Ahh... but they don't have to ACTUALLY make you any happier. They just have to convince you that you think you are happier with them. Hence... advertising.
when a scientist issues a cuatious phrase like "may play an important role..." that basically translates into "hey, we got something that should be looked into." From there it's various layers of press trying to add a little "wow" to the article that make it sound more and more like the scientists declared that this one gene is alone responsible for the difference between chimps and people.
*Disclaimer, some scientists may exaggerate the importance of their findings, presumably for garnering more grant money, or possibly for good old fame and attention, but that is not the experience I've generally seen when dealing with scientists.
Actually what you are describing happens, except that neurons don't appear in "random" locations but certain locations of the brain (see neurogenesis.) Neurons also naturally migrate naturally in the brain. An individual neuron in the brain really doesn't have much control over thought processes, it's the network of connections that are important, and there is a lot of redundancy built in to deal with damage and cell death. The brain is also pretty decent at routing around some types of damage, sometimes with people missing the majority of the cortex of an entire hemisphere functioning fairly normally.) Sure, some patterns can be lost (I.E. you forget facts and lose skills after time if they are not reinforced) but I sincerely believe that it is possible for Medicine to come up with treatments that A)delay or moderate brain cell death, B)increase adult neurogenesis and C)increase uptake of these new neurons into the thought pathways within the brain. I believe it's also been shown that a good proportion of senility can be prevented or at least moderated by keeping the person mentally active and stimulated. Any other part of the body will atrophy if not used in order to conserve energy. It would make sense that the brain (one of the highest energy demand organs in the body) will atrophy to some extent if not exercised.
Physical ability seems to decline far earlier than mental ability, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that physical aging leaves people in such a situation where they simply don't have the ability to do the things that allow for mental stimulation, such as diminished strength precludes sports, diminished eyesight begins to preclude reading, diminished hearing precludes conversational skills, etc etc. I don't doubt that there is a physical neurological component to senility, but I believe keeping the body healthy would allow a person to keep their brain healthier and "younger." This makes the job of finding a pill or other treatment to keep the brain healthy much less troublesome, although it would make effecacy testing far more difficult as various stages of physical sensecence and condition should also be compared in order to fully understand the effect of novel treatments.
So yes, as we get better at 1)fighting cancer and 2)replacing/repairing failing organs (including the brain) through medical advances and lifestyle changes/improvements we will be able to put off death further and further. Medical treatments to stave off senility shouldn't be viewed as strictly unnatural: the brain (along with the rest of the body) is constantly replacing dead, dying and malfunctioning cells. Even the cells that do survive for a long period of time will have their various structures repaired and replaced. I heard somewhere that in five years an average person will have none of the same atoms making up their body (Although I can't find a source for that five years "fact" so take it for what it's worth. And with a grain of salt while you're at it.)
Mexican coke is probably made with cane sugar. The reality is that the U.S. is one of the only places in the world where high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is cheaper than cane sugar. This originally was because sugar cane can (and is) grown in the U.S., but not as efficiently as it can be grown in more tropical climates. The result is that the U.S. sugar (both cane and beet) farmers pushed for a heavy import on sugar so domestic sugar could compete economically. This tariff pushed the price of sugar up high enough that when the technology arose to make HFCS, HFCS ended up being significantly cheaper than cane sugar. While the introduction of HFCS does in a way make the sugar import tariff moot to the U.S. sugar farmers, the corn lobby likes the tariff, and it's quite easy to shift from cane production to corn production, so the tariff has stayed (to the best of my knowledge.) However, the tariff pretty much only covers pure sugar, so candies and other sugared goods (such as Mexican Coke) are not affected. I know there were smuggling operations which would import very high sugar candies (such as rock candy which can be pure sugar) and then process them back to sugar in the U.S. to avoid the import tariff (people will do a lot to avoid paying taxes.)
And why is the Mexican (and many other developing nation's) Coke still in glass bottles? Because it's cheaper that way in those companies. In recycling plastic and aluminum, the primary costs are for machinery and running automated processes, while glass bottles are generally re-used of which washing and inspecting bottles is a comparatively labor intensive process. In developing countries labor is relatively cheaper while automated factories are relatively more expensive than compared to highly industrialized nations such as the United States. This means that glass bottles are cheaper, or at the very least the increase in price is less than the percieved value the customer gains in having glass bottles.
So, Mexican Coke is made with real sugar and comes in glass bottles because... it's cheaper to do it that way in Mexico. Or at least relatively cheaper than it is in the United States to the point where the percieved value gained from using cane and glass is worth the extra money. Especially when soda can be viewed as more of a luxury item there, while it is basically a fact of life for most U.S. residents (well, besides coffee drinkers) and I think people are generally willing to pay more for quality in a luxury item than in a day to day commodity.
