Jeezus. That is some schweet statistical cherry picking. Not surprising at all that 25% of the FEDERAL prison pop is illegal immigrants, very few crimes that result in incarceration are federal. The vast, vast, vast majority of crimes are violations of state & local laws, and dealt with at the state level. Last week's BOP report says there are 195,248 Federal prisoners. So according to your statistics, that's ~48,000 illegal immigrants in the federal Pen. Now, the last number I can find for both state & federal is for midyear 2005, 1,259,905 people in state prisons and 179,220 in Club Fed. (Reference here). I dunno how many people in state prisons are illegal, probably lots in California and quite a few less in Idaho. But you can't say 25% of the people in prison are illegal based on statistics of the 12% of the prison population that's in the federal system, which is where being here illegally is dealt with, unless you're trying to be intentionally deceitful.
The difference here is that there is continuity between those actions and the present. Islamic extremists look back to the early waves of expansion and say, "That's just, we need to keep it up."
You mean, except for the several hundred years during which the Islamic states (other than Turkey) were taken over and run as client states by the Europeans, right?
Meanwhile, it's hard to find any Christians who are trying to bring back the Byzantine Empire.
Not so hard to find, there's one living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC. Check in with him & his boss, Dick.
Thailand is an outlier, but in the Philippines you've got a non-Muslim government made up of the leftovers of a Spanish & US colonial system. The Muslims in the south were most certainly meddled with by westerners, it just happened long enough ago that most folks in the US have never heard of it. Ditto Indonesia. It amazes me that folks think France can take over Syria, England can take all of Mesopotamia, the US can grab the Philippines, and then set up arbitrary borders, paying no attention to traditional tribal and ethnic boundaries, walk away and be surprised when the people who were essentially enslaved start 1) Fighting with each other and 2) looking for a little payback.
Reuter's science writer should get the credentials revoked. Gawd, I wish I never RTFA'd the article.
"She was testing a compound called a PPAR-gamma modulator. It would never normally have been thought of as a cancer drug, or in fact a drug of any kind."
PPARg modulators are huge drugs, some of the most highly perscribed therapeutics for type II diabetes.
"Most of the drugs like Taxol affect the ability of tubulin to forms into microtubules. This doesn't do that -- it causes the tubulin itself to disappear. We do not know why."
So you dosed in enormous doses of a compound, and it killed cells. Every type of "cancer" cells they tested died. They haven't tested primary cell lines (non-cancerous cells). Nor have they tested any tox in mice. They've got no mechanism of action. WTF??? I can kill cancer cells in the lab with large doses of damn near anything. High concentration table salt will kill cancer cells. Doesn't make NaCl an anti cancer agent. Crap. Spit. I hate write ups like this.
That's a nice piece of work?? Looking at his charts, I'd be amazed if there was p0.1 significance to any of the differences, much less p0.05. Not significantly different. And sampling bias out the kazoo-- whatever differences there are in models are likely to be very different over areas with different weather and different times of the year. This would be like looking at the arrivals/departures board at your local airport, and deciding based on that which airline is most reliable.
Not to mention, the guy's inspiration for this was an unexpected storm-- but his analysis is limited to only hi and low temps???? Kind of like looking at the airport arrival/departure time board to decide which airline is most reliable in delivering luggage, isn't it? Excel will let you chart anything you want, but please don't try to pass it off as statistics.
Sure there is, whether you think God made you that way, or evolution made you that way... it's obviously wrong.
That has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. Having non-breeding individuals around can definitely be an evolutionary advantage to a population. There are many phenotypes that aren't of evolutionary benefit to a given individual, but increase the fitness of a population of related individuals. One of the most obvious in humans is menopause. Losing the ability to produce more offspring serves absolutely no advantage to a given female, but having females survive to help the next generation rather than die in late birthing is a big advantage to a given population. There are too many other examples to list here. Evolution works on populations, not individuals, and non-breeding individuals can be a very important component to a population, especially under conditions of crowding & lack of resources (as humans in most of the world find themselves today).
If we put all the gay males on one planet, and all the gay females on another, we'd soon have 2 uninhabited planets.
Um, yeah. And if we put all the hetero males on one planet and all of the hetero females on another, we'd soon have two uninhabited planets, as well. Pure genius.
