I think what the MS guy is complaining about is that once you make your own personal changes, then the product is no longer supported by the vendor. In a nutshell that means that there is no reason to pay for support on an open source piece of software over a closed source piece of software.
I personally understand that there are advantages of the open source model, primarilly in that if the company you had support from goes out of business or stops supporting that software you can still go out and find someone else to support it or even manage the thing internally, while with closed source software once the software vendor stops support you are forced to upgrade or switch to a completely different package. But Microsoft probably doesn't see that as a significant advantage, or at the very least doesn't want other people to consider that as an advantage.
I guess I just assumed that because the article used the phrase to suspended mirrors and back again. By suspended I was picturing free-swinging. But then again, LIGO would make this article flat out wrong because of their inclusion of the phrase No one has been able to observe and record a wave because of the fractional changes involved.
Cancer is not the only thing that smoking causes: emphysema, bronchitis, various cardio-pulmonary disorders, etc. Of course, the media also exaggerates the health risks involved. And we can say with confidence that smokers, on average, die significantly younger than non-smokers.
Actually, it very likely might be. Cigarette smoke contains some quite potent cough suppressants and opens up the airways a little bit. For none smokers the irritation of the smoke outweighs the cough supporessant's properties, but smokers are somewhat desensitized to the irritation so a cigarette can temporarilly halt a coughing fit (although in the long run they cough more because of lung damage.) As far as opening airways, I know a couple asthmatics who are extremely sensitive to albuterol and all other bronchiodilators on the market, to the point where taking them during an asthma attack could kill them. Their doctors recommended very off record to take a drag or two of a cigarette if they felt that they couldn't get through an attack. The doctors had to keep it off record as any insinuation that cigarettes might have potential health benefits in any circumstance could be used to attack your record as a doctor, similar to pointing out that marijuana can have health benefits for certain patients.
My guess is this should read "the dollar value of tobacco taxes that go to funding the health care system is an order of magnitude greater than the amount of money that the health care system puts into treating tobacco related illesses."
Opening the parent up in a new tab seems to work a lot better for me. Don't have to search for the article you are understanding, then trace bnck up to find the parent (this can be a pain if several people had replied to parents with multiple layers of nesting gonig on.)
I can't count the number of times some friend has been all crazy over his new girlfriend and thinking she's the best thing on earth while the rest of us scratch our heads wondering why he's sunk so low.
Happens on-line, happens off-line. Happens to guys, happens to gals. What really happened is they wanted to sleep with someone and didn't care about the consequences or if it was the right person for a relationship. The thinking she's the best thing on earth is just him not being able to seperate love from lust. Fitting your preconcieved model of what you think is hot really doesn't preclude wanting to sleep with them... sometimes even out of curiosity. Sometimes this miscongruence results in people justifying their hormones by attributing the feelings to emotional bonding.
My guess? Somebody came up with the concept, put together a proof of concept demo (with website already existing) and then sold the whole thing to Amazon. The Whois information just hasn't been updated yet, or the original creator is now an Amazon employee or subcontractor.
For some people, caffeine affords better concentration. People with ADD and similar disorders generally have better attention when given stimulants such as Ritalin, although many stimulants seem to increase concentration, including nicotine.
Erowid has a fairly extensive writeup on caffeine, as they do with just about any psychoactive substance. Their general stance is usually pro-use, but they seem to be careful about listing the warnings and side effects, as well as tips for breaking addictions, handling withdrawal and dealing with overdoses.
Erowid also has some good writeups on civil freedoms and laws which many slashdotters would find interesting. Although much of the discussion applies to drug use and possesion, their views on the first and fourth amendmants make interesting reading and are a good start for actual reasearch on civil rights.
The whole history of evolution as an example? The reason punctuated equilibrium was concieved as a theory is that the fossil record generally does not show smooth transitions. There are usually intermediate forms found, but during stable climactic times the fossil record shows very little change over long periods of time, followed by rapid changes when climate does change.
Maybe I should have said that the rate of change in descendant populations will increase if selective pressures change? I did not mean to say that the rate of mutations will change, but a change in environment will lead to a change in what traits are selected for. If the ideal balance of traits for a given niche remains the same, then changing those traits is detrimental and will lead to decreased reproductive success. The searching for a mate who is the average of the pupulation which I mentioned in the above post is a behavior which would then make an individual more reproductively successful.
