This sort of empty distinction is why can-spam and other laws are completely ineffective - because legislators want to make a legal distinction between "good" spammers, like expedia, and "bad" spammers, like chinese viagra vendors.
There is no such distinction. If a user did not actively request commercial email from a specific commercial entity (not their affiliates or others they sell addresses to), then that email is unsolicited commercial email and should be an unambiguous criminal offense.
Specifically, the US Constitution makes any ratified treaty binding law in the US. The US ratified the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture of enemy combatants, in 1955. Therefore, under the US Constitution, the torture of enemy combatants is a violation of US law.
Tax money doesn't make things cheaper, it makes things that aren't profitable to private industry happen at all. Telcos have no incentive to provide redundancy which costs far more than it will ever reap in profits. Governments, spending tax dollars, do have an incentive to do so - it prevents total collapse of communications infrastructure in various sorts of emergency.
Researchers in many fields (with the obvious exception of anthropology which specializes in such things) are often spectacularly ignorant of their own cultural biases. IOW, they take as "facts" things which are unproven, simply because they and people they know (usually from their local culture and sub-culture of course) take them to be true, or they take as globally true things which are only locally true.
Absent rigorous statistical proof to the contrary, the null hypothesis has to be that people from different cultures and socio-economic backgrounds will have very different rates of defection in the prisoner's dilemma. You can't assume that your sample is meaningful unless you've takes steps to assure that it is globally representative, not just representative of, for example, college-going suburban San Jose.
What makes the method new is that the proposed drugs don't interfere with protein synthesis or bacterial metabolism as ordinary bacteriostatic drugs do, they interfere with intra-species and/or inter-species bacterial communication.
It is this focus on blocking or interfering with bacterial communication, rather than blocking internal metabolic processes (such as protein synthesis) that makes this approach new.
Think of it as an outward extending hierarchy. I. within an individual organism. this is the realm of traditional bacteriostatic and bactericidal drugs. II. between organisms of the same specis. this is the realm of intra-species quorum sensing. III. between organisms of different species. this is the realm of inter-species quorum sensing.
The drugs she is proposing would work in realms II and III.
Type II diabetes, aka adult onset diabetes is increased insulin resistance. Only juvenile diabetes results from insufficient insulin production. Type II diabetics usually produce more insulin than normal people, they're just insensitive to it.
So if HFCS causes increases in insulin resistance (I haven't seen the evidence, just quoting you), it contributes to type II diabetes.
Wikipedia suggests why: A 2006 study by Dr Ahmed El-Sohemy at the University of Toronto discovered a link between a gene effecting caffeine metabolism and the effects of coffee on health. [96] [97] Some people have a gene to metabolize caffeine more slowly, and for them drinking large quantities of coffee was found to increase the risk of myocardial infarction. [a.k.a. heart attack] For rapid metabolizers, however, coffee seemed to have a preventative effect. Slow and fast metabolizers are comparably common in the general population, and this has been blamed for the wide variation in studies of the health effects of caffeine.
Java is poison to Apple. Apple's whole business model is one of OS differentiation. Java promises OS homogenization. Apple has done everything it can to damn Java with faint praise, ensuring its second class status on Mac OS, and complete absence from the iPhone OS.
Remembering to put the adjectives always first took some time
Still working on those adverbs I see;^)
Most native speakers would say "Remembering to always put the adjectives first..." though "Remembering always to put the adjectives first..." is more correct.
It's a mistake to think of languages like biological organisms, belonging to strict lineages, and forming a taxonomic tree. The reality is more like an interconnected lattice than a tree.
English is a hybrid of both germanic and romance (i.e., french and latin) ancestry with a generous dash of greek and a smattering of many other world languages. The very basic grammatical form is germanic as is the most rudimentary vocabulary, especially that relating to country activities (field, cow, hound, water, milk, butter, grass, plow, swine off the top of my head). The courtly vocabulary is from French (majesty, court, count, duke, council, chamber, etc.) Much of the technical and scientific vocabulary comes straight from latin and greek (science, technology, biology, geology, physics, transmit, vibrate, orbit, etc.)
Interestingly, much of the slang, especially 20th c. american slang, is from Irish-Gaelic (lunch, booze, dude, and even our beloved geek)
Well, there's speaking English and speaking English...
Since English has lost many of its inflected endings it can be relatively easy to gain basic understandability quickly buy simply using the most common form, often the infinitive:
I buy coffee you buy coffee he buy coffee she buy coffee I buy coffee yesterday he buy coffee yesterday
Many of these are incorrect, but perfectly intelligible to native speakers (in fact they read like a parody of the broken English of recent immigrants).
