the assumptions in the 521 year half life number is that we are above freezing temperatures. so mammoth DNA has a different experience
there are arguments to make that frozen water would lengthen the half life (frozen water is not as chemically active) or shorten it (ice crystals shredding the dna physically rather than chemically)
i'm not knowledgeable enough to guess if the frozen effect would save the DNA better or shred it even worse, but i think it is a valid to say that the half life would be a lot different if you are dealing with a corpse that was frozen at death and stayed that way in permafrost the entire thousands of years time before getting to a modern biotech lab
every country in the world does bad things. you have to quantify
legal and social status of political expression is dramatically freer in the US than in china
legal and social status of sexual expression is definitely freer in the US than in china
perfect in the USA? absolutely not. are there some countries that do better than the USA? yes. on some kinds of expression, not all
such that keeping control of the internet in the USA is a good option if you are concerned with internet freedoms. the best option? maybe not. but certainly better than handing over the keys to a power structure where countries with much more repressive policies have influence
such that if you are honestly interested in freedom in the internet, you want control retained in the USA, for now. is it the ideal option? no. and it is not an ideal world
you want control retained in the USA, for now, if you are an honest advocate for freedom on the internet rather than some cotton headed idealist who wants perfect right now even though there is no realistic way to get exactly what you want in today's world
you work with what you have, rather than demand perfect and stomp your foot like a pouty child if you only get 90% or 99%. it doesn't mean you lose your idealism, it means you understand it takes work to get to a better place, and, wisely, you go with the least worst option rather than demand the perfect option that does not exist
as if it were any different in the era of cassette tapes or LPs or CDs or player piano reels?
as if it were any different in the age of patronage and wealthy benefactors in the era before mass media?
here's some news for you: 1% of artists ever made a healthy living as an artist in all of human history, right now, and for all future time periods and societies
but here is the big difference: the long tail. that's the new thing
the green part, the fat part of the tail, existed in the era of media conglomerates, say 1930-1980. so your
10 big bands made millions, and 100 made a couple hundred thousand, and that's that. everyone else lived in their mom's basement
what pandora/ slacker/ etc/ the internet allows, what was not possible before the internet, is the yellow part in that chart: the long thin trailing part of the tail
so now, in 2010, you still have
10 bands making millions, 100 bands making hundreds of thousands. and now also possible due to the internet is: 1,000 bands making tens of thousands 10,000 bands making thousands 100,000 bands making hundreds, and 1,000,000 bands making tens of dollars
big deal? yeah, big deal: with a more fluid, smaller barrier of entry, that guy making a few hundred has enough positive feedback to maybe move up to the rarified few making hundreds of thousands. and we, the consumer, have a bigger, richer bounty to consume and appreciate and enjoy, that WE choose, not some suit in a music corporation who signs this band but that band due to random reasons that may have nothing to do with actual quality for us the consumer
and also, art is an aspirational pursuit: you do it because you love it, and this should be rewarding in and of itself. nobody does it for the money. well, maybe to get in a chick's pants, but if you do it just for the money, you're a moron, because there is no money in art, there never was. only those lucky few that create something that people find themselves demanding by hook or by chance, are lucky to live the life of a well-paid artist. it is always the exception, and always will be the exception. and really: do you want to listen to music by a guy who is doing it just for financial returns? for every REAL artist, it is about the art, and always will be. and a few get chosen to live financially happy for that. the rest starve, as it always was, as it is, and always will be
If you have a TV near you, turn it on for a second and count the number of seconds in between scene changes (where what you are watching switches to a different camera, angle, perspective, etc.). In a lot of the media consumed by kids/teens today, that interval is often 0-5 seconds. Reflect, for a moment, on what that might do to one's capacity for attention and focus.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Apparently a childhood of not watching TV turns people into smug egomaniacs who believe rubbish because it makes them feel better about themselves.
That sentence, that I just wrote, is ridiculous nonsense.
It is ridiculous nonsense on equal par in terms of what you just wrote.
The only difference is I have a data point of 1 to support my rubbish assertion.
learn to be a little more comfortable with the interplay between the two
you may now spit on me from your ivory tower for even suggesting this (rolls eyes)
science cannot be debased, because science is not some fundamentalist religion
there is absolutely nothing wrong with the circus atmosphere, as the this entire event is indeed a circus
of course the wording is not 100% scientifically accurate. this is not lies and falsehoods like with creationists, this is dramatic license. it's ok. really. little kids or hoi polloi watching this event don't know, don't care, and are not misserved by the dramatic language. really
as with real religious fundamentalists who can't stand scantily clad women on tv: just turn the channel, and don't watch
no one is forcing you to tune in, and your judgments are not useful nor warranted. your words just serve some sort of haughty need of yours
get a grip and get used to the fact commerce is needed to fund the science, and that requires some drama
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."
This is true, obviously, about religion.
It's true about communism
It's true about militant atheists
iI's true about free market fundamentalists
It's true basically, about every belief you can describe. Intolerant idealism is fundamentalism: the belief you have is not to be questioned, and knows no exceptions. This is the root of all evil, right there.
