It might be good to distinguish between trying to breed humans towards a certain form, and attempting to prevent a particularly troublesome genetic trait from being passed on. Is it eugenics for a government to subsidize a genetic counseling service that would allow people to know if they are about to marry someone else with the same recessive gene? Does it matter if the gene is thought to be beneficial or harmful, or if the harm is "kid likely to have 5 points lower IQ" versus "kid likely to die very early because he needs a working copy of the gene to make an enzyme his body can't do without"?
Too bad it isn't true of aging. IIRC women's longer lifespan equates to about a one-half chance of dying from all causes at about any age, with the chance of dying from all causes an exponential curve.
Yes, but I did not want to use that linked term, due to consideration of the debatable connotations. I was trying to note that checking the sinister side of the curve carefully was needed to know for sure if the whole curve indicated higher average IQ for men, or for women - underestimating the width of the male curve could have that effect.
Not that it kept me from getting a 50% "Troll" rating so far... sigh.
These things still have their uses, like when the colocation center monitor is missing one pin on the VGA connector and another color's amplifier (yesterday).
Or when the brand new server that arrived is peachy and fast except that the onboard video chip has bad RAM and displays indelible blue bars of "o"s across the middle of the frame buffer in all modes (tonight). Serial cable time!
My old 486 came with Windows 3.1, and I went to Procomm Plus on it. IIRC my BBS software ran under DOS, though, pretty much a requirement if one was going to talk to multiple modems and keep up download rates. Windows 3.1 communication rates were abysmal.
Then I bought a copy of Chameleon to provide myself with TCP/IP, and I discovered something called the "Internet". You could do cool things like "telnet" to remote computers and "FTP" to and from places. I downloaded a bunch of floppy images of something called "Slackware", with Linux Kernel 0.99.somethingorother, which turned out to have a really cool startup screen where I could actually see things happening. There was an "X Windows" system, too...
Ultimately, I had to buy a second computer, so both could be run at once. Something called "Mosaic" went onto the Linux box, and I ended up using the Windows system with the new version of Chameleon I upgraded to and the "Xoftware" X Server included to display XTerms and other X clients remotely.
This has continued to the present day, because in all experience since then, Linux graphics performance has remained (relatively) abysmal compared to what Microsoft offers in otherwise largely sucky OSes.
I would think that simply spraying the condensation from the A/C onto the condenser, as done in home window units, would add a useful bit of energy efficiency. Maybe even assist the radiator.
I always wondered what a few million big wind power generators positioned right would do for weather control. Suck enough energy out of the atmosphere with them, and you could simulate having at least a small mountain range where needed to tip out some rain.
Just to add that I suspect that it is more a case of the USA slipping back behind a few other relatively prosperous parts of the world and back towards conditions now rife in third-world countries.
Right - the point is that you start a conversation and hopefully arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Like how about I pitch in some and another neighbor pitches in some, and we all get more bandwidth than any of us would have had individually.
Heh - actually, it was a pecan tree. And when I pointed out that the only reason the pecans remained on my side to pick up was my dog roving free in the yard, a board was removed to let her roam in both yards, and ultimately I received an additional bag of pecans as a gift, the harvest from other nonoverhanging trees having greatly increased too.
Was a satisfying conclusion for all, except for the multitude of thoroughly PO'ed squirrels.
What disturbs me is the creeping nature of the expected precautions.
Being irritated at victims who left the car running, becomes "left the keys inside" becomes "left the door unlocked" is likely to become "didn't have an alarm system installed" when that becomes necessary for most people, then one will be expected to be carrying a pager to notify them their car is being stolen due to everyone ignoring the constant alarms, or not be taken seriously by the police. I don't want to end up with it being nearly illegal not to take martial arts courses.
Let's not start acting like it is a bad thing to get annoyed or frustrated with being a victim of crime either, shall we? Unfortunately, I've been aware for years that that many of America's human units have only come under the impression that they are entitled to take anything they find that is not nailed down, but also that it isn't nailed down if they can pry it loose.
If you get annoyed because a person is so unused to this happening in his own country that he fails to take USA-style security precautions -- that would have been unnecessary a few decades ago -- this says something nice about the general moral fiber of his country, and something not so nice about ours.
If the WiFi is broadcasting into my home, it is reducing my ability to use the bandwidth myself, secured or not.
And if the neighbor says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", my response would be "Okay. Don't forget to rake up the leaves that fall on my side this autumn too then".
