Fair point. I did not realize that was in the Articles of the Constitution (I knew it said that in the introduction). I will concede my second point, but I still feel my first is valid...
Re:Need a little more research on Article 10
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
That states the reason for drafting the constitution. It's not explicitly granting the power to do that (as is required by the text of the 10th amendment). Sure, it will be argued that health care falls within that, but it won't be the first time that an invalid argument was made in an attempt to prove a point...
Re:Need a little more research on Article 10
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
That's a BS argument. Try telling that to your child. "You can't hit him!" to which the child responds "But I hit him all the time, and nobody has ever told me not to"... Just because they have gotten away with it time and time again, doesn't mean that it's right...
I hope it's rushed through, because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal... Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional... Amendment 10 of the constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people
So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?
It's relative of course, but the cost of routers and maintenance is nowhere near buying the bandwidth.
Those two parts alone, true. But they have to by the right of ways from the power/telephone company (or whoever owns the properties they run their lines over) to run their fiber. They have to pay for the fiber and actually run it. They need to handle breaks and failures of the fiber. For someone the size of Youtube, it likely is much cheaper to build your own infrastructure than buying the bandwidth directly. My guess would be 10's if not 100's of millions of $$$ to build and maintain those systems over the course of a few years. And to most people, that's not cheap (I was just trying to provide a frame of reference for "cheap")...
I really don't see why Google would be paying much.
Unless you count the cost of running the fiber, and the cost of routers and maintenance. And the cost of generators, and power and other operating costs... Basically, "much" is relative. Compared to "buying" the bandwidth from a Tier-1 provider, probably not much. Compared to 0, probably very much...
Your question assumes that the course in question is attended mostly by students whose major/course of study would be aided by that knowledge. If, on the other hand, students are in that class to fill some fucking "core requirement", then give them the tools they need to pass the exam and leave them the hell alone.
Well, I agree, sort of. There's a reason that "core requirements" exist. I sure as hell hope that every educated person knows the basic foundations of physics. When I say the basic foundations, I'm not talking equations. I'm not talking about problem solving. I'm talking about concepts. Everyone should know about equal and opposite reactions. Everyone should know that things don't move unless acted upon by some force. I don't care if people can calculate the amount of time a ball will take to hit the ground if thrown in the air. But I do care if people don't understand that the faster they go, the more energy they have... While I hated taking the core requirements, I do think they serve an important purpose. They give everyone a baseline. What good is a genius physicist, if they can't articulate their thoughts? What good is a literary major who doesn't have some knowledge of social behavior? How can someone expect to be a productive member of society without understanding the BASIC economic principles?
The problem I think you're alluding to, is two fold. First, the teachers of those "core" classes spend way too much time on the details, and not enough on the concepts. That leads them to treating the students like they are majoring in the subject rather than just learning a background... Second is that those classes tend to be either way to basic, or way to advanced for most students. There's Physics for Poets (REALLY simple), Physics for Engineers (Calculus based, quite in depth on practical matters) and Physics for Physicists (Calculus based, in depth on theoretical matters)... Where's the middle ground that isn't overly simple, but also doesn't focus on application as much as on concept?
They broke the rules, plain and simple. Conversation over.
Sure... If you break the rules, you get punished. That's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the rules are often silly and unjust. That doesn't mean you can have warrant disregard for them, but it still doesn't make them right... And one of my strong beliefs is that the education system needs a MAJOR reform, to get away from unjust rules and ineffective practices. Sure, there are some schools and teachers whom are progressive enough to understand this, and adjust their teaching methods to get the best results from their students. But the majority of the ones that I've had experience with just do it as a job, and don't really care if you learn the material or not (The teaching pays for them to be able to do their research, which is what they really care about)... And when you're talking about specialized courses for specialized majors, you may not have a choice on finding a class with different requirements (In my program, about half the courses had only one professor available that teaches it). Sure, you could "suck it up" and just get through it, but I'd rather learn something in the classes I pay significant $$$ for. So I have every right to complain that I don't think they are doing a good job...
