Anyone can register a ".com" domain now, and the biggest companies simply buy them out. So it would be the same situation as before if there were no TLDs.
Why is their business model outdated? That people have found a way to circumvent it by committing a crime without being caught? Is the sale of videogames an outdated business model, too?
-overburn
Allow wodim to write more than the official size of a medium. This feature is usually
called overburning and depends on the fact that most blank media may hold more space than
the official size. As the official size of the lead-out area on the disk is 90 seconds
(6750 sectors) and a disk usually works if there are at least 150 sectors of lead out,
all media may be overburned by at least 88 seconds (6600 sectors). Most CD recorders
only do overburning in SAO or RAW mode. Known exceptions are TEAC CD-R50S, TEAC CD-R55S
and the Panasonic CW-7502. Some drives do not allow to overburn as much as you might
like and limit the size of a CD to e.g. 76 minutes. This problem may be circumvented by
writing the CD in RAW mode because this way the drive has no chance to find the size
before starting to burn. There is no guarantee that your drive supports overburning at
all. Make a test to check if your drive implements the feature.
I had a similar situation when I went traveling for a year. I created a message containing all my passwords and xor'ed it with 5 keys. Then set out each unique key to a person I trusted. Here is the code:
Myopia may be increasing, but it's not correlated with nearsightedness no longer being selected against. It's been thousands of years since people with poor eyesight were allowed to die, whereas myopia is increasing in the last few decades. [nih.gov]
That study you linked to did not compare myopia rates anytime before 1972! So, you're saying that thousands of years ago, people with extreme near sightedness not only survived, but were able to raise a family? Please.
Obesity too clearly correlates with dietary changes, not food suddenly being available.
I don't understand your point here. I'm saying that obesity could be partially explained by a genetic component. It's an example of recessive genomes that is quickly growing in it's expression in the population.
I know this is hardly proof, but it does lead to the possibility that this group is like this because they do lack a certain amount of self control, same as their parents and grandparents. That reckless abandon in thought is the new diabetes, the new extremely near sightedness. And this will soon grow out of control, not in 1000 years, but more like 50.
Now that is pretty clearly one of those 90% of statistics that were made up on the spot. What, if anything, do you base that on? Gut feeling?
It was a hypothesis.
As I said, genetic change doesn't just suddenly happen in large populations, because it gets diluted out. Getting back to the original topic, this fast breeders business would be dilluted out as well.
And as I said, the evidence of that only applies when the environment isn't rapidly changing. Diabetes, myopia, they aren't advantageous. Fast breeding is. And as I also said, these aren't novel genetic changes, but recessive characteristics that are increasingly being expressed in the population. How is dilution going to apply here?
Of all the possible things to point to and say the sky is falling, I think you've chosen one of the more ridiculous. Worry about the economy and climate change before you worry about people with an uncontrollable urge to have ten babies overtaking the earth since, again, the economy and climate change have the potential to affect you during your natural life.
I don't think the sky is falling. The world is changing. Overpopulation isn't a doomsday scenario... I just think it's likely and thought it was interesting.
Population growth is slowing in developed countries.
Yea, you mentioned that. Yes, population growth is slowing right now, not stopped, not reversed, for the past 40 years. Here is a graph of population growth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg What is your point?
According to the widely held theory of punctuated equilibrium, most species change very little after a comparatively short period of transition. A new species of fish might spend 1,000 years changing, then will be set for the next 100,000 years. There are few conditions under which a species will evolve. Most evolution occurs with speciation events: one small group of fish is separated from the parent group for several generations, that small group evolves to slightly different conditions, and eventually is it's own species.
The problem here is that the environment the fish live in is also pretty much constant for that 100,000 year period, so I don't think it applies to us because our environment is rapidly changing. Our diversity is becoming greater, very quickly. If you don't believe that, ask yourself how many severely near sighted people successfully found a mate and 300 years ago compared to today. How about those with diabetes?
