Well, it was submitted to a conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. Sounds to me like it's not so much the contents of the paper as the way in which it was made that got the paper in.
Considering that a long term corporate plan is about... 3 months, it makes sense. Moore was saying that there are like 10-20 years left of density doubling. That is way beyond how far ahead CEOs look, so it is out of sight to him.
I think any store can refuse service to anyone, as long as it isn't for a reason covered by civil rights laws (EG Religion, Race, Gender, Age (With Limitations) Disabilities (where reasonable) and maybe a couple others that I can't think of. I think suspicion of using counterfeit tender is good enough reason to refuse service, just that they were ignorant of the fact that $2 bills are legal tender. I am sure that you would be refused service if you tried to buy a new car with pennies, even if it came out to be the correct amount.
Interestingly enough, the right of refusal actually makes the store more liable in many circumstances. If a cashier accepts a fake bill, then it in some ways becomes that store's liability. If a bartender serves someone who is obviously intoxicated, then that bartender can be liable to some degree if the drunk person drives home and gets into an accident or otherwise comes into problems from being drunk. If an establishment didn't have the right of refusal, then they would have no liability in these circumstances.
There is another really big reason for sex. If I were to aquire a beneficial adaptation and someone else were to aquire a different beneficial adaptation, it would be very difficult to incorporate the two adaptations into one organism. With sex they can be easilly shuffled together. This happens very often with bacteria (well, they don't exactly reproduce sexually as much as directly exchange DNA, but that's a different story) acquiring antibiotic resistances. The resistance can be passed on to other bacteria, leading to bacteria resistant to every antibiotic we can throw at em.
Picture how much different humans would be if the opposable thumb had never been mixed with the ability to use language and the ability to walk upright: these three traits play off of each other well. Walking upright frees that opposable thumb to do useful tasks, while language allows us to convey information about more efficient ways to do tasks (E.G. tool building.)
Imagine if every human that ever died of simple old age was still around today. I don't think the Earth could support that many humans. Because we at the top of the food chain, there are few if any predators that keep our population in check. We could easily deplete all the food, space, water, etc.
On an interesting note, it has been estimated that there are currently more people living than the number of people that have died in the history of humanity. Greatly moreso if you only count the deaths of those who died of old age. But this is just a reflection of exponential growth and the current situation that we are in, not an indication of permanent, sustainable trends.
Think of an organism as a device used by the information encoded in DNA to reproduce itself. Often times an individual dying is of overall greater benefit to the community than that organism staying alive. The benefit to the community allows more individuals to reproduce, therefore making more copies of the information encoded in the DNA. And considering that the community does not live in a vacuum and resources are often limited, some individuals have to lose out and fail (die). Just like individual cells in a multicellular organism often have to die so that the whole organism may live (think cancer, epithelial (skin) cells, the millions of sperm that don't actually make it to fertilizing the egg and so on and so on.)
I've heard this paradigm described as a variation on the chicken and the egg problem. Which is the "true" or goal organism, and which is the offspring? It can be argued that since an egg can only make one chicken, while a chicken can make several eggs, then the chicken is simply a tool to make more eggs. It's all about point of view.
IIRC, RNA doesn't readilly form a double strand. Doubling of strands allows for much finer control of transcription, better protection when not in use, and a built in repair mechanism in identifying faulty DNA (a flaw won't match the other half) and having a handy template to make repairs. So in an experimental solution the difference in durability of random DNA and RNA might be insignificant, the durability of DNA in a living organism can be more easilly augmented.
I'm not saying that RNA is incapable of forming a double strand, just that the strands of DNA have a much higer affinity for each other and thus form a tighter bond. While double stranded RNA does occur, it seems to be the exception rather than the norm.
I personally think that redundant can be used effectively, but as a meta-mod you have to read through the article. Basically it would cover all of the "but trying to breathe on the moon without a helmet would be bad for your lungs" posts found in this article by people racing to be a smartass.
Or maybe they could replace it with a -1: RTFA rating. I suppose you'd need a way to mitigate the rating for/.ed servers, though.
I dunno. Would having a friend proofread your paper before turning it in be cheating? I guess as long as you actually learn from what you were doing wrong.
I guess my big beef with this product is that the logic analysis has the possibility of downgrading some truly unique and thoughtprovoking papers if they don't fit to the proffesor's predetermined template. I would definately have a way for a student to challenge a grade and have it human scored. I suppose this is also a good idea even for TA graded papers, though.
If I was an advertiser, I doubt that I'd try that hard to get around it. I'd prefer to advertise to people that actually click on the ads, making me money. But I doubt the average v1@gr4 peddler is that intelligent.
