Taking drugs will not change his genes! There's no point whatsoever in having genetic samples prior to his drug use. Your genes, with the exception of any cells infected by a virus, affected by cancer, or affected by radiation, do not change over your lifetime. The *only* way I imagine his genes might be interested in any way would be if we suspect he has an unusual resistance to drugs that's genetically rooted, and that's pretty unlikely.
Any epigenetic effects would also not change his genes, it would only affect the gene expressions (so a genetic test would be useless).
It might be uncool, but it's not a great leap backwards. Right now, generally software vendors don't have gatekeepers, and Apple (and Palm, and some others) trying to act as such hurts the status quo.
If we could get to the point where the music industry doesn't sit between musicians and people who would listen, that'd be great. We're not there yet.
The fact that Apple *could* reject apps for not meeting their rather precise ideas about what "The Apple Experience" should be like is still a big problem. If it's not an open platform, it's a step backwards.
Privacy is about the embarassment of things you'd like private being made public. Our instinct for privacy isn't the crazy "between me and my gods" kind of thing - it's a mechanism that works on reputation.
Provided that law enforcement doesn't publicise your private life when you're doing things that are pretty innocent, no foul. You have a legitimate concern about advertisers knowing too much about you, because that stuff can make a difference. As for legal agencies that are sorting through heaps of personal data to look for dangerous patterns (they lack the manpower to do anything else to any but a very small part of the population), it's benign.
Such an invasion would go against fairly strong political and diplomatic traditions. More likely, Canada would just find itself with a large and profitable market for oil like the middle east has for oil now.
For what it's worth, I was distracted when I wrote the original - oddly, in my late twenties I started to need to pay a lot more attention to my writing; otherwise I sometimes miss things like this or spell things by the way they sound. I've also started to re-use the same sentence openings. It's puzzling and worrying given that I used to have near-perfect grammar and good style with no effort. It's irritating to need to make a second pass over things I write to catch things. Being in my very early 30s now, I hate to think what things'll be like in my 40s and onward.
Most of us use GIMP, probably. Picking some particular app and complaining that it doesn't have a lot of features is like complaining that calc.exe is missing some nice maths features. GIMP is free - anyone who wants more power than whatever little app their distro provides can install and run it, no charge.
Chances are we'd still intervene in foreign wars for humanitarian and business reasons, for as long as we have the economic and military prominence allowing us to do so.
It's possible that if we had managed to dig up those sums back then we'd have it, we don't really know that for sure but it would've been nice to find out.
Chances are we'll have a mix of wind/solar and nuclear energy - these things arn't fantasies - they work and are cost-effective in some circumstances. Unless these hippes you mention are the kind of hippies that get engineering, physics, and materials science degrees and actually put these technologies into practice, I suspect you're selling those technologies short. The issue isn't that they're not worthwhile, the issue is that since the 50s Americans have been skeptical of long-term thinking and terrified of central planning, leaving us with really lousy infrastructure, a discinclination to improve it, and a community of people who deny reality and work to discredit any studies that show that we fell off the right track when we stopped investing in infrastructure and the sciences and that other countries have surpassed us in many of these areas even when we have the resources of almost an entire continent and a massive population to bear on these problems.
Still, I fundamentally agree with you that we should be investing a lot more in nuclear power - an emphasis on fusion research combined with our standard fission plants in areas not well-covered by something better (not every community has a Hoover Dam) would pollute less and were we to actually have nice ways to transform and store that energy and were our automotive industry to migrate to electic cars, the strategic and economic benefits could be profound.
It's not a fantastic platform. It's a knock-off of an open platform. There's no reason to use Mono unless you're already vested in Microsoft. C# as a language is not innovative and not particularly interesting, the frameworks are not that interesting either. The VM actually *is* interesting, but that's the only thing and it's not worth wading into the Microsoft mess to deal with.
Sure, there's a difference between the runtime as a whole and single libraries, but languages have cultures and so far, in other languages the majority of libraries you're likely to use are not going to be encumbered and the company driving the language isn't putting a lot of effort into closed ones. Not the case with Microsoft - people who care about open library use have to examine every library's license carefully and they know that a lot of developers won't. Dependency on closed libraries is not a pretty thing.
