This is a rather old news article that has been reported multiple times. Why is it suddenly "news" again when someone discover it works on the iPhone?
I might be just speaking for myself, but I think there's value in re-reporting certain stories. It may bore those few experts who follow such news closely and remember everything, but I for one didn't know that this could happen and I suspect only about 1% of cell phone owners do.
It would be nice if news outlets would rehash stories from time to time. Important ones anyway, they -LOVE- to rehash sex scandals. Reminding US voters that there's still an expensive and deadly war going on... not so much.
What's the point of breaking articles up on multiple pages anyway? Simply more ads? Slightly less bandwidth for people who only read the first part? To accomodate some browser that for some reason doesn't have scroll buttons? Pagan ritual of some type?
Give me a phone which will self destruct if someone tries to tamper with the security.
Call me crazy, but I wouldn't want to carry around explosives near my ear or crotch. My phone crashes enough, I'd prefer it not have the option of crashing then burning my nuts off.
Why stop there? Why leave your house in the first place? If you go outside, you're just -asking- for your organs to get sold on the black market. And having a computer is just begging someone to steal your identity and infect you with computer viruses.
Alright, that's a hyperbole, but my point is that a lot of people actually like facebook. Deleting information like your home address and phone number is an easy step, and then they'll still be able to use it.
Organized crime falling back on their violent nature maybe. If someone is so immoral that they'd make malware, is it that hard to believe they'd be so immoral as to kidnap or murder the guy, or hire someone to do it for them?
You're making a semantic argument or what? Because I'd argue that there is a big difference between "Uninfected lifespan: indefinite" to "Infected lifespan: finite." At least, to the infected person. To argue "Everyone is going to die, so if it's not immediate it doesn't matter" is idiotic.
It's the same thing that happened to that other guy who made the discovery of 'Watson's Double Helix of DNA'. Eventually, history just decides that having more than one person be responsible for any given thing is too complicated for kids to remember.
What you're talking about is fame, not history. Watson may be the most famous (partially owing to his ill-advised comments regarding race and intelligence), but history does remember Crick, Maurice Wilkins, and Rosalind Franklin. Just look at, what else, the wiki page.
One could argue that history will somewhat balance out the fame situation, which seems unfair. Franklin, having died at 37, wasn't given much credit at the time and also didn't get a Nobel. She seems saintly compared to the other three, due to the controversy over using her data without giving her credit (and Watson even maligning her posthumously in his book) even before you take into account Watson's recent behavior.
He's being tagged as a conservative because it was a Democrat that was shot. Would the tables be turned if it was a Republican? Would we assume the shooter was a liberal? Doubtful.
You're right that it's not fair to put him in the conservative camp. Conservatives are shocked at this too. That said, it's not quite as simple as you're making it out to be. He did what many tea partiers are saying they'll do: shot an elected official. He seemed to be upset about healthcare reform. He used a gun. He shot a democrat who Palin happened to "target." All circumstantial obviously, and I could be wrong, but I suspect he would identify himself as a conservative or tea partier.
The bigger issue though is: so what? So he (might be) a conservative? It doesn't change anything about his actions, nor does it reflect badly on all the other millions of conservatives who haven't murdered innocent people. You could make the case that a small minority of conservative talking heads are being irresponsible with their words, inciting violence, sure, but it's not a stain on all conservatives like some are quick to call it.
Obviously all Muslims weren't to blame for 9/11, all Christians weren't to blame for the crusades, and the rest of us liberals aren't responsible for whatever idiotic things hollywood liberals say. If he was a conservative, that only means that his muddled brain used politics as a backdrop for his violent delusions. Could have easily been liberal politics, religion, or baseball and still resulted in violence.
You must be new here. Karma whores responding to someone's insightful post by making basically the same point only shorter accounts for half the "+5" posts around here.
Er, uh, I mean, "I believe GP made the same point as GGP."
It would be nice if the "redundant" mod were used for something other than "I disagree."
Human beings are generally upright except for periods of sleep, when still not upside down - so gravity may play some role. However, within amniotic fluid, the effects of weight are presumably greatly reduced, and also babies do develop in a number of orientations themselves (breech vs. regular birth) so maybe not.
That was sort of the point I was making: since the orientation changes both with the mother (laying down vs standing up) and the embryo (they move around in the womb up to birth) I wouldn't expect gravity to play a direct role in any signaling events etc.
You have a good point about stress responses though.
Anyway, I'd be more worried about the danger of having quail breed on a spacecraft - how do you prevent our former Vice President from shooting the astronauts in the face when quail are present?
