It has been recognised for some time that so-called "junk" DNA is nothing of the sort, but is almost certainly associated with gene expression to some degree.
So basicly the known 26000 genes are somewhat of a coding library with wellknown functions, and the "junk DNA" is the actual program code calling those functions?
And they can move relative easily in a crowd which a car can not. And the policemen riding a horse have a nice view over the crowd. And they can't be easily attacked from below. And. And. And.
The definition of a liberal in the U.S. is at odds with the definition of a liberal virtually anywhere else. The Austrian Liberal Party (Freiheitliche Partei Ã-sterreichs) is extremely rightwing, has "homeland" written everywhere, fights tooth and nail against any form of immigration, paints itself as protecting family values and being tough on crime.
What beliefs are you talking about? The decay of radioactive isotopes is pretty much stable. There are some small derivations from the ideal geometric sequence though, but they are depending on the distance between Earth and Sun and Sun activity. They account for about 1/300th of the medium rate. So if the age of the bones is estimated at 13600 years, the small derivations of the decay rate would change this to 13600 years +/- 25 years. Not really something to lose sleep over, right?
What you probably are talking about is that the relation between C14 and C12, which was thought to be constant during history is not as constant as expected. So the estimated margin of error was larger than expected, and some dates had to be corrected up to 15%. But still: With an estimated age of 13600 years, 15% would be about +/- 2000 years. So the bones could be 15600 years old, but also 11600 years could be correct. Still, this means that the bones had to be created 6012 years ago with an age of at least 5600 years.
There are also more Eastern European people learning or having learned German than the entire population of Germany including the illegals. So what does this actually implicate?
Um, as far as I can understand, privacy policies are there for legal reasons, written in legalese to give them a quasi-legal basis for defending their policies.
All contracts and contractual condutions are. Because in an ideal world they will never be used at all, because both parties have understood what the other party expected of them and are behaving accordingly. Those written things called contracts and conditions and licenses and stuff are there if something goes wrong, to actually define the scope and the limits of the contract or license or whatever.
But exactly because they are defining scope and limits, each party has to actually understand what they are defining as scopes and limits. So yes, on the one hand they are written for the lawyers to sort things out afterwards if something derails. But at first they should give the parties of the contract an idea what behaviour is actually expected of each of them. So it has to be understandable by the signing parties at first, and usable for lawyers as a second thought.
Ok, let it not be the smug lawyer, but the wellmeaning neighbor who has heard about this law, and is partly quoting from it, partly inventing own stuff into it and trying to advise you. If the law is copyrighted, the only way he could talk to you about the contents of the law would be a verbatim copy according to the CLL.
Because this way California can control and forbid derivative works of the copyrighted laws. What if some smug lawyer wants to force you into obeying his threatening letter where he does not verbatim quote the law, but creates a derivative work by plagiarizing it (and thus subtly change its meaning)?
California could still have a copyright on all laws and distribute them with a licence stating that all verbatim copies are allowed, but for all derivative works it requires them to be checked by some "officer of the law" for possible errors. In a certain way it would be a "CLL", a "California Law License", which permits more than normal Copyright Law would, and thus forcing the licensees to obey the "only a complete and verbatim quote" rule.
The record is not the absolute speed record, but the fastest regular speed in operation. The TGV currently runs on schedule at 330 km/h, the SIEMENS Varelo in Spain at 340 km/h, the ICE in Germany at 280 km/h.
(The train in the front of the article photo is a SIEMENS Varelo btw.)
All bans on weapons(guns or otherwise) have done throughout history is create a victim society, mainly due to the fact that the people they are trying to keep from getting said weapons will have them anyways. They aren't going to care that they aren't supposed to have them.
This part I would call "wishful thinking". Allowing weapons to everyone has never minimized the number of victims. Theories saying that it should do so have been brought forward several times, and some of them actually sound pretty logical. But they all have collided with that strange thing named "reality" and crashed badly.
No. Not even than. It's a physical barrier, not an economical one. You burn more Earth-oil to haul Titan-oil to Earth than the amount of Titan-oil you actually haul.
If you have to consume 9 barrel of oil to get 1 barrel of oil, then only a hedgefond or another perverse financial instrument will draw a profit from it. But in the end you just lose 8 barrel of oil.
Before anyone comes up with the idea to mine the hydrocarbonates on Titan to overcome the oil and energy crisis on Earth, hold your breath!
The energy necessary to accelerate the mined hydrocarbonates enough to transfer them to Earth is higher than the actual energy equivalent you get by burning the hydrocarbonates. That's because you would have to accelerate the Titan-oil from 9.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Saturn) to 29.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Earth).
I see you completely miss the point of the proof. I know that you can minimize the impact of a bit error by checksums, and that you can improve reliability by adding redundance. But what is the consequence of error detection? Normally the protocol then asks for resending the message. But how do you (as the sender) know that the message finally arrived correctly? You wait for an aknowledgement. But what if the aknowledgement gets lost or scrambled? You add redundancy in the handshaking. But how does redundancy help reliability? You can ask for a resend due to detected errors etc.pp.
