To be like LogMeIn (or similar stuff e.g. GoToMyPC see: https://www.gotomypc.com/en_US/ourTechnology.tmpl for their architecture ) would require a way of allowing other people to control your machine without you having to change your firewall or NAT settings (beyond allowing "normal" outbound connections[1]).
From what I see, Guacamole cannot do the same thing as LogMeIn. There are no Guacamole intermediate/central servers (see the gotomypc link) - there's no sign of a Guacamole Gateway/Communication/Broker server software in the announcement;).
So Guacamole isn't much of an advance over normal VNC server since you still have to configure your firewall and NAT to allow inbound HTTPS/HTTP connections. If you can do that you can always configure your firewall to allow inbound VNC connections, or alternatively configure your VNC server to listen on the HTTPS port.
[1] Yes I know it won't work in tightly controlled places.
I had the impression that stuff like LogMeIn allow users to go to some website, and then voluntarily allow OTHER people to control their computer by also visiting that same site. This is quite convenient when you can't or do not want to reconfigure the firewalls and NAT devices.
Does Guacamole do that?
It's not the same thing if Guacamole involves users running a VNC server and then configuring firewalls, NATs etc to allow remote access to their computer.
Speaking of food, most people in the industrial nations also _eat_ petroleum. In the USA the ratio appears to be 13 kcal petroleum energy to produce 1 kcal of food, according to: http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/g/k/What_You_Eat.pdf (25:1 for producing meat).
I'm not sure if there's enough organic food to go around, at least in the developed countries (there isn't in some undeveloped countries either).
It is possible to produce lots of crops per area by planting many different types of crops in the same area ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercropping ) but this is usually more human labor intensive - machines don't tend to cope with that sort of thing as well.
That's so inconsiderate, it makes it harder to search for pornographic political material. Think of the people who would want to do Google searches of the form: site:xxx intern
Same for other niche xxx interests:).
So I can understand technical reasons for the TLD xxx (not from the porn blocking POV which is silly, but from the porn finding POV;) ).
In contrast I don't see good technical reasons for.biz and.info. But the ICANN still approved those.
How so? They can safely ignore those nonvoting voters as long as those nonvoting voters keep not voting.
> Keep in mind that they represent a population larger than voted for any single candidate.
I've known that for years, but do those voters know, or care?
Do those voters really count, if time after time they don't vote?
> Lots of people feel the need to make sure their voice is heard, so they select the better of the two major options rather than "wasting their vote" by supporting someone that might more closely represent their views
This to me is stupid. It works fine in the academic game theory scenarios where you only have one iteration, only one go at it. In the real world most people live longer than one term.
If you vote for someone else who doesn't win it is not wasted. It sends a signal.
If 20% of the voters actually voted for the Libertarians and "wasted their vote", don't you think the Two Parties might change to be a bit more like the Libertarians?
Even if that doesn't happen (not possible for the Two Parties to do it) some of those 37% nonvoting voters might actually vote for Libertarians in the _next_ election because they now know there's a chance.
Either: a) all the connections will be via intermediate servers on the Internet - in which case it's no longer P2P. It's Client-Server. Many clients connecting to a few servers. or b) The ISP NAT devices have to be configured to map ports back to the P2P clients, as I said before.
Remember, you no longer have a device with a public IPv4 address that's under your control.
Without the cooperation of the ISP's NAT device(s) even if you run your P2P client on 10.1.1.1:1111 and say "connect to 1.2.3.4:5555" (where 1.2.3.4 is the ISP nat device's public IP) to the tracker server, the other side will fail to connect because the ISP's NAT device just isn't translating 1.2.3.4:5555 back to 10.1.1.1:1111.
