If just 1 percent of the population is criminal, you have to anticipate 1 criminal for every 100 people you hire.
Not only is this a tautology, it's a statistically incorrect tautology. (It assumes that the hired population is similar to the general population, and also gets the math wrong!)
If 72% of financial institutions say they've experienced data theft, how do "most banks" remain in denial? It sounds like "most banks" just admitted it.
Also, I'm not sure data theft is the same as fraud.
Also, there's a reasonably good chance the data of the.torrent is still recoverable from unallocated space on your hard drive, although it's rather challenging to prove that you did, in fact, download the data just from the fact that the.torrent is on your system.
Unfortunately, statistically, using a hands-free kit is almost as dangerous as using a handheld kit, and the new law was used by advertisers to condone it.
The real question is, how do you send text messages with a hands-free kit?
It's not a normal lens at all. An optical lens functions only in spatial domains, whereas this functions in the time domain. Granted, it does not "compress time", but that level of reporting is part for the course in science.
If you know of a way of using optical lenses to turn a 1 GHz signal into a 2 GHz signal, do let us know.
I'm no legal expert on these matters, but they patent individual genes, not whole genotypes. So if your plants exhibit the patented trait, they must contain that gene and are infringing. Bear in mind that most of these GM genes are things that don't exist in that plant's natural population -- like immunity to a particular herbicide.
The main reason is that genetic engineering isn't easy -- it costs a lot of research money just for them to come up with GM crops that have legitimately useful traits. Coming up with diseases to wipe out plants without these traits is even more work and is very likely to have terribly negative consequences. You wouldn't find out what the legal system would do to you, because you'd be shot in the face by a hippie first.
You're talking about mass-market fruits and vegetables, which is different entirely. Those were generally bred to be long-storing, visually appealing, capable of surviving transport, etc. (Here, bred is used to differentiate this process from genetic engineering, even though both, at a high level, involve plant genotypes.)
While I happen to think that set of criteria sucks for anything that can reasonably be grown near where I live, unfortunately mass-market producers don't often agree. However, the same breeding system can (and has) produce plants using different criteria, like taste. This is an independent concern from genetic modification, organic growing, et cetera.
I think you have confused "analysis" with "making up your own opinion, sans facts". You could have addressed why there are environmental concerns, who is bringing up the suit, and on what basis it was decided. Instead, you just assert that you know the answer and opine from there.
I think you are confusing "analysis" with something you learned on Fox News.
Humans may be clever in their plant engineering, but remember that insects and diseases are hungry creatures with short generation times. Don't underestimate the power of evolution.
To be fair, though, last I knew Monsanto purchased the patent to the terminator gene and has never deployed it.
Actually, the main complaint against Monsanto is that they sue you if you save the seeds from your GM crops, they sue you if you operate a seed-preservation business (whether it's for GM crops or not), and they sue you if seeds from GM crops make their way into your fields, as plants often do naturally.
In short, they're patent-wielding litigious bastards. If their position wasn't opposite that of environmentalist, Slashdot readers would be on the anti-Monsanto bandwagon like white on rice.
Secondary complaints are that their safety and environmental impact studies are suspect. These studies are fairly important when you're performing drastic biological change in a small number of generations. (Non-GM plant engineers do the same sorts of studies, but when the term "GM" is added, suddenly it's unfair government regulation.) They're also creating a significant risk of destroying genetic diversity, made worse by the fact that they own patents controlling the genotypes that are hedging out the others. Crop genetic diversity isn't just important in some hippie "plant multiculturalism" sense -- it's important if you plan on your children being able to eat in the future.
Not even the summary says anything about end product safety. The concern is environmental impact, which has nothing to do with what the beets are eventually turned in to.
R&D takes time. If you want to read articles about scientific developments where you can have engineered results "soon", read publications from 15-20 years ago.
The shorter a time period you use for extrapolation (or fewer data points), the more wrong you are. You shouldn't be concluding much of anything from the price trends of the last five years.
Or, even better, sometimes you can switch companies. To another company that does the same exact thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Gotta love the "free market."
Usually these companies don't seem to be fond of standardization, though. So really you're not likely to switch to a company that does the exact same thing... just basically the same thing with different details!
In many, if not most, parts of the US, you can't switch companies, because there's no competition. The worst case for an ISP not routing traffic the way you want is that nobody creates a competing ISP, because there isn't sufficient economic benefit, and you're stuck with whatever your current ISP feels like. The best case with the FCC is that people convince their political representatives to change the FCC regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
If just 1 percent of the population is criminal, you have to anticipate 1 criminal for every 100 people you hire.
Not only is this a tautology, it's a statistically incorrect tautology. (It assumes that the hired population is similar to the general population, and also gets the math wrong!)
If 72% of financial institutions say they've experienced data theft, how do "most banks" remain in denial? It sounds like "most banks" just admitted it.
Also, I'm not sure data theft is the same as fraud.
