No, it means you already bought your chip. Prices change. No doubt if you bought a pentium 1 on the day it was released all those years ago for $600 you're feeling like a real rube now that you can get them essentially for free?
Just accept that you amortized the higher price you paid with the additional CPU cycles you got by not waiting.
There are false advertising laws on the books, so if the box says the game doesn't contain any AO style material, but it does in fact contain AO material, that seems likely to be a legal breach to which parents could seek legal redress, and in that sense they do have a right to rely on the game ratings. Further, it is in fact the FTC's job to regulate trade, and to address violations of the false advertising laws.
It's a right in the same sense that you have a right to expect that UL approved appliances aren't going to have easily exposed wiring that will electrocute you.
Now, as to FOX, if they advertise that they are fair and balanced, you might have a claim (they don't, do they? I don't watch much tv, but I know they have a reputation for being right wing).
I think you'll find the current administration of the FTC thinks that FOX news is fair and balanced. But they may have to use fines against the other networks to bring them into line.
Posting rmluckyguy@aol.com 's email to the front page of slashdot is one way to get revenge I suppose. My guess is that email address just became unusable.
with 1:28 left in time. j/k dude, congrats! I could never beat that game.
Considering that the world record holder, after a quarter century, only did it with a minute and a half to spare out of twenty minutes total, I would encourage you not to feel bad about being unable to beat it.
In recent history, it actually seems like viruses are probably our most capable enemy... the Spanish Flu killed so many... it will certainly be interesting to see how we're able to respond to the next lethal pandemic... we've learned a lot in the last hundred years, so it may be a very different process.
And of course if H5N1 or some other virus does start killing a lot of people, I'm sure we'll start developing viral resistance, but of course that won't likely be a visible alteration of the human form.
Personally my bet is on a virus being the next thing to kill a lot of people, I definitely favor that over any sort of natural disaster.
It doesn't really matter. Flash is fast approaching the point where writing at the maximum rate (say 60MBytes/sec) for 5 years straight won't use up the write capacity. It doesn't matter what your workload looks like, you won't be able to use up all of the writes in any reasonable time frame (unless the write speed goes way up, but that doesn't look likely).
"but still has enough battery life to give you a full days work on the move.**"
** Note: one standard full slashdotter work-day, involving one-half hour of work, 1.5 hours reading slashdot, and 3 hours idling the computer hanging around the break room.
Indeed, I didn't mean to claim there was heavy evolutionary pressure, just that evolution is operating in its usual fashion. The percentage culled before reproduction in our species is probably near an all time low.
Multiply that by the fact that the environment is changing quickly, but not in a consistent way that seems likely to favor any specific adaptation, and I'd think you'd agree with my original claim that you're not likely to see any big change in humanity in less than a thousand or so generations.
Exactly right, and in fact they don't even need special file systems, they have load balancing logic on board the drive to even out the write patterns, so that it won't matter what file system you use.
You have to factor in defect balancing because you can't come anywhere close to writing the entire memory every 5 seconds. It takes closer to 30 minutes.
Some people get advanced degrees and don't have kids.
How does that show that the fittest are surviving? To me, that's showing that the fittest are dying out.
That's your bias. You believe they should be more fit, but in fact they are not. Evolution is blind, it doesn't care how smart you are, it cares whether or not you have descendants.
I think you've got that backwards. If the environment were NOT changing, then there would be no reason for us to adapt and evolve. If the environment IS changing, then we'll have to adapt to it.
Cars, highrises, deforestation, knowledge economy, it's all 'the environment'. It's changing fast. That we are flexible beings reduces the impact greatly. Only the severely maladapted are getting weeded out right now, but they do get weeded out.
Since we have many smaller changes going on, and not any one titanic change, you'll not see some single new adaptation win out most likely. Instead, you'll see a lot of minor and major maladaptations weeded out over time.
Some flash is up to about 3 million writes already. At 10 million writes the problem is effectively solved, they'll be able to warranty their flash for continuous writes for about 5 years at that point, matching the warranty on your hard drive.
The write limit is not going to be the barrier to replacing hard drives for nearly as long as price and size are going to be.
Medical accidents aren't exactly the same thing as murder. That's why doctors who make fatal mistakes sometimes don't go to jail, or even lose their license.
I meant what I said. 25,000 years is in the right neighborhood.
