OpenSSH.cc? You mean OpenSSH is out of the Cocos Islands? Seriously though, the whole marketing of the.cc domain is laughable. They play radio ads on the station I listen to (For those of you who don't know, it's spot.cc) Their ads state stuff like "When.com was new, domains like business.com went for millions of dollars" and they are touting.cc as being the new.com - I mean, come on, it's just a regional TLD that sold out, not the best thing since sliced.com! But that is another can of worms. I suppose I should make this on topic... The.cc TLD, despite having recently sold out, is not free from squatters, and many big companies have gotten.cc domains just to protect themselves.. Hmm, I wonder if slashdot.cc is taken.
I decided to check out the HTML myself without a web browser, and I didn't see a link to the official website.. This is the HTML I got back (Superflous s removed):
Another interesting fact is that I went to the ps+t page, and my cursor got a yellow star with a Yahoo style "Y!" in it that followed the mouse around. Of course, this is after the fact when they already had a link on the webpage related to the Yahoo thing, so they may have changed the mouse to be topical.
There is no relation.. In-breeding is because of the lack of diversity, and is quite random what will happen. Interspecies breeding is just a result of the different incompatible genetic makeup of different animals and is for the most part predictible. Mules come out pretty much the same every time.. They are always infertile.
To be honest, I have no idea why 30. That is just something I heard a long time ago, and could just be some random number someone pulled out of nowhere.. But you do have a good point. I think, however, you would be hard pressed to put 30 diverse specimens of some species in a room and have them succesful. In fact, I bet they would starve to death in a few days.:)
I was thinking genus.. But it may vary.. Our classification system doesn't exactly line up with natures "this is the way things are" so for one family they could all be compatible and for another only within a genus could be.. I was thinking along the line of cats, however.. It is more likely a domestic cat giving birth to an african wildcat than a domestic cat giving birth to a tiger, or a tiger giving birth to a african wildcat.. A lion giving birth to a tiger probably would be possible though.
I was not suggesting that this should be as easy as producing mules or ligers.. That was just an example that it is possible for an animal of one species to produce an offspring that is not (Or not entirely) it's species. However the bigger point is that the wildcat is likely not too genetically different from the modern domestic cat. Probably more different than various breeds of domestic cat, but not by much. Also, I'm not posative on this, not being a breeder or anything, but I believe many modern species were produces by breeding domestic cats with wild cats, further diversifying the domestic cat gene pool.
The problem with something like a cow giving birth to a tiger is that the cow can not teach the tiger how to be a tiger. Only another tiger can, or possibly something else like a jaguar or a leopard, but not a cow. I suspect even if they did perfect this, it would still only be reasonable to do within species of the same genus.
The problem is the genetic pool also needs to be diverse. I have heard that a minimum of 30 representatives of a species are needed to produce a viable population. That assumes all 30 are young, healthy, and can succesfully breed, and it also assumes all 30 are from genetically diverse populations.
The reality of it is many species are down to very low numbers, and most those are very closely related. The danger of this is that they are very similar and all have the same flaws.. And inbreeding just causes those to be amplified, not to mention that a single virus that they were all succeptible to or a genetic defect in a common ancestor could get the best of the entire population.
While this is a step in helping endangered species, and could serve as a step to introduce populations into the wild where there were none before (Which must normally be done with transplanting.. Otherwise if you just take a wild animal born in captivity without ever being taught to hunt or survive in the wild, it will die) it would need a lot of effort to get the population to a healthy sustainable level.
What might be more useful would be to take bloodlines that are common in captivity but have died out in the wild, and re-insert them into wild populations, to further genetic diversity where geographic diversity would normally hinder it.
The wildcat, along with a few other species, is actually one of the presumed ancestors to the modern domestic feline. And other inter-species breeding successes are common, though often produce genetic mutations.
For example, mules are horses bred with donkeys. They however are sterile and cannot reproduce on their own.
Also, Tiger Haven has a liger, a lion bred with a tiger. Like a mule, it is also a mutation and not a survivable species on it's own.. But having one species give birth to another or a hybrid is not that far fetched.. It was just a matter of somebody doing it.
Everyone always complains that the patent system is broken, but has anyone ever tried to actually show this? What I mean is try pattenting something very basic like linked lists, hash tables, maybe even assembly! Keep trying until they take a patent for something that is a really basic programming practice.. Then when they do, bring media attention to it!
Slashdot Mirror
OpenSSH.cc? You mean OpenSSH is out of the Cocos Islands? .cc domain is laughable. They play radio ads on the station I listen to (For those of you who don't know, it's spot.cc) .com was new, domains like business.com went for millions of dollars" and they are touting .cc as being the new .com - I mean, come on, it's just a regional TLD that sold out, not the best thing since sliced .com! But that is another can of worms. .cc TLD, despite having recently sold out, is not free from squatters, and many big companies have gotten .cc domains just to protect themselves.. Hmm, I wonder if slashdot.cc is taken.