Your protocol never finds an end because it has to secure the correctness of the security of the correctness of the security...
It is quite simple to prove mathematically, that it is in general impossible to devise a protocol that guarantees 100 percent correctness of a signal on an independable line.
(You simply do it by recursive reduction: If the protocol works even if the last bit is missing, then you could send the message without the last bit anyway. If the second last bit can go missing without damaging the integrity of the message, you can leave out that one also... etc.pp. until you don't need to send any bit at all to deliver your message;) )
Here we have the dominant (Maybe not in sheer numbers around the whole globe, but possibly in Europe, and if not very close) player in the business taking legal action against a new player using the fact that they have the same "font" as a pretext.
StudiVZ is by far larger in Germany than Facebook with 6 mio registered profiles vs. 1.2 mio registered profiles. Here we have a case of a company not expanding fast enough with their business model into other countries, and when they finally do (about two years late) they see their ecological niche already occupied by a local player. And now they are calling the courts to change this.
It was the same with eBay vs. alando in Germany, which ended with eBay actually buying alando in the end, because they couldn't compete against alandos stronghold in Germany.
They do. The steal from the education their programmers got, they steal from the ideas floating around their customers, they steal from the knowledge that is floating through news groups. They got to the proverbial shoulders of giants and are now building a fence around the shoulders and charge admission.
There is many an ambiguity here. Because it doesn't answer the giants paradox: If I've seen farther than others, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants. No creation of any Work of Art was possible without the million Works of Art that were already out there as part of us being humans in a human society. Every Work of Art is leeching (or stealing) from the richness of the culture it was growing one. 95% of each Work of Art is not original, but copied from someone else. So why are 100% of the Work protected? If I buy a real estate, I can build a fence around it without infringing on anyones real estate. But where is the fence that separates the original part of a Work of Art from the part, that is just a partial copy of our all culture? If I mention "42" on Slashdot, most people immediately recognize my reference to Douglas Adams. In a certain way 42 no longer belongs to the society as a whole. But which part of 42 contains the pure number, and which part of 42 is original to the Hitchhikers Guide?
Slashdot Mirror
Drink a sip of puddle water (their preferred habitat), and you know.
It has been recognised for some time that so-called "junk" DNA is nothing of the sort, but is almost certainly associated with gene expression to some degree.
So basicly the known 26000 genes are somewhat of a coding library with wellknown functions, and the "junk DNA" is the actual program code calling those functions?
And they can move relative easily in a crowd which a car can not. And the policemen riding a horse have a nice view over the crowd. And they can't be easily attacked from below. And. And. And.
He had to shrive a police officer?
The definition of a liberal in the U.S. is at odds with the definition of a liberal virtually anywhere else.
The Austrian Liberal Party (Freiheitliche Partei Ã-sterreichs) is extremely rightwing, has "homeland" written everywhere, fights tooth and nail against any form of immigration, paints itself as protecting family values and being tough on crime.
What beliefs are you talking about? The decay of radioactive isotopes is pretty much stable. There are some small derivations from the ideal geometric sequence though, but they are depending on the distance between Earth and Sun and Sun activity. They account for about 1/300th of the medium rate. So if the age of the bones is estimated at 13600 years, the small derivations of the decay rate would change this to 13600 years +/- 25 years. Not really something to lose sleep over, right?
What you probably are talking about is that the relation between C14 and C12, which was thought to be constant during history is not as constant as expected. So the estimated margin of error was larger than expected, and some dates had to be corrected up to 15%. But still: With an estimated age of 13600 years, 15% would be about +/- 2000 years. So the bones could be 15600 years old, but also 11600 years could be correct. Still, this means that the bones had to be created 6012 years ago with an age of at least 5600 years.
Is that better than the "old farts young tarts"-sex in the White House we had a few years ago?
Because it is. Those remainings were obviously created 7,600 years old, when they were new.
There are also more Eastern European people learning or having learned German than the entire population of Germany including the illegals. So what does this actually implicate?
Um, as far as I can understand, privacy policies are there for legal reasons, written in legalese to give them a quasi-legal basis for defending their policies.
All contracts and contractual condutions are. Because in an ideal world they will never be used at all, because both parties have understood what the other party expected of them and are behaving accordingly. Those written things called contracts and conditions and licenses and stuff are there if something goes wrong, to actually define the scope and the limits of the contract or license or whatever.
But exactly because they are defining scope and limits, each party has to actually understand what they are defining as scopes and limits. So yes, on the one hand they are written for the lawyers to sort things out afterwards if something derails. But at first they should give the parties of the contract an idea what behaviour is actually expected of each of them. So it has to be understandable by the signing parties at first, and usable for lawyers as a second thought.
Ok, let it not be the smug lawyer, but the wellmeaning neighbor who has heard about this law, and is partly quoting from it, partly inventing own stuff into it and trying to advise you.