Mono isn't fantastic. It doesn't offer much new. It's developed by a company that'd be delighted to have open source go away. Its patent promise is limited, goes against its company culture, and does not extend to everything people likely would use.
Our community is best off tearing it back out of our platforms and walking away from it. Alternatively, I hope that we have another Bitkeeper moment to provide an example of the limits of this patent promise and dangers of following Miguel on this matter.
It's still a poisoned platform. You might have the language, but not all of the frameworks are covered under that patent promise (or so I understand).
Use Java if you want a language like that. C#/Mono is a dangerous knock-off, its frameworks offer little that Java doesn't, and all it really has behind it that Java lacks is a large company that's hostile to software freedom. Let it die, and let Miguel find some other hobby.
That's about the worst way to summarise the dispute that I could imagine. The two are not in conflict unless one takes ev psych to imply a kind of deep behaviouralist determinism (which I don't think many people would do - from the perspective of the ev psych perspective/model, there's a lot of noise in actual behaviour - selective pressures are not absolute) and one takes neural plasticity to the degree that.. no, there's really no way to promote it into the archetype needed, because it's a more low-level effect.
The dispute itself is interesting, but whomever posed it using those concepts as representing the sides should stop writing about psychology.
Fortunately and hopefully the people who deface advertisements will get right on this. I don't ordinarily see a lot of point in covering or modifying adverts (although I don't mind either) - destroying scent-making devices like this gets a big thumbs up in my book.
Tossing it out isn't possible at this point - there are far too many pages that depend on it. The best you can hope for is providing a migration path and getting the major browser providers and the W3 to agree to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking drugs will not change his genes! There's no point whatsoever in having genetic samples prior to his drug use. Your genes, with the exception of any cells infected by a virus, affected by cancer, or affected by radiation, do not change over your lifetime. The *only* way I imagine his genes might be interested in any way would be if we suspect he has an unusual resistance to drugs that's genetically rooted, and that's pretty unlikely.
Any epigenetic effects would also not change his genes, it would only affect the gene expressions (so a genetic test would be useless).
Do they think the drugs he's taken changed his genetic code? Really? Either the summary is bad, or whomever is doing this is a bit short on clue.
It might be uncool, but it's not a great leap backwards. Right now, generally software vendors don't have gatekeepers, and Apple (and Palm, and some others) trying to act as such hurts the status quo.
If we could get to the point where the music industry doesn't sit between musicians and people who would listen, that'd be great. We're not there yet.
^_^
The fact that Apple *could* reject apps for not meeting their rather precise ideas about what "The Apple Experience" should be like is still a big problem. If it's not an open platform, it's a step backwards.
Privacy is about the embarassment of things you'd like private being made public. Our instinct for privacy isn't the crazy "between me and my gods" kind of thing - it's a mechanism that works on reputation.
Provided that law enforcement doesn't publicise your private life when you're doing things that are pretty innocent, no foul. You have a legitimate concern about advertisers knowing too much about you, because that stuff can make a difference. As for legal agencies that are sorting through heaps of personal data to look for dangerous patterns (they lack the manpower to do anything else to any but a very small part of the population), it's benign.
Such an invasion would go against fairly strong political and diplomatic traditions. More likely, Canada would just find itself with a large and profitable market for oil like the middle east has for oil now.
For what it's worth, I was distracted when I wrote the original - oddly, in my late twenties I started to need to pay a lot more attention to my writing; otherwise I sometimes miss things like this or spell things by the way they sound. I've also started to re-use the same sentence openings. It's puzzling and worrying given that I used to have near-perfect grammar and good style with no effort. It's irritating to need to make a second pass over things I write to catch things. Being in my very early 30s now, I hate to think what things'll be like in my 40s and onward.
I am grateful that Miguel wrote Gnumeric before he started on all this mono stuff - I rather like it.
Most of us use GIMP, probably. Picking some particular app and complaining that it doesn't have a lot of features is like complaining that calc.exe is missing some nice maths features. GIMP is free - anyone who wants more power than whatever little app their distro provides can install and run it, no charge.
Dude, they're not Chenjesu. Afghans don't have a laser capable of ionising the solar wind .. yet.
