I absolutely agree. Anyone with college level biology(hs even) knows that traits can exist without being expressed, and know that there is more genetic information than is used in most organisms. It astounds me the articles that show up with fairly obvious observations being presented as the edge of science. I sincerely hope that it's just the article author that is exaggerating the situation rather than the scientists actually being shocked at this "new" information.
Actually this article is in direct contradiction to the article you refer to if you are rembering the past article correctly. According to this, even if you were blind your whole life and gained your sight at 40, all optical illusions would still be effective because the wiring that produces those illusions is in born.
The argument for enforcement of patents is not dissimilar from software or media piracy.
I disagree. Comanies always want more money. I think the scenario here is that its not really ok to copy music/video/etc (though we all do), but its also not ok, and much worse, to impose a fascist policy to stop it. If you can police it through normal means go ahead, but if you have to create all kinds of new laws that take away the rights of the citizens, then you have to find another way, or find a new business model.
In my opinion a society is in very big trouble the second it's citizens realize that the answer to the question "Am I going to die?" is "Do you have money?".
Whether or not you are right, Its always been that way to some degree and will continue to be. You could follow a communist philosophy (and I dont mean this as a flame) and try to make sure everyone gets equal treatment, but very likely (as we have seen) the total number of people (as well as total quality of help) goes down dramatically and still there will be those with more that will get better help.
As far as the sweatshop question is concerned, I seem to have a very different view of the situation. I see the problem is not the wages these people are paid, but the danger that they face with the machinery. All in all it is my belief that over all they are better off with the work that corperations bring to their countries. These people would otherwise need to work somewhere else and no doubt for less money. With companies seting up factories into these countries more money is being dumped into their economies. I think they must go through their industrial revolution as we went through ours as painful as it might be (it was for us also). Yes there are bad things that happen, but in the long run (I think)the country will be better off.
No I dont believe the companies are taking work to those countries for the good of the people, but I do believe that is the effect.
I dare say that we are very far from that original ideal.
Maybe you are right, but Its hard to see the big picture. I hold some faith in capitalism not because I think those who participate in it have lofty motives, but because the system expects them not to.
That is not the argument. (mind you with this post I take neither side of the argument, Im just explaining it)
The arguement is that if the gene patents are not respected then companies who make money off of those patents will stop developing the "life-saving technology". And we all know that if it didnt make any money they really would stop development. The question is now how many countries (or states or what-have-you) have to ignore the patents before it is no longer profitable to develope them; and who gets to ignore the patents if it is still profitable with just a few soverign untities ingoreing them. So Retards(not a flame, the guys sn is retards) no one is saying that money is more important than life, in fact its being said that if you ignore the patent fewer lives will be saved in the long run because of someones hasty shortsighted good intentions.
Now the real other side to the arguenet is (note: I have already debunked the money vs life argument): What are the implications of being able to patent a gene. Can I patent a gene that already exists in nature, can I patent a life form? Can I sue you if somehow my patented gene gets into your crops/products/whatever? What if I have patented a gene ahead of other reasearchers and refuse to lisence it to poorer nations at a reasonable price? What if my patented gene gets into another crop/product/whatever and causes damage? Am I responsible legally for that damage? What if someone not from my company did the contaminating?
Could the academic communtiy produce these "Life saving technologies" in the time and quantity that the corperations do. Probably not. But would more lives be saved with fewer, but freer technologies ?
All of these things are very important questions, some of which have disturbing answers. Both sides of the arguement have very valid points. Dont be a party politics person. Be a moderate and consider all sides of every arguement. Chances are if people are argueing about it, there are important points on both sides of the arguement that are woth worrying about.
The answer is almost always a compromise. Restrictions on lisence fees, restrictions on length of patent protection, exceptions to the protection, etc. Corperations do often have bad intentions, but unintentionally produce alot of good in the world. That is the whole concept of capitalism, to use natural tendencies to do good and to create a system with checks and balances that converges (hopefully) on the perfect system (if very slowly maybe).
