I remember playing MS Flight Sim at my friend's house. What we usually did was try to fly a 747 BETWEEN the towers. So if gamers were on plane and found a last minute opportunity to seize the plane, the video game could have even provided training for those who wished to stop the tragedy.
There are many preorders not filled. Many of the preorders won't be filled by christmas as it is, not to mention lots and lots of people who want one but didn't preorder. Therefore, assuming that their factories are at maximum output, they could not have made a release by christmas. The entire game industry considers it important to release things near christmas, so it made sense that they tried.
what else would you call the POKErythroid Myeloid ONtogenic gene? The POK family of genes is well established in oncology, and wasn't made up just to make the acronym work. Names like that are much easier to comprehend than ZBTB7, like it was changed to due to the litigation.
I'm holding out for quantum entanglement networking. No man in the middle attack, no pesky inverse squared power dissipation. Raw information being teleported at the speed of light. Oh yeah.
The goal of science is to provide answers. Science is not an object that has its own hopes or desires, but a process that humans utilize in order to find answers about how the world around them works. Using the phrase "the goal of science..." is logically equivalent to saying "The goal people use when utilizing science." This is the same thing as saying "The goal of exercising is to get in better shape" or "The goal of hammering is to get a nail into a piece of wood."
One of the most catastrophic events was the arisal of photosynthesis. Oxygen was fatal to the vast majority of early organisms, therefore many of them died once the atmosphere became oxygen rich. The arisal of oxygen DID however allow for life to become more complex: production of collagen requires oxygen. Collagen is literally the protein that holds cells together; without it (or another suitable replacement, which we haven't found yet) multicellular life could not exist.
The increase in oxygen rates also allowed for high metabolism activities such as active movement and increasing complexity of the nervous system.
This is not to say that a human mediated extinction will cause such a new spark of life. But chances are if we drastically change the environment, we won't be around to see the long term results anyways.
Also, a dark outer coat would likely be worse for heating; a black body does indeed absorb light and convert it to heat more effectively than a white body, but a black body will also radiate heat as electromagnetic energy more effectively than a white body. Considering the extremely short to nonexistant days in the polar winter, white would be a better choice as the ratio of sunlit to dark is so low.
Polar bears using their hairs as fiber optic guides to help warm the skin is a theory that has mostly been debunked. Using sunlight to warm up seems relatively obvious, untill you consider the actual environment they live in. Arctic winters have very little to no sunlight... in the coldest part of the year, mind you. The theory originated from the fact that the guard hairs are indeed hollow, but studies have not supported the idea that the hollow shaft allows light to penetrate deep into the follicle. More likely, the hair is hollow so as to become a better insulator because it has air pockets trapped inside the follicle. The reason polar bears appear white? To match the white background and provide camouflage against prey (I don't think polar bears have any significant predators besides humans and occasional sea lions. The hunter sea lions can be identified by large yellow tusks: they are large because they don't get worn down scraping the sea floor for mollusks, and they are yellow because they are stained by fat.)
Yeah... because without the hoops and notarized documents and paperwork, anybody could get power turned on in your name... without even having your SSN
Except that the $12,000 isn't just imaginary money. I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone carrier doesn't own all the towers, but instead leases the use of them, probably an a bandwith use rate. And if $12,000 is rung up in one month, chances are the theif was making a lot of international or toll calls. The company has to pay out for those as well.
But yes, there should be an upper limit. And the company should call and ask if there is any significant unusual activity (I'd say that even as low as $500 would count) as they would need to show that they exercised due diligence in preventing this fraud. Oh, and whoever you contact to see if the unusual activity is going on would probably need to know some piece of information (address, password, mother's maiden name...) because, well, if the phone is stolen, then the thief has the phone.
And not to mention that a lot of the time police officers won't show up most of the time for a speeding ticket court date (although this may depend on the jurisdiction, etc.) Then it becomes your word against, well, noone. The judge will usually offer you a lower sentence if you bother to show up, because you just proved that you aren't likely to just roll over and the court costs are therefore going to be more than the ticket.
Wow, not only does this comment deflect blame via "a friend told me" but it is done AC as well. The movie is that shameful? And from what I understand, it's still better than Gigli.
