As discussed in the feature, it would be hard for me to judge my usage in MB. Isn't the only unmetered Verizon plan about $100 per month? How has it worked for you?
I heard a piece, including some sound clips, this afternoon on ATC. The story and a few selections are here. It is an excellent project. The copyright limitations are disappointing, however.
I read about USB 1.1 ports on the new PowerBook, but saw nothing about USB 2.0. It seems that USB 2.0 and Firewire would be a nice combination for maximum flexibility.
The USA GPRS networks still look small based on the coverages maps I have seen. How good is the coverage? To go all the places I go and have cell service, I cannot use GSM alone and the GSM/TDMA combination phones lack the features of the T68i.
I want a cell phone that acts as a phone and as a gateway for my other devices. I should be able to connect my computer to it on the road. I should be able to connect my PDA to it. I should be able to connect a camera to it. It should have some of its own features. It should just work.
There are some Bluetooth enabled phones that almost meet these demands. They do not. Even when they come close, the networks are being built slowly.
The landline companies have yet to offer the calling freedom and rates that are standard with cell phones. They will lose customers if they institute even more charges for what were local calls.
I recently got xdm logins from my Windows computer to my Linux computer working. My stumbling block was with ipchains. Many Linux distributions, not unwisely, block port 137, the port necessary for xdmcp. Once I added filtering rules to accept packets from my Windows box, it worked.
Even though it is easy, it took me a long time to figure out. I hope someone else is saved some trouble.
I know that Klez forges the "From:" line in the header. There is a "From" (no colon) line at the top of email messages. I believe that this line comes from another source not forged by Klez. Usually, this line appears to be correct. The "From" (no colon) email address tends to agree with the first mail server that relayed the message. Is my understanding correct?
Two or three times, I have tried to warn users that they are infected by sending messages to the "From" (no colon) address. It never has worked. Why not? Every time, I have ended up emailing the administrators of the domain or mail server. (BTW, most places do a terrible job of monitoring email to postmaster.) I always have included the headers so that the administrator could track down the infected user by date and IP address. Each time, the administrator then contacted the user and put a stop to the problem. How come the user never fixes it? Shouldn't my emails have gotten through? Did the users just ignore my warnings or was there something else at work?
For almost every trait, I can imagine a fantasy world in which it is disadvantageous. The inferiority of aerobic metabolism becomes apparent when the crutch of oxygen is taken away. The inferiority of thick fur becomes apparent once the crutch of cold weather is taken away. AFAIK, fantasy worlds do not affect evolutionary trends.
"they ARE inferior because they rely on a roundabout method for their propagation"
What is inferior about the reliance? If fertility clinics and old-fashioned sex are both available and effective, what difference does it make which one someone chooses? Either way, offspring are produced, and the offspring carry the genes. Evolution is about offspring and inheritance, not about your ideas of what is natural.
If both genetic conditions allow one to reproduce, what is the evolotionary difference? How does it impact survival? We don't live a hundred years ago, so don't worry about who would have survived and reproduced a hundred years ago. Evolutionary pressures change with time. It's inherent. You have some claim about the disadvantage to survival and reproduction, yet you admit that these people can survive and reproduce. Survival and reproduction are the keys, not your ideas about what is inferior. If one method works about as well as the other, how is one so vastly superior to the other?
Shed your ideas about what is better than what. Look at what is and what works.
How do they "retard the progression of the species?" I do not see evolution as a teleological process. It concerns what works now against current threats to survival. What is this progress you claim exists? Where is it leading?
If their genes are so inferior, how do they manage to reproduce? Genes that allow an individual to reproduce successfully are good genes. They worked. The proof is the offspring. Genes are not inferior because somebody thinks so or because they were not good a thousand years ago. Evolution is about survival and reproduction. If an individual with a certain genetic composition survives and reproduces, the individual is successful. His or her genes are successful.
Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell us what to become or what is good. It tells us that populations have varied individuals and that some individuals will prosper and multiply while others whither and die. We may have changed the selection pressures on us. I can guarantee you, however, that we have not changed or stopped evolution. Why? Evolution is simply what happens when individuals try to survive and reproduce. If the environment changes, the sets of successful individuals and genes will change. Evolution will happen. Evolution is an encompassing idea of what happens in biological populations.