The changes in humans over the last thousand years are believed to be mostly nutritional, and it's likely we've seen most of the improvement we're going to see from that (note that developing countries, such as China are experiencing a height boom, and it's not from intermarrying with us). Plus our population pool is now much larger, so any drift is going to be that much slower to get established as a widespread preference.
That's the spirit. If you really believe in it, you should follow through on that. If you're committed to changing thinking about it, you should publicize it and evangelize. I don't think you'll change many minds, though. This is the path by which many of our most unjust laws have been overturned with time, though.
Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Is all this technology assisting with breeding a race of second rate homo sapiens?
Of course not. We're still constrained by survival of the fittest, just like always. It's the environment that's changing.
Some people get advanced degrees and don't have kids. Some die crossing the street as children and don't reproduce. Etc. Etc. The rate of death before reproduction is still perfectly reasonably high, so the species is getting 'better' as much as any species does. The environment we're optimizing for is changing pretty fast right now, so don't expect any changes in the race to become visible any time soon (not to mention it would take a few thousand generations to see much of any change at all).
Not that I really disagree, but from the Devil's advocate point of view:
Why does the life of an orphaned baby, with no family, home, or even guarantee of survival, outweigh the life of someone who is already established in society; who loves and is loved, who has...
To the people who consider an embryo a human life, the difference between embryo and baby is only in the amount of effort required to keep the child alive. Both will be guaranteed to perish without intervention. Both might live full happy lives with the proper intervention.
This issue is sure to become even more of a sore point as we push back further and further the time in an unborn baby's life when we can reasonably expect a high survival rate.
I think it's important to note that what scientists, and indeed we in general, get to do in life, is not determined by what the current administration thinks is moral.
They can certainly try to pass laws constraining us to their ethical code. And we can and should break those laws if the laws are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has about 4 loud libertarians (most notably dada21). I think the majority of slashdot probably does not agree with them.
No, it means you already bought your chip. Prices change. No doubt if you bought a pentium 1 on the day it was released all those years ago for $600 you're feeling like a real rube now that you can get them essentially for free?
Just accept that you amortized the higher price you paid with the additional CPU cycles you got by not waiting.
There are false advertising laws on the books, so if the box says the game doesn't contain any AO style material, but it does in fact contain AO material, that seems likely to be a legal breach to which parents could seek legal redress, and in that sense they do have a right to rely on the game ratings. Further, it is in fact the FTC's job to regulate trade, and to address violations of the false advertising laws.
It's a right in the same sense that you have a right to expect that UL approved appliances aren't going to have easily exposed wiring that will electrocute you.
Now, as to FOX, if they advertise that they are fair and balanced, you might have a claim (they don't, do they? I don't watch much tv, but I know they have a reputation for being right wing).
I think you'll find the current administration of the FTC thinks that FOX news is fair and balanced. But they may have to use fines against the other networks to bring them into line.
Posting rmluckyguy@aol.com 's email to the front page of slashdot is one way to get revenge I suppose. My guess is that email address just became unusable.
with 1:28 left in time. j/k dude, congrats! I could never beat that game.
Considering that the world record holder, after a quarter century, only did it with a minute and a half to spare out of twenty minutes total, I would encourage you not to feel bad about being unable to beat it.
In recent history, it actually seems like viruses are probably our most capable enemy ... the Spanish Flu killed so many ... it will certainly be interesting to see how we're able to respond to the next lethal pandemic ... we've learned a lot in the last hundred years, so it may be a very different process.
And of course if H5N1 or some other virus does start killing a lot of people, I'm sure we'll start developing viral resistance, but of course that won't likely be a visible alteration of the human form.
Personally my bet is on a virus being the next thing to kill a lot of people, I definitely favor that over any sort of natural disaster.
Well, I agree with you there ... I was certainly implicitly assuming a rough status quo.
Something like H5N1 could really change things.
Oh come on mods, flamebait? Have you no sense of humor?
It doesn't really matter. Flash is fast approaching the point where writing at the maximum rate (say 60MBytes/sec) for 5 years straight won't use up the write capacity. It doesn't matter what your workload looks like, you won't be able to use up all of the writes in any reasonable time frame (unless the write speed goes way up, but that doesn't look likely).
They omitted the *'s:
FTA:
"but still has enough battery life to give you a full days work on the move.**"
** Note: one standard full slashdotter work-day, involving one-half hour of work, 1.5 hours reading slashdot, and 3 hours idling the computer hanging around the break room.
