Are we using my definition of fair, or someone else's?
Saying that you are for fair taxation is meaningless, because everybody is for fair taxation (except people who think that society would work without taxation). The disagreement is about what is fair.
McCain came to Michigan and said "You're all gonna get your jobs back!".
Also, he acted like a federal gas tax holiday was a good idea (whereas Obama thinks that the federal government should take the oil profits that they accidentally let Exxon keep; Exxon makes 8% profit on oil, the government makes 14%, which one is really getting the windfall profits?).
Both candidates are politicians. Voting for the one who benefits you more or the one you agree with more is fine, but don't pretend that you are voting for him because he isn't a politician.
My point is that the magic scanner part is a lot harder than the building the database part. You only need a few thousand taxonomists (maybe a few dozen!) to set up the rules for the database, and then anybody with the magical device can put information into it (if you can identify that something is not in the database, it is trivial to give it a placeholder name and associate that placeholder with the information that allows you to specify that the specimen is not in the database).
The most likely path to such a magic device is hand-held genetic sequencing; it is a ways off, to say the least. If hand-held genetic sequencing was widely available, it would not be a big deal to harvest information about millions of specimens (including photos, location information, etc.) and then fit the pieces together (it would be *expensive*, but it would be straightforward from an organizational/process perspective).
What it comes down to is that once your scanner works well enough that it can tell what a tomato is by scanning a tomato and it can tell what tobacco is by scanning some tobacco, it will work well enough to tell you that something is somewhere in the middle. That the thing in the middle does not have a name is not a problem for the scanner, compared to the being able to actually mechanically classify anything at all.
Yeah, because it would be such a disaster for taxonomists if they had a machine that they could point at unfamiliar plant life and press a button that said "Is this in the database".
It is impressive the way that they make it just good enough to discourage development of an open competitor, but not quite good enough to encourage adoption of the linux platform.
Why is it obvious that it wasn't for sanitary reasons?
Having a built-in reverence/respect/fear for dead bodies, and handling them carefully and then isolating them from the living is a pretty good policy from a survival perspective, and it looks an awful lot like spirituality.
There is no such thing as metaphysical evidence. There is the large possibility of evidence that is not seen or understood, but if it is evidence, the meta goes away.
I am pretty happy calling a system that requires modifying each word in a phrase based on the last word more complicated than a system that makes much more specific use of word modification. I'm not a linguist or anything, and my only second-language experience is some number of words in Spanish, with a few of the rules.
Re:Establishing de facto (open source) standard ?
on
ECMAScript 4.0 Is Dead
·
· Score: 1
My impression is that packages, namespaces and classes wouldn't have worked particularly better than the current mess at the same time that they made the language that much bigger.
Re:Establishing de facto (open source) standard ?
on
ECMAScript 4.0 Is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, no ideas, but ES4 was only going to give you about 1/10 of what you want anyway, so you don't lose all that much here.
Re:Establishing de facto (open source) standard ?
on
ECMAScript 4.0 Is Dead
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The Microsoft stuff in the summary is just trolling. Mozilla and Google are both on board with abandoning the current work called ES4.
If I am understanding the map correctly, it is only for the 2 markers that vary most widely across Europe. The rest of the article downplays the overall variation throughout Europe. I would infer that the map does not demonstrate that Finland is wildly different than Europe, but that they have greater variation in those two markers (this goes along with the statement in the article that they would be able to infer origin locations from genetic material, I'm sure there are markers that are more or less unique to certain regions, and so forth).
Slashdot Mirror
Are we using my definition of fair, or someone else's?
Saying that you are for fair taxation is meaningless, because everybody is for fair taxation (except people who think that society would work without taxation). The disagreement is about what is fair.
Where in it did you establish that there are not currently enough taxonomists to set up the organizational characteristics of such a database?
Or did you just assert that there aren't enough?
McCain came to Michigan and said "You're all gonna get your jobs back!".
Also, he acted like a federal gas tax holiday was a good idea (whereas Obama thinks that the federal government should take the oil profits that they accidentally let Exxon keep; Exxon makes 8% profit on oil, the government makes 14%, which one is really getting the windfall profits?).
Both candidates are politicians. Voting for the one who benefits you more or the one you agree with more is fine, but don't pretend that you are voting for him because he isn't a politician.
Why not write in Tom Cruise or Bugs Bunny?
Bucky Kat for Prezident!
My point is that the magic scanner part is a lot harder than the building the database part. You only need a few thousand taxonomists (maybe a few dozen!) to set up the rules for the database, and then anybody with the magical device can put information into it (if you can identify that something is not in the database, it is trivial to give it a placeholder name and associate that placeholder with the information that allows you to specify that the specimen is not in the database).
The most likely path to such a magic device is hand-held genetic sequencing; it is a ways off, to say the least. If hand-held genetic sequencing was widely available, it would not be a big deal to harvest information about millions of specimens (including photos, location information, etc.) and then fit the pieces together (it would be *expensive*, but it would be straightforward from an organizational/process perspective).
What it comes down to is that once your scanner works well enough that it can tell what a tomato is by scanning a tomato and it can tell what tobacco is by scanning some tobacco, it will work well enough to tell you that something is somewhere in the middle. That the thing in the middle does not have a name is not a problem for the scanner, compared to the being able to actually mechanically classify anything at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer
Yeah, because it would be such a disaster for taxonomists if they had a machine that they could point at unfamiliar plant life and press a button that said "Is this in the database".
It is impressive the way that they make it just good enough to discourage development of an open competitor, but not quite good enough to encourage adoption of the linux platform.
I just wish yo momma would close herself up once in a while, or at least get a tarp.
That doesn't preclude the evolution of revulsion.
If the python version wraps C code, you would probably have to use the Java version from Jython, which apparently isn't a big deal:
http://www.jython.org/docs/usejava.html
Haven't you heard? Masturbation can be fun.
Why is it obvious that it wasn't for sanitary reasons?
Having a built-in reverence/respect/fear for dead bodies, and handling them carefully and then isolating them from the living is a pretty good policy from a survival perspective, and it looks an awful lot like spirituality.
You could go tell your mom that you are getting angry at the internets again.
There is no such thing as metaphysical evidence. There is the large possibility of evidence that is not seen or understood, but if it is evidence, the meta goes away.
I am pretty happy calling a system that requires modifying each word in a phrase based on the last word more complicated than a system that makes much more specific use of word modification. I'm not a linguist or anything, and my only second-language experience is some number of words in Spanish, with a few of the rules.
My impression is that packages, namespaces and classes wouldn't have worked particularly better than the current mess at the same time that they made the language that much bigger.
No, no ideas, but ES4 was only going to give you about 1/10 of what you want anyway, so you don't lose all that much here.
The Microsoft stuff in the summary is just trolling. Mozilla and Google are both on board with abandoning the current work called ES4.
There isn't much lactose in cheese.
Sure. I was thinking of the number of sounds as being a reasonable (though superficial) measure of complexity.
If I am understanding the map correctly, it is only for the 2 markers that vary most widely across Europe. The rest of the article downplays the overall variation throughout Europe. I would infer that the map does not demonstrate that Finland is wildly different than Europe, but that they have greater variation in those two markers (this goes along with the statement in the article that they would be able to infer origin locations from genetic material, I'm sure there are markers that are more or less unique to certain regions, and so forth).
There are 7 syllables in the English statement. How many sounds is the Finnish statement using to convey the same information?
Yeah well, his whole ideology was "pretty rich" to begin with.
It sort of depends on how you interpret it. He may have decided that most Germans were not pure enough.