Let's see, I believe the Xbox was "locked down" to prevent people from using it as a cheap console-style PC right? And let's all admit that as far as security hardware control goes, it's been a real success.
On a similar note, it seems that Microsoft's record at coming up with and implementing hardware standards is a little spotty at best (think about how well-used uPNP is these days).
My point is that the market will dictate whether or not this becomes widely used - Ma & Pa computer user are not going to be buying a new PC every year just because microsoft says "jump", just as there son and/or daughter will be more than happy to "fix" that old computer to make sure that there usb key fob still works fine.
Whether it's a hardware or software hack, there's always going to be ways around any system such as this, and I have faith that Linux developers will find a [legal] way to address this issue if it comes up. Oh and seriously, some references would be nice when I read this kind of hyperbole. Don't know where he obtained his journalism credentials, but I bet I could get my rocket scientist diploma from the same place with no problems.
Problem is that it would take you more time than you have to make, say 20,000 copies and distribute them out (physically) vs. recording Spiderman 2 on your TiVO, then p2ping the result out to the masses.
I'm just being a smart ass though, I think the tv execs are playing morons to perfection.
Not too surprising really - here's an earlier article when GNOME 2.2 was still hot.
From the article:
KDE is delivering a better version of what GNOME's goal has apparently morphed into: becoming a great component framework that you can write to in multiple languages. Nicholas Petreley rebuffs the common GNOME battle slogans and explains why the window-manager's name needs reworking.
Other than boosting ad views, I'm not sure what continuing a KDE/GNOME flamewar here on/. really contributes to open discussion (pardon the pun)
Maybe you eat Cheerios, or regualar old bread. Did you know that most modern wheat was the result of crosses between different species of grasses (barley crossed with macaroni wheat or something to that effect) The point is that two DIFFERENT species were mixed (each with "foreign" DNA) and the result wound up being fertile (yay plant gentics). Similar event produces donkeys - except they can't breed. You CAN compare selective breeding and genetic modification because they are almost the exact same process, just that one is a lot faster than the other. True, in this case the genetic material encodes for resistance, but all that means is 1 extra protein (most likely one anyway, probably taken from a bacteria) is being produced by the grass. This is a metabolic burden for the plant. Ie. against "wild-type" plants it would be at a selective DISADVANTAGE and would be unable to grow as quickly (it spends a ton of resources spitting out roundup resistance).
If you want references, I'd refer you to Nature.com, Nature Biotechnology or Science, but you'll need a subscription to view most of the scientific, peer-reviewed articles at those sites.
btw - exactly how much round-up does the US Lands office spray in their parks?;)
Titan Media, which asked Sharman last month to block 1,400 of its movies, said Sharman can closely monitor activity on the network through "spyware" installed on users' computers and could block users from downloading copyrighted files.
Oh that seems completely ethical - advocate the use of spyware to track what people are searching for and downloading and then use that against them. Exactly what fans does one hope to attract to your cause when you wish to employ the use of covert and often malicious software programs that many people don't even realize they have (it's called a click-thru license for a reason).
This seems like a very upstanding thing to propose - from a smut-peddler.
Environment does determine behaviour - about (give or take) 50% of it. We have those things called genes too. If you raise your kids in a bubble where the ONLY interaction they receive is GTA3 or 4, then yes I'm sure one could see an effect on behaviour. But thankfully there are MANY other factors interfering with our daily lives that easily provide that balance.
I'm not sure if you meant a government-determined balance or not, but it really doesn't matter if the government steps in or not - generally the markets do the work for them. ie. companies who make games/books etc. for which there is no market (as if no one wants to PRETEND to be a car thief) don't tend to do very well financially. The major networks censor themselves all the time.
The real issue, which has been stated ad nauseum, is that parents are responsible for most of what their children do - if you can't be bothered to at least look at the back jacket of a game, should you buy it? Would you buy a small child a magazine called "Amazonian Whores" without at least glancing at the table of contents?
All the panicking going on here about this gene escaping is kind of pointless in a way. As mentioned previously:
He figures the math will work this way: To eliminate carp from a river, you need to introduce daughterless carp at a rate equal to between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of the total population each year for 20 years. So a lake with 100,000 wild carp would need to be stocked with 500 to 1,000 daughterless carp annually.
In other words this gene would not normally be allowed to persist in a normal population. In this case, the plan is to continually reintroduce more GM carp and thereby artifically allow the male-only gene to persist.