If the law is copyrighted, the only way he could talk to you about the contents of the law would be a verbatim copy according to the CLL.
You mean "not speaking Chinese"?
And this contradicts my post exactly how?
Because this way California can control and forbid derivative works of the copyrighted laws. What if some smug lawyer wants to force you into obeying his threatening letter where he does not verbatim quote the law, but creates a derivative work by plagiarizing it (and thus subtly change its meaning)?
California could still have a copyright on all laws and distribute them with a licence stating that all verbatim copies are allowed, but for all derivative works it requires them to be checked by some "officer of the law" for possible errors. In a certain way it would be a "CLL", a "California Law License", which permits more than normal Copyright Law would, and thus forcing the licensees to obey the "only a complete and verbatim quote" rule.
The record is not the absolute speed record, but the fastest regular speed in operation. The TGV currently runs on schedule at 330 km/h, the SIEMENS Varelo in Spain at 340 km/h, the ICE in Germany at 280 km/h.
(The train in the front of the article photo is a SIEMENS Varelo btw.)
You missed one:
- Two wrongs don't make a right.
All bans on weapons(guns or otherwise) have done throughout history is create a victim society, mainly due to the fact that the people they are trying to keep from getting said weapons will have them anyways. They aren't going to care that they aren't supposed to have them.
This part I would call "wishful thinking". Allowing weapons to everyone has never minimized the number of victims. Theories saying that it should do so have been brought forward several times, and some of them actually sound pretty logical. But they all have collided with that strange thing named "reality" and crashed badly.
You must be new here. My last post on Usenet dates from somewhere around 1996.
No. Not even than. It's a physical barrier, not an economical one. You burn more Earth-oil to haul Titan-oil to Earth than the amount of Titan-oil you actually haul.
If you have to consume 9 barrel of oil to get 1 barrel of oil, then only a hedgefond or another perverse financial instrument will draw a profit from it. But in the end you just lose 8 barrel of oil.
Before anyone comes up with the idea to mine the hydrocarbonates on Titan to overcome the oil and energy crisis on Earth, hold your breath!
The energy necessary to accelerate the mined hydrocarbonates enough to transfer them to Earth is higher than the actual energy equivalent you get by burning the hydrocarbonates. That's because you would have to accelerate the Titan-oil from 9.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Saturn) to 29.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Earth).
I see you completely miss the point of the proof. I know that you can minimize the impact of a bit error by checksums, and that you can improve reliability by adding redundance. But what is the consequence of error detection? Normally the protocol then asks for resending the message. But how do you (as the sender) know that the message finally arrived correctly? You wait for an aknowledgement. But what if the aknowledgement gets lost or scrambled? You add redundancy in the handshaking. But how does redundancy help reliability? You can ask for a resend due to detected errors etc.pp.
Your protocol never finds an end because it has to secure the correctness of the security of the correctness of the security...
It is quite simple to prove mathematically, that it is in general impossible to devise a protocol that guarantees 100 percent correctness of a signal on an independable line.
(You simply do it by recursive reduction: If the protocol works even if the last bit is missing, then you could send the message without the last bit anyway. If the second last bit can go missing without damaging the integrity of the message, you can leave out that one also... etc.pp. until you don't need to send any bit at all to deliver your message ;) )
Here we have the dominant (Maybe not in sheer numbers around the whole globe, but possibly in Europe, and if not very close) player in the business taking legal action against a new player using the fact that they have the same "font" as a pretext.
StudiVZ is by far larger in Germany than Facebook with 6 mio registered profiles vs. 1.2 mio registered profiles. Here we have a case of a company not expanding fast enough with their business model into other countries, and when they finally do (about two years late) they see their ecological niche already occupied by a local player. And now they are calling the courts to change this.
It was the same with eBay vs. alando in Germany, which ended with eBay actually buying alando in the end, because they couldn't compete against alandos stronghold in Germany.
They do. The steal from the education their programmers got, they steal from the ideas floating around their customers, they steal from the knowledge that is floating through news groups. They got to the proverbial shoulders of giants and are now building a fence around the shoulders and charge admission.
There is many an ambiguity here. Because it doesn't answer the giants paradox: If I've seen farther than others, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants. No creation of any Work of Art was possible without the million Works of Art that were already out there as part of us being humans in a human society. Every Work of Art is leeching (or stealing) from the richness of the culture it was growing one. 95% of each Work of Art is not original, but copied from someone else.
So why are 100% of the Work protected?
If I buy a real estate, I can build a fence around it without infringing on anyones real estate. But where is the fence that separates the original part of a Work of Art from the part, that is just a partial copy of our all culture?
If I mention "42" on Slashdot, most people immediately recognize my reference to Douglas Adams. In a certain way 42 no longer belongs to the society as a whole. But which part of 42 contains the pure number, and which part of 42 is original to the Hitchhikers Guide?