Easy: threaten him with cholesterol.
Joking aside, the whole reason quail were used was because they're easier to store up until they hatch. Just keep them in a warm, humid box and that's it, no need to feed them as would be the case with a mouse. The breeding was done on the ground.
There have been some amusing studies on quail and development in microgravity. It was hypothesized that gravity might be necessary for proper development. I haven't read any papers on it, but I've heard the embryos seemed pretty normal. Suggests that human embryos might develop normally too.
Not entirely surprising. Embryos and their mothers or eggs carrying them can be oriented any way with no obvious defects in development. I mean, I'm guessing not many pregnant women will want to stand on their heads for a long time to determine if there would be problems in space, but my point is there doesn't seem to be a "right" up and down orientation, which you might expect if gravity were playing a role in development.
Same goes for conception. There are plenty of urban legends about conception and sex position, but if gravity were essential for conception, I'd expect we'd know which way it had to be pulling for conception to happen. If, for example, you had to be laying down for sperm to know which direction to swim, you'd think it would be common knowledge that if you remain standing after sex, you won't get pregnant. That doesn't seem to be the case, and it's hard for me to imagine how gravity could be essential to conception but -wouldn't- need to have a specific orientation to contribute.
Correct. If you're too lazy to bother explaining what a fairly obscure term is in your post, you may as well not use it because I'm going to be too lazy to google it.
It could just be a trend in playboy. I've heard they shifted away from girls who looked "next door" to more glamorous. Or was it the other way around? I can't remember, don't care enough to google it at work. And no playboy models, past or present, looked like girls who ever lived next door to me.
How about you clarify yourself as to what that is. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2? Monastrol sensitivity? Whether or not you can feel a lump while in the shower?
I am wondering if there might be some way we can use lightning to launch spacecraft or other vehicles/matter into orbit?
I think it would probably be inefficient to delay a launch until there happened to be a thunderstorm over the lightning rods/space shuttle. Plus, while I'm not a rocket scientist, nor do I work at NASA, it seems to me like there might be issues with launching in a thunderstorm.
and pundits will undoubtedly view any future advances BP makes in ecological technologies as "trying to make up for Deepwater", despite their history in working to that goal.
I consider myself open minded, but I have a hard time thinking of a petroleum company as legitimately green. I'd be willing to believe they were the most serious about greenwashing... oh, and hey, that wiki article happens to mention BP spent 200 million on an -advertising- campaign to bill themselves as greener, winning a "Greenwash Academy Award" in the process.
I'd say it's actually naive to say that pundits will write any future "advances" from BP off as trying to make up for deepwater. I certainly hope they do. After all, they have a f***ing lot to make up for. I'd admire BP slightly if they came out and explicitly said "We're trying to make up for the damage we've done."
Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Legion are competing for your business, and you think that you might win?
Lucifer and Beelzebub are usually used as two names for the same devil, and Legion is a demon who would probably be said to work for the devil, so that's not a great metaphor for AT&T and Verizon who do theoretically have an interest in bringing down the other guy.
A better metaphor would be Republicans and Democrats. There are real (though minor) differences, and they do really hate each other, but they'll each screw you over more than each other, and both really drag their heels to actually offer you something better than the other one.
The congresswoman supports gun rights according to wikipedia but earned a "D+" from the NRA. I don't think guns should be banned either, but I think we clearly don't have enough control on them given how much gun violence there is compared to other first world countries.
If the NRA labeled me an enemy of gun rights and then I got shot, that might change my views on whether or not we should ban guns.
Call me crazy, but I think we need to start having psychological evaluations for people seeking to buy firearms. If you want a handgun, okay, but you'll have to convince someone that you're sane enough not to use it except in self defense first. I think we can all agree that crazy people should not have guns. I'm dubious that the founding fathers would have been so convinced of the right to bear arms if they knew exactly what arms we'd develop in the future, but I'm positive they would not have suggested that the right to bear arms extends to people who aren't right in the head.
I think that would be a fair compromise as opposed to banning all guns.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a rather old news article that has been reported multiple times. Why is it suddenly "news" again when someone discover it works on the iPhone?
I might be just speaking for myself, but I think there's value in re-reporting certain stories. It may bore those few experts who follow such news closely and remember everything, but I for one didn't know that this could happen and I suspect only about 1% of cell phone owners do.
It would be nice if news outlets would rehash stories from time to time. Important ones anyway, they -LOVE- to rehash sex scandals. Reminding US voters that there's still an expensive and deadly war going on... not so much.