Since years are normally named after a species of animal (normaly excluding humans) perhaps it would be more appropriatly named: "The Year of the Penguin"
... And how did they conduct this survey? The details are very important in statistics. How many students were involved in the survey? How many schools? How were the schools chosen? How did they conduct the actual survey? If they just handed out papers to teachers for students and then the teachers just told the students to fill them out, many students may have jokingly labled the US as England or some such, or just not filled it out at all.
Another point is that these statistics are only relevant in relation to the other data. As in : Of US students 89% ages 18-24 could find their own country, while 93% of Sweedish students could find their country.(for example: not actual statistics)
Its also intresting when you see a bunch of statistics all claiming different statistics.
I found: 10%, 11%, 15%, and 20% in different places. Here are some links with some of those statistics on them.
Here's a thought provoking question for you. Lets say for instance that AOL got really good at getting rid of spam to the point that you rarely recieved junk mail to an AOL account. Would you pay AOL to get a spam free email account?
I hereby declare this 11% statistic null and void....
Really, I dont know if this statistic is correct or not, but Im sick of people ripping statistics that the media has contorted, mangled, and misrepresented, and reusing them in an even more misreprestnted way.
Here's a proposal: Anytime you quote a statistic, make sure you link to a reference so that anyone reading your post can read the research for themselves and decide if that statistic really applies.
'Cause its for free in Latin and we're talking about stuff thats not for free.... and its a double meaning... and... he said against pro bono.. and.. its funny 'cause....
ok... I stop before the hole Im digging gets any deaper : )
What I think would be neat is if you did some measuring and found the distance and relative angles of a set of monitors and integrated the measurements into views of a (3d)video game. It would be as if you had windows into the game. I.e. the monitors would be displaying geometricly correct views of the same world. It would be an awesome effect and not too difficult.
While it is true that common antibiotics do not work on viruses, it is not true that all antibiotics only work on bacteria. There do exist some viral antibiotics (even for colds), but they are not the ones perscribed at your family doctor, and most of them are a recent development, and not very effective. (also some antibiotics work on fungi)
Intrestingly enough, this last link is even related to the 1918 flu epidemic. It is about a project to exhume people who died of the spanish flu to study the virus, so apparently this is not the first time it has happened.
Similar to the PPC-based Briq, the folks at Stealth Computer have introduced an Intel-based PC that's built into a 5.25" CD-ROM-sized enclosure. It's got a 1.0GHz P3, 256M RAM, 20G HD, 10/100 eth, CD-ROM, USB, FireWire, video, and sound. At USD 995, it's reasonably priced too. You could put three of 'em on a 1U rackmount shelf, or stuff several into a mid-tower and build your own desktop cluster. A summary datasheet is here. Very cool.
... Or maybe there just isnt that many differences in the structure and chemestry between humans and mice....
Believe what you want,
but when it comes to scientific discussion about evolution, your two cents about creationism don't add anything. Believing that things were designed by God doesnt give you any power of prediction. That is what Science is all about. No one really cares if electrons actually spin, but describing them that way allows you to predict what they will do.
Making claims about creationism when topics of evolution come up just adds noise, and flames. I dont know about anyone else, but I would like it if you would resist the erge to attempt to convert people.
Slashdot Mirror
"X never ever marks the spot"
Something good: Brought to you be the Bush Administration.
No one dares mention that its a decision by the Bush administration when its something good. Why is that ?
What ?
What is it with the word Regime. It has become so popular lately. : P
..Political Science teachers...
I absolutely agree. Anyone with college level biology(hs even) knows that traits can exist without being expressed, and know that there is more genetic information than is used in most organisms. It astounds me the articles that show up with fairly obvious observations being presented as the edge of science. I sincerely hope that it's just the article author that is exaggerating the situation rather than the scientists actually being shocked at this "new" information.
Actually this article is in direct contradiction to the article you refer to if you are rembering the past article correctly. According to this, even if you were blind your whole life and gained your sight at 40, all optical illusions would still be effective because the wiring that produces those illusions is in born.
