You know what the RIAA is really afraid of with iTunes? Any band dedicated enough can get their merchandise sold there without going through a major label. The cost of recording a running a short run of a CD can run in the neighborhood of one thousand dollars. Definitely in the price range of most bands, particularly ones that are already gigging out and probably have more than that invested in microphones and cables. Most bands that are ready to record probably have well more than a thousand dollars "invested" in drinks at that point. True, iTunes requires that you are signed, but simply signing up through a distributor such as CD Baby will allow the artists to keep a good chunk of the money through sales, as well as allow the artist to keep the rights to the songs. Keeping the rights to your music is very important, both in terms of Artistic Merit (very hard to quantify) and in terms of long term financial longevity. Artists who give all the rights to the labels might be rich for a little while. Artists who manage to retain the rights to their music have the opportunity to become wealthy. Why is it that someone who retains their ownership of the music can become wealthy while the others simply get rich (assuming similar sales figures?) When the record companies take over ownership of the music, that means that a couple people high up will become extremely wealthy, while the rest trickles down to shareholders etc. iTunes and other digital distribution channels (including peer to peer!) give artists an alternative to the "fat cats" and so even if artists do sign with a major label, they have a pretty decent bargaining chip and can hold off on signing everything away for a couple years of living the big life of a rockstar.
I've found that generally, you get what you pay for with extremely cheap consumer products. I used to pride myself on finding cheap backpacks. Except they'd fall apart half way through a semester. So eventually I "splurged" and bought a $45 Jansport. Lasted me five years of college, with often taking the bus, riding a bike, etc. Still use that backpack to carry various things around, although not regularly.
As my friend who has been in customer sales, primarily home entertainment has often said: It's not that they've learned to make things that much cheaper, it's that they've learned to make them that much more cheaply. A Kirby or similar vacuum cleaner that costs around $250 will last you significantly more than ten times as long as your $45 find. My grandma's Kirby from the thirties or forties is still in serviceable condition (Not working, but needs just very basic maintenance to get going again.)
However, for many products like consumer electronics and consumer pop music that have a short life expectancy due to obsolescence rather than functional working life, going for cheaply made can be the way to go. For everything else, be wary and understand that you will have to replace it sooner than you would like.
The reason the Linux version has a lot of empty space and wider pixel size is because... there are so many fewer connections between nodes. There is more room to represent them. If appears that while Linux does have nearly as many nodes, many more of the calls are in a linear fashion. This is good security-wise as you can get a better idea of what data should be passed through a particular chunk of code and can better plan for exception checking and out of bounds conditions so malformed data will be handled gracefully.
It gets better than that. The media companies want to have the best product possible. The best possible product is the sort of viewer who would be swayed by commercials. That means that in the best case, the fiscally responsible thing for media companies to do is focus on attracting impressionable viewers. There is a rare gem such as the Simpsons which appeals to the impressionable lowest common denominator as well as a more middle to high brow audience.
In full on paranoid mode, the media companies would be creating program that doesn't only attract the lowest common denominator, but indeed is specifically programmed to make the viewer more impressionable to advertising. One could argue that the fast cut editing and driving music of much TV is designed to essentially put viewers in a trance state where they become more susceptible to advertising, never mind the general degradation of IQ and mental powers served simply by the brain-rot that is the content, like sucking on pure high-fructose corn syrup does to your teeth and metabolism. In this case the "appeals to all" factor of the Simpsons would be a trap to ensnare free thinkers. Many people have wondered how the same company could bring us both Fox News and a show as apparently as the Simpsons. If you watch closely, you will find a strong right wing pro-Christian theme running through the show. Academic success? That's for losers like Lisa who get no air time. We all remember the episode where Homer makes his own religion, toeing lines. What happened to him in the end? In the end, a dumb good natured Christian mentality will win the day. Notice how the Flanders are always happy? You want to be happy too... don't you. And Jews... don't even get me started on Jews. Just look at Crusty the Clown... he's an alcoholic good for nothing who drains society of it's pure Christian values, turning us to degradation and the wages of SIN!
Wow... this tinfoil hat is really messing with my mind. Maybe they put transmitters in the tinfoil...
