How do you know that they have to shed other resistances? Do you know of any studies that support your claim? I doubt that you can find any credible studies that say so because scientists will always hedge their bets. One can't predict that this will actually be the result.
Who can say for sure what will happen? This brings to mind what happened to a strain of E. Coli. They were experimenting on a streptomycin resistant strain and they noticed something strange. Some colonies actually needed streptomycin to live! Evolution can do some really strange and unpredictable things.
Actually I can think of a better reason why they don't want the source code made public. Earlier in this discussion it was claimed that they never submitted it for a patent or copyright. The reason for this might be because they are infringing on a patent.
This is the equivalent of an out of court settlement. If a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lesser penalty, it's usually not done in open court. Then again, the judge is usually not obligated to honor the agreement between the prostitution and the defense.
The software should be available to those who have a legitimate interest. The source code for ANY machine being used to gather evidence should be available to the defense. The judge in such a case should get to decide if the defense needs to see the source code. If closed source software is leaked to the public, then some sort of sanction would be appropriate.
This raises the issue of software on election machines... The entire voting public has a legitimate interest about haw their votes are counted. The only way around this is that the software running should be publicly available. It doesn't have to be open source as far as copyrights are concerned, just the public should have the right to examine the source code.
By posting on FaceBook, My Space, etc. you have just made public parts of your private life. Yeah, there might be privacy settings but if you really want to keep your privacy, just don't post it. Hackers are always finding ways to get in.
This I know and is the entire point of what I said. The vault merely provides time for the army to act. In the case of Fort Knox, the response time would be very short.
All these claims of "unclonable", "unhackable" etc. are probably untrue. It's sort of like the claims that were made about locks. All that a lock does is to keep the honest man honest. A lock works by delaying the intruder long enough to catch him. If someone wants to overcome your security and has enough time, they will prevail. All that good security does is to buy you some time. If Fort Knox had only the locks and vaults but nobody watching, thieves would eventually get in.
Continue to be abused, until you work with your employer to fix the situation
It seems as if you have a very simplistic view of the hypothetical situation. Why would any employer bargain with just one employee. For many employees, there is a simple way of thinking. "It's my way or the highway." Unless you are too valuable to loose, most employers will happily show you the door. Now a group of employees might present a different situation.
In the words of Walter Reuther (paraphrasing), "We'll never unionize a company that treats its employees right." There is only one question that everyone has to answer for himself (others cant help answer this question. "Am I being treated well?"
It didn't have to be an insect borne disease. There are plenty of other ways that a disease can get into the bode. Direct air or waterborne transmission are only two of the alternatives. It could have been disease or some other reason that resulted to population decline. The famed asteroid hit could have been the straw that broke the camels back but not the main reason for extinction.
Actually, there is no evidence that insects of the late Cretaceous got that large. The size of insects is limited by the concentration of oxygen in the air. This is because they do not have lungs per say but have a system that delivers oxygen to their tissues by diffusion. (This oversimplifies the actual case but you get the idea.) In the early Paleozoic there was much more oxygen in the air (about 30% vs, 20% now). This allowed insects to get much larger than today. Although I don't have figures on the concentration of oxygen in the air during the late Cretaceous, it probably was more similar to the air today (pre-Industrial revolution) than it was to the Early Paleozoic.
Maybe it was not what they intended to say in their EULA, but it's there! Until the offending phrase is removed, they can try to legally enforce it. A judge would probably laugh them out of the courtroom and invalidate the clause. At the same time, with all the crazy legal decisions made, why take a chance?
I comprehend quite well. Apparently your solution is to go abroad because it's cheaper??? It's just not a viable option for most people. Just traveling without setting up a semi-permanent place of living can be very expensive. If you are talking about "grizzled old timers on backpacking trails", it can be an expensive proposition. I know what I am talking about here, I used to be a backpacker. It also assumes that you are strong enough to do it. Setting up an abode in a foreign land because its cost of living is cheaper there means that you are moving away from your longtime friends and family. At retirement age, many people do not want to do that.