Gawd, this is spiralling too deep;). Sure, exons get left out of alternate splices all the time, that's how they work. But the language used in the field, by everybody I know, is if it's used in a mature mRNA it's an exon. If it gets left out to code for a related but different product of the same gene (a.k.a. an isoform) it's still an exon, just not used in that transcript's splice variant. If it gets left out of 99.99% of the transcripts for a particular gene, but one out of ten thousand edited, capped, and exported mRNAs has it there, then it's still an exon (or you screwed up your cDNA generation). If it gets transcribed, but then edited out of every mature mRNA for a particular gene, then it's an intron. If it's an exon for a different gene (say, interleaved or opposite strand), it's still an intron when referring to the original gene. And I'm not even going to get into antibody splicing, which takes all of this to the next level. But still, at the end of the day, if it ends up in a mature mRNA, either 5' non trans, ORF, 3' non trans, then it's an exon.
Certainly not every exon is used in various splice variants, but they're still exons. For a given gene, a particular transcript may only use exons 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, while another may use 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, but all seven are still referred to as exons when discussing the gene. In normal usage, at least among the people I work with, anything that ends up in any mature mRNA outside the nucleus is an exon. Everything else within a particular gene's transcript is an intron. Everything outside the transcript is neither. If I referred to, say, exon 1 of AKAP9 as an intron because it's not present in transcripts coding for isoform 2 or 3 of that gene, people would think I was silly (Admittedly, only a few people in the world would give a flying crap about exon 1 of AKAP9, but still).
I do have to admit, my pedantic response was technically incorrect-- I wasn't accounting for interleaved genes, where an intron of one gene may be a coding sequence for another gene.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Introns may do lots of things, but they do not express anything. Expression by definition is only done by exon sequences. If a sequence is translated, by defintion it's in an exon.
Sucks about your Ti-89, but they're not all that bad. I bought my Ti-81 as a high-school student in 1990. Sixteen years later, in my professional job, I still use it every day.
They have to prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in a court of law.
Nope, not at all, at least in the US. The **AA's are filing civil suits, where the standard is "preponderance of evidence", i.e. the jury thinks probably, yeah, the defendant did wrong the plaintiff. BTW, in the US at least it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that standard only applies to criminal cases.
So has it been for many technologies. Cheaper wins over Better if Cheaper is "good enough.":
IDE vs SCSI x86 vs RISC
OK, I'm with you so far...
Ethernet vs token ring
Have you ever installed & maintained a token ring network, and kept it going when idiot 1users would try to "fix" things when they had a problem? Oh god, the horror, the horror.
Not to pressure them into pulling out, but I think it's useful to let the producers know that in my opinion, the 2007 Slamdance game award will be for "Developer least concerned about independence in game production", and that I, as an indie game fan, am a big fan of the games and producers that are pulling out of the competition on principle. If they hear that same message from a lot of their fan base, they'll understand that there's nothing to be gained from staying in the competition this year.
I don't know how long it had been sitting on the counter, but I was in there at 8:30 pm, and the place closed at either 9 or 10, not sure. So I'm guessing there's a fair chance that it didn't sell.
It seems to me that anyone who thinks Slamdance made an idiotic decision ought to be contacting the producers of the seven games left in the competition (list is at the Slamdance website, and ask them why they haven't pulled out yet. The strongest comment on this sort of behavior will be made if they have NO games left in the competition this year.
At the Kansas City Sony store (Country Club Plaza) on Dec. 26th (yes, day after Christmas). One PS3 sitting on the counter, regular list price. Store full of people looking at TVs and cameras, etc, nobody so much as looked at the box while I was there.
Encouraged to look for a... "cure to cancer"?-- that's my job. Whenever people drag out this tired old horse of "pharma's looking for ongoing treatments, not cures", they are ignoring one of the largest segments of our work, in oncology, where a cure is the ONLY objective. And by the way, saying "cure to cancer" is kind of like saying "cure to viruses". It's a meaningless phrase, there are hundreds of types of cancer, and each is as different from each other as influenza is from rabies.
I don't get to say, today I want to study this, that would be idiotic. Projects take ten years from inception to market, and during that time hundreds of people will work on it. One person simply cannot, with any reasonable chance of success, set out to make a new treatment. So, I have to convince the investing public, that is, their board of directors and the management that they've chosen to put in place, that if they give me $750,000,000 to spend, that there is a likely chance that they will get that money back. And maybe, if they're lucky, even a return on their investment.