The OP isn't saying that this is a bad idea, just asking if there are drawbacks that you won't find in this press release. People go on and on about how the "hydrogen economy" is going to save us, when in reality it does just about nothing to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels. Everyone "knows" that recycling is good for the environment, but after doing a little digging one can find out that sending out recycling trucks to pick up the recycling requires more energy than simply using new resources. The most simple comparison comes with plastics, where more petroleum is used in making post-consumer recycled products than in making virgin products. And that petroleum is used in relatively polluting diesel engines driving around where people live. (Recycling of aluminum, however, is environmentally beneficial as immense amounts of energy are required to reduce the naturally occuring aluminum oxides into metallic aluminum. That's why you can still walk into a recycling center and get money for aluminum cans.)
The point is, press releases on "environmentally friendly" solutions rarely if ever include cradle to grave ROIE, environmental, and cost benefit analyses in their press releases and advertising glossies as hey simply don't stack up as all that favorable, and the initial investment many times could be better spent somewhere else. Not to say that there aren't some choices that are environmentally sound, but not nearly as many as there are products which make that claim. And most consumers do not know the proper guidelines to evaluate, so go by misleading metrics like miles per gallon which can be misleading, while cradle to grave financial costs of ownership which directly incorporate ALL subsidies and ignore tarifs would better represent the environmental benefit as most of the associated costs are in materials and energy needed to make the product and bring it to market. The trick here is in determining all of the externalities that are generally ignored, which I'm sure the average consumer really could not comprehend.
As narwhals are social creatures, it is feasible that having every member of the pod having the sensory apparatus is no more advantageous than having only a portion of the population having the tusk. Since the structure probably would carry some disadvantages (reduced mobility, energy required to grow and maintain, etc) that could tend to support only one sex having the tusk. This could be combined with simple sexual selection as you mentioned to put more evolutionary pressure towards males with large tusks.
I would be willing to bet that a show that appeals to 1 million "Oooh look... shinies!" types would bring in more advertising dollars than a show that appeals to 2 million critical thinkers. Why? Commercials are more effective on the former. In fact, the critical thinker type will realize that the commercials are annoying and do something else... whether it is make a sandwhich, go to the bathroom or just flip through the channels in hopes of spotting something interesting.
That's why I think the advertising model of content delivery will always lead to watered down content... the reader or viewer becomes the product, while the advertisers are the customers. The advertiser wants the network to deliver the most swayable audience possible, so advertising dollars are best spent on lowest common denominator type shows. With advertising supported media, it becomes financially irresponsible to create programming that actually inspires critical thinking.
show me chimps spontaneously picking up a pencil to jimmy the box open, and that's a whole different story.
I can't remember any particular studies right now, but chimps are generally pretty good at figuring out how to get things out of boxes and the like, even if tools are needed. A while back the unexpected thing found out was the finding that once a chimp figured out how to get the box open (or whatever the experiment was) it could then teach or at least show other chimps how to do it. Now that I think about it, it may not have been a chimp but may have been gorillas, but the concept is still there.
I'd say that adult humans copy extra steps all the time. For instance my father always double clicks hyperlinks. And he was a programmer for over thirty years, and isn't in general afraid of new technologies. Then again he has an odd typing style. If he makes a mistake, he will move the cursor to the point before the mistake and start typing again. He will then delete the rest after he's done. At the end of a half page email he may have a few lines of half formed sentences and mispelled words to delete. For some reason this really bothers me, as I tend to just backspace and start again, or highlight and delete the block if it crosses multiple lines. But then again this habit may have come from programming, where he may want to look back at the algorithms he was playing with earlier while most of my typing is language based: I really learned to type chatting on BBSes.
One could refine this and say that human civilization is made mostly of people who just do what they are told, with just enough people to figure out new ways of doing things and enough people to question whether or not to do those things. But of course obedience vs. independant thinking is also not an either or situation, it comes in a wide spectrum and even one individual will lean one way or another depending on the situation.
But I think it would make sense that young human children are more likely to mimic than analyze the situation. Most animals (and young humans) thought processes are based mainly on emotions. When we start talking about the logical thought processes that we have, they are generally defined and even internally acted out as a verbal process. We use language as a framework for how we think, and even how we solve problems. One could postulate that since a 3 or 4 year old in the study only has a rudimentary grasp of language, they will not act very logically. And the best way to learn language seems to be through mimicry, eventually language skills are built up to the point where one can improve their language skills at will (such as through reading) and thus build a framework for logical, formal thought.
Slashdot Mirror
They just want to protect your from the TERRIBLE SECRET OF SPACE!!!!
I remember playing MS Flight Sim at my friend's house. What we usually did was try to fly a 747 BETWEEN the towers. So if gamers were on plane and found a last minute opportunity to seize the plane, the video game could have even provided training for those who wished to stop the tragedy.