Yes, for some individuals, that is an option, but it's not an option that is attractive to many people. Perhaps you would like to read a comment I made earlier in this discussion to get a better perspective. On the other hand, I have a feeling that you aren't interested in what others think.
For those that think that you should have saved more in their big earning years, what if you are disabled before you have amassed sufficient money? I had a stroke that left me unable to commute. I telecommuted for a while but the company I worked for went out of business. I wasn't able to find another company that would let me telecommute. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) My long term lifespan is not likely to be shortened, so I can look forward to a very long retirement without a pension, SSD (Social Security Disability) and whatever I was able to save. I was going back to school to get a PhD but with the rising cost of tuition it is no longer a viable option.
Whatever you do, don't get any textbook (or for that matter - website) that is too dependent on a particular operation system or language. There are still too many "fad" OS's" and computer languages out there to "hitch your wagon" to just one and hope it goes somewhere. Before people point to Windows as a stable OS let me say that there are many versions of windows and all are different. Apple and Linux are no different in this respect. Stick to the basic concepts and you will not go wrong.
I have news for you buddy, keeping an active mind and body IS one of the keys to staying healthy. To use an old adage "Use is or lose it". Also, there are a lot of retired people out there that can't afford to travel like you suggest, working is their solution to the situation. Sitting at home doing next to nothing is a certain recipe for the onset of poor health.
Indeed! Retirement is not all it's cracked up to be. I should know, I have a disability retirement. I would be bored out of my skull watching TV all day or doing the typical "retirement" activities. Instead, a retired professor and I are writing a book just to keep our minds active. Whoever coined the term "golden years" doesn't know what he is talking about.
There is a slight difference. In the Netherlands people and government take the threat of floods seriously and do things to be ready if and when one happens.
Not only that, some DVDs disable the fast forward so that you have to look at up to 10 minutes of trash before you can view the movie. It gets even worse, the movie that they were hyping often is a bomb and no longer available but you have to sit through the previews nonetheless. Disney is a BIG offender in this and add to that they specialize in kids movies. Try to explain to a crying kid that just wants to view his favorite movie that he has to wait until the trash is done showing.
Printing on regular paper might prove problematic. Much of modern paper has acid content as a by product of paper making. Although it is weak acid, it is still acid and a problem for really long storage on the order of centuries. In a way the document contains the seeds of its own destruction. Very old books survive today because they were made of parchment or something else that was made without acid or creating acid as a by product.
Even the ink can be a problem. In centuries past, iron gall inks were used. Documents written using it have holes where the writing used to be. This having been said, if proper care is taken to use paper and ink which will survive long term, printed documents should survive but certainly not as long as chiseling in in stone.
In any case, anyone drawing general conclusions from mtDNA data should be simply dismissed as too ignorant of how inheritance works to be part of any serious conversation on the topic
Please limit your comments to the FACTS. Personal attacks do not give your arguments any more credence.
I don't disagree with you. Notice that I said "discount" which implies that there is it is less likely to have happened. I did not say that it could not have happened. As for Portuguese and Romanian people, I don't know if the study included them. Their physical appearance could just be a case of parallel evolution such as the similar appearance of sharks and dolphins.
Maybe this just means that we're getting dumb and dumberer as time goes on (backwards evolution)?
This implies that there is some goal to evolution. I assure you that there is no forward or backward, just change. We might indeed be changing into something that is dumber but this is not backward progress ITS JUST CHANGE.
Why Neanderthals went extinct is the subject of much debate. If you take a strictly Darwinian view of the issue, they somehow were not as well adapted to the CURRENT environment (at the time) as Homo Sapiens was. For the ice age, Neanderthals were able to cope with those conditions pretty well. They existed for quite a bit of time. The environment changed (probably got warmer) and they probably were not so well adapted. Add into the environmental pressures the fact that modern man was expanding his range into the Neanderthals range and you have the conditions for extinction. Recently I read that there appears to be no purely Neanderthal genes in the genome of modern man tends to discount the interbreeding theories.
I do not pretend to have the answer of why Neanderthals went extinct but this is something to ponder.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that they have to shed other resistances? Do you know of any studies that support your claim? I doubt that you can find any credible studies that say so because scientists will always hedge their bets. One can't predict that this will actually be the result.