The problem is, advertisers will not make less annoying commercials. What they will do is ape a commercial that people find interesting enough to watch without getting the essence of why that one commercial was interesting. Chances are, that commercial was interesting simply because it was innovative. Innovation is something that an advertising company will not understand simply by watching a commercial that is, in and of itself, innovative.
It is indeed possible that companies who are in the market for an advertising company will look for companies whose commercials are by and large not skipped, and therefore production houses that create innovative, entertaining commercials will be rewarded with more contracts. The problem is, the companies purchasing advertising will then demand commercials just like "that popular one" already put out, and the creative power behind the commercial will be pushed aside while that innovative, entertaining idea will be worn into the ground quicker than you can say "after these messages, we'll be right back." Unless you manage to find someone in the advertising industry with the conviction to build up a name and respect by the sweat of their own brow, but also with the artistic integrity to refuse to simply put out a replay of their former work. Hint: that's a great way to lose the name and respect in the eyes of corporations looking to put their money in a safe investment. Because they don't know if you are simply a one trick pony or if your other ideas will actually produce returns in the check out line.
I did say our RIGHT. The constitution does NOT grant our freedoms--it merely enumerates a few specific freedoms recognized to our founding fathers as universal to all mankind. Privacy was not specifically mentioned, yet it has been protected nonetheless by the courts as a fundamental right.
I'd have to partially disagree with this statement.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While this amendment does not specifically mention privacy in general, a right to privacy must be pre-supposed. So, I PARTIALLY disagree with your statement that privacy was not specifically mentioned. Privacy is a right that can be extrapolated from an interpretation of the constitution of the United States of America in (what I feel is) a reasonable interpretation. Of course, it is also up to interpretation if the constitution applies to corporations, as the constitution is the founding document of the government of the United States of America, not necessarily the entities governed by said government. Basically, does the government self-limiting (in theory) it's rights mean that those rights are also not available to the ruled? (And since in the eyes of the law a corporation has as much standing as a person, whatever rights are taken from corporations must also be taken from individuals)
Whether or not you use Tivo should not affect if your shows are counted as being watched. This probably comes in more through the networks and cable companies. What Tivo would report is most likely how often commercials are skipped. This may initially seem like a good thing to the viewer, in that commercials would end up being more entertaining. Realistically, though, the advertisers would apply this on a show by show basis and offer comparably less money to shows whose viewers are likely to skip commercials. What does this mean? If you are the kind of person that likes to skip commercials, you can assume that it is likely that others who watch the show are likely to skip commercials if you are representative of the larger group of people who watch the show. Therefore, shows you watch will be offered less money per viewer to advertise on than shows whose viewers don't skip commercials. Therefore, shows you like will be canceled earlier.
Granted, Tivo's policy states that you can even prevent Tivo from collecting the anonymous data, so it is a moot point to worry about it if this presents a privacy concern (as long as you trust that Tivo will honor your request to not collect anonymous data from your usage.)
The main reason many math classes don't allow calculators is the course isn't supposed to be about how to get an answer, the course itself SHOULD be about learning why that method gets you an answer. That may seem like a minute distinction, but simply learning how to use a calculator to get answers can really hinder you when the knowledge is expected in higher level classes.
And there is a reason many classes will have graphing calculator specific bans... it is WAY to easy to hide a cheat sheet inside one. Or to be simply playing a game in class while looking like you are doing work.
I don't think this would really affect your search strategy. Wikipedia gets a high score on pagerank because so many site link to it. What spammers etc. have done is then alter existing Wikipedia articles to add links to their own sites. Since Wikipedia has a high pagerank, any links out from Wikipedia will be higher rated than from many other websites. Altering Wikipedia pages in this way allows spammers, spoofers, phishers, etc to get their pages ranked higher on Google. These alterations were probably done in the links section on the bottom, so wouldn't be directly followed by people visiting Wikipedia. Making the link too visible would also make it more prone to reversion by a benevolent Wikipedia user.
I agree... when I want to look something up on Wikipedia I usually just do a Google search to find it if my initial search term doesn't come up with what I want. Chances are that it is a simple misspelling, as topics I am going to look up on Wikipedia are probably topics that I am not entirely familiar with. Google will then make suggestions based on it's vast knowledge (probably based on a dictionary created from crawling various web sites combined with data from what people followed from google after actually doing a search.
