Congratulations for noticing! Now, you can sit back with me and laugh as the engineers try to make up more concrete reasons for why this was posted on Slashdot.
But unlike mulberry silk from silkworms, in which the hapless pupa is boiled alive in its cocoon, the spiders were released into the wild at the end of each day.
I... don't think it's doing as much crawling as you think.
No, but for a fee, Intel will provide a one-time replacement of certain fingers that are damaged by overclocking and/or overvolting. It's completely optional and in addition to the original three-year standard warranty that already applies to Intel's retail boxed fingers. Intel isn't yet ready to flat-out endorse overclocking but the Santa Clara digit maker is perfectly content to provide a "limited remedy if issues arise as a result of an enthusiast's decision to enable overclocking," for a modest fee, of course. The deal applies to only to certain Extreme Edition and K-series (unlocked) fingers currently, in Intel's middle and ring families.
I normally wouldn't stoop to such things, but this comment preceded our little chat, _0xd0ad. I do, however, feel rather strongly that it is particularly damning to your worldview. (Even moreso than the rather torrid history of the Bible's editorial staff, or other, more predictable barbs.)
I see. Presenting these sorts of things in a nonchalant manner is not something to be feared—what it lacks in precision (endosymbiosis most likely took many years to become as interdependent as it is, although obligate symbionts lose genes with exceptional expedience when said genes are redundant) it makes up for in succinctness and compactness of thought. When something is certain, or nearly so, forcing oneself to emphasize the details at every opportunity amounts to nothing short of impediment; what is essential to the idea is not that endosymbiosis gradually occurred, but simply that it did. Complicating communication, by expatiating on the point in full detail and not stating the core idea first, is a disservice that, at least these days, is hinted at to students in ninth grade English class when they're first told how to write newspaper articles. An effective student, then, is one who can then trawl through a complicated presentation and render it in simple, useful terms, structured in memory so that the details are ancillary to the heart of the matter.
In all honesty, my experience with biologists is that a culture of commiseration is at the heart of preserving the insistence of rigorous formalism in the language used in papers, but fortunately this does not impede the stated goals of such—ensuring continued clarity of thought and accountability without conceptually redundant elaboration. That doesn't mean that blunt legibility need be an enemy, however. It can guarantee understanding.
Tsk, tsk: Spanish doesn't have sex, it has gender, which is descended from the Latin cases with some Gallic corruption. I think you'll find that languages with grammatical gender facilities reserved exclusively for sex are more common in the Germanic family, and not generally part of the Romance tree.
But at least now I know what you're talking about.:)
Fear not—I have had my phases of Victorian literary affect as well, and even if no other Slashdot user can make sense of your intricate chronicling of thought, I'll gladly jump in. (Although the sentence ending in "struggle to appreciate" was indefensibly bad planning.)
What I've found amongst bioinformaticians is that they generally have the clarity of thought and epistemology that is gifted to natural programmers, but we simply don't generally utilize it. What I've read of (professional) epistemology has always been strikingly compatible with what I already intuitively know—although my father having a philosophy education might have influenced that somewhat.
Then let's have it out—I might learn something I didn't know. I should confess at this point that I am a lowly senior-year undergraduate and no doubt blindly believe a number of theories to be indubitably true. (And as such, I am particularly taken aback by your inclusion of my description of endosymbiosis as questionable.) If your schedule can accommodate it, I am your willing student.
Perhaps dishonest is the wrong word for it. Let's look at what political parties do in practice, however, shall we?
1. Devolve into two-party (or one-party systems.)
2. Force members to vote in line with the group.
3. (Via 1 and 2) create obstacles for representatives not belonging to a major party when election time comes.
4. Create a single target for lobbying.
As far as my limited knowledge of such things goes, political systems with more parties that are less powerful tend to be more effective democracies. Perhaps that doesn't mean they should be eliminated, but certainly as they approach successfulness they become more problematic to the democratic process, by creating conformity in representatives that does not reflect the diversity of voters.
Yes, and I could go on forever about how these things are uncertain. I'd like to think that as long as I'm not committing the travesties of popular science journalism I'm at least not doing anyone a disservice. Feel free to point out any particular objections that you think stray too far toward insisting one particular theory is consensus.
I have no idea. I'm afraid I don't recall talking to you much! But then again, I don't keep track of much here, since Slashdot is so weak as a social platform. But I'll keep an eye out. (And what, pray tell, do we disagree on?)
I have never heard of enantiomers having different stabilities. I don't think I have enough physical chemistry background to answer this, sorry! I'll see if I can find an answer, though.
Well, you're correct that the ability of ribonucleic acids to function as enzymes was the point I was making, but there's nothing stopping RNA from acting as other classes of proteins (which are pretty much just structural support and signalling molecules.) They're a little lousy at structural functions, but pretty good at message-passing. (Smalltalk is more relevant than most people realise.)
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations for noticing! Now, you can sit back with me and laugh as the engineers try to make up more concrete reasons for why this was posted on Slashdot.
But unlike mulberry silk from silkworms, in which the hapless pupa is boiled alive in its cocoon, the spiders were released into the wild at the end of each day.
I... don't think it's doing as much crawling as you think.
Not on Slashdot it isn't!