The ISP can set up static NATs, but someones got to set up some sort of standard to do it:
They could set things up so that: 10.1.1.x will get port 10000+x on 1.2.3.4. 10.1.2.x will get port 10256+x on 1.2.3.4 so 10.1.1.15 will announce on the tracker that it's 1.2.3.4:10015 10.1.1.123 will announce on the tracker that it's 1.2.3.4:10123 10.1.2.5 will announce on the tracker that it's 1.2.3.4:10261
Anyway I think we'll still be using IPv4 for a few more years, the move to IPv6 appears to be rather slow.
ISPs are far more likely to put "normal" customers on RFC1918 IPv4 addresses (with maybe public IPv6 addresses), and make them pay more for public IPv4 addresses.
It'll be crazy to only give their customers IPv6 addresses and no IPv4 addresses at all (because we've run out of them).
Maybe after 10 years of this coexistence we'd move completely to IPv6.
Or, as I said earlier (and got modded troll for it:) ) the various companies might happy with this situation and make efforts to keep things that way.
Only if all the servers I want to use support IPv6 AND our ISPs support IPv6 and are able to route/tunnel the IPv6 packets.
Otherwise if the servers I want to use only support IPv4, I will still:
a) need an IPv4 address to talk to them (but those are running out) Or b) need a proxy or special IPv6 to IPv4 NAT device (which will also need an IPv4 address of its own)
This scenario does NOT work:
IPv6 only client <-> IPv4 only server
No amount of tunneling will help the two talk to each other. You will need to translate or proxy the connections e.g.
IPv6 only client -> IPv6-IPv4 NAT device/proxy -> IPv4 only server.
Or use an IPv4 NAT as mentioned:
Client with RFC1918 IPv4 address -> Conventional IPv4 NAT -> IPv4 only server.
How would one of the users on the left side connect with one of the users on the right side? You can only connect to the public IP of the NAT devices, but to which port?
So the ISPs will have to NAT a port each on their NAT devices back to each user behind the NAT that wants to be a server (do P2P uploads etc). And the user will need to know what that port is.
The U.S. Navy wanted to boost sailors' night vision so they could spot infrared signal lights during World War II. However, infrared wavelengths are normally beyond the sensitivity of human eyes. Scientists knew vitamin A contained part of a specialized light-sensitive molecule in the eye's receptors, and wondered if an alternate form of vitamin A could promote different light sensitivity in the eye. They fed volunteers supplements made from the livers of walleyed pikes, and the volunteers' vision began changing over several months to extend into the infrared region. Such early success went down the drain after other researchers developed an electronic snooperscope to see infrared, and the human study was abandoned. Other nations also played with vitamin A during World War II - Japan fed its pilots a preparation that boosted vitamin A absorption, and saw their night vision improve by 100 percent in some cases.
Seems more likely that what will happen is that all "normal users" get RFC1918 IPv4 addresses.
So you could have say 1000 to 2000 ISP users behind one ISP public IPv4 address, which will be shared to access the Internet. One/8 public IPv4 range can then serve 16 to 32 billion users.
Stuff like WoW, google, facebook, gmail, IM will still work.
But running a public server, Bittorrent and other P2P stuff will be difficult. If you are lucky the ISP might allow you to serve to peers within each RFC1918 "district".
The Media Companies and Powers-That-Be might consider this a feature and not a problem. Since this means locking in to a world of few talkers and many listeners.
Not marrying is not the biggest problem. It's a sign of the problem, but not the problem. Allowing priests to marry isn't going to solve the main problem (just look at some of those "TV Evangelists" for examples).
They might say it's not forbidding since you're allowed to do it in normal scenarios, but to me it seems almost as if they're intentionally mocking the Bible with stuff like "no marriage for priests", only fish on fridays, and fish = capybara etc.
People might challenge the authorship of 1 Timothy[1], but the Catholic Church accepts it as part of their Bible, and it predates all the bullshit they got up to later.
It hits pretty close to the mark, close enough for me to believe that God is going to say "Yes, that's what I said to you, Church, so why didn't you listen?".
