I'm not saying it is likely- just possible. Get the right extremophile bacteria on mars and the potential is there.
Even if they are not ideally suited- all they need to do is be able to survive and reproduce. Thriving is not required.
There are species that can survive wild temperatures and dry conditions. Species that can survive all sorts of conditions. Bacterial species are not like animal species- genetic information is easily spread.
If one species can survive the temperature- one species can "feed" on mars-etc, etc, - if they're all there in a rare event they could exchange the right genetic information and survive on mars.
Of course they should- if law enforcement see a crime in process they should stop it.
The defendant doesn't get convicted without a trial, no, but they do get the crime stopped.
Police pull over immediately someone going 100 in a school zone. They don't take the attitude- let him keep driving- knock a few kids down, we've got his plate # we'll take him to court later. (nor should they).
Child pron sites should be closed immediately- not wait until the owner has been charged and taken to jail.
I can only see one line of the above response and cannot open it to reply due to Slashdots ongoing UI bugs.
However- I would like to point out that saying: "there is no intellectual property" IS an extreme position. That IS the extreme.
You may believe that to be true and that may be your stance-- but that is an extreme position- doesn't mean it is wrong- but it is extreme. You can't go any more unregulated than that in terms of IP.
Personally- I think taking a non-extreme approach is best to foster creativity and consumer happiness. Yes, people should be rewarded for their creativity and have it somewhat protected.
I shouldn't be allowed to profit off someone elses hardwork. However- I do recognise that the current laws need relaxing considerably.
As for intellectual property being an "artificial" law.
Yes, exactly- just as all laws and rules are. Just as child abuse is "artificially" illegal- or laws of consent, doesn't mean it should be made legal. Most people would argue they shouldn't- and I agree.
Physical property is equally "artificial" too. Caveman one crafts an arrowhead. Caveman two comes along- clubs caveman one on the head and steals arrowhead.
Without government artificially coming along and saying theft is wrong- it isn't. Our entire legal system is "artificial". Most people would not want to live in anarchy though. I want it to be wrong to club someone over the head to steal their property- I wouldn't want to live in a world where theft of physical property were legal.
I also wouldn't want to live in a world where anyone could profit from my intellectual hardwork and I not get paid anything.
There needs to be a balance. Currently it is too far in favour of the creator than the consumer- but we shouldn't abolish IP outright.
I was agreeing with the "inalienable rights" being a bad idea- and then said what they really want though is "no censorship" of the web- which I was saying I'd rather they not do either. Cover with free-speech which is already established to provide the get-outs.
I was agreeing with you not disagreeing- saying "no censorship" on the web under a seperate amendment is potentially problematic.
Also- I don't know that I think the constitution is any place for the internet.
We are unable to predict the future- I prefer any constitution changes be long-term. We don't know that the internet will not morph into something currently unforeseeable in the future.
The constitution should not be something frequently tweaked with to deal with the current day issues. That is what legislature is for.
Tech changes frequently- it may be unfathomable that the internet could morph into something else today- but it almost certainly will continue to evolve.
"Piracy" shouldn't be a platform. Nor should allowing theft of intellectual rights.
That said- current laws are ludicrous and publishers have more rights than they should.
The current system of copyright, patents, etc is completely broken and needs losening up a lot. We should resist swinging the complete opposite direction though.
Like many issues- the best course is somewhere between what we have now and what the extremists on the other side want.
Yes, if I buy something, I should be able to make copies on any device I own- and maybe *loan* to a friend.
No, I shouldn't be able to rip it and sell it (or give it away) to whomever I choose.
Yes, copyright timeframes are too long. No, we shouldn't eliminate them entirely.
Why must every policy have to have an extreme answer?
As for age of the candidate. Whereas most 24 year olds probably are not mature enough to take office- even though at that age you think you know the ropes; some 24 year olds are.
There have been fantastic world leaders much younger than 24. It all depends on the individual.
This is exactly what went through my mind initially too.
However, upon reading more understood that- whereas they say it is to make it an inalienable right- what they really are after is an amendment forbidding censorship.
