The given version of "terrorist" is arbitrary and thus subject to change over time - from people who hijack planes with guns and explosives, to apparently nowadays, Iceland, however I think that if you're starting with a number of 1 in 3000 you are so far from reality anyway that what you really want to do is harass innocent people.
Let's look at ALL the hijackings from 1970 to 2000, a total of 924 hijackings. I couldn't find more recent figures quickly, but let's assume that hijackings have continued at a rate of around 30 per year (the average from 1970-2000), that would add another 30 * 9 = 270 hijackings, for a total of 1194 ok I will be generous 1200 hijackings.
Now let's assume (and this is a BIG assumption - I am again going to be very generous) that TEN people, (the terrorists), board the plane for EACH hijacking event. So now we have 12,000 terrorists.
Now let's just look at the passenger data for the LAST YEAR ALONE for the top 5 airlines. They carried last year 420 million people. LAST YEAR. Now assuming that since 1970 till today there have been a total of 12000 "terrorists" (a VERY generous number), when you divide 420 million by that, you would be looking at 1:35,000 people being a "potential terrorist". However do remember that I am only including passenger data for ONE SINGLE YEAR. Assuming again a 90% accuracy, you are still wrongly intimidating well over 3500 people.
If I was to go through year by year and gouge up the billions of people that have been transported by air, the actual chances of the person being screened actually being a terrorist drops to almost zero.
I will not argue against the value of security as a deterrent. However I think that airport security employees should be well aware that they are, more likely than not, harassing innocent people. Therefore all the excessive bullying, posturing, abuse, privacy and rights violations are completely unnecessary in this context. Airline terrorism is NOT a real threat, be it ever so dramatic on the few times when it does happen. Use technology to screen for the obvious, and lock the god damned cockpit door with a solid lock, for the not so obvious.
as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither the federal government nor some international shadow government like the UN has any business trampling on states' rights.
So the bit in the Constitution that says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" should be removed, then?
All firs are trees, but not all trees are firs. The immune system is a genetic system, it does some really neat stuff with DNA and RNA to randomly produce all sorts of antibodies. However going from there and making the absolutely false assumption that just because the word "genetic" is involved, suddenly whole immune systems can be inherited, is complete rubbish.
There are DISEASES that affect the immune system's ability to synthesize antibodies, complement, receptors, and other components of the immune system. However considering that the parent to be cloned is a HEALTHY DOG, the progeny will also be HEALTHY CLONES and will not have any of these diseases. However since an animals immunity consists of a) what it has been exposed to in the past as well as b) a random - RANDOM - assortment of antibodies generated by the immune system, it's fair to say that one clone will not be exactly as vulnerable as the other against a specific pathogen.
Now it's not my fault if you own an immune system and yet have no idea how it works. However coming "from a family of doctors" doesn't give you the right to insult me without appearing like an ass. I suggest you read up on it if you really want to find out why you were wrong - or conversely continue to live in your ignorance.
if all the dogs are genetically identical they will all have identical immune systems
Bzzzt - wrong.
Sorry, I'm a doctor, and I can't let this one slide. Not sure how it is in dogs, but it can't be that much different than humans. Although their immune system will be GENETICALLY the same, the nice thing about immune systems is that they learn and adapt throughout your life. You are not "born" with immunity to certain diseases. You ACQUIRE it. Animals are not like plants where a monoculture is vulnerable to a single pathogen. Plants don't have active, adaptive immune systems like animals do.
While certain genetic disorders of the immune system would be cloned, in theory, these disorders tend to be rare. I think it would be safe to assume that the goal of the program was to clone healthy dogs. Provided these dogs get their shots, they should be just as "safe" as any other dog.
Either slashdotters don't run linux anymore, or windows actually grown to a nice product.
OR, Microsoft has a team of paid shills with several slashdot accounts each to "adjust" moderation in their favor and flame anyone who dares say anything about THAT PIECE OF SHIT SOFTWARE COMPANY we call Microsoft.