The lesson of life is moderation in all things. As soon as someone takes a belief, any belief, even some beliefs you cherish mightily, to the point where they think they have a right to impose that belief on others, we have the root of all human-caused suffering in the entire world and in all of history.
the kind of people who believe fervently in heaven are the kind of low iq and obsessively controlling type of person it would be hell to spend eternity with
i know you are talking about policy decisions, like stem cell research. but now you are asking government to not be regulating things that, i'm sorry to say government has every right and need to regulate. if you have to ask why then we veer off in into intellectual charity land and so i have nothing more to say
2. render all financial influence in any election illegal. if you get enough signatures, you are given a modest warchest of equal size as your opponent(s) straight from the taxpayers to campaign 3. fillibusters: no 4. line item vetoes: yes 5. elected representatives are paid the average american salary. yes, this will go down when the economy is sick (and will go up, if they do a good job) 6. what the post above me said. fix 1 congresscritter at a unit of 50,000 citizens 7. no more gerrymandering. districts are decided openly, with citizen input, the input of both parties, and must adhere to general rules, such as preserving obvious boundaries of cities and attempting to retain compact form and observe obvious elements of geography 8. anything else?
i think pretty much a vast decisive majority of americans would agree with these modest, old proposals, left and right
and it will be hard with our current system to get any of the measures passed
Slashdot Mirror
LUKE
Look at him. He's headed for that
red star.
HAN
I think I can get him before he gets
there... he's almost in range.
The red star begins to take on the appearance of a monstrous
glowing spiral aurora.
BEN
That's no star! It's a groovy space
hallucination.
HAN
It's too 1960s Star Trek special effect
to be a groovy space hallucination.
LUKE
I have a very bad feeling about this.
Look, my hands have eyeballs.
HAN
Yeah, I think your right. Everyone vomit
and purge! Chewie, where did you get
those mushrooms you put in last night's
stew?
Great Auk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk
Dodo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo
Baiji
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji
Caribbean Monk Seal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_monk_seal
etc., etc.
And my favorite, I really want to see these:
Stellar's Sea Cow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steller's_sea_cow
Come On Science!
I want my whale shark sized arctic manatees!
the assumptions in the 521 year half life number is that we are above freezing temperatures. so mammoth DNA has a different experience
there are arguments to make that frozen water would lengthen the half life (frozen water is not as chemically active) or shorten it (ice crystals shredding the dna physically rather than chemically)
i'm not knowledgeable enough to guess if the frozen effect would save the DNA better or shred it even worse, but i think it is a valid to say that the half life would be a lot different if you are dealing with a corpse that was frozen at death and stayed that way in permafrost the entire thousands of years time before getting to a modern biotech lab
every country in the world does bad things. you have to quantify
legal and social status of political expression is dramatically freer in the US than in china
legal and social status of sexual expression is definitely freer in the US than in china
perfect in the USA? absolutely not. are there some countries that do better than the USA? yes. on some kinds of expression, not all
such that keeping control of the internet in the USA is a good option if you are concerned with internet freedoms. the best option? maybe not. but certainly better than handing over the keys to a power structure where countries with much more repressive policies have influence
such that if you are honestly interested in freedom in the internet, you want control retained in the USA, for now. is it the ideal option? no. and it is not an ideal world
you want control retained in the USA, for now, if you are an honest advocate for freedom on the internet rather than some cotton headed idealist who wants perfect right now even though there is no realistic way to get exactly what you want in today's world
you work with what you have, rather than demand perfect and stomp your foot like a pouty child if you only get 90% or 99%. it doesn't mean you lose your idealism, it means you understand it takes work to get to a better place, and, wisely, you go with the least worst option rather than demand the perfect option that does not exist
the day after quantum computing renders traditional crypto obsolete, you will see the rise of quantum crypto
it's an arms race. same as it ever was, same as it ever will be
as if it were any different in the era of cassette tapes or LPs or CDs or player piano reels?
as if it were any different in the age of patronage and wealthy benefactors in the era before mass media?
