Maybe if you put the Wiimote into a standard mouse chassis... then most of the time you could use it as a mouse, but when you wanted the 3D functionality it would be there.
What kind of Wisconsinite are you? We all know the cold winter is when you have to turn to the hard stuff... beer and sausage. And nothing in the world beats Wisconsin summer... both weeks of it.
And from what I understand, the HIV transmission among homosexual males is in large part due to the laws preventing homosexuals marriage... not being allowed to marry leads to more promiscuous behavior, leads to more STD transmission.
Basing the time-frame of language's emergence based on a correlation between hearing sensitivity and vocal range is missing a very key point. Hominids most likely had oral communication before language. Oral communication is fairly common among terrestrial animals. Oral language is a subset of oral communication, but we had been communicating with grunts and yells for a long time before we had words as we know them. The key to defining the emergence of language as I believe the researchers are intending to define it lies in the mental ability to use language, the largest defining feature of language being syntax. Basically, the capacity to make oral sounds and the capacity to hear those sounds existed and co-evolved for a long time before the appearance of language. The development of oral language would provide additional selective pressure for the centralization between vocal and hearing ranges as it makes oral communication much more effective, but postulating that the physiological ability to hear the sounds another is making proves that language exists really puts the cart before the horse.
...belief in a god is no more justified or special than a belief in unicorns...
Actually, this is not a fair comparison. I believe that unicorns exist. In fact, I have seen what I believe to be unicorns myself. It's just that the description changed from the original observation by the many layers of storytelling. And if you think I'm crazy, there are plenty of pictures here.
Your dog can apply for a job all she wants. In fact, many dogs find themselves with gainful employment in several sectors; Law enforcement, agriculture, security, athletics, nursing, entertainment, military, pest control and transportation are just a few of the fields in which dogs often have fruitful careers. Some might think the dogs in these fields are under-compensated, but that's another story. I claim that your dog is unemployed just because she's lazy.
And the disparity between United States citizens and the rest of the world is more than you might think.
I'll put it this way: the average homeless person in the United States has a better standard of living than average for all of the people of the world. Better access to food, shelter, clean water, health care, education, protection by (and from!) police, and on and on.
Anybody who passed an intro to genetics course should expect a clone of a calico to look different.
Calico patterning is not determined by genetics. The pattern is an odd sex linked trait. Basically, a male will inherit one copy of a color pattern and be done with it. A female, however, will inherit two copies of color patterns (One from the maternal X and one from the paternal X.) Females would not be able to survive with two copies of the X chromosome functioning in every cell... it would make regulation of transcription quite difficult to balance between survivability of males and females. Instead, the X chromosomes have a neat trick... they encode for a protein which prevents transcription of the other X chromosome in the same cell. And for all daughter cells after a certain point in early development. In essence, females exhibit a clump of maternal X here, and a patch of paternal X there, etc. Overall, this leads to the classic tortie pattern. As for the white in a calico? That comes from a different regulatory method, where one of the patterns may be "black and white" and another "orange." or so forth. I believe the expression of color vs white comes from the temperature of individual cells during a certain period of development IIRC, although it may be related to concentrations of hormones in the placental fluid I am not positive in cats, but many bi-colored animals use a similar trick. But again, even in a classic black and white tuxedo cat, if you change the conditions in placental development you will end up with a cat with a different pattern of markings.
On to the picture of Rainbow and CC, they may look different, but in reality if you look closely, you will see that they both have splotches of a very similar coat pattern - brown tiger and orange tiger (plus the white, which appears to be expressed from both patterns...) It's just that the splotches are in different places. By using a calico cat for this "experiment" the scientists are simply trying to reinforce their foregone conclusion that cloned pets will not be the same. I personally agree very strongly that cloning pets is not a good thing, but don't agree with pushing this "experiment" as evidence to get other people to agree with me. And as for Rainbow and CC having different builds and temperaments? Well, of course Rainbow will be more heavy set and reserved than CC... she's older and has queened.
There is theoretical evidence for the existance of exotic black matter: deuterium. According to our current models of nucleosynthesis in the big bang, if all of matter which gravitational observations predict is baryonic (I.E. neutrons, protons + electrons) then the high density during initial conditions would have fused the vast majority (if not all) of the deuterium into helium.
