Would you like it if both your parents were male, and incubated in a surrogate womb for hire?
Would you like it if all your friends knew that? Because by the time they are teenagers, that kind of information will be freely available by doing the equivalent of a "Google".
Would you like it if you were conceived in a test tube then artificially implanted into your mother's womb? The subject of international news at birth, so even pre-WWW, your friends almost certainly knew the basic outline? Because it didn't seem to bother Louise Joy Brown. Probably was a lot better for her than not having been born at all...
Erm. It's quite the commonly-known fact that solely female mitochondria get inherited in humans. In fact, a single case of a human male having inherited paternal mDNA is known to science. He is sterile.
There's a lot of sampling bias there. His paternal mDNA was discovered only because it was defective. It's quite possible there are a large number (though small percentage) of people carrying paternal mDNA who are never discovered because there's no reason to look.
A civilized society benefits all. All should benefit from living in a society.
But apparently you believe that the "benefit" to the rich man should be that the poor man doesn't steal his stuff, whereas the benefit to the poor man is that he gets some of the rich man's stuff. Not really civilized, IMO.
There is a trend here - as time passes, the ratio of (useless) carbon atoms to (combustible) hydrogen atoms decreases.
Carbon is combustible, 2C + O2 = 2CO, then 2CO + O2 = 2CO2. Both reactions are exothermic. I think the reaction can occur directly as well, C + O2 = CO2.
It is also easily forgotten that increased temperatures doesn't just mean more evaporation from oceans, but also from lands. Bigger floods and drier droughts is not exactly conducive to agriculture as both will kill crops.
The Earth has, in the past, been much warmer and much more conducive to plant life. The implicit assumption that the current (or pre-industrial, for that matter) global temperature is ideal is unproven.
but at the same time, the meteorological institute is reporting that 2010 has been one of the warmest years ever - depending on what December does it may even become THE warmest.
Which will be screamed in the headlines until someone realizes there was some major error in the data and actually some year in the 1930s was warmer. Then a tiny correction will be printed which the skeptics will crow about and the warmists will say means nothing.
tl;dr; Wolf, Wolf!
Re:That's one heck of a "long goodbye"
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 1
See, this is where my conspiracy theories kick in. It's actually a good business model if you make a monitor that only lasts 2-3 years opposed to one that lasts decades.
I have a decade-old LCD and recently got rid of my last decade-old CRT monitor (still have a CRT TV that old). Neither one remains a quality display after a decade of use; the CRT gets dimmer and turning it up to compensate makes the image lousier, and the CCF-backlit LCD backlight gets dimmer as well. I'd expect an LED-backlit LCD to last longer than either one.
You can easily get caught on things you didn't do. Not having done them is a useful defense, but these days the accusation is as damaging as the conviction. Just ask anyone wrongfully accused of sexual harrassment or child abuse.
You can not only be "caught" for things you didn't do, you can be accused of things which aren't wrong. And not only is the accusation damaging, any attempt at defending yourself just makes you look guilty.
Now, please, give me the list of "common mistakes" made by surgeons and aircraft engineers, and compare them with this list of amateurish crap.
I can come up with three for surgeons off the top of my head. Add the whole surgical team and you'll get more.
#1 Leaving stuff inside the patient that shouldn't be left in there #2 Operating on the wrong body part #3 Operating on the wrong patient
I don't know about aircraft engineers, but clearly they do make big mistakes, as Boeing has had to rework parts of its 787, and various corrections to engineering flaws have had to be made to planes after they were put into service.
Their main motivation was that they were seeking notoriety, peer recognition, peer esteem, some sort of feeling of getting one over on the system. It was a much richer tapestry of different things contributing to the decision to go ahead and make the content available
While I think "sticking it to The Man" is a fine motivation, particularly when The Man is Jack Valenti's zombie, I don't think it's what most people describe as altruism.
The vuvuzela noise isn't a copy-protection technique. It's just that the South African version of the game was the first to be cracked; it's in the legit.za copies as well.
I have T-mobile prepaid. Fewer dropped calls because more often you can't place the call because there's no service at all. On the good side, it's cheap.
Yes, but prior to 9/11, how plausible would it have struck you that a group of Islamic Extremists could hijack four commercial airliners and perform kamikaze attacks with them?
I read _Debt of Honor_, so not all that unlikely.
the question you have to ask yourself is that if it only takes one package that is actually filled with explosives to kill a bunch of people shouldn't additional security measures be taken to help deter that outcome, however unlikely it may actually be, from happening?
"However unlikely?" No.
Don't get me wrong here, I think there are lines about civil liberties versus security that need to be drawn, but I think profiling people is a lot more potentially dangerous to civil liberties than going through a body scanner or pat down, so if I think if there is a line to be drawn on civil rights that's where it should be placed, not here just because people are trying to use this issue as an excuse to mask concerns they might have with themselves regarding body image issues.
Once you've dismissed physical frisking and virtual strip searches (without probable cause) as simply body image issues, you've already thrown the civil liberties concerns right out the window.