About 20 years ago I watched as my company's automotive-lower-bodyside protection (vinyl) spraying robot finished its job of applying to an automobile on the assembly line for the first time, and turned back to its "home" position without turning off the vinyl spray. It in the process turned a watching GM executive's very expensive suit into an instant raincoat.
Luckily GM had retained the job of building the spray controller to themselves, and it was their malfunction. The executive was heard to complain as he left that he wasn't even supposed to have been there.
It is impossible for you to go back to any time before now to place yourself into your memory, and it will remain impossible in the future for you to go back in time and change what you remember.
Any time after now, though, the future "you" may appear in your presence, to have that conversation. This will not only show that it is possible, it will assure that in the future you will be coming back to have that conversation. If it affects you in any way to prevent it, the person who came back will not exist in the future, at least to meet yourself thusly.
Ah, but the Universe would know. There is no way that you would be able to shield gravitational influence, for example, and given the chaotic nature of reality I have no doubt that this would eventually change the weather, thus history, et cetra.
We seem to be a timeline where no time travelers have yet arrived, at least openly or in a way that could be detected. This would seem to weigh heavily against the "create a new reality" option.
I remain open to the possibility time travelers may yet appear. I would not mind them changing the future per se, but I would:
1. Immediately attempt to destroy any time travel technology they were carrying, to assure that they will not travel further back in time and directly or indirectly delete me from ever having existed, other than as any retained memories in their heads. I would strive mightily not to kill them in this process, as it would prevent:
2. I, and all others I can persuade, would immediately after strongly suggest, beg, plead, bribe, cajole, or argue that they - and/or force them to - do all they could to prevent the invention and successful use of time travel in this new reality they are making. I would assume that they would agree, as otherwise someone else could in the future, use the technology to delete them from having ever existed.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be good to distinguish between trying to breed humans towards a certain form, and attempting to prevent a particularly troublesome genetic trait from being passed on. Is it eugenics for a government to subsidize a genetic counseling service that would allow people to know if they are about to marry someone else with the same recessive gene? Does it matter if the gene is thought to be beneficial or harmful, or if the harm is "kid likely to have 5 points lower IQ" versus "kid likely to die very early because he needs a working copy of the gene to make an enzyme his body can't do without"?
Too bad it isn't true of aging. IIRC women's longer lifespan equates to about a one-half chance of dying from all causes at about any age, with the chance of dying from all causes an exponential curve.
Yes, but I did not want to use that linked term, due to consideration of the debatable connotations. I was trying to note that checking the sinister side of the curve carefully was needed to know for sure if the whole curve indicated higher average IQ for men, or for women - underestimating the width of the male curve could have that effect.
Not that it kept me from getting a 50% "Troll" rating so far... sigh.
I just wonder if they checked at the lower levels of IQ too - in my experience, some of the most obvious dullards I know are male.
Maybe more women are simply "normal"?
You use the 1kw to power a lot of fans.
You will have to, you see.
These things still have their uses, like when the colocation center monitor is missing one pin on the VGA connector and another color's amplifier (yesterday).
Or when the brand new server that arrived is peachy and fast except that the onboard video chip has bad RAM and displays indelible blue bars of "o"s across the middle of the frame buffer in all modes (tonight). Serial cable time!
My old 486 came with Windows 3.1, and I went to Procomm Plus on it. IIRC my BBS software ran under DOS, though, pretty much a requirement if one was going to talk to multiple modems and keep up download rates. Windows 3.1 communication rates were abysmal.
Then I bought a copy of Chameleon to provide myself with TCP/IP, and I discovered something called the "Internet". You could do cool things like "telnet" to remote computers and "FTP" to and from places. I downloaded a bunch of floppy images of something called "Slackware", with Linux Kernel 0.99.somethingorother, which turned out to have a really cool startup screen where I could actually see things happening. There was an "X Windows" system, too...
Ultimately, I had to buy a second computer, so both could be run at once. Something called "Mosaic" went onto the Linux box, and I ended up using the Windows system with the new version of Chameleon I upgraded to and the "Xoftware" X Server included to display XTerms and other X clients remotely.
This has continued to the present day, because in all experience since then, Linux graphics performance has remained (relatively) abysmal compared to what Microsoft offers in otherwise largely sucky OSes.
A lot cheaper to light the individual room(s) being used at any particular moment, because of energy costs.
