The child's features should still be similar to the parents not contributing the mitochondria, but how about the child's size?
Would the growth of certain features be influence by the mitochondria?
Re:The two architectures are subtly different...
on
NVIDIA To Buy AGEIA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The difference between graphics and physics isn't that subtle.
For most games if you turn down the graphics the gameplay isn't supposed to change that much. So people with cheaper video cards can still play the game.
Whereas what happens if you turn down the physics? For the gameplay to not change the crap that's bouncing around can't matter at all.
I'd rather the physics mattered.
But if the physics mattered, people with cheaper physics cards might not be able to play the game.
In theory who knows. In practice it will - someone or something will stop it eventually.
More importantly can they determine whether your program is malicious or not?
That's similar to the halting problem, but more relevant to desktop computer users nowadays, given the lack of good program sandboxing that's done in a user friendly manner.
Let's call it the "pwning problem". It's amazing even up till to day that users are still expected to solve that problem regularly, somehow, and here's the good bit: usually with no access to the source code.
Billions of USD spent and all you get in terms of security is _primitive_ UAC crap from Microsoft.
If they actually use the "Save the Artists" thing then maybe someone should sue them for _fraud_ just to publicise the issue and drop the case quietly before it goes to court;).
The easiest way to cut the cable would be a fairly powerful boat and a modified anchor (not even sure if that's necessary).
Just drag the anchor for a few km across the path where the cable is likely to be. If you don't get the cable try again maybe in a slightly different area.
Fishing boats trawling for fish allegedly break cables too.
I don't think it's necessary to use stuff like bombs or divers at all...
If you treat your elections with such _contempt_, don't be surprised if the rest of the world think lowly of you.
It's amazing that voters accepted a crappy system like diebold when the USA has immense resources to do things right (lots of smart people, lots of money).
Maybe the people in your country have difficulty counting, but it seems a really ridiculous excuse to me.
In my country, at the various counting stations, the various parties (opposition and incumbent) and designated independent observers get to watch each and every vote being counted (and recounted if necessary).
So even if some idiot voter made a spoilt vote, people get to see that it was the voter who did it and nothing fishy was going on.
Voting and vote counting can be done in parallel. You have more people, you'll need more voting places anyway. If you have more people, you should be able to have more counters and observers too.
"Because that allows you to prove to someone else how you voted, and so get coerced, and are able to sell your vote, neither of which are acceptable properties of a voting system."
I don't see what's the big problem with that in practice.
Votes are sold all the time one way or another. Just make it illegal to coerce someone against their will, with hefty penalties. Your boss tries to force you to vote one way or try to force you to reveal how you voted against your will, just record him doing that and you can him jailed. Sounds good:).
You can come up with theoretical scenarios, but if these scenarios are practically significant the country is already so screwed up - e.g. the cops refuse to arrest the one trying to force your vote, the courts refuse to jail him.
FWIW there are lots of clever cryptographers who can probably solve that problem and the other problems. I seem to recall a decent proposal some years back. Can't recall if it was anonymous.
Another thing if you put in too many layers of security stupid people people might not be able to understand how it works, they have to take it by faith that it works.
A simple "mark the ballot" stick it in box, then get people to count the votes in front of observers seems fine with me. Fairly easy to ensure the box started empty. How easy is it to prove a electronic system has no "easter eggs"? As a programmer I can think of so many ways to corrupt an electronic voting system. Just get some magicians to help make sure the physical system isn't easily subverted;).
Sure it takes some time to do it in an "old fashioned way". But a lot of people can understand something that simple.
But do people actually care?
The people in power are probably happy with the crappy systems since that's how they get voted in. The people who allegedly voted don't appear to care very much - they accepted the diebolded elections.
It doesn't necessarily counter the reality of peak oil.
No matter what the origin of the oil is whether biogenic or not, if the rate of creation is a lot lower than the rate of consumption, you will have "peak oil". The wells definitely aren't being filled up at the same rate they are being emptied.
Which oil companies are saying that we will never run out of oil? They'll just raise prices as it gets scarce, and if there's a good alternative energy source, you can be sure they'd try to get into that business.