Pharmaceuticals is just like any other business-- money losers go bankrupt, money makers make money and stay in business. Only problem is, you have to spend 3/4 of a billion dollars to make a new product, and then you only get to generate revenues from that product for a handful of years, before any one else who wants to can copy you intellectual property at no cost, and sell it at manufacturing cost to consumers. The fact that our government has set up a system that makes a new drug such a high stakes gamble is, directly, the reason why the focus is on blockbusters to treat old and fat people, rather than the really important things.
Did you know that virtually all pharmas have essentially halted antibiotic research? The few programs that are left are more for PR than for any hope of actually producing a drug. Multi-drug resistant bacteria are a national security threat that makes the terrorists look like a bunch of whiney bitches, and the bugs are only getting better. And yet we're doing nothing about it, because under the current system a company cannot hope to recoup the up-front costs of producing a new anti-infective. If a company starts a major program, the investors will realize they're going to lose money, and the stock will go down. Lawsuits against the managment for failing to serve their fiduciary duty to the shareholders wouldn't be out of the question. Hate the way drug companies are working, and wish they'd do stuff more in line with what the public needs? Get your government to fix the patent system, the fact that the US consumers subsidize all of Europe's drug costs, the marketing, etc etc.
Dude, I do get it. You seem to misunderstand how copyright & licenses work. The samba team definitly owns the license, and they released a version with a license that says that anyone can copy it and reproduce it and change it, as long as they release whatever changes to the code they make. In doing so, they lost the ability to retroactively go back and say, "I take it back, that's not free anymore".
Any NEW versions they release, they can release under whatever license they want. But they can't retroactively go back and undo the GPL'ing of their earlier code. If you could retroactively un-GPL code, I can guarantee a huge number of minor projects, that became successful, would have been un-GPL'd by their authors and be commercial software today. New version, whatever license you want, but once it's been released under the GPL license, you can't go back & undo that.
Except that if the team wants to continue to use the GPL, the FSF doesn't allow modification of the wording of the GPL license, which is what they'd have to do. Inserting a clause like, "All of the above doesn't apply to MS or Novell, they are teh sux and they can't use it" would put the team in violation of the FSF's copyright on the license itself.
Oh yeah, and MS/Novell could just fork off of a version that's already out there. The Samba team controls the copyright, but they've already released versions under the GPL. They can't pull that back in, it's already out and specifically says MS/Novell along w/ everyone else can use and abuse it, as long as they comply w/ the license. One of the "problems" w/ the GPL, that's "fixed" in v3.
I am so ridiculously tired of hearing this absolute BULLSHIT. I'm a researcher at a pharmaceutical company. Most of the conditions we're trying to make drugs to already have a cure: Put down the cheeseburger, put down the mountain dew, get your fat lazy ass off of the couch and get the fuck outside and walk around a little. There is no cure for a retard eating 4000 calories per day with 15g of saturated fat-- you are going to get type II diabetes and atherosclerosis. That's how your body works. And the way the biochemistry works, THERE IS NO CURE. The systems are working exactly the way they're supposed to. Problem is, they've evolved to store fat during the rare times of plenty, and then dole that out during lean times.
If I could come up w/ a cure, you can bet we would make it. See, we have competitors. Who make a lot of money. If we could make a quick & easy cure, we'd make it, make a ton of cash, and move on. As an example in the last couple of years, Merck made their HPV vaccine to PREVENT cervical cancer. One time, cheap shot, and they've lost a potential cancer patient. Of course, it took forever to get to market because the Republicans think that preventing HPV infection will cause teenage girls to become whores. If you want to look for the reasons our health care system is so fucked up, I suggest that you follow not only the money, but the ideaology.
Unless your choice agrees with the majority, in which case it is beneficial for you to be dishonest and disagree.
In other words, in the listed example, say you wanted Chinese. It's apparent that Chinese is going to win, so it's in your best interest to bid, say , 50p for Italian. In the end, you end up getting the Chinese dinner you wanted, and you managed to extract 50p for the privilege, rather than paying a small amount that you would if you had been honest in your desire to get Chinese.