These genetic configurations that were sub-optimal in the past and basically lied dormant due to being recessive are now much more prevalent, because they no longer matter to the survival of offspring. I believe that a tendency to reproduce at a young age and frequently is one of them. In today's society that would be a net gain in the survivability of a bloodline, so if it exists, it would rear its head rather quickly.
Look at all the fat people in America, seemingly unable to resist their urge to consume mass quantities of cheap junk food. You could explain it all away as due to culture, or just a natural human response. I know this is hardly proof, but it does lead to the possibility that this group is like this because they do lack a certain amount of self control, same as their parents and grandparents. That reckless abandon in thought is the new diabetes, the new extremely near sightedness. And this will soon grow out of control, not in 1000 years, but more like 50.
That's a big if. I am not aware of any evidence to indicate that such a group actually exists. Those groups that have surplus children tend to be adequately explained by economic factors.
Correlation does not imply causation. How can you prove that their surplus children (and the surplus children of their ancestors) are caused by their financial conditions rather than vice versa? It actually makes more sense that their financial conditions are due to their ancestors having too many children, limiting the families financial success. Since before modern farming techniques and the social safety net kept people alive, this group could have been effectively culled due to starvation or disease. This is no longer true.
All other species of life reproduce until unable to do so anymore due to the limits of the environment. Take a look at any foreign invader in a local environment. If they are able, they soon take over until they can no longer do so. I don't see why it's a forgone conclusion that some groups of humans will not also behave this way. If poor economic status is caused having too many children, then it no longer becomes a method of explaining away surplus children, but actually an indicator that such a group exists.
Looking at average population increase ignores the fact that people have varied strategies for continuing their bloodline. Some people will think about their quality of life, and realize that having kids won't improve it. These people will be weeded out in the genetic pool of future generations. But others won't, and now there is nothing stopping the offspring from a couple having eight kids all surviving until they are old enough to do the same.
A slight dip in the reproduction of the human species is not a trend I would rely on. Based on where we have come from, ie. the natural world, where whoever reproduces the most wins, and the fact that the game is now changed so that the more kids you have, the better chances of the survival of your genes, I can't believe that without some type of intervention, the number of human beings won't increase until there is absolutely no way the earth can support any more.
But reproduction rate is the point of genetics! It doesn't matter what the disincentives to having a child are, if the parent is driven by an uncontrollable instinctual drive to reproduce.
Birth rates falling right now, but that does not mean that it will always be so. The problem is that human beings change over time, just as any species does. Normally genetic change would take tens of thousands of years. However, I think that the current population has a set of people who already have an uncontrollable urge to reproduce, regardless of the consequences. As generations go by, the faster the growth rate of people with this characteristic will rise, until they become the dominant force of humanity.
So, we're left with aging Gen I and Gen II reactors and no newer, safer replacements being built.
By the fact there have been so many nuclear disasters in the past, the companies that run these aren't able/willing to do so safely. So, how can we expect any new model reactors to be safe if built and run by these same corporations?
How could the genetic push be a wash if the breeders are breeding and the non-breeders are not? There will always be more breeders produced in each coming generation then non-breeders. Since there isn't anything culling them out, like in the old days where everyone would starve to death if it got too crowded, there really isn't anything stopping them.
Their position is equivalent to a pathological hatred of newer cars, complete with those new-fangled seatbelts and airbags.
No, it isn't. It's like a fear of all cars because people are often hurt and killed by cars. Except, instead of confiscating the cars in existence already, they are allowed to remain in use until they succumb to their own deterioration.
In case of nuclear power, leaving the old reactors in use can result in catastrophic failure. But it seems that we can't have it both ways, can we? If leaving the nuclear reactor in use is risky, and the companies in charge of them still do, and do so knowingly, then what assurance can we have that these same companies won't cut corners when produce new modern reactors, resulting in similar or other disasters?
There's no reason you couldn't transmit data from the human subject to a remote humanoid robot on the battlefield. If this method allowed enough coordination in movement, the robot could easily surpass the ability of a traditional human soldier.
Hold on there... that's for the judge to decide in a courtroom, in the game of justice. Much like the game of chicken, the only way to win is to go full speed ahead and hope the other side runs out of money first. It takes money to play the game right, and come out on top.