The people more likely to fabricate stuff are the OPEC - their position (economic, political etc) in OPEC is linked to the size of their reserves.
Elections don't just have to be fair and clean, they have to be _seen_ to be fair and clean.
It's worth spending billions for "regime change" in Iraq (and get how many people killed) but there's no money and people to do it properly at home?
While it's not surprising if the burglar doesn't want to remove the ladder he used to get in, the Diebolding crap should be considered a big embarassment.
What does it say about the USA (especially the voters/citizens) if the US Gov doesn't even bother to rig (run?) their own elections properly (IIRC some places got more votes than voters, the last I checked Saddam never had > 100% votes).
What makes you think Atheists wouldn't do that? At least the human ones.
The last I checked, Karl Marx recommended violence as a way of achieving his goals.
And because of that the Communist "religion" is architecturally flawed - the recommended implementation plan for Communism tends to lead to a Dictatorship.
A someone seeking to be a Dictator can easily subvert Communists.
The ones most willing and able to exert violence will end up being Leaders of the Revolution - after all the others end up dead.
Only if you are very lucky will you get Dictators willing to give up the power in a good and orderly fashion soon after they get all that power.
You can see how well that has worked out for Communism.
For similar reasons I believe Islam is flawed because there appear to be plenty of verses in the Quran that can be used to kill (and thus eliminate) the opposition. So the Leader willing and capable of the most violence gets to set the effective rules.
"But I have never ever witnessed such hatred, ignorance, cruelty, absurdity, hypocrisy in my life.. called as if originating from the depths of that same religion I am committed to!"
How can you be so sure that you are really following the true Islam? So many imams and other Islamic religious leaders calling for all that hatred and violence appear to be pretty familiar with the Quran (and Sunnah if they are Sunni) as well, regularly reciting verses to back their actions.
Good luck convincing nonmuslims that your religion "is not like that" if you can't even convince enough other muslims.
I think the muslims should settle amongst _themselves_ what their religion is, as soon as possible, rather than leave it for later.
Most muslims don't know what the Quran says because it's not in a language they understand, so all they know is what someone else tells them. Saying that you cannot have translations (or translations are bad) seems silly since eventually _someone_ has to tell the muslims what the Quran allegedly says, so you might as well have a bunch of experts to come out with a mainstream translation with areas where the meaning is unsure (or contested) marked out.
Saying that only a few can have access to the Quran is just going the way of Scientology (or the old Catholic Church), and that's not very good is it?
Do be very careful though - it's not easy to have a reasonable and peaceful debate with your head detached from the rest of your body.
I haven't seen many reasonably priced flash drives with _write_ speeds faster than 5MB/sec. If you have please let me know which ones, and some authoritative specs would be nice.
The old fashioned HDDs via USB can easily do 20MB/sec.
I think their T&C states clearly that in their opinion YOU own the domain name.
Whereas many registrars appear to say that THEY own the domain name and you get to use it as long as you pay.
What's the difference? The difference is how you are treated when the domain name expires or when stuff happens. Those registrars typically start squatting on names you let expire or letting "Partners" a first go at squatting on it,
The other plus is Gandi is based in France. The sue-happy people/companies are usually in USA. Just more fun if say the **AA try to send threatening letters to Gandi, for stuff that is legal in France and my country. While I'm not in France, Gandi have been around for years and so far I don't see signs that any of their _customers_ has needed to sue them yet.
But I don't think they're going to do very much handholding for you, so you should know about what you are doing technically.
I suggest it would be best if we wait and see if doing away with the tasting stuff fixes things enough.
Sure it's only 10/year, but if you are required to pay for the duds, it starts to get expensive.
Previously they didn't have to pay for the duds at all - so no surprise if many made enough money just from "tasting", parking and getting some money from ads.
If someone is good at knowing which names are worth it and has to actually pay for speculating, I think it's fair.
In my opinion the name isn't that important. Many of the big names aren't even in the usual dictionaries e.g. Google, Skype, ebay. Stop thinking that you have to register something similar to the topic of your site. Your site may change topic too, so then it'll be a misnomer. Come up with a brand name that doesn't appear on Google yet.