I guess another take on this is that the rate of change is often masked by homeostatic evolutionary pressures, but when the environment changes then those pressures no longer apply. I have no sources for anything I said, most of it was just little more than WAG. But it seems to make sense. I am sure something could be found in the appropriate literature which shows that mutations as well in non-coding genes happen at a significally higher rate than in coding proteins. This would reinforce (not prove, just reinforce) the hypothesis that selective pressure is usually homeostatic, trying to keep things the same.
So when the environment changes, it makes sense that the expressed phenotype will change. Sometimes this is due to a plastic trait, sometimes it is due to changes in the genome.
The body temperature of most mammals also drops somewhat during normal sleep. The nervous system has many complex chemical reactions, and the rate and timing of these chemical reactions are highly temperature dependant. In order to think better, body temperature must be stabilized. A highly developed nervous system can provide many advantages which outweigh the energy lost in thermoregulation.
We really don't know how long it takes for adaptations to arise. See the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibriu m for another explanation. Basically, evolution happens faster when there is pressure to change than it does when conditions are stable. Lack of change in stable times is likely perpetuated by sexual evolutionary pressures: animals are generally attracted to mates which appear to be the average for their species. In people, most people are attracted to someone who about average height, about average build, eyes about average width apart, nose an average size and shape. Many other factors are chosen in sexual selection which are normalizing.
But if a change in the environment means that individuals skewed to one side of a trait are going to die before reaching reproductive age, then A)individuals will have no choice but to choose mates that historically were not average B)what the average is will change, and if the image of average is learned rather than genetically predispoposed, then the image of the perfect mate will change in an individual's eyes and C)individuals more predisposed to a mate which has the selected against features, there will be less opportunities to mate causing natural selection to push the image of the ideal mate towards the same direction.
The salmon shark is very migratory, moving from tropical to arctic waters. Recent hypotheses involved the shark basically having antifreeze proteins to allow the shark to survive the temperature changes. The energy needed to thermoregulate is offset by the fact that the shark no longer has to make different sets of proteins for different temperatures. Temperature also has a really high effect on the rate at which different enzymes can catalyze the reaction they are intended for, and many fish compensate by producing different metabolic enzymes at different times of year, but this is quite costly and has a significant lag period. This lag period might be enough to kill an energy intensive predator such as a shark.
Phylogenetically, it seems more impressive that a shark would be warm blooded than a bony fish, as amniotes (the line which leads to reptiles, birds, mammals, etc) evolved from tetrapods, which are osteichthyans. Basically, bony fishes are more closely related to mammals and birds than they are to sharks. It's just that the selective pressures related to being out of water changed out morphology to a great extent. But consider how dolphins and whales are generally shaped more like a fish than they are most land mammals, and you see that shape is related more to habitat than phylogeny.
It does, however, make sense that a shark would evolve warm bloodedness as they are predatory hunters and so rely on speed and quickness to catch a meal. Being warm makes an animal much faster and more responsive.
Wow. This is not what I need to read right now. Was just woken up out of a dream and my brain's still not fully awake. Seeing these grammatical monstrosities, I knew that A)something was wrong and that B)it made no sense to me. I couldn't figure out why this was, and was convinced by my dream-state pseudo logic that the reason this thread was making so little sense was that I wasn't fully awake yet. Eventually the real answer dawned on me that the thread was just people writing mangled english to make fun of babelfish translations. Wierd.
Depends on the school. Most of the time the school doesn't pay anything for the license. Microsoft just gives a really steep discount because 1)it is a good idea to have just about all fresh graduates to have experience with Windows, because then they are already trained in it's use for the workforce and 2)piracy is so rampant on campuses that very few students would ever pay full price for it; There's always someone in the dorm (probably several on your floor) with a CD and some install keys.
I'd be willing to bet piracy does impact theater reciets. People will be able to see whether they like a movie before they go out to actually see it. Excellent movies will have more people seeing them, while subpar movies will have a drastic decline in ticket sales. The stance and actions of the MPAA against piracy make much better sense with that fact in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't find any information in the blog-removed search, then you just turn off that option.
You forgot about 3)Not write any drivers for linux and sue anybody who tries to reverse engineer the drivers.
And it looks SCO has been given just enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot.
I think what the MS guy is complaining about is that once you make your own personal changes, then the product is no longer supported by the vendor. In a nutshell that means that there is no reason to pay for support on an open source piece of software over a closed source piece of software.