Like many such systems, these things only work if everyone is utterly honest. And thus have no relationship whatsoever to the real world;)
Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes[sic] its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child.
Unless you care to provide a source for this "fact" other than your ass, I'm curious why I should "face it". I could argue the opposite, allowing someone who feels such tendencies to view totally computer generated images could reduce the likelihood that they will engage in such behavior in a manner that actually harms a kid. But the honest truth is, I can't pull up any solid, peer-reviewed data to support my point, so I'm not going to insist that you acquiesce to it. And I'd appreciate the same.
Whether it is real or computer generated material, it is wrong, it is disgusting...
Well, "wrong" is a particularly nebulous term, and disgusting is a matter of personal preference. I'd be willing to bet, if I sorted through your material possessions, I'd find something that I would consider "wrong and disgusting". Hell, half of my friend's refrigerators in college contained things I would deem "wrong and disgusting". Ought those things be illegal solely because of my feelings towards them? Of course not. Now, if in the process of creating this supposed wrong and disgusting thing, a person victimizes another, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
I would even be curious to see if since the internet becoming main stream if cases of child molestation have increased due to it making this type of material more readily available.
Historically speaking? Almost certainly not. I refer you to the works of Socrates & friends. Or South America, where the age of consent runs from 15 in Uruguay down to 13 in Argentina. What we, today, would term child molestation was mainstream at times in history & in other parts of the world.
I'd be very careful about advocating laws against thought crimes-- I'd bet good money there's something in your head that somebody else out there thinks is "wrong and disgusting". And hopefully for your sake, they don't manage to get you incarcerated & turned into a pariah for life for thinking it.
Quite the opposite-- but you're making the assumption that I oppose allowing blind people to hunt. I never said that. I have no problem with this being legal. I do think it's stupid, and probably unethical, that's not the same thing. If a blind person chooses to allow a sighted person to make this enormous of a judgment for him or her, so be it. Live with the consequences of your actions.
Most activities a person engages in expose yourself and other people to risk. Every time I get on the highway, the other drivers are subject to me making good choices with my car, and I'm dependent on them not making bad choices. Hunting is very safe (certainly, compared w/ my commute on a San Diego freeway). But with anything you do, there's risk involved, even if what you do is munch Doritos and play WoW (RSI, obesity leading to diabetes & heart failure, etc etc). If I choose to walk into the woods during deer season, I'm making a choice and exposing myself to risk. I'm depending on other hunters to use good judgment in selecting their target and not pull the trigger when I'm in their sights, or downrange of their target. I just think anyone who chooses to let another person judge the safety of their shot, when they can't check the range themselves, is dumber than a bag of hammers.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think OBL, Hezbollah, or any of the others are any different? Religion as a tool to manipulate the base goes back to the beginning.
Jeezus. That is some schweet statistical cherry picking. Not surprising at all that 25% of the FEDERAL prison pop is illegal immigrants, very few crimes that result in incarceration are federal. The vast, vast, vast majority of crimes are violations of state & local laws, and dealt with at the state level. Last week's BOP report says there are 195,248 Federal prisoners. So according to your statistics, that's ~48,000 illegal immigrants in the federal Pen. Now, the last number I can find for both state & federal is for midyear 2005, 1,259,905 people in state prisons and 179,220 in Club Fed. (Reference here). I dunno how many people in state prisons are illegal, probably lots in California and quite a few less in Idaho. But you can't say 25% of the people in prison are illegal based on statistics of the 12% of the prison population that's in the federal system, which is where being here illegally is dealt with, unless you're trying to be intentionally deceitful.
Not so hard to find, there's one living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC. Check in with him & his boss, Dick.
Thailand is an outlier, but in the Philippines you've got a non-Muslim government made up of the leftovers of a Spanish & US colonial system. The Muslims in the south were most certainly meddled with by westerners, it just happened long enough ago that most folks in the US have never heard of it. Ditto Indonesia. It amazes me that folks think France can take over Syria, England can take all of Mesopotamia, the US can grab the Philippines, and then set up arbitrary borders, paying no attention to traditional tribal and ethnic boundaries, walk away and be surprised when the people who were essentially enslaved start 1) Fighting with each other and 2) looking for a little payback.
Reuter's science writer should get the credentials revoked. Gawd, I wish I never RTFA'd the article.