A change in emotions expressed online would be followed between two and six days later by a move in the index, the researchers said, and this information let them predict its movements with 87.6 percent accuracy
So they make a prediction and then wait for up to 6 days for the market to go the way they predicted, and they only ran it for a month. Seems like random fluctuation to me.
Thank you for your application to the Management Program. Unfortunately, you have not met the admission requirements. Your grade point average of 3.42 is slightly above the 3.33 required. You did not earn the required grade in ECON 1010. As a result, your application has been made ineligible. You may take the alternate course ECON 1600. You have two attempts to pass the required economic preadmission course. Failing to obtain a B on the second attempt will permanently bar you from admission to our ALM in Management Program.
If you decide to continue your studies with us it will not be easy.You are required to maintain your cumulative GPA at 3.33 or higher. It is important to note that any grade below B+ will push you even further away from degree program admission. Please by mindful that all program grades count toward your cumulative GPA, including required repeat courses.
Earning your graduate degree and moving ahead with your professional plans is of paramount importance. Our program may be an obstacle to this goal. Your valuable time and money might be better spent at another institution. You may even be eligible to transfer credits earned and begin again with a new GPA.
We hope you accept this message in the spirit that it was intended, to support your degree completion plans. If you have questions regarding this information, you may call our office at **********.
Best wishes for future academic success.
Regards, Donna *****
What asshats.. I told them the email was misdirected and didn't get a response either.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone can register a ".com" domain now, and the biggest companies simply buy them out. So it would be the same situation as before if there were no TLDs.
Non-commercial duplication for personal use is permitted.
Err, what? I don't think so...
Why is their business model outdated? That people have found a way to circumvent it by committing a crime without being caught?
Is the sale of videogames an outdated business model, too?
From cdrecord man page:
-overburn
Allow wodim to write more than the official size of a medium. This feature is usually
called overburning and depends on the fact that most blank media may hold more space than
the official size. As the official size of the lead-out area on the disk is 90 seconds
(6750 sectors) and a disk usually works if there are at least 150 sectors of lead out,
all media may be overburned by at least 88 seconds (6600 sectors). Most CD recorders
only do overburning in SAO or RAW mode. Known exceptions are TEAC CD-R50S, TEAC CD-R55S
and the Panasonic CW-7502. Some drives do not allow to overburn as much as you might
like and limit the size of a CD to e.g. 76 minutes. This problem may be circumvented by
writing the CD in RAW mode because this way the drive has no chance to find the size
before starting to burn. There is no guarantee that your drive supports overburning at
all. Make a test to check if your drive implements the feature.
I had a similar situation when I went traveling for a year. I created a message containing all my passwords and xor'ed it with 5 keys. Then set out each unique key to a person I trusted. Here is the code:
http://pastebin.com/8vtdGeBS
Myopia may be increasing, but it's not correlated with nearsightedness no longer being selected against. It's been thousands of years since people with poor eyesight were allowed to die, whereas myopia is increasing in the last few decades. [nih.gov]
That study you linked to did not compare myopia rates anytime before 1972! So, you're saying that thousands of years ago, people with extreme near sightedness not only survived, but were able to raise a family? Please.
Obesity too clearly correlates with dietary changes, not food suddenly being available.
I don't understand your point here. I'm saying that obesity could be partially explained by a genetic component. It's an example of recessive genomes that is quickly growing in it's expression in the population.
I know this is hardly proof, but it does lead to the possibility that this group is like this because they do lack a certain amount of self control, same as their parents and grandparents. That reckless abandon in thought is the new diabetes, the new extremely near sightedness. And this will soon grow out of control, not in 1000 years, but more like 50.
Now that is pretty clearly one of those 90% of statistics that were made up on the spot. What, if anything, do you base that on? Gut feeling?
It was a hypothesis.
As I said, genetic change doesn't just suddenly happen in large populations, because it gets diluted out. Getting back to the original topic, this fast breeders business would be dilluted out as well.