Don't worry... corporations also scratch the back of encumbant government officials and parties in their pocket. Expect to see the price of gas go down and down in the near future, possibly dropping to pre 9/11 prices for a very brief period of time, likely ending right after the elections. That way the encumbant officials can say "see, we've fixed the problem with the price of gas. Nevermind that the problem was caused by some of our largest campaign contributors and we realy did nothing to stop it in the first place, as the millions of dollars they donated of course have to be paid back by allowing them to gouge the consumers for billions of dollars." (numbers in that quote are simply pulled out of thin air, not to be used as an actual source of information) Having a Republican controlled presidency, senate, house and supreme court happens to be a very desirable thing to the oil companies, as there is no "voice of reason" balancing things out and asking questions about legislation that passes, or about lack of enforcement of existing laws.
I'm not Republican bashing here... a government dominated by Dems is equally as indebted to their own special interest groups (primarilly large businesses, just different ones) and is just as bad for the country A balance between Republican and Democrat allows the federal government to be indebted a lot more to the people than special interest groups. I personally feel that more than two parties would be a very good thing, but two is better than one. Although I'm doubtful that this trend can be extrapolated to one party is better than no, in which every elected government official is elected based on their ability to govern and a bank of trust they have built in the community rather than adherance to party lines. Although one could argue that in such a system, each person running for office is their own party. A citizen can dream... right?
So... kinda like musicians make their money today. There are a very few artists that actually see some money from CD sales, but most of them really don't. It's touring and merchandising that gives them money, and CD sales are seen more as advertising. On the other hand, record companies view tours as advertising for the CD sales.
There are many different triggers that will initiate and control how much energy is put into different processes... they can include hours of daylight, total insolation (basically amount of energy recieved from the sun,) temperature, rainfall, other moisture related triggers, physical damage, grazing damage, fire damage, and so forth. And the various processes triggered include germination, leaf budding, leaf loss, growth, branching patterns, flower budding, flower opening, seed formation, fruit growth, dropping fruit, asexual division (runners, corm division etc) sap movement, stoma regulation, etc etc etc. The same plant will often use different triggers for the different processes, sometimes using multiple triggers for one process. A change in timing of the triggers could easilly result in sub-optimal performance in one of the plant's "actions" or lead to complete failure of a process, itself leading to plant death, reduced competitive ability or failure to create viable offspring, leading to extinction.
Like anything in nature, it's really not as simple as was taught in high school bio.
So, the data is 2 months out of date. Therefore of very limited utility in predicting actual trends in "internet-time." Granted, it could still be useful for cyclical trends: seasonal, holiday based, back to school/etc in determining periodic demand, but not as useful as "Wow, this thing is about to get really big, and we'd better jump on it NOW." Then again, maybe that's actually a good thing for society... the act of "coolhunting" (I personally hate the word, but that's what I've read it as... trendspotting is a much better term) has really driven the fad cycle faster and faster to the point where a fad used to last a year or a couple years, now they last on the order of months. This cycle contributes greatly to the disposable culture that we are sinking deeper and deeper into with all the negative consequences. Then again, maybe fad cycles will accelerate to the point where large factories can't be tooled up in time to supply the demand, and people will start learning to DIY or be square.
Ugg... I can't believe I just posted that on slashdot. Or rather, am about to post it...
I'll agree that that's probably the biggest component of the ban against GM products. Actually, as I recall it is not exactly a ban but a firm unwillingness by the people to consume GM products leading to that being a market not suitable for GM crops or possibly GM affected crops. The opinion very well could have arisen as a meme started by agricultural interests (Ala in the Chewley's representative in Clerk's, only on a continental level)
Genetically speaking, current sweetcorn and other commercial corn crops are not really all that different from their pre Columbus ancestors. A lot of the major differences in current maize and it's ancestoral forms come from polyploidy, which is essentially a duplication of chromosomes (rather than one set of chromosomes, I believe most strains of corn have around 4 sets of chromosomes. These chromosomes contain mostly the same genetic information as the natural diploid state. Polyploidy in and of itself will usually lead to bigger, sweeter kernels (since there are more copies of the DNA, more proteins involved in the storage of sugars can be made) and other beneficial traits. Where the polyploidy really makes corn (and other polyploid crops) great for horticultural selection is that radically different hybrids can be created than with standard diploid crops. Rather than having the possibility of two different chromosomes bearing different genes, there are four chromosomes, and with hybrids each one can come from a different species or subspecies. This allows for a huge toolbox to work with, and when combined with hybrid vigor one can see how modern agricultural corn appears to be so different than it's wild and even semi-domesticated anscestors while still basically encoding for the same proteins, even if all the proteins were not necesarilly found in a given ancestor, the group of ancestors as a whole contained the DNA that encodes for pretty much all the proteins in modern corn, give or take a few minor mutations here and there and possibly even natural interspecific genetic transfer (it happens, usually virus mediated.)