Re:Oh great, Sony
on
I Want My GTV
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well, perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony's ways (at least in this particular product)..? With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)... I like the fact that Google's "spreading the wealth" by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company (HTC) for all their physical products. Sure, Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past (and for some dumb is putting it nice), but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together. I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we're not seeing? Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store? Or perhaps for patent rights? Or perhaps for something I can't even think of...
I don't care that Newton went through 20 pages of integrals to discover that KE == 1/2mv^2.
Actually, I disagree with you there... I think it's VERY important to understand WHERE those equations come from and how to derive them (Especially for an engineer). If you don't know the roots of it, how can you ever know its limitations? I'll give you an example... You know that F=ma. But why should you need to know how it's derived? Well, it's derived from F= d(mv)/dt... So F=ma is only true if mass is constant with respect to time (So it doesn't work in cases of a rocket, airplane, top fuel dragster, etc)... That's easily seen from the derivation, but not trivial to see from dimensional analysis or the F=ma question itself. Without understanding the derivation, how can you ever hope to UNDERSTAND the equation? Sure, you can use it, but then how can you possibly KNOW if you pick the right one? And especially in the case of engineering, where people's lives can literally be at stake when choosing an equation, I sure as hell hope you understand the equation and not just know how to use it...
One thing I have noticed over the years is that the students who make a habit of attending class regularly are the ones who tend to actually learn the material as opposed to just being able to puke it back for a test and then promptly forget it.
I think that depends on why you know the material without going to class. Is it because you're a good book learner (and are able to memorize the material for the test), or is it because you get a significant amount of practice outside that particular course. I switched into Engineering from Physics in my sophomore year. I took 2 freshman level courses, 1 sophomore level engineering course and a sophomore level math course that semester. 3 out of the 4 classes spent half the course going over vectors (To be fair, they weren't all in the same discipline, so the "average" student wouldn't take more than one course which worked heavily in vectors in their major pursuit). And that's not to mention that I had done vectors in both High School, and freshman level Physics... So by the time I started that sophomore year, I already had significant experience with vectors. So attending those 3 courses was nothing but shear boredom (So I looked at the syllabus and talked with others in the classes, and skipped all the lectures on vectors)... It's not because I could memorize it, but because how many times do you really need to "learn" a subject (especially considering I had mastered it two years earlier)? And that's the problem I see with a lot of the professors (at least the ones I've had, I know not all are like this), is that they think that they are gold, and everyone else (including any other professor/class that you are taking at the same time) do not matter. So they pour on work even if in the particular case it's not necessary (I really wish I could have gotten half my tuition back for that semester, since I didn't learn anything in the first half of the courses). I understand that professors need to work from a baseline and that not all students will be past that baseline, but why punish me for being above it (because I already know the material) by requiring homework and attendance?
It's a hardware error, you have to fix it, or I'll sue you for selling me defective hardware.
And if your software, using the same hardware interface, works, then it's my problem if my chosen software doesn't. Because software has nothing to do with hardware support.
You've hit the nail on the head. The reason most support companies want you to roll back to stock, is so that they can determine if the problem is truly hardware or if it's a driver/os issue... I had a problem with IBM and a server I was using. There was a bug in the motherboard that would cause excessive IO to lock the board under Linux (CentOS specifically). After working with a few friends that I have who have worked on the kernel team, it was determined that the only explanation was a faulty MOBO (More specifically, one that didn't behave according to standards). I called IBM, and they said that I'd have to recreate the problem under Windows Server or RHEL to be able to claim warranty. I tried Windows, and nothing happened (I found out later that Windows doesn't even use the bit of hardware that was causing the problem). I didn't want to shell out the $$$ for RHEL just to prove it was hardware, so I was stuck with a useless server (for CentOS at least). So we put Windows server on it, and re-purposed the box. Does it suck? Yes... Is it the end of the world? No (especially since we got a better deal on a better server for the project in question)... It's just the realities of support...
