So we're supposed to pretend that the republican controlled house will suddenly stop trying to kill anything Obama does? There's unbiased and then there's naive.
With the general public yes, even though they've never heard of the phone. It might be popular with hillbillies I guess. "Yall" would be a better name.
Some might say that is the ominous scenario that those in the music game business would be fearing. If this move makes you fear for your job, knowing its because they've run that well dry isn't the comfort, that's the fear.
Make a product whose official name is the latest comment on youtube. Automate it so every time someone submits a youtube comment, that youtube comment, which is the name of your product, gets forwarded to the government e-mail address/ website. It might be kind of fast, so you might want to set up a bunch of machines to each send the new name change in.
Similar numbers were/are convinced that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.
Wikipedia tells me that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain took 98.6% of the votes.
I think we agree that most people are fools, but then you hold their opinions up as a reason why healthcare reform and the bailout were bad? Interesting.
Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.
No, but this is politics we're talking about. Less corruption is better, but it's always going to be there. If you think your government is completely corruption free, that just means that they're really good at it. At least this lie didn't involve us getting into a war and didn't involve large amounts of tax dollars going to corporations. GGP suggesting that just because this politician was lying, that means he's no better than that other lying politician is naive at best.
This time it wasn't the white house changing reports in support of industry. That's a somewhat refreshing change... or would be if the effect of the report was something more than uniting the oil lobby and republican partisans. And I suspect that unlike the the last administration's report diddling, I get the feeling that this is actually going to backfire on the current administration. That's change.
Democrats: we may not be any more honest, but we screw up so spectacularly when we lie that it's -almost- like we're more honest.
So yeah, if you believe that the government can create that good of a cover story with that much independent evidence in a 36 hour period, well, you have more faith in government agencies than I do.
Alternatively, you consider that the government is -so- incompetent that they scheduled a secret missile test right when there would be a plane scheduled to fly along that same trajectory. The missile actually failed to get off the ground, and it just took the government 36 hours to realize it never left and they too were actually looking at a plane.
After dealing with the DMV, I consider this the most likely explanation.
No, they glued pop rocks to a cluster of mentos and put it into a keg of diet coke. I know because I started that myth specifically to see it tested on mythbusters and see if it could start some type of "99 red balloons" scenario.
Right, because a lumpy plastic copy of an item is just as good as the real thing....
In some cases, yes, it is. Literally. Kids toys for one. I don't expect Mattel to say "Welp, we had a good run" and retire when you can print out a Barbie Doll for almost free.
Disney and McDonalds will team up to hire assassins to kill off the manufacturers of 3d printers the first time one of their Disney movie themed happy meal toys are cloned.
I was very disappointed that Minerva's Den DLC was not coming for PC... And, as for DLC done right, one only has to look at Valve and everything they've done for TF2, L4D, and L4D2. And, they release it for free!
Don't feel so bad, the free DLC was only free on the PC.
DLC can be good for experimental game ideas. Most of the fallout 3 DLC took place in different settings than the main game, there were some interesting ideas in there. Some were utter failures, mothership zeta was terrible. On the other hand, point lookout was great, and most of my favorite fallout 3 experiences were from that.
Obsidian loses points though for making the end of the game contained in a DLC. I don't know if they had the original ending and decided they could do better (which would be more legitimate) or if they decided they'd be losing money to put all that content in one game (less respectable) or if they decided they could squeeze more out of us by breaking it up (woudn't put it past them).
However it happened, it was a good game and I didn't think twice about buying New Vegas.
I disagree with that broad statement. If I'm interested in the DLC, I probably felt like the game itself had good value. If I didn't thoroughly enjoy a game, I'm not going to be paying them any more money. What's a "complete" game anyway? I'd rather play a good short game than a tedious long one.
Furthermore, if DLC comes out months after a game is released, it indicates the devs didn't just decide to withhold content for a premium. And I can understand being in a situation like "We have this interesting side story to develop, but that would push back the release date a few months." I'd rather have that option to extend the game if I'm enjoying it.
aren't there some kinds of mushrooms and other flora that glow in the dark?
Yeah, but they're not quite as ubiquitous along paths you'd like to light up as -trees- are. They also don't seem to be bright enough.
Why not just splice that plant with a tree
There's the issue of releasing genetically engineered organisms into the environment. If they were spending significant amounts of energy glowing at night, they might not grow as well as normal trees, if you spliced something in to make them artificially competitive you'd worry about that leaking out into other plants.
2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.
I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.
Really uber scary actually. Not only would such a secret organization powerful and crafty enough to smuggle a missile into the US to launch it, but they'd be crazy enough to sneak a missile into the US. I mean, I'd be intimidated enough by just launching an empty missile at the US, since that's what I'd be really worried about. Launching a missile -from- the US? Why would you even do that? To cause Russia to launch their nukes and cause mutually assured destruction? That wouldn't be good for anyone.