This is a genetic method adapted somewhat IMHO from the common practice of using irradiated male mosquitoes to lower/destroy wild populations to combat malaria. This is a perfectly sound method for elminating this pest species.
In other news the definition of a species requires that an animal can not interbreed with another recognized species to produce fertile offspring. I think its safe to say that the male only gene will not be arriving in a bass/trout/pike near you.
I'll agree with you when you talk about the futility of the Nazi experiments. Its very much akin to the old practice of sterilizing people with mental retardation - as if it was a trait that could be bred out. Eugenics could work (shudder), but it would need countless (my best educated guess would be at least 25) generations of strictly controlled breeding to accomplish. This isn't as impossible as you might believe however - virtually all inbred lab mice strains have a very high degree of homozygosity - and many strains were derived within a few generations of inbreeding (again, shudder).
One thing to consider though - the Nazi program had no way in hell of working - you're right - there is no such thing as a genetic Jew, or a genetic black person (in that they represent a different species) since any person, with enough generations, could respawn any of these genotypes.
Acutally, depending on the animal, stable genotypic alterations can be done in as little as one generation. I'm a grad student working with transgenic and wildtype mice studying a form of muscle cancer called alveolar rhabdomycosarcoma. Through the use of Southern blotting for genotyping, I've successfully altered or eliminated alleles, using traditional breeding in a single cross. At most, it can be done in 1-3 generations (mice generations are obviously much shorter in duration than dogs). The only exceptions are for more complex traits that rely on multiple genes - but even this is not really an issue, especially when you start using transgenics.
I'll give you one concrete example to illustrate my point. Perhaps you've heard of a condition called phenylketonuria, where a buildup of the amino acid phenylalanine in the developing brain of an infant, caused by a single point mutation in a gene, results in a cytotoxic effect that ends in death. 100 years ago, this condition was a)undefined and b)lethal. Flashforward to now: children born with PKU are not only identifiable, but are saved by eliminating phenylalanine from their diet. So what you say. Well, if a woman born with PKU wants to have a baby, that child will contract a new condition, totally unknown and nonexistent 100 years ago called maternal PKU, where the mother has excess phenylalanine in her blood, which enters the developing fetus brain and results in abnormal development. Mother cuts phenylalanine out of her diet during pregnancy, child born healthy and can then eat as much phenylalanine as it wants.
The whole point here is that we have evolved an intelligence that has allowed us to escape our own genetic sentences by using our knowledge to alter our environment (no phenylalanine in foods) rather than our genes. In this case, it has resulted in the existence of a new condition that wouldn't exist without human involvement. Of course human beings evolve. My original (now contorted) point is that we do not do so in the course of textbook selection pressures that can be learned in any first year biology course. The "laws of nature" (classically accepted ones, not some garbage catch-all phrasing that says "nature is everything-everything is nature") have been altered by mankind. Nuff said.
I'm not trying to suggest anyone is directing evolution - my point is that environmental selection pressures (mostly in the developed world) really don't exhibit much strength anymore. Furthermore, sexual selection in humans does not follow stereotypical examples found in most other mammals - yes woman/men select partners based on criteria - but each person's criteria is infinitely different than anothers (not just the colour of the throat or size of the shoulders).
This, I contend, is because we choose partners for more than just transfer of genes to the next generation. Think how many countless couples choose not to have any offspring - this trait is not weeded out of the population for a variety of socio-economic reasons. But that just underscores my point - socio-economic selection pressures don't exist in "nature"!
Going back to my original post, my point was that to some extent, we no longer evolve based on selection pressure a causing trait b to be inherited more often.
because there would still be a differential death rate due to environmental factors
In the developed world (where I contend that natural selection pressures are altered), I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the majority of the population experiences selection from the natural environment (most people don't worry about dying for lack of food or shelter).
You understand my point exactly. Inventions (read technology) such as medicines (such as antibiotics, etc.), forced-air heating, anti-bacterial soaps, etc. all contribute to an unnatural environment - for instance, no one has to adapt to the extremes of the Canadian north by growing dense hairy coats or else risk perishing - you just turn up the thermostat and stay inside. My point is that we no longer follow text book examples of selection because we have acquired the ability to modify our environments, rather than allowing selection pressures to modify our DNA. (See what I meant by a whole new thread!)
This is really a misleading term. There exists no such thing as genetic perfection, just as evolution on this planet will never lead to the creation of an "uber-species". An organism simply adapts to its particular environment, or fails to and dies out. Thus a shark, which is a supreme predator in the ocean, will not fare too long when placed in the Sahara. The same holds true for just about every other species - perfection is only achieved relative to a particular environment. That grove in Australia simply exerted no new selection pressure on the Wollemi tree. An exception to this rule might be made for H. sapien sapien, but one could argue we're operating outside of natural selection now (a whole new thread in itself).