Achieving real fluency is much harder, but for the purposes of many people, basic intelligibility is all that's really needed most of the time.
Just to be completely clear, no human would have trouble learning any human language if that person were to start early enough. The numerous completely fluent English speakers who were themselves born in, or whose ancestors were born in, non-indo-european speaking lands attests to this fact.
So all the references to ease of language acquisition and ancestry are irrelevant.
slight correction - we wouldn't be able to measure both at the same time; Palmer suggests that one of the two measurement events itself (either position or velocity) is not part of the real universe. IOW, only one measurement, the one we actually do, is part of the invariant set that makes up the real universe. The other measurement must remain forever hypothetical - it could never have really taken place.
the great depression was caused by completely unregulated margin speculation in equities (i.e., buying stock for 5 cents on the dollar). When the market moved against heavily leveraged positions large holdings were under water in absolute dollar terms, which necessitated selling other equities, which caused their prices to drop, which triggered more selling, etc.
The current economic crap storm was caused by *exactly* the same phenomenon. The only difference is that after the great depression, margin buying of equities became regulated so the genius financial market traders found other vehicles to leverage 20 to one, among them, securitized debt (otherwise known as sub-prime mortgage securities). When the market moved against them, they were under water in absolute dollar terms, so they had to sell, which triggered more selling, etc.
In neither case did the current state of illegality of recreational drugs (alcohol in the 20s, pot, crack, etc. in the 2000s) have much to do with the financial market meltdown. Neither did the existence of the Federal Reserve, which did not cause the en masse speculative margin buying bubble and subsequent catastrophic chain reaction of selling .
A soldier's job is first and foremost to protect civilians, whether those civilians be your own people or the other guy's.
I don't know what makes you think this is how wars are fought. Despite romantic notions of chivalry, wars have never been fought this way.
The sad reality of history is that wars are fought to accomplish the political and economic ends of those in control of military force. It has always been the norm for civilians to be harmed in the course of warfare. People who believe that war is a legitimate means of accomplishing political and/or economic goals (not just defense of one's own people and territory) are quite comfortable with the notion that civilians will be killed or have their lives ripped apart.
If your reaction to this crate of magic is 'Hm. I wonder how we'd go about suing someone who "did this" with our IP?' instead of, 'Holy crap, clearly, this is the freaking future of entertainment,'
what if your reaction is "this looks and sounds like ass" ?
The key issue is orginality (at least under US law). IOW, a slavish copy of an existing public domain work is not subject to copyright, but an original work (e.g., choice of lighting, framing of the subject within the photo, etc.) is.
However this isn't the whole picture. The argument for intellectual property boils down to this:
Will innovations that require large amounts of investment, the classic example being an FDA approved new drug, still be made if those who make these innovations know that others will legally copy them freely?
Will movie studios still spend tens of millions of dollars to produce a film when they know that anyone who wants to will legally copy and distribute it? Similarly computer games, television shows, etc.
The fact that copies can be easily made is not a justification. Copies can be easily made of your house keys. Would you like them widely and legally available?
Tech types tend to get hung up on technical possibility. Many things are easily done in this world. The fact that something is easily accomplished is not a good reason for it to be legal. Technology allows you to easily kill large numbers of people. Nevertheless, we as a society have wisely chosen to make that easily accomplished thing illegal.
Exactly. The proponents of unrestricted free trade are like proponents of a frictionless physical world. Sure would be nice if it could exist, but the reality is that because of political manipulation (friction) the system is skewed so that some systematically benefit at the expense of others.
Example: When a large corporation sends jobs overseas it's called "Free Trade" and they even get tax breaks for it. When an ordinary citizen tries to buy prescription medicine from Canada it's called "smuggling."
WRT deregulation, you've also hit the nail on the head. Sadly, those advocating it don't even have a recent historical sense, much less a deep one. It took centuries to achieve things like a 40 hour work week, outlawing child labor, and outlawing slavery. These would *all* come back if we eliminated regulation. For those who doubt the last, slavery, because the efficient market would eliminate it, realize that slavery still exists and is on the rise
Slashdot Mirror
This sort of empty distinction is why can-spam and other laws are completely ineffective - because legislators want to make a legal distinction between "good" spammers, like expedia, and "bad" spammers, like chinese viagra vendors.