I believe one of the more legitimate concerns with transgenic engineering is the possibility of introducing an allergenic agent into a food that traditionally does not have it. People that are allergic to, say, shrimp and peanuts know to avoid them. They have to read labels, ask at restaurants if those ingredients are used, etc. Transgenic products are generally not labeled as such, and even if they were WHICH organism the genes were taken from is generally not advertised. If a section of DNA is taken from a plant that encodes a protein which a person is allergic to, any product that gene is put into becomes dangerous, possibly even fatal to the allergic person.
I'm not saying it is LIKELY that someone will die from this, but the possibility does exist. Knowing which chemicals to avoid due to allergy potential gets very tricky when you start putting in genes from organisms not usually used for food. If the genes you are introducing to the new plant encode for some variety of insect or bacterial resistance, it becomes more likely that the encoded protein is biologically active in organisms other than the targetted pest. And these new crops do not have to undergo FDA testing to ensure safety. It is possible for something to slip through that is flat out toxic (long term low dose exposure risks are very tricky to weed out,) but the possibility of a group of people being unusually sensitive or allergic to the new compounds is very real (although not necesarilly very high) with very serious public health consequences.
That, and many other countries have little reason to trust that giant U.S. corporations will perform the due dilligence required to ensure that their products are safe. Especially on food crops targetted for export.
Genetic engineering has the potential to be an extremely powerful tool to increase the standard of living for everyone on the planet, through better food, medicine and even better clothing, building materials and eventually even cheaper fuel if biofuels ever take hold. But I don't think that companies such as Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland have ever shown that they care for much besides their bottom line.
Exactly. Looking at holiday related terms is very telling Wow... that last one is odd. There's a very telling lack of a peak there... Since july 4th was almost 2 months ago, one would assume that there should be a peak. Either people did not celebrate Independance Day in the US this year, they celebrated in a different way, or google trend's data is at least two months out of date, and therefore useless for trendspotting.
I normally wouldn't have posted something so blatantly ripping it off without attributing the source, but it was... let's see. 4:30 AM? Yeesh. I didn't think I was up that late. After posting it I thought about attributing it, but figured this was/. and somebody would guess it and then bring it up.
As long as we are on the topic, and the thread is dead anyways... what character shows up in both Snowcrash and Diamond Age? (Never got actual confirmation on this, but I'm sure it's out there SOMEWHERE.)
While the Xbox may on paper be a loss for console sales, I doubt that really includes liscensing fees, etc. Add on to that the Xbox being just another way to try to integrate the Microsoft Experience (I.E. lock-in at the home consumer level) and you can see why MS doesn't mind losing a few dozens of dollars per console sale.
This sounds pretty close to "not an animal." Yes, it starts with a sample from an animal, usually a cow. It currently also needs animal products which do not necesarilly come from slaughtering the animal, but it will in theory become more and more possible and then eventually cost effective to find synthetic replacements for these compounds.
This product might fall under the "really creepy" category for most people, but carries minimal animal suffering. I really don't think the majority of people would mind this product, as long as the taste/texture is good (not even necesarilly identical to "traditional" meat) and the price is not much more than traditional cheap meat
Physical destruction of the hard drive on police raid would be WAYYY too obvious. That's why you install powerful electromagnets in the door that pulse and fry the hard drive (and likely other internal components) when the computer is being removed from the room. Since the data on the hard drive would have "proven your innocence" and... I donno... the data was there before they took it... then the default judgement would be in your favor. I assume if they get default judgement then it would be trivial to countersue for lawyer fees. And then you can get them for destruction of property...
Unless, of course, they somehow figure out that you had an electromagnet in the doorframe.
Bumping takes about 5 seconds, rather than your 20 minutes. It will look a lot less obvious what your are doing while actually attempting to gain entry. Bumping a lock also does not leave behind as much evidence of entry, making the invader much less vulnerable while inside.