I personally understand that there are advantages of the open source model, primarilly in that if the company you had support from goes out of business or stops supporting that software you can still go out and find someone else to support it or even manage the thing internally, while with closed source software once the software vendor stops support you are forced to upgrade or switch to a completely different package. But Microsoft probably doesn't see that as a significant advantage, or at the very least doesn't want other people to consider that as an advantage.
The flash file linked to by clicking on the images shows protuberances in some of the pictures (In particular the second that comes up.)
I guess I just assumed that because the article used the phrase to suspended mirrors and back again. By suspended I was picturing free-swinging. But then again, LIGO would make this article flat out wrong because of their inclusion of the phrase No one has been able to observe and record a wave because of the fractional changes involved.
The masses are mirrors which the light reflects off of on the end of the tunnels.
Come on, you're using the wrong definition.
we all know they meant that gravity waves have qualities that are spread throughout something. And that something just happens to be everything.
Cancer is not the only thing that smoking causes: emphysema, bronchitis, various cardio-pulmonary disorders, etc. Of course, the media also exaggerates the health risks involved. And we can say with confidence that smokers, on average, die significantly younger than non-smokers.
From Action on Smoking and Health an anti-smoking organaization: tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness. So smokers are subsidizing non-smokers health care. Granted, I'm not British so this doesn't apply to me, but it appears you are as you mentioned the NHS.
Actually, it very likely might be. Cigarette smoke contains some quite potent cough suppressants and opens up the airways a little bit. For none smokers the irritation of the smoke outweighs the cough supporessant's properties, but smokers are somewhat desensitized to the irritation so a cigarette can temporarilly halt a coughing fit (although in the long run they cough more because of lung damage.) As far as opening airways, I know a couple asthmatics who are extremely sensitive to albuterol and all other bronchiodilators on the market, to the point where taking them during an asthma attack could kill them. Their doctors recommended very off record to take a drag or two of a cigarette if they felt that they couldn't get through an attack. The doctors had to keep it off record as any insinuation that cigarettes might have potential health benefits in any circumstance could be used to attack your record as a doctor, similar to pointing out that marijuana can have health benefits for certain patients.
My guess is this should read "the dollar value of tobacco taxes that go to funding the health care system is an order of magnitude greater than the amount of money that the health care system puts into treating tobacco related illesses."
Opening the parent up in a new tab seems to work a lot better for me. Don't have to search for the article you are understanding, then trace bnck up to find the parent (this can be a pain if several people had replied to parents with multiple layers of nesting gonig on.)
I can't count the number of times some friend has been all crazy over his new girlfriend and thinking she's the best thing on earth while the rest of us scratch our heads wondering why he's sunk so low.
Happens on-line, happens off-line. Happens to guys, happens to gals. What really happened is they wanted to sleep with someone and didn't care about the consequences or if it was the right person for a relationship. The thinking she's the best thing on earth is just him not being able to seperate love from lust. Fitting your preconcieved model of what you think is hot really doesn't preclude wanting to sleep with them... sometimes even out of curiosity. Sometimes this miscongruence results in people justifying their hormones by attributing the feelings to emotional bonding.
My guess? Somebody came up with the concept, put together a proof of concept demo (with website already existing) and then sold the whole thing to Amazon. The Whois information just hasn't been updated yet, or the original creator is now an Amazon employee or subcontractor.
For some people, caffeine affords better concentration. People with ADD and similar disorders generally have better attention when given stimulants such as Ritalin, although many stimulants seem to increase concentration, including nicotine.
Erowid has a fairly extensive writeup on caffeine, as they do with just about any psychoactive substance. Their general stance is usually pro-use, but they seem to be careful about listing the warnings and side effects, as well as tips for breaking addictions, handling withdrawal and dealing with overdoses.
Erowid also has some good writeups on civil freedoms and laws which many slashdotters would find interesting. Although much of the discussion applies to drug use and possesion, their views on the first and fourth amendmants make interesting reading and are a good start for actual reasearch on civil rights.
The whole history of evolution as an example? The reason punctuated equilibrium was concieved as a theory is that the fossil record generally does not show smooth transitions. There are usually intermediate forms found, but during stable climactic times the fossil record shows very little change over long periods of time, followed by rapid changes when climate does change.