I hate systems that count attendance against you... Why should I be forced to go to class if I otherwise know or can learn the material externally? Sure, some interactive courses where you need to prove a skill (such as labs) should count attendance, but why should a lecture hold that requirement? If I can ace all the tests, why should I deserve to not get an A in the course (And this has happened to me, because I got too bored in the lectures and stopped going, but I understood the material well enough to get a 98% average on the 3 exams)? I actually prefer counting attendance and homework as "extra credit" (I had a professor once who would count all homework and attendance, but applied it towards raising one test result by up to 15%. So if you got 98%, 95% and 80% on the 3 tests, but had perfect attendance and homework, the final test (since it was the lowest) would be raised to a 95%. But if you did no homework and never attended class and you got all 100%'s on the exams, you'd get a 100% for the course)... I typically find that professors whom count attendance for a non-interactive subject typically just like to hear themselves speak (and hence have to require attendance, because there's no other 'real' incentive to go to class). Sure, there are plenty that are good and require attendance, but I've never had one as a teacher...
Good for you! I don't use Windows either... And I don't use OSX. And since iTunes isn't supported on Linux, I can't use an iPhone or an iPod Touch or an iPad... Not that I'm really complaining (because I wouldn't use them anyway, but because I like the alternatives better)... Just because you like something better doesn't make it better (Then again, maybe I shouldn't feed the troll)...
I am quite happy about it! I LOVE my Droid, and the added features will be a welcome addition.
And no, I won't root it. Not because "I'm scared", but because I don't mess around with my primary device (I have a G1 and a ATT Tilt (HTC Tyan II) that are both rooted). If something goes wrong, I want the ability to drive directly to Verizon and get a new device without worry about "Crap, it's still rooted, let me get home and try to unroot it before taking it in"... Plus, I rely on it for daily use. So if for some reason it bricked, I'd be up the creak without a paddle...
Just for clarification, I wasn't talking about that kind of security vulnerability. I'm talking about true zero days that require no unusual action on the part of the user. Such as the case of simply vising an infected site, or a remote exploit. For what you are talking about, I agree 100%...
Well, it won't directly increase the speed to your house, but it would likely open the door for ISPs to offer cheaper and faster packages (Considering the cost of the uplink would theoretically be less). So while you wouldn't be putting one of these in your house, you would receive the trickle down effect from it...
They consider 1000x892 pixels high resolution? Last I checked, that was high res circa 1995... I'd LOVE to see some of those shots at something at least large enough that my monitor could display naively (2500x1600 minimum), yet alone being able to zoom in...
True, but evolution tends to favor traits that make an organism's survival stronger. When an organism/group of organisms develops a mutation, one of three things happens. Either that mutation dominates (it's a "good" trait) and tends to overtake the population (because those without it are weaker, die sooner and therefor reproduce less), the mutation causes the organism to die sooner, and hence tends to not overtake the population (because those with it are weaker...) or the mutation causes no discernible change (In which case it's a coin flip if it will overtake the population since there's no affect on breeding rates, so it may die out or overtake the entire population)... An individual step in evolution doesn't mean better it means change. But the process of evolution as a whole (from a statistical standpoint) tends to favor better (hence why animals can adapt to their surroundings, etc)...
Well, the mercury contained in a CFL exists in a gaseous state (well, suspended in other gases). So when it breaks, you're inhaling the mercury. Inhalation is typically more dangerous for some materials than ingestion because when you inhale the substance, it can go straight into the blood stream, where ingestion has to be absorbed via the intestines... Given the current inhalation upper limit of 0.1 mg/m3 (from the MSDS I cited in the GP), if you broke a CFL in a room that was 40 m^3, your average exposure in that room would be at the upper limit. If the room was smaller, or you were right near the bulb when it broke, you'd be exposed to greater amounts. So no, you don't need to "eat" the broken bulb or lick your fingers afterwords to get dangerous exposures to mercury. Simply being in the same room could be enough...
As far as I can tell, this seems to be about killing a Citizen that has a gun and is presently involved in shooting at American soldiers (Or is somehow presently engaged in other acts of war against the US)... It's not about finding one on the street and saying he's a bad guy, kill him. If you shoot at a police officer (or even raise a gun towards him for that matter), is he/she going to stop and say "Well, he deserves the right to a fair trial, so I'm going to let him shoot at me while I go try to put him in handcuffs"? No, they are going to shoot back. If the suspect survives, then they will be tried by their peers. But once you engage against either the military or the police, you should consider yourself lucky if you do survive...