It is also possible that our calculations are off with some portion of the equations: a fundamental misunderstanding or oversimplification of gravity or nucleosynthesis on certain spacial scales could throw the equations WAY off.
There's another BIG reason that introducing predators is a risky endeavor. The prey species that you wish to control has evolved with defense from the predator species. Native life has not. Hence, it may be far easier for the predator to prey on the natives than the organism you wish to control.
The real secret is to then sequester the carbon locked up in the trees underground. That's right, for environmental reasons I advocate that we immediately bring a halt to the process of paper recycling.
Seriously, there is debate over the environmental benefits of paper recycling. This debate may even have some merit, unlike the "well, we really don't know if global warming is occuring" pseudo-debate. By some measures, the process of recycling paper may use more fossil fuels than the harvesting and pulping of trees. There are studies that apparently support both sides of the argument, and the only thing I've seen in common is that the ones that support recycling leave out some high energy elements of the recycling process (such as transportation) while the ones that support virgin paper leave out some high energy elements of the tree -> paper process, oddly enough also transportation. One thing that the virgin paper camp has going for it is that much of the energy used in pulping comes from waste portions of the wood used to make pulp. Traditional paper mills are also often situated in locations which are more amenable to use of "renewable" energy such as wind and hydro while recycling plants generally take their power from the electric grid which is still primarily fossil fuel powered. I would like for a true cradle to grave comparison of the carbon footprints of recycling vs virgin paper.
Additionally, the chemicals used for bleaching used paper are considered by many to be much more harsh and environmentally damaging than the ones used in creation of virgin paper as inks and dyes are more difficult to bleach out than the pigments found naturally in wood pulp (in fact, it is quite possible to make paper from unbleached wood pulp for certain uses.)
The argument of "save the forests!" is pretty much bunk in my mind as no sane capitalist would attempt to harvest old growth forests for paper production as farmed quick growing soft woods are cheaper to harvest and process than old growth hardwoods (at least as far as paper production is concerned.) The harvesting of trees for paper then puts an economic incentive on re-planting trees. Hint: in the 20th Century the United States actually saw an INCREASE in the number of acres of forest, and this is pretty much all tree farm style. It is quite unfortunate that we saw a loss of the vast majority of our old growth forests during that time, but the paper industry currently does not have a significant impact on old growth forests. Logging there is generally for timber use in other manufacturing industries, or simply to clear the land for farming, urban growth, etc.
And landfills? Lets just fill up some coal mines with old paper waste. Who knows... in several million years it may end up as coal again! Or instead we could research various ways to oxidize the paper and turn it into energy, from good old burning (with much better technological environmental controls than traditional paper incinerators used) to thermal depolymerization and maybe even fancier ways of turning the carbon bonds in paper into human-usable energy. Although these uses would probably not have that much of a return if done in a large centralized manner as the energy required for transporting the paper would probably outweigh the energy gained. This would have to be done on an extremely local or even individual level, and that does unfortunately rule out some of the economies of scale that would allow for better emissions control techniques and devices. But there may be an answer somewhere.
And I am a fan of the "re-use" and "reduce" parts of the green trinity. I'll admit that packaging is way overdone these days and consumers should do what they can to use less paper (and plastic) in terms of packaging materials. Buy bulk. Say "no thank you, I don't need a bag" at the various stores you go to. It's odd how many clerks don't know what to do when a customer says that. "What, just hand it to you so you can carry it out rather than putting it in a b
Moderation would be completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. The intended use is with a semantic search, so simply rating pages based on popularity would be absurd. This is supposed to be a storehouse of information, not Digg.
60Hz (depending on the power source) hum in audio equipment is quite common, and not actually a sign of a bad ground. Removing the ground pin is the wrong way to fix it.
The hum occurs because of an amplified ground loop. A ground loop is formed when the output of a grounded audio device is passed into an amplifier connected to the same ground. Shielded cabling will then ground the chaises of the signal device and the amplifier together, creating a closed loop between the devices and the electrical earth. This closed loop can then build up a 60hz cycle, I believe through induction with the power mains, but have not found a definitive answer. Normally this cycle is not enough to be electrically significant, except it is passed through an amplifier along with the desired signal. Removing the ground pin from one device will indeed open the circuit, preventing the ground loop from being able to cause a hum.