There are many preorders not filled. Many of the preorders won't be filled by christmas as it is, not to mention lots and lots of people who want one but didn't preorder. Therefore, assuming that their factories are at maximum output, they could not have made a release by christmas. The entire game industry considers it important to release things near christmas, so it made sense that they tried.
what else would you call the POK Erythroid Myeloid ONtogenic gene? The POK family of genes is well established in oncology, and wasn't made up just to make the acronym work. Names like that are much easier to comprehend than ZBTB7, like it was changed to due to the litigation.
I'm holding out for quantum entanglement networking. No man in the middle attack, no pesky inverse squared power dissipation. Raw information being teleported at the speed of light. Oh yeah.
The goal of science is to provide answers. Science is not an object that has its own hopes or desires, but a process that humans utilize in order to find answers about how the world around them works. Using the phrase "the goal of science..." is logically equivalent to saying "The goal people use when utilizing science." This is the same thing as saying "The goal of exercising is to get in better shape" or "The goal of hammering is to get a nail into a piece of wood."
One of the most catastrophic events was the arisal of photosynthesis. Oxygen was fatal to the vast majority of early organisms, therefore many of them died once the atmosphere became oxygen rich. The arisal of oxygen DID however allow for life to become more complex: production of collagen requires oxygen. Collagen is literally the protein that holds cells together; without it (or another suitable replacement, which we haven't found yet) multicellular life could not exist.
The increase in oxygen rates also allowed for high metabolism activities such as active movement and increasing complexity of the nervous system.
This is not to say that a human mediated extinction will cause such a new spark of life. But chances are if we drastically change the environment, we won't be around to see the long term results anyways.
Also, a dark outer coat would likely be worse for heating; a black body does indeed absorb light and convert it to heat more effectively than a white body, but a black body will also radiate heat as electromagnetic energy more effectively than a white body. Considering the extremely short to nonexistant days in the polar winter, white would be a better choice as the ratio of sunlit to dark is so low.
Polar bears using their hairs as fiber optic guides to help warm the skin is a theory that has mostly been debunked. Using sunlight to warm up seems relatively obvious, untill you consider the actual environment they live in. Arctic winters have very little to no sunlight... in the coldest part of the year, mind you. The theory originated from the fact that the guard hairs are indeed hollow, but studies have not supported the idea that the hollow shaft allows light to penetrate deep into the follicle. More likely, the hair is hollow so as to become a better insulator because it has air pockets trapped inside the follicle. The reason polar bears appear white? To match the white background and provide camouflage against prey (I don't think polar bears have any significant predators besides humans and occasional sea lions. The hunter sea lions can be identified by large yellow tusks: they are large because they don't get worn down scraping the sea floor for mollusks, and they are yellow because they are stained by fat.)
I'd think the people you are trying to hire are better at curry than you are. Mmmm... curry.
Yeah... because without the hoops and notarized documents and paperwork, anybody could get power turned on in your name... without even having your SSN
20 days without sleep could be deadly, though.
And never want to buy a house.
Except that the $12,000 isn't just imaginary money. I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone carrier doesn't own all the towers, but instead leases the use of them, probably an a bandwith use rate. And if $12,000 is rung up in one month, chances are the theif was making a lot of international or toll calls. The company has to pay out for those as well.
But yes, there should be an upper limit. And the company should call and ask if there is any significant unusual activity (I'd say that even as low as $500 would count) as they would need to show that they exercised due diligence in preventing this fraud. Oh, and whoever you contact to see if the unusual activity is going on would probably need to know some piece of information (address, password, mother's maiden name...) because, well, if the phone is stolen, then the thief has the phone.
And not to mention that a lot of the time police officers won't show up most of the time for a speeding ticket court date (although this may depend on the jurisdiction, etc.) Then it becomes your word against, well, noone. The judge will usually offer you a lower sentence if you bother to show up, because you just proved that you aren't likely to just roll over and the court costs are therefore going to be more than the ticket.
Wow, not only does this comment deflect blame via "a friend told me" but it is done AC as well. The movie is that shameful? And from what I understand, it's still better than Gigli.
$12.99 + $4.00 shipping and that's for a retail boxed one, not OEM. That's about as much as buying one CD these days.