That in itself is a problem. So the government can not take down child pron sites? Terrorists communicating attacks?
(sure, they are breaking other laws so you can arrest the perps if you find them- but not allowing censorship means they wouldn't be able to take the sites down- regardless of whether you find who set the sites up).
I think the right to free speech should apply anyway- and we've already worked out nuances with slander laws, etc, with free speech.
Actually- I think I know what is confusing you. It is the whole reason why (being a transplant from overseas) I insisted on calling it Maize to begin with.
Corn, and as I see from looking, even sweet corn are ambiguous terms.
Corn- means "cereal crop"- what we grew as corn back home was what you would call wheat- the Scots called Barley "corn"- "Sweet Corn" is what the English speaking world outside of the US refers to as Maize- in the same way that "Indian Corn" was the original US language for Maize (although now Indian Corn means something more specific).
Even in the US- corn has not always ubiqutously meant "Maize"- it would mean different things in different places- that has happened as the US has moved away from agricultural base.
To you it appears "Sweet Corn" is a specific species of Maize. The "Sweet Corn" that grew in my village was always sold for cattle feed- or used on the farm ("corn" or "wheat" was actually better suited to our climate though so more of that was grown). If you look back at all my posts- I have always called it Maize, not "Sweet Corn"- until you insisted on repeatedly calling it "Sweet Corn". I think my only reference to "sweet corn" was explaining this very fact that "corn" is not a very good term to use on an internationally accessible forum.
However, that said, all varieties of "corn" are used to some degree for animal fodder- even what the younger-generation American version of the the word "sweet corn".
The science behind this is highly documented.
Unhealthy fats are trippled and so-called "healthy fats" are almost eliminated. Total fat content is much higher. The protein loses flavour (whether this is bad or not depends on the palate of the consumer- although most people prefer grass-fed beef flavour).
Minerals such as calcium, beta carotene, etc are found in much lower percentages.
It's not just cattle- it is pigs, sheep, becuase maize prices
As the Sci-American link I pointed to earlier clearly points out- over 90% of cattle's feed comes from maize.
The fact remains that the American government sponsors the production of Maize way-above that of any other crop.
It is a backwards policy.
I won't argue whether subsidies are necessary or not- but if we must subsidise farming- DON'T SUBSIDISE MAIZE.
I've been doing programming for 11 years- HATE IT... absolutely dread work every day- and it's not my company- I keep changing looking for greener pastures- it is the programming I find mind-numbingly dull.
Hopefully I can find a job to transition to myself. Unfortunately reluctant to take a pay cut due to being sole provider for the family and already being stretched.
Technically it is graphite- but it is often called "lead" despite not containing any lead. I don't know why it is called lead- if it ever indeed contained lead.
Perhaps they were worried about hacking. After all the US has had satellites hacked. It would cost more to duplicate their calibration patterns (and couldn't be put up on the fly).
Antenna arrays could be duplicated and potentially be portable.
It could be because it was when I was quite young (probably about 7) so still growing. I'm much larger, obviously, than when I was 7 so I think it just stretch out until it was unnoticable.
I could still make out the stab wound for several years... I guess it was about my teenage growth-spurt that I couldn't see it anymore.
Might also matter where it is- mine was on my stomache... so softer tissue than between the fingers.
Slashdot Mirror
Buffy the privacy slayer.
I'm not saying it is likely- just possible. Get the right extremophile bacteria on mars and the potential is there.
Even if they are not ideally suited- all they need to do is be able to survive and reproduce. Thriving is not required.
There are species that can survive wild temperatures and dry conditions. Species that can survive all sorts of conditions. Bacterial species are not like animal species- genetic information is easily spread.
If one species can survive the temperature- one species can "feed" on mars-etc, etc, - if they're all there in a rare event they could exchange the right genetic information and survive on mars.
Bacteria have been found alive on the outside of satellites that have not had contact with earth for months.
If they can survive on the exterior of man made objects in space- it is potentially possible they could survive on Mars.
One of the theories of origin, pan-spermia, is that simplistic organisms (or their precursors) spread to earth via space debris.
Of course they should- if law enforcement see a crime in process they should stop it.