Last time I checked, when our Prime Minister to be, Paul Martin tried to relax ownership (ie foreign ownership) requirements on banks, the government shot him down. Just like so many other things here (magazine/tv content) Canadian content is controlled. I believe you have it the other way around maybe? Toronto Dominon did buy Price Waterhouse Cooper. But I'm quite sure that the 4 major Canadian banks are at least 50.1% Canadian.
The human genome isn't like the automarket...That is you're still building 1 car, but all the parts can be slightly different, but come from 1 supplier. After all, in a normal diploid animal (ie. humans) half of the chromosome content is from the mother, the other half from the father. As far as liver, heart, skin, etc. all working together, there is no problem with this.
There is a problem though with the immune system. Since each organism's cells contain a unique combination of cell surface receptors that let's their body know the difference between "self" and a bug or virus, then depending which copy of DNA founded the cells of the thymus (where "self" is first determined), a chimera's immune system could see cells with the other DNA set as foreign - causing a massive systemic allergic reaction. The good news is that chimeras with this problem would spontaneously abort within the first few months of the pregnancy, so if a chimeric human is born, they probably don't have to worry to much about such genetic mismatches.
I see your point here, but this is a comparison of two different units in the same market, not different markets, in a matter of speaking. A better analogy is, how many Honda Civics are sold vs. how many Ferrari? A Civic will never cost more than a Ferrari, (or more realistically, say, any Buick), but that wouldn't necessarily give you a correct estimate of which car you have a better chance of seeing on the freeway.
Just my 2($.01).
Of course, this is where the hard work begins. The genes are estimated, then Joe Schmoe scientist sticks a chunk of a 'putative' or possible gene in front of a promoter, drives the expression, and sees what happens. Sometimes nothing, sometimes a protein or functional mRNA is made. Unfortunately, I'm one of those schmucks who gets to go and test out all these possiblities.
The Real Human Genome Project
on
Genome Surprise
·
· Score: 5, Informative
While I'm certainly not a learned expert, as a new graduate of an Honours Genetics program in Canada, I feel I must point out a few misconceptions found in the story intro.
I let out an audible groan over the 'revelation' that the human genome contains at most 40,000 genes, compared to the original estimate of ~150,000. I was relieved when I noticed that the article linked to dated to 2001. This makes sense, since that discrepancy was first discussed during my courses over two years ago.
The other grain of salt that needs to taken is the idea of a "completed" genome. The human genome is nearly sequenced, however it the annotation of the genome that matters most. To place this into context, the genome of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, is over 75% annotated. Currently only a small portion of the human genome is annotated, that is to say, the roads are mapped, and the streets (or in this case, genes) are identified and their function characterized. This is one of the most essential tasks still facing biologists today. Without knowing all the potential genes, as well as their function and expression patterns, the human genome is no better a guide than using a globe to navigate the streets of Toronto (or New York, take your pick).
As it has been mentioned before, I won't delve too far into the fact that a given stretch of DNA can code for genes in two different directions, and in three different "frames" per direction. On top of this, the mRNA produced from the DNA can be spliced in numerous ways. A single expanse of DNA can produce countless different proteins - and its proteins, not genes, that carry out all the functions our body needs to survive.
Humans are extremely complex, but as we go about our 'very' important lives, it's humbling to know that on the surface, we do not contain many more genes than some other 'lesser' forms of life on this planet.
I recently moved out of my last house, which was built circa 1900. The house was built to last - outer walls were all double layer of brick, central support beams were made of gigantic 12" diameter planed tree trunks. Theoretically the house could have been given a "shelf life" of hundreds of years.
Except for one thing - it had changed ownership about 12 times before I bought it. Someone decided around 1970 to put a kiln into the basement, except the pesky main support beam was a little too low for their liking - so they carved a 9" deep section out of it. By the time the house came to me, the middle of the house sat 3-4" lower than the outer edge.
One of the challenges to building a long lasting house is designing rooms that offer maximum flexibility of use, but since this isn't always possible, it might be a good idea to make modification of major supports structures difficult to achieve, to prevent stupid people from hurting themselves or the house.
While freeing the world of its oil depedency might not ease terrorist attacks (its not just oil consumption that pisses people off eg. Western cultural influences), there would be at least 2 main side benefits to be had.