... except space aliens and people who -really- are liking fallout new vegas.
Scientists sometimes use "dogma" in a sarcastic manner. As others have pointed out, this dogma is not so much a "universal rule" as it is "a general guideline with more exceptions than you can shake a stick at."
Stephen Jay Gould talked about the dogma of gradualism. To hear him tell it, evolutionary biologists were telling the fossils that, no, they couldn't possibly be identical to their ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years prior, they had to have made some mistake in where their bones became buried, that this mollusk in sediment ten million years old was the same age as this mollusk in sediment that was 9 million years old, because they were too similar looking and didn't show gradual signs of evolving. Now the currently held theory is that evolution happens rapidly at the beginning of a specie's existence and then they don't change for very long periods of time. I suspect that the evolutionary biologists who were gradualists wouldn't have defended their views as dogma.
Similarly, creationists are always trying to call evolutionary theory a dogma and say it's more religion than science, the scientists themselves laugh at that suggestion (or consider moving to another country.)
Anyway, yes, dogma is not a commonly used term to describe one's own scientific views, and every time I've heard of the "central dogma of molecular biology" it's been followed by examples of how that dogma is wrong in many cases. I'm wondering if anyone ever used that term before those exceptions were found.
As others have noted, it's apparently not random, but bigger exceptions to the central dogma have been known for decades. I was thinking that the whole title of "central dogma" was an ironic title that we've played up more (though I have no idea the history of the term.) Retroviruses were a huge violation of the rules, going from RNA into DNA. It seems to me like micro RNAs regulating translation of mRNA into protein diddles the rules a bit as well. The "dogma" as described here ("DNA letters encode information, and RNA is made in DNA's likeness. The RNA then serves as a template to build proteins") also seems to be shot to hell with RNA splicing, introns are cut out of the message, often in a variety of different patterns.
Proclaiming that central dogma has been broken seems a bit like saying we discovered a new land called "America" yesterday. The actual abstract makes no such headline grabbing claims.
Slashdot Mirror
So we're supposed to pretend that the republican controlled house will suddenly stop trying to kill anything Obama does? There's unbiased and then there's naive.
With the general public yes, even though they've never heard of the phone. It might be popular with hillbillies I guess. "Yall" would be a better name.
Some might say that is the ominous scenario that those in the music game business would be fearing. If this move makes you fear for your job, knowing its because they've run that well dry isn't the comfort, that's the fear.
Make a product whose official name is the latest comment on youtube. Automate it so every time someone submits a youtube comment, that youtube comment, which is the name of your product, gets forwarded to the government e-mail address/ website. It might be kind of fast, so you might want to set up a bunch of machines to each send the new name change in.
Now who do you suppose wants higher oil prices?
You're suggesting Obama had the moratorium to please OPEC? Because -our- oil industry seems frothing mad about it.
You've got a point there, but I don't think the majority who didn't vote can safely be put into the "not fools" category.
...despite 70% opposition by Americans
Similar numbers were/are convinced that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
Only a fool trusts either of these two parties.
Wikipedia tells me that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain took 98.6% of the votes.
I think we agree that most people are fools, but then you hold their opinions up as a reason why healthcare reform and the bailout were bad? Interesting.
Because its forgivable when the Presidential administration lies and decieves you so long as the last administration had bigger lies and deceptions.
No, but this is politics we're talking about. Less corruption is better, but it's always going to be there. If you think your government is completely corruption free, that just means that they're really good at it. At least this lie didn't involve us getting into a war and didn't involve large amounts of tax dollars going to corporations. GGP suggesting that just because this politician was lying, that means he's no better than that other lying politician is naive at best.
This time it wasn't the white house changing reports in support of industry. That's a somewhat refreshing change... or would be if the effect of the report was something more than uniting the oil lobby and republican partisans. And I suspect that unlike the the last administration's report diddling, I get the feeling that this is actually going to backfire on the current administration. That's change.
Democrats: we may not be any more honest, but we screw up so spectacularly when we lie that it's -almost- like we're more honest.
I don't think "handheld camera" qualifies as "all our technology."
So yeah, if you believe that the government can create that good of a cover story with that much independent evidence in a 36 hour period, well, you have more faith in government agencies than I do.
Alternatively, you consider that the government is -so- incompetent that they scheduled a secret missile test right when there would be a plane scheduled to fly along that same trajectory. The missile actually failed to get off the ground, and it just took the government 36 hours to realize it never left and they too were actually looking at a plane.
After dealing with the DMV, I consider this the most likely explanation.
No, they glued pop rocks to a cluster of mentos and put it into a keg of diet coke. I know because I started that myth specifically to see it tested on mythbusters and see if it could start some type of "99 red balloons" scenario.
Right, because a lumpy plastic copy of an item is just as good as the real thing....