(Sorry reposting with corrections - lost a chunk due to forgetting how slashdot processes "plain old text")
> For example, well over 90% of American adults have had some form of herpes infection during their lives, such as chicken pox or herpes simplex. > This becomes a permanent addition to the DNA in the infected portions of the body, but it is NOT passed down to offspring.
Quote: "The USF team also confirmed preliminary results by other investigators that, a long time ago, the virus inserted its DNA into the DNA of human sperm and egg cells. As a result, some people (about 1 percent of people in the U.S.) are born with the virus's DNA in every cell in their body. Indeed, HHV-6 is the first functional virus of any type reported to be passed through the human germ line."
As for other sorts of DNA transfer, I wouldn't say "never", after all an aphid can somehow get a fungus gene...
> Hell, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee's genome is only about 4%. The difference between individual humans is far smaller than that,
A bit offtopic, but since this keeps coming up, I find it strange that scientists can say that sort of stuff and also say there are no racial differences in humans.
If 4% can make such a big[1] difference between chimpanzees and humans, it seems foolishness to say that humans are all the same (and also DNA fingerprint humans;) ). Yes, race is very imprecise term, but there are certainly breeds of humans. They're not as clearly distinct as say dog breeds, but there are differences.
Plenty of other examples. Even the ability to digest milk, and process alcohol differs significantly. And the ability to run 100 metres really fast;).
So to me it's silly to not think there's a human significant[2] difference between a 7 foot tall "West African" human breed and a Mbenga pygmy human breed. Maybe dogs can even smell the difference between those two breeds.
[1] This "big difference" is of course relative, to some alien creature made of "dark matter and dark energy", all the stuff on the Earth could look pretty much the same to them - and rather strange (we're the abnormal ones since most of the universe is apparently made of something else;) ).
[2] Significant for human stuff, at a human level.
> For example, well over 90% of American adults have had some form of herpes infection during their lives, such as chicken pox or herpes simplex. > This becomes a permanent addition to the DNA in the infected portions of the body, but it is NOT passed down to offspring.
Quote: "The USF team also confirmed preliminary results by other investigators that, a long time ago, the virus inserted its DNA into the DNA of human sperm and egg cells. As a result, some people (about 1 percent of people in the U.S.) are born with the virus's DNA in every cell in their body. Indeed, HHV-6 is the first functional virus of any type reported to be passed through the human germ line."
As for other sorts of DNA transfer, I wouldn't say "never", after all an aphid can somehow get a fungus gene...
> Hell, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee's genome is only about 4%. The difference between individual humans is far smaller than that,
A bit offtopic, but since this keeps coming up, I find it strange that scientists can say that sort of stuff and also say there are no racial differences in humans.
If http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=638412
Plenty of other examples.
Even the ability to digest milk, and process alcohol differs significantly. And the ability to run 100 metres really fast;).
To me it's silly to not think there's a human significant[2] difference between a 7 foot tall "West African" human breed and a Mbenga pygmy human breed. Maybe dogs can even smell the difference between those two breeds.
[1] This "big difference" is of course relative, to some alien creature made of "dark matter and dark energy", all the stuff on the Earth could look pretty much the same to them - and rather strange (we're the abnormal ones since most of the universe is apparently made of something else;) ).
[2] Significant for human stuff, at a human level.
The requirements there for Bishops and Deacons don't mention celibacy anywhere. In fact they do even mention "husband of but one wife".
So there's above reproach, husband of but one wife, temperate, self controlled, good reputation with outsiders, etc.
So practicing polygamists/adulterers/fornicators/pedophiles/homosexuals do not meet that standard. Nor do drunkards.
You might ask why not practicing homosexuals? Because honestly if you're a practicing homosexual you would not meet the "above reproach", "blameless" and "good reputation with outsiders" requirement.
Like it or not, but It is a fact that a practicing homosexual is still not "above reproach" in the real world.
There are all sorts of outsiders you would deal with as an official representative of the church. Not meeting these requirements would reduce your effectiveness. You would be a blunt knife.