1. The current attitude that seems to pervade certain permanent members of the security council - that the likely war with Iraq is at least partially tied to U.S. oil demand - would evaporate, and any future terrorist attacks on the U.S. could only be viewed by any rational person as COMPLETELY unprovoked. This is of course dependent on the U.S. terminating all meddling with Middle East governments.
2. A recent news report said that Iraqis were irate at the recent spike in gas prices from.01 $USD to.02 $USD. Meanwhile gas prices in the West continue to rocket upwards. This pricing disparity is due to the actions of a cartel that keeps oil prices artificially inflated in whatever countries they decide. If oil was no longer an issue, then the true cost of fuel (hydrogen) would only be subject to market conditions - we'd pay a price that the market would bear, not some arbitrary value decided upon by greedy businessmen half a world away.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see, I believe the Xbox was "locked down" to prevent people from using it as a cheap console-style PC right? And let's all admit that as far as security hardware control goes, it's been a real success.
On a similar note, it seems that Microsoft's record at coming up with and implementing hardware standards is a little spotty at best (think about how well-used uPNP is these days).
My point is that the market will dictate whether or not this becomes widely used - Ma & Pa computer user are not going to be buying a new PC every year just because microsoft says "jump", just as there son and/or daughter will be more than happy to "fix" that old computer to make sure that there usb key fob still works fine.
Whether it's a hardware or software hack, there's always going to be ways around any system such as this, and I have faith that Linux developers will find a [legal] way to address this issue if it comes up. Oh and seriously, some references would be nice when I read this kind of hyperbole. Don't know where he obtained his journalism credentials, but I bet I could get my rocket scientist diploma from the same place with no problems.
What's it going to take to get a Gentoo icon?!? We're not even asking for a gentoo.slashdot.org.
/. will call the election about a week after the polls are closed.
Just a freakin' pic.
ugghh.
Applying the rate of reposts/double posts to this new section, I predict
Problem is that it would take you more time than you have to make, say 20,000 copies and distribute them out (physically) vs. recording Spiderman 2 on your TiVO, then p2ping the result out to the masses.
I'm just being a smart ass though, I think the tv execs are playing morons to perfection.
That's why everyone uses that K something or other right?
(just a joke don't shoot)
Maybe you eat Cheerios, or regualar old bread. Did you know that most modern wheat was the result of crosses between different species of grasses (barley crossed with macaroni wheat or something to that effect) The point is that two DIFFERENT species were mixed (each with "foreign" DNA) and the result wound up being fertile (yay plant gentics). Similar event produces donkeys - except they can't breed. You CAN compare selective breeding and genetic modification because they are almost the exact same process, just that one is a lot faster than the other. True, in this case the genetic material encodes for resistance, but all that means is 1 extra protein (most likely one anyway, probably taken from a bacteria) is being produced by the grass. This is a metabolic burden for the plant. Ie. against "wild-type" plants it would be at a selective DISADVANTAGE and would be unable to grow as quickly (it spends a ton of resources spitting out roundup resistance).
;)
If you want references, I'd refer you to Nature.com, Nature Biotechnology or Science, but you'll need a subscription to view most of the scientific, peer-reviewed articles at those sites.
btw - exactly how much round-up does the US Lands office spray in their parks?
This seems like a very upstanding thing to propose - from a smut-peddler.
Environment does determine behaviour - about (give or take) 50% of it. We have those things called genes too. If you raise your kids in a bubble where the ONLY interaction they receive is GTA3 or 4, then yes I'm sure one could see an effect on behaviour. But thankfully there are MANY other factors interfering with our daily lives that easily provide that balance.
I'm not sure if you meant a government-determined balance or not, but it really doesn't matter if the government steps in or not - generally the markets do the work for them. ie. companies who make games/books etc. for which there is no market (as if no one wants to PRETEND to be a car thief) don't tend to do very well financially. The major networks censor themselves all the time.
The real issue, which has been stated ad nauseum, is that parents are responsible for most of what their children do - if you can't be bothered to at least look at the back jacket of a game, should you buy it? Would you buy a small child a magazine called "Amazonian Whores" without at least glancing at the table of contents?
In other news the definition of a species requires that an animal can not interbreed with another recognized species to produce fertile offspring. I think its safe to say that the male only gene will not be arriving in a bass/trout/pike near you.
This has been over at mini-itx for a while now...
Seems a lot cheaper to me.