Wow. If you watch the version and with commentary and have enough experience with cellular biology to understand the terminology, you will see that the whole video is just limited parts of the process for a cell to signal that it needs a white blood cell to come and destroy an invader. Believing that we haven't yet been able to bring the large scale manufacture of spider silk in synthetic factory conditions isn't that much of a stretch.
I thought conservatives pretty much believed that before the 2000 election even happened. I was working in construction the summer of 2000 and was therefore exposed to a fair amount of right wing talk radio. I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh going on and on about how Cheney was adding a sense of "Gravitas" to the campaign.
Water intoxication and other hyponatrimic conditions aren't directly caused by failure to conduct electricity. The direct cause is related to osmotic pressure: With a rapid intake of water, the fluid in the bloodstream and other interstitial (the places between cells) fluids experience a rapid decrease in salt concentration. This means that there is a large gradient between concentrations of solvents at the border of the cellular membrane. The two solutions will "try" to equalize in terms of amounts of solvents (the word try is in quotes because it is an anthropomorphism, what actually happens is the solvent and solutes will dissipate in such as way as to achieve the lowest energy state, according to the laws of thermodynamics.) Salts, sugars and many other of the dissolved chemicals can not pass through the cell membrane quickly, but water can pass freely. Water therefore flows freely into the cell in "an attempt" at equalizing the concentrations of solvent and solute. The large gradient means water flows very quickly into the cell, leading to a buildup of pressure. This pressure will distort the shape of the cell, hampering it's function or even cause the cell to rupture. This happens in just about all cells in the body, and the system that can least handle the deformation and subsequent loss of function is the nervous system. When the nervous system shuts down far enough, it can no longer control heart rate or breathing, and the person (or animal) can subsequently die from this shutdown if nothing is done to reverse the osmotic imbalance such as giving diuretics, intravenous administration of appropriate amounts of hypertonic (I.E. more salt and other solvents than the blood normally carries) solutions.
In fact, it really doesn't matter WHICH solute or solutes are low in concentration. It's a matter of the concentration of water in the blood is simply too high, causing osmotic pressure. But the imbalance is easiest measured by measuring the concentration of sodium in the blood, so the imbalance is called hyponatrimia, or low sodium levels.
You think OH&S would have problems with this? I bet the unions would have a MUCH bigger problem. I hope the people behind this project don't mind fish or really long naps.
Yeah. That was kinda planned from the beginning. That's why his last name is Dutch for "Father." George was wowed by Joseph Campbell. All in all an interesting piece of theory, but not as applicable to real life as a lot of literature teachers would have you believe.
You really don't have to grow a culture of the bacteria. Polymerase Chain Reaction and other techniques can replicate DNA rapidly enough to make amounts suitable for laboratory testing in a practically negligible time.
Pages does seem to have some table functionality, although I have no idea how well featured it is. But Pages does look a lot easier to make something look good or even professional than Word, which fights you every step of the way. Although the video on Apple's site makes it look like there is an over-reliance on templates, which means anything you do will look just like anything else done in pages.
A bigger problem is that we are basing all of this conversation on an article about a study, rather than the paper itself. If you have ever been involved with anything involving the press, you would probably be a lot less doubtful of the researchers methods assuming that the reporter simply flubbed some details and completely made up some lines. I'm not saying ALL reporters are bad, but I have personally been witness to a number of events (Less than ten, more than five?) that I later read reports of in newspapers, saw television news spots, etc. Every single one of them had glaring errors. Often a small number of news sources would be pretty much spot on, but then others would have details that are simply apocryphal, or miss the whole point completely.
As much as I would like to see us get people to Mars, I don't want a replay of the Moon joke. Over-priced impracitical throwaway missions... and we haven't been back there in THREE DECADES. I do not want a throwaway mission to Mars. As nice as it would be to get people there and get dome decent science out of it, it's just NOT WORTH IT to do a tera-bucks throwaway mission to land a couple of people for a holliday vacation and then abandon Mars for two or three of four decades.