Seriously though, the whole marketing of the
Their ads state stuff like "When
I suppose I should make this on topic... The
I decided to check out the HTML myself without a web browser, and I didn't see a link to the official website.. This is the HTML I got back (Superflous
<HTML>s removed):
<HEAD>
<TITLE>www2.terena.nl</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" LINK="#CCCCCC">
<CENTER>
<IMG SRC="/html/lame.gif" border=no>
<a href="mailto:webmaster@alpha.terena.nl">webmaster
</CENTER>
</BODY>
</HTML>
Perhaps it shows different content to different web browsers?
Additionally, the image /html/lame.gif was lacking.
Did anyone notice the remark that they named it "Tetra" meaning "One of four?" Sounds like a borg monkey name.
Another interesting fact is that I went to the ps+t page, and my cursor got a yellow star with a Yahoo style "Y!" in it that followed the mouse around. Of course, this is after the fact when they already had a link on the webpage related to the Yahoo thing, so they may have changed the mouse to be topical.
There is no relation.. In-breeding is because of the lack of diversity, and is quite random what will happen. Interspecies breeding is just a result of the different incompatible genetic makeup of different animals and is for the most part predictible. Mules come out pretty much the same every time.. They are always infertile.
To be honest, I have no idea why 30. That is just something I heard a long time ago, and could just be some random number someone pulled out of nowhere.. But you do have a good point. I think, however, you would be hard pressed to put 30 diverse specimens of some species in a room and have them succesful. In fact, I bet they would starve to death in a few days. :)
I was thinking genus.. But it may vary.. Our classification system doesn't exactly line up with natures "this is the way things are" so for one family they could all be compatible and for another only within a genus could be.. I was thinking along the line of cats, however.. It is more likely a domestic cat giving birth to an african wildcat than a domestic cat giving birth to a tiger, or a tiger giving birth to a african wildcat.. A lion giving birth to a tiger probably would be possible though.
I was not suggesting that this should be as easy as producing mules or ligers.. That was just an example that it is possible for an animal of one species to produce an offspring that is not (Or not entirely) it's species. However the bigger point is that the wildcat is likely not too genetically different from the modern domestic cat. Probably more different than various breeds of domestic cat, but not by much. Also, I'm not posative on this, not being a breeder or anything, but I believe many modern species were produces by breeding domestic cats with wild cats, further diversifying the domestic cat gene pool.
And the inbreeding shows in many breeds. For example, dalmations have a very high rate of various birth defects including poor hearing.
The problem with something like a cow giving birth to a tiger is that the cow can not teach the tiger how to be a tiger. Only another tiger can, or possibly something else like a jaguar or a leopard, but not a cow. I suspect even if they did perfect this, it would still only be reasonable to do within species of the same genus.
The problem is the genetic pool also needs to be diverse. I have heard that a minimum of 30 representatives of a species are needed to produce a viable population. That assumes all 30 are young, healthy, and can succesfully breed, and it also assumes all 30 are from genetically diverse populations.
The reality of it is many species are down to very low numbers, and most those are very closely related. The danger of this is that they are very similar and all have the same flaws.. And inbreeding just causes those to be amplified, not to mention that a single virus that they were all succeptible to or a genetic defect in a common ancestor could get the best of the entire population.
While this is a step in helping endangered species, and could serve as a step to introduce populations into the wild where there were none before (Which must normally be done with transplanting.. Otherwise if you just take a wild animal born in captivity without ever being taught to hunt or survive in the wild, it will die) it would need a lot of effort to get the population to a healthy sustainable level.
What might be more useful would be to take bloodlines that are common in captivity but have died out in the wild, and re-insert them into wild populations, to further genetic diversity where geographic diversity would normally hinder it.
The wildcat, along with a few other species, is actually one of the presumed ancestors to the modern domestic feline. And other inter-species breeding successes are common, though often produce genetic mutations.
For example, mules are horses bred with donkeys. They however are sterile and cannot reproduce on their own.
Also, Tiger Haven has a liger, a lion bred with a tiger. Like a mule, it is also a mutation and not a survivable species on it's own.. But having one species give birth to another or a hybrid is not that far fetched.. It was just a matter of somebody doing it.
Everyone always complains that the patent system is broken, but has anyone ever tried to actually show this?
What I mean is try pattenting something very basic like linked lists, hash tables, maybe even assembly! Keep trying until they take a patent for something that is a really basic programming practice.. Then when they do, bring media attention to it!