Who can say for sure what will happen? This brings to mind what happened to a strain of E. Coli. They were experimenting on a streptomycin resistant strain and they noticed something strange. Some colonies actually needed streptomycin to live! Evolution can do some really strange and unpredictable things.
Oops! This is what I get when I use the Firefox spell checker and am not careful. What it should be is prosecution, of course. Mea culpa!
Actually I can think of a better reason why they don't want the source code made public. Earlier in this discussion it was claimed that they never submitted it for a patent or copyright. The reason for this might be because they are infringing on a patent.
This is the equivalent of an out of court settlement. If a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lesser penalty, it's usually not done in open court. Then again, the judge is usually not obligated to honor the agreement between the prostitution and the defense.
The software should be available to those who have a legitimate interest. The source code for ANY machine being used to gather evidence should be available to the defense. The judge in such a case should get to decide if the defense needs to see the source code. If closed source software is leaked to the public, then some sort of sanction would be appropriate.
This raises the issue of software on election machines... The entire voting public has a legitimate interest about haw their votes are counted. The only way around this is that the software running should be publicly available. It doesn't have to be open source as far as copyrights are concerned, just the public should have the right to examine the source code.
In principle, I agree but there is a caveat...
By posting on FaceBook, My Space, etc. you have just made public parts of your private life. Yeah, there might be privacy settings but if you really want to keep your privacy, just don't post it. Hackers are always finding ways to get in.
This I know and is the entire point of what I said. The vault merely provides time for the army to act. In the case of Fort Knox, the response time would be very short.
All these claims of "unclonable", "unhackable" etc. are probably untrue. It's sort of like the claims that were made about locks. All that a lock does is to keep the honest man honest. A lock works by delaying the intruder long enough to catch him. If someone wants to overcome your security and has enough time, they will prevail. All that good security does is to buy you some time. If Fort Knox had only the locks and vaults but nobody watching, thieves would eventually get in.
Continue to be abused, until you work with your employer to fix the situation
It seems as if you have a very simplistic view of the hypothetical situation. Why would any employer bargain with just one employee. For many employees, there is a simple way of thinking. "It's my way or the highway." Unless you are too valuable to loose, most employers will happily show you the door. Now a group of employees might present a different situation.
In the words of Walter Reuther (paraphrasing), "We'll never unionize a company that treats its employees right." There is only one question that everyone has to answer for himself (others cant help answer this question. "Am I being treated well?"
It didn't have to be an insect borne disease. There are plenty of other ways that a disease can get into the bode. Direct air or waterborne transmission are only two of the alternatives. It could have been disease or some other reason that resulted to population decline. The famed asteroid hit could have been the straw that broke the camels back but not the main reason for extinction.
Actually, there is no evidence that insects of the late Cretaceous got that large. The size of insects is limited by the concentration of oxygen in the air. This is because they do not have lungs per say but have a system that delivers oxygen to their tissues by diffusion. (This oversimplifies the actual case but you get the idea.) In the early Paleozoic there was much more oxygen in the air (about 30% vs, 20% now). This allowed insects to get much larger than today. Although I don't have figures on the concentration of oxygen in the air during the late Cretaceous, it probably was more similar to the air today (pre-Industrial revolution) than it was to the Early Paleozoic.
Maybe it was not what they intended to say in their EULA, but it's there! Until the offending phrase is removed, they can try to legally enforce it. A judge would probably laugh them out of the courtroom and invalidate the clause. At the same time, with all the crazy legal decisions made, why take a chance?
I comprehend quite well. Apparently your solution is to go abroad because it's cheaper??? It's just not a viable option for most people. Just traveling without setting up a semi-permanent place of living can be very expensive. If you are talking about "grizzled old timers on backpacking trails", it can be an expensive proposition. I know what I am talking about here, I used to be a backpacker. It also assumes that you are strong enough to do it. Setting up an abode in a foreign land because its cost of living is cheaper there means that you are moving away from your longtime friends and family. At retirement age, many people do not want to do that.