"She was testing a compound called a PPAR-gamma modulator. It would never normally have been thought of as a cancer drug, or in fact a drug of any kind."
PPARg modulators are huge drugs, some of the most highly perscribed therapeutics for type II diabetes.
"Most of the drugs like Taxol affect the ability of tubulin to forms into microtubules. This doesn't do that -- it causes the tubulin itself to disappear. We do not know why."
So you dosed in enormous doses of a compound, and it killed cells. Every type of "cancer" cells they tested died. They haven't tested primary cell lines (non-cancerous cells). Nor have they tested any tox in mice. They've got no mechanism of action. WTF??? I can kill cancer cells in the lab with large doses of damn near anything. High concentration table salt will kill cancer cells. Doesn't make NaCl an anti cancer agent. Crap. Spit. I hate write ups like this.
That's a nice piece of work?? Looking at his charts, I'd be amazed if there was p0.1 significance to any of the differences, much less p0.05. Not significantly different. And sampling bias out the kazoo-- whatever differences there are in models are likely to be very different over areas with different weather and different times of the year. This would be like looking at the arrivals/departures board at your local airport, and deciding based on that which airline is most reliable.
Not to mention, the guy's inspiration for this was an unexpected storm-- but his analysis is limited to only hi and low temps???? Kind of like looking at the airport arrival/departure time board to decide which airline is most reliable in delivering luggage, isn't it? Excel will let you chart anything you want, but please don't try to pass it off as statistics.
Gawd, this is spiralling too deep ;). Sure, exons get left out of alternate splices all the time, that's how they work. But the language used in the field, by everybody I know, is if it's used in a mature mRNA it's an exon. If it gets left out to code for a related but different product of the same gene (a.k.a. an isoform) it's still an exon, just not used in that transcript's splice variant. If it gets left out of 99.99% of the transcripts for a particular gene, but one out of ten thousand edited, capped, and exported mRNAs has it there, then it's still an exon (or you screwed up your cDNA generation). If it gets transcribed, but then edited out of every mature mRNA for a particular gene, then it's an intron. If it's an exon for a different gene (say, interleaved or opposite strand), it's still an intron when referring to the original gene. And I'm not even going to get into antibody splicing, which takes all of this to the next level. But still, at the end of the day, if it ends up in a mature mRNA, either 5' non trans, ORF, 3' non trans, then it's an exon.
Certainly not every exon is used in various splice variants, but they're still exons. For a given gene, a particular transcript may only use exons 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, while another may use 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, but all seven are still referred to as exons when discussing the gene. In normal usage, at least among the people I work with, anything that ends up in any mature mRNA outside the nucleus is an exon. Everything else within a particular gene's transcript is an intron. Everything outside the transcript is neither. If I referred to, say, exon 1 of AKAP9 as an intron because it's not present in transcripts coding for isoform 2 or 3 of that gene, people would think I was silly (Admittedly, only a few people in the world would give a flying crap about exon 1 of AKAP9, but still).
I do have to admit, my pedantic response was technically incorrect-- I wasn't accounting for interleaved genes, where an intron of one gene may be a coding sequence for another gene.
Pedantic & O-T, I know. Cheers
Live theater?
I usually enjoy them more than the worthless movies vomited out by H-wood anyway.
Sucks about your Ti-89, but they're not all that bad. I bought my Ti-81 as a high-school student in 1990. Sixteen years later, in my professional job, I still use it every day.
Nope, not at all, at least in the US. The **AA's are filing civil suits, where the standard is "preponderance of evidence", i.e. the jury thinks probably, yeah, the defendant did wrong the plaintiff. BTW, in the US at least it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that standard only applies to criminal cases.
OK, I'm with you so far...
Have you ever installed & maintained a token ring network, and kept it going when idiot 1users would try to "fix" things when they had a problem? Oh god, the horror, the horror.
The right one won with that battle, IMO
Not to pressure them into pulling out, but I think it's useful to let the producers know that in my opinion, the 2007 Slamdance game award will be for "Developer least concerned about independence in game production", and that I, as an indie game fan, am a big fan of the games and producers that are pulling out of the competition on principle. If they hear that same message from a lot of their fan base, they'll understand that there's nothing to be gained from staying in the competition this year.