That's just the way exploration and colonization works within the framework of human society. Columbus discovered (at least within the European perspective) the Americas in 1492. Serious colonization arguably didn't start until the founding of Havana in 1515. Considering the vast differences between creating long term colonies in the Americas and creating colonies on another planet, it makes sense that the exploration phase would take much longer. Especially considering that individual human life has a much higher political value than it did during the time of Columbus. I.E. a few deaths in exploring the Americas was simply expected. The deaths we've had in exploring space are national tragedies and viewed as a point of failure in the entire space program. It is therefore going to take a lot more time to develop the methods and technologies necessary in permanently colonizing other bodies such as moons and planets successfully. And we have to show that the benefits outweigh the costs to some extent.
And actual human colonization and even exploration has become much less of a necessity as our technology has gotten to the point where we can get vast amounts of information without actually sending a single person to the place being studied... from the rovers to satellites that can perform basic geological analysis including the recently found evidence that mars may contain flowing subterranean (submartian?) water. This information allows us to plan for any future colonization with much better accuracy and allows us to make much better decisions (including the null decision... that taking action is not worth it at this time.) The methods used in planning for such an enormous venture have also been refined in that while the process takes a lot longer, a better decision is usually made. In my mind one of the ultimate examples of this decision making process is the Environmental Impact Assessment which eventually ends with an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Not that the EIS is all that applicable here (although I'm sure launching the Space Shuttle has a large enough potential environmental impact that running an EIA for each launch could be justified) but the methods used in measuring costs, identifying risks and planning for their mitigation, proposing several alternative plans, and finally deciding if the value gained from implementing the plan outweighs the associated costs and risks is about the closest thing I've seen to a scientific method of decision making.
I meant it more along the lines of one of the nod and a wink claims that allowed globalization to be slipped through is that it will help the other economies. Yes, the people pushing it were just looking to make the super wealthy even more wealthy, but in true neo-capitalist fashion they were just looking after the short term. And yes, there was a windows where the ultra wealthy became much wealthier. And those people are still making money off the whole deal, just not nearly as much as they were about five years ago. And globalization probably will not do much to benefit the poorest classes, they will always be there. But it can set in motion the creation of a healthy middle class if the local government doesn't interfere too much.
To be precise, big businesses will keep doing this until the savings no longer justifies the inconvenience. One of the biggest barriers to outsourcing that most countries have is language. As a long time British colony, many Indians speak relatively fluent English. The problem will be finding another country with a significantly large English speaking population that is affluent and educated enough to learn the white collar jobs, yet not so affluent that they want/need to get paid a lot of money to continue working. True, there are probably going to be people who know English in every country, but not in the same numbers as India. Most of the other countries with English as a primary language have economies that are too strong to outsource white collar jobs to, or at the very least are like South Africa and have divided economies with a wealthy English speaking population alongside a population that is impoverished enough to make outsourcing profitable for both parties, but doesn't speak English fluently enough to converse with the standard U.S. (or other English speaking) office-worker or customer. I'm sure a similar problem exists to more or less extent in developed nations that natively speak a language other than English... Japan being the first to come to mind. If there are developing nations with a significant population that speaks the native language of a developed nation, it will simply not take very long for the developing nation to develop a strong enough middle class that outsourcing to that country becomes less and less cost effective.
In all reality, this is a significant part of what globalization was supposed to do... improve the economy of the nations that are the worst off economically. There was only a small window of time where the megacorps could make the insane profits off trade disparities. That window is closing as trade gaps begin to narrow between countries that have products or services to trade and the supply and demand begin to equalize.
No... he's saying that a pin in and of itself will not protect the rest of the info on your card. If every gas station, used tire store and cigarette depot can get access to the card scanners it is likely that "the bad guys" can get access to the card scanners and figure out a way to reverse engineer them into a remote reader. Entering the PIN is something that happens on the scanner, so your privacy is not ensured. At the very least the customer behind you in line could watch you enter it. What he was saying is that carrying an RFID card around is as stupid as posting all that info on a public internet forum.
(Yes, it is possible to dupe and make a fake credit card now, but RFID would simply make it easier to steal your money.
My question with this is... what does this have to do with RFID? The bar is set up with touchscreen menus at the table to order from. These may or may not be wireless and thereby use radio frequency for communications, but it is not an RFID bar.