How about non-practicing homosexuals? IMO, there isn't such a vast difference to being faithful to one wife and being faithfully celibate. If you feel it's such a huge difference and you can't stay celibate, then too bad you don't meet the "self controlled" requirement.
BUT don't forget you can always serve in other ways.
There are plenty of good works still to be done, why do you need to be a priest, bishop, deacon or whatever to do it? What's your motive really?
I'm not a homosexual, but I certainly don't meet those high standards either.
I'm sure the "Harmonization Team" will have a nice chat with various countries[1], and the US will regularly make announcements like "Country XYZ is under the IPR watch list", or "Country X has inadequate Intellectual Property laws".
A high risk factor is the polonium. Seems phosphate fertilizers tend to have a higher concentration of polonium, which get concentrated further in tobacco plant leaves.
So tobacco grown without such fertilizers might be significantly healthier.
Many of the pirated DVDs we get here in Malaysia have all the antipiracy warnings, unskippable too on normal players. So they're probably copies of the real thing, or even "factory over-productions".
All that DRM and crypto doesn't do anything to stop pirates from making identical copies. Just because something is in a foreign language or encrypted doesn't stop you from making a photocopy of it.
It just makes it harder to decrypt/play with a player that doesn't have the right key or software or setting.
But Sony et all provide the players with the right keys...
FWIW, the cinemas here were still packed with people going to watch Avatar, How To Train Your Dragon, Iron Man, LoTR etc.
So maybe Hollywood should just keep making movies that people want to watch on the "big screen"?
IIRC, Avatar took in a billion worldwide within a month. Of course Hollywood might claim it didn't make any money due to piracy etc, but they always claim their movies don't make money (especially when they're trying to reduce the payouts to people e.g. Peter Jackson, Stan Lee, etc).
So instead of 51% taking away the rights of the other 49%, you now have some tiny percentage doing it with stuff like PATRIOT and DMCA. And if you submit a "bug report" the tiny percentage with "commit access" will think to themselves: "WORKSFORME"...;).
Anyway, I don't think the more direct democracy is working so well in California either - people are voting for stuff with the best title without actually examining how it'll actually work (or whether it will actually work).
But democracy is still better than a dictatorship on average. Only once in a while you'd get a dictator who does far more good than harm, and does better than a democracy.
The deciding factor to me would be how many of those 32% have a good quality of life vs the 23%?
If they are all still in a bad state - just clinging on to life rather than seemingly healthy, I'd rather spend the 93K on making the last few months/years of my life more pleasant.
Or give it to some loved ones to have a nice holiday, if I'm in already a too screwed up a state to enjoy it much. Or give it to some charity.
Slashdot Mirror
Got to be even more careful if you want to browse other people's porn collection when in Vatican City ;).
You don't appear to understand what LogMeIn does.
To be like LogMeIn (or similar stuff e.g. GoToMyPC see: https://www.gotomypc.com/en_US/ourTechnology.tmpl for their architecture ) would require a way of allowing other people to control your machine without you having to change your firewall or NAT settings (beyond allowing "normal" outbound connections[1]).
See the LogMeIn architecture in http://www.infosecurityproductsguide.com/technology/2007/wp_lmi_security.pdf
From what I see, Guacamole cannot do the same thing as LogMeIn. There are no Guacamole intermediate/central servers (see the gotomypc link) - there's no sign of a Guacamole Gateway/Communication/Broker server software in the announcement ;).
So Guacamole isn't much of an advance over normal VNC server since you still have to configure your firewall and NAT to allow inbound HTTPS/HTTP connections. If you can do that you can always configure your firewall to allow inbound VNC connections, or alternatively configure your VNC server to listen on the HTTPS port.
[1] Yes I know it won't work in tightly controlled places.