Aren't people animals?
Most sadly are not animals in bed. At least not the ones I've been with.
I think GP's example question maybe was supposed to be "barnyard animals."
So NASA Godwinned itself right from the start?
What's the point of breaking articles up on multiple pages anyway? Simply more ads? Slightly less bandwidth for people who only read the first part? To accomodate some browser that for some reason doesn't have scroll buttons? Pagan ritual of some type?
Give me a phone which will self destruct if someone tries to tamper with the security.
Call me crazy, but I wouldn't want to carry around explosives near my ear or crotch. My phone crashes enough, I'd prefer it not have the option of crashing then burning my nuts off.
I'm sure the next step will be medical records, legal records or naked pictures.
Ah, so you've gotten a preview of the "Facebook doctor, lawyer, and glamor photography" apps.
Why stop there? Why leave your house in the first place? If you go outside, you're just -asking- for your organs to get sold on the black market. And having a computer is just begging someone to steal your identity and infect you with computer viruses.
Alright, that's a hyperbole, but my point is that a lot of people actually like facebook. Deleting information like your home address and phone number is an easy step, and then they'll still be able to use it.
Organized crime falling back on their violent nature maybe. If someone is so immoral that they'd make malware, is it that hard to believe they'd be so immoral as to kidnap or murder the guy, or hire someone to do it for them?
Similar things may have happened before.
You're making a semantic argument or what? Because I'd argue that there is a big difference between "Uninfected lifespan: indefinite" to "Infected lifespan: finite." At least, to the infected person. To argue "Everyone is going to die, so if it's not immediate it doesn't matter" is idiotic.
It's the same thing that happened to that other guy who made the discovery of 'Watson's Double Helix of DNA'.
Eventually, history just decides that having more than one person be responsible for any given thing is too complicated for kids to remember.
What you're talking about is fame, not history. Watson may be the most famous (partially owing to his ill-advised comments regarding race and intelligence), but history does remember Crick, Maurice Wilkins, and Rosalind Franklin. Just look at, what else, the wiki page.
One could argue that history will somewhat balance out the fame situation, which seems unfair. Franklin, having died at 37, wasn't given much credit at the time and also didn't get a Nobel. She seems saintly compared to the other three, due to the controversy over using her data without giving her credit (and Watson even maligning her posthumously in his book) even before you take into account Watson's recent behavior.
REAL enterprises use subspace transmissions.
He's being tagged as a conservative because it was a Democrat that was shot. Would the tables be turned if it was a Republican? Would we assume the shooter was a liberal? Doubtful.
You're right that it's not fair to put him in the conservative camp. Conservatives are shocked at this too. That said, it's not quite as simple as you're making it out to be. He did what many tea partiers are saying they'll do: shot an elected official. He seemed to be upset about healthcare reform. He used a gun. He shot a democrat who Palin happened to "target." All circumstantial obviously, and I could be wrong, but I suspect he would identify himself as a conservative or tea partier.
The bigger issue though is: so what? So he (might be) a conservative? It doesn't change anything about his actions, nor does it reflect badly on all the other millions of conservatives who haven't murdered innocent people. You could make the case that a small minority of conservative talking heads are being irresponsible with their words, inciting violence, sure, but it's not a stain on all conservatives like some are quick to call it.
Obviously all Muslims weren't to blame for 9/11, all Christians weren't to blame for the crusades, and the rest of us liberals aren't responsible for whatever idiotic things hollywood liberals say. If he was a conservative, that only means that his muddled brain used politics as a backdrop for his violent delusions. Could have easily been liberal politics, religion, or baseball and still resulted in violence.
You must be new here. Karma whores responding to someone's insightful post by making basically the same point only shorter accounts for half the "+5" posts around here.
Er, uh, I mean, "I believe GP made the same point as GGP."
It would be nice if the "redundant" mod were used for something other than "I disagree."
Human beings are generally upright except for periods of sleep, when still not upside down - so gravity may play some role. However, within amniotic fluid, the effects of weight are presumably greatly reduced, and also babies do develop in a number of orientations themselves (breech vs. regular birth) so maybe not.
That was sort of the point I was making: since the orientation changes both with the mother (laying down vs standing up) and the embryo (they move around in the womb up to birth) I wouldn't expect gravity to play a direct role in any signaling events etc.
You have a good point about stress responses though.
Anyway, I'd be more worried about the danger of having quail breed on a spacecraft - how do you prevent our former Vice President from shooting the astronauts in the face when quail are present?
