1. Profit! 2. Release product 3. Develop product 4. Design product 5. ??? 6. Make product actually work 7. Make product obsolete
But I think I'll revise it to:
1. Profit! (?) 2. Release product beta so Slashdot can critique it free 2.5 Ignore the critiques, release it with "enhanced security features" 3. Develop product 4. Design product 5. ??? 6. Make product actually work 7. Make product obsolete
I've been following for some time an oncolytic (viral) treatment that targets the RAS pathway, which is referenced in this article. The human reovirus targets cells with a disrupted RAS pathway, infecting and killing them.
So, MSFT will always be a step behind in a game Google engineered to reward only those who can think new things first. Even if Microsoft manages to invent or buy a new idea, Google will come up with a way of making it faster, cheaper, safer and more powerful. It's what they did to Microsoft's Hotmail.
I was a user of a wonderful webmail service called HoTMaiL for several years before Microsoft bought it. And wrecked it.
Not only was Hotmail NOT a Microsoft innovation, it was a surprisingly useful tool which was purchased, squashed, and wrecked by the shortsighted fools.
(Oh, and by the way, have you got a Hotmail account and an SMTP server? Retrieve your mail with gotmail!)
I followed you right up until: programs that have a clear history of producing and disseminating false, misleading, and distorted information about reproductive health
Are you insinuating that abstinence does not provide 100% protection against both unwanted pregnancy and STD?
And while we're cutting out spending on programs, let's take a closer look at "welfare reform", light rail projects, "sustainable urban communities", or the Big Dig.
Is that those who disagree vehemently with the politics of RMS can still see the GPL for what it is: the Right Way to license software, if you want to see it live, grow, and prosper.
I agree. I don't know what kind of developer community they've got, or if they just stop development to let Apple catch up... I also don't know why anyone would want to run Darwin on x86. But there it is.
At least, that's what the initial results of the studies show.
The human reovirus has shown dramatic promise in early oncolytic trials. Some great pictures can be seen here.
The virus itself is non-pathogenic, lives in the bowels and lungs, and it's believed that most adult humans have been exposed to it during their lifetimes. Contrast this with HIV...
I've been watching this technology for a couple of years now it's slow going to get through clinical trials, but there's good evidence that reovirus may be able to treat 2/3 of all cancer out there , with little or no adverse side effects. Where it is not 100% effective, and radiation therapy is also prescribed, reovirus has been shown to be a good radiosensitizer.
Aside from reovirus, we're hearing more and more stories like this every year. I have a strong feeling that we'll have a cure for 90% of all cancer within the decade.
There's nothing preventing you from installing OpenDarwin http://www.opendarwin.org/ on x86. This puts you effectively in an OS X environment on x86, only without the Aqua UI.
I'm just finishing up the docs on my conversion - I've implanted a Dell Axim PocketPC into a Compaq Luggable. The biggest challenge was connecting the Axim's QVGA to the luggable's 80x32 amber CRT...
The neat thing is, I've got more power in the luggable now than when it was new, and it wieghs about 15 pounds less, as well.
I have a feeling that, if the Framers were reading this thread, they'd be saying, "They think that we meant to say what?" I can almost hear a Homer Simpsonesque "Doh!"
Jefferson would think that it's crazy that gun control is even a topic of discussion.
It sure looks like a straighforward clause. I'd never given it another thought until this thread. Suddenly, I see a much clearer, simpler intent. I'm not aware of anyone else who's made this interpretation, now or then.
I'd never looked at it that way before. Thanks for the insight.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I hate to spend too much energy parsing the phrase, but it's possible that the framers intended the phrase the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a modifier for the phrase A well regulated Militia. I think that this is the logical conclusion of your interpretation.
Maybe the kids thought the question was whether or not newspapers could publish without _corporate_ approval of stories.
This is exactly the way it works.
It's the editor's job to ensure that articles published in his (or her) paper conform to that paper's standards. Why? Because the paper exists to make a profit.
The New York Times caters to the left end of the political spectrum, and realized long ago that such an editorial stance will yield higher sales.
The Wall Street Journal realized the same, but caters to the right.
The National Enquirer caters to those who don't give a rip.
Take an editorial from any of these, and try to get _corporate_ approval to publish in any of the others, and see what happens. They're incompatible. They target different consumers.
Note, however, that at no point has a federal, state, or local governmental body told any of them what their editorial position will be. In the US, the markets decide.
"Based on November's vote, 51% of Americans don't believe in the First Ammendment anymore anyway- and think the second is far more important."