The defendant doesn't get convicted without a trial, no, but they do get the crime stopped.
Police pull over immediately someone going 100 in a school zone. They don't take the attitude- let him keep driving- knock a few kids down, we've got his plate # we'll take him to court later. (nor should they).
Child pron sites should be closed immediately- not wait until the owner has been charged and taken to jail.
Psychotic laser-equipped misanthopic robots don't kill people.
People kill people.
Sure it can... it will just take a few billion years.
One misplaced micro-organism and it could set off evolution on mars that will slowly terraform the planet over the next few billion years.
Can it convert imperial measurements to metric measurements?
The problems with the kindle only occur when the TSA give the kindle a cavity search.
Yeah- and growing up I always wondered why in American films "Members of Parliament" wore military uniforms with an "MP" on their sleave.
MEP is Member of European Parliament.
I can only see one line of the above response and cannot open it to reply due to Slashdots ongoing UI bugs.
However- I would like to point out that saying:
"there is no intellectual property" IS an extreme position. That IS the extreme.
You may believe that to be true and that may be your stance-- but that is an extreme position- doesn't mean it is wrong- but it is extreme. You can't go any more unregulated than that in terms of IP.
Personally- I think taking a non-extreme approach is best to foster creativity and consumer happiness. Yes, people should be rewarded for their creativity and have it somewhat protected.
I shouldn't be allowed to profit off someone elses hardwork. However- I do recognise that the current laws need relaxing considerably.
As for intellectual property being an "artificial" law.
Yes, exactly- just as all laws and rules are. Just as child abuse is "artificially" illegal- or laws of consent, doesn't mean it should be made legal. Most people would argue they shouldn't- and I agree.
Physical property is equally "artificial" too. Caveman one crafts an arrowhead. Caveman two comes along- clubs caveman one on the head and steals arrowhead.
Without government artificially coming along and saying theft is wrong- it isn't. Our entire legal system is "artificial". Most people would not want to live in anarchy though. I want it to be wrong to club someone over the head to steal their property- I wouldn't want to live in a world where theft of physical property were legal.
I also wouldn't want to live in a world where anyone could profit from my intellectual hardwork and I not get paid anything.
There needs to be a balance. Currently it is too far in favour of the creator than the consumer- but we shouldn't abolish IP outright.
That is exactly my point.
I was agreeing with the "inalienable rights" being a bad idea- and then said what they really want though is "no censorship" of the web- which I was saying I'd rather they not do either. Cover with free-speech which is already established to provide the get-outs.
I was agreeing with you not disagreeing- saying "no censorship" on the web under a seperate amendment is potentially problematic.
Also- I don't know that I think the constitution is any place for the internet.
We are unable to predict the future- I prefer any constitution changes be long-term. We don't know that the internet will not morph into something currently unforeseeable in the future.
The constitution should not be something frequently tweaked with to deal with the current day issues. That is what legislature is for.
Tech changes frequently- it may be unfathomable that the internet could morph into something else today- but it almost certainly will continue to evolve.
I hate how some issues are so polarising.
"Piracy" shouldn't be a platform. Nor should allowing theft of intellectual rights.
That said- current laws are ludicrous and publishers have more rights than they should.
The current system of copyright, patents, etc is completely broken and needs losening up a lot. We should resist swinging the complete opposite direction though.
Like many issues- the best course is somewhere between what we have now and what the extremists on the other side want.
Yes, if I buy something, I should be able to make copies on any device I own- and maybe *loan* to a friend.
No, I shouldn't be able to rip it and sell it (or give it away) to whomever I choose.
Yes, copyright timeframes are too long. No, we shouldn't eliminate them entirely.
Why must every policy have to have an extreme answer?
As for age of the candidate. Whereas most 24 year olds probably are not mature enough to take office- even though at that age you think you know the ropes; some 24 year olds are.
There have been fantastic world leaders much younger than 24. It all depends on the individual.
This is exactly what went through my mind initially too.
However, upon reading more understood that- whereas they say it is to make it an inalienable right- what they really are after is an amendment forbidding censorship.