Chances are we'd still intervene in foreign wars for humanitarian and business reasons, for as long as we have the economic and military prominence allowing us to do so.
It's possible that if we had managed to dig up those sums back then we'd have it, we don't really know that for sure but it would've been nice to find out.
Chances are we'll have a mix of wind/solar and nuclear energy - these things arn't fantasies - they work and are cost-effective in some circumstances. Unless these hippes you mention are the kind of hippies that get engineering, physics, and materials science degrees and actually put these technologies into practice, I suspect you're selling those technologies short. The issue isn't that they're not worthwhile, the issue is that since the 50s Americans have been skeptical of long-term thinking and terrified of central planning, leaving us with really lousy infrastructure, a discinclination to improve it, and a community of people who deny reality and work to discredit any studies that show that we fell off the right track when we stopped investing in infrastructure and the sciences and that other countries have surpassed us in many of these areas even when we have the resources of almost an entire continent and a massive population to bear on these problems.
Still, I fundamentally agree with you that we should be investing a lot more in nuclear power - an emphasis on fusion research combined with our standard fission plants in areas not well-covered by something better (not every community has a Hoover Dam) would pollute less and were we to actually have nice ways to transform and store that energy and were our automotive industry to migrate to electic cars, the strategic and economic benefits could be profound.
It's not a fantastic platform. It's a knock-off of an open platform. There's no reason to use Mono unless you're already vested in Microsoft. C# as a language is not innovative and not particularly interesting, the frameworks are not that interesting either. The VM actually *is* interesting, but that's the only thing and it's not worth wading into the Microsoft mess to deal with.
Sure, there's a difference between the runtime as a whole and single libraries, but languages have cultures and so far, in other languages the majority of libraries you're likely to use are not going to be encumbered and the company driving the language isn't putting a lot of effort into closed ones. Not the case with Microsoft - people who care about open library use have to examine every library's license carefully and they know that a lot of developers won't. Dependency on closed libraries is not a pretty thing.
Mono isn't fantastic. It doesn't offer much new. It's developed by a company that'd be delighted to have open source go away. Its patent promise is limited, goes against its company culture, and does not extend to everything people likely would use.
Our community is best off tearing it back out of our platforms and walking away from it. Alternatively, I hope that we have another Bitkeeper moment to provide an example of the limits of this patent promise and dangers of following Miguel on this matter.
It's still a poisoned platform. You might have the language, but not all of the frameworks are covered under that patent promise (or so I understand).
Use Java if you want a language like that. C#/Mono is a dangerous knock-off, its frameworks offer little that Java doesn't, and all it really has behind it that Java lacks is a large company that's hostile to software freedom. Let it die, and let Miguel find some other hobby.
Pah. People with four or less numbers in their UID are just a myth.
I'm always glad to hear about mono being used less on Linux.
I am not certain which is more entertaining.
That's about the worst way to summarise the dispute that I could imagine. The two are not in conflict unless one takes ev psych to imply a kind of deep behaviouralist determinism (which I don't think many people would do - from the perspective of the ev psych perspective/model, there's a lot of noise in actual behaviour - selective pressures are not absolute) and one takes neural plasticity to the degree that .. no, there's really no way to promote it into the archetype needed, because it's a more low-level effect.
The dispute itself is interesting, but whomever posed it using those concepts as representing the sides should stop writing about psychology.
It took me awhile of poking around the site to finally notice that this is "Novel", not "Novell". Reading carefully is important :)
Fortunately and hopefully the people who deface advertisements will get right on this. I don't ordinarily see a lot of point in covering or modifying adverts (although I don't mind either) - destroying scent-making devices like this gets a big thumbs up in my book.
Brothers, we should struggle together against the common enemy, Microsoft Word!
Domain hijacking isn't cute, particularly for something so petty as a parking ticket.
I wonder why the city had a .com to begin with - it would've been more appropriate to have a .us or .gov
Not really. People training for the clown car trick typically practice in China.
I thought humans were animals. Are humans not allowed to breed anymore?
Tossing it out isn't possible at this point - there are far too many pages that depend on it. The best you can hope for is providing a migration path and getting the major browser providers and the W3 to agree to it.