That short term memory theory? Definately not true. It's a false theory used as justification for keeping goldfish in a bowl, which is in reality cruel. Goldfish raised in a stimulating environment can be quite intelligent, being able to be trained such things as playing basketball (can not find source right now) soccer, and sometimes even synchronized swimming (Goldfish are not naturally schooling fish per say, so this behavior is definately trained.) And... umm... Texas Holdem. I'm not quite sure about the validity of that last one, though. Actually, I've got a pretty good idea about exactly how valid that one is, but I'm leaving it in anyways.
I'd have to see a lot more evidence to actually believe that goldfish are as smart as dolphins. Although in designing intelligence tests, we do have to be extremely careful to not confuse "behaviors and thought patterns that are closer to ours" with more intelligent. Researchers already have a difficult time establishing IQ tests that don't show significant bias for particular races or cultures of people, much moreso across different species.
Also, just saying that because the dolphin nervous system has a higher percentage of glial cells they are by necessity less intelligent really shows a misunderstanding of the nervous system. Nerurons are quicker and better at actually processing information, but glial cells can also pass nervous impulses, and in fact are better at passing impulses over a long distance than neurons, and as such are better for coordinating information from multiple regions of the brain than neurons are. The larger proportion of glial cells could simply be a result of needing to work with more pieces of information related to movement as a result of living in a 3d world rather than a primarilly 2d world as humans do (Both due to dolphin's ability to move in 3d, and their reliance on echolocation for ranging which gives much finer distance measurements and allows for the creation of a much more accurate mental map of the environment, as opposed to human vision which in in reality formed by a roughly 2d image projected on our retinas which we strive to pull some 3d information out of.)
From the rural America I know of, AO and M video games will just be sold at porn stores. Probably be some of the least expensive merchandise in the store. Granted, I don't know Bible Belt rural America to well, more grain belt.
You really don't know what "think different" means. If it's not for sale at the Apple Store then it's not for the Mac. I only see one third party wireless USB device on the page, and that's a bluetooth adapter.
But yeah, the fact that the "security researchers" refuse to reveal information about the vulnerabilities really does make one question their motives, or whether the demonstration was even valid and not simply a rigged demo to help them win some 3133+ p1551ng |v|4t(h or something.
One of the basic tenets of the patent was that the filesharing is no longer anonymous. I would think the RIAA (and related associations) would be all about that. My guess is Sony is trying to come up with some P2P alternative to iTunes. Why P2P? It would be cheaper for them to shift the bandwith burdern to the customers. Basically it is possible that they have people that are intelligent enough to realize their is a chance that their current business model (selling physical media) will not last forever and have enough (foresight/greed) to get in the game early. That, and finding which arm of Sony this is coming from is important, as the hardware division really doesn't care much about DRM and all that and try to incorporate cool tech that then gets hamstrung by the media division when they realize that it could be used to infringe on their IP.
Most of the world follows a first to file policy rather than a first to invent, and even the United States is moving towards this. The primary justification for following a first to file policy is that there is a lot of difficulty in proving prior art, or more importantly proving LACK of prior art on unpatented inventions.
While it may seem unfair to inventors, going on a first to file policy is theoretically more fair and effective in the long run than a first to invent policy; If you think patent trolls and submarine patents are bad, imagine what someone (party A) could do by surreptiously inventing a tech, documenting the invention without releasing the information to the public, then waiting for someone (party B) else to invent the same tech, patent it and actually bring it to market. Party A could then retroactively coopt the patent and demand exorbitant fees from the Party B with a much stronger bargaining chip than they otherwise would have, as party B has already invested a lot of capital into manufacturing, advertising, supply chain, etc. With a first to file policy, there is a public record of the patent so party B would know in advance whether the tech is available or not, and therefore be able to know in advance what the costs involved with production (I.E. whether they will have to pay a liscensing fee on the tech.)
Although this brings up another odd conundrum with patents. They can be quite detrimental to innovation if the license holder does not bring the patented idea to market and does not actively shop out the patent to be licenced. Basically, if the tech is not in some product on the market, another party researching along the same lines would have very little way of knowing that what they are researching has been patented untill enough R&D has been done that they could independantly file a patent on the same idea. Without enough information to file their own patent, it would be difficult to search the available literature and listed patents to find if the idea has been patented yet, especially if the patent is written in an obfuscated (whether intentional or not) manner. If the tech has already been brought to market, it is likely that researchers in the field would be familiar with the competition and the workins of the competitors products and know at a much earlier stage whether the product they are developing is indeed innovative. If the patent holder is actively shopping the patent out, it is likely that the promotional materials presented would have a much more clear synopsis of what the patent actually covers than actually reading the patent itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh... but they don't have to ACTUALLY make you any happier. They just have to convince you that you think you are happier with them. Hence... advertising.
when a scientist issues a cuatious phrase like "may play an important role..." that basically translates into "hey, we got something that should be looked into." From there it's various layers of press trying to add a little "wow" to the article that make it sound more and more like the scientists declared that this one gene is alone responsible for the difference between chimps and people.