And as I said, the evidence of that only applies when the environment isn't rapidly changing. Diabetes, myopia, they aren't advantageous. Fast breeding is. And as I also said, these aren't novel genetic changes, but recessive characteristics that are increasingly being expressed in the population. How is dilution going to apply here?
Of all the possible things to point to and say the sky is falling, I think you've chosen one of the more ridiculous. Worry about the economy and climate change before you worry about people with an uncontrollable urge to have ten babies overtaking the earth since, again, the economy and climate change have the potential to affect you during your natural life.
I don't think the sky is falling. The world is changing. Overpopulation isn't a doomsday scenario... I just think it's likely and thought it was interesting.
Population growth is slowing in developed countries.
Yea, you mentioned that. Yes, population growth is slowing right now, not stopped, not reversed, for the past 40 years. Here is a graph of population growth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg What is your point?
According to the widely held theory of punctuated equilibrium, most species change very little after a comparatively short period of transition. A new species of fish might spend 1,000 years changing, then will be set for the next 100,000 years. There are few conditions under which a species will evolve. Most evolution occurs with speciation events: one small group of fish is separated from the parent group for several generations, that small group evolves to slightly different conditions, and eventually is it's own species.
The problem here is that the environment the fish live in is also pretty much constant for that 100,000 year period, so I don't think it applies to us because our environment is rapidly changing. Our diversity is becoming greater, very quickly. If you don't believe that, ask yourself how many severely near sighted people successfully found a mate and 300 years ago compared to today. How about those with diabetes?
These genetic configurations that were sub-optimal in the past and basically lied dormant due to being recessive are now much more prevalent, because they no longer matter to the survival of offspring. I believe that a tendency to reproduce at a young age and frequently is one of them. In today's society that would be a net gain in the survivability of a bloodline, so if it exists, it would rear its head rather quickly.
Look at all the fat people in America, seemingly unable to resist their urge to consume mass quantities of cheap junk food. You could explain it all away as due to culture, or just a natural human response. I know this is hardly proof, but it does lead to the possibility that this group is like this because they do lack a certain amount of self control, same as their parents and grandparents. That reckless abandon in thought is the new diabetes, the new extremely near sightedness. And this will soon grow out of control, not in 1000 years, but more like 50.
That's a big if. I am not aware of any evidence to indicate that such a group actually exists. Those groups that have surplus children tend to be adequately explained by economic factors.
Correlation does not imply causation. How can you prove that their surplus children (and the surplus children of their ancestors) are caused by their financial conditions rather than vice versa? It actually makes more sense that their financial conditions are due to their ancestors having too many children, limiting the families financial success. Since before modern farming techniques and the social safety net kept people alive, this group could have been effectively culled due to starvation or disease. This is no longer true.
All other species of life reproduce until unable to do so anymore due to the limits of the environment. Take a look at any foreign invader in a local environment. If they are able, they soon take over until they can no longer do so. I don't see why it's a forgone conclusion that some groups of humans will not also behave this way. If poor economic status is caused having too many children, then it no longer becomes a method of explaining away surplus children, but actually an indicator that such a group exists.
Looking at average population increase ignores the fact that people have varied strategies for continuing their bloodline. Some people will think about their quality of life, and realize that having kids won't improve it. These people will be weeded out in the genetic pool of future generations. But others won't, and now there is nothing stopping the offspring from a couple having eight kids all surviving until they are old enough to do the same.
A slight dip in the reproduction of the human species is not a trend I would rely on. Based on where we have come from, ie. the natural world, where whoever reproduces the most wins, and the fact that the game is now changed so that the more kids you have, the better chances of the survival of your genes, I can't believe that without some type of intervention, the number of human beings won't increase until there is absolutely no way the earth can support any more.
But reproduction rate is the point of genetics! It doesn't matter what the disincentives to having a child are, if the parent is driven by an uncontrollable instinctual drive to reproduce.
Birth rates falling right now, but that does not mean that it will always be so. The problem is that human beings change over time, just as any species does. Normally genetic change would take tens of thousands of years. However, I think that the current population has a set of people who already have an uncontrollable urge to reproduce, regardless of the consequences. As generations go by, the faster the growth rate of people with this characteristic will rise, until they become the dominant force of humanity.