I don't know how long it had been sitting on the counter, but I was in there at 8:30 pm, and the place closed at either 9 or 10, not sure. So I'm guessing there's a fair chance that it didn't sell.
It seems to me that anyone who thinks Slamdance made an idiotic decision ought to be contacting the producers of the seven games left in the competition (list is at the Slamdance website, and ask them why they haven't pulled out yet. The strongest comment on this sort of behavior will be made if they have NO games left in the competition this year.
At the Kansas City Sony store (Country Club Plaza) on Dec. 26th (yes, day after Christmas). One PS3 sitting on the counter, regular list price. Store full of people looking at TVs and cameras, etc, nobody so much as looked at the box while I was there.
Encouraged to look for a ... "cure to cancer"?-- that's my job. Whenever people drag out this tired old horse of "pharma's looking for ongoing treatments, not cures", they are ignoring one of the largest segments of our work, in oncology, where a cure is the ONLY objective. And by the way, saying "cure to cancer" is kind of like saying "cure to viruses". It's a meaningless phrase, there are hundreds of types of cancer, and each is as different from each other as influenza is from rabies.
I don't get to say, today I want to study this, that would be idiotic. Projects take ten years from inception to market, and during that time hundreds of people will work on it. One person simply cannot, with any reasonable chance of success, set out to make a new treatment. So, I have to convince the investing public, that is, their board of directors and the management that they've chosen to put in place, that if they give me $750,000,000 to spend, that there is a likely chance that they will get that money back. And maybe, if they're lucky, even a return on their investment.
Pharmaceuticals is just like any other business-- money losers go bankrupt, money makers make money and stay in business. Only problem is, you have to spend 3/4 of a billion dollars to make a new product, and then you only get to generate revenues from that product for a handful of years, before any one else who wants to can copy you intellectual property at no cost, and sell it at manufacturing cost to consumers. The fact that our government has set up a system that makes a new drug such a high stakes gamble is, directly, the reason why the focus is on blockbusters to treat old and fat people, rather than the really important things.
Did you know that virtually all pharmas have essentially halted antibiotic research? The few programs that are left are more for PR than for any hope of actually producing a drug. Multi-drug resistant bacteria are a national security threat that makes the terrorists look like a bunch of whiney bitches, and the bugs are only getting better. And yet we're doing nothing about it, because under the current system a company cannot hope to recoup the up-front costs of producing a new anti-infective. If a company starts a major program, the investors will realize they're going to lose money, and the stock will go down. Lawsuits against the managment for failing to serve their fiduciary duty to the shareholders wouldn't be out of the question. Hate the way drug companies are working, and wish they'd do stuff more in line with what the public needs? Get your government to fix the patent system, the fact that the US consumers subsidize all of Europe's drug costs, the marketing, etc etc.
Dude, I do get it. You seem to misunderstand how copyright & licenses work. The samba team definitly owns the license, and they released a version with a license that says that anyone can copy it and reproduce it and change it, as long as they release whatever changes to the code they make. In doing so, they lost the ability to retroactively go back and say, "I take it back, that's not free anymore".
Any NEW versions they release, they can release under whatever license they want. But they can't retroactively go back and undo the GPL'ing of their earlier code. If you could retroactively un-GPL code, I can guarantee a huge number of minor projects, that became successful, would have been un-GPL'd by their authors and be commercial software today. New version, whatever license you want, but once it's been released under the GPL license, you can't go back & undo that.
Except that if the team wants to continue to use the GPL, the FSF doesn't allow modification of the wording of the GPL license, which is what they'd have to do. Inserting a clause like, "All of the above doesn't apply to MS or Novell, they are teh sux and they can't use it" would put the team in violation of the FSF's copyright on the license itself.
Oh yeah, and MS/Novell could just fork off of a version that's already out there. The Samba team controls the copyright, but they've already released versions under the GPL. They can't pull that back in, it's already out and specifically says MS/Novell along w/ everyone else can use and abuse it, as long as they comply w/ the license. One of the "problems" w/ the GPL, that's "fixed" in v3.