I had the impression that stuff like LogMeIn allow users to go to some website, and then voluntarily allow OTHER people to control their computer by also visiting that same site. This is quite convenient when you can't or do not want to reconfigure the firewalls and NAT devices.
Does Guacamole do that?
It's not the same thing if Guacamole involves users running a VNC server and then configuring firewalls, NATs etc to allow remote access to their computer.
In which case you can already do the same thing with existing VNC servers: http://www.realvnc.com/support/javavncviewer.html
Speaking of food, most people in the industrial nations also _eat_ petroleum. In the USA the ratio appears to be 13 kcal petroleum energy to produce 1 kcal of food, according to: http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/g/k/What_You_Eat.pdf (25:1 for producing meat).
I'm not sure if there's enough organic food to go around, at least in the developed countries (there isn't in some undeveloped countries either).
It is possible to produce lots of crops per area by planting many different types of crops in the same area ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercropping ) but this is usually more human labor intensive - machines don't tend to cope with that sort of thing as well.
They should restrict .xxx to porn sites. but not porn sites to .xxx.
.coop for cooperatives (who aren't limited to .coop) so why not .xxx for porn sites (and not limit them to .xxx either ).
They've got
FWIW, I don't think the ICANN does a good job.
That's so inconsiderate, it makes it harder to search for pornographic political material. Think of the people who would want to do Google searches of the form: site:xxx intern
:).
;) ).
.biz and .info. But the ICANN still approved those.
Same for other niche xxx interests
So I can understand technical reasons for the TLD xxx (not from the porn blocking POV which is silly, but from the porn finding POV
In contrast I don't see good technical reasons for
> That is kind of a dangerous attitude to take.
How so? They can safely ignore those nonvoting voters as long as those nonvoting voters keep not voting.
> Keep in mind that they represent a population larger than voted for any single candidate.
I've known that for years, but do those voters know, or care?
Do those voters really count, if time after time they don't vote?
> Lots of people feel the need to make sure their voice is heard, so they select the better of the two major options rather than "wasting their vote" by supporting someone that might more closely represent their views
This to me is stupid. It works fine in the academic game theory scenarios where you only have one iteration, only one go at it. In the real world most people live longer than one term.
If you vote for someone else who doesn't win it is not wasted. It sends a signal.
If 20% of the voters actually voted for the Libertarians and "wasted their vote", don't you think the Two Parties might change to be a bit more like the Libertarians?
Even if that doesn't happen (not possible for the Two Parties to do it) some of those 37% nonvoting voters might actually vote for Libertarians in the _next_ election because they now know there's a chance.
Either:
:) ) the various companies might happy with this situation and make efforts to keep things that way.
a) all the connections will be via intermediate servers on the Internet - in which case it's no longer P2P. It's Client-Server. Many clients connecting to a few servers.
or
b) The ISP NAT devices have to be configured to map ports back to the P2P clients, as I said before.
Remember, you no longer have a device with a public IPv4 address that's under your control.
Without the cooperation of the ISP's NAT device(s) even if you run your P2P client on 10.1.1.1:1111 and say "connect to 1.2.3.4:5555" (where 1.2.3.4 is the ISP nat device's public IP) to the tracker server, the other side will fail to connect because the ISP's NAT device just isn't translating 1.2.3.4:5555 back to 10.1.1.1:1111.
The ISP can set up static NATs, but someones got to set up some sort of standard to do it:
They could set things up so that:
10.1.1.x will get port 10000+x on 1.2.3.4.
10.1.2.x will get port 10256+x on 1.2.3.4
so
10.1.1.15 will announce on the tracker that it's 1.2.3.4:10015
10.1.1.123 will announce on the tracker that it's 1.2.3.4:10123
10.1.2.5 will announce on the tracker that it's 1.2.3.4:10261
Anyway I think we'll still be using IPv4 for a few more years, the move to IPv6 appears to be rather slow.
ISPs are far more likely to put "normal" customers on RFC1918 IPv4 addresses (with maybe public IPv6 addresses), and make them pay more for public IPv4 addresses.