However, as you surmised, disconnecting the ground from an electrical device can be dangerous. The accepted way to open the circuit is by breaking the ground connection between the amplifier and the signal device, generally at the amplifier rather than the signal source. Doing so will essentially eliminate the effectiveness of the cable shielding, but will also eliminate the loud 60hz hum which is generally much louder than any electrical interference you will find. However, the electrical ground of your electronics will not be compromised, saving the equipment and operator from damage in the case of a malfunction.
I am close to agreeing with you, but with a slightly different paradigm (sorry about the PHB word, but I feel it best expresses the concept.) I do not think that a mechanism exists for increasing the likelihood of mutations in a certain region of DNA. What does exist are mechanisms to prevent mutations and to repair damage done to segments of DNA. Assuming that natural selection works on the level of the gene, it would logically follow that protection and repair mechanisms would be themselves adapted to specialize on regions of DNA which are the most likely to cause problems when mutations arise. Those regions which allow for stepwise evolution would therefore not be protected with the same intensity as those regions in which mutations would be fatal.
In your post, however, I did notice one fairly important misunderstanding of the mechanisms for evolution. Your statement that if (a mutation)is favorable, why was it not retained in... ignores the temporal aspect of evolution, in that the environment changes. Evolution selects for traits (and therefore gene sequences which allow for expressions of those traits) based on the suitability of the environment that the organism lives in. What might be favorable in one place spatially or temporally might be harmful to the organisms success under different circumstances. Evolution does not even need to rely on external environmental change to stimulate genetic change, as certain gene combinations may have a synergistic (again, sorry for the PHB term) effect in which one is really not that beneficial unless the other exists. In other circumstances, a potentially deleterious mutation can give some benefit such as being a heterozygous carrier for sickle cell anemia giving increased resistance to malaria.
While the game of evolution is governed by a very small number of actual laws, there are myriad ways in which to win and multitudes of solutions and workarounds to every problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if you put the Wiimote into a standard mouse chassis... then most of the time you could use it as a mouse, but when you wanted the 3D functionality it would be there.
What kind of Wisconsinite are you? We all know the cold winter is when you have to turn to the hard stuff... beer and sausage. And nothing in the world beats Wisconsin summer... both weeks of it.
And from what I understand, the HIV transmission among homosexual males is in large part due to the laws preventing homosexuals marriage... not being allowed to marry leads to more promiscuous behavior, leads to more STD transmission.
Basing the time-frame of language's emergence based on a correlation between hearing sensitivity and vocal range is missing a very key point. Hominids most likely had oral communication before language. Oral communication is fairly common among terrestrial animals. Oral language is a subset of oral communication, but we had been communicating with grunts and yells for a long time before we had words as we know them. The key to defining the emergence of language as I believe the researchers are intending to define it lies in the mental ability to use language, the largest defining feature of language being syntax. Basically, the capacity to make oral sounds and the capacity to hear those sounds existed and co-evolved for a long time before the appearance of language. The development of oral language would provide additional selective pressure for the centralization between vocal and hearing ranges as it makes oral communication much more effective, but postulating that the physiological ability to hear the sounds another is making proves that language exists really puts the cart before the horse.
The information you're looking for can be found here.
According to this graphic there was one candidate who fit your qualifications.
I just love recursion. Your post is currently the third hit on Google for the search term you provided. I don't need no steenkin' back button!
Actually, this is not a fair comparison. I believe that unicorns exist. In fact, I have seen what I believe to be unicorns myself. It's just that the description changed from the original observation by the many layers of storytelling. And if you think I'm crazy, there are plenty of pictures here.
So you don't have to carry around the extra cables... Was really going more for smart aleck than insightful.
Get a short piece of cable and duck tape it to the thumb drive.
You aren't new here? Sorry... your high UID tells me otherwise.
Your dog can apply for a job all she wants. In fact, many dogs find themselves with gainful employment in several sectors; Law enforcement, agriculture, security, athletics, nursing, entertainment, military, pest control and transportation are just a few of the fields in which dogs often have fruitful careers. Some might think the dogs in these fields are under-compensated, but that's another story. I claim that your dog is unemployed just because she's lazy.
There is nothing forcing doctors to treat people who cannot pay. They can always practice in a facility that does not accept any federal funding.
And the disparity between United States citizens and the rest of the world is more than you might think.
I'll put it this way: the average homeless person in the United States has a better standard of living than average for all of the people of the world. Better access to food, shelter, clean water, health care, education, protection by (and from!) police, and on and on.