*Disclaimer, some scientists may exaggerate the importance of their findings, presumably for garnering more grant money, or possibly for good old fame and attention, but that is not the experience I've generally seen when dealing with scientists.
Actually what you are describing happens, except that neurons don't appear in "random" locations but certain locations of the brain (see neurogenesis.) Neurons also naturally migrate naturally in the brain. An individual neuron in the brain really doesn't have much control over thought processes, it's the network of connections that are important, and there is a lot of redundancy built in to deal with damage and cell death. The brain is also pretty decent at routing around some types of damage, sometimes with people missing the majority of the cortex of an entire hemisphere functioning fairly normally.) Sure, some patterns can be lost (I.E. you forget facts and lose skills after time if they are not reinforced) but I sincerely believe that it is possible for Medicine to come up with treatments that A)delay or moderate brain cell death, B)increase adult neurogenesis and C)increase uptake of these new neurons into the thought pathways within the brain. I believe it's also been shown that a good proportion of senility can be prevented or at least moderated by keeping the person mentally active and stimulated. Any other part of the body will atrophy if not used in order to conserve energy. It would make sense that the brain (one of the highest energy demand organs in the body) will atrophy to some extent if not exercised.
Physical ability seems to decline far earlier than mental ability, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that physical aging leaves people in such a situation where they simply don't have the ability to do the things that allow for mental stimulation, such as diminished strength precludes sports, diminished eyesight begins to preclude reading, diminished hearing precludes conversational skills, etc etc. I don't doubt that there is a physical neurological component to senility, but I believe keeping the body healthy would allow a person to keep their brain healthier and "younger." This makes the job of finding a pill or other treatment to keep the brain healthy much less troublesome, although it would make effecacy testing far more difficult as various stages of physical sensecence and condition should also be compared in order to fully understand the effect of novel treatments.
So yes, as we get better at 1)fighting cancer and 2)replacing/repairing failing organs (including the brain) through medical advances and lifestyle changes/improvements we will be able to put off death further and further. Medical treatments to stave off senility shouldn't be viewed as strictly unnatural: the brain (along with the rest of the body) is constantly replacing dead, dying and malfunctioning cells. Even the cells that do survive for a long period of time will have their various structures repaired and replaced. I heard somewhere that in five years an average person will have none of the same atoms making up their body (Although I can't find a source for that five years "fact" so take it for what it's worth. And with a grain of salt while you're at it.)
Mexican coke is probably made with cane sugar. The reality is that the U.S. is one of the only places in the world where high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is cheaper than cane sugar. This originally was because sugar cane can (and is) grown in the U.S., but not as efficiently as it can be grown in more tropical climates. The result is that the U.S. sugar (both cane and beet) farmers pushed for a heavy import on sugar so domestic sugar could compete economically. This tariff pushed the price of sugar up high enough that when the technology arose to make HFCS, HFCS ended up being significantly cheaper than cane sugar. While the introduction of HFCS does in a way make the sugar import tariff moot to the U.S. sugar farmers, the corn lobby likes the tariff, and it's quite easy to shift from cane production to corn production, so the tariff has stayed (to the best of my knowledge.) However, the tariff pretty much only covers pure sugar, so candies and other sugared goods (such as Mexican Coke) are not affected. I know there were smuggling operations which would import very high sugar candies (such as rock candy which can be pure sugar) and then process them back to sugar in the U.S. to avoid the import tariff (people will do a lot to avoid paying taxes.)
And why is the Mexican (and many other developing nation's) Coke still in glass bottles? Because it's cheaper that way in those companies. In recycling plastic and aluminum, the primary costs are for machinery and running automated processes, while glass bottles are generally re-used of which washing and inspecting bottles is a comparatively labor intensive process. In developing countries labor is relatively cheaper while automated factories are relatively more expensive than compared to highly industrialized nations such as the United States. This means that glass bottles are cheaper, or at the very least the increase in price is less than the percieved value the customer gains in having glass bottles.
So, Mexican Coke is made with real sugar and comes in glass bottles because... it's cheaper to do it that way in Mexico. Or at least relatively cheaper than it is in the United States to the point where the percieved value gained from using cane and glass is worth the extra money. Especially when soda can be viewed as more of a luxury item there, while it is basically a fact of life for most U.S. residents (well, besides coffee drinkers) and I think people are generally willing to pay more for quality in a luxury item than in a day to day commodity.