It'll be crazy to only give their customers IPv6 addresses and no IPv4 addresses at all (because we've run out of them).
Maybe after 10 years of this coexistence we'd move completely to IPv6.
Or, as I said earlier (and got modded troll for it
From what I see the Two Parties must be doing a really great job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Nationwide_results
52.92% + 45.66% = 98.58% of all casted votes.
One party satisfies one group of voters (including you), the other party satisfies the other group of voters (the other person you're arguing with).
Together they satisfy >98% of the voters.
The less than 1.5% can safely be ignored, and the nonvoting voters too.
Only if all the servers I want to use support IPv6 AND our ISPs support IPv6 and are able to route/tunnel the IPv6 packets.
Otherwise if the servers I want to use only support IPv4, I will still:
a) need an IPv4 address to talk to them (but those are running out)
Or
b) need a proxy or special IPv6 to IPv4 NAT device (which will also need an IPv4 address of its own)
This scenario does NOT work:
IPv6 only client <-> IPv4 only server
No amount of tunneling will help the two talk to each other. You will need to translate or proxy the connections e.g.
IPv6 only client -> IPv6-IPv4 NAT device/proxy -> IPv4 only server.
Or use an IPv4 NAT as mentioned:
Client with RFC1918 IPv4 address -> Conventional IPv4 NAT -> IPv4 only server.
You'll need cooperation from the ISPs because you'll have this scenario:
1000 users -> ISP1 NAT device-> Internet <- ISP2 NAT device <- 1000 users
How would one of the users on the left side connect with one of the users on the right side? You can only connect to the public IP of the NAT devices, but to which port?
So the ISPs will have to NAT a port each on their NAT devices back to each user behind the NAT that wants to be a server (do P2P uploads etc). And the user will need to know what that port is.
ttp://www.livescience.com/history/090429-military-experiment-1.html
The U.S. Navy wanted to boost sailors' night vision so they could spot infrared signal lights during World War II. However, infrared wavelengths are normally beyond the sensitivity of human eyes. Scientists knew vitamin A contained part of a specialized light-sensitive molecule in the eye's receptors, and wondered if an alternate form of vitamin A could promote different light sensitivity in the eye. They fed volunteers supplements made from the livers of walleyed pikes, and the volunteers' vision began changing over several months to extend into the infrared region. Such early success went down the drain after other researchers developed an electronic snooperscope to see infrared, and the human study was abandoned. Other nations also played with vitamin A during World War II - Japan fed its pilots a preparation that boosted vitamin A absorption, and saw their night vision improve by 100 percent in some cases.
Seems more likely that what will happen is that all "normal users" get RFC1918 IPv4 addresses.
/8 public IPv4 range can then serve 16 to 32 billion users.
So you could have say 1000 to 2000 ISP users behind one ISP public IPv4 address, which will be shared to access the Internet. One
Stuff like WoW, google, facebook, gmail, IM will still work.
But running a public server, Bittorrent and other P2P stuff will be difficult. If you are lucky the ISP might allow you to serve to peers within each RFC1918 "district".
The Media Companies and Powers-That-Be might consider this a feature and not a problem. Since this means locking in to a world of few talkers and many listeners.
Not marrying is not the biggest problem. It's a sign of the problem, but not the problem. Allowing priests to marry isn't going to solve the main problem (just look at some of those "TV Evangelists" for examples).
The problem is the Catholic Church isn't even following their own sacred text in guidelines for picking top leaders of the church. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NIV
And yes they're also not following their own sacred text by forbidding marriage:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4&version=NIV
They might say it's not forbidding since you're allowed to do it in normal scenarios, but to me it seems almost as if they're intentionally mocking the Bible with stuff like "no marriage for priests", only fish on fridays, and fish = capybara etc.
People might challenge the authorship of 1 Timothy[1], but the Catholic Church accepts it as part of their Bible, and it predates all the bullshit they got up to later.