Your two questions answer each other. It is separate blocks because that it logistically easier than pouring one giant block... the molds are much smaller and easier to place, and you don't have to dump a whole pyramid's worth of concrete in at one time. Second, you don't need as much wood if you have smaller blocks. You pour a block, let it set, then remove and clean the molds to use on another block. The local climate was probably fairly different in ancient Egypt, with more trees available. Relying on the flooding of the Nile was not for water but for fertilizing crops.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what the RIAA is really afraid of with iTunes? Any band dedicated enough can get their merchandise sold there without going through a major label. The cost of recording a running a short run of a CD can run in the neighborhood of one thousand dollars. Definitely in the price range of most bands, particularly ones that are already gigging out and probably have more than that invested in microphones and cables. Most bands that are ready to record probably have well more than a thousand dollars "invested" in drinks at that point. True, iTunes requires that you are signed, but simply signing up through a distributor such as CD Baby will allow the artists to keep a good chunk of the money through sales, as well as allow the artist to keep the rights to the songs. Keeping the rights to your music is very important, both in terms of Artistic Merit (very hard to quantify) and in terms of long term financial longevity. Artists who give all the rights to the labels might be rich for a little while. Artists who manage to retain the rights to their music have the opportunity to become wealthy. Why is it that someone who retains their ownership of the music can become wealthy while the others simply get rich (assuming similar sales figures?) When the record companies take over ownership of the music, that means that a couple people high up will become extremely wealthy, while the rest trickles down to shareholders etc. iTunes and other digital distribution channels (including peer to peer!) give artists an alternative to the "fat cats" and so even if artists do sign with a major label, they have a pretty decent bargaining chip and can hold off on signing everything away for a couple years of living the big life of a rockstar.
I've found that generally, you get what you pay for with extremely cheap consumer products. I used to pride myself on finding cheap backpacks. Except they'd fall apart half way through a semester. So eventually I "splurged" and bought a $45 Jansport. Lasted me five years of college, with often taking the bus, riding a bike, etc. Still use that backpack to carry various things around, although not regularly.
As my friend who has been in customer sales, primarily home entertainment has often said: It's not that they've learned to make things that much cheaper, it's that they've learned to make them that much more cheaply. A Kirby or similar vacuum cleaner that costs around $250 will last you significantly more than ten times as long as your $45 find. My grandma's Kirby from the thirties or forties is still in serviceable condition (Not working, but needs just very basic maintenance to get going again.)
However, for many products like consumer electronics and consumer pop music that have a short life expectancy due to obsolescence rather than functional working life, going for cheaply made can be the way to go. For everything else, be wary and understand that you will have to replace it sooner than you would like.
The reason the Linux version has a lot of empty space and wider pixel size is because... there are so many fewer connections between nodes. There is more room to represent them. If appears that while Linux does have nearly as many nodes, many more of the calls are in a linear fashion. This is good security-wise as you can get a better idea of what data should be passed through a particular chunk of code and can better plan for exception checking and out of bounds conditions so malformed data will be handled gracefully.
It gets better than that. The media companies want to have the best product possible. The best possible product is the sort of viewer who would be swayed by commercials. That means that in the best case, the fiscally responsible thing for media companies to do is focus on attracting impressionable viewers. There is a rare gem such as the Simpsons which appeals to the impressionable lowest common denominator as well as a more middle to high brow audience.
In full on paranoid mode, the media companies would be creating program that doesn't only attract the lowest common denominator, but indeed is specifically programmed to make the viewer more impressionable to advertising. One could argue that the fast cut editing and driving music of much TV is designed to essentially put viewers in a trance state where they become more susceptible to advertising, never mind the general degradation of IQ and mental powers served simply by the brain-rot that is the content, like sucking on pure high-fructose corn syrup does to your teeth and metabolism. In this case the "appeals to all" factor of the Simpsons would be a trap to ensnare free thinkers. Many people have wondered how the same company could bring us both Fox News and a show as apparently as the Simpsons. If you watch closely, you will find a strong right wing pro-Christian theme running through the show. Academic success? That's for losers like Lisa who get no air time. We all remember the episode where Homer makes his own religion, toeing lines. What happened to him in the end? In the end, a dumb good natured Christian mentality will win the day. Notice how the Flanders are always happy? You want to be happy too... don't you. And Jews... don't even get me started on Jews. Just look at Crusty the Clown... he's an alcoholic good for nothing who drains society of it's pure Christian values, turning us to degradation and the wages of SIN!
