The same way you patent a rose--you have a strain of the virus and convince the patent office that it is unique. And anyone who wants to do the same, starting with wild virus, can likely (barring stupid DNA patent tricks, as in the human genome) do the same. Fortunately.
...would be for Sony to enclose an autoloaded software package that would ask the user if they wanted to REMOVE their old rootkit when the new CD was inserted in the computer, and that FREE replacement CD's and future CD's for the next few years MUST contain the rootkit removal option.
If you've read the last paragraphs of Darwin's _Origin of Species_ you will have seen that he was not then willing to fully exclude non-random causes in life's origins.
yes, you do. There is a difference between evolution and natural selection. Rejection of pure (random/non-intelligent) natural selection as the only factor in the origin of life and its many genera does not exclude acceptance of evolution any more than acceptance of horse breeding as the origin of the Shetland pony excludes evolution:).
Exactly. And if we restrict definitions to those of molecular biology, evolution is a change in gene frequency over time. Which is to say, the change of a local ecosystem from lake to swamp to meadow is a kind of evolution. That is a definition of evolution that even a fundamentlist creationist can believe in, and allows plenty of nice, testable research to be done--unlike arguing about the distant past (grin and duck):).
The Web presence of Shirley Laska, the author of the "prescient study" in question, along with the entire IP block of the University of New Orleans--representing thousands of Netizens--has in the last 48 hours disappeared from the face of the internet. Perhaps the Net itself is designed to survive a disaster in a single location, but modern communications, even the internet (maybe, based on these events, _especially_ the internet) seem to be completely, blindingly inadequate to cope with a natural disaster of this magnitude at the location of the disaster itself. Can the Net help what it cannot see?
laser surgery via internet and the Snow Crash...
on
Laser Surgery Goes Online
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yeah, this means it won't be long before a computer worm can really, directly kill someone;-/
Back in the mid-90's, with an autamated system of batch FTP transfers, involving parsing a directory listing and dowmloading and uploading certain files by name and date, I found it speeded things up 20% to rewite old REXX code in Perl.
This is a good prelminary result, but we know from experience with other blood tests for disease states that these tests have to be verified with many different types of healthy and sick groups of people before the test can be considered a good one. For example, is this really just a test for active myelin breakdown? There are urine tests for that already, and they have their problems with sensitivity and specificity.
That said, it would be nice to have a cheap, reliable blood test for MS (multiple sclerosis not Micro$oft);-).
But love is not a valid theory, and has no place in the public schools:).
Seriously though, if you read the wording, the court decision was based on a legal notion of political fairness, not on scientific facts. That is to say, the sticker was felt to _demean_ those who do not choose to believe in any conscious creative principle behind human origins.
I think that evolution school K12 textbook controversies suffer from being a proxy for theism versus atheism debates. That is the real reason they become so heated--the actual facts are twisted by both sides of THAT debate. For example:
atheist: we see bacteria evolve to become resistant to antibiotics. Therefore natural selection explains everything, and there is no God. (I don't think God exists, and I select facts to support my view.)
theist: we cannot explain how the improbable complexities of life came to be. Therefore God exists. (I believe in a God and select facts to support my view.)
It would seem reading through the above debates here that neither side is willing to retreat from their own absurdity, preferring to just point out the problems of the other. Both emperors have no clothes.:)
But the most versatile, and probably the most likely to reproduce, monkey is the one that can walk either way, depending on environmental demands. Physically, this setup is in many ways superior to the human one, except for running while holding tools--there humans are better set up:).
Seen from the perspective of one with postdoc level training in related matters, this is silly. It is wrong as support for natural selection in the origin of species among primates for two reasons:
1) In dogs, a broken leg makes them walk on three legs. This is compensation, not evolution toward bipedal posture. The broken-legged puppy is LESS likely to survive and reproduce (its weaker bones mayhap?).
In monkeys, a broken or weak arm (eg. from illness) makes them prefer to walk on two legs, but again the arm problem makes them LESS likely to survive. And monkeys in general already know how to walk on two legs OR on all fours--they do not need a group behavioral culture to teach them to do so. (Humans don't need to be taught to crawl by someone who cannot walk because of a weak leg, for example.)
2) More importantly, this smacks of Lamark. Arm weakness after enterovirus polimyelitis may cause a monkey that orginally could walk on EITHER all fours (preferred) OR bipedally to change to PREFER bipedal walking. Lamark said giraffes had long necks from straining their necks upward--this is the concept of learned or acquired characteristics passed to offspring. This is not a DNA based theory! And, it was not Dawin's theory!
You are the only one who seems to have gotten the real point of all this. Regardless of the red shifts and blue shifts and temperature changes, the point it that the mirror does NOT use heat. It uses momentum transfer. Light in space has momentum that is not canceled by atmospheric drag.
Who cares what the temperature of a tugboat is? The barge still moves:).
The very fact that people wonder about this question reinforces the SERIOUS ethical issues about cloning. The main issue regarding cloning at this time is exactly the "cloned for body parts" issue.
There are natural clones. They are called identical twins. Is one twin a human and the other one not? So a clone is exactly as human as its 'parent', the DNA donor.
Slashdot Mirror
The same way you patent a rose--you have a strain of the virus and convince the patent office that it is unique. And anyone who wants to do the same, starting with wild virus, can likely (barring stupid DNA patent tricks, as in the human genome) do the same. Fortunately.
