Doh, IE is annoying, you hit the enter key and it hits submit anyhow...
When you pay for broadband, it's as if you are renting hose from the local firehouse. The ISP/Cable company owns the line (or they lease it off someone else). Thus, they can tell you what you can use it for. It's a classical example of "they own the hotel they decide who gets to use the pool". If they are a monopoly, then that's a separate issue, but the legality of their user contract isn't questionable. Also, they own the networking hardware, including switches and routers. It belongs to them. They paid more for that stuff than you ever will for internet access. Thus, since they administer the network, they can block anything they want, provided they inform you they are doing it...
MacOSX is worth $130. Now people can get it for free. How do you stop this? Apple chose the cease-and-desist method, which may not be agreeable, but if you don't agree, suggest another way they can stop the ripping off of their product? You think people will just stop if Apple says "please?" Yes I know they are dumbasses for including the whole CD (I personally speculate they did: 'make world && make release' and just cat'd the new filesystem skeleton on to the cd:)
Say the professor of your class handed you the answer key for an exam by accident. Everyone asked you for a copy so you made them. The prof finds out, and reports you to the dean for cheating. Are you going to say the prof was a dumbass for accidentally giving out exam answers and therefore it wasn't your fault?
Ever try playing a 640x480 game on a 1024x768 laptop LCD? Yucko
I play Half-Life in 640x480 on my 15" laptop screen and it looks alright. It all depends on if the video card can do the interpolation so that it can stretch the 640x480 graphic to fit the 1024x768 by multiplying the pixels. If the video card can't do this, the machine is not worth buying not because of the LCD screen problem, but because it's got a sucky video card.
actualy it depends on the electron stabilization.
If you pressed the nitrogen tightly enough, you might form resonance structures and associated structures that allow electron delocalization. Remeber in N2, there are 2 unshared pairs of electrons, and it's triple bonded, so one of the pi bonds will be weaker than the sigma bond and the other pi bond.
I know in organic chemistry, there are compounds which have N2 as a substituent in a ring, and due to electron delocalization, these compounds are pretty stable and you can crystallize them.
Once again, I think people need to stop being ignorant and actually consider what "GM" means.
For centuries, humans have domesticated almost every animal that they consume for food. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. How was an improvement in livestock brought about? Through selective breeding programs, because knowledge about genetics was very limited. They knew Mendelian genetics, but they had to figure out which traits were dominant or recessive, etc. Futhermore, the traits they wanted to improve are in the category of not merely controlled by a single gene. Thus, it took years and years to come out with a better animal.
With GM, we know more about what genes do what in an animal. By using GM, we accelerate the breeding process by years. Instead of waiting for the whole life cycle of the animal (usually only a few times a year), we can produce the final outcome of all that breeding in one step in the lab. The only trick left is to figure out how to get the genes into the animal.
For most cases, this is what GM is about. There are some exceptions (putting a fish gene into a cow), but for the purpose of this discussion we are dealing with merely making salmon bigger upon maturity, which we could have done with selective breeding but would have taken another 20 years, instead of 5.
Peter C. Lai
Univ. of Connecticut
(the first college in america to teach agricultural genetics.)
"Open This E-Mail, 18 year old Babette is waiting for you!"
and
someone sends to your LUG's mailing list that Yet Another LUG In the Area has started. I subscribe the Connecticut Free Unix Group's email-list, and someone had sent an email to the list that was announcing the first meeting of the Southern Connecticut LUG or something, and the list admin denouced the sender as a spammer. I didn't think that sending the announcement was spam, but some people evidently thought it was.
So where do you lower the bar to? My university sends broadcast emails about once a week that is a digest about stuff happening at the university. I didn't subscribe to the list, they got my email from the University Master Student List. Does that constitute spam? Technically, it's UCE (because I did not ask for it), but I am not paying for the receipt of the mail, so it is more of the University's loss than mine if i just delete it without reading it.
like any investigation, you don't just pick ONE piece of evidence to convict someone of wrongdoing. Evidence mounts up against the accused person, and this program just happens to be ONE piece of evidence. Of course, if this program is the ONLY one that shows plagiarism, and no other behavior by the student presently or in the past suggests that they are cheaters, then I would hope the administration would be intelligent enough to dismiss this as a fluke.
actually not totally correct (on the protein training part).
For example, ever wonder why during DNA replication you use RNA primers to start the sequence?
