Colin Powell was the face of the deception campaign the Bush administration orchestrated. He was the one who went to the United Nations, and made a whole bunch of claims that turned out to be false. He's damaged goods. Why on earth would someone suggest he'd be a good candidate in a year when the electorate is itching to repudiate everything about this war?
For those of you who forgot your biology, 3 DNA consecutive DNA base pairs (called a codon) are translated into a single amino acid. (Khorana, Holley and Nirenberg won the 1968 Noble prize in medicine for figuring this out and determining the mapping from base pairs to amino acids)
So, after reading the technical article, it says that DNA polymerase can bind to the new base pairs (allowing it to replicate), but it doesn't say what amino acids (if any) these new base pairs code for. That's important information because this alleged breakthrough is useless if it doesn't so something useful where proteins are concerned.
Black holes, however, are not "hairy" either. That is to say, a black hole can be entirely characterized by its position/velocity/acceleration, mass, charge, and rotation. There is (literally) no other definable characteristic of a black hole besides these things.
I was about to say the same thing. The license is the only thing that keeps the people who wrote the source code from suing them. They would have to invalidate the license, and somehow get the judge to declare the source code to be in the public domain, or some such nonsense. Even if the judge grants their motion, I don't see how this is going to fly.
"It's not going to leak into the atmosphere" - right, and the Titanic was unsinkable.
First, to point out the blindingly obvious -- there are really only two places to inject carbon - into used-up coal mines and into the deep ocean. And as any fifth grader knowns, the warmer a liquid gets, the less gas it can dissolve. (If you don't believe me, go pour some pepsi in a pot, boil it, and see what happens to all the fizz). So if you inject into the ocean, global warming is going to bring it right back out again.
As for injecting it back into coal-mines - who is to say it will stay that way? Are we supposed to take coal companies at their word that it won't?
It depends on how they are sequestering it. Underground or underwater sequestration implies injecting it in gaseous (CO2) form. Mineral sequestration implies reacting it with something else to form a mineral (like CO2 + calcium = limestone + oxygen gas).
Carbon sequestration is like burying a ticking bomb in your backyard. A much better solution is carbon mineral sequestration - turning the carbon into rocks of some kind. That way, unlike underground sequestration (which has the potential to leak straight back into the atmosphere), the carbon stays where it is put.
Congress has the (sole) power to determine what is and is not illegal. Inherent in this is the ability to grant immunity. And as I have already noted here, the prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not preclude retroactive grants of immunity.
There are two sure-fire proven techniques for storing data long term - using a reliable non-volatile storage medium (engraving in a non-oxygen reactive metal will do nicely) and making many redundant copies of them.
Electronic storage is by its very nature unreliable -- electromagnetic properties (like charge accumulation, ferromagnetic hysteresis, etc) are inherently volatile.
And even if you manage to solve the problem of transporting your data into the future, you're still faced with the problem of making sense of it. Electronic formats change (just ask the guy out in California who makes a *FORTUNE* charging law people to retrieve files from obsolete formats and/or media). In the physical realm, this is true as well - languages change and become very difficult to read. (If you don't believe me, try reading Beowulf in its original old-English form, circa 700 AD).
"Look at any book-to-movie adaption, aside from movies based off books that read like a movie, the movies always fail to capture everything from the book." - this is a textbook example of a No true Scotsman argument.
Is injecting data into someone else's bitstream legal? IANAL, but I suspect this practice could very well run afoul of computer trespass and other anti-hacking laws.
The earnings from selling Stormtroper merchandise (and thus the damages Ainsworth can claim) have increased substantially in the 25 years since Lucas started doing it. Lucas is clearly in a more vulnerable position now than if Ainsworth had sued him in 1977.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure Ainsworth's claims of damages going back to 1977 is a textbook case of laches and will probably be dismissed on those grounds.
As I understand it, you can counter-sue, but that involves a great deal of additional cost. A judge can, of his own volition, order one side to pay the other side's fees, but (paraphrasing PJ from Groklaw) they usually only do that when one side was really, really wrong and the judge wants to teach them a lesson.
The idea that your TV can recognize you, and automatically turn to your favorite shows, is a neat idea in theory. The problem is that nobody trusts the asshats that make these boxes NOT to try to spy on you. Welcome to the digital age.
Slashdot Mirror
Colin Powell was the face of the deception campaign the Bush administration orchestrated. He was the one who went to the United Nations, and made a whole bunch of claims that turned out to be false. He's damaged goods. Why on earth would someone suggest he'd be a good candidate in a year when the electorate is itching to repudiate everything about this war?