Most of the time when I hit a "domain parking site" it's not because of the name they use. It's just because it shows up on Google when I search for something else - they link spammed Google or something.
If they picked an already trademarked name then they get lots of hits, but I think there are already laws and rules that deal with that scenario.
The whole problem was the domain speculators hardly ever had to pay for the domains they parked on in the first place with the Domain Tasting and other stupidity that the ICANN allowed (or planned?). Imagine being able to "taste" a house and only pay for it when people wanted to rent/buy it, how stupid is that?
Now to fix the problem THEY caused, you are suggesting that we PAY THEM MORE?
I bet if the domain tasting idiocy is really gone for good, this crap will drop to a manageable level in a few years.
It's really fishy that people are conveniently suggesting this, just after a dubious source of revenue stream is drying up for the registrars.
I'm in Malaysia and my crappy ISP (TM Net) used to send some US bound packets via Europe past the Atlantic then across the USA to the US west coast. That sure hurt for online games with servers in the USA.
Now things are a bit better as they go via the pacific ocean. Not very much better (ISP is still crap - I'm sticking to them partly because they have a less crap T&C than the other alternative ISPs, and partly because the other ones seem to be worse in some cases).
But I know that the organs have stem cells, and stem cells move around (seems some mothers have their son's fetal cells become brain cells in their brains). So I won't be surprised if transplants did cause some changes in personality..
Slashdot Mirror
The child's features should still be similar to the parents not contributing the mitochondria, but how about the child's size?
Would the growth of certain features be influence by the mitochondria?
The difference between graphics and physics isn't that subtle.
:).
For most games if you turn down the graphics the gameplay isn't supposed to change that much. So people with cheaper video cards can still play the game.
Whereas what happens if you turn down the physics? For the gameplay to not change the crap that's bouncing around can't matter at all.
I'd rather the physics mattered.
But if the physics mattered, people with cheaper physics cards might not be able to play the game.
The game makers won't like that
I believe BBC does use Real player.
In theory who knows. In practice it will - someone or something will stop it eventually.
More importantly can they determine whether your program is malicious or not?
That's similar to the halting problem, but more relevant to desktop computer users nowadays, given the lack of good program sandboxing that's done in a user friendly manner.
Let's call it the "pwning problem". It's amazing even up till to day that users are still expected to solve that problem regularly, somehow, and here's the good bit: usually with no access to the source code.
Billions of USD spent and all you get in terms of security is _primitive_ UAC crap from Microsoft.
If they actually use the "Save the Artists" thing then maybe someone should sue them for _fraud_ just to publicise the issue and drop the case quietly before it goes to court ;).
1) How accurate is the reflectometry stuff? These cables are quite long.
2) Do they do the _accurate_ TDR stuff immediately on a cut? If they only do it later then there's a window of time to install the splice elsewhere.
The easiest way to cut the cable would be a fairly powerful boat and a modified anchor (not even sure if that's necessary).
Just drag the anchor for a few km across the path where the cable is likely to be. If you don't get the cable try again maybe in a slightly different area.
Fishing boats trawling for fish allegedly break cables too.
I don't think it's necessary to use stuff like bombs or divers at all...
If you treat your elections with such _contempt_, don't be surprised if the rest of the world think lowly of you.
It's amazing that voters accepted a crappy system like diebold when the USA has immense resources to do things right (lots of smart people, lots of money).
Maybe the people in your country have difficulty counting, but it seems a really ridiculous excuse to me.
In my country, at the various counting stations, the various parties (opposition and incumbent) and designated independent observers get to watch each and every vote being counted (and recounted if necessary).
So even if some idiot voter made a spoilt vote, people get to see that it was the voter who did it and nothing fishy was going on.
Voting and vote counting can be done in parallel. You have more people, you'll need more voting places anyway. If you have more people, you should be able to have more counters and observers too.
"Because that allows you to prove to someone else how you voted, and so get coerced, and are able to sell your vote, neither of which are acceptable properties of a voting system."
:).
;).
I don't see what's the big problem with that in practice.
