Right - it's such a huge advantage to be able to "pick and choose" genes that I would be surprised if it didn't exist already. Especially genes that offer a small disadvantage in all circumstances, but a huge advantage in others (such as an HIV-rich environment).
It seems to me that we carry a "catalog" of genes that are not currently useful, but have been useful in the past. It's not as if evolution destroys genes - for the most part it tends to make them inactive.
I was still impressed, but the demo is heavily dependent on existing libraries. If there were an OpenGL function to draw_glorious_mountainscape_and_fly_around_it_while_playing_majestic_music(), they could have packed this into less than 100 bytes.
What, you want the tribe-mentality ape descendants to live in harmony with nature? After millions of years of being hunted down and killed (or left to die in horrible pain) by creatures just like the ones you want to "preserve"?
Get a grip, dude, we're animals. And we're doing the best we can. We're barely a few thousand years past the point where being the strongest - not the nicest or the smartest - was the definition of evolutionarily fit.
If we die out, do you think the next species is going to be any better? Here's a hint - if we go down, there's going to be *more* scarcity for whoever inherits the earth. We've used up a ton of the low-hanging fruit like petroleum and surface minerals. More scarcity means more competition for a limited amount of resources, which generally means more pain.
Yes, we suck. Yes, as a species we seem to have no long-term awareness. But we're the best the earth has to offer at the moment, and I honestly believe we're getting better. The only question is whether we'll be able to become truly self-sustaining (needing little more than the sun and raw materials) before our resources run out. If we can manage that, I think we can turn this thing around.
That used to be true. Just look at anyone born before the early 20th century. 100% mortality rate. But with the rise of modern science and the marked decrease in pirates, we've slowly been reducing that rate.
If you look just at the stats for people born since 1980, you'll find a remarkable level of resistance to death, with death rates less than half of those who were born in the 1930's, so it's obvious that there have been significant improvements.
At this rate, not only will those born after 2030 never die, but by 2080, people will be living two, maybe even three lives at once, for eternity!
Huh, that's weird. The 4th season was by far my favourite. It felt as if the writers were taking more chances and running some interesting stories that weren't purely about the comedic punchline.
I can kind of agree with FirePond - since it's obvious someone's looking specifically for this company.
But there are plenty of trademarked names that are less clearcut. "Windows", for example - how would Google be able to weed out the MS competitors from the genuine windows manufacturers that want their name out there?
Hell, what if there's some tourist attraction called "The Fire Pond" out there?
I absolutely think it's slimy to buy up advertising for your competitor's brand name, but I'm also absolutely convinced there's no technical way to prevent it that wouldn't cause a whole host of other problems.
But then doesn't that give politicians the right to commit crimes with impunity?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be suggesting that: a) Punishing criminal acts by politicians wouldn't be a deterrence, or b) If politicians are punished for crimes committed in office, the cons (e.g. abuse of criminal proceedings) would outweigh the pros
If you've got another reason not to prosecute likely crimes by politicians, I'd like to hear it.
Will you Mormon editors please stop flipping UP MY SLASHDOT??? Please, for the love of all that is good, STOP adding "enhancements" to the page, and LET ME HAVE MY Gosh-darned CLASSIC SLASHDOT LOOK BACK!!!!
Seriously, you MISTER FALCONS, see what happens when you find a STRANGER in the ALPS!??!!!
See, this is exactly why I adore/. Name one other popular site where you'd get ten bites on a troll that 99% of the population doesn't even understand.
Right down to the Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag? signature. 10/10 for you, sir.
So, in your opinion, Germany annexed Poland and invaded the Netherlands because those damned dirty Dutch Jews kept lending them money?
Or was it going back further - the German people had it so bad that they were willing to accept Hitler, because the shortsighted Jewish leaders of the Allies forced them to pay ridiculous amounts of compensation after WW1?
include somewhere on there directions for building the next one so our descendants don't have to hear paranoid religious zealots and superstitious nutballs going on and on about Armageddon (or whatever they'll be calling it up then)?
Only if the directions also let them know that if the new one isn't done on time, the Consequences will be dire.
I'd say it's relevant if a transition was involved. The status quo is always the easiest option. If 46/50 states have bucked the status quo, then it should be seen as an indication that at the very least there are some very good arguments for it - enough to convince a great many people.
It's not an argument directly, but it's a definite sign that the position should be given strong consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
Moron!
There is no such thing!
I loved those episodes. Any one of them could have been dragged out into a half-hour decent Twilight Zone episode - but weren't.
Right - it's such a huge advantage to be able to "pick and choose" genes that I would be surprised if it didn't exist already. Especially genes that offer a small disadvantage in all circumstances, but a huge advantage in others (such as an HIV-rich environment).
It seems to me that we carry a "catalog" of genes that are not currently useful, but have been useful in the past. It's not as if evolution destroys genes - for the most part it tends to make them inactive.
I was still impressed, but the demo is heavily dependent on existing libraries. If there were an OpenGL function to draw_glorious_mountainscape_and_fly_around_it_while_playing_majestic_music(), they could have packed this into less than 100 bytes.