Let us think about our altered food. It is a change that has allowed us to survive at higher rates. The information for making it is passed down through generations. It sounds suspiciously similar to evolution.
We have developed abilities that allow more of us to live longer. Prolonged, more frequent survival and reproduction are hallmarks of evolutionary success, yet you think that makes us weaker. According to your reasoning, increasing our survival has made us weaker. Doesn't it work the other way around? As I recall, it is when individuals are less fit for survival that they are supposed to survive less. What, precisely, would make us stronger?
Some cancer treatments do mutate DNA, and it is bad in general. Killing bad cells can work out for the best. Other DNA damage might involve replacing one or more of the usual bases (A, T, G & C) with some other chemical. IIRC, 5-fluorouracil (5FU), a chemotherapy drug, gets incorporated in place of thymine in replicating DNA. Some AIDS drugs work similarly. Inducing fatal mutations and DNA defects might be beneficial if the cancer cells suffer much more than normal cells.
Each cage is linked to an antibody. Antibodies are raised against a particular molecule, such as some section of protein in a pollen coat. Most likely, the antibody linked to the cage binds some molecule that is expressed by cancer cells much more than normal cells.
Cancer cells multiply abnormally fast, causing tumors. To accomplish this rapid proliferation, they replicate DNA more than normal cells. Ionizing radiation and chemotherapy often (always?) target DNA. By damaging DNA or causing manufacture of defective DNA, they preferentially affect cells that are multiplying rapidly. Many of the side effects are due to destruction of tissues with high rates of multiplication such as bone marrow and gut.
Slashdot Mirror
As discussed in the feature, it would be hard for me to judge my usage in MB. Isn't the only unmetered Verizon plan about $100 per month? How has it worked for you?
You quickly jump to conclusions.
Learn more.
"Goggle" means to stare. "Googol" is a large number. They hitchiked on those ideas to come up with Google.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an Exxon is.
I heard a piece, including some sound clips, this afternoon on ATC. The story and a few selections are here. It is an excellent project. The copyright limitations are disappointing, however.
I read about USB 1.1 ports on the new PowerBook, but saw nothing about USB 2.0. It seems that USB 2.0 and Firewire would be a nice combination for maximum flexibility.
Plastics
The USA GPRS networks still look small based on the coverages maps I have seen. How good is the coverage? To go all the places I go and have cell service, I cannot use GSM alone and the GSM/TDMA combination phones lack the features of the T68i.
I want a cell phone that acts as a phone and as a gateway for my other devices. I should be able to connect my computer to it on the road. I should be able to connect my PDA to it. I should be able to connect a camera to it. It should have some of its own features. It should just work.
There are some Bluetooth enabled phones that almost meet these demands. They do not. Even when they come close, the networks are being built slowly.
The first sentence out of your mouth should have been your consulting rate.
"Come help us get our LAN up again."
"My usual consulting rate is $200 per hour. I'd be happy to do the job. When would you like me to be there?"
Depending on where you are, $200 per hour may be ridiculously low.
The landline companies have yet to offer the calling freedom and rates that are standard with cell phones. They will lose customers if they institute even more charges for what were local calls.
Does the installation recognize Firewire hard drives?
I wonder what he thinks of the recent South Park episode that features Pitfall! when the priest goes into the catacombs.
I recently got xdm logins from my Windows computer to my Linux computer working. My stumbling block was with ipchains. Many Linux distributions, not unwisely, block port 137, the port necessary for xdmcp. Once I added filtering rules to accept packets from my Windows box, it worked.
Even though it is easy, it took me a long time to figure out. I hope someone else is saved some trouble.
I know that Klez forges the "From:" line in the header. There is a "From" (no colon) line at the top of email messages. I believe that this line comes from another source not forged by Klez. Usually, this line appears to be correct. The "From" (no colon) email address tends to agree with the first mail server that relayed the message. Is my understanding correct?