Votes are sold all the time one way or another. Just make it illegal to coerce someone against their will, with hefty penalties. Your boss tries to force you to vote one way or try to force you to reveal how you voted against your will, just record him doing that and you can him jailed. Sounds good
You can come up with theoretical scenarios, but if these scenarios are practically significant the country is already so screwed up - e.g. the cops refuse to arrest the one trying to force your vote, the courts refuse to jail him.
FWIW there are lots of clever cryptographers who can probably solve that problem and the other problems. I seem to recall a decent proposal some years back. Can't recall if it was anonymous.
Another thing if you put in too many layers of security stupid people people might not be able to understand how it works, they have to take it by faith that it works.
A simple "mark the ballot" stick it in box, then get people to count the votes in front of observers seems fine with me. Fairly easy to ensure the box started empty. How easy is it to prove a electronic system has no "easter eggs"? As a programmer I can think of so many ways to corrupt an electronic voting system. Just get some magicians to help make sure the physical system isn't easily subverted
Sure it takes some time to do it in an "old fashioned way". But a lot of people can understand something that simple.
But do people actually care?
The people in power are probably happy with the crappy systems since that's how they get voted in.
The people who allegedly voted don't appear to care very much - they accepted the diebolded elections.
It doesn't necessarily counter the reality of peak oil.
No matter what the origin of the oil is whether biogenic or not, if the rate of creation is a lot lower than the rate of consumption, you will have "peak oil". The wells definitely aren't being filled up at the same rate they are being emptied.
Which oil companies are saying that we will never run out of oil? They'll just raise prices as it gets scarce, and if there's a good alternative energy source, you can be sure they'd try to get into that business.
The people more likely to fabricate stuff are the OPEC - their position (economic, political etc) in OPEC is linked to the size of their reserves.
Elections don't just have to be fair and clean, they have to be _seen_ to be fair and clean.
It's worth spending billions for "regime change" in Iraq (and get how many people killed) but there's no money and people to do it properly at home?
While it's not surprising if the burglar doesn't want to remove the ladder he used to get in, the Diebolding crap should be considered a big embarassment.
What does it say about the USA (especially the voters/citizens) if the US Gov doesn't even bother to rig (run?) their own elections properly (IIRC some places got more votes than voters, the last I checked Saddam never had > 100% votes).
What makes you think Atheists wouldn't do that? At least the human ones.
The last I checked, Karl Marx recommended violence as a way of achieving his goals.
And because of that the Communist "religion" is architecturally flawed - the recommended implementation plan for Communism tends to lead to a Dictatorship.
A someone seeking to be a Dictator can easily subvert Communists.
The ones most willing and able to exert violence will end up being Leaders of the Revolution - after all the others end up dead.
Only if you are very lucky will you get Dictators willing to give up the power in a good and orderly fashion soon after they get all that power.
You can see how well that has worked out for Communism.
For similar reasons I believe Islam is flawed because there appear to be plenty of verses in the Quran that can be used to kill (and thus eliminate) the opposition. So the Leader willing and capable of the most violence gets to set the effective rules.
"But I have never ever witnessed such hatred, ignorance, cruelty, absurdity, hypocrisy in my life .. called as if originating from the depths of that same religion I am committed to!"
How can you be so sure that you are really following the true Islam? So many imams and other Islamic religious leaders calling for all that hatred and violence appear to be pretty familiar with the Quran (and Sunnah if they are Sunni) as well, regularly reciting verses to back their actions.
Good luck convincing nonmuslims that your religion "is not like that" if you can't even convince enough other muslims.
I think the muslims should settle amongst _themselves_ what their religion is, as soon as possible, rather than leave it for later.
Most muslims don't know what the Quran says because it's not in a language they understand, so all they know is what someone else tells them. Saying that you cannot have translations (or translations are bad) seems silly since eventually _someone_ has to tell the muslims what the Quran allegedly says, so you might as well have a bunch of experts to come out with a mainstream translation with areas where the meaning is unsure (or contested) marked out.
Saying that only a few can have access to the Quran is just going the way of Scientology (or the old Catholic Church), and that's not very good is it?
Do be very careful though - it's not easy to have a reasonable and peaceful debate with your head detached from the rest of your body.