I am so ridiculously tired of hearing this absolute BULLSHIT. I'm a researcher at a pharmaceutical company. Most of the conditions we're trying to make drugs to already have a cure: Put down the cheeseburger, put down the mountain dew, get your fat lazy ass off of the couch and get the fuck outside and walk around a little. There is no cure for a retard eating 4000 calories per day with 15g of saturated fat-- you are going to get type II diabetes and atherosclerosis. That's how your body works. And the way the biochemistry works, THERE IS NO CURE. The systems are working exactly the way they're supposed to. Problem is, they've evolved to store fat during the rare times of plenty, and then dole that out during lean times.
If I could come up w/ a cure, you can bet we would make it. See, we have competitors. Who make a lot of money. If we could make a quick & easy cure, we'd make it, make a ton of cash, and move on. As an example in the last couple of years, Merck made their HPV vaccine to PREVENT cervical cancer. One time, cheap shot, and they've lost a potential cancer patient. Of course, it took forever to get to market because the Republicans think that preventing HPV infection will cause teenage girls to become whores. If you want to look for the reasons our health care system is so fucked up, I suggest that you follow not only the money, but the ideaology.
The FCC is an independent agency that answers to Congress, not the president.
Wow, thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest thing I've read all day.
FWIW, the commissioners are appointed by the President, and then confirmed by congresscritters. 3/2 split by political party.
Source? The FCC website The congressional oversight is a joke.
Unless your choice agrees with the majority, in which case it is beneficial for you to be dishonest and disagree.
;)
In other words, in the listed example, say you wanted Chinese. It's apparent that Chinese is going to win, so it's in your best interest to bid, say , 50p for Italian. In the end, you end up getting the Chinese dinner you wanted, and you managed to extract 50p for the privilege, rather than paying a small amount that you would if you had been honest in your desire to get Chinese.
Like many such systems, these things only work if everyone is utterly honest. And thus have no relationship whatsoever to the real world
Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes[sic] its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child.
Unless you care to provide a source for this "fact" other than your ass, I'm curious why I should "face it". I could argue the opposite, allowing someone who feels such tendencies to view totally computer generated images could reduce the likelihood that they will engage in such behavior in a manner that actually harms a kid. But the honest truth is, I can't pull up any solid, peer-reviewed data to support my point, so I'm not going to insist that you acquiesce to it. And I'd appreciate the same.
Whether it is real or computer generated material, it is wrong, it is disgusting...
Well, "wrong" is a particularly nebulous term, and disgusting is a matter of personal preference. I'd be willing to bet, if I sorted through your material possessions, I'd find something that I would consider "wrong and disgusting". Hell, half of my friend's refrigerators in college contained things I would deem "wrong and disgusting". Ought those things be illegal solely because of my feelings towards them? Of course not. Now, if in the process of creating this supposed wrong and disgusting thing, a person victimizes another, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
I would even be curious to see if since the internet becoming main stream if cases of child molestation have increased due to it making this type of material more readily available.
Historically speaking? Almost certainly not. I refer you to the works of Socrates & friends. Or South America, where the age of consent runs from 15 in Uruguay down to 13 in Argentina. What we, today, would term child molestation was mainstream at times in history & in other parts of the world.
I'd be very careful about advocating laws against thought crimes-- I'd bet good money there's something in your head that somebody else out there thinks is "wrong and disgusting". And hopefully for your sake, they don't manage to get you incarcerated & turned into a pariah for life for thinking it.
Quite the opposite-- but you're making the assumption that I oppose allowing blind people to hunt. I never said that. I have no problem with this being legal. I do think it's stupid, and probably unethical, that's not the same thing. If a blind person chooses to allow a sighted person to make this enormous of a judgment for him or her, so be it. Live with the consequences of your actions.
Most activities a person engages in expose yourself and other people to risk. Every time I get on the highway, the other drivers are subject to me making good choices with my car, and I'm dependent on them not making bad choices. Hunting is very safe (certainly, compared w/ my commute on a San Diego freeway). But with anything you do, there's risk involved, even if what you do is munch Doritos and play WoW (RSI, obesity leading to diabetes & heart failure, etc etc). If I choose to walk into the woods during deer season, I'm making a choice and exposing myself to risk. I'm depending on other hunters to use good judgment in selecting their target and not pull the trigger when I'm in their sights, or downrange of their target. I just think anyone who chooses to let another person judge the safety of their shot, when they can't check the range themselves, is dumber than a bag of hammers.