The argument for enforcement of patents is not dissimilar from software or media piracy.
I disagree. Comanies always want more money. I think the scenario here is that its not really ok to copy music/video/etc (though we all do), but its also not ok, and much worse, to impose a fascist policy to stop it. If you can police it through normal means go ahead, but if you have to create all kinds of new laws that take away the rights of the citizens, then you have to find another way, or find a new business model.
In my opinion a society is in very big trouble the second it's citizens realize that the answer to the question "Am I going to die?" is "Do you have money?".
Whether or not you are right, Its always been that way to some degree and will continue to be. You could follow a communist philosophy (and I dont mean this as a flame) and try to make sure everyone gets equal treatment, but very likely (as we have seen) the total number of people (as well as total quality of help) goes down dramatically and still there will be those with more that will get better help.
As far as the sweatshop question is concerned, I seem to have a very different view of the situation. I see the problem is not the wages these people are paid, but the danger that they face with the machinery. All in all it is my belief that over all they are better off with the work that corperations bring to their countries. These people would otherwise need to work somewhere else and no doubt for less money. With companies seting up factories into these countries more money is being dumped into their economies. I think they must go through their industrial revolution as we went through ours as painful as it might be (it was for us also). Yes there are bad things that happen, but in the long run (I think)the country will be better off.
No I dont believe the companies are taking work to those countries for the good of the people, but I do believe that is the effect.
I dare say that we are very far from that original ideal.
Maybe you are right, but Its hard to see the big picture. I hold some faith in capitalism not because I think those who participate in it have lofty motives, but because the system expects them not to.
That is not the argument. (mind you with this post I take neither side of the argument, Im just explaining it)
The arguement is that if the gene patents are not respected then companies who make money off of those patents will stop developing the "life-saving technology". And we all know that if it didnt make any money they really would stop development. The question is now how many countries (or states or what-have-you) have to ignore the patents before it is no longer profitable to develope them; and who gets to ignore the patents if it is still profitable with just a few soverign untities ingoreing them. So Retards(not a flame, the guys sn is retards) no one is saying that money is more important than life, in fact its being said that if you ignore the patent fewer lives will be saved in the long run because of someones hasty shortsighted good intentions.
Now the real other side to the arguenet is (note: I have already debunked the money vs life argument): What are the implications of being able to patent a gene. Can I patent a gene that already exists in nature, can I patent a life form? Can I sue you if somehow my patented gene gets into your crops/products/whatever? What if I have patented a gene ahead of other reasearchers and refuse to lisence it to poorer nations at a reasonable price? What if my patented gene gets into another crop/product/whatever and causes damage? Am I responsible legally for that damage? What if someone not from my company did the contaminating?
Could the academic communtiy produce these "Life saving technologies" in the time and quantity that the corperations do. Probably not. But would more lives be saved with fewer, but freer technologies ?
All of these things are very important questions, some of which have disturbing answers. Both sides of the arguement have very valid points. Dont be a party politics person. Be a moderate and consider all sides of every arguement. Chances are if people are argueing about it, there are important points on both sides of the arguement that are woth worrying about.
The answer is almost always a compromise. Restrictions on lisence fees, restrictions on length of patent protection, exceptions to the protection, etc. Corperations do often have bad intentions, but unintentionally produce alot of good in the world. That is the whole concept of capitalism, to use natural tendencies to do good and to create a system with checks and balances that converges (hopefully) on the perfect system (if very slowly maybe).
At this rate pretty soon there will be a top ten "Top 10" list of 2002.
Since years are normally named after a species of animal (normaly excluding humans) perhaps it would be more appropriatly named:
"The Year of the Penguin"
:) Thanks !
