There is now a energetically more favorable to leave out that mechanism then to have it. So it could be the mainline 90% always have it while the 10% are sneaky and tyr to get away without it. work well for 62 mil then pow dead.
Evolution tends towards the more complex. Not simplification. Once you get a DNA sequence, it's pretty much there forever.
That's how we're able to trace genetic lines in evolution.
There's no more energy required for a species with 23 pairs of chromosomes to breed than a species with only 22.
perhaps those 10% didn't have good DNA repair mechanisms as a species and it's only 10% because the species who evolve without it get smacked every 62 mil or so.
The first time, yes.
After that, every branch left should have whatever enabled them to survive that first time. All the species 65 million years later are descendants of the species that survived the first radiation wave.
Take UV light. A veyr small dose causes phenotypic adaptiation to it. A little bit more cause tumors/DNA damage. A lot more causes cellular sterilization. It's all about dosage.
Now, subject 100,000 species to a high dosage, over generations.
Would you expect to see no problems for 90% of the species? While 10% die off?
I wouldn't. Enough radiation to kill an entire SPECIES would, logically, have an effect on other species that share the same ecosystem.
That's the problem. This theory says that the radiation killed off 10% of the species on Earth.
That IS killing things off pretty well. That's "decimating" the number of species on Earth.
And we're not talking about a specific threat to specific ecosystems. The oceans didn't evaporate nor did they freeze. The radiation covered the Earth and only killed off 10% of the species. Multiple times.
That does not make sense. Either a LOT more die or it only takes out the weaker individuals in ALL species.
He's a clueless idiot who just trolls for page hits. From TFA:
We saw all sorts of bubbles before the dot-com one. For instance, there was the CD-ROM bubble. Remember all the CD-ROM companies? Bill Gates's "Information at Your Fingertips" was the watchword. Microsoft itself started a unique division called Microsoft Home. The whole scene collapsed almost overnight.
Yeah, I keep my music CD's and software CD's in the same box as my Pets.com stock.
He's an idiot, paid by the page hit.
I want storage, not HD.
on
Blue Blu-ray
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't care a bit about the video capabilities.
I just want the gigabytes of storage. Inexpensive burners + inexpensive disks and I'll be happier.
It should be pretty easy to push for ODF at the local government level for non-US governments.
If nothing else the tax savings will be worth it. You can run on the "I just saved our city 5 million local units of exchange every year for the next 20 years! That's 100 million local units of exchange I've save this city. Vote for me AGAIN!"
And once the file format monopoly is cracked, look for Linux deployments to increase.
What motivation do other countries have to send their tax dollars to Redmond so that they can write local laws?
ODF is not going to take off in the US until AFTER the rest of the world has adopted it. So let's look at what other governments and such are adopting Linux / ODF.
The more major names that get behind this realization, the better off for the world at large. Average Joe computer user doesn't need a PCIe x16 graphics card. He just doesn't.
It doesn't matter. If he thinks he does, he'll buy it. Which will drive up the volume and drive down the price.
Which will make the one I buy a LOT cheaper than if they had not.
Once you've secured the planes, the next problem spot would be the terminal itself. And you didn't go far enough with your scenario. Imagine doing that at 5 different airports at once. ALL air traffic would be shut down, again.
You can mitigate that by moving the vehicles away from the terminal. The passengers would need to unload and move to an initial screening point.
And so on and so forth. You'd have to have enough redundancy to handle the holiday rush so that you'd have no more than 20 - 50 people stuck at any one location.
Look at the possible threats involving airplanes. And then consider how much damage is possible and how to best reduce the threat or eliminate it.
#1. Flying planes into buildings. Lots of people die. Lots of damage. Lots of expense. So you fit the flight deck with a secure door. One that can keep out the terrorists long enough for the pilot to land somewhere.
#2. Blowing up a plane. About 200+ people die. You lose a plane. It might hit something on the way down. So you check passengers AND crew AND support staff for bombs. You COMPLETELY redesign the airports to restrict ALL traffic and you have MULTIPLE checks on the path to the planes. Right now a terrorist can get a job as a janitor and leave a bomb in the bathroom for a traveler to pick up and carry onto a plane.
And so forth. But we won't be doing anything for one reason.
It costs the government too much money.
But forcing you to toss out excess liquids costs them almost nothing.
The reason the ban on lighters was lifted is because it cost the government MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to dispose of them. Not because they were suddenly determined to be "safe".
That's just the "disarming joke" that you're supposed to tell to let everyone know that you're going to be talking with them like a regular guy and not some PR flak.
It's an attempt to confuse the when you do follow the scripted PR.
