe or .com files
There's no difference between NT and Linux that's been somehow set up so that it automagically uses dosbox or dosemu to run dos
There's nothing in "fundamental design" of WinNT derivatives that prevents ripping of the DOS compability layer, win32 stuff would continue working just fine.
Had not.
Remember how it begun? IBM specifically did BIOS that was copyrighted and/or patented so nobody could use it to make compatible machines. Compaq had to reverse engineer BIOS to legally create first IBM PC clone, and if law trends back then would've been like today, that still wouldn't have saved them from court.
The standards and multitude of other vendors came later, and it certainly wasn't IBM's original vision or wish.
CD-R(W|OM). You know, the neat silver colored disks that have weird rainbow effects and all.
They invented 'em about the same time 1.44M floppies became commonplace, nowadays some nice company has even developed way to write to the originally read-only puppies and is selling drives and disks to do that for dirt cheap.
Did I mention they are bazillions times faster and hold about five hundred times more data? You can also boot from one on just about any modern pc!
Next and previous buttons would be easily doable with any browser extension thingy, or even as JavaScript (mere word usually brings out worst of some people, but it's OK when used for good:)) bookmarklets.
Might not even need any cooperation on the writers part if the proggie had any logic in it, the link IS usually named next, after all.
It'd still be PITA compared to one-page article...
Yeah, I've examined the material very thoroughly. Holes? What holes? Every last one of those supposed "holes" has zillion times more reasonable explanation than the so-called "hole" itself.
Not that it has ever bothered you conspiracy theory loonies.
Yeah, it's NOT safe for prolonged exposure. Newsflash: moon is close, going there and back is a short trip, not prolonged exposure.
Yeah, if sun goes boom with people up there, you're a goner. Newsflash: most of those can be predicted, and as short a trip as going to moon and back can be planned between any major solar activity.
What comes to nobody going there again, well, nobody has wanted to pay for it. Why would anyone want to go there (excepting the race mentality)? It's pile of rock. It's not free you know, you can't just strap a rocket motor on an old tin can and have a vessel capable of reaching the Moon.
Russians specifically are not exactly known for their endless riches right now, nor the past few decades. Feel free to finance your own lunar mission if you've got billions to spare.
There is no evidence that it's safe up there. Quite contrary, everyone knows its not safe up there.
No it's not.
For something to be copyrighted it must be conceivable as _work_, or pass a "requirement of originality".
It may fall under some other laws, but I seriously doubt that e-mail as trivial as ones in the article would be copyrighted.