The OP isn't saying that this is a bad idea, just asking if there are drawbacks that you won't find in this press release. People go on and on about how the "hydrogen economy" is going to save us, when in reality it does just about nothing to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels. Everyone "knows" that recycling is good for the environment, but after doing a little digging one can find out that sending out recycling trucks to pick up the recycling requires more energy than simply using new resources. The most simple comparison comes with plastics, where more petroleum is used in making post-consumer recycled products than in making virgin products. And that petroleum is used in relatively polluting diesel engines driving around where people live. (Recycling of aluminum, however, is environmentally beneficial as immense amounts of energy are required to reduce the naturally occuring aluminum oxides into metallic aluminum. That's why you can still walk into a recycling center and get money for aluminum cans.)
The point is, press releases on "environmentally friendly" solutions rarely if ever include cradle to grave ROIE, environmental, and cost benefit analyses in their press releases and advertising glossies as hey simply don't stack up as all that favorable, and the initial investment many times could be better spent somewhere else. Not to say that there aren't some choices that are environmentally sound, but not nearly as many as there are products which make that claim. And most consumers do not know the proper guidelines to evaluate, so go by misleading metrics like miles per gallon which can be misleading, while cradle to grave financial costs of ownership which directly incorporate ALL subsidies and ignore tarifs would better represent the environmental benefit as most of the associated costs are in materials and energy needed to make the product and bring it to market. The trick here is in determining all of the externalities that are generally ignored, which I'm sure the average consumer really could not comprehend.
Then all you'd really nead is one hex and one octal.
As narwhals are social creatures, it is feasible that having every member of the pod having the sensory apparatus is no more advantageous than having only a portion of the population having the tusk. Since the structure probably would carry some disadvantages (reduced mobility, energy required to grow and maintain, etc) that could tend to support only one sex having the tusk. This could be combined with simple sexual selection as you mentioned to put more evolutionary pressure towards males with large tusks.
Someone who doesn't want to get busted for sharing it through their own ISP? Or maybe his neighbor who simply didn't want to pay for high speed?
I would be willing to bet that a show that appeals to 1 million "Oooh look... shinies!" types would bring in more advertising dollars than a show that appeals to 2 million critical thinkers. Why? Commercials are more effective on the former. In fact, the critical thinker type will realize that the commercials are annoying and do something else... whether it is make a sandwhich, go to the bathroom or just flip through the channels in hopes of spotting something interesting.
That's why I think the advertising model of content delivery will always lead to watered down content... the reader or viewer becomes the product, while the advertisers are the customers. The advertiser wants the network to deliver the most swayable audience possible, so advertising dollars are best spent on lowest common denominator type shows. With advertising supported media, it becomes financially irresponsible to create programming that actually inspires critical thinking.
show me chimps spontaneously picking up a pencil to jimmy the box open, and that's a whole different story.
I can't remember any particular studies right now, but chimps are generally pretty good at figuring out how to get things out of boxes and the like, even if tools are needed. A while back the unexpected thing found out was the finding that once a chimp figured out how to get the box open (or whatever the experiment was) it could then teach or at least show other chimps how to do it. Now that I think about it, it may not have been a chimp but may have been gorillas, but the concept is still there.
I'd say that adult humans copy extra steps all the time. For instance my father always double clicks hyperlinks. And he was a programmer for over thirty years, and isn't in general afraid of new technologies. Then again he has an odd typing style. If he makes a mistake, he will move the cursor to the point before the mistake and start typing again. He will then delete the rest after he's done. At the end of a half page email he may have a few lines of half formed sentences and mispelled words to delete. For some reason this really bothers me, as I tend to just backspace and start again, or highlight and delete the block if it crosses multiple lines. But then again this habit may have come from programming, where he may want to look back at the algorithms he was playing with earlier while most of my typing is language based: I really learned to type chatting on BBSes.
One could refine this and say that human civilization is made mostly of people who just do what they are told, with just enough people to figure out new ways of doing things and enough people to question whether or not to do those things. But of course obedience vs. independant thinking is also not an either or situation, it comes in a wide spectrum and even one individual will lean one way or another depending on the situation.
But I think it would make sense that young human children are more likely to mimic than analyze the situation. Most animals (and young humans) thought processes are based mainly on emotions. When we start talking about the logical thought processes that we have, they are generally defined and even internally acted out as a verbal process. We use language as a framework for how we think, and even how we solve problems. One could postulate that since a 3 or 4 year old in the study only has a rudimentary grasp of language, they will not act very logically. And the best way to learn language seems to be through mimicry, eventually language skills are built up to the point where one can improve their language skills at will (such as through reading) and thus build a framework for logical, formal thought.