Wow... this tinfoil hat is really messing with my mind. Maybe they put transmitters in the tinfoil...
The problem is, advertisers will not make less annoying commercials. What they will do is ape a commercial that people find interesting enough to watch without getting the essence of why that one commercial was interesting. Chances are, that commercial was interesting simply because it was innovative. Innovation is something that an advertising company will not understand simply by watching a commercial that is, in and of itself, innovative.
It is indeed possible that companies who are in the market for an advertising company will look for companies whose commercials are by and large not skipped, and therefore production houses that create innovative, entertaining commercials will be rewarded with more contracts. The problem is, the companies purchasing advertising will then demand commercials just like "that popular one" already put out, and the creative power behind the commercial will be pushed aside while that innovative, entertaining idea will be worn into the ground quicker than you can say "after these messages, we'll be right back." Unless you manage to find someone in the advertising industry with the conviction to build up a name and respect by the sweat of their own brow, but also with the artistic integrity to refuse to simply put out a replay of their former work. Hint: that's a great way to lose the name and respect in the eyes of corporations looking to put their money in a safe investment. Because they don't know if you are simply a one trick pony or if your other ideas will actually produce returns in the check out line.
I'd have to partially disagree with this statement.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While this amendment does not specifically mention privacy in general, a right to privacy must be pre-supposed. So, I PARTIALLY disagree with your statement that privacy was not specifically mentioned. Privacy is a right that can be extrapolated from an interpretation of the constitution of the United States of America in (what I feel is) a reasonable interpretation. Of course, it is also up to interpretation if the constitution applies to corporations, as the constitution is the founding document of the government of the United States of America, not necessarily the entities governed by said government. Basically, does the government self-limiting (in theory) it's rights mean that those rights are also not available to the ruled? (And since in the eyes of the law a corporation has as much standing as a person, whatever rights are taken from corporations must also be taken from individuals)
Whether or not you use Tivo should not affect if your shows are counted as being watched. This probably comes in more through the networks and cable companies. What Tivo would report is most likely how often commercials are skipped. This may initially seem like a good thing to the viewer, in that commercials would end up being more entertaining. Realistically, though, the advertisers would apply this on a show by show basis and offer comparably less money to shows whose viewers are likely to skip commercials. What does this mean? If you are the kind of person that likes to skip commercials, you can assume that it is likely that others who watch the show are likely to skip commercials if you are representative of the larger group of people who watch the show. Therefore, shows you watch will be offered less money per viewer to advertise on than shows whose viewers don't skip commercials. Therefore, shows you like will be canceled earlier.
Granted, Tivo's policy states that you can even prevent Tivo from collecting the anonymous data, so it is a moot point to worry about it if this presents a privacy concern (as long as you trust that Tivo will honor your request to not collect anonymous data from your usage.)
The main reason many math classes don't allow calculators is the course isn't supposed to be about how to get an answer, the course itself SHOULD be about learning why that method gets you an answer. That may seem like a minute distinction, but simply learning how to use a calculator to get answers can really hinder you when the knowledge is expected in higher level classes.
And there is a reason many classes will have graphing calculator specific bans... it is WAY to easy to hide a cheat sheet inside one. Or to be simply playing a game in class while looking like you are doing work.
I don't think this would really affect your search strategy. Wikipedia gets a high score on pagerank because so many site link to it. What spammers etc. have done is then alter existing Wikipedia articles to add links to their own sites. Since Wikipedia has a high pagerank, any links out from Wikipedia will be higher rated than from many other websites. Altering Wikipedia pages in this way allows spammers, spoofers, phishers, etc to get their pages ranked higher on Google. These alterations were probably done in the links section on the bottom, so wouldn't be directly followed by people visiting Wikipedia. Making the link too visible would also make it more prone to reversion by a benevolent Wikipedia user.
I agree... when I want to look something up on Wikipedia I usually just do a Google search to find it if my initial search term doesn't come up with what I want. Chances are that it is a simple misspelling, as topics I am going to look up on Wikipedia are probably topics that I am not entirely familiar with. Google will then make suggestions based on it's vast knowledge (probably based on a dictionary created from crawling various web sites combined with data from what people followed from google after actually doing a search.
