I believe they've also indicated the "1000x endurance" figure isn't based upon write cycles -- meaning it has to be based on typical lifetimes. So yes, you're talking many years of service.
You're not forced to buy any products (police & fire protection, etc.) from the U.S. government, either. Just don't expect to squat on U.S. land, though (start walking north or south).
According to what's available on material properties, it has stiffness and strength characteristics (if it's made using fine-grained processing) on the order of some steels. And it's a lot lighter.
Really, people who go into coding, engineering, etc., and who stay in it tend to do so because they love doing what the day-in, day-out jobs in engineering, etc. actually entail: solving the abstract problems right in front of you. That goes for the best engineers (male and female) I've known.
Current engineering courses don't generally go into social impact because an awful lot of engineering doesn't involve much social impact, at least from what you see every day.
I have no problem whatsoever with trying to attract more women into the subsets of engineering, etc. in which they're under-represented (just as I have no problem trying to attract more men into biomed, psychology, education, etc. and other fields in which men are equally under-represented, though you usually don't see a lot of effort devoted to these things.). I'm just not sure this amounts to accurate representation of what being an engineer really is like, and while it may work to get more women to sign up, keeping them in the field may be a very different story.
To any biomed folks who might know this, I'd be interested in the details.
There doesn't seem to be much about "donor matching" in the article. Obviously, you don't want outright defective mitochondria used. HOWEVER, it also seems to me that the mitochondrial genome works in conjunction with the nuclear genome (especially since most mitochondrial genes have, over the millennia, migrated to the nucleus), and that matching between the two is relevant. In fact, there are prominent theorists who believe part of the reason we have mitochondria passed mainly from only one parent is to make sure of a mitochondria-nuclear genome match (at least, for half of the genome), and that this match is so critical that it helps to explain why females, who start off with several million potential eggs, wind up with a "top 200" for their reproductive lives.
"Successive budget cuts by Congress are forcing the Internal Revenue Service to delay system modernization that would improve its ability to prevent fraud."
Taxes are at historical lows, especially among those most able to pay (the wealthiest, who have seen their wealth skyrocket while incomes of pretty much everyone else languishes).
Also, inflation is generally responsive to unemployment rates, rather than tax rates.
"the state never has to answer to the market"
The parallels between a free market of companies, and a free market of candidates in a liberal democracy, are actually quite strong. When the former contaminates the latter, however (also known as "right wing utopia"), you can have serious problems.
I suspect the culprit is more along the lines of what you exemplify: people were easily misled, probably by slickly packaged marketing of long-disproved right wing ideas.
Unfortunately, such feminists seem to be on the quiet side. Most of what seems to be heard from modern feminists--to say nothing of the SJWs--is as regards areas where women are perceived as being disadvantaged as compared with men. But it's radio silence when the opposite is true (or worse: open hostility towards those who raise issues where men are disadvantaged).
Ensuring women don't have fewer rights than men is a laudable goal, to be sure. But compared with supporting equality, it leaves out half of the equation. At one time, when women really could have been said to have been oppressed and had far fewer rights than men, such a position was probably justified. But in today's remarkably egalitarian society (if we're arguing over portrayal of the sexes in video games, you kind of have to admit we're down to details), things aren't quite so simple. And in my opinion, that is largely responsible for the serious image problem today's feminists seem to have.
Slashdot Mirror
Based on our own planet's history and what we know of biochemistry/bioenergetics, I'd go with:
1) Life is pretty common.
2) Anything more advanced than bacteria-like single cells is exceedingly rare.
I believe they've also indicated the "1000x endurance" figure isn't based upon write cycles -- meaning it has to be based on typical lifetimes. So yes, you're talking many years of service.
My Commodore-64 cold boots in under...
sigh.
Evidently, Intel is saying the endurance levels quoted aren't based on write cycles.
Actually, the word "fraud" came to mind. But yes, "illogical", too.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management continues its contract for Windows 3.1 support.
It really depends. Initial news stories are that it *doesn't* include BI/clearance investigation material. I really sort of hope that's true.
Not that I think breach of *that* material will never happen (when, not if).
Hate to say it, but regardless, this is a pretty serious breach of trust on OPM's part. It's difficult to secure systems. It's not impossible.