In some cases, yes, it is. Literally. Kids toys for one. I don't expect Mattel to say "Welp, we had a good run" and retire when you can print out a Barbie Doll for almost free.
Disney and McDonalds will team up to hire assassins to kill off the manufacturers of 3d printers the first time one of their Disney movie themed happy meal toys are cloned.
True, but any review is better than none. Metacritic is probably okay.
I was very disappointed that Minerva's Den DLC was not coming for PC... And, as for DLC done right, one only has to look at Valve and everything they've done for TF2, L4D, and L4D2. And, they release it for free!
Don't feel so bad, the free DLC was only free on the PC.
Yes, the way to stop bad DLC is the same way to stop bad regular games: read a damn review before you decide to buy.
DLC can be good for experimental game ideas. Most of the fallout 3 DLC took place in different settings than the main game, there were some interesting ideas in there. Some were utter failures, mothership zeta was terrible. On the other hand, point lookout was great, and most of my favorite fallout 3 experiences were from that.
Obsidian loses points though for making the end of the game contained in a DLC. I don't know if they had the original ending and decided they could do better (which would be more legitimate) or if they decided they'd be losing money to put all that content in one game (less respectable) or if they decided they could squeeze more out of us by breaking it up (woudn't put it past them).
However it happened, it was a good game and I didn't think twice about buying New Vegas.
I disagree with that broad statement. If I'm interested in the DLC, I probably felt like the game itself had good value. If I didn't thoroughly enjoy a game, I'm not going to be paying them any more money. What's a "complete" game anyway? I'd rather play a good short game than a tedious long one.
Furthermore, if DLC comes out months after a game is released, it indicates the devs didn't just decide to withhold content for a premium. And I can understand being in a situation like "We have this interesting side story to develop, but that would push back the release date a few months." I'd rather have that option to extend the game if I'm enjoying it.
aren't there some kinds of mushrooms and other flora that glow in the dark?
Yeah, but they're not quite as ubiquitous along paths you'd like to light up as -trees- are. They also don't seem to be bright enough.
Why not just splice that plant with a tree
There's the issue of releasing genetically engineered organisms into the environment. If they were spending significant amounts of energy glowing at night, they might not grow as well as normal trees, if you spliced something in to make them artificially competitive you'd worry about that leaking out into other plants.
Feh, good luck on finding them. We only have like 2 million of them.
You got a license and registration for that? Has it been smogged? Hefty fines man. You must not be from California.
2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.
I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.
Really uber scary actually. Not only would such a secret organization powerful and crafty enough to smuggle a missile into the US to launch it, but they'd be crazy enough to sneak a missile into the US. I mean, I'd be intimidated enough by just launching an empty missile at the US, since that's what I'd be really worried about. Launching a missile -from- the US? Why would you even do that? To cause Russia to launch their nukes and cause mutually assured destruction? That wouldn't be good for anyone.
I don't know, but I do know that we can be sure that transistors are not people. Hard drives though are another story. CAVIAR GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!
Scientists sometimes use "dogma" in a sarcastic manner. As others have pointed out, this dogma is not so much a "universal rule" as it is "a general guideline with more exceptions than you can shake a stick at."
Stephen Jay Gould talked about the dogma of gradualism. To hear him tell it, evolutionary biologists were telling the fossils that, no, they couldn't possibly be identical to their ancestors from hundreds of thousands of years prior, they had to have made some mistake in where their bones became buried, that this mollusk in sediment ten million years old was the same age as this mollusk in sediment that was 9 million years old, because they were too similar looking and didn't show gradual signs of evolving. Now the currently held theory is that evolution happens rapidly at the beginning of a specie's existence and then they don't change for very long periods of time. I suspect that the evolutionary biologists who were gradualists wouldn't have defended their views as dogma.
Similarly, creationists are always trying to call evolutionary theory a dogma and say it's more religion than science, the scientists themselves laugh at that suggestion (or consider moving to another country.)
Anyway, yes, dogma is not a commonly used term to describe one's own scientific views, and every time I've heard of the "central dogma of molecular biology" it's been followed by examples of how that dogma is wrong in many cases. I'm wondering if anyone ever used that term before those exceptions were found.
As others have noted, it's apparently not random, but bigger exceptions to the central dogma have been known for decades. I was thinking that the whole title of "central dogma" was an ironic title that we've played up more (though I have no idea the history of the term.) Retroviruses were a huge violation of the rules, going from RNA into DNA. It seems to me like micro RNAs regulating translation of mRNA into protein diddles the rules a bit as well. The "dogma" as described here ("DNA letters encode information, and RNA is made in DNA's likeness. The RNA then serves as a template to build proteins") also seems to be shot to hell with RNA splicing, introns are cut out of the message, often in a variety of different patterns.
Proclaiming that central dogma has been broken seems a bit like saying we discovered a new land called "America" yesterday. The actual abstract makes no such headline grabbing claims.