There is no such distinction. If a user did not actively request commercial email from a specific commercial entity (not their affiliates or others they sell addresses to), then that email is unsolicited commercial email and should be an unambiguous criminal offense.
large volumes of spam do cause network slowdowns, so, yes, we have all lost network bandwidth because of spam.
Specifically, the US Constitution makes any ratified treaty binding law in the US. The US ratified the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture of enemy combatants, in 1955. Therefore, under the US Constitution, the torture of enemy combatants is a violation of US law.
Tax money doesn't make things cheaper, it makes things that aren't profitable to private industry happen at all. Telcos have no incentive to provide redundancy which costs far more than it will ever reap in profits. Governments, spending tax dollars, do have an incentive to do so - it prevents total collapse of communications infrastructure in various sorts of emergency.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Researchers in many fields (with the obvious exception of anthropology which specializes in such things) are often spectacularly ignorant of their own cultural biases. IOW, they take as "facts" things which are unproven, simply because they and people they know (usually from their local culture and sub-culture of course) take them to be true, or they take as globally true things which are only locally true.
Absent rigorous statistical proof to the contrary, the null hypothesis has to be that people from different cultures and socio-economic backgrounds will have very different rates of defection in the prisoner's dilemma. You can't assume that your sample is meaningful unless you've takes steps to assure that it is globally representative, not just representative of, for example, college-going suburban San Jose.
What makes the method new is that the proposed drugs don't interfere with protein synthesis or bacterial metabolism as ordinary bacteriostatic drugs do, they interfere with intra-species and/or inter-species bacterial communication.
It is this focus on blocking or interfering with bacterial communication, rather than blocking internal metabolic processes (such as protein synthesis) that makes this approach new.
Think of it as an outward extending hierarchy.
I. within an individual organism. this is the realm of traditional bacteriostatic and bactericidal drugs.
II. between organisms of the same specis. this is the realm of intra-species quorum sensing.
III. between organisms of different species. this is the realm of inter-species quorum sensing.
The drugs she is proposing would work in realms II and III.
Type II diabetes, aka adult onset diabetes is increased insulin resistance. Only juvenile diabetes results from insufficient insulin production. Type II diabetics usually produce more insulin than normal people, they're just insensitive to it.
So if HFCS causes increases in insulin resistance (I haven't seen the evidence, just quoting you), it contributes to type II diabetes.
Wikipedia suggests why:
A 2006 study by Dr Ahmed El-Sohemy at the University of Toronto discovered a link between a gene effecting caffeine metabolism and the effects of coffee on health. [96] [97] Some people have a gene to metabolize caffeine more slowly, and for them drinking large quantities of coffee was found to increase the risk of myocardial infarction. [a.k.a. heart attack] For rapid metabolizers, however, coffee seemed to have a preventative effect. Slow and fast metabolizers are comparably common in the general population, and this has been blamed for the wide variation in studies of the health effects of caffeine.
Steve Nash is a point guard for the Phoenix Suns
John Nash is the Nobel laureate.
Every CEO whose company is circling the drain should. Such companies are rather unlikely to regain their pre-crash market cap.
Java is poison to Apple. Apple's whole business model is one of OS differentiation. Java promises OS homogenization. Apple has done everything it can to damn Java with faint praise, ensuring its second class status on Mac OS, and complete absence from the iPhone OS.
Remembering to put the adjectives always first took some time
Still working on those adverbs I see ;^)
Most native speakers would say "Remembering to always put the adjectives first..." though "Remembering always to put the adjectives first..." is more correct.
It's a mistake to think of languages like biological organisms, belonging to strict lineages, and forming a taxonomic tree. The reality is more like an interconnected lattice than a tree.
English is a hybrid of both germanic and romance (i.e., french and latin) ancestry with a generous dash of greek and a smattering of many other world languages. The very basic grammatical form is germanic as is the most rudimentary vocabulary, especially that relating to country activities (field, cow, hound, water, milk, butter, grass, plow, swine off the top of my head). The courtly vocabulary is from French (majesty, court, count, duke, council, chamber, etc.) Much of the technical and scientific vocabulary comes straight from latin and greek (science, technology, biology, geology, physics, transmit, vibrate, orbit, etc.)
Interestingly, much of the slang, especially 20th c. american slang, is from Irish-Gaelic (lunch, booze, dude, and even our beloved geek)
Well, there's speaking English and speaking English...