You've probably been taught that that was because DNA Polymerase "could not initiate de-novo nucleotide polymerization" and required an RNA primer, because RNA polymerase can do so.
Ever wonder why evolution chose that case? I mean wouldn't it be more energy efficient if you skipped the whole RNA primer initialization? It takes substantial energy to replace nucleotides.
Here's the most recent hypothesis:
DNA Polymerase becomes more and more accurate at base-pair matching the longer and longer it processes the same molecule. If it was able to start without a primer, it would take longer to "train", and would make many more mistakes than it already does.
Maybe this is the only exceptional case where an individual protein alters structure during substrate interaction, but I doubt it.
However you are correct in describing positive and negative feedback.
Actually, I attended a research seminar at the University of Connecticut Health Center, where someone else had shown that low-level doses of radiation actually "trains" the DNA-repair enzymes to be able to fix damaged DNA more accurately and with more efficiency. It was shown that if you subjected cells to low levels of radiation over a long period of time, and then exposed them to high levels, fewer cells mutated than if naive cells had been exposed to high levels of ionizing radiation without the "pre-treatment".
Back in 1978, when Perkin Elmer (PE) was building the Hubble (their aerospace division was sold off to Hughes Aircraft, which is now part of Raytheon), PE was also contracted to build the Large Space Telescope (LST) and Very Large Space Telescope (VLST), with larger and larger mirrors. Special tools were developed at PE for the handling of mirrors and the superstructure, and the original Hubble was basically a prototype or beta/release candidate to fine tune the manufacturing and transport process (like how to move the mirror from Norwalk Connecticut to Kennedy Space Center). NASA canned the rest of the telescopes to allocate additional funds for the Space Shuttle.
My father was one of the structural engineers who ran simulations in FORTRAN for the Hubble project. He points out that the mirror distortion problem was known to PE, as well as NASA, but that NASA felt it was going to take too long to redesign the mirror frame and rebuild it again.
I am an undergrad research assistant. I use papers published from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. They all work nicely. Maybe the tools change frequently, but nature is constant, and so is science.
In fact, try tracing the citations on the newest paper of a certain subject. You will probably trace the citations back to something quite dated. That's how citations work. Unless the literature has been DISPROVEN, there's no such thing as "out of date".
All valid data which fit the current model of things are relevant.
If the professor isn't asking questions that make you learn the information, then it's the professor's fault for not testing properly. The hierachy of information flow goes from textbook (most information, all information is considered important) to lecture (less information, focuses on important topics in textbook), to notes (less information, focuses on important topics in lecture), to exam (least specific information, most important concepts).
I think every other point has been beaten to death by the other posters, except for: "I think that this information should be confined to the institution where it belongs". Huh? As long as the materials released on the web is not previously copyrighted, there is no justification to that statement. Your argument is flawed because you apparently agree with "information wants to be free" but then you say it belongs somewhere. Get yourself back to the logic class that you failed, and not at MIT, I'm sure you won't break a C+.
It still takes time, and today, as much as ever, money equates to time. I am assuming that as a unix admin you won't have 50 ssh sessions open at once during your migration period to upgrade every single unix machine at once, and to make sure things don't break, because in such an environment, you could be running Linux side-by-side with BSD, Solaris, and Irix with different versions of each.
"My StarOffice is broken!"
"I can't do blah in X!"
"I can't print"
distributed.net's source is open, you can download the source at distributed.net. Since the same coders are now writing UD's client BASED ON the distributed.net code, I don't see why it can't be trusted.
uh what does open source have anything to do with some company's business model? You mean to say that Opera or Netscape has a conspiracy up its sleeves because their software aren't open source? COME ON.
"Consumption of certain foods will cause immune system reactions, much like getting a transfusion from an imcompatible blood type"
huh?
The digestive tract is known as "immunologically priviledged" which basically means the immune system ignores what you are putting in your stomach. It is when the food is digested and absorbed into the bloodstream that immunologic reaction can occur, but this is rare, as most things are so digested that they are one of 3 things: oligosaccharides, lipids, or peptides (or short amino acid chains), and these particles are quite non-antigenic (does not induce an immunological response).
The only reason people develop allergic reactions to foods like nuts, is because they are fed it when very young (PBJ sandwiches, etc), and before immunological priveledged areas have been defined in the course of the development of the kid's immune system. This doesn't happen in the majority of people including Americans.