Don't worry... corporations also scratch the back of encumbant government officials and parties in their pocket. Expect to see the price of gas go down and down in the near future, possibly dropping to pre 9/11 prices for a very brief period of time, likely ending right after the elections. That way the encumbant officials can say "see, we've fixed the problem with the price of gas. Nevermind that the problem was caused by some of our largest campaign contributors and we realy did nothing to stop it in the first place, as the millions of dollars they donated of course have to be paid back by allowing them to gouge the consumers for billions of dollars." (numbers in that quote are simply pulled out of thin air, not to be used as an actual source of information) Having a Republican controlled presidency, senate, house and supreme court happens to be a very desirable thing to the oil companies, as there is no "voice of reason" balancing things out and asking questions about legislation that passes, or about lack of enforcement of existing laws.
I'm not Republican bashing here... a government dominated by Dems is equally as indebted to their own special interest groups (primarilly large businesses, just different ones) and is just as bad for the country A balance between Republican and Democrat allows the federal government to be indebted a lot more to the people than special interest groups. I personally feel that more than two parties would be a very good thing, but two is better than one. Although I'm doubtful that this trend can be extrapolated to one party is better than no, in which every elected government official is elected based on their ability to govern and a bank of trust they have built in the community rather than adherance to party lines. Although one could argue that in such a system, each person running for office is their own party. A citizen can dream... right?
So... kinda like musicians make their money today. There are a very few artists that actually see some money from CD sales, but most of them really don't. It's touring and merchandising that gives them money, and CD sales are seen more as advertising. On the other hand, record companies view tours as advertising for the CD sales.
There are many different triggers that will initiate and control how much energy is put into different processes... they can include hours of daylight, total insolation (basically amount of energy recieved from the sun,) temperature, rainfall, other moisture related triggers, physical damage, grazing damage, fire damage, and so forth. And the various processes triggered include germination, leaf budding, leaf loss, growth, branching patterns, flower budding, flower opening, seed formation, fruit growth, dropping fruit, asexual division (runners, corm division etc) sap movement, stoma regulation, etc etc etc. The same plant will often use different triggers for the different processes, sometimes using multiple triggers for one process. A change in timing of the triggers could easilly result in sub-optimal performance in one of the plant's "actions" or lead to complete failure of a process, itself leading to plant death, reduced competitive ability or failure to create viable offspring, leading to extinction.
Like anything in nature, it's really not as simple as was taught in high school bio.
So, the data is 2 months out of date. Therefore of very limited utility in predicting actual trends in "internet-time." Granted, it could still be useful for cyclical trends: seasonal, holiday based, back to school/etc in determining periodic demand, but not as useful as "Wow, this thing is about to get really big, and we'd better jump on it NOW." Then again, maybe that's actually a good thing for society... the act of "coolhunting" (I personally hate the word, but that's what I've read it as... trendspotting is a much better term) has really driven the fad cycle faster and faster to the point where a fad used to last a year or a couple years, now they last on the order of months. This cycle contributes greatly to the disposable culture that we are sinking deeper and deeper into with all the negative consequences. Then again, maybe fad cycles will accelerate to the point where large factories can't be tooled up in time to supply the demand, and people will start learning to DIY or be square.
Ugg... I can't believe I just posted that on slashdot. Or rather, am about to post it...
I'll agree that that's probably the biggest component of the ban against GM products. Actually, as I recall it is not exactly a ban but a firm unwillingness by the people to consume GM products leading to that being a market not suitable for GM crops or possibly GM affected crops. The opinion very well could have arisen as a meme started by agricultural interests (Ala in the Chewley's representative in Clerk's, only on a continental level)
Genetically speaking, current sweetcorn and other commercial corn crops are not really all that different from their pre Columbus ancestors. A lot of the major differences in current maize and it's ancestoral forms come from polyploidy, which is essentially a duplication of chromosomes (rather than one set of chromosomes, I believe most strains of corn have around 4 sets of chromosomes. These chromosomes contain mostly the same genetic information as the natural diploid state. Polyploidy in and of itself will usually lead to bigger, sweeter kernels (since there are more copies of the DNA, more proteins involved in the storage of sugars can be made) and other beneficial traits. Where the polyploidy really makes corn (and other polyploid crops) great for horticultural selection is that radically different hybrids can be created than with standard diploid crops. Rather than having the possibility of two different chromosomes bearing different genes, there are four chromosomes, and with hybrids each one can come from a different species or subspecies. This allows for a huge toolbox to work with, and when combined with hybrid vigor one can see how modern agricultural corn appears to be so different than it's wild and even semi-domesticated anscestors while still basically encoding for the same proteins, even if all the proteins were not necesarilly found in a given ancestor, the group of ancestors as a whole contained the DNA that encodes for pretty much all the proteins in modern corn, give or take a few minor mutations here and there and possibly even natural interspecific genetic transfer (it happens, usually virus mediated.)