True, but you also have those companies within the EU who are imbedded with MS software that start lobbying to take away the restrictions, as the changeover will be too costly in the estimates of the beancounters. And the EU organizations that want to remain compatible with their US counterparts and so forth. Politics works both ways.
I wasn't saying that they WILL stop dealing with the EU. I'm just responding to the statement:
The article says "accepts", as if they have a choice? This is the law, is it not?
I'm saying that MS has a choice, and if the EU wants to make it so that it is no longer profitable to deal with them, MS won't. MS can take their business where the laws favor them. Then again, if this sets some kind of precedent and other countries start acting accordingly, then MS will have to change their game. But I think that the precedent that the USDOJ sent of "we'll give you a little slap on the wrist" sets a far greater precedent.
I honestly believe they'd pull out before opening their source. Yes, they will try evey other option they have first. Yes, one of those options is bound to work and allow a mutually agreeable solution. But the threat of pulling out may pull some of the bite out of the EU's ferocity. How long do you think the careers of a politician who "forced" MS out would be with their constituency being companies, government agencies and private individuals being forced to switch to an alternative? I guess it depends on how deeply imbedded the EU is with MS software, but in the US with Windows being on the desktop of just about every person in power... MS has a lot of leeway. Switching over would be a large expense for some organizations, especially ones with custom software and documents in proprietary formats.
Yes, it would prove that they are a monopoly. It would also prove that there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
I don't know. Do you really think that Microsoft bigwigs think they can afford to open up their source? Financially I bet they could manage losing this market (I recall hearing that MS has enough cash reserves to go another seven years without making another dime.) It would probably hurt the EU more in the short run to make the switch that it would MS.
What's realistically going to happen is enough wining and dining and veiled threats that the EU will just pull off a bit on the issue, one of those threats being to just not deal with EU nations anymore.
The other option is for Microsoft to just stop selling and supporting software in the EU. I honestly believe the EU would recant if MS pulled something like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it was submitted to a conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. Sounds to me like it's not so much the contents of the paper as the way in which it was made that got the paper in.
Of all the people, you would think at least psychologists would appreciate clear, concise descriptions.
Nah, clear, concise descriptions will allow anyone else to see that you are just plain bullshitting.
Considering that a long term corporate plan is about... 3 months, it makes sense. Moore was saying that there are like 10-20 years left of density doubling. That is way beyond how far ahead CEOs look, so it is out of sight to him.
And multicore CPUs. These can help speed things up without having to worry about that pesky speed of light (or general propogation of electromagnetic fields) which is WHY smaller chips are better. And then from multicore CPUs we'll move to Massively Multicore CPUs and so on.
No way I'd live under the sea. I've seen what happens there.
I think any store can refuse service to anyone, as long as it isn't for a reason covered by civil rights laws (EG Religion, Race, Gender, Age (With Limitations) Disabilities (where reasonable) and maybe a couple others that I can't think of. I think suspicion of using counterfeit tender is good enough reason to refuse service, just that they were ignorant of the fact that $2 bills are legal tender. I am sure that you would be refused service if you tried to buy a new car with pennies, even if it came out to be the correct amount.
Interestingly enough, the right of refusal actually makes the store more liable in many circumstances. If a cashier accepts a fake bill, then it in some ways becomes that store's liability. If a bartender serves someone who is obviously intoxicated, then that bartender can be liable to some degree if the drunk person drives home and gets into an accident or otherwise comes into problems from being drunk. If an establishment didn't have the right of refusal, then they would have no liability in these circumstances.
Ahh... good to know that. God bless Snopes.
There is another really big reason for sex. If I were to aquire a beneficial adaptation and someone else were to aquire a different beneficial adaptation, it would be very difficult to incorporate the two adaptations into one organism. With sex they can be easilly shuffled together. This happens very often with bacteria (well, they don't exactly reproduce sexually as much as directly exchange DNA, but that's a different story) acquiring antibiotic resistances. The resistance can be passed on to other bacteria, leading to bacteria resistant to every antibiotic we can throw at em.
Picture how much different humans would be if the opposable thumb had never been mixed with the ability to use language and the ability to walk upright: these three traits play off of each other well. Walking upright frees that opposable thumb to do useful tasks, while language allows us to convey information about more efficient ways to do tasks (E.G. tool building.)
Imagine if every human that ever died of simple old age was still around today. I don't think the Earth could support that many humans. Because we at the top of the food chain, there are few if any predators that keep our population in check. We could easily deplete all the food, space, water, etc.
On an interesting note, it has been estimated that there are currently more people living than the number of people that have died in the history of humanity. Greatly moreso if you only count the deaths of those who died of old age. But this is just a reflection of exponential growth and the current situation that we are in, not an indication of permanent, sustainable trends.