... Someonen needs to create computers shaped like double, inverted half spheres so you wouldnt be wasting space :
)(
and then we could imagine a beowulf cluster of these with out so much waste:
)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(
... And how did they conduct this survey? The details are very important in statistics. How many students were involved in the survey? How many schools? How were the schools chosen? How did they conduct the actual survey? If they just handed out papers to teachers for students and then the teachers just told the students to fill them out, many students may have jokingly labled the US as England or some such, or just not filled it out at all.
/ Fo rmerNational.htmlu pfront/issue/articl es/03bdosomething.htmt ions/education/index.ph p?offset=10
Another point is that these statistics are only relevant in relation to the other data. As in : Of US students 89% ages 18-24 could find their own country, while 93% of Sweedish students could find their country.(for example: not actual statistics)
Its also intresting when you see a bunch of statistics all claiming different statistics.
I found: 10%, 11%, 15%, and 20% in different places. Here are some links with some of those statistics on them.
http://www.elon.edu/pendulum/Issues/012302/News
http://teacher.scholastic.com/
http://news.mpr.org/collec
The actual National Geographic survey is here.
Here's a thought provoking question for you. Lets say for instance that AOL got really good at getting rid of spam to the point that you rarely recieved junk mail to an AOL account. Would you pay AOL to get a spam free email account?
....annother 9.356% are misapplied.
I hereby declare this 11% statistic null and void....
Really, I dont know if this statistic is correct or not, but Im sick of people ripping statistics that the media has contorted, mangled, and misrepresented, and reusing them in an even more misreprestnted way.
Here's a proposal: Anytime you quote a statistic, make sure you link to a reference so that anyone reading your post can read the research for themselves and decide if that statistic really applies.
HA !
Pro Bono.
Thats funny.
'Cause its for free in Latin and we're talking about stuff thats not for free....
and its a double meaning...
and... he said against pro bono.. and.. its funny 'cause....
ok... I stop before the hole Im digging gets any deaper : )
What I think would be neat is if you did some measuring and found the distance and relative angles of a set of monitors and integrated the measurements into views of a (3d)video game. It would be as if you had windows into the game. I.e. the monitors would be displaying geometricly correct views of the same world. It would be an awesome effect and not too difficult.
While it is true that common antibiotics do not work on viruses, it is not true that all antibiotics only work on bacteria. There do exist some viral antibiotics (even for colds), but they are not the ones perscribed at your family doctor, and most of them are a recent development, and not very effective. (also some antibiotics work on fungi)
. htm i .shtml p anishflu.htm
searching the following documents for "viral antibiotic" or simply "antibiotic" should give you the relevant information:
http://www.happybody.com/happybodycom/articlecold
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/health/sex/st
http://www.explorers.org/newsfiles/archivefiles/s
Intrestingly enough, this last link is even related to the 1918 flu epidemic. It is about a project to exhume people who died of the spanish flu to study the virus, so apparently this is not the first time it has happened.
Yeah me too. Only it was my ears that hurt from all the SHOUTING!
Why should we put money into developing robots to do this work.
Couldnt we just ask the lawyers to do it while they are down there ?
... Did anyone else see the duct tape at the end of the first movie..
Upper right hand corner.
Around the pipe.
Similar to the PPC-based Briq, the folks at Stealth Computer have introduced an Intel-based PC that's built into a 5.25" CD-ROM-sized enclosure. It's got a 1.0GHz P3, 256M RAM, 20G HD, 10/100 eth, CD-ROM, USB, FireWire, video, and sound. At USD 995, it's reasonably priced too. You could put three of 'em on a 1U rackmount shelf, or stuff several into a mid-tower and build your own desktop cluster. A summary datasheet is here. Very cool.
... Or maybe there just isnt that many differences in the structure and chemestry between humans and mice....
Believe what you want,
but when it comes to scientific discussion about evolution, your two cents about creationism don't add anything. Believing that things were designed by God doesnt give you any power of prediction. That is what Science is all about. No one really cares if electrons actually spin, but describing them that way allows you to predict what they will do.
Making claims about creationism when topics of evolution come up just adds noise, and flames. I dont know about anyone else, but I would like it if you would resist the erge to attempt to convert people.