I often read blog posts about how someone could just take all their three-ounce bottles -- or take bottles from others on the plane -- and combine them into a larger container to make a bomb. I can't get into the specifics, but our explosives research shows this is not a viable option.
Right..........
That seems completely illogical to me. And the attempt at evading the specifics just illustrates how much of a PR flak he is.
By automating the surveillance of people who are not suspected of any crime.
The same arguement could be made against permitting police to use helecopters. Or unmarked cars. Or squad cars. Or horses. Or bicycles. Or the internet. Or computers. Or telephones. Or binoculars. Or tape recorders. Or radar guns. And so on...
Nope. As long as it's one cop following one person and the person can see the cop, it doesn't matter.
What changes is when the cops can automatically track people who are not suspected of any crime.
The entire argument is a load of crap. If the cops can do something manually, they can do it with some sort of technological assistance.
That's why I gave the example of the Gatling Gun. And it did change the situation.
Therefore, automating a process DOES change the situation.
The legallity of the action being performed doesn't change just because a computer lets them do more of it or do it faster.
And not only that, it's going to be on patrol cars, which means they actually have to be there to get that scan. This in itself makes it much more acceptable than devices like traffic cams that take a picture of your plate when you run a red light.
So you're okay with the technology being mounted on a patrol car.
But not on, say, light posts around your house.
Why is that? It's the same technology in both cases. Just one of them is pointed at your house 24/7/25 while the other one just has a probability of catching your plate on the road.
What if it was only 50% likely that they'd know where your car was at any point in time? Would you be okay with that?
75%?
80%?
90%?
95%?
At what point does this become upsetting to you and why that point?
Yes, a cop on the street can follow you around and record where you go and when. But you would be able to see him doing that. You would know.
More importantly, the cop would have to skip other crimes to pursue you.
The information has always been there, and they could have recorded it if they liked. So it's nothing new.
And the Gatling gun wasn't anything new compared to the musket. Yet it certainly changed land warfare.
Sometimes increasing the speed of an action does change the situation. And automating data collection on people NOT accused of a crime does change the situation.
That's as dumb as the "we must teach Microsoft Word in high school because that's what they'll be using at their jobs".
This is SCHOOL. You teach them how to use a SYSTEM.
If your program is working, the graduates will be able to pick up the "state of the art" tools quickly enough to keep their employers happy.
If your program is not working, all you're teaching them is how to play with that specific tool. Which will be useless when they go to work for a company that is NOT using that specific tool.
In short, yeah. Engineers don't exactly produce culture, my friend.
Yes, they produce many things, nearly all of them absolutely irrelevant to a satisfying life.
Engineering will not give you "a satisfying life".
Engineering will allow you to purse "a satisfying life". Because engineering will free you from the daily concerns of food, shelter and clothing. Engineering will allow you to access the knowledge of other people who have pursued "a satisfying life".
Engineering does not produce culture. Engineering produces the time and security that people need to produce culture.
Without the advances we have from engineering, your "satisfying life" would revolve around getting enough to eat every day, not being eaten by other animals and keeping warm and dry enough to survive the night.
It is only once those basics are solved for most of the population that people can pursue abstract concepts such as "a satisfying life".
Yeah, it sucks that they are going to a non-free option where the cheapest version is about $150 USD, but guess what - that is what the kids will see in the corporate world by the time they graduate from college.
And we all know that kids are incapable of learning more than one piece of computer software in any genre.
Which is why video game sales failed. Once the kids learned to play Tetris, they couldn't learn to play Counter-Strike.
Everyone knows that you cannot teach the kids HOW to write. And then leave it to them or their employer to teach them the keystrokes/mouse moves for the word processor that they will be using. You have to teach them on the only software package they'll ever be able to use for the rest of their lives.
As a graybeard I remember those horrible days where we got our OS from our hardware vendor, along with the "opportunity" to buy their crappy, proprietary, $10,000/seat applications.
That sounds like you're talking about mainframes and minis. Not PC's. We're talking about things like the Commodore 64 and the Amiga and the Apple.
Further, as an application developer, I remember those dark, pre-Windows days when I had to test my software on reams of different hardware; it was not a good use of my time, but without a ubiquitous layer between my application and the hardware (any vendor's hardware), I had no choice.
What "hardware" would that be? The software I remember purchasing would specifically identify on the box the system it was written for.
Counter to your assertion, I think Microsoft has played a major role in improving the life of people like me.
That's possible. But it is irrelevant because no one except you knows who people like you are.
But I do not begrudge them their profits.
See above.
I gladly pay the "Microsoft tax", which is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, in return for the many benefits their efforts have afforded me.