So, we're left with aging Gen I and Gen II reactors and no newer, safer replacements being built.
By the fact there have been so many nuclear disasters in the past, the companies that run these aren't able/willing to do so safely. So, how can we expect any new model reactors to be safe if built and run by these same corporations?
How could the genetic push be a wash if the breeders are breeding and the non-breeders are not? There will always be more breeders produced in each coming generation then non-breeders. Since there isn't anything culling them out, like in the old days where everyone would starve to death if it got too crowded, there really isn't anything stopping them.
Their position is equivalent to a pathological hatred of newer cars, complete with those new-fangled seatbelts and airbags.
No, it isn't. It's like a fear of all cars because people are often hurt and killed by cars. Except, instead of confiscating the cars in existence already, they are allowed to remain in use until they succumb to their own deterioration.
In case of nuclear power, leaving the old reactors in use can result in catastrophic failure. But it seems that we can't have it both ways, can we? If leaving the nuclear reactor in use is risky, and the companies in charge of them still do, and do so knowingly, then what assurance can we have that these same companies won't cut corners when produce new modern reactors, resulting in similar or other disasters?
Too late... even slashdot can't compete with the gossip junkies in studiously wasting their free time in pointless activities:
http://theblemish.com/2011/10/actress-suing-imdb-revealed/
(Yes, I know this makes me look like the kettle calling the pot black...)
I can't trust purchase advice from somebody who owns a segway.
There's no reason you couldn't transmit data from the human subject to a remote humanoid robot on the battlefield. If this method allowed enough coordination in movement, the robot could easily surpass the ability of a traditional human soldier.
Hold on there... that's for the judge to decide in a courtroom, in the game of justice. Much like the game of chicken, the only way to win is to go full speed ahead and hope the other side runs out of money first. It takes money to play the game right, and come out on top.
The lead scientist has already found Yeti. They live on Carter Farm in Tennessee. See his published article:
http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Burtsev2.htm
There are a lot of drugs for HIV suppression, too. So why wouldn't HIV also be "too profitable" to develop a vaccine for?
This looks kind of cool and cheap: http://www.noah.org/science/x-ray/detector/
A change in emotions expressed online would be followed between two and six days later by a move in the index, the researchers said, and this information let them predict its movements with 87.6 percent accuracy
So they make a prediction and then wait for up to 6 days for the market to go the way they predicted, and they only ran it for a month. Seems like random fluctuation to me.
You can't close a "limited" account, and in some cases it's impossible to get an account out of "limited" status.
I award you with a GOLD STAR! Excellent point, sir! Now can I have that diamond sticking out of your ass..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itn8TwFCO4M
From Harvard
Dear Emily,
Thank you for your application to the Management Program. Unfortunately,
you have not met the admission requirements. Your grade point average of
3.42 is slightly above the 3.33 required. You did not earn the required
grade in ECON 1010. As a result, your application has been made
ineligible. You may take the alternate course ECON 1600. You have two
attempts to pass the required economic preadmission course. Failing to
obtain a B on the second attempt will permanently bar you from admission
to our ALM in Management Program.
If you decide to continue your studies with us it will not be easy.You
are required to maintain your cumulative GPA at 3.33 or higher. It is
important to note that any grade below B+ will push you even further away
from degree program admission. Please by mindful that all program grades
count toward your cumulative GPA, including required repeat courses.
Earning your graduate degree and moving ahead with your professional plans
is of paramount importance. Our program may be an obstacle to this goal.
Your valuable time and money might be better spent at another institution.
You may even be eligible to transfer credits earned and begin again with a
new GPA.
We hope you accept this message in the spirit that it was intended, to
support your degree completion plans. If you have questions regarding this
information, you may call our office at **********.
Best wishes for future academic success.
Regards,
Donna *****
What asshats.. I told them the email was misdirected and didn't get a response either.
I think the Cookie Monster did it.. it makes sense, right?