No, but for a fee, Intel will provide a one-time replacement of certain fingers that are damaged by overclocking and/or overvolting. It's completely optional and in addition to the original three-year standard warranty that already applies to Intel's retail boxed fingers. Intel isn't yet ready to flat-out endorse overclocking but the Santa Clara digit maker is perfectly content to provide a "limited remedy if issues arise as a result of an enthusiast's decision to enable overclocking," for a modest fee, of course. The deal applies to only to certain Extreme Edition and K-series (unlocked) fingers currently, in Intel's middle and ring families.
Ecstatically.
No wonder the chemical supply company wouldn't accept returns on my shipment of ionized hydrogen...
(In other words, you missed one.)
It was a rather poor turnout, alas.
Dang! Sorry for the accusation, then. Carry on.
I normally wouldn't stoop to such things, but this comment preceded our little chat, _0xd0ad. I do, however, feel rather strongly that it is particularly damning to your worldview. (Even moreso than the rather torrid history of the Bible's editorial staff, or other, more predictable barbs.)
I see. Presenting these sorts of things in a nonchalant manner is not something to be feared—what it lacks in precision (endosymbiosis most likely took many years to become as interdependent as it is, although obligate symbionts lose genes with exceptional expedience when said genes are redundant) it makes up for in succinctness and compactness of thought. When something is certain, or nearly so, forcing oneself to emphasize the details at every opportunity amounts to nothing short of impediment; what is essential to the idea is not that endosymbiosis gradually occurred, but simply that it did. Complicating communication, by expatiating on the point in full detail and not stating the core idea first, is a disservice that, at least these days, is hinted at to students in ninth grade English class when they're first told how to write newspaper articles. An effective student, then, is one who can then trawl through a complicated presentation and render it in simple, useful terms, structured in memory so that the details are ancillary to the heart of the matter.
In all honesty, my experience with biologists is that a culture of commiseration is at the heart of preserving the insistence of rigorous formalism in the language used in papers, but fortunately this does not impede the stated goals of such—ensuring continued clarity of thought and accountability without conceptually redundant elaboration. That doesn't mean that blunt legibility need be an enemy, however. It can guarantee understanding.
Tsk, tsk: Spanish doesn't have sex, it has gender, which is descended from the Latin cases with some Gallic corruption. I think you'll find that languages with grammatical gender facilities reserved exclusively for sex are more common in the Germanic family, and not generally part of the Romance tree.
:)
But at least now I know what you're talking about.
What about the independent candidate strain, Mycopleuro-just-disable-Javascript-illococcus? He's always been on my side.
Will people ever stop checking your equations?
(Ordis?)
Fear not—I have had my phases of Victorian literary affect as well, and even if no other Slashdot user can make sense of your intricate chronicling of thought, I'll gladly jump in. (Although the sentence ending in "struggle to appreciate" was indefensibly bad planning.)
What I've found amongst bioinformaticians is that they generally have the clarity of thought and epistemology that is gifted to natural programmers, but we simply don't generally utilize it. What I've read of (professional) epistemology has always been strikingly compatible with what I already intuitively know—although my father having a philosophy education might have influenced that somewhat.
Then let's have it out—I might learn something I didn't know. I should confess at this point that I am a lowly senior-year undergraduate and no doubt blindly believe a number of theories to be indubitably true. (And as such, I am particularly taken aback by your inclusion of my description of endosymbiosis as questionable.) If your schedule can accommodate it, I am your willing student.
It does, although it still leaves many mysteries.
Perhaps dishonest is the wrong word for it. Let's look at what political parties do in practice, however, shall we?
1. Devolve into two-party (or one-party systems.)
2. Force members to vote in line with the group.
3. (Via 1 and 2) create obstacles for representatives not belonging to a major party when election time comes.
4. Create a single target for lobbying.
As far as my limited knowledge of such things goes, political systems with more parties that are less powerful tend to be more effective democracies. Perhaps that doesn't mean they should be eliminated, but certainly as they approach successfulness they become more problematic to the democratic process, by creating conformity in representatives that does not reflect the diversity of voters.
Yes, and I could go on forever about how these things are uncertain. I'd like to think that as long as I'm not committing the travesties of popular science journalism I'm at least not doing anyone a disservice. Feel free to point out any particular objections that you think stray too far toward insisting one particular theory is consensus.
I meant the thumping, not the lurking. I suppose you might have meant that too, but it would make the original statement rather hard to swallow.
Political parties are a dishonest idea, anyway. Ring in the new generation.
Hmm. Sounds dire. I was going to say something biting, but I'll refrain. See you around!
I've probably been posting for close to a year now, so I'm afraid you're a bit late! As for where to start: anywhere it's professional to.
I have no idea. I'm afraid I don't recall talking to you much! But then again, I don't keep track of much here, since Slashdot is so weak as a social platform. But I'll keep an eye out. (And what, pray tell, do we disagree on?)
I have never heard of enantiomers having different stabilities. I don't think I have enough physical chemistry background to answer this, sorry! I'll see if I can find an answer, though.
Well, you're correct that the ability of ribonucleic acids to function as enzymes was the point I was making, but there's nothing stopping RNA from acting as other classes of proteins (which are pretty much just structural support and signalling molecules.) They're a little lousy at structural functions, but pretty good at message-passing. (Smalltalk is more relevant than most people realise.)