Yeah, and Rome was built in a day.
What, you want the tribe-mentality ape descendants to live in harmony with nature? After millions of years of being hunted down and killed (or left to die in horrible pain) by creatures just like the ones you want to "preserve"?
Get a grip, dude, we're animals. And we're doing the best we can. We're barely a few thousand years past the point where being the strongest - not the nicest or the smartest - was the definition of evolutionarily fit.
If we die out, do you think the next species is going to be any better? Here's a hint - if we go down, there's going to be *more* scarcity for whoever inherits the earth. We've used up a ton of the low-hanging fruit like petroleum and surface minerals. More scarcity means more competition for a limited amount of resources, which generally means more pain.
Yes, we suck. Yes, as a species we seem to have no long-term awareness. But we're the best the earth has to offer at the moment, and I honestly believe we're getting better. The only question is whether we'll be able to become truly self-sustaining (needing little more than the sun and raw materials) before our resources run out. If we can manage that, I think we can turn this thing around.
That used to be true. Just look at anyone born before the early 20th century. 100% mortality rate. But with the rise of modern science and the marked decrease in pirates, we've slowly been reducing that rate.
If you look just at the stats for people born since 1980, you'll find a remarkable level of resistance to death, with death rates less than half of those who were born in the 1930's, so it's obvious that there have been significant improvements.
At this rate, not only will those born after 2030 never die, but by 2080, people will be living two, maybe even three lives at once, for eternity!
Ah - fair enough. I hadn't considered the movies to be a season, but you're right. I did enjoy Bender's Big Score, but the rest of them? Meh.
Huh, that's weird. The 4th season was by far my favourite. It felt as if the writers were taking more chances and running some interesting stories that weren't purely about the comedic punchline.
To each their own, I suppose.
I can kind of agree with FirePond - since it's obvious someone's looking specifically for this company.
But there are plenty of trademarked names that are less clearcut. "Windows", for example - how would Google be able to weed out the MS competitors from the genuine windows manufacturers that want their name out there?
Hell, what if there's some tourist attraction called "The Fire Pond" out there?
I absolutely think it's slimy to buy up advertising for your competitor's brand name, but I'm also absolutely convinced there's no technical way to prevent it that wouldn't cause a whole host of other problems.
How?
But then doesn't that give politicians the right to commit crimes with impunity?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be suggesting that:
a) Punishing criminal acts by politicians wouldn't be a deterrence, or
b) If politicians are punished for crimes committed in office, the cons (e.g. abuse of criminal proceedings) would outweigh the pros
If you've got another reason not to prosecute likely crimes by politicians, I'd like to hear it.
The political game in Washington is nasty enough without the Democrats upping the ante with political prosecutions.
But what about criminal prosecutions? If a serious crime was committed, where do you draw the line? Do you agree with Nixon's pardon?
Fair enough, let me have a stab at it.
Will you Mormon editors please stop flipping UP MY SLASHDOT??? Please, for the love of all that is good, STOP adding "enhancements" to the page, and LET ME HAVE MY Gosh-darned CLASSIC SLASHDOT LOOK BACK!!!!
Seriously, you MISTER FALCONS, see what happens when you find a STRANGER in the ALPS!??!!!
See, this is exactly why I adore /. Name one other popular site where you'd get ten bites on a troll that 99% of the population doesn't even understand.
Right down to the Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag? signature. 10/10 for you, sir.
Hah! Complain all you want, but emacs has something that vi never will.
...I've already memorized all the keystrokes.
WRONG.
Black-as-hell coffee, bright moonlit night outside, but I'm stuffed in a windowless basement with no ventilation, using Emacs.
On Windows.
ME.
Yes, that's how far I'll go to counter one of you VI-loving lunatics.
This is also why WWII occurred.
So, in your opinion, Germany annexed Poland and invaded the Netherlands because those damned dirty Dutch Jews kept lending them money?
Or was it going back further - the German people had it so bad that they were willing to accept Hitler, because the shortsighted Jewish leaders of the Allies forced them to pay ridiculous amounts of compensation after WW1?
include somewhere on there directions for building the next one so our descendants don't have to hear paranoid religious zealots and superstitious nutballs going on and on about Armageddon (or whatever they'll be calling it up then)?
Only if the directions also let them know that if the new one isn't done on time, the Consequences will be dire.
I imagine he'd make a plan, and he'd follow through.
I'd say it's relevant if a transition was involved. The status quo is always the easiest option. If 46/50 states have bucked the status quo, then it should be seen as an indication that at the very least there are some very good arguments for it - enough to convince a great many people.
It's not an argument directly, but it's a definite sign that the position should be given strong consideration.
Forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" box, did we?
Applicable only to me, and perhaps a few other overflowers I'm not aware of (see sig)
Besides, is "vsprintf" really intrinsically any more comprehensible to English speakers than to anyone else?
No, but ReorderProducts(ProductCode code) {...} might be.
Maybe I've been spending too much time on Fark, but it was pretty obvious that the post was a blatant troll.
/ Don't feed the trolls // That's right, slashies on /. - how ironic.