Blood type has NOTHING to do with food. Blood type is a cell-marker protein expressed by the cell because of genetics. Just because people are segregated by ethnicity (different blood types) and eat different foods, doesn't mean that the two are related. Get your scientific method down correctly please: correlation does not mean causation.
Furthermore, dairy is a source of digestive troubles merely because many people have lost the ability to digest lactose, commonly known as lactose intolerance. So people treat milk with beta-galactosidase to make "lactaid" milk, which is milk that has galactose and glucose in it.
Peter C. Lai
Undergraduate Research Assistant
Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology
Univ. of Connecticut
Storrs CT USA
The 25mile figure was probably extrapolated by measuring the output wattage of the solid dish antenna. This is done by measuring the distance over which the signal is so weak, it can not be distinguished from surrounding noise (at any frequency). It's a basic high school physics problem.
It's also a benchmark. Does this mean it can ever be reached? Looking from the comments of the obviously intelligent slashdot community, I don't think so. But benchmarks are just that. Theoretical performance indicators. All it means is that 802.11b has nifty error control protocols and other stuff that allows you to keep communications integrity at 25miles in a very hypothetical situation. Isn't that what Ph.Ds are supposed to do? As in generate some number from some obscure formula somewhere using obviously hypothetical situations.
However, to look on the bright side: It would be interesting if every 200foot high structure had a dish mounted as relay points in, say, a metro or even suburban area. You are no longer limited to 25miles, regardless of topology. In fact, 802.11b can replace traditional LOS microwave dishes (the huge telco ones) and lower the cost of transmission across borders. Imagine GTE beaming 802.11b from the US to Canada. FCC and CE violations anyone?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Doh, IE is annoying, you hit the enter key and it hits submit anyhow...
When you pay for broadband, it's as if you are renting hose from the local firehouse. The ISP/Cable company owns the line (or they lease it off someone else). Thus, they can tell you what you can use it for. It's a classical example of "they own the hotel they decide who gets to use the pool". If they are a monopoly, then that's a separate issue, but the legality of their user contract isn't questionable. Also, they own the networking hardware, including switches and routers. It belongs to them. They paid more for that stuff than you ever will for internet access. Thus, since they administer the network, they can block anything they want, provided they inform you they are doing it...
MacOSX is worth $130. Now people can get it for free. How do you stop this? Apple chose the cease-and-desist method, which may not be agreeable, but if you don't agree, suggest another way they can stop the ripping off of their product? You think people will just stop if Apple says "please?" Yes I know they are dumbasses for including the whole CD (I personally speculate they did: 'make world && make release' and just cat'd the new filesystem skeleton on to the cd :)
Say the professor of your class handed you the answer key for an exam by accident. Everyone asked you for a copy so you made them. The prof finds out, and reports you to the dean for cheating. Are you going to say the prof was a dumbass for accidentally giving out exam answers and therefore it wasn't your fault?
well why don't they just hire an Edward Mulhare look-alike, change the name from "Pod" to "KITT" and hire Wiliam Daniels to do voiceovers for it.
I wonder how much of a marketing thing that would be. They could also hire David Hasselhoff for the commericials.
Ever try playing a 640x480 game on a 1024x768 laptop LCD? Yucko
I play Half-Life in 640x480 on my 15" laptop screen and it looks alright. It all depends on if the video card can do the interpolation so that it can stretch the 640x480 graphic to fit the 1024x768 by multiplying the pixels. If the video card can't do this, the machine is not worth buying not because of the LCD screen problem, but because it's got a sucky video card.
The curvature of the Universe is FLAT. I read somewhere that they figured out the curvature of space-time is nearly 0 out to about a millionth.
actualy it depends on the electron stabilization.
If you pressed the nitrogen tightly enough, you might form resonance structures and associated structures that allow electron delocalization. Remeber in N2, there are 2 unshared pairs of electrons, and it's triple bonded, so one of the pi bonds will be weaker than the sigma bond and the other pi bond.
I know in organic chemistry, there are compounds which have N2 as a substituent in a ring, and due to electron delocalization, these compounds are pretty stable and you can crystallize them.
Once again, I think people need to stop being ignorant and actually consider what "GM" means.