That in itself is a problem. So the government can not take down child pron sites? Terrorists communicating attacks?
(sure, they are breaking other laws so you can arrest the perps if you find them- but not allowing censorship means they wouldn't be able to take the sites down- regardless of whether you find who set the sites up).
I think the right to free speech should apply anyway- and we've already worked out nuances with slander laws, etc, with free speech.
With news from opera that they have duplicated the faster than light neutrinos does that mean that future art is now as valid a defense as prior art?
Actually- I think I know what is confusing you. It is the whole reason why (being a transplant from overseas) I insisted on calling it Maize to begin with.
Corn, and as I see from looking, even sweet corn are ambiguous terms.
Corn- means "cereal crop"- what we grew as corn back home was what you would call wheat- the Scots called Barley "corn"- "Sweet Corn" is what the English speaking world outside of the US refers to as Maize- in the same way that "Indian Corn" was the original US language for Maize (although now Indian Corn means something more specific).
Even in the US- corn has not always ubiqutously meant "Maize"- it would mean different things in different places- that has happened as the US has moved away from agricultural base.
To you it appears "Sweet Corn" is a specific species of Maize. The "Sweet Corn" that grew in my village was always sold for cattle feed- or used on the farm ("corn" or "wheat" was actually better suited to our climate though so more of that was grown). If you look back at all my posts- I have always called it Maize, not "Sweet Corn"- until you insisted on repeatedly calling it "Sweet Corn". I think my only reference to "sweet corn" was explaining this very fact that "corn" is not a very good term to use on an internationally accessible forum.
However, that said, all varieties of "corn" are used to some degree for animal fodder- even what the younger-generation American version of the the word "sweet corn".
The science behind this is highly documented.
Unhealthy fats are trippled and so-called "healthy fats" are almost eliminated. Total fat content is much higher. The protein loses flavour (whether this is bad or not depends on the palate of the consumer- although most people prefer grass-fed beef flavour).
Minerals such as calcium, beta carotene, etc are found in much lower percentages.
It's not just cattle- it is pigs, sheep, becuase maize prices
As the Sci-American link I pointed to earlier clearly points out- over 90% of cattle's feed comes from maize.
The fact remains that the American government sponsors the production of Maize way-above that of any other crop.
It is a backwards policy.
I won't argue whether subsidies are necessary or not- but if we must subsidise farming- DON'T SUBSIDISE MAIZE.
Opera is faster than light? That should put Google's chrome out of business.
Google Sweet Corn and cattle.
Go on- do it.
Good for you.
I've been doing programming for 11 years- HATE IT... absolutely dread work every day- and it's not my company- I keep changing looking for greener pastures- it is the programming I find mind-numbingly dull.
Hopefully I can find a job to transition to myself. Unfortunately reluctant to take a pay cut due to being sole provider for the family and already being stretched.
I've noticed that Bond films seem to tell the story of my life pretty realistically.
I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a hotel and found an exoctic women waiting for me.
Usually a housekeeper leaving a mint on the pillow.
Obviously this is proof that time travel has been discovered by the military and there is a fear that someone will bring back small pox.
Technically it is graphite- but it is often called "lead" despite not containing any lead. I don't know why it is called lead- if it ever indeed contained lead.
Perhaps they were worried about hacking. After all the US has had satellites hacked. It would cost more to duplicate their calibration patterns (and couldn't be put up on the fly).
Antenna arrays could be duplicated and potentially be portable.
If they did that the US would spend their military budget on building weapons instead of trying to figure out what the Chinese were up to.
Doesn't explain why some of the structures have heavy bomb damage.
Assuming no foreign power has been bombing China- I can't fathom why China would bomb their own calibration units.
(unless it was to test what would happen- before an enemy did it to them)
It could be because it was when I was quite young (probably about 7) so still growing. I'm much larger, obviously, than when I was 7 so I think it just stretch out until it was unnoticable.
I could still make out the stab wound for several years... I guess it was about my teenage growth-spurt that I couldn't see it anymore.
Might also matter where it is- mine was on my stomache... so softer tissue than between the fingers.