Since English has lost many of its inflected endings it can be relatively easy to gain basic understandability quickly buy simply using the most common form, often the infinitive:
I buy coffee
you buy coffee
he buy coffee
she buy coffee
I buy coffee yesterday
he buy coffee yesterday
Many of these are incorrect, but perfectly intelligible to native speakers (in fact they read like a parody of the broken English of recent immigrants).
Achieving real fluency is much harder, but for the purposes of many people, basic intelligibility is all that's really needed most of the time.
Just to be completely clear, no human would have trouble learning any human language if that person were to start early enough. The numerous completely fluent English speakers who were themselves born in, or whose ancestors were born in, non-indo-european speaking lands attests to this fact.
So all the references to ease of language acquisition and ancestry are irrelevant.
slight correction - we wouldn't be able to measure both at the same time; Palmer suggests that one of the two measurement events itself (either position or velocity) is not part of the real universe. IOW, only one measurement, the one we actually do, is part of the invariant set that makes up the real universe. The other measurement must remain forever hypothetical - it could never have really taken place.
the great depression was caused by completely unregulated margin speculation in equities (i.e., buying stock for 5 cents on the dollar). When the market moved against heavily leveraged positions large holdings were under water in absolute dollar terms, which necessitated selling other equities, which caused their prices to drop, which triggered more selling, etc.
The current economic crap storm was caused by *exactly* the same phenomenon. The only difference is that after the great depression, margin buying of equities became regulated so the genius financial market traders found other vehicles to leverage 20 to one, among them, securitized debt (otherwise known as sub-prime mortgage securities). When the market moved against them, they were under water in absolute dollar terms, so they had to sell, which triggered more selling, etc.
In neither case did the current state of illegality of recreational drugs (alcohol in the 20s, pot, crack, etc. in the 2000s) have much to do with the financial market meltdown. Neither did the existence of the Federal Reserve, which did not cause the en masse speculative margin buying bubble and subsequent catastrophic chain reaction of selling .
Same people post on slashdot, same people write on wikipedia. [citation needed]
there fixed that fix for you
A soldier's job is first and foremost to protect civilians, whether those civilians be your own people or the other guy's.
I don't know what makes you think this is how wars are fought. Despite romantic notions of chivalry, wars have never been fought this way.
The sad reality of history is that wars are fought to accomplish the political and economic ends of those in control of military force. It has always been the norm for civilians to be harmed in the course of warfare. People who believe that war is a legitimate means of accomplishing political and/or economic goals (not just defense of one's own people and territory) are quite comfortable with the notion that civilians will be killed or have their lives ripped apart.
If your reaction to this crate of magic is 'Hm. I wonder how we'd go about suing someone who "did this" with our IP?' instead of, 'Holy crap, clearly, this is the freaking future of entertainment,'
what if your reaction is "this looks and sounds like ass" ?
The key issue is orginality (at least under US law). IOW, a slavish copy of an existing public domain work is not subject to copyright, but an original work (e.g., choice of lighting, framing of the subject within the photo, etc.) is.
However this isn't the whole picture. The argument for intellectual property boils down to this:
Will innovations that require large amounts of investment, the classic example being an FDA approved new drug, still be made if those who make these innovations know that others will legally copy them freely?
Will movie studios still spend tens of millions of dollars to produce a film when they know that anyone who wants to will legally copy and distribute it? Similarly computer games, television shows, etc.
The fact that copies can be easily made is not a justification. Copies can be easily made of your house keys. Would you like them widely and legally available?
Tech types tend to get hung up on technical possibility. Many things are easily done in this world. The fact that something is easily accomplished is not a good reason for it to be legal. Technology allows you to easily kill large numbers of people. Nevertheless, we as a society have wisely chosen to make that easily accomplished thing illegal.
Exactly. The proponents of unrestricted free trade are like proponents of a frictionless physical world. Sure would be nice if it could exist, but the reality is that because of political manipulation (friction) the system is skewed so that some systematically benefit at the expense of others.
Example: When a large corporation sends jobs overseas it's called "Free Trade" and they even get tax breaks for it. When an ordinary citizen tries to buy prescription medicine from Canada it's called "smuggling."
WRT deregulation, you've also hit the nail on the head. Sadly, those advocating it don't even have a recent historical sense, much less a deep one. It took centuries to achieve things like a 40 hour work week, outlawing child labor, and outlawing slavery. These would *all* come back if we eliminated regulation. For those who doubt the last, slavery, because the efficient market would eliminate it, realize that slavery still exists and is on the rise
Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, not Washington State.
Still a long way from MIT though.
pretty sure Kurt Goedel proved that all true statements are not provable in a formal system.