I'm not saying that these kinds of things are important, but why the focus on drones? Why not focus on ALL targeted killing? They pick drones, because it's new and scary (They can rally support through sensationalism). Not because it's radically changed the way the military has operated (in terms of who to kill, not in strategy). Don't get me wrong, I think it needs to be looked into, but this appears to me to be a media stunt to try to get the public's interest roused to the point where the military will have to say SOMETHING...
More importantly, does the ACLU have any problem with snipers? Typically they are involved in "execution" style attacks (where the individual is stalked, targeted and terminated)... Sure, the sniper can also be (and is usually used in) a support role for a group of soldiers (Which drones do routinely), but they can and do target individuals. How is that any different from a drone (Which can do the same exact thing, but requires less man-hours of training and has less risk associated with it)? And who cares if they are targeting US citizens? It's not like they are flying over and killing innocents, the citizens they are targeting are consorting with the enemy (Well, I assume, but if they are targeting civilians, I have a feeling they'd cover that up so well (just like they do with every other "questionable" practice)...
Well, they claim that they thought it was "lost to evolution"... I assume the fact that the gene is not active today is the result of evolution. So that implies the question Why is it inactive? I would think the ability to regenerate body parts on demand would be an evolutionary advantage, wouldn't it? So something must not work correctly (or there must be some kind of side effect)... It could be as simple as we didn't have enough nutrition at the time to be able to support it, and would die of malnourishment when we'd otherwise live with the injury... But I do agree, it does seem "too easy". They must be a negative here that we haven't figured out... I guess it's time to welcome our new self-healing mouse overlords...
Tuna contains on average around 10ug (Yes, that's 10 x 10^-6) per ounce (as per the FDA). So a typical tuna steak would have around 50 to 60 ug of mercury (and that' methylmercury, not pure murcury)... Whereas a single CFL (according to EnergyStar) contains around 4mg (Yes, 4x10^-3) per bulb. So to get the same amount of mercury from fish as you get from a CFL, you'd need to eat 62 lbs of fish. And that's for a single exposure. Considering the current recommendation for fish is 12oz per week (per FDA), it'd take over 83 weeks (That's 1.6 years) to get the same exposure as from a single bulb. Sure, there's the argument that you're not ingesting the bulb (Well, I hope you're not), but if you average one broken bulb per year or more, the exposure to mercury from broken bulbs would dominate (Especially considering it's a more concentrated dose when it happens)...
Slashdot Mirror
Fair point. I did not realize that was in the Articles of the Constitution (I knew it said that in the introduction). I will concede my second point, but I still feel my first is valid...
That states the reason for drafting the constitution. It's not explicitly granting the power to do that (as is required by the text of the 10th amendment). Sure, it will be argued that health care falls within that, but it won't be the first time that an invalid argument was made in an attempt to prove a point...
That's a BS argument. Try telling that to your child. "You can't hit him!" to which the child responds "But I hit him all the time, and nobody has ever told me not to"... Just because they have gotten away with it time and time again, doesn't mean that it's right...
So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?
Those two parts alone, true. But they have to by the right of ways from the power/telephone company (or whoever owns the properties they run their lines over) to run their fiber. They have to pay for the fiber and actually run it. They need to handle breaks and failures of the fiber. For someone the size of Youtube, it likely is much cheaper to build your own infrastructure than buying the bandwidth directly. My guess would be 10's if not 100's of millions of $$$ to build and maintain those systems over the course of a few years. And to most people, that's not cheap (I was just trying to provide a frame of reference for "cheap")...
Unless you count the cost of running the fiber, and the cost of routers and maintenance. And the cost of generators, and power and other operating costs... Basically, "much" is relative. Compared to "buying" the bandwidth from a Tier-1 provider, probably not much. Compared to 0, probably very much...