You're not forced to buy any products (police & fire protection, etc.) from the U.S. government, either. Just don't expect to squat on U.S. land, though (start walking north or south).
Ah, OK. So if I'm a customer of Wal-Mart, I deserve to have all the private info of Wal-Mart employees provided to me?
You might want to think this through a little more.
According to what's available on material properties, it has stiffness and strength characteristics (if it's made using fine-grained processing) on the order of some steels. And it's a lot lighter.
You might go back farther than that. Similar male/female gender toy preferences (e.g. wheeled vs. plush toys) are commonly found in all primates.
This is a good comment.
Really, people who go into coding, engineering, etc., and who stay in it tend to do so because they love doing what the day-in, day-out jobs in engineering, etc. actually entail: solving the abstract problems right in front of you. That goes for the best engineers (male and female) I've known.
Current engineering courses don't generally go into social impact because an awful lot of engineering doesn't involve much social impact, at least from what you see every day.
I have no problem whatsoever with trying to attract more women into the subsets of engineering, etc. in which they're under-represented (just as I have no problem trying to attract more men into biomed, psychology, education, etc. and other fields in which men are equally under-represented, though you usually don't see a lot of effort devoted to these things.). I'm just not sure this amounts to accurate representation of what being an engineer really is like, and while it may work to get more women to sign up, keeping them in the field may be a very different story.
To any biomed folks who might know this, I'd be interested in the details.
There doesn't seem to be much about "donor matching" in the article. Obviously, you don't want outright defective mitochondria used. HOWEVER, it also seems to me that the mitochondrial genome works in conjunction with the nuclear genome (especially since most mitochondrial genes have, over the millennia, migrated to the nucleus), and that matching between the two is relevant. In fact, there are prominent theorists who believe part of the reason we have mitochondria passed mainly from only one parent is to make sure of a mitochondria-nuclear genome match (at least, for half of the genome), and that this match is so critical that it helps to explain why females, who start off with several million potential eggs, wind up with a "top 200" for their reproductive lives.
What work has been done on this?
Honestly, objections to vaccinations over the word "herd" are the most foolish I've seen yet.
Like it or not, some decisions you make affect others. Like it or not, others will probably hold you responsible for them.
"Successive budget cuts by Congress are forcing the Internal Revenue Service to delay system modernization that would improve its ability to prevent fraud."
One suspects that might have been the point.
They want attention. That's it.
Were any emails from the GoP hacking group received while N. Korean Internet went dark? It seems to me that might be a piece of evidence, as well.
I wish that were the problem.
From what I can see, conservatives mostly don't like FCC involved because Obama is for net neutrality.
Otherwise, your comment is excellent.
Taxes are at historical lows, especially among those most able to pay (the wealthiest, who have seen their wealth skyrocket while incomes of pretty much everyone else languishes).
Also, inflation is generally responsive to unemployment rates, rather than tax rates.
"the state never has to answer to the market" The parallels between a free market of companies, and a free market of candidates in a liberal democracy, are actually quite strong. When the former contaminates the latter, however (also known as "right wing utopia"), you can have serious problems.
I suspect the culprit is more along the lines of what you exemplify: people were easily misled, probably by slickly packaged marketing of long-disproved right wing ideas.
True - there is some karma at work here, I think. Of course, this doesn't just hurt Sony.
Isn't this the same group/person that called in a fake bomb threat on an airplane not too long ago? I'm surprised they're still walking free.
I think you may be suffering from paranoia.
:)
And I think you need to get out more
Unfortunately, such feminists seem to be on the quiet side. Most of what seems to be heard from modern feminists--to say nothing of the SJWs--is as regards areas where women are perceived as being disadvantaged as compared with men. But it's radio silence when the opposite is true (or worse: open hostility towards those who raise issues where men are disadvantaged).
Ensuring women don't have fewer rights than men is a laudable goal, to be sure. But compared with supporting equality, it leaves out half of the equation. At one time, when women really could have been said to have been oppressed and had far fewer rights than men, such a position was probably justified. But in today's remarkably egalitarian society (if we're arguing over portrayal of the sexes in video games, you kind of have to admit we're down to details), things aren't quite so simple. And in my opinion, that is largely responsible for the serious image problem today's feminists seem to have.