Easy: threaten him with cholesterol.
Joking aside, the whole reason quail were used was because they're easier to store up until they hatch. Just keep them in a warm, humid box and that's it, no need to feed them as would be the case with a mouse. The breeding was done on the ground.
There have been some amusing studies on quail and development in microgravity. It was hypothesized that gravity might be necessary for proper development. I haven't read any papers on it, but I've heard the embryos seemed pretty normal. Suggests that human embryos might develop normally too.
Not entirely surprising. Embryos and their mothers or eggs carrying them can be oriented any way with no obvious defects in development. I mean, I'm guessing not many pregnant women will want to stand on their heads for a long time to determine if there would be problems in space, but my point is there doesn't seem to be a "right" up and down orientation, which you might expect if gravity were playing a role in development.
Same goes for conception. There are plenty of urban legends about conception and sex position, but if gravity were essential for conception, I'd expect we'd know which way it had to be pulling for conception to happen. If, for example, you had to be laying down for sperm to know which direction to swim, you'd think it would be common knowledge that if you remain standing after sex, you won't get pregnant. That doesn't seem to be the case, and it's hard for me to imagine how gravity could be essential to conception but -wouldn't- need to have a specific orientation to contribute.
Correct. If you're too lazy to bother explaining what a fairly obscure term is in your post, you may as well not use it because I'm going to be too lazy to google it.
It could just be a trend in playboy. I've heard they shifted away from girls who looked "next door" to more glamorous. Or was it the other way around? I can't remember, don't care enough to google it at work. And no playboy models, past or present, looked like girls who ever lived next door to me.
How about you clarify yourself as to what that is. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2? Monastrol sensitivity? Whether or not you can feel a lump while in the shower?
I am wondering if there might be some way we can use lightning to launch spacecraft or other vehicles/matter into orbit?
I think it would probably be inefficient to delay a launch until there happened to be a thunderstorm over the lightning rods/space shuttle. Plus, while I'm not a rocket scientist, nor do I work at NASA, it seems to me like there might be issues with launching in a thunderstorm.
Which you then house in a larger antimatter shoe box and put it under your antimatter bed in your antimatter house.
... to clarify, by "that wiki article" I meant this wiki article on greenwashing.
and pundits will undoubtedly view any future advances BP makes in ecological technologies as "trying to make up for Deepwater", despite their history in working to that goal.
I consider myself open minded, but I have a hard time thinking of a petroleum company as legitimately green. I'd be willing to believe they were the most serious about greenwashing... oh, and hey, that wiki article happens to mention BP spent 200 million on an -advertising- campaign to bill themselves as greener, winning a "Greenwash Academy Award" in the process.
I'd say it's actually naive to say that pundits will write any future "advances" from BP off as trying to make up for deepwater. I certainly hope they do. After all, they have a f***ing lot to make up for. I'd admire BP slightly if they came out and explicitly said "We're trying to make up for the damage we've done."
When you are squabbling about a minor speed decrease, over 4 cores to read your email, its pretty irrelevant.
Not true, some of my family members have bloated their e-mails to keep pace with Moore's law.
"Wow, my new computer can handle 200 animated gifs of kitties at a time!!! [loads up outlook]"
Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Legion are competing for your business, and you think that you might win?
Lucifer and Beelzebub are usually used as two names for the same devil, and Legion is a demon who would probably be said to work for the devil, so that's not a great metaphor for AT&T and Verizon who do theoretically have an interest in bringing down the other guy.
A better metaphor would be Republicans and Democrats. There are real (though minor) differences, and they do really hate each other, but they'll each screw you over more than each other, and both really drag their heels to actually offer you something better than the other one.
The congresswoman supports gun rights according to wikipedia but earned a "D+" from the NRA. I don't think guns should be banned either, but I think we clearly don't have enough control on them given how much gun violence there is compared to other first world countries.
If the NRA labeled me an enemy of gun rights and then I got shot, that might change my views on whether or not we should ban guns.
The suspect appears to have been delusional for some time. Yet he was apparently able to buy a gun.
Call me crazy, but I think we need to start having psychological evaluations for people seeking to buy firearms. If you want a handgun, okay, but you'll have to convince someone that you're sane enough not to use it except in self defense first. I think we can all agree that crazy people should not have guns. I'm dubious that the founding fathers would have been so convinced of the right to bear arms if they knew exactly what arms we'd develop in the future, but I'm positive they would not have suggested that the right to bear arms extends to people who aren't right in the head.
I think that would be a fair compromise as opposed to banning all guns.