Wow. If you watch the version and with commentary and have enough experience with cellular biology to understand the terminology, you will see that the whole video is just limited parts of the process for a cell to signal that it needs a white blood cell to come and destroy an invader. Believing that we haven't yet been able to bring the large scale manufacture of spider silk in synthetic factory conditions isn't that much of a stretch.
I thought conservatives pretty much believed that before the 2000 election even happened. I was working in construction the summer of 2000 and was therefore exposed to a fair amount of right wing talk radio. I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh going on and on about how Cheney was adding a sense of "Gravitas" to the campaign.
Water intoxication and other hyponatrimic conditions aren't directly caused by failure to conduct electricity. The direct cause is related to osmotic pressure: With a rapid intake of water, the fluid in the bloodstream and other interstitial (the places between cells) fluids experience a rapid decrease in salt concentration. This means that there is a large gradient between concentrations of solvents at the border of the cellular membrane. The two solutions will "try" to equalize in terms of amounts of solvents (the word try is in quotes because it is an anthropomorphism, what actually happens is the solvent and solutes will dissipate in such as way as to achieve the lowest energy state, according to the laws of thermodynamics.) Salts, sugars and many other of the dissolved chemicals can not pass through the cell membrane quickly, but water can pass freely. Water therefore flows freely into the cell in "an attempt" at equalizing the concentrations of solvent and solute. The large gradient means water flows very quickly into the cell, leading to a buildup of pressure. This pressure will distort the shape of the cell, hampering it's function or even cause the cell to rupture. This happens in just about all cells in the body, and the system that can least handle the deformation and subsequent loss of function is the nervous system. When the nervous system shuts down far enough, it can no longer control heart rate or breathing, and the person (or animal) can subsequently die from this shutdown if nothing is done to reverse the osmotic imbalance such as giving diuretics, intravenous administration of appropriate amounts of hypertonic (I.E. more salt and other solvents than the blood normally carries) solutions.
In fact, it really doesn't matter WHICH solute or solutes are low in concentration. It's a matter of the concentration of water in the blood is simply too high, causing osmotic pressure. But the imbalance is easiest measured by measuring the concentration of sodium in the blood, so the imbalance is called hyponatrimia, or low sodium levels.
You think OH&S would have problems with this? I bet the unions would have a MUCH bigger problem. I hope the people behind this project don't mind fish or really long naps.
Yeah. That was kinda planned from the beginning. That's why his last name is Dutch for "Father." George was wowed by Joseph Campbell. All in all an interesting piece of theory, but not as applicable to real life as a lot of literature teachers would have you believe.
D'oh. Ack Ptppthth. Eeeehhhhhhhhhhh. Very punny.
You really don't have to grow a culture of the bacteria. Polymerase Chain Reaction and other techniques can replicate DNA rapidly enough to make amounts suitable for laboratory testing in a practically negligible time.
Pages does seem to have some table functionality, although I have no idea how well featured it is. But Pages does look a lot easier to make something look good or even professional than Word, which fights you every step of the way. Although the video on Apple's site makes it look like there is an over-reliance on templates, which means anything you do will look just like anything else done in pages.
A bigger problem is that we are basing all of this conversation on an article about a study, rather than the paper itself. If you have ever been involved with anything involving the press, you would probably be a lot less doubtful of the researchers methods assuming that the reporter simply flubbed some details and completely made up some lines. I'm not saying ALL reporters are bad, but I have personally been witness to a number of events (Less than ten, more than five?) that I later read reports of in newspapers, saw television news spots, etc. Every single one of them had glaring errors. Often a small number of news sources would be pretty much spot on, but then others would have details that are simply apocryphal, or miss the whole point completely.
That's just the way exploration and colonization works within the framework of human society. Columbus discovered (at least within the European perspective) the Americas in 1492. Serious colonization arguably didn't start until the founding of Havana in 1515. Considering the vast differences between creating long term colonies in the Americas and creating colonies on another planet, it makes sense that the exploration phase would take much longer. Especially considering that individual human life has a much higher political value than it did during the time of Columbus. I.E. a few deaths in exploring the Americas was simply expected. The deaths we've had in exploring space are national tragedies and viewed as a point of failure in the entire space program. It is therefore going to take a lot more time to develop the methods and technologies necessary in permanently colonizing other bodies such as moons and planets successfully. And we have to show that the benefits outweigh the costs to some extent.