It used to be that there were three different tests for determining whether some government action that, on the face of it, appeared to violate one's rights, was nevertheless permissable. There was the "rational basis" test, which allowed the government to perform the rights violation if it could show there was some rational basis for doing so. There was the "strict scrutiny" test which insisted the government have some compelling interest in doing whatever the law was doing, and that there be no better way to do it. This was applied to certain rights considered particularly fundamental, like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. And there was the "heightened scrutiny" test somewhere in between, which tended to show up in equal protection cases.
Now we have the "irrational basis" test, replacing all three, which says that if the government can come up with any scenario where allowing their violation might be good, or any scenario where protecting the right implicated might cause harm, no matter how implausible and farfetched, the government's action is allowed.
Personally I find strict scrutiny to be insufficiently strict, and prefer the "rights are rights" test, but I'm one of those wild-eyed radicals.
Slashdot Mirror
...it's called New Jersey.
Monstrous human fetuses happen anyway. Reproduction's a bitch.
Would you like it if you were conceived in a test tube then artificially implanted into your mother's womb? The subject of international news at birth, so even pre-WWW, your friends almost certainly knew the basic outline? Because it didn't seem to bother Louise Joy Brown. Probably was a lot better for her than not having been born at all...
There's a lot of sampling bias there. His paternal mDNA was discovered only because it was defective. It's quite possible there are a large number (though small percentage) of people carrying paternal mDNA who are never discovered because there's no reason to look.
Morally, ethically, and legally sound, yet completely ineffective.
All your data are belong to us!
Just as accurate, easier to understand, and shorter.
But apparently you believe that the "benefit" to the rich man should be that the poor man doesn't steal his stuff, whereas the benefit to the poor man is that he gets some of the rich man's stuff. Not really civilized, IMO.
Since when has a donation (as opposed to a fine) been measured, not by the benefit it gives to its recipients, but by the harm it does to its donors?
In non-recourse states, it's easy; default on the mortgage and let the bank foreclose. Actually, you'll lose your entire fortune that way.
Carbon is combustible, 2C + O2 = 2CO, then 2CO + O2 = 2CO2. Both reactions are exothermic. I think the reaction can occur directly as well, C + O2 = CO2.
The Earth has, in the past, been much warmer and much more conducive to plant life. The implicit assumption that the current (or pre-industrial, for that matter) global temperature is ideal is unproven.
As with the Little Ice Age, the official dogma is it didn't happen, and if it did it was just a few warm years in Europe and not a global effect.
Which will be screamed in the headlines until someone realizes there was some major error in the data and actually some year in the 1930s was warmer. Then a tiny correction will be printed which the skeptics will crow about and the warmists will say means nothing.
tl;dr; Wolf, Wolf!
I have a decade-old LCD and recently got rid of my last decade-old CRT monitor (still have a CRT TV that old). Neither one remains a quality display after a decade of use; the CRT gets dimmer and turning it up to compensate makes the image lousier, and the CCF-backlit LCD backlight gets dimmer as well. I'd expect an LED-backlit LCD to last longer than either one.
Has it ever been forbidden to offer metered internet?
You can not only be "caught" for things you didn't do, you can be accused of things which aren't wrong. And not only is the accusation damaging, any attempt at defending yourself just makes you look guilty.
Space Sharks! With fricking Space Lasers!
I can come up with three for surgeons off the top of my head. Add the whole surgical team and you'll get more.
#1 Leaving stuff inside the patient that shouldn't be left in there
#2 Operating on the wrong body part
#3 Operating on the wrong patient
I don't know about aircraft engineers, but clearly they do make big mistakes, as Boeing has had to rework parts of its 787, and various corrections to engineering flaws have had to be made to planes after they were put into service.
No fair; that shows that all the tips cancel out except #3 and #4 (which partially cancel), leaving us with almost nothing.
While I think "sticking it to The Man" is a fine motivation, particularly when The Man is Jack Valenti's zombie, I don't think it's what most people describe as altruism.
The vuvuzela noise isn't a copy-protection technique. It's just that the South African version of the game was the first to be cracked; it's in the legit .za copies as well.
I have T-mobile prepaid. Fewer dropped calls because more often you can't place the call because there's no service at all. On the good side, it's cheap.
I read _Debt of Honor_, so not all that unlikely.
"However unlikely?" No.
Once you've dismissed physical frisking and virtual strip searches (without probable cause) as simply body image issues, you've already thrown the civil liberties concerns right out the window.
Sure, you have the right to travel... on foot.
The right to speak... with your unaided voice.
Freedom of the press -- the hand-cranked variety.
It used to be that there were three different tests for determining whether some government action that, on the face of it, appeared to violate one's rights, was nevertheless permissable. There was the "rational basis" test, which allowed the government to perform the rights violation if it could show there was some rational basis for doing so. There was the "strict scrutiny" test which insisted the government have some compelling interest in doing whatever the law was doing, and that there be no better way to do it. This was applied to certain rights considered particularly fundamental, like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. And there was the "heightened scrutiny" test somewhere in between, which tended to show up in equal protection cases.
Now we have the "irrational basis" test, replacing all three, which says that if the government can come up with any scenario where allowing their violation might be good, or any scenario where protecting the right implicated might cause harm, no matter how implausible and farfetched, the government's action is allowed.
Personally I find strict scrutiny to be insufficiently strict, and prefer the "rights are rights" test, but I'm one of those wild-eyed radicals.