Anybody who passed an intro to genetics course should expect a clone of a calico to look different.
Calico patterning is not determined by genetics. The pattern is an odd sex linked trait. Basically, a male will inherit one copy of a color pattern and be done with it. A female, however, will inherit two copies of color patterns (One from the maternal X and one from the paternal X.) Females would not be able to survive with two copies of the X chromosome functioning in every cell... it would make regulation of transcription quite difficult to balance between survivability of males and females. Instead, the X chromosomes have a neat trick... they encode for a protein which prevents transcription of the other X chromosome in the same cell. And for all daughter cells after a certain point in early development. In essence, females exhibit a clump of maternal X here, and a patch of paternal X there, etc. Overall, this leads to the classic tortie pattern. As for the white in a calico? That comes from a different regulatory method, where one of the patterns may be "black and white" and another "orange." or so forth. I believe the expression of color vs white comes from the temperature of individual cells during a certain period of development IIRC, although it may be related to concentrations of hormones in the placental fluid I am not positive in cats, but many bi-colored animals use a similar trick. But again, even in a classic black and white tuxedo cat, if you change the conditions in placental development you will end up with a cat with a different pattern of markings.
On to the picture of Rainbow and CC, they may look different, but in reality if you look closely, you will see that they both have splotches of a very similar coat pattern - brown tiger and orange tiger (plus the white, which appears to be expressed from both patterns...) It's just that the splotches are in different places. By using a calico cat for this "experiment" the scientists are simply trying to reinforce their foregone conclusion that cloned pets will not be the same. I personally agree very strongly that cloning pets is not a good thing, but don't agree with pushing this "experiment" as evidence to get other people to agree with me. And as for Rainbow and CC having different builds and temperaments? Well, of course Rainbow will be more heavy set and reserved than CC... she's older and has queened.
There is theoretical evidence for the existance of exotic black matter: deuterium. According to our current models of nucleosynthesis in the big bang, if all of matter which gravitational observations predict is baryonic (I.E. neutrons, protons + electrons) then the high density during initial conditions would have fused the vast majority (if not all) of the deuterium into helium.
It is also possible that our calculations are off with some portion of the equations: a fundamental misunderstanding or oversimplification of gravity or nucleosynthesis on certain spacial scales could throw the equations WAY off.
There's another BIG reason that introducing predators is a risky endeavor. The prey species that you wish to control has evolved with defense from the predator species. Native life has not. Hence, it may be far easier for the predator to prey on the natives than the organism you wish to control.
I wonder which of these two conclusions the students will come to.
Hypoxanthine. That may seem like a bit of a stretch, but this is the platypus we're talking about.
The real secret is to then sequester the carbon locked up in the trees underground. That's right, for environmental reasons I advocate that we immediately bring a halt to the process of paper recycling.
Seriously, there is debate over the environmental benefits of paper recycling. This debate may even have some merit, unlike the "well, we really don't know if global warming is occuring" pseudo-debate. By some measures, the process of recycling paper may use more fossil fuels than the harvesting and pulping of trees. There are studies that apparently support both sides of the argument, and the only thing I've seen in common is that the ones that support recycling leave out some high energy elements of the recycling process (such as transportation) while the ones that support virgin paper leave out some high energy elements of the tree -> paper process, oddly enough also transportation. One thing that the virgin paper camp has going for it is that much of the energy used in pulping comes from waste portions of the wood used to make pulp. Traditional paper mills are also often situated in locations which are more amenable to use of "renewable" energy such as wind and hydro while recycling plants generally take their power from the electric grid which is still primarily fossil fuel powered. I would like for a true cradle to grave comparison of the carbon footprints of recycling vs virgin paper.
Additionally, the chemicals used for bleaching used paper are considered by many to be much more harsh and environmentally damaging than the ones used in creation of virgin paper as inks and dyes are more difficult to bleach out than the pigments found naturally in wood pulp (in fact, it is quite possible to make paper from unbleached wood pulp for certain uses.)