It hits pretty close to the mark, close enough for me to believe that God is going to say "Yes, that's what I said to you, Church, so why didn't you listen?".
[1] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy
(Sorry reposting with corrections - lost a chunk due to forgetting how slashdot processes "plain old text")
> For example, well over 90% of American adults have had some form of herpes infection during their lives, such as chicken pox or herpes simplex.
> This becomes a permanent addition to the DNA in the infected portions of the body, but it is NOT passed down to offspring.
In most cases no. But in other cases see this: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1833268/herpes_virus_can_integrate_its_dna_into_human_chromosomes/index.html
Quote: "The USF team also confirmed preliminary results by other investigators that, a long time ago, the virus inserted its DNA into the DNA of human sperm and egg cells. As a result, some people (about 1 percent of people in the U.S.) are born with the virus's DNA in every cell in their body. Indeed, HHV-6 is the first functional virus of any type reported to be passed through the human germ line."
As for other sorts of DNA transfer, I wouldn't say "never", after all an aphid can somehow get a fungus gene...
> Hell, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee's genome is only about 4%. The difference between individual humans is far smaller than that,
A bit offtopic, but since this keeps coming up, I find it strange that scientists can say that sort of stuff and also say there are no racial differences in humans.
If 4% can make such a big[1] difference between chimpanzees and humans, it seems foolishness to say that humans are all the same (and also DNA fingerprint humans ;) ). Yes, race is very imprecise term, but there are certainly breeds of humans. They're not as clearly distinct as say dog breeds, but there are differences.
Lots of diseases affect different breeds of humans differently: http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=638412
Plenty of other examples. Even the ability to digest milk, and process alcohol differs significantly. And the ability to run 100 metres really fast ;).
So to me it's silly to not think there's a human significant[2] difference between a 7 foot tall "West African" human breed and a Mbenga pygmy human breed. Maybe dogs can even smell the difference between those two breeds.
[1] This "big difference" is of course relative, to some alien creature made of "dark matter and dark energy", all the stuff on the Earth could look pretty much the same to them - and rather strange (we're the abnormal ones since most of the universe is apparently made of something else ;) ).
[2] Significant for human stuff, at a human level.
> For example, well over 90% of American adults have had some form of herpes infection during their lives, such as chicken pox or herpes simplex.
> This becomes a permanent addition to the DNA in the infected portions of the body, but it is NOT passed down to offspring.
In most cases no. But in other cases see this: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1833268/herpes_virus_can_integrate_its_dna_into_human_chromosomes/index.html
Quote: "The USF team also confirmed preliminary results by other investigators that, a long time ago, the virus inserted its DNA into the DNA of human sperm and egg cells. As a result, some people (about 1 percent of people in the U.S.) are born with the virus's DNA in every cell in their body. Indeed, HHV-6 is the first functional virus of any type reported to be passed through the human germ line."
As for other sorts of DNA transfer, I wouldn't say "never", after all an aphid can somehow get a fungus gene...
> Hell, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee's genome is only about 4%. The difference between individual humans is far smaller than that,
A bit offtopic, but since this keeps coming up, I find it strange that scientists can say that sort of stuff and also say there are no racial differences in humans.
If http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=638412
Plenty of other examples.
Even the ability to digest milk, and process alcohol differs significantly. And the ability to run 100 metres really fast ;).
To me it's silly to not think there's a human significant[2] difference between a 7 foot tall "West African" human breed and a Mbenga pygmy human breed. Maybe dogs can even smell the difference between those two breeds.
[1] This "big difference" is of course relative, to some alien creature made of "dark matter and dark energy", all the stuff on the Earth could look pretty much the same to them - and rather strange (we're the abnormal ones since most of the universe is apparently made of something else ;) ).
[2] Significant for human stuff, at a human level.