Which the whole world, its mother and the police can happily look through.
Still if I were a British tax-payer I would like to know why public funds are being spent on things like this, as well as how many violent criminals have been brought to justice during these types of raids...
I remember back in the Compuserve/GEnie days, before the internet became popular. We used to have to pay $6+ per hour to connect. I would play multi-player games, read and post on forums, and there was never any serious trolling/griefing. Then along came the internet and unlimited monthly access for a flat rate. Suddenly all the MPG's I played were filled with beggars asking for free stuff, or griefers just trying to ruin the game for everyone. Massive access to forums also caused the quality of the posts to deteriorate to simple flame wars.
The effect of price on behavior was very obvious. I can think of two possibilities: Either a high price enforces "good behavior" because no one wants to waste money acting like an idiot, but people are willing to act like idiots when something is free; or as an "elitist snob" (yeah yeah, think whatever you want) I tend to favor the idea that people with more money tend to be better educated (with few exceptions) and mannered, and so an expensive, exclusive "club" will have less "trash".
you would also know how un-like, un-fulfilling, un-good any such hack movie would be.
Oh come on. Surely an adventure by two lovers in spite of an angry father in law to wrest one of the most coveted things in the world from the very heart of evil has to be better than this stupid eternal love triangle Hollywood seems to be obsessed with.
The only good movie I've seen recently was Duplicity, and only then because it was a fairly unpredictable ending. The rest is all the same old trash, linear script, boring love triangles and/or "here forget plot look at our special effects".
The Silmarillion? And what do you propose to do with that?
Oh come on, there's at LEAST two epic movies in that book:
Beren and Luthien, when combined with fluffy script, nasty beasties and special effects, could be a hit.
Turin Turambar also would make a fine tragedy.
Both of those "short stories" have more than enough plot in them to make decent movies - all you need is a good screenwriter.
Possibly even the "Fall of Gondolin" might also be strong enough to stand on its own, if you take the story back to "The White Lady" meeting the dark elf, and push it forwards to Eärendil and the "War of Wrath".
Admittedly the rest of the book is too disconnected to actually have a movie made out of it. But considering some of the utter rubbish coming out of Hollywood, I'm sure someone can turn the above into decent stories. Then just the Tolkien name alone would sell the films.
Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.'
The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand, and tries to spin it to Microsoft's advantage.
Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot's resident Microsoft shills. I have karma points to burn, bitches.
She's your ex-wife. What do you care if she's mouthy?!
Exactly. I thought the whole purpose of a divorce was being able to just hang up the phone, delete the emails, etc. Because I have teenage kids, I usually give my ex wife 15 seconds of slack to determine if anything she will say is relevant or important, and usually I end up pulling the plug.
Someone is being dominated by their ex.
As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting.
IANAL, but be careful: There's a definite legal difference between saying something and writing it down. Of course it's hard to sign things over the internet but...
That depends, did he make the statement on television BEFORE the trial of the man in question? In that case it's pretty obvious he was trying to indirectly bias future jury members, and should be sanctioned/disbarred.
Slashdot Mirror
The given version of "terrorist" is arbitrary and thus subject to change over time - from people who hijack planes with guns and explosives, to apparently nowadays, Iceland, however I think that if you're starting with a number of 1 in 3000 you are so far from reality anyway that what you really want to do is harass innocent people.
Let's look at ALL the hijackings from 1970 to 2000, a total of 924 hijackings. I couldn't find more recent figures quickly, but let's assume that hijackings have continued at a rate of around 30 per year (the average from 1970-2000), that would add another 30 * 9 = 270 hijackings, for a total of 1194 ok I will be generous 1200 hijackings.
Now let's assume (and this is a BIG assumption - I am again going to be very generous) that TEN people, (the terrorists), board the plane for EACH hijacking event. So now we have 12,000 terrorists.