The argument of "save the forests!" is pretty much bunk in my mind as no sane capitalist would attempt to harvest old growth forests for paper production as farmed quick growing soft woods are cheaper to harvest and process than old growth hardwoods (at least as far as paper production is concerned.) The harvesting of trees for paper then puts an economic incentive on re-planting trees. Hint: in the 20th Century the United States actually saw an INCREASE in the number of acres of forest, and this is pretty much all tree farm style. It is quite unfortunate that we saw a loss of the vast majority of our old growth forests during that time, but the paper industry currently does not have a significant impact on old growth forests. Logging there is generally for timber use in other manufacturing industries, or simply to clear the land for farming, urban growth, etc.
And landfills? Lets just fill up some coal mines with old paper waste. Who knows... in several million years it may end up as coal again! Or instead we could research various ways to oxidize the paper and turn it into energy, from good old burning (with much better technological environmental controls than traditional paper incinerators used) to thermal depolymerization and maybe even fancier ways of turning the carbon bonds in paper into human-usable energy. Although these uses would probably not have that much of a return if done in a large centralized manner as the energy required for transporting the paper would probably outweigh the energy gained. This would have to be done on an extremely local or even individual level, and that does unfortunately rule out some of the economies of scale that would allow for better emissions control techniques and devices. But there may be an answer somewhere. And I am a fan of the "re-use" and "reduce" parts of the green trinity. I'll admit that packaging is way overdone these days and consumers should do what they can to use less paper (and plastic) in terms of packaging materials. Buy bulk. Say "no thank you, I don't need a bag" at the various stores you go to. It's odd how many clerks don't know what to do when a customer says that. "What, just hand it to you so you can carry it out rather than putting it in a b
Great... we'd end up with Diggipedia. The problem is that Wikipedia should be searched semantically, not by popularity.
Moderation would be completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. The intended use is with a semantic search, so simply rating pages based on popularity would be absurd. This is supposed to be a storehouse of information, not Digg.
My spoon is too big.
My SPOON is TOO BIG!
60Hz (depending on the power source) hum in audio equipment is quite common, and not actually a sign of a bad ground. Removing the ground pin is the wrong way to fix it.
The hum occurs because of an amplified ground loop. A ground loop is formed when the output of a grounded audio device is passed into an amplifier connected to the same ground. Shielded cabling will then ground the chaises of the signal device and the amplifier together, creating a closed loop between the devices and the electrical earth. This closed loop can then build up a 60hz cycle, I believe through induction with the power mains, but have not found a definitive answer. Normally this cycle is not enough to be electrically significant, except it is passed through an amplifier along with the desired signal. Removing the ground pin from one device will indeed open the circuit, preventing the ground loop from being able to cause a hum.
However, as you surmised, disconnecting the ground from an electrical device can be dangerous. The accepted way to open the circuit is by breaking the ground connection between the amplifier and the signal device, generally at the amplifier rather than the signal source. Doing so will essentially eliminate the effectiveness of the cable shielding, but will also eliminate the loud 60hz hum which is generally much louder than any electrical interference you will find. However, the electrical ground of your electronics will not be compromised, saving the equipment and operator from damage in the case of a malfunction.
I am close to agreeing with you, but with a slightly different paradigm (sorry about the PHB word, but I feel it best expresses the concept.) I do not think that a mechanism exists for increasing the likelihood of mutations in a certain region of DNA. What does exist are mechanisms to prevent mutations and to repair damage done to segments of DNA. Assuming that natural selection works on the level of the gene, it would logically follow that protection and repair mechanisms would be themselves adapted to specialize on regions of DNA which are the most likely to cause problems when mutations arise. Those regions which allow for stepwise evolution would therefore not be protected with the same intensity as those regions in which mutations would be fatal.
In your post, however, I did notice one fairly important misunderstanding of the mechanisms for evolution. Your statement that if (a mutation)is favorable, why was it not retained in... ignores the temporal aspect of evolution, in that the environment changes. Evolution selects for traits (and therefore gene sequences which allow for expressions of those traits) based on the suitability of the environment that the organism lives in. What might be favorable in one place spatially or temporally might be harmful to the organisms success under different circumstances. Evolution does not even need to rely on external environmental change to stimulate genetic change, as certain gene combinations may have a synergistic (again, sorry for the PHB term) effect in which one is really not that beneficial unless the other exists. In other circumstances, a potentially deleterious mutation can give some benefit such as being a heterozygous carrier for sickle cell anemia giving increased resistance to malaria.
While the game of evolution is governed by a very small number of actual laws, there are myriad ways in which to win and multitudes of solutions and workarounds to every problem.