See above.
It seems that you're trying to compare mainframe costs to PC costs. That makes no sense. Then you talk about how Microsoft helped "improve" your life. Possibly. But who are you to say that a world without Microsoft would not have been BETTER for more people?
Simply look at the progress and innovation we have in hardware where there is open competition. We have multi-core processors, cheap gigabytes of RAM and hard drives that now measure in the terabyte range.
With Linux we are FINALLY seeing competition at the OS level (and above) again.
Just look at the 'Web. Built on Open standards that Microsoft ignored until it was too late to control them. It doesn't matter whether you're reading this on a Windows machine or whether/. is run on Linux on a Sun.
The what we lost when Microsoft won the desktop. The chance for Open standards to encourage open competition which would benefit all of us the way it has on the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution tends towards the more complex. Not simplification. Once you get a DNA sequence, it's pretty much there forever.
That's how we're able to trace genetic lines in evolution.
There's no more energy required for a species with 23 pairs of chromosomes to breed than a species with only 22.
The first time, yes.
After that, every branch left should have whatever enabled them to survive that first time. All the species 65 million years later are descendants of the species that survived the first radiation wave.
Now, subject 100,000 species to a high dosage, over generations.
Would you expect to see no problems for 90% of the species? While 10% die off?
I wouldn't. Enough radiation to kill an entire SPECIES would, logically, have an effect on other species that share the same ecosystem.
But we don't see that in the fossil record.
That's the problem. This theory says that the radiation killed off 10% of the species on Earth.
That IS killing things off pretty well. That's "decimating" the number of species on Earth.
And we're not talking about a specific threat to specific ecosystems. The oceans didn't evaporate nor did they freeze. The radiation covered the Earth and only killed off 10% of the species. Multiple times.
That does not make sense. Either a LOT more die or it only takes out the weaker individuals in ALL species.
Why would it wipe out only 10% of the SPECIES?
How/Why did the other 90% survive?
Muons can punch through rock. They'd be hitting every living thing on Earth. Yet 90% of the species seem to survive. While 10% die off.
Not that it isn't a decent package in its own right ... it's that it doesn't automatically save things in Microsoft Office formats.
.rtf! Come on!
I constantly have people asking me to "translate" stuff they get from people at home.
At least use
From TFA:
Yeah, I keep my music CD's and software CD's in the same box as my Pets.com stock.
He's an idiot, paid by the page hit.
I don't care a bit about the video capabilities.
I just want the gigabytes of storage. Inexpensive burners + inexpensive disks and I'll be happier.
MS Office. What are they going to do about that?
Run it via WINE?
Run it via Citrix?
Use only the functionality common to MS Office and OpenOffice.org?
Another option?
There are lots of different ways to do it, but which of them is he taking and why?
It should be pretty easy to push for ODF at the local government level for non-US governments.
If nothing else the tax savings will be worth it. You can run on the "I just saved our city 5 million local units of exchange every year for the next 20 years! That's 100 million local units of exchange I've save this city. Vote for me AGAIN!"
And once the file format monopoly is cracked, look for Linux deployments to increase.
What motivation do other countries have to send their tax dollars to Redmond so that they can write local laws?
ODF is not going to take off in the US until AFTER the rest of the world has adopted it. So let's look at what other governments and such are adopting Linux / ODF.
... as to how the comments on this thread will compare to the comments on the thread about police recording license plate locations and times?1 45253
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/30/0
It would appear that some degree of privacy / anonymity is necessary for Freedom.
It doesn't matter. If he thinks he does, he'll buy it. Which will drive up the volume and drive down the price.
Which will make the one I buy a LOT cheaper than if they had not.
Once you've secured the planes, the next problem spot would be the terminal itself. And you didn't go far enough with your scenario. Imagine doing that at 5 different airports at once. ALL air traffic would be shut down, again.
You can mitigate that by moving the vehicles away from the terminal. The passengers would need to unload and move to an initial screening point.
And so on and so forth. You'd have to have enough redundancy to handle the holiday rush so that you'd have no more than 20 - 50 people stuck at any one location.
It would be expensive. Very expensive.
Look at the possible threats involving airplanes. And then consider how much damage is possible and how to best reduce the threat or eliminate it.
#1. Flying planes into buildings. Lots of people die. Lots of damage. Lots of expense. So you fit the flight deck with a secure door. One that can keep out the terrorists long enough for the pilot to land somewhere.