Now let's just look at the passenger data for the LAST YEAR ALONE for the top 5 airlines. They carried last year 420 million people. LAST YEAR. Now assuming that since 1970 till today there have been a total of 12000 "terrorists" (a VERY generous number), when you divide 420 million by that, you would be looking at 1:35,000 people being a "potential terrorist". However do remember that I am only including passenger data for ONE SINGLE YEAR. Assuming again a 90% accuracy, you are still wrongly intimidating well over 3500 people.
If I was to go through year by year and gouge up the billions of people that have been transported by air, the actual chances of the person being screened actually being a terrorist drops to almost zero.
I will not argue against the value of security as a deterrent. However I think that airport security employees should be well aware that they are, more likely than not, harassing innocent people. Therefore all the excessive bullying, posturing, abuse, privacy and rights violations are completely unnecessary in this context. Airline terrorism is NOT a real threat, be it ever so dramatic on the few times when it does happen. Use technology to screen for the obvious, and lock the god damned cockpit door with a solid lock, for the not so obvious.
But no one driving a Toyota would need spare parts anyway - especially not from Ford or GM...
Maybe that's why the page is in this weird language...
as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither the federal government nor some international shadow government like the UN has any business trampling on states' rights.
So the bit in the Constitution that says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" should be removed, then?
Apparently, this is no longer a problem ... puppies can now be cloned ...
Cloned puppies can be harmed, too!
All firs are trees, but not all trees are firs. The immune system is a genetic system, it does some really neat stuff with DNA and RNA to randomly produce all sorts of antibodies. However going from there and making the absolutely false assumption that just because the word "genetic" is involved, suddenly whole immune systems can be inherited, is complete rubbish.
There are DISEASES that affect the immune system's ability to synthesize antibodies, complement, receptors, and other components of the immune system. However considering that the parent to be cloned is a HEALTHY DOG, the progeny will also be HEALTHY CLONES and will not have any of these diseases. However since an animals immunity consists of a) what it has been exposed to in the past as well as b) a random - RANDOM - assortment of antibodies generated by the immune system, it's fair to say that one clone will not be exactly as vulnerable as the other against a specific pathogen.
Now it's not my fault if you own an immune system and yet have no idea how it works. However coming "from a family of doctors" doesn't give you the right to insult me without appearing like an ass. I suggest you read up on it if you really want to find out why you were wrong - or conversely continue to live in your ignorance.
See, for instance, what happened to the Gros Michel banana cultivar.
You're seriously comparing mammals to plants, aren't you?
Surely email has taught us that we can absolutely trust anything offered for sale by someone u51Ng 1337 sp34k! Shame on you.
I would hate to think how much I'd be charged for Starbucks coffee on the moon...
if all the dogs are genetically identical they will all have identical immune systems
Bzzzt - wrong.
Sorry, I'm a doctor, and I can't let this one slide. Not sure how it is in dogs, but it can't be that much different than humans. Although their immune system will be GENETICALLY the same, the nice thing about immune systems is that they learn and adapt throughout your life. You are not "born" with immunity to certain diseases. You ACQUIRE it. Animals are not like plants where a monoculture is vulnerable to a single pathogen. Plants don't have active, adaptive immune systems like animals do.
While certain genetic disorders of the immune system would be cloned, in theory, these disorders tend to be rare. I think it would be safe to assume that the goal of the program was to clone healthy dogs. Provided these dogs get their shots, they should be just as "safe" as any other dog.
Live in the big flat mid-west plains, it might be boring, but it is safe.
(Taps Cassini2 on the shoulder and points to the huge tornado) "Is anywhere safe?"
and ask yourself why oh why you didn't go to medical school.
And AFTER the earthquake, you will ask yourself why oh why DID you go to medical school...
and there exist few fine borders in nature for classifying things.
The most obvious fine border I can think of is those that do the eating, and those that get eaten.
Either slashdotters don't run linux anymore, or windows actually grown to a nice product.