Think of an organism as a device used by the information encoded in DNA to reproduce itself. Often times an individual dying is of overall greater benefit to the community than that organism staying alive. The benefit to the community allows more individuals to reproduce, therefore making more copies of the information encoded in the DNA. And considering that the community does not live in a vacuum and resources are often limited, some individuals have to lose out and fail (die). Just like individual cells in a multicellular organism often have to die so that the whole organism may live (think cancer, epithelial (skin) cells, the millions of sperm that don't actually make it to fertilizing the egg and so on and so on.)
I've heard this paradigm described as a variation on the chicken and the egg problem. Which is the "true" or goal organism, and which is the offspring? It can be argued that since an egg can only make one chicken, while a chicken can make several eggs, then the chicken is simply a tool to make more eggs. It's all about point of view.
If I recall, this mutation was just a single base pair, and so could have easilly been repaired by a special protein encoded for elsewhere in the DNA.
IIRC, RNA doesn't readilly form a double strand. Doubling of strands allows for much finer control of transcription, better protection when not in use, and a built in repair mechanism in identifying faulty DNA (a flaw won't match the other half) and having a handy template to make repairs. So in an experimental solution the difference in durability of random DNA and RNA might be insignificant, the durability of DNA in a living organism can be more easilly augmented.
I'm not saying that RNA is incapable of forming a double strand, just that the strands of DNA have a much higer affinity for each other and thus form a tighter bond. While double stranded RNA does occur, it seems to be the exception rather than the norm.
I personally think that redundant can be used effectively, but as a meta-mod you have to read through the article. Basically it would cover all of the "but trying to breathe on the moon without a helmet would be bad for your lungs" posts found in this article by people racing to be a smartass.
/.ed servers, though.
Or maybe they could replace it with a -1: RTFA rating. I suppose you'd need a way to mitigate the rating for
he could have been a real jerk and told you stfu and foad.
Well, he would have to have been tenured to get away with this.
I dunno. Would having a friend proofread your paper before turning it in be cheating? I guess as long as you actually learn from what you were doing wrong.
I guess my big beef with this product is that the logic analysis has the possibility of downgrading some truly unique and thoughtprovoking papers if they don't fit to the proffesor's predetermined template. I would definately have a way for a student to challenge a grade and have it human scored. I suppose this is also a good idea even for TA graded papers, though.
Speaking of RTFA:
The computer-generated scores count for about a third to a quarter of students' final grade for Brent's class
And if not part of the plan, then like number 2: already in effect
It is possible that your friends computer was also infested with spyware, which could really jack up the number of popads.
If I was an advertiser, I doubt that I'd try that hard to get around it. I'd prefer to advertise to people that actually click on the ads, making me money. But I doubt the average v1@gr4 peddler is that intelligent.
True, but you also have those companies within the EU who are imbedded with MS software that start lobbying to take away the restrictions, as the changeover will be too costly in the estimates of the beancounters. And the EU organizations that want to remain compatible with their US counterparts and so forth. Politics works both ways.
I wasn't saying that they WILL stop dealing with the EU. I'm just responding to the statement:
The article says "accepts", as if they have a choice? This is the law, is it not?
I'm saying that MS has a choice, and if the EU wants to make it so that it is no longer profitable to deal with them, MS won't. MS can take their business where the laws favor them. Then again, if this sets some kind of precedent and other countries start acting accordingly, then MS will have to change their game. But I think that the precedent that the USDOJ sent of "we'll give you a little slap on the wrist" sets a far greater precedent.
I honestly believe they'd pull out before opening their source. Yes, they will try evey other option they have first. Yes, one of those options is bound to work and allow a mutually agreeable solution. But the threat of pulling out may pull some of the bite out of the EU's ferocity. How long do you think the careers of a politician who "forced" MS out would be with their constituency being companies, government agencies and private individuals being forced to switch to an alternative? I guess it depends on how deeply imbedded the EU is with MS software, but in the US with Windows being on the desktop of just about every person in power... MS has a lot of leeway. Switching over would be a large expense for some organizations, especially ones with custom software and documents in proprietary formats.
Yes, it would prove that they are a monopoly. It would also prove that there isn't anything anyone can do about it.
I don't know. Do you really think that Microsoft bigwigs think they can afford to open up their source? Financially I bet they could manage losing this market (I recall hearing that MS has enough cash reserves to go another seven years without making another dime.) It would probably hurt the EU more in the short run to make the switch that it would MS.
What's realistically going to happen is enough wining and dining and veiled threats that the EU will just pull off a bit on the issue, one of those threats being to just not deal with EU nations anymore.
The other option is for Microsoft to just stop selling and supporting software in the EU. I honestly believe the EU would recant if MS pulled something like this.
Not only would they believe it, but their health would actually improve!
Placebo! The drug against which all others are tested!