I believe one of the more legitimate concerns with transgenic engineering is the possibility of introducing an allergenic agent into a food that traditionally does not have it. People that are allergic to, say, shrimp and peanuts know to avoid them. They have to read labels, ask at restaurants if those ingredients are used, etc. Transgenic products are generally not labeled as such, and even if they were WHICH organism the genes were taken from is generally not advertised. If a section of DNA is taken from a plant that encodes a protein which a person is allergic to, any product that gene is put into becomes dangerous, possibly even fatal to the allergic person.
I'm not saying it is LIKELY that someone will die from this, but the possibility does exist. Knowing which chemicals to avoid due to allergy potential gets very tricky when you start putting in genes from organisms not usually used for food. If the genes you are introducing to the new plant encode for some variety of insect or bacterial resistance, it becomes more likely that the encoded protein is biologically active in organisms other than the targetted pest. And these new crops do not have to undergo FDA testing to ensure safety. It is possible for something to slip through that is flat out toxic (long term low dose exposure risks are very tricky to weed out,) but the possibility of a group of people being unusually sensitive or allergic to the new compounds is very real (although not necesarilly very high) with very serious public health consequences.
That, and many other countries have little reason to trust that giant U.S. corporations will perform the due dilligence required to ensure that their products are safe. Especially on food crops targetted for export.
Genetic engineering has the potential to be an extremely powerful tool to increase the standard of living for everyone on the planet, through better food, medicine and even better clothing, building materials and eventually even cheaper fuel if biofuels ever take hold. But I don't think that companies such as Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland have ever shown that they care for much besides their bottom line.
Clicky. This has to be the most interactive article I've seen. It's turned into a game in several threads.
Exactly. Looking at holiday related terms is very telling Wow... that last one is odd. There's a very telling lack of a peak there... Since july 4th was almost 2 months ago, one would assume that there should be a peak. Either people did not celebrate Independance Day in the US this year, they celebrated in a different way, or google trend's data is at least two months out of date, and therefore useless for trendspotting.
And Pablo for the win!
/. and somebody would guess it and then bring it up.
I normally wouldn't have posted something so blatantly ripping it off without attributing the source, but it was... let's see. 4:30 AM? Yeesh. I didn't think I was up that late. After posting it I thought about attributing it, but figured this was
As long as we are on the topic, and the thread is dead anyways... what character shows up in both Snowcrash and Diamond Age? (Never got actual confirmation on this, but I'm sure it's out there SOMEWHERE.)
While the Xbox may on paper be a loss for console sales, I doubt that really includes liscensing fees, etc. Add on to that the Xbox being just another way to try to integrate the Microsoft Experience (I.E. lock-in at the home consumer level) and you can see why MS doesn't mind losing a few dozens of dollars per console sale.
I'll see your Phantom and raise you one Duke Nukem Forever... shipping on said Phantom.
This sounds pretty close to "not an animal." Yes, it starts with a sample from an animal, usually a cow. It currently also needs animal products which do not necesarilly come from slaughtering the animal, but it will in theory become more and more possible and then eventually cost effective to find synthetic replacements for these compounds.
This product might fall under the "really creepy" category for most people, but carries minimal animal suffering. I really don't think the majority of people would mind this product, as long as the taste/texture is good (not even necesarilly identical to "traditional" meat) and the price is not much more than traditional cheap meat
Physical destruction of the hard drive on police raid would be WAYYY too obvious. That's why you install powerful electromagnets in the door that pulse and fry the hard drive (and likely other internal components) when the computer is being removed from the room. Since the data on the hard drive would have "proven your innocence" and... I donno... the data was there before they took it... then the default judgement would be in your favor. I assume if they get default judgement then it would be trivial to countersue for lawyer fees. And then you can get them for destruction of property...
Unless, of course, they somehow figure out that you had an electromagnet in the doorframe.
Bumping takes about 5 seconds, rather than your 20 minutes. It will look a lot less obvious what your are doing while actually attempting to gain entry. Bumping a lock also does not leave behind as much evidence of entry, making the invader much less vulnerable while inside.