I'll agree with you when you talk about the futility of the Nazi experiments. Its very much akin to the old practice of sterilizing people with mental retardation - as if it was a trait that could be bred out. Eugenics could work (shudder), but it would need countless (my best educated guess would be at least 25) generations of strictly controlled breeding to accomplish. This isn't as impossible as you might believe however - virtually all inbred lab mice strains have a very high degree of homozygosity - and many strains were derived within a few generations of inbreeding (again, shudder).
One thing to consider though - the Nazi program had no way in hell of working - you're right - there is no such thing as a genetic Jew, or a genetic black person (in that they represent a different species) since any person, with enough generations, could respawn any of these genotypes.
Acutally, depending on the animal, stable genotypic alterations can be done in as little as one generation. I'm a grad student working with transgenic and wildtype mice studying a form of muscle cancer called alveolar rhabdomycosarcoma. Through the use of Southern blotting for genotyping, I've successfully altered or eliminated alleles, using traditional breeding in a single cross. At most, it can be done in 1-3 generations (mice generations are obviously much shorter in duration than dogs). The only exceptions are for more complex traits that rely on multiple genes - but even this is not really an issue, especially when you start using transgenics.
I'll give you one concrete example to illustrate my point. Perhaps you've heard of a condition called phenylketonuria, where a buildup of the amino acid phenylalanine in the developing brain of an infant, caused by a single point mutation in a gene, results in a cytotoxic effect that ends in death. 100 years ago, this condition was a)undefined and b)lethal. Flashforward to now: children born with PKU are not only identifiable, but are saved by eliminating phenylalanine from their diet. So what you say. Well, if a woman born with PKU wants to have a baby, that child will contract a new condition, totally unknown and nonexistent 100 years ago called maternal PKU, where the mother has excess phenylalanine in her blood, which enters the developing fetus brain and results in abnormal development. Mother cuts phenylalanine out of her diet during pregnancy, child born healthy and can then eat as much phenylalanine as it wants.
The whole point here is that we have evolved an intelligence that has allowed us to escape our own genetic sentences by using our knowledge to alter our environment (no phenylalanine in foods) rather than our genes. In this case, it has resulted in the existence of a new condition that wouldn't exist without human involvement. Of course human beings evolve. My original (now contorted) point is that we do not do so in the course of textbook selection pressures that can be learned in any first year biology course. The "laws of nature" (classically accepted ones, not some garbage catch-all phrasing that says "nature is everything-everything is nature") have been altered by mankind. Nuff said.
I'm not trying to suggest anyone is directing evolution - my point is that environmental selection pressures (mostly in the developed world) really don't exhibit much strength anymore. Furthermore, sexual selection in humans does not follow stereotypical examples found in most other mammals - yes woman/men select partners based on criteria - but each person's criteria is infinitely different than anothers (not just the colour of the throat or size of the shoulders).
This, I contend, is because we choose partners for more than just transfer of genes to the next generation. Think how many countless couples choose not to have any offspring - this trait is not weeded out of the population for a variety of socio-economic reasons. But that just underscores my point - socio-economic selection pressures don't exist in "nature"!
Going back to my original post, my point was that to some extent, we no longer evolve based on selection pressure a causing trait b to be inherited more often.
because there would still be a differential death rate due to environmental factors
In the developed world (where I contend that natural selection pressures are altered), I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the majority of the population experiences selection from the natural environment (most people don't worry about dying for lack of food or shelter).
You understand my point exactly. Inventions (read technology) such as medicines (such as antibiotics, etc.), forced-air heating, anti-bacterial soaps, etc. all contribute to an unnatural environment - for instance, no one has to adapt to the extremes of the Canadian north by growing dense hairy coats or else risk perishing - you just turn up the thermostat and stay inside. My point is that we no longer follow text book examples of selection because we have acquired the ability to modify our environments, rather than allowing selection pressures to modify our DNA. (See what I meant by a whole new thread!)
Last time I checked, when our Prime Minister to be, Paul Martin tried to relax ownership (ie foreign ownership) requirements on banks, the government shot him down. Just like so many other things here (magazine/tv content) Canadian content is controlled. I believe you have it the other way around maybe? Toronto Dominon did buy Price Waterhouse Cooper. But I'm quite sure that the 4 major Canadian banks are at least 50.1% Canadian.
The human genome isn't like the automarket...That is you're still building 1 car, but all the parts can be slightly different, but come from 1 supplier. After all, in a normal diploid animal (ie. humans) half of the chromosome content is from the mother, the other half from the father. As far as liver, heart, skin, etc. all working together, there is no problem with this.