Two or three times, I have tried to warn users that they are infected by sending messages to the "From" (no colon) address. It never has worked. Why not? Every time, I have ended up emailing the administrators of the domain or mail server. (BTW, most places do a terrible job of monitoring email to postmaster.) I always have included the headers so that the administrator could track down the infected user by date and IP address. Each time, the administrator then contacted the user and put a stop to the problem. How come the user never fixes it? Shouldn't my emails have gotten through? Did the users just ignore my warnings or was there something else at work?
For almost every trait, I can imagine a fantasy world in which it is disadvantageous. The inferiority of aerobic metabolism becomes apparent when the crutch of oxygen is taken away. The inferiority of thick fur becomes apparent once the crutch of cold weather is taken away. AFAIK, fantasy worlds do not affect evolutionary trends.
I see the error in your thinking.
"they ARE inferior because they rely on a roundabout method for their propagation"
What is inferior about the reliance? If fertility clinics and old-fashioned sex are both available and effective, what difference does it make which one someone chooses? Either way, offspring are produced, and the offspring carry the genes. Evolution is about offspring and inheritance, not about your ideas of what is natural.
If both genetic conditions allow one to reproduce, what is the evolotionary difference? How does it impact survival? We don't live a hundred years ago, so don't worry about who would have survived and reproduced a hundred years ago. Evolutionary pressures change with time. It's inherent. You have some claim about the disadvantage to survival and reproduction, yet you admit that these people can survive and reproduce. Survival and reproduction are the keys, not your ideas about what is inferior. If one method works about as well as the other, how is one so vastly superior to the other?
Shed your ideas about what is better than what. Look at what is and what works.
How do they "retard the progression of the species?" I do not see evolution as a teleological process. It concerns what works now against current threats to survival. What is this progress you claim exists? Where is it leading?
If their genes are so inferior, how do they manage to reproduce? Genes that allow an individual to reproduce successfully are good genes. They worked. The proof is the offspring. Genes are not inferior because somebody thinks so or because they were not good a thousand years ago. Evolution is about survival and reproduction. If an individual with a certain genetic composition survives and reproduces, the individual is successful. His or her genes are successful.
Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell us what to become or what is good. It tells us that populations have varied individuals and that some individuals will prosper and multiply while others whither and die. We may have changed the selection pressures on us. I can guarantee you, however, that we have not changed or stopped evolution. Why? Evolution is simply what happens when individuals try to survive and reproduce. If the environment changes, the sets of successful individuals and genes will change. Evolution will happen. Evolution is an encompassing idea of what happens in biological populations.
Let us think about our altered food. It is a change that has allowed us to survive at higher rates. The information for making it is passed down through generations. It sounds suspiciously similar to evolution.
We have developed abilities that allow more of us to live longer. Prolonged, more frequent survival and reproduction are hallmarks of evolutionary success, yet you think that makes us weaker. According to your reasoning, increasing our survival has made us weaker. Doesn't it work the other way around? As I recall, it is when individuals are less fit for survival that they are supposed to survive less. What, precisely, would make us stronger?
Some cancer treatments do mutate DNA, and it is bad in general. Killing bad cells can work out for the best. Other DNA damage might involve replacing one or more of the usual bases (A, T, G & C) with some other chemical. IIRC, 5-fluorouracil (5FU), a chemotherapy drug, gets incorporated in place of thymine in replicating DNA. Some AIDS drugs work similarly. Inducing fatal mutations and DNA defects might be beneficial if the cancer cells suffer much more than normal cells.
Each cage is linked to an antibody. Antibodies are raised against a particular molecule, such as some section of protein in a pollen coat. Most likely, the antibody linked to the cage binds some molecule that is expressed by cancer cells much more than normal cells.
Cancer cells multiply abnormally fast, causing tumors. To accomplish this rapid proliferation, they replicate DNA more than normal cells. Ionizing radiation and chemotherapy often (always?) target DNA. By damaging DNA or causing manufacture of defective DNA, they preferentially affect cells that are multiplying rapidly. Many of the side effects are due to destruction of tissues with high rates of multiplication such as bone marrow and gut.
an industrial extortionist.
The MIT Museum has an excellent display of Edgerton photographs. See it if you can.