For those of you who forgot your biology, 3 DNA consecutive DNA base pairs (called a codon) are translated into a single amino acid. (Khorana, Holley and Nirenberg won the 1968 Noble prize in medicine for figuring this out and determining the mapping from base pairs to amino acids)
So, after reading the technical article, it says that DNA polymerase can bind to the new base pairs (allowing it to replicate), but it doesn't say what amino acids (if any) these new base pairs code for. That's important information because this alleged breakthrough is useless if it doesn't so something useful where proteins are concerned.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some kind of estoppel that prevents a party from dismissing a suit that isn't going well and then refiling it?
Just imagine how awesome the theme parks could be if they were populated by real, genetically correct vikings. Oh wait...
I'm sorry, we're revoking your math license.
Honestly, the first thing I thought when I saw this article was that it had to be some kind of April Fools article come late.
Black holes, however, are not "hairy" either. That is to say, a black hole can be entirely characterized by its position/velocity/acceleration, mass, charge, and rotation. There is (literally) no other definable characteristic of a black hole besides these things.
I was about to say the same thing. The license is the only thing that keeps the people who wrote the source code from suing them. They would have to invalidate the license, and somehow get the judge to declare the source code to be in the public domain, or some such nonsense. Even if the judge grants their motion, I don't see how this is going to fly.
Add calcium and turn CO2 into limestone.
"It's not going to leak into the atmosphere" - right, and the Titanic was unsinkable.
First, to point out the blindingly obvious -- there are really only two places to inject carbon - into used-up coal mines and into the deep ocean. And as any fifth grader knowns, the warmer a liquid gets, the less gas it can dissolve. (If you don't believe me, go pour some pepsi in a pot, boil it, and see what happens to all the fizz). So if you inject into the ocean, global warming is going to bring it right back out again.
As for injecting it back into coal-mines - who is to say it will stay that way? Are we supposed to take coal companies at their word that it won't?
If I only had mod points for you....
It depends on how they are sequestering it. Underground or underwater sequestration implies injecting it in gaseous (CO2) form. Mineral sequestration implies reacting it with something else to form a mineral (like CO2 + calcium = limestone + oxygen gas).
Carbon sequestration is like burying a ticking bomb in your backyard. A much better solution is carbon mineral sequestration - turning the carbon into rocks of some kind. That way, unlike underground sequestration (which has the potential to leak straight back into the atmosphere), the carbon stays where it is put.
Congress has the (sole) power to determine what is and is not illegal. Inherent in this is the ability to grant immunity. And as I have already noted here, the prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not preclude retroactive grants of immunity.
There are two sure-fire proven techniques for storing data long term - using a reliable non-volatile storage medium (engraving in a non-oxygen reactive metal will do nicely) and making many redundant copies of them.
Electronic storage is by its very nature unreliable -- electromagnetic properties (like charge accumulation, ferromagnetic hysteresis, etc) are inherently volatile.
And even if you manage to solve the problem of transporting your data into the future, you're still faced with the problem of making sense of it. Electronic formats change (just ask the guy out in California who makes a *FORTUNE* charging law people to retrieve files from obsolete formats and/or media). In the physical realm, this is true as well - languages change and become very difficult to read. (If you don't believe me, try reading Beowulf in its original old-English form, circa 700 AD).
"Look at any book-to-movie adaption, aside from movies based off books that read like a movie, the movies always fail to capture everything from the book." - this is a textbook example of a No true Scotsman argument.
Is injecting data into someone else's bitstream legal? IANAL, but I suspect this practice could very well run afoul of computer trespass and other anti-hacking laws.
The earnings from selling Stormtroper merchandise (and thus the damages Ainsworth can claim) have increased substantially in the 25 years since Lucas started doing it. Lucas is clearly in a more vulnerable position now than if Ainsworth had sued him in 1977.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure Ainsworth's claims of damages going back to 1977 is a textbook case of laches and will probably be dismissed on those grounds.
As I understand it, you can counter-sue, but that involves a great deal of additional cost. A judge can, of his own volition, order one side to pay the other side's fees, but (paraphrasing PJ from Groklaw) they usually only do that when one side was really, really wrong and the judge wants to teach them a lesson.
The idea that your TV can recognize you, and automatically turn to your favorite shows, is a neat idea in theory. The problem is that nobody trusts the asshats that make these boxes NOT to try to spy on you. Welcome to the digital age.
Can someone please explain that in terms that non-LKML subscribers can understand?
He hints the nail on the head - insider trading works only when the insiders doing the trading can do so without others following their lead.
Is there a list somewhere with sites that were and were not available using IPv6?
ISCA is the International Symposium on Computer Architecture, the top computer engineering conference in the world. This year it's in Beijing.