I think you're wrong on so many counts. I don't know of a single person who voted for EITHER candidate in November who based their decision on the 1st Amendment. It simply wasn't an issue. I listened to NPR, CNN, FoxNews, AirAmerica -- it wasn't an issue. Stop flaming.
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy. Religious freedom is the primary reason for our existence as an independent state. It's the only reason we can argue about politics at all. It's only reason Kerry showed as well as he did; he had the better part of the national media in his corner, and there's nothing the ruling party could do to silence them. Thank God.
The press is ultimately the voice of the people. Once it's been silenced or censored, there's no point in holding elections any more.
The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is merely a tool to protect the First.
"ARTICLE [II.} A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
You can't justify infringing on the latter because the People haven't yet organized the former. How effective would a well-regulated Militia be if their rights to bear arms had been revoked ten years earlier?
I'm guessin that most of the members of NRA are aware of the full text of this rather succinct Amendment.
From TFA: If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000.
Actually, no... If you have a 1/1000 risk of dying in any year, your probability of living to age 1000 are 37% (0.999^1000). You have a 50/50 chance of living to about age 690.
Not that age 690 wouldn't also be a dramatic change...
A turbine is still being developed to turn the generator and that will require fuel and storage of some kind.
Think outside the box. You've got a 10mm generator, but no way to turn it...
Hamsters! They're cheap and portable. They're a renewable resource. They generate very little excess heat. Their fuel source is available almost anywhere, is non-toxic, and doesn't explode.
Just picture it, the whole world over, millions of laptops, and on top of each screen a hamster in a cage. This is the face of technological improvement.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to have:
1. Profit!
2. Release product
3. Develop product
4. Design product
5. ???
6. Make product actually work
7. Make product obsolete
But I think I'll revise it to:
1. Profit! (?)
2. Release product beta so Slashdot can critique it free
2.5 Ignore the critiques, release it with "enhanced security features"
3. Develop product
4. Design product
5. ???
6. Make product actually work
7. Make product obsolete
I've been following for some time an oncolytic (viral) treatment that targets the RAS pathway, which is referenced in this article. The human reovirus targets cells with a disrupted RAS pathway, infecting and killing them.
Some great pictures can be seen here
The "CCZ molecule", states the article, "blocks a protein called Ras, which is defective in 30 percent of all cancers."
So there's a little bit of precedent, here.
That would be bad, right?
So, MSFT will always be a step behind in a game Google engineered to reward only those who can think new things first. Even if Microsoft manages to invent or buy a new idea, Google will come up with a way of making it faster, cheaper, safer and more powerful. It's what they did to Microsoft's Hotmail.
I was a user of a wonderful webmail service called HoTMaiL for several years before Microsoft bought it. And wrecked it.
Not only was Hotmail NOT a Microsoft innovation, it was a surprisingly useful tool which was purchased, squashed, and wrecked by the shortsighted fools.
(Oh, and by the way, have you got a Hotmail account and an SMTP server? Retrieve your mail with gotmail!)
Cool! First we /. the website, then we /. the 404 page. Where can we go from here?
This has got to stop.
I followed you right up until:
programs that have a clear history of producing and disseminating false, misleading, and distorted information about reproductive health
Are you insinuating that abstinence does not provide 100% protection against both unwanted pregnancy and STD?
And while we're cutting out spending on programs, let's take a closer look at "welfare reform", light rail projects, "sustainable urban communities", or the Big Dig.
Is that those who disagree vehemently with the politics of RMS can still see the GPL for what it is: the Right Way to license software, if you want to see it live, grow, and prosper.
That's not just funny -- I'm writing that down...
(+1 Funny)
I agree. I don't know what kind of developer community they've got, or if they just stop development to let Apple catch up... I also don't know why anyone would want to run Darwin on x86. But there it is.
At least, that's what the initial results of the studies show.
.
The human reovirus has shown dramatic promise in early oncolytic trials. Some great pictures can be seen here
The virus itself is non-pathogenic, lives in the bowels and lungs, and it's believed that most adult humans have been exposed to it during their lifetimes. Contrast this with HIV...
I've been watching this technology for a couple of years now it's slow going to get through clinical trials, but there's good evidence that reovirus may be able to treat 2/3 of all cancer out there , with little or no adverse side effects. Where it is not 100% effective, and radiation therapy is also prescribed, reovirus has been shown to be a good radiosensitizer.