Well, I agree, sort of. There's a reason that "core requirements" exist. I sure as hell hope that every educated person knows the basic foundations of physics. When I say the basic foundations, I'm not talking equations. I'm not talking about problem solving. I'm talking about concepts. Everyone should know about equal and opposite reactions. Everyone should know that things don't move unless acted upon by some force. I don't care if people can calculate the amount of time a ball will take to hit the ground if thrown in the air. But I do care if people don't understand that the faster they go, the more energy they have... While I hated taking the core requirements, I do think they serve an important purpose. They give everyone a baseline. What good is a genius physicist, if they can't articulate their thoughts? What good is a literary major who doesn't have some knowledge of social behavior? How can someone expect to be a productive member of society without understanding the BASIC economic principles?
The problem I think you're alluding to, is two fold. First, the teachers of those "core" classes spend way too much time on the details, and not enough on the concepts. That leads them to treating the students like they are majoring in the subject rather than just learning a background... Second is that those classes tend to be either way to basic, or way to advanced for most students. There's Physics for Poets (REALLY simple), Physics for Engineers (Calculus based, quite in depth on practical matters) and Physics for Physicists (Calculus based, in depth on theoretical matters)... Where's the middle ground that isn't overly simple, but also doesn't focus on application as much as on concept?
Sure... If you break the rules, you get punished. That's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the rules are often silly and unjust. That doesn't mean you can have warrant disregard for them, but it still doesn't make them right... And one of my strong beliefs is that the education system needs a MAJOR reform, to get away from unjust rules and ineffective practices. Sure, there are some schools and teachers whom are progressive enough to understand this, and adjust their teaching methods to get the best results from their students. But the majority of the ones that I've had experience with just do it as a job, and don't really care if you learn the material or not (The teaching pays for them to be able to do their research, which is what they really care about)... And when you're talking about specialized courses for specialized majors, you may not have a choice on finding a class with different requirements (In my program, about half the courses had only one professor available that teaches it). Sure, you could "suck it up" and just get through it, but I'd rather learn something in the classes I pay significant $$$ for. So I have every right to complain that I don't think they are doing a good job...
Well, perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony's ways (at least in this particular product)..? With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)... I like the fact that Google's "spreading the wealth" by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company (HTC) for all their physical products. Sure, Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past (and for some dumb is putting it nice), but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together. I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we're not seeing? Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store? Or perhaps for patent rights? Or perhaps for something I can't even think of...
Actually, I disagree with you there... I think it's VERY important to understand WHERE those equations come from and how to derive them (Especially for an engineer). If you don't know the roots of it, how can you ever know its limitations? I'll give you an example... You know that F=ma. But why should you need to know how it's derived? Well, it's derived from F= d(mv)/dt... So F=ma is only true if mass is constant with respect to time (So it doesn't work in cases of a rocket, airplane, top fuel dragster, etc)... That's easily seen from the derivation, but not trivial to see from dimensional analysis or the F=ma question itself. Without understanding the derivation, how can you ever hope to UNDERSTAND the equation? Sure, you can use it, but then how can you possibly KNOW if you pick the right one? And especially in the case of engineering, where people's lives can literally be at stake when choosing an equation, I sure as hell hope you understand the equation and not just know how to use it...
I think that depends on why you know the material without going to class. Is it because you're a good book learner (and are able to memorize the material for the test), or is it because you get a significant amount of practice outside that particular course. I switched into Engineering from Physics in my sophomore year. I took 2 freshman level courses, 1 sophomore level engineering course and a sophomore level math course that semester. 3 out of the 4 classes spent half the course going over vectors (To be fair, they weren't all in the same discipline, so the "average" student wouldn't take more than one course which worked heavily in vectors in their major pursuit). And that's not to mention that I had done vectors in both High School, and freshman level Physics... So by the time I started that sophomore year, I already had significant experience with vectors. So attending those 3 courses was nothing but shear boredom (So I looked at the syllabus and talked with others in the classes, and skipped all the lectures on vectors)... It's not because I could memorize it, but because how many times do you really need to "learn" a subject (especially considering I had mastered it two years earlier)? And that's the problem I see with a lot of the professors (at least the ones I've had, I know not all are like this), is that they think that they are gold, and everyone else (including any other professor/class that you are taking at the same time) do not matter. So they pour on work even if in the particular case it's not necessary (I really wish I could have gotten half my tuition back for that semester, since I didn't learn anything in the first half of the courses). I understand that professors need to work from a baseline and that not all students will be past that baseline, but why punish me for being above it (because I already know the material) by requiring homework and attendance?