Azureus writes that data to a log file, actually.
Also, there's a reasonably good chance the data of the .torrent is still recoverable from unallocated space on your hard drive, although it's rather challenging to prove that you did, in fact, download the data just from the fact that the .torrent is on your system.
it is the use of symbols to describe the natural world
You're thinking of physics. Math is the use of symbols to describe other symbols.
Unfortunately, statistically, using a hands-free kit is almost as dangerous as using a handheld kit, and the new law was used by advertisers to condone it.
The real question is, how do you send text messages with a hands-free kit?
The Sun influences the flux of particles from stars other than the Sun? That's pretty weird juju.
Thermite is a mixture of aluminum and iron oxide, which is not the same as aluminum iron oxide.
Easy until you need to sand the painted object to apply a new layer of paint.
The National Science Foundation preaches not viewing porn at work? I don't recall ever hearing that from them.
The only difference is the expectations of the buyer.
As it turns out, "part for the course" is "par for the course" when you hit one of the letters immediately adjacent to the "r".
It's not a normal lens at all. An optical lens functions only in spatial domains, whereas this functions in the time domain. Granted, it does not "compress time", but that level of reporting is part for the course in science.
If you know of a way of using optical lenses to turn a 1 GHz signal into a 2 GHz signal, do let us know.
I'm no legal expert on these matters, but they patent individual genes, not whole genotypes. So if your plants exhibit the patented trait, they must contain that gene and are infringing. Bear in mind that most of these GM genes are things that don't exist in that plant's natural population -- like immunity to a particular herbicide.
The main reason is that genetic engineering isn't easy -- it costs a lot of research money just for them to come up with GM crops that have legitimately useful traits. Coming up with diseases to wipe out plants without these traits is even more work and is very likely to have terribly negative consequences. You wouldn't find out what the legal system would do to you, because you'd be shot in the face by a hippie first.
The concern here isn't over contamination of the end product, but the environmental impact of growing the crop.
You're talking about mass-market fruits and vegetables, which is different entirely. Those were generally bred to be long-storing, visually appealing, capable of surviving transport, etc. (Here, bred is used to differentiate this process from genetic engineering, even though both, at a high level, involve plant genotypes.)
While I happen to think that set of criteria sucks for anything that can reasonably be grown near where I live, unfortunately mass-market producers don't often agree. However, the same breeding system can (and has) produce plants using different criteria, like taste. This is an independent concern from genetic modification, organic growing, et cetera.
I think you have confused "analysis" with "making up your own opinion, sans facts". You could have addressed why there are environmental concerns, who is bringing up the suit, and on what basis it was decided. Instead, you just assert that you know the answer and opine from there.
I think you are confusing "analysis" with something you learned on Fox News.
Humans may be clever in their plant engineering, but remember that insects and diseases are hungry creatures with short generation times. Don't underestimate the power of evolution.
To be fair, though, last I knew Monsanto purchased the patent to the terminator gene and has never deployed it.
Actually, the main complaint against Monsanto is that they sue you if you save the seeds from your GM crops, they sue you if you operate a seed-preservation business (whether it's for GM crops or not), and they sue you if seeds from GM crops make their way into your fields, as plants often do naturally.
In short, they're patent-wielding litigious bastards. If their position wasn't opposite that of environmentalist, Slashdot readers would be on the anti-Monsanto bandwagon like white on rice.
Secondary complaints are that their safety and environmental impact studies are suspect. These studies are fairly important when you're performing drastic biological change in a small number of generations. (Non-GM plant engineers do the same sorts of studies, but when the term "GM" is added, suddenly it's unfair government regulation.) They're also creating a significant risk of destroying genetic diversity, made worse by the fact that they own patents controlling the genotypes that are hedging out the others. Crop genetic diversity isn't just important in some hippie "plant multiculturalism" sense -- it's important if you plan on your children being able to eat in the future.
Not even the summary says anything about end product safety. The concern is environmental impact, which has nothing to do with what the beets are eventually turned in to.
R&D takes time. If you want to read articles about scientific developments where you can have engineered results "soon", read publications from 15-20 years ago.
The shorter a time period you use for extrapolation (or fewer data points), the more wrong you are. You shouldn't be concluding much of anything from the price trends of the last five years.
It's a strange but not rare material -- essentially limitless, but currently expensive to produce.
Or, even better, sometimes you can switch companies. To another company that does the same exact thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Gotta love the "free market."
Usually these companies don't seem to be fond of standardization, though. So really you're not likely to switch to a company that does the exact same thing... just basically the same thing with different details!
In many, if not most, parts of the US, you can't switch companies, because there's no competition. The worst case for an ISP not routing traffic the way you want is that nobody creates a competing ISP, because there isn't sufficient economic benefit, and you're stuck with whatever your current ISP feels like. The best case with the FCC is that people convince their political representatives to change the FCC regulations.