There is a problem though with the immune system. Since each organism's cells contain a unique combination of cell surface receptors that let's their body know the difference between "self" and a bug or virus, then depending which copy of DNA founded the cells of the thymus (where "self" is first determined), a chimera's immune system could see cells with the other DNA set as foreign - causing a massive systemic allergic reaction. The good news is that chimeras with this problem would spontaneously abort within the first few months of the pregnancy, so if a chimeric human is born, they probably don't have to worry to much about such genetic mismatches.
This is one of the funniest comments I've ever read on /. Thanks, I needed that.
I see your point here, but this is a comparison of two different units in the same market, not different markets, in a matter of speaking. A better analogy is, how many Honda Civics are sold vs. how many Ferrari? A Civic will never cost more than a Ferrari, (or more realistically, say, any Buick), but that wouldn't necessarily give you a correct estimate of which car you have a better chance of seeing on the freeway. Just my 2($.01).
Of course, this is where the hard work begins. The genes are estimated, then Joe Schmoe scientist sticks a chunk of a 'putative' or possible gene in front of a promoter, drives the expression, and sees what happens. Sometimes nothing, sometimes a protein or functional mRNA is made. Unfortunately, I'm one of those schmucks who gets to go and test out all these possiblities.
While I'm certainly not a learned expert, as a new graduate of an Honours Genetics program in Canada, I feel I must point out a few misconceptions found in the story intro.
I let out an audible groan over the 'revelation' that the human genome contains at most 40,000 genes, compared to the original estimate of ~150,000. I was relieved when I noticed that the article linked to dated to 2001. This makes sense, since that discrepancy was first discussed during my courses over two years ago.
The other grain of salt that needs to taken is the idea of a "completed" genome. The human genome is nearly sequenced, however it the annotation of the genome that matters most. To place this into context, the genome of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, is over 75% annotated. Currently only a small portion of the human genome is annotated, that is to say, the roads are mapped, and the streets (or in this case, genes) are identified and their function characterized. This is one of the most essential tasks still facing biologists today. Without knowing all the potential genes, as well as their function and expression patterns, the human genome is no better a guide than using a globe to navigate the streets of Toronto (or New York, take your pick).
As it has been mentioned before, I won't delve too far into the fact that a given stretch of DNA can code for genes in two different directions, and in three different "frames" per direction. On top of this, the mRNA produced from the DNA can be spliced in numerous ways. A single expanse of DNA can produce countless different proteins - and its proteins, not genes, that carry out all the functions our body needs to survive.
Humans are extremely complex, but as we go about our 'very' important lives, it's humbling to know that on the surface, we do not contain many more genes than some other 'lesser' forms of life on this planet.
I recently moved out of my last house, which was built circa 1900. The house was built to last - outer walls were all double layer of brick, central support beams were made of gigantic 12" diameter planed tree trunks. Theoretically the house could have been given a "shelf life" of hundreds of years.
Except for one thing - it had changed ownership about 12 times before I bought it. Someone decided around 1970 to put a kiln into the basement, except the pesky main support beam was a little too low for their liking - so they carved a 9" deep section out of it. By the time the house came to me, the middle of the house sat 3-4" lower than the outer edge.
One of the challenges to building a long lasting house is designing rooms that offer maximum flexibility of use, but since this isn't always possible, it might be a good idea to make modification of major supports structures difficult to achieve, to prevent stupid people from hurting themselves or the house.
While freeing the world of its oil depedency might not ease terrorist attacks (its not just oil consumption that pisses people off eg. Western cultural influences), there would be at least 2 main side benefits to be had.
.01 $USD to .02 $USD. Meanwhile gas prices in the West continue to rocket upwards. This pricing disparity is due to the actions of a cartel that keeps oil prices artificially inflated in whatever countries they decide. If oil was no longer an issue, then the true cost of fuel (hydrogen) would only be subject to market conditions - we'd pay a price that the market would bear, not some arbitrary value decided upon by greedy businessmen half a world away.
1. The current attitude that seems to pervade certain permanent members of the security council - that the likely war with Iraq is at least partially tied to U.S. oil demand - would evaporate, and any future terrorist attacks on the U.S. could only be viewed by any rational person as COMPLETELY unprovoked. This is of course dependent on the U.S. terminating all meddling with Middle East governments.
2. A recent news report said that Iraqis were irate at the recent spike in gas prices from
I was under the impression that EXTINCTION was what wiped out the dinosaurs.