Aside from reovirus, we're hearing more and more stories like this every year. I have a strong feeling that we'll have a cure for 90% of all cancer within the decade.
There's nothing preventing you from installing OpenDarwin http://www.opendarwin.org/ on x86. This puts you effectively in an OS X environment on x86, only without the Aqua UI.
I'm just finishing up the docs on my conversion - I've implanted a Dell Axim PocketPC into a Compaq Luggable. The biggest challenge was connecting the Axim's QVGA to the luggable's 80x32 amber CRT...
The neat thing is, I've got more power in the luggable now than when it was new, and it wieghs about 15 pounds less, as well.
I know of none, no.
I have a feeling that, if the Framers were reading this thread, they'd be saying, "They think that we meant to say what?" I can almost hear a Homer Simpsonesque "Doh!"
Jefferson would think that it's crazy that gun control is even a topic of discussion.
It sure looks like a straighforward clause. I'd never given it another thought until this thread. Suddenly, I see a much clearer, simpler intent. I'm not aware of anyone else who's made this interpretation, now or then.
+1 Insightful
I'd never looked at it that way before. Thanks for the insight.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I hate to spend too much energy parsing the phrase, but it's possible that the framers intended the phrase the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a modifier for the phrase A well regulated Militia. I think that this is the logical conclusion of your interpretation.
Maybe the kids thought the question was whether or not newspapers could publish without _corporate_ approval of stories.
This is exactly the way it works.
It's the editor's job to ensure that articles published in his (or her) paper conform to that paper's standards. Why? Because the paper exists to make a profit.
The New York Times caters to the left end of the political spectrum, and realized long ago that such an editorial stance will yield higher sales.
The Wall Street Journal realized the same, but caters to the right.
The National Enquirer caters to those who don't give a rip.
Take an editorial from any of these, and try to get _corporate_ approval to publish in any of the others, and see what happens. They're incompatible. They target different consumers.
Note, however, that at no point has a federal, state, or local governmental body told any of them what their editorial position will be. In the US, the markets decide.
"Based on November's vote, 51% of Americans don't believe in the First Ammendment anymore anyway- and think the second is far more important."
I think you're wrong on so many counts. I don't know of a single person who voted for EITHER candidate in November who based their decision on the 1st Amendment. It simply wasn't an issue. I listened to NPR, CNN, FoxNews, AirAmerica -- it wasn't an issue. Stop flaming.
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our democracy. Religious freedom is the primary reason for our existence as an independent state. It's the only reason we can argue about politics at all. It's only reason Kerry showed as well as he did; he had the better part of the national media in his corner, and there's nothing the ruling party could do to silence them. Thank God.
The press is ultimately the voice of the people. Once it's been silenced or censored, there's no point in holding elections any more.
The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is merely a tool to protect the First.
"ARTICLE [II.} A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
You can't justify infringing on the latter because the People haven't yet organized the former. How effective would a well-regulated Militia be if their rights to bear arms had been revoked ten years earlier?
I'm guessin that most of the members of NRA are aware of the full text of this rather succinct Amendment.
The Microtel PC's available via the Wal-Mart website come without the Microsoft tax, for under $300.
I've bought three. All three have had the power supply fail in the first year. One had the CPU fan fail at 13 months, fried the mobo.
I've learned a lot owning Microtels. I've also learned that wouldn't want to subject one to a shop environment.
two...
What, they're fixed already?
Never mind.
I love open source.
The fact that this moderated "funny" is, I think, a confirmation of the poster's hypothesis.
And the tsunami's only had a five days. I thought we were trying to put things in perspective, here.
Or one-fifth of a Saddam.
From TFA:
If you are a reasonably risk-aware teenager today in an affluent, non-violent neighbourhood, you have a risk of dying in the next year of well under one in 1,000, which means that if you stayed that way forever you would have a 50/50 chance of living to over 1,000.
Actually, no... If you have a 1/1000 risk of dying in any year, your probability of living to age 1000 are 37% (0.999^1000). You have a 50/50 chance of living to about age 690.
Not that age 690 wouldn't also be a dramatic change...
A turbine is still being developed to turn the generator and that will require fuel and storage of some kind.
Think outside the box. You've got a 10mm generator, but no way to turn it...
Hamsters! They're cheap and portable. They're a renewable resource. They generate very little excess heat. Their fuel source is available almost anywhere, is non-toxic, and doesn't explode.
Just picture it, the whole world over, millions of laptops, and on top of each screen a hamster in a cage. This is the face of technological improvement.