""Cloning animals by nuclear transfer provides an opportunity to preserve endangered mammalian species," they wrote.
"However, it has been suggested that the 'resurrection' of frozen extinct species (such as the woolly mammoth) is impracticable, as no live cells are available, and the genomic material that remains is inevitably degraded," they said."
But who would resort to such extreme measures as reading the article?
You're exactly right. I would love to see a video of this incident; I suspect it would be much funnier than the author is leading us to think it would be. If anything, the fact that they let this man through is an example of correct identification rather than a failure.
The flag features, as its charming main image, an upraised fist clutching an AK-47 automatic rifle. Atop the rifle is a line of Arabic writing that reads Then surely the party of God are they who will be triumphant. The officer took the flag and spread it out on the inspection table. She finished her inspection, gave me back my flag, and told me I could go. I said, "That's a Hezbollah flag." She said, "Uh-huh."
He was quite obviously trolling, which is far easier to spot in real life. When he was identified as such, they stopped humoring him.
That's what I got from wikipedia too, but the section on evaporation seemed to indicate that a black hole would have to be less than a tenth of a milimeter in diameter in order to actually evaporate, because it's taking in more energy from background radiation than it's emitting.
There didn't seem to be anything to explain how an actual sizeable black hole wouldn't just end up eating the universe.
You raise an interesting and valid point. Certainly Jefferson would be aghast at what "farming" has become now to say the last. And while the Industrial Revolution proper hadn't happened, certainly Britain and the rest of the world had experienced factories. Jefferson was appalled at a supposed "moral decline" that accompanied such things.
And certainly he would be more in favor of self employment, but there are many forms of self-employment that he would undoubtedly be dubious of to say the least. And I certainly wouldn't describe Jefferson as a fan of the notion that technology is key to national success; on this he could be quite backwards thinking.
What he seems to be in favor of is "national self-employment" with a blue-collar pastoral tinge. He (as I read it) wants to export raw materials earnestly earned by the honest sweat of one's brow. From the linked article: "for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry
provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and
with them their manners and principles."
Basically, what Jefferson wanted was an idyllic, pastoral America strengthened by honest individualized labor. To say that he would be lost in the face of the modern globalized technological economy is an understatement of monumental proportions.
But that's exactly my point. Of all the historical figures I could think about quoting for insight on the economy, Jefferson would most seriously be at the very bottom of the list.
I love Thomas Jefferson as much as the next American, but there are certain things you listen to him on and some things you don't. Civil liberties, the scope of government, certainly. The economy.... not so much.
Jefferson wanted us to farm our way to victory. Here's some primary source stuff on the subject for your edification/amusement.
Just because he's a founding father doesn't make him a visionary on everything. See also: slavery.
I imagine walking near it in order to service it would kick up quite a lot of dust, for one thing.
But also based on TFA (yes yes, I know that's cheating), the silver coating on top would actually become solid apparently. Should probably be trivial to clean anything that the rotation doesn't slowly move off on its own.
Always good to think of these things though. After trekking that whole thing the moon, that would be one helluva thing to have overlooked.
Woah, what? How is this subjectivity so surprising? Let Uncy DanOrc451 tell you a story here from the frontlines of objective academic science from the perspective of a bemused non-scientist observer.
I was at MIT a few months ago picking up my brother to go play tennis, and I witnessed a practical fistfight break out between two teams of scientists. Apparently, a physics experiment of some kind was being run by two academic teams across some departmental boundary, one focusing on theory and the other focusing on actually conducting the experiment for the theory guys.
Bypassing the technical gobbledygook they were (literally) screaming at each other and focusing on the English bits, it became apparent that the situation was this: the experiment failed to confirm the theory. The theory folks were furious at the experimental folks since they clearly must have been incompetent and done the experiment wrong; their theory was perfect and beautiful. The experimental folks were furious at the ivory tower theory folks for refusing to accept the results of their clearly valid experiment, since that was what the scientific method was all about in the end.
What was striking about it was the fury and the absolute certainty that their work and worldview on either side was right, and that each thought the other half didn't really "get what science was all about."
I really thought we were going to have some broken glasses on our hands. It was quite a scene, and "objective" would be about the last conceivable word you'd apply to the situation.
I'm curious as to why being concerned about putting reactor waste on top of a rocket full of highly reactive chemicals makes a person "monumentally STUPID."
I understand cost issues render this a moot point, but I'm not sure what I'm missing here. It seems right out of the "what-could-possibly-go-wrong" department to me.
I'm not trolling, I'm quite honestly curious about your perspective.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
If they haven't learned by now, and they haven't, they never will. The world has been perpetually ending for the entire 2000 year odd era of Christian thought alone, with God and Jesus coming down "any moment now."
Just off the top of my largely uneducated head on the subject, the world was supposed to end within a human lifetime of Jesus (Mark 13:1-13:30), in 1843 AND 1844 when the 1843 one failed to happen, the year 1000, the year 2000, and most currently both 2012 due to the Mayan calendar of all things and whenever the LHC switch is flicked in earnest.