Maybe I should have said that the rate of change in descendant populations will increase if selective pressures change? I did not mean to say that the rate of mutations will change, but a change in environment will lead to a change in what traits are selected for. If the ideal balance of traits for a given niche remains the same, then changing those traits is detrimental and will lead to decreased reproductive success. The searching for a mate who is the average of the pupulation which I mentioned in the above post is a behavior which would then make an individual more reproductively successful.
I guess another take on this is that the rate of change is often masked by homeostatic evolutionary pressures, but when the environment changes then those pressures no longer apply. I have no sources for anything I said, most of it was just little more than WAG. But it seems to make sense. I am sure something could be found in the appropriate literature which shows that mutations as well in non-coding genes happen at a significally higher rate than in coding proteins. This would reinforce (not prove, just reinforce) the hypothesis that selective pressure is usually homeostatic, trying to keep things the same.
So when the environment changes, it makes sense that the expressed phenotype will change. Sometimes this is due to a plastic trait, sometimes it is due to changes in the genome.
The body temperature of most mammals also drops somewhat during normal sleep. The nervous system has many complex chemical reactions, and the rate and timing of these chemical reactions are highly temperature dependant. In order to think better, body temperature must be stabilized. A highly developed nervous system can provide many advantages which outweigh the energy lost in thermoregulation.
We really don't know how long it takes for adaptations to arise. See the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibriu m for another explanation. Basically, evolution happens faster when there is pressure to change than it does when conditions are stable. Lack of change in stable times is likely perpetuated by sexual evolutionary pressures: animals are generally attracted to mates which appear to be the average for their species. In people, most people are attracted to someone who about average height, about average build, eyes about average width apart, nose an average size and shape. Many other factors are chosen in sexual selection which are normalizing.
But if a change in the environment means that individuals skewed to one side of a trait are going to die before reaching reproductive age, then A)individuals will have no choice but to choose mates that historically were not average B)what the average is will change, and if the image of average is learned rather than genetically predispoposed, then the image of the perfect mate will change in an individual's eyes and C)individuals more predisposed to a mate which has the selected against features, there will be less opportunities to mate causing natural selection to push the image of the ideal mate towards the same direction.
The salmon shark is very migratory, moving from tropical to arctic waters. Recent hypotheses involved the shark basically having antifreeze proteins to allow the shark to survive the temperature changes. The energy needed to thermoregulate is offset by the fact that the shark no longer has to make different sets of proteins for different temperatures. Temperature also has a really high effect on the rate at which different enzymes can catalyze the reaction they are intended for, and many fish compensate by producing different metabolic enzymes at different times of year, but this is quite costly and has a significant lag period. This lag period might be enough to kill an energy intensive predator such as a shark.
Phylogenetically, it seems more impressive that a shark would be warm blooded than a bony fish, as amniotes (the line which leads to reptiles, birds, mammals, etc) evolved from tetrapods, which are osteichthyans. Basically, bony fishes are more closely related to mammals and birds than they are to sharks. It's just that the selective pressures related to being out of water changed out morphology to a great extent. But consider how dolphins and whales are generally shaped more like a fish than they are most land mammals, and you see that shape is related more to habitat than phylogeny.
It does, however, make sense that a shark would evolve warm bloodedness as they are predatory hunters and so rely on speed and quickness to catch a meal. Being warm makes an animal much faster and more responsive.
And artificial gravity on the ships probably makes it a whole lot easier to film in a studio sitting on top of gravity well Earth.
Wow. This is not what I need to read right now. Was just woken up out of a dream and my brain's still not fully awake. Seeing these grammatical monstrosities, I knew that A)something was wrong and that B)it made no sense to me. I couldn't figure out why this was, and was convinced by my dream-state pseudo logic that the reason this thread was making so little sense was that I wasn't fully awake yet. Eventually the real answer dawned on me that the thread was just people writing mangled english to make fun of babelfish translations. Wierd.
Depends on the school. Most of the time the school doesn't pay anything for the license. Microsoft just gives a really steep discount because 1)it is a good idea to have just about all fresh graduates to have experience with Windows, because then they are already trained in it's use for the workforce and 2)piracy is so rampant on campuses that very few students would ever pay full price for it; There's always someone in the dorm (probably several on your floor) with a CD and some install keys.
I'd be willing to bet piracy does impact theater reciets. People will be able to see whether they like a movie before they go out to actually see it. Excellent movies will have more people seeing them, while subpar movies will have a drastic decline in ticket sales. The stance and actions of the MPAA against piracy make much better sense with that fact in mind.