In terms of understanding humans, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#Intelligence_and_behavior
http://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/are-dogs-smarter-than-wolves/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1952976
In other ways perhaps not.
It's NOT doctrine.
If someone wants to be a priest, bishop or other "top leader of a church" I suggest they look at this first:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy+3&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=NKJV
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-2.htm
The requirements there for Bishops and Deacons don't mention celibacy anywhere. In fact they do even mention "husband of but one wife".
So there's above reproach, husband of but one wife, temperate, self controlled, good reputation with outsiders, etc.
So practicing polygamists/adulterers/fornicators/pedophiles/homosexuals do not meet that standard. Nor do drunkards.
You might ask why not practicing homosexuals? Because honestly if you're a practicing homosexual you would not meet the "above reproach", "blameless" and "good reputation with outsiders" requirement.
Like it or not, but It is a fact that a practicing homosexual is still not "above reproach" in the real world.
There are all sorts of outsiders you would deal with as an official representative of the church. Not meeting these requirements would reduce your effectiveness. You would be a blunt knife.
How about non-practicing homosexuals? IMO, there isn't such a vast difference to being faithful to one wife and being faithfully celibate. If you feel it's such a huge difference and you can't stay celibate, then too bad you don't meet the "self controlled" requirement.
BUT don't forget you can always serve in other ways.
There are plenty of good works still to be done, why do you need to be a priest, bishop, deacon or whatever to do it? What's your motive really?
I'm not a homosexual, but I certainly don't meet those high standards either.
Bad for the brand.
That would be like Coca Cola's CEO regularly being seen drinking Pepsi in public.
The Wall Street bunch might need 64 bits to calculate their bonuses and bailouts down the cent :).
> Outside the US there are no software patents,
I'm sure the "Harmonization Team" will have a nice chat with various countries[1], and the US will regularly make announcements like "Country XYZ is under the IPR watch list", or "Country X has inadequate Intellectual Property laws".
[1] To sign up for stuff like ACTA.
A high risk factor is the polonium. Seems phosphate fertilizers tend to have a higher concentration of polonium, which get concentrated further in tobacco plant leaves.
So tobacco grown without such fertilizers might be significantly healthier.
Many of the pirated DVDs we get here in Malaysia have all the antipiracy warnings, unskippable too on normal players. So they're probably copies of the real thing, or even "factory over-productions".
All that DRM and crypto doesn't do anything to stop pirates from making identical copies. Just because something is in a foreign language or encrypted doesn't stop you from making a photocopy of it.
It just makes it harder to decrypt/play with a player that doesn't have the right key or software or setting.
But Sony et all provide the players with the right keys...
FWIW, the cinemas here were still packed with people going to watch Avatar, How To Train Your Dragon, Iron Man, LoTR etc.
So maybe Hollywood should just keep making movies that people want to watch on the "big screen"?
IIRC, Avatar took in a billion worldwide within a month. Of course Hollywood might claim it didn't make any money due to piracy etc, but they always claim their movies don't make money (especially when they're trying to reduce the payouts to people e.g. Peter Jackson, Stan Lee, etc).
So instead of 51% taking away the rights of the other 49%, you now have some tiny percentage doing it with stuff like PATRIOT and DMCA. And if you submit a "bug report" the tiny percentage with "commit access" will think to themselves: "WORKSFORME"... ;).
Anyway, I don't think the more direct democracy is working so well in California either - people are voting for stuff with the best title without actually examining how it'll actually work (or whether it will actually work).
But democracy is still better than a dictatorship on average. Only once in a while you'd get a dictator who does far more good than harm, and does better than a democracy.
The deciding factor to me would be how many of those 32% have a good quality of life vs the 23%?
If they are all still in a bad state - just clinging on to life rather than seemingly healthy, I'd rather spend the 93K on making the last few months/years of my life more pleasant.
Or give it to some loved ones to have a nice holiday, if I'm in already a too screwed up a state to enjoy it much. Or give it to some charity.