Reminds me of the bee from the Bee Movie trailer (yeah, didn't WTFM either) bonking into the glass repeatedly saying "This time! This time! This time! This time!"
Is the world really that boring, and are we really that poor learners?
A larger data set is better if the limitations of the data are known and it's not given more weight than it deserves. Take the following (entirely theoretical) example.
A man walks out of an airport, with sunglasses on that somewhat hide his face. However, facial recognition software or human intelligence sees the images and flags him as resembling a particular terrorist with a similar name. As an additional double-check before this individual gets a visit from the proverbial black SUV, this new gait-recognition software is also run. It determines that this man's natural gait could not possibly match the gait of the terrorist, who received major injury to his right leg in a US airstrike in Iraq.
The man, who turns out to actually be an engineer with Canadian citizenship, is spared a 36 hour fun time with America's finest and a potential free Cuban vacation.
False positives come from bad intelligence decisions, often because of not having enough data, and wanting to 'err on the side of safety'. No intelligence personnel wants to be the person who let a terrorist responsible for the next major US incident go. Having more data, and having more kinds of data in particular, can help a person make better decisions, and can give them that extra confidence needed to not arrest/abduct/whatever someone.
The data doesn't have to be perfect. Any additional information is helpful to the overall picture, especially if other, more reliable data is missing or ambiguous. And someone who is a terrorist or a combatant of another sort may very well have acquired a pretty unique limp in their work.
Sure it's easy to defeat, but if you see someone with a very unique gait, like one from the shoe-lift idea, that can be an auto-flag for a first screening.
It's like why my father, who has a full beard and a penchant for large sunglasses and hats because he's a heliophobe, has security watch him wherever he goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Too true.
I want to take it myself so I can feel all smu.... err... ensure that I know enough about our great nation here.
On a scale from 1-10, how fond are you of federal prison?
TFA acknowledges this problem.
""Cloning animals by nuclear transfer provides an opportunity to preserve endangered mammalian species," they wrote.
"However, it has been suggested that the 'resurrection' of frozen extinct species (such as the woolly mammoth) is impracticable, as no live cells are available, and the genomic material that remains is inevitably degraded," they said."
But who would resort to such extreme measures as reading the article?
You're exactly right. I would love to see a video of this incident; I suspect it would be much funnier than the author is leading us to think it would be. If anything, the fact that they let this man through is an example of correct identification rather than a failure.
The flag features, as its charming main image, an upraised fist clutching an AK-47 automatic rifle. Atop the rifle is a line of Arabic writing that reads Then surely the party of God are they who will be triumphant. The officer took the flag and spread it out on the inspection table. She finished her inspection, gave me back my flag, and told me I could go. I said, "That's a Hezbollah flag." She said, "Uh-huh."
He was quite obviously trolling, which is far easier to spot in real life. When he was identified as such, they stopped humoring him.
That's what I got from wikipedia too, but the section on evaporation seemed to indicate that a black hole would have to be less than a tenth of a milimeter in diameter in order to actually evaporate, because it's taking in more energy from background radiation than it's emitting.
There didn't seem to be anything to explain how an actual sizeable black hole wouldn't just end up eating the universe.
Okay, err, not to be ignorant here, but where did the other black holes GO? How do they "die?"
A quick look at the wikipedia article before my boss yelled at me to get back to work was not very enlightening.
I can just see the next episode of Sesame Street. "This show was brought to you by the letter 3, the number 5, and Threat Level Fuscia."
You raise an interesting and valid point. Certainly Jefferson would be aghast at what "farming" has become now to say the last. And while the Industrial Revolution proper hadn't happened, certainly Britain and the rest of the world had experienced factories. Jefferson was appalled at a supposed "moral decline" that accompanied such things.
And certainly he would be more in favor of self employment, but there are many forms of self-employment that he would undoubtedly be dubious of to say the least. And I certainly wouldn't describe Jefferson as a fan of the notion that technology is key to national success; on this he could be quite backwards thinking.
What he seems to be in favor of is "national self-employment" with a blue-collar pastoral tinge. He (as I read it) wants to export raw materials earnestly earned by the honest sweat of one's brow. From the linked article: "for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles."
Basically, what Jefferson wanted was an idyllic, pastoral America strengthened by honest individualized labor. To say that he would be lost in the face of the modern globalized technological economy is an understatement of monumental proportions.
But that's exactly my point. Of all the historical figures I could think about quoting for insight on the economy, Jefferson would most seriously be at the very bottom of the list.
I love Thomas Jefferson as much as the next American, but there are certain things you listen to him on and some things you don't. Civil liberties, the scope of government, certainly. The economy.... not so much.
Jefferson wanted us to farm our way to victory. Here's some primary source stuff on the subject for your edification/amusement.
Just because he's a founding father doesn't make him a visionary on everything. See also: slavery.
I imagine walking near it in order to service it would kick up quite a lot of dust, for one thing.
But also based on TFA (yes yes, I know that's cheating), the silver coating on top would actually become solid apparently. Should probably be trivial to clean anything that the rotation doesn't slowly move off on its own.