here's some news for you: 1% of artists ever made a healthy living as an artist in all of human history, right now, and for all future time periods and societies
but here is the big difference: the long tail. that's the new thing
look at the picture here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail
the green part, the fat part of the tail, existed in the era of media conglomerates, say 1930-1980. so your
10 big bands made millions, and
100 made a couple hundred thousand,
and that's that. everyone else lived in their mom's basement
what pandora/ slacker/ etc/ the internet allows, what was not possible before the internet, is the yellow part in that chart: the long thin trailing part of the tail
so now, in 2010, you still have
10 bands making millions,
100 bands making hundreds of thousands. and now also possible due to the internet is:
1,000 bands making tens of thousands
10,000 bands making thousands
100,000 bands making hundreds, and
1,000,000 bands making tens of dollars
big deal? yeah, big deal: with a more fluid, smaller barrier of entry, that guy making a few hundred has enough positive feedback to maybe move up to the rarified few making hundreds of thousands. and we, the consumer, have a bigger, richer bounty to consume and appreciate and enjoy, that WE choose, not some suit in a music corporation who signs this band but that band due to random reasons that may have nothing to do with actual quality for us the consumer
and also, art is an aspirational pursuit: you do it because you love it, and this should be rewarding in and of itself. nobody does it for the money. well, maybe to get in a chick's pants, but if you do it just for the money, you're a moron, because there is no money in art, there never was. only those lucky few that create something that people find themselves demanding by hook or by chance, are lucky to live the life of a well-paid artist. it is always the exception, and always will be the exception. and really: do you want to listen to music by a guy who is doing it just for financial returns? for every REAL artist, it is about the art, and always will be. and a few get chosen to live financially happy for that. the rest starve, as it always was, as it is, and always will be
If you have a TV near you, turn it on for a second and count the number of seconds in between scene changes (where what you are watching switches to a different camera, angle, perspective, etc.). In a lot of the media consumed by kids/teens today, that interval is often 0-5 seconds. Reflect, for a moment, on what that might do to one's capacity for attention and focus.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Apparently a childhood of not watching TV turns people into smug egomaniacs who believe rubbish because it makes them feel better about themselves.
That sentence, that I just wrote, is ridiculous nonsense.
It is ridiculous nonsense on equal par in terms of what you just wrote.
The only difference is I have a data point of 1 to support my rubbish assertion.
Actually it was Panda-rific!
do you still have the cans of hairspray?
obviously a Dio fan
worse than virtual pandemic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupted_Blood_incident
irony overload
without commerce, there is no science
without science, there is no commerce
learn to be a little more comfortable with the interplay between the two
you may now spit on me from your ivory tower for even suggesting this (rolls eyes)
science cannot be debased, because science is not some fundamentalist religion
there is absolutely nothing wrong with the circus atmosphere, as the this entire event is indeed a circus
of course the wording is not 100% scientifically accurate. this is not lies and falsehoods like with creationists, this is dramatic license. it's ok. really. little kids or hoi polloi watching this event don't know, don't care, and are not misserved by the dramatic language. really
as with real religious fundamentalists who can't stand scantily clad women on tv: just turn the channel, and don't watch
no one is forcing you to tune in, and your judgments are not useful nor warranted. your words just serve some sort of haughty need of yours
get a grip and get used to the fact commerce is needed to fund the science, and that requires some drama
no big deal
please
i can see neanderthal in that just as much as in arnold
unless your comment is more of a morality judgment on his actions, in that case WHOOSH on me
hello, 1990s here. we've seen enough of those kind of sparks. thanks
you have to admit that the very existence of a band paying homage by choosing that name is indisputable evidence that the engineer rocks
every single major country in the world, and in history, has a strong central government. welcome to reality
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism."
This is true, obviously, about religion.
It's true about communism
It's true about militant atheists
iI's true about free market fundamentalists
It's true basically, about every belief you can describe. Intolerant idealism is fundamentalism: the belief you have is not to be questioned, and knows no exceptions. This is the root of all evil, right there.
The lesson of life is moderation in all things. As soon as someone takes a belief, any belief, even some beliefs you cherish mightily, to the point where they think they have a right to impose that belief on others, we have the root of all human-caused suffering in the entire world and in all of history.
and there's nothing wrong with beliefs that mean science is wrong
but there is something very wrong with such a person holding substantial amounts of power
and there is something enraging about such an imbecile with power over the science and technology policies of a powerful nation
that's exactly right
the kind of people who believe fervently in heaven are the kind of low iq and obsessively controlling type of person it would be hell to spend eternity with
irony
many science projects have to be backed by the government because they are huge expensive endeavours with no business case
think about what will not be or was not, because some assclown in washington dc didn't back it
here's one example, i'm sure there's 10,000 more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
i know you are talking about policy decisions, like stem cell research. but now you are asking government to not be regulating things that, i'm sorry to say government has every right and need to regulate. if you have to ask why then we veer off in into intellectual charity land and so i have nothing more to say
may i suggest you do everything you can to get the assclown kicked out of office so georgia is not a laughingstock?
this is one of the best universities in the nation, and the world:
http://www.gatech.edu/
every single person at this institution should be horrified disgusted revulsed and feeling nauseous that this douchebag speaks for their state
2. render all financial influence in any election illegal. if you get enough signatures, you are given a modest warchest of equal size as your opponent(s) straight from the taxpayers to campaign
3. fillibusters: no
4. line item vetoes: yes
5. elected representatives are paid the average american salary. yes, this will go down when the economy is sick (and will go up, if they do a good job)
6. what the post above me said. fix 1 congresscritter at a unit of 50,000 citizens
7. no more gerrymandering. districts are decided openly, with citizen input, the input of both parties, and must adhere to general rules, such as preserving obvious boundaries of cities and attempting to retain compact form and observe obvious elements of geography
8. anything else?
i think pretty much a vast decisive majority of americans would agree with these modest, old proposals, left and right
and it will be hard with our current system to get any of the measures passed
people who believe stupid things are often also people who have an obsessive need to impose, by force, belief in those stupid things on others
which pretty much explains a lot of the history of religion