Yes, for some individuals, that is an option, but it's not an option that is attractive to many people. Perhaps you would like to read a comment I made earlier in this discussion to get a better perspective. On the other hand, I have a feeling that you aren't interested in what others think.
For those that think that you should have saved more in their big earning years, what if you are disabled before you have amassed sufficient money?
I had a stroke that left me unable to commute. I telecommuted for a while but the company I worked for went out of business. I wasn't able to find another company that would let me telecommute. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) My long term lifespan is not likely to be shortened, so I can look forward to a very long retirement without a pension, SSD (Social Security Disability) and whatever I was able to save. I was going back to school to get a PhD but with the rising cost of tuition it is no longer a viable option.
Whatever you do, don't get any textbook (or for that matter - website) that is too dependent on a particular operation system or language. There are still too many "fad" OS's" and computer languages out there to "hitch your wagon" to just one and hope it goes somewhere. Before people point to Windows as a stable OS let me say that there are many versions of windows and all are different. Apple and Linux are no different in this respect. Stick to the basic concepts and you will not go wrong.
I have news for you buddy, keeping an active mind and body IS one of the keys to staying healthy. To use an old adage "Use is or lose it". Also, there are a lot of retired people out there that can't afford to travel like you suggest, working is their solution to the situation. Sitting at home doing next to nothing is a certain recipe for the onset of poor health.
Indeed! Retirement is not all it's cracked up to be. I should know, I have a disability retirement. I would be bored out of my skull watching TV all day or doing the typical "retirement" activities. Instead, a retired professor and I are writing a book just to keep our minds active. Whoever coined the term "golden years" doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes, the intent of the DVD standard is to do what you say. The movie companies are abusing a feature that was never intended to be used in that way.
There is a slight difference. In the Netherlands people and government take the threat of floods seriously and do things to be ready if and when one happens.
Not only that, some DVDs disable the fast forward so that you have to look at up to 10 minutes of trash before you can view the movie. It gets even worse, the movie that they were hyping often is a bomb and no longer available but you have to sit through the previews nonetheless. Disney is a BIG offender in this and add to that they specialize in kids movies. Try to explain to a crying kid that just wants to view his favorite movie that he has to wait until the trash is done showing.
Printing on regular paper might prove problematic. Much of modern paper has acid content as a by product of paper making. Although it is weak acid, it is still acid and a problem for really long storage on the order of centuries. In a way the document contains the seeds of its own destruction. Very old books survive today because they were made of parchment or something else that was made without acid or creating acid as a by product.
Even the ink can be a problem. In centuries past, iron gall inks were used. Documents written using it have holes where the writing used to be. This having been said, if proper care is taken to use paper and ink which will survive long term, printed documents should survive but certainly not as long as chiseling in in stone.
In any case, anyone drawing general conclusions from mtDNA data should be simply dismissed as too ignorant of how inheritance works to be part of any serious conversation on the topic
Please limit your comments to the FACTS. Personal attacks do not give your arguments any more credence.
I don't disagree with you. Notice that I said "discount" which implies that there is it is less likely to have happened. I did not say that it could not have happened. As for Portuguese and Romanian people, I don't know if the study included them. Their physical appearance could just be a case of parallel evolution such as the similar appearance of sharks and dolphins.
Maybe this just means that we're getting dumb and dumberer as time goes on (backwards evolution)?
This implies that there is some goal to evolution. I assure you that there is no forward or backward, just change. We might indeed be changing into something that is dumber but this is not backward progress ITS JUST CHANGE.
Why Neanderthals went extinct is the subject of much debate. If you take a strictly Darwinian view of the issue, they somehow were not as well adapted to the CURRENT environment (at the time) as Homo Sapiens was. For the ice age, Neanderthals were able to cope with those conditions pretty well. They existed for quite a bit of time. The environment changed (probably got warmer) and they probably were not so well adapted. Add into the environmental pressures the fact that modern man was expanding his range into the Neanderthals range and you have the conditions for extinction. Recently I read that there appears to be no purely Neanderthal genes in the genome of modern man tends to discount the interbreeding theories.
I do not pretend to have the answer of why Neanderthals went extinct but this is something to ponder.