You've hit the nail on the head. The reason most support companies want you to roll back to stock, is so that they can determine if the problem is truly hardware or if it's a driver/os issue... I had a problem with IBM and a server I was using. There was a bug in the motherboard that would cause excessive IO to lock the board under Linux (CentOS specifically). After working with a few friends that I have who have worked on the kernel team, it was determined that the only explanation was a faulty MOBO (More specifically, one that didn't behave according to standards). I called IBM, and they said that I'd have to recreate the problem under Windows Server or RHEL to be able to claim warranty. I tried Windows, and nothing happened (I found out later that Windows doesn't even use the bit of hardware that was causing the problem). I didn't want to shell out the $$$ for RHEL just to prove it was hardware, so I was stuck with a useless server (for CentOS at least). So we put Windows server on it, and re-purposed the box. Does it suck? Yes... Is it the end of the world? No (especially since we got a better deal on a better server for the project in question)... It's just the realities of support...
I hate systems that count attendance against you... Why should I be forced to go to class if I otherwise know or can learn the material externally? Sure, some interactive courses where you need to prove a skill (such as labs) should count attendance, but why should a lecture hold that requirement? If I can ace all the tests, why should I deserve to not get an A in the course (And this has happened to me, because I got too bored in the lectures and stopped going, but I understood the material well enough to get a 98% average on the 3 exams)? I actually prefer counting attendance and homework as "extra credit" (I had a professor once who would count all homework and attendance, but applied it towards raising one test result by up to 15%. So if you got 98%, 95% and 80% on the 3 tests, but had perfect attendance and homework, the final test (since it was the lowest) would be raised to a 95%. But if you did no homework and never attended class and you got all 100%'s on the exams, you'd get a 100% for the course)... I typically find that professors whom count attendance for a non-interactive subject typically just like to hear themselves speak (and hence have to require attendance, because there's no other 'real' incentive to go to class). Sure, there are plenty that are good and require attendance, but I've never had one as a teacher...
There, FTFY...
Good for you! I don't use Windows either... And I don't use OSX. And since iTunes isn't supported on Linux, I can't use an iPhone or an iPod Touch or an iPad... Not that I'm really complaining (because I wouldn't use them anyway, but because I like the alternatives better)... Just because you like something better doesn't make it better (Then again, maybe I shouldn't feed the troll)...
I am quite happy about it! I LOVE my Droid, and the added features will be a welcome addition.
And no, I won't root it. Not because "I'm scared", but because I don't mess around with my primary device (I have a G1 and a ATT Tilt (HTC Tyan II) that are both rooted). If something goes wrong, I want the ability to drive directly to Verizon and get a new device without worry about "Crap, it's still rooted, let me get home and try to unroot it before taking it in"... Plus, I rely on it for daily use. So if for some reason it bricked, I'd be up the creak without a paddle...
Just for clarification, I wasn't talking about that kind of security vulnerability. I'm talking about true zero days that require no unusual action on the part of the user. Such as the case of simply vising an infected site, or a remote exploit. For what you are talking about, I agree 100%...
Well, it won't directly increase the speed to your house, but it would likely open the door for ISPs to offer cheaper and faster packages (Considering the cost of the uplink would theoretically be less). So while you wouldn't be putting one of these in your house, you would receive the trickle down effect from it...
They consider 1000x892 pixels high resolution? Last I checked, that was high res circa 1995... I'd LOVE to see some of those shots at something at least large enough that my monitor could display naively (2500x1600 minimum), yet alone being able to zoom in...