That short term memory theory? Definately not true. It's a false theory used as justification for keeping goldfish in a bowl, which is in reality cruel. Goldfish raised in a stimulating environment can be quite intelligent, being able to be trained such things as playing basketball (can not find source right now) soccer, and sometimes even synchronized swimming (Goldfish are not naturally schooling fish per say, so this behavior is definately trained.) And... umm... Texas Holdem. I'm not quite sure about the validity of that last one, though. Actually, I've got a pretty good idea about exactly how valid that one is, but I'm leaving it in anyways.
I'd have to see a lot more evidence to actually believe that goldfish are as smart as dolphins. Although in designing intelligence tests, we do have to be extremely careful to not confuse "behaviors and thought patterns that are closer to ours" with more intelligent. Researchers already have a difficult time establishing IQ tests that don't show significant bias for particular races or cultures of people, much moreso across different species.
Also, just saying that because the dolphin nervous system has a higher percentage of glial cells they are by necessity less intelligent really shows a misunderstanding of the nervous system. Nerurons are quicker and better at actually processing information, but glial cells can also pass nervous impulses, and in fact are better at passing impulses over a long distance than neurons, and as such are better for coordinating information from multiple regions of the brain than neurons are. The larger proportion of glial cells could simply be a result of needing to work with more pieces of information related to movement as a result of living in a 3d world rather than a primarilly 2d world as humans do (Both due to dolphin's ability to move in 3d, and their reliance on echolocation for ranging which gives much finer distance measurements and allows for the creation of a much more accurate mental map of the environment, as opposed to human vision which in in reality formed by a roughly 2d image projected on our retinas which we strive to pull some 3d information out of.)
From the rural America I know of, AO and M video games will just be sold at porn stores. Probably be some of the least expensive merchandise in the store. Granted, I don't know Bible Belt rural America to well, more grain belt.
You really don't know what "think different" means. If it's not for sale at the Apple Store then it's not for the Mac. I only see one third party wireless USB device on the page, and that's a bluetooth adapter.
But yeah, the fact that the "security researchers" refuse to reveal information about the vulnerabilities really does make one question their motives, or whether the demonstration was even valid and not simply a rigged demo to help them win some 3133+ p1551ng |v|4t(h or something.
One of the basic tenets of the patent was that the filesharing is no longer anonymous. I would think the RIAA (and related associations) would be all about that. My guess is Sony is trying to come up with some P2P alternative to iTunes. Why P2P? It would be cheaper for them to shift the bandwith burdern to the customers. Basically it is possible that they have people that are intelligent enough to realize their is a chance that their current business model (selling physical media) will not last forever and have enough (foresight/greed) to get in the game early. That, and finding which arm of Sony this is coming from is important, as the hardware division really doesn't care much about DRM and all that and try to incorporate cool tech that then gets hamstrung by the media division when they realize that it could be used to infringe on their IP.
Most of the world follows a first to file policy rather than a first to invent, and even the United States is moving towards this. The primary justification for following a first to file policy is that there is a lot of difficulty in proving prior art, or more importantly proving LACK of prior art on unpatented inventions.
While it may seem unfair to inventors, going on a first to file policy is theoretically more fair and effective in the long run than a first to invent policy; If you think patent trolls and submarine patents are bad, imagine what someone (party A) could do by surreptiously inventing a tech, documenting the invention without releasing the information to the public, then waiting for someone (party B) else to invent the same tech, patent it and actually bring it to market. Party A could then retroactively coopt the patent and demand exorbitant fees from the Party B with a much stronger bargaining chip than they otherwise would have, as party B has already invested a lot of capital into manufacturing, advertising, supply chain, etc. With a first to file policy, there is a public record of the patent so party B would know in advance whether the tech is available or not, and therefore be able to know in advance what the costs involved with production (I.E. whether they will have to pay a liscensing fee on the tech.)
Although this brings up another odd conundrum with patents. They can be quite detrimental to innovation if the license holder does not bring the patented idea to market and does not actively shop out the patent to be licenced. Basically, if the tech is not in some product on the market, another party researching along the same lines would have very little way of knowing that what they are researching has been patented untill enough R&D has been done that they could independantly file a patent on the same idea. Without enough information to file their own patent, it would be difficult to search the available literature and listed patents to find if the idea has been patented yet, especially if the patent is written in an obfuscated (whether intentional or not) manner. If the tech has already been brought to market, it is likely that researchers in the field would be familiar with the competition and the workins of the competitors products and know at a much earlier stage whether the product they are developing is indeed innovative. If the patent holder is actively shopping the patent out, it is likely that the promotional materials presented would have a much more clear synopsis of what the patent actually covers than actually reading the patent itself.
If there's a problem all I had to do was push updates to a single OS
And if there is a vulnerability, all an attacker has to do is push a virus/worm for a single OS.