Always good to think of these things though. After trekking that whole thing the moon, that would be one helluva thing to have overlooked.
Google should just use the tried-and-true "Under Construction" animated gif instead. Blinking text is a plus.
You seriously think you're going to find the ninja HQ?
Please. We're nin.... ahhh, err, they're... ninjas. Arrrr? Matey?"
The terrorist might also have instruction manuals for how to operate the state-of-the-art boxcutter they smuggled on board.
Woah, what? How is this subjectivity so surprising? Let Uncy DanOrc451 tell you a story here from the frontlines of objective academic science from the perspective of a bemused non-scientist observer.
I was at MIT a few months ago picking up my brother to go play tennis, and I witnessed a practical fistfight break out between two teams of scientists. Apparently, a physics experiment of some kind was being run by two academic teams across some departmental boundary, one focusing on theory and the other focusing on actually conducting the experiment for the theory guys.
Bypassing the technical gobbledygook they were (literally) screaming at each other and focusing on the English bits, it became apparent that the situation was this: the experiment failed to confirm the theory. The theory folks were furious at the experimental folks since they clearly must have been incompetent and done the experiment wrong; their theory was perfect and beautiful. The experimental folks were furious at the ivory tower theory folks for refusing to accept the results of their clearly valid experiment, since that was what the scientific method was all about in the end.
What was striking about it was the fury and the absolute certainty that their work and worldview on either side was right, and that each thought the other half didn't really "get what science was all about."
I really thought we were going to have some broken glasses on our hands. It was quite a scene, and "objective" would be about the last conceivable word you'd apply to the situation.
Instead of a rating, can we have them color coded?
Truthiness level: Green, for nice God-fearing webistes, Red for terrorist hippy propaganda?
Since when did Microsoft's new official slogan become, "Hey, wow, we're almost kinda as cool as Apple, love us?"
Answer: When Vista was released.
It's less the story giving them more publicity, as it is the story propping up Microsoft's unconscious form for Slashdot to beat on it some more.
Don't ban others speech. Speak better than them.
Censorship is an act of desperation on the part of a losing ideology... and I hardly think that's applicable here.
I'm curious as to why being concerned about putting reactor waste on top of a rocket full of highly reactive chemicals makes a person "monumentally STUPID."
I understand cost issues render this a moot point, but I'm not sure what I'm missing here. It seems right out of the "what-could-possibly-go-wrong" department to me.
I'm not trolling, I'm quite honestly curious about your perspective.
If they haven't learned by now, and they haven't, they never will. The world has been perpetually ending for the entire 2000 year odd era of Christian thought alone, with God and Jesus coming down "any moment now."
Just off the top of my largely uneducated head on the subject, the world was supposed to end within a human lifetime of Jesus (Mark 13:1-13:30), in 1843 AND 1844 when the 1843 one failed to happen, the year 1000, the year 2000, and most currently both 2012 due to the Mayan calendar of all things and whenever the LHC switch is flicked in earnest.
Reminds me of the bee from the Bee Movie trailer (yeah, didn't WTFM either) bonking into the glass repeatedly saying "This time! This time! This time! This time!"
Is the world really that boring, and are we really that poor learners?
Gosh darn, we're so talented, we bend ourselves over and screw ourselves too!
Yeeehaw!
Agreed, completely, especially with what's been going down at the RNC the past few days.
Between what's happening at home, and what I read about going on in Britain and the rest of Europe, it's a scary time indeed.
Meh. Meh indeed.
A larger data set is better if the limitations of the data are known and it's not given more weight than it deserves. Take the following (entirely theoretical) example.
A man walks out of an airport, with sunglasses on that somewhat hide his face. However, facial recognition software or human intelligence sees the images and flags him as resembling a particular terrorist with a similar name. As an additional double-check before this individual gets a visit from the proverbial black SUV, this new gait-recognition software is also run. It determines that this man's natural gait could not possibly match the gait of the terrorist, who received major injury to his right leg in a US airstrike in Iraq.
The man, who turns out to actually be an engineer with Canadian citizenship, is spared a 36 hour fun time with America's finest and a potential free Cuban vacation.
False positives come from bad intelligence decisions, often because of not having enough data, and wanting to 'err on the side of safety'. No intelligence personnel wants to be the person who let a terrorist responsible for the next major US incident go. Having more data, and having more kinds of data in particular, can help a person make better decisions, and can give them that extra confidence needed to not arrest/abduct/whatever someone.
The data doesn't have to be perfect. Any additional information is helpful to the overall picture, especially if other, more reliable data is missing or ambiguous. And someone who is a terrorist or a combatant of another sort may very well have acquired a pretty unique limp in their work.
Sure it's easy to defeat, but if you see someone with a very unique gait, like one from the shoe-lift idea, that can be an auto-flag for a first screening.
It's like why my father, who has a full beard and a penchant for large sunglasses and hats because he's a heliophobe, has security watch him wherever he goes.
Scary stuff, yes.