"The moral of the story was: Instead of asking for cocks and cunts, ask for brains instead"
So the sequel was a zombie movie?
Funny I can't find the GT product listed on Corsair's website!
:(. I guess everyone else doesn't care about write speed.
Unfortunately I don't know any "brick and mortar" stores in my area that sell it either
"why they murdered that mentally ill guy aboard the plane."
If you're talking about Alpizar, they killed him when he was outside the plane.
"Flash has always been relatively fast"
I haven't seen many reasonably priced flash drives with _write_ speeds faster than 5MB/sec. If you have please let me know which ones, and some authoritative specs would be nice.
The old fashioned HDDs via USB can easily do 20MB/sec.
Sure. But really advanced maliciousness uses stupid people to do the dirty work :).
And sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
I used Gandi before, they seemed decent to me.
I think their T&C states clearly that in their opinion YOU own the domain name.
Whereas many registrars appear to say that THEY own the domain name and you get to use it as long as you pay.
What's the difference? The difference is how you are treated when the domain name expires or when stuff happens. Those registrars typically start squatting on names you let expire or letting "Partners" a first go at squatting on it,
The other plus is Gandi is based in France. The sue-happy people/companies are usually in USA. Just more fun if say the **AA try to send threatening letters to Gandi, for stuff that is legal in France and my country. While I'm not in France, Gandi have been around for years and so far I don't see signs that any of their _customers_ has needed to sue them yet.
But I don't think they're going to do very much handholding for you, so you should know about what you are doing technically.
Like read Slashdot :).
I suggest it would be best if we wait and see if doing away with the tasting stuff fixes things enough.
Sure it's only 10/year, but if you are required to pay for the duds, it starts to get expensive.
Previously they didn't have to pay for the duds at all - so no surprise if many made enough money just from "tasting", parking and getting some money from ads.
If someone is good at knowing which names are worth it and has to actually pay for speculating, I think it's fair.
In my opinion the name isn't that important. Many of the big names aren't even in the usual dictionaries e.g. Google, Skype, ebay. Stop thinking that you have to register something similar to the topic of your site. Your site may change topic too, so then it'll be a misnomer. Come up with a brand name that doesn't appear on Google yet.
Most of the time when I hit a "domain parking site" it's not because of the name they use. It's just because it shows up on Google when I search for something else - they link spammed Google or something.
If they picked an already trademarked name then they get lots of hits, but I think there are already laws and rules that deal with that scenario.
I disagree.
The whole problem was the domain speculators hardly ever had to pay for the domains they parked on in the first place with the Domain Tasting and other stupidity that the ICANN allowed (or planned?). Imagine being able to "taste" a house and only pay for it when people wanted to rent/buy it, how stupid is that?
Now to fix the problem THEY caused, you are suggesting that we PAY THEM MORE?
I bet if the domain tasting idiocy is really gone for good, this crap will drop to a manageable level in a few years.
It's really fishy that people are conveniently suggesting this, just after a dubious source of revenue stream is drying up for the registrars.
But it's not stealing in this case. The domains have expired.
The domain tasting BS has to go. And it looks like it's on its way out.
The bulk of domain spam squatting problem is because the ICANN and many registrars have been doing dubious/stupid stuff in the past.
BUT, now someone is appears to be saying "let's fix the problem by giving the registrars more money per domain".
Amazing. Rewarding people for doing something bad/evil.
I'm in Malaysia and my crappy ISP (TM Net) used to send some US bound packets via Europe past the Atlantic then across the USA to the US west coast. That sure hurt for online games with servers in the USA.
Now things are a bit better as they go via the pacific ocean. Not very much better (ISP is still crap - I'm sticking to them partly because they have a less crap T&C than the other alternative ISPs, and partly because the other ones seem to be worse in some cases).
"I wonder if there have been any studies of personality change after liver and kidney transplants"
_Allegedly_ there has been some done on heart transplants:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10882878?dopt=Abstract
True or not I don't know.
But I know that the organs have stem cells, and stem cells move around (seems some mothers have their son's fetal cells become brain cells in their brains). So I won't be surprised if transplants did cause some changes in personality..