For centuries, humans have domesticated almost every animal that they consume for food. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. How was an improvement in livestock brought about? Through selective breeding programs, because knowledge about genetics was very limited. They knew Mendelian genetics, but they had to figure out which traits were dominant or recessive, etc. Futhermore, the traits they wanted to improve are in the category of not merely controlled by a single gene. Thus, it took years and years to come out with a better animal.
With GM, we know more about what genes do what in an animal. By using GM, we accelerate the breeding process by years. Instead of waiting for the whole life cycle of the animal (usually only a few times a year), we can produce the final outcome of all that breeding in one step in the lab. The only trick left is to figure out how to get the genes into the animal.
For most cases, this is what GM is about. There are some exceptions (putting a fish gene into a cow), but for the purpose of this discussion we are dealing with merely making salmon bigger upon maturity, which we could have done with selective breeding but would have taken another 20 years, instead of 5.
Peter C. Lai
Univ. of Connecticut
(the first college in america to teach agricultural genetics.)
What is UCE? How do you draw the line between:
"Open This E-Mail, 18 year old Babette is waiting for you!"
and
someone sends to your LUG's mailing list that Yet Another LUG In the Area has started. I subscribe the Connecticut Free Unix Group's email-list, and someone had sent an email to the list that was announcing the first meeting of the Southern Connecticut LUG or something, and the list admin denouced the sender as a spammer. I didn't think that sending the announcement was spam, but some people evidently thought it was.
So where do you lower the bar to? My university sends broadcast emails about once a week that is a digest about stuff happening at the university. I didn't subscribe to the list, they got my email from the University Master Student List. Does that constitute spam? Technically, it's UCE (because I did not ask for it), but I am not paying for the receipt of the mail, so it is more of the University's loss than mine if i just delete it without reading it.
like any investigation, you don't just pick ONE piece of evidence to convict someone of wrongdoing. Evidence mounts up against the accused person, and this program just happens to be ONE piece of evidence. Of course, if this program is the ONLY one that shows plagiarism, and no other behavior by the student presently or in the past suggests that they are cheaters, then I would hope the administration would be intelligent enough to dismiss this as a fluke.
actually not totally correct (on the protein training part).
For example, ever wonder why during DNA replication you use RNA primers to start the sequence?
You've probably been taught that that was because DNA Polymerase "could not initiate de-novo nucleotide polymerization" and required an RNA primer, because RNA polymerase can do so.
Ever wonder why evolution chose that case? I mean wouldn't it be more energy efficient if you skipped the whole RNA primer initialization? It takes substantial energy to replace nucleotides.
Here's the most recent hypothesis:
DNA Polymerase becomes more and more accurate at base-pair matching the longer and longer it processes the same molecule. If it was able to start without a primer, it would take longer to "train", and would make many more mistakes than it already does.
Maybe this is the only exceptional case where an individual protein alters structure during substrate interaction, but I doubt it.
However you are correct in describing positive and negative feedback.
They are referring to ionizing radiation, that includes strong beta emissions, and x-ray to gamma ray frequency photons.
Actually, I attended a research seminar at the University of Connecticut Health Center, where someone else had shown that low-level doses of radiation actually "trains" the DNA-repair enzymes to be able to fix damaged DNA more accurately and with more efficiency. It was shown that if you subjected cells to low levels of radiation over a long period of time, and then exposed them to high levels, fewer cells mutated than if naive cells had been exposed to high levels of ionizing radiation without the "pre-treatment".
Back in 1978, when Perkin Elmer (PE) was building the Hubble (their aerospace division was sold off to Hughes Aircraft, which is now part of Raytheon), PE was also contracted to build the Large Space Telescope (LST) and Very Large Space Telescope (VLST), with larger and larger mirrors. Special tools were developed at PE for the handling of mirrors and the superstructure, and the original Hubble was basically a prototype or beta/release candidate to fine tune the manufacturing and transport process (like how to move the mirror from Norwalk Connecticut to Kennedy Space Center). NASA canned the rest of the telescopes to allocate additional funds for the Space Shuttle.
My father was one of the structural engineers who ran simulations in FORTRAN for the Hubble project. He points out that the mirror distortion problem was known to PE, as well as NASA, but that NASA felt it was going to take too long to redesign the mirror frame and rebuild it again.
I am an undergrad research assistant. I use papers published from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. They all work nicely. Maybe the tools change frequently, but nature is constant, and so is science.
