However, the mirror is large and awkward and, depending on whether the camera is pointing up or down, either the top or the bottom of the panorama is relatively low resolution. You also need pretty high precision in the mirror and it's position if you want to do accurate pixel mapping.
USB cameras are so small and cheap these days that for most panorama applications I think multiple cameras are probably a better option.
Roughly speaking, it'd be like the difference between removing the pit of a cherry vs trying to remove every seed out of a watermelon the size of a cherry.
Hmm... once more please, with cars instead of fruit?
If 'faulty' mtDNA can cause problems then mtDNA has an effect.
Well, what I was trying to get at was that I don't see an mtDNA donor being any more a biological parent than, say, a bone marrow donor. The kid isn't going to have Mummy's eyes, Daddy's smile, and mtMummy's nose. What's more, if the kid's a boy, the mtDNA donor's contribution to the family gene pool ends with him.
That depends how you define "biological children" - mDNA is a separate string of genetic code that does one specific thing. AFAIK it has no effect on physical or mental attributes (except those that might be affected by the problems caused by faulty mDNA). So no, it won't help lesbian couples - there still has to be a daddy, so far.
The nuclear DNA from the egg with the dodgy mDNA is transferred into a donor egg with healthy mDNA. I presume there are reasons you can't replace the mDNA in an egg from another source. Maybe it doesn't survive outside a cell.
Not to be as conspiratorial as some other posters here;
There's nothing conspiratorial about it. It's just the usual stupid-trying-to-look-clever attitude of some to immediately assume that any announcement of a new experiment or idea is doomed to failure.
Google aren't claiming this is going to be the next thing, yet. They're experimenting, and it's interesting that they're doing so, so let's watch this space instead of pissing on their very small, low-key parade.
So what happens if everyone starts Tweeting jokey threats in response to these charges? Maybe it's happening already - I don't Tweet, or Twitterise, or whatever you'd call it.
But I think I will get drunk and go beat up some midgets.
You either didn't read the article (or the summary, or even the headline very well), or I'm confused as to what point you're making, since that's a different kid.
Tsarnaev is guilty of terrorism. It is guilty of murder. It is guilty of harming other people and property. It is guilty of robbery. It is guilty of kidnapping. It is guilty of manufacturing and deploying destructive devises (of which WMDs are just a very small subset.) One could argue that he is guilty of organized crime (with the objective of committing acts of terrorism.)
While I agree with most of what you say, calling him "it" doesn't seem helpful. He's still human and I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by excluding him from the species. Sounds like the kind of language that would get a prosecutor a reproach for turning the court into the kind of circus you've advocated avoiding.
He's also not guilty of anything yet.
Authorities, please: Let us not make one more mockery out of legal institutions and charge this criminal appropriately.
Don't make a mockery of legal institutions by assuming a suspect's guilt before his trial.
I'm struggling to understand how Javascript is like Assembly. One's high level, one's level low level. One's architecture specific, the other is available via several different browsers across practically every operating system running on any architecture.
So, yeah, it's bizarre that javascript has become the assembly of the web world. But it runs all over the place because it runs all over the place.
Slashdot Mirror
A tiny lens would work great, as you can capture continuously and average images for lower noise.
While moving?
Like this?
However, the mirror is large and awkward and, depending on whether the camera is pointing up or down, either the top or the bottom of the panorama is relatively low resolution. You also need pretty high precision in the mirror and it's position if you want to do accurate pixel mapping.
USB cameras are so small and cheap these days that for most panorama applications I think multiple cameras are probably a better option.
While I'd have happily taken said points, it's mostly not mine.
Yeah, and editing doesn't mean saving, right? Maybe that's going to be added in some future version, as they haven't specifically mentioned it here.
You've got it all wrong. It's about not choosing to not have a baby with defects, which is what god wants. Or something.
If 1) then 2). Inelegant choice of questions.
Roughly speaking, it'd be like the difference between removing the pit of a cherry vs trying to remove every seed out of a watermelon the size of a cherry.
Hmm... once more please, with cars instead of fruit?
If 'faulty' mtDNA can cause problems then mtDNA has an effect.
Well, what I was trying to get at was that I don't see an mtDNA donor being any more a biological parent than, say, a bone marrow donor. The kid isn't going to have Mummy's eyes, Daddy's smile, and mtMummy's nose. What's more, if the kid's a boy, the mtDNA donor's contribution to the family gene pool ends with him.
That depends how you define "biological children" - mDNA is a separate string of genetic code that does one specific thing. AFAIK it has no effect on physical or mental attributes (except those that might be affected by the problems caused by faulty mDNA). So no, it won't help lesbian couples - there still has to be a daddy, so far.
The nuclear DNA from the egg with the dodgy mDNA is transferred into a donor egg with healthy mDNA. I presume there are reasons you can't replace the mDNA in an egg from another source. Maybe it doesn't survive outside a cell.
Google isn't going to badger everyone into abandoning TCP, y'know.
Not to be as conspiratorial as some other posters here;
There's nothing conspiratorial about it. It's just the usual stupid-trying-to-look-clever attitude of some to immediately assume that any announcement of a new experiment or idea is doomed to failure.
Google aren't claiming this is going to be the next thing, yet. They're experimenting, and it's interesting that they're doing so, so let's watch this space instead of pissing on their very small, low-key parade.
Exactly. Makes this whole mess even more offensive to justice.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your poorly photocopied newsletter.
So what happens if everyone starts Tweeting jokey threats in response to these charges? Maybe it's happening already - I don't Tweet, or Twitterise, or whatever you'd call it.
But I think I will get drunk and go beat up some midgets.
You either didn't read the article (or the summary, or even the headline very well), or I'm confused as to what point you're making, since that's a different kid.
Was the jail sentence an overreaction? Perhaps.
Just to clarify, he hasn't been sentenced.
Tsarnaev is guilty of terrorism. It is guilty of murder. It is guilty of harming other people and property. It is guilty of robbery. It is guilty of kidnapping. It is guilty of manufacturing and deploying destructive devises (of which WMDs are just a very small subset.) One could argue that he is guilty of organized crime (with the objective of committing acts of terrorism.)
While I agree with most of what you say, calling him "it" doesn't seem helpful. He's still human and I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by excluding him from the species. Sounds like the kind of language that would get a prosecutor a reproach for turning the court into the kind of circus you've advocated avoiding.
He's also not guilty of anything yet.
Authorities, please: Let us not make one more mockery out of legal institutions and charge this criminal appropriately.
Don't make a mockery of legal institutions by assuming a suspect's guilt before his trial.
They made enough off of their BJ work
Knew a girl who did that.
There are three "allegedly" in the article. Is it something to do with it being a civil suit?
Great! Now all we need to do is get everyone else to do that (and to switch to IE) and we'll have a competitor to Javascript.
So, yeah, it's bizarre that javascript has become the assembly of the web world. But it runs all over the place because it runs all over the place.
...which is pretty much the opposite of assembly.
It was the milkman.
Scanning... scanning...
Dammit. No ironic errors found.