OR, Microsoft has a team of paid shills with several slashdot accounts each to "adjust" moderation in their favor and flame anyone who dares say anything about THAT PIECE OF SHIT SOFTWARE COMPANY we call Microsoft.
More and More like windows everyday
Actually no, this will probably be fixed by later today, as opposed to having to wait for "n" intervals of "patch tuesday"...
Which the whole world, its mother and the police can happily look through.
Still if I were a British tax-payer I would like to know why public funds are being spent on things like this, as well as how many violent criminals have been brought to justice during these types of raids...
I completely agree.
I remember back in the Compuserve/GEnie days, before the internet became popular. We used to have to pay $6+ per hour to connect. I would play multi-player games, read and post on forums, and there was never any serious trolling/griefing. Then along came the internet and unlimited monthly access for a flat rate. Suddenly all the MPG's I played were filled with beggars asking for free stuff, or griefers just trying to ruin the game for everyone. Massive access to forums also caused the quality of the posts to deteriorate to simple flame wars.
The effect of price on behavior was very obvious. I can think of two possibilities: Either a high price enforces "good behavior" because no one wants to waste money acting like an idiot, but people are willing to act like idiots when something is free; or as an "elitist snob" (yeah yeah, think whatever you want) I tend to favor the idea that people with more money tend to be better educated (with few exceptions) and mannered, and so an expensive, exclusive "club" will have less "trash".
you would also know how un-like, un-fulfilling, un-good any such hack movie would be.
Oh come on. Surely an adventure by two lovers in spite of an angry father in law to wrest one of the most coveted things in the world from the very heart of evil has to be better than this stupid eternal love triangle Hollywood seems to be obsessed with.
The only good movie I've seen recently was Duplicity, and only then because it was a fairly unpredictable ending. The rest is all the same old trash, linear script, boring love triangles and/or "here forget plot look at our special effects".
The Silmarillion? And what do you propose to do with that?
Oh come on, there's at LEAST two epic movies in that book:
Beren and Luthien, when combined with fluffy script, nasty beasties and special effects, could be a hit.
Turin Turambar also would make a fine tragedy.
Both of those "short stories" have more than enough plot in them to make decent movies - all you need is a good screenwriter.
Possibly even the "Fall of Gondolin" might also be strong enough to stand on its own, if you take the story back to "The White Lady" meeting the dark elf, and push it forwards to Eärendil and the "War of Wrath".
Admittedly the rest of the book is too disconnected to actually have a movie made out of it. But considering some of the utter rubbish coming out of Hollywood, I'm sure someone can turn the above into decent stories. Then just the Tolkien name alone would sell the films.
take into account potential sales lost to piracy?
Oh god no, if that happened we'd have all of Hollywood lining up for "bailout money" from the government, too!
For the same reason as yours is "Interesting"?
Microsoft slashed the cost of Home and Home Professional by a third on promotional copies ... 'sales in the first eight hours outstripped those of Windows Vista's entire 17-week pre-order period.'
The Microsoft Marketing Machine discovers the laws of supply and demand, and tries to spin it to Microsoft's advantage.
Of course this will be immediately modded troll or flamebait by slashdot's resident Microsoft shills. I have karma points to burn, bitches.
She's your ex-wife. What do you care if she's mouthy?!
Exactly. I thought the whole purpose of a divorce was being able to just hang up the phone, delete the emails, etc. Because I have teenage kids, I usually give my ex wife 15 seconds of slack to determine if anything she will say is relevant or important, and usually I end up pulling the plug.
Someone is being dominated by their ex.
As for my girlfriend - she doesn't need to shut up. She's a smart cookie and anything she has to say is interesting.
IANAL, but be careful: There's a definite legal difference between saying something and writing it down. Of course it's hard to sign things over the internet but...
Why else would he have said such a thing?
That depends, did he make the statement on television BEFORE the trial of the man in question? In that case it's pretty obvious he was trying to indirectly bias future jury members, and should be sanctioned/disbarred.