...would be for Sony to enclose an autoloaded software package that would ask the user if they wanted to REMOVE their old rootkit when the new CD was inserted in the computer, and that FREE replacement CD's and future CD's for the next few years MUST contain the rootkit removal option.
(yes, yes, a fantasy. I know....)
If you've read the last paragraphs of Darwin's _Origin of Species_ you will have seen that he was not then willing to fully exclude non-random causes in life's origins.
yes, you do. There is a difference between evolution and natural selection. Rejection of pure (random/non-intelligent) natural selection as the only factor in the origin of life and its many genera does not exclude acceptance of evolution any more than acceptance of horse breeding as the origin of the Shetland pony excludes evolution :).
Exactly. And if we restrict definitions to those of molecular biology, evolution is a change in gene frequency over time. Which is to say, the change of a local ecosystem from lake to swamp to meadow is a kind of evolution. That is a definition of evolution that even a fundamentlist creationist can believe in, and allows plenty of nice, testable research to be done--unlike arguing about the distant past (grin and duck) :).
Consider the effects of a gun at your back, or even the slave driver's whip :-/
The Web presence of Shirley Laska, the author of the "prescient study" in question, along with the entire IP block of the University of New Orleans--representing thousands of Netizens--has in the last 48 hours disappeared from the face of the internet. Perhaps the Net itself is designed to survive a disaster in a single location, but modern communications, even the internet (maybe, based on these events, _especially_ the internet) seem to be completely, blindingly inadequate to cope with a natural disaster of this magnitude at the location of the disaster itself. Can the Net help what it cannot see?
Yeah, this means it won't be long before a computer worm can really, directly kill someone ;-/
Back in the mid-90's, with an autamated system of batch FTP transfers, involving parsing a directory listing and dowmloading and uploading certain files by name and date, I found it speeded things up 20% to rewite old REXX code in Perl.
YMMV, by sytem and task, of course.
This is a good prelminary result, but we know from experience with other blood tests for disease states that these tests have to be verified with many different types of healthy and sick groups of people before the test can be considered a good one. For example, is this really just a test for active myelin breakdown? There are urine tests for that already, and they have their problems with sensitivity and specificity.
;-).
That said, it would be nice to have a cheap, reliable blood test for MS (multiple sclerosis not Micro$oft)
We already have inaminate objects as babysitters...they are called TV sets.
:0
And yes, I don't like the idea
But love is not a valid theory, and has no place in the public schools :).
:)
Seriously though, if you read the wording, the court decision was based on a legal notion of political fairness, not on scientific facts. That is to say, the sticker was felt to _demean_ those who do not choose to believe in any conscious creative principle behind human origins.
I think that evolution school K12 textbook controversies suffer from being a proxy for theism versus atheism debates. That is the real reason they become so heated--the actual facts are twisted by both sides of THAT debate. For example:
atheist: we see bacteria evolve to become resistant to antibiotics. Therefore natural selection explains everything, and there is no God. (I don't think God exists, and I select facts to support my view.)
theist: we cannot explain how the improbable complexities of life came to be. Therefore God exists. (I believe in a God and select facts to support my view.)
It would seem reading through the above debates here that neither side is willing to retreat from their own absurdity, preferring to just point out the problems of the other. Both emperors have no clothes.
But the most versatile, and probably the most likely to reproduce, monkey is the one that can walk either way, depending on environmental demands. Physically, this setup is in many ways superior to the human one, except for running while holding tools--there humans are better set up :).
Seen from the perspective of one with postdoc level training in related matters, this is silly. It is wrong as support for natural selection in the origin of species among primates for two reasons:
;-)
1) In dogs, a broken leg makes them walk on three legs. This is compensation, not evolution toward bipedal posture. The broken-legged puppy is LESS likely to survive and reproduce (its weaker bones mayhap?).
In monkeys, a broken or weak arm (eg. from illness) makes them prefer to walk on two legs, but again the arm problem makes them LESS likely to survive. And monkeys in general already know how to walk on two legs OR on all fours--they do not need a group behavioral culture to teach them to do so. (Humans don't need to be taught to crawl by someone who cannot walk because of a weak leg, for example.)
2) More importantly, this smacks of Lamark. Arm weakness after enterovirus polimyelitis may cause a monkey that orginally could walk on EITHER all fours (preferred) OR bipedally to change to PREFER bipedal walking. Lamark said giraffes had long necks from straining their necks upward--this is the concept of learned or acquired characteristics passed to offspring. This is not a DNA based theory! And, it was not Dawin's theory!
Bad evolutionist--know thy Darwin!
> So the MIrror is NOT a heat engine.
:).
You are the only one who seems to have gotten the real point of all this. Regardless of the red shifts and blue shifts and temperature changes, the point it that the mirror does NOT use heat. It uses momentum transfer. Light in space has momentum that is not canceled by atmospheric drag.
Who cares what the temperature of a tugboat is? The barge still moves
GIMLI
His arm has grown long indeed, if he can draw
a gall bladder down from the North to trouble us here three hundred leagues away.
GANDALF
His arm has grown long.
The very fact that people wonder about this question reinforces the SERIOUS ethical issues about cloning. The main issue regarding cloning at this time is exactly the "cloned for body parts" issue. There are natural clones. They are called identical twins. Is one twin a human and the other one not? So a clone is exactly as human as its 'parent', the DNA donor.