#2. Blowing up a plane. About 200+ people die. You lose a plane. It might hit something on the way down. So you check passengers AND crew AND support staff for bombs. You COMPLETELY redesign the airports to restrict ALL traffic and you have MULTIPLE checks on the path to the planes. Right now a terrorist can get a job as a janitor and leave a bomb in the bathroom for a traveler to pick up and carry onto a plane.
And so forth. But we won't be doing anything for one reason.
It costs the government too much money.
But forcing you to toss out excess liquids costs them almost nothing.
The reason the ban on lighters was lifted is because it cost the government MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to dispose of them. Not because they were suddenly determined to be "safe".
It's an attempt to confuse the when you do follow the scripted PR.
Right
That seems completely illogical to me. And the attempt at evading the specifics just illustrates how much of a PR flak he is.
By automating the surveillance of people who are not suspected of any crime.
Nope. As long as it's one cop following one person and the person can see the cop, it doesn't matter.
What changes is when the cops can automatically track people who are not suspected of any crime.
That's why I gave the example of the Gatling Gun. And it did change the situation.
Therefore, automating a process DOES change the situation.
It should. Because automating it allows for more abuse of they system. And cops DO abuse the system.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conductunbecoming/
If I am not suspected of any crime, why do you support surveilling me?
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
So you're okay with the technology being mounted on a patrol car.
But not on, say, light posts around your house.
Why is that? It's the same technology in both cases. Just one of them is pointed at your house 24/7/25 while the other one just has a probability of catching your plate on the road.
What if it was only 50% likely that they'd know where your car was at any point in time? Would you be okay with that?
75%?
80%?
90%?
95%?
At what point does this become upsetting to you and why that point?
If you don't have anything to hide then why are you complaining?
And the oft missed counter:
If I'm not suspected of a crime then under what authority are you surveilling me?
And this IS surveillance of citizens WITHOUT a warrant.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conductunbecoming/
Yes, a cop on the street can follow you around and record where you go and when. But you would be able to see him doing that. You would know.
More importantly, the cop would have to skip other crimes to pursue you.
And the Gatling gun wasn't anything new compared to the musket. Yet it certainly changed land warfare.
Sometimes increasing the speed of an action does change the situation. And automating data collection on people NOT accused of a crime does change the situation.
No. "Companies" are not "demanding" this.
That's as dumb as the "we must teach Microsoft Word in high school because that's what they'll be using at their jobs".
This is SCHOOL. You teach them how to use a SYSTEM.
If your program is working, the graduates will be able to pick up the "state of the art" tools quickly enough to keep their employers happy.
If your program is not working, all you're teaching them is how to play with that specific tool. Which will be useless when they go to work for a company that is NOT using that specific tool.
Engineering will not give you "a satisfying life".
Engineering will allow you to purse "a satisfying life". Because engineering will free you from the daily concerns of food, shelter and clothing. Engineering will allow you to access the knowledge of other people who have pursued "a satisfying life".
Engineering does not produce culture. Engineering produces the time and security that people need to produce culture.
But it is incorrect.
Without the advances we have from engineering, your "satisfying life" would revolve around getting enough to eat every day, not being eaten by other animals and keeping warm and dry enough to survive the night.
It is only once those basics are solved for most of the population that people can pursue abstract concepts such as "a satisfying life".
And solving them comes down to engineering.
And we all know that kids are incapable of learning more than one piece of computer software in any genre.
Which is why video game sales failed. Once the kids learned to play Tetris, they couldn't learn to play Counter-Strike.
Everyone knows that you cannot teach the kids HOW to write. And then leave it to them or their employer to teach them the keystrokes/mouse moves for the word processor that they will be using. You have to teach them on the only software package they'll ever be able to use for the rest of their lives.
That sounds like you're talking about mainframes and minis. Not PC's. We're talking about things like the Commodore 64 and the Amiga and the Apple.
What "hardware" would that be? The software I remember purchasing would specifically identify on the box the system it was written for.
That's possible. But it is irrelevant because no one except you knows who people like you are.
See above.
See above.
It seems that you're trying to compare mainframe costs to PC costs. That makes no sense. Then you talk about how Microsoft helped "improve" your life. Possibly. But who are you to say that a world without Microsoft would not have been BETTER for more people?
Simply look at the progress and innovation we have in hardware where there is open competition. We have multi-core processors, cheap gigabytes of RAM and hard drives that now measure in the terabyte range.
With Linux we are FINALLY seeing competition at the OS level (and above) again.
Just look at the 'Web. Built on Open standards that Microsoft ignored until it was too late to control them. It doesn't matter whether you're reading this on a Windows machine or whether
The what we lost when Microsoft won the desktop. The chance for Open standards to encourage open competition which would benefit all of us the way it has on the Internet.