In fact, try tracing the citations on the newest paper of a certain subject. You will probably trace the citations back to something quite dated. That's how citations work. Unless the literature has been DISPROVEN, there's no such thing as "out of date".
All valid data which fit the current model of things are relevant.
This theory has been around since the early 1990s.
Off topic...
If the professor isn't asking questions that make you learn the information, then it's the professor's fault for not testing properly. The hierachy of information flow goes from textbook (most information, all information is considered important) to lecture (less information, focuses on important topics in textbook), to notes (less information, focuses on important topics in lecture), to exam (least specific information, most important concepts).
I think every other point has been beaten to death by the other posters, except for: "I think that this information should be confined to the institution where it belongs". Huh? As long as the materials released on the web is not previously copyrighted, there is no justification to that statement. Your argument is flawed because you apparently agree with "information wants to be free" but then you say it belongs somewhere. Get yourself back to the logic class that you failed, and not at MIT, I'm sure you won't break a C+.
It still takes time, and today, as much as ever, money equates to time. I am assuming that as a unix admin you won't have 50 ssh sessions open at once during your migration period to upgrade every single unix machine at once, and to make sure things don't break, because in such an environment, you could be running Linux side-by-side with BSD, Solaris, and Irix with different versions of each.
"My StarOffice is broken!"
"I can't do blah in X!"
"I can't print"
distributed.net's source is open, you can download the source at distributed.net. Since the same coders are now writing UD's client BASED ON the distributed.net code, I don't see why it can't be trusted.
uh what does open source have anything to do with some company's business model? You mean to say that Opera or Netscape has a conspiracy up its sleeves because their software aren't open source? COME ON.
You need to be running 5.5 SP1.
Mein Gott you people, read the stupid KB article like you read slashdot, and then you'll be better off.
you don't need the patch if you run 5.0 SP2. It was stated in the same KB article that 5.0 SP2 (l)users were not vulnerable.
"Consumption of certain foods will cause immune system reactions, much like getting a transfusion from an imcompatible blood type"
huh?
The digestive tract is known as "immunologically priviledged" which basically means the immune system ignores what you are putting in your stomach. It is when the food is digested and absorbed into the bloodstream that immunologic reaction can occur, but this is rare, as most things are so digested that they are one of 3 things: oligosaccharides, lipids, or peptides (or short amino acid chains), and these particles are quite non-antigenic (does not induce an immunological response).
The only reason people develop allergic reactions to foods like nuts, is because they are fed it when very young (PBJ sandwiches, etc), and before immunological priveledged areas have been defined in the course of the development of the kid's immune system. This doesn't happen in the majority of people including Americans.
Blood type has NOTHING to do with food. Blood type is a cell-marker protein expressed by the cell because of genetics. Just because people are segregated by ethnicity (different blood types) and eat different foods, doesn't mean that the two are related. Get your scientific method down correctly please: correlation does not mean causation.
Furthermore, dairy is a source of digestive troubles merely because many people have lost the ability to digest lactose, commonly known as lactose intolerance. So people treat milk with beta-galactosidase to make "lactaid" milk, which is milk that has galactose and glucose in it.
Peter C. Lai
Undergraduate Research Assistant
Dept. of Molecular and Cell Biology
Univ. of Connecticut
Storrs CT USA
you OD on DNP and you die because it inhibits aerobic respiration. Manner of cellular death is similar to cyanide poisoning.
The 25mile figure was probably extrapolated by measuring the output wattage of the solid dish antenna. This is done by measuring the distance over which the signal is so weak, it can not be distinguished from surrounding noise (at any frequency). It's a basic high school physics problem.
:)
It's also a benchmark. Does this mean it can ever be reached? Looking from the comments of the obviously intelligent slashdot community, I don't think so. But benchmarks are just that. Theoretical performance indicators. All it means is that 802.11b has nifty error control protocols and other stuff that allows you to keep communications integrity at 25miles in a very hypothetical situation. Isn't that what Ph.Ds are supposed to do? As in generate some number from some obscure formula somewhere using obviously hypothetical situations.
However, to look on the bright side: It would be interesting if every 200foot high structure had a dish mounted as relay points in, say, a metro or even suburban area. You are no longer limited to 25miles, regardless of topology. In fact, 802.11b can replace traditional LOS microwave dishes (the huge telco ones) and lower the cost of transmission across borders. Imagine GTE beaming 802.11b from the US to Canada. FCC and CE violations anyone?