Indeed, I didn't mean to claim there was heavy evolutionary pressure, just that evolution is operating in its usual fashion. The percentage culled before reproduction in our species is probably near an all time low.
Multiply that by the fact that the environment is changing quickly, but not in a consistent way that seems likely to favor any specific adaptation, and I'd think you'd agree with my original claim that you're not likely to see any big change in humanity in less than a thousand or so generations.
Exactly right, and in fact they don't even need special file systems, they have load balancing logic on board the drive to even out the write patterns, so that it won't matter what file system you use.
You have to factor in defect balancing because you can't come anywhere close to writing the entire memory every 5 seconds. It takes closer to 30 minutes.
Some people get advanced degrees and don't have kids.
How does that show that the fittest are surviving? To me, that's showing that the fittest are dying out.
That's your bias. You believe they should be more fit, but in fact they are not. Evolution is blind, it doesn't care how smart you are, it cares whether or not you have descendants.
I think you've got that backwards. If the environment were NOT changing, then there would be no reason for us to adapt and evolve. If the environment IS changing, then we'll have to adapt to it.
Cars, highrises, deforestation, knowledge economy, it's all 'the environment'. It's changing fast. That we are flexible beings reduces the impact greatly. Only the severely maladapted are getting weeded out right now, but they do get weeded out.
Since we have many smaller changes going on, and not any one titanic change, you'll not see some single new adaptation win out most likely. Instead, you'll see a lot of minor and major maladaptations weeded out over time.
Some flash is up to about 3 million writes already. At 10 million writes the problem is effectively solved, they'll be able to warranty their flash for continuous writes for about 5 years at that point, matching the warranty on your hard drive.
The write limit is not going to be the barrier to replacing hard drives for nearly as long as price and size are going to be.
Medical accidents aren't exactly the same thing as murder.
That's why doctors who make fatal mistakes sometimes don't go to jail, or even lose their license.
I meant what I said. 25,000 years is in the right neighborhood.
The changes in humans over the last thousand years are believed to be mostly nutritional, and it's likely we've seen most of the improvement we're going to see from that (note that developing countries, such as China are experiencing a height boom, and it's not from intermarrying with us). Plus our population pool is now much larger, so any drift is going to be that much slower to get established as a widespread preference.
Every citation I could find seemed to think that the last major brain case change happened roughly 100,000 years ago.
Here's a couple:
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/human-evolution
That's the spirit. If you really believe in it, you should follow through on that. If you're committed to changing thinking about it, you should publicize it and evangelize. I don't think you'll change many minds, though. This is the path by which many of our most unjust laws have been overturned with time, though.
Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? Is all this technology assisting with breeding a race of second rate homo sapiens?
Of course not. We're still constrained by survival of the fittest, just like always. It's the environment that's changing.
Some people get advanced degrees and don't have kids. Some die crossing the street as children and don't reproduce. Etc. Etc. The rate of death before reproduction is still perfectly reasonably high, so the species is getting 'better' as much as any species does. The environment we're optimizing for is changing pretty fast right now, so don't expect any changes in the race to become visible any time soon (not to mention it would take a few thousand generations to see much of any change at all).
Not that I really disagree, but from the Devil's advocate point of view:
...
Why does the life of an orphaned baby, with no family, home, or even guarantee of survival, outweigh the life of someone who is already established in society; who loves and is loved, who has
To the people who consider an embryo a human life, the difference between embryo and baby is only in the amount of effort required to keep the child alive. Both will be guaranteed to perish without intervention. Both might live full happy lives with the proper intervention.
This issue is sure to become even more of a sore point as we push back further and further the time in an unborn baby's life when we can reasonably expect a high survival rate.
Sorry to inform you of this, but homosexual intercourse with your clone is unlikely to result in reproduction.
whats wrong with sickle-cell anemia
1 .asp_ cell_anemia.html
It can cause you a lot of significant medical problems:
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_122
http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/heart/sickle
I think it's important to note that what scientists, and indeed we in general, get to do in life, is not determined by what the current administration thinks is moral.
They can certainly try to pass laws constraining us to their ethical code. And we can and should break those laws if the laws are wrong.
Sure, we shouldn't get involved in a land war in asia, even to cure a disease, but why would cloning fall into that category?