And actual human colonization and even exploration has become much less of a necessity as our technology has gotten to the point where we can get vast amounts of information without actually sending a single person to the place being studied... from the rovers to satellites that can perform basic geological analysis including the recently found evidence that mars may contain flowing subterranean (submartian?) water. This information allows us to plan for any future colonization with much better accuracy and allows us to make much better decisions (including the null decision... that taking action is not worth it at this time.) The methods used in planning for such an enormous venture have also been refined in that while the process takes a lot longer, a better decision is usually made. In my mind one of the ultimate examples of this decision making process is the Environmental Impact Assessment which eventually ends with an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Not that the EIS is all that applicable here (although I'm sure launching the Space Shuttle has a large enough potential environmental impact that running an EIA for each launch could be justified) but the methods used in measuring costs, identifying risks and planning for their mitigation, proposing several alternative plans, and finally deciding if the value gained from implementing the plan outweighs the associated costs and risks is about the closest thing I've seen to a scientific method of decision making.
I meant it more along the lines of one of the nod and a wink claims that allowed globalization to be slipped through is that it will help the other economies. Yes, the people pushing it were just looking to make the super wealthy even more wealthy, but in true neo-capitalist fashion they were just looking after the short term. And yes, there was a windows where the ultra wealthy became much wealthier. And those people are still making money off the whole deal, just not nearly as much as they were about five years ago. And globalization probably will not do much to benefit the poorest classes, they will always be there. But it can set in motion the creation of a healthy middle class if the local government doesn't interfere too much.
To be precise, big businesses will keep doing this until the savings no longer justifies the inconvenience. One of the biggest barriers to outsourcing that most countries have is language. As a long time British colony, many Indians speak relatively fluent English. The problem will be finding another country with a significantly large English speaking population that is affluent and educated enough to learn the white collar jobs, yet not so affluent that they want/need to get paid a lot of money to continue working. True, there are probably going to be people who know English in every country, but not in the same numbers as India. Most of the other countries with English as a primary language have economies that are too strong to outsource white collar jobs to, or at the very least are like South Africa and have divided economies with a wealthy English speaking population alongside a population that is impoverished enough to make outsourcing profitable for both parties, but doesn't speak English fluently enough to converse with the standard U.S. (or other English speaking) office-worker or customer. I'm sure a similar problem exists to more or less extent in developed nations that natively speak a language other than English... Japan being the first to come to mind. If there are developing nations with a significant population that speaks the native language of a developed nation, it will simply not take very long for the developing nation to develop a strong enough middle class that outsourcing to that country becomes less and less cost effective.
In all reality, this is a significant part of what globalization was supposed to do... improve the economy of the nations that are the worst off economically. There was only a small window of time where the megacorps could make the insane profits off trade disparities. That window is closing as trade gaps begin to narrow between countries that have products or services to trade and the supply and demand begin to equalize.
Most Americans have much better credit than that.
No... he's saying that a pin in and of itself will not protect the rest of the info on your card. If every gas station, used tire store and cigarette depot can get access to the card scanners it is likely that "the bad guys" can get access to the card scanners and figure out a way to reverse engineer them into a remote reader. Entering the PIN is something that happens on the scanner, so your privacy is not ensured. At the very least the customer behind you in line could watch you enter it. What he was saying is that carrying an RFID card around is as stupid as posting all that info on a public internet forum.
(Yes, it is possible to dupe and make a fake credit card now, but RFID would simply make it easier to steal your money.
My question with this is... what does this have to do with RFID? The bar is set up with touchscreen menus at the table to order from. These may or may not be wireless and thereby use radio frequency for communications, but it is not an RFID bar.
Your two questions answer each other. It is separate blocks because that it logistically easier than pouring one giant block... the molds are much smaller and easier to place, and you don't have to dump a whole pyramid's worth of concrete in at one time. Second, you don't need as much wood if you have smaller blocks. You pour a block, let it set, then remove and clean the molds to use on another block. The local climate was probably fairly different in ancient Egypt, with more trees available. Relying on the flooding of the Nile was not for water but for fertilizing crops.