True, but evolution tends to favor traits that make an organism's survival stronger. When an organism/group of organisms develops a mutation, one of three things happens. Either that mutation dominates (it's a "good" trait) and tends to overtake the population (because those without it are weaker, die sooner and therefor reproduce less), the mutation causes the organism to die sooner, and hence tends to not overtake the population (because those with it are weaker...) or the mutation causes no discernible change (In which case it's a coin flip if it will overtake the population since there's no affect on breeding rates, so it may die out or overtake the entire population)... An individual step in evolution doesn't mean better it means change. But the process of evolution as a whole (from a statistical standpoint) tends to favor better (hence why animals can adapt to their surroundings, etc)...
Well, the mercury contained in a CFL exists in a gaseous state (well, suspended in other gases). So when it breaks, you're inhaling the mercury. Inhalation is typically more dangerous for some materials than ingestion because when you inhale the substance, it can go straight into the blood stream, where ingestion has to be absorbed via the intestines... Given the current inhalation upper limit of 0.1 mg/m3 (from the MSDS I cited in the GP), if you broke a CFL in a room that was 40 m^3, your average exposure in that room would be at the upper limit. If the room was smaller, or you were right near the bulb when it broke, you'd be exposed to greater amounts. So no, you don't need to "eat" the broken bulb or lick your fingers afterwords to get dangerous exposures to mercury. Simply being in the same room could be enough...
As far as I can tell, this seems to be about killing a Citizen that has a gun and is presently involved in shooting at American soldiers (Or is somehow presently engaged in other acts of war against the US)... It's not about finding one on the street and saying he's a bad guy, kill him. If you shoot at a police officer (or even raise a gun towards him for that matter), is he/she going to stop and say "Well, he deserves the right to a fair trial, so I'm going to let him shoot at me while I go try to put him in handcuffs"? No, they are going to shoot back. If the suspect survives, then they will be tried by their peers. But once you engage against either the military or the police, you should consider yourself lucky if you do survive...
I'm not saying that these kinds of things are important, but why the focus on drones? Why not focus on ALL targeted killing? They pick drones, because it's new and scary (They can rally support through sensationalism). Not because it's radically changed the way the military has operated (in terms of who to kill, not in strategy). Don't get me wrong, I think it needs to be looked into, but this appears to me to be a media stunt to try to get the public's interest roused to the point where the military will have to say SOMETHING...
More importantly, does the ACLU have any problem with snipers? Typically they are involved in "execution" style attacks (where the individual is stalked, targeted and terminated)... Sure, the sniper can also be (and is usually used in) a support role for a group of soldiers (Which drones do routinely), but they can and do target individuals. How is that any different from a drone (Which can do the same exact thing, but requires less man-hours of training and has less risk associated with it)? And who cares if they are targeting US citizens? It's not like they are flying over and killing innocents, the citizens they are targeting are consorting with the enemy (Well, I assume, but if they are targeting civilians, I have a feeling they'd cover that up so well (just like they do with every other "questionable" practice)...
Well, they claim that they thought it was "lost to evolution"... I assume the fact that the gene is not active today is the result of evolution. So that implies the question Why is it inactive? I would think the ability to regenerate body parts on demand would be an evolutionary advantage, wouldn't it? So something must not work correctly (or there must be some kind of side effect)... It could be as simple as we didn't have enough nutrition at the time to be able to support it, and would die of malnourishment when we'd otherwise live with the injury... But I do agree, it does seem "too easy". They must be a negative here that we haven't figured out... I guess it's time to welcome our new self-healing mouse overlords...
Tuna contains on average around 10ug (Yes, that's 10 x 10^-6) per ounce (as per the FDA). So a typical tuna steak would have around 50 to 60 ug of mercury (and that' methylmercury, not pure murcury)... Whereas a single CFL (according to EnergyStar) contains around 4mg (Yes, 4x10^-3) per bulb. So to get the same amount of mercury from fish as you get from a CFL, you'd need to eat 62 lbs of fish. And that's for a single exposure. Considering the current recommendation for fish is 12oz per week (per FDA), it'd take over 83 weeks (That's 1.6 years) to get the same exposure as from a single bulb. Sure, there's the argument that you're not ingesting the bulb (Well, I hope you're not), but if you average one broken bulb per year or more, the exposure to mercury from broken bulbs would dominate (Especially considering it's a more concentrated dose when it happens)...