Okay, our traditional liberty as Americans patriots to assemble for the purposes of riot and pillage is in the process of being eviscerated.
I would think that simply spraying the condensation from the A/C onto the condenser, as done in home window units, would add a useful bit of energy efficiency. Maybe even assist the radiator.
I always wondered what a few million big wind power generators positioned right would do for weather control. Suck enough energy out of the atmosphere with them, and you could simulate having at least a small mountain range where needed to tip out some rain.
Just to add that I suspect that it is more a case of the USA slipping back behind a few other relatively prosperous parts of the world and back towards conditions now rife in third-world countries.
The romance of the canals... or is it the fjords?
Right - the point is that you start a conversation and hopefully arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Like how about I pitch in some and another neighbor pitches in some, and we all get more bandwidth than any of us would have had individually.
Heh - actually, it was a pecan tree. And when I pointed out that the only reason the pecans remained on my side to pick up was my dog roving free in the yard, a board was removed to let her roam in both yards, and ultimately I received an additional bag of pecans as a gift, the harvest from other nonoverhanging trees having greatly increased too.
Was a satisfying conclusion for all, except for the multitude of thoroughly PO'ed squirrels.
What disturbs me is the creeping nature of the expected precautions.
Being irritated at victims who left the car running, becomes "left the keys inside" becomes "left the door unlocked" is likely to become "didn't have an alarm system installed" when that becomes necessary for most people, then one will be expected to be carrying a pager to notify them their car is being stolen due to everyone ignoring the constant alarms, or not be taken seriously by the police. I don't want to end up with it being nearly illegal not to take martial arts courses.
Let's not start acting like it is a bad thing to get annoyed or frustrated with being a victim of crime either, shall we? Unfortunately, I've been aware for years that that many of America's human units have only come under the impression that they are entitled to take anything they find that is not nailed down, but also that it isn't nailed down if they can pry it loose.
If you get annoyed because a person is so unused to this happening in his own country that he fails to take USA-style security precautions -- that would have been unnecessary a few decades ago -- this says something nice about the general moral fiber of his country, and something not so nice about ours.
If the WiFi is broadcasting into my home, it is reducing my ability to use the bandwidth myself, secured or not.
And if the neighbor says "hey, those apples are mine - please let me come over and gather them up", my response would be "Okay. Don't forget to rake up the leaves that fall on my side this autumn too then".
Considering how much money and noise the guy could have saved buying a tower with 120mm fans, I'd have to agree.
Some people would put up with the noise for having it pretty, I guess.
"Do you understand the mechanism?" "Yes, Doctor Morbius, a simple blaster".
The big point defense beams that outlined the Monster From the Doc's Id.
Hey, even the force-field fence that initially revealed it...
I understand that there are legal ramifications. Are these moderators Yahoo employees, owed pay, etc... possibly to sue down the line for back pay?
Which is rather silly, when you note:
0.22lb / (2.2 lb/kg)=0.1kg
They could just redue the size of the patty slightly, and call it the Decikilogrammer.
Ah, but the dolphins lack a whole layer of cortex, which reduces the data processing capability considerably.
About 20 years ago I watched as my company's automotive-lower-bodyside protection (vinyl) spraying robot finished its job of applying to an automobile on the assembly line for the first time, and turned back to its "home" position without turning off the vinyl spray. It in the process turned a watching GM executive's very expensive suit into an instant raincoat.
Luckily GM had retained the job of building the spray controller to themselves, and it was their malfunction. The executive was heard to complain as he left that he wasn't even supposed to have been there.
It is impossible for you to go back to any time before now to place yourself into your memory, and it will remain impossible in the future for you to go back in time and change what you remember.
Any time after now, though, the future "you" may appear in your presence, to have that conversation. This will not only show that it is possible, it will assure that in the future you will be coming back to have that conversation. If it affects you in any way to prevent it, the person who came back will not exist in the future, at least to meet yourself thusly.
This limits the topics of conversation, probably.
Ah, but the Universe would know. There is no way that you would be able to shield gravitational influence, for example, and given the chaotic nature of reality I have no doubt that this would eventually change the weather, thus history, et cetra.
We seem to be a timeline where no time travelers have yet arrived, at least openly or in a way that could be detected. This would seem to weigh heavily against the "create a new reality" option.
I remain open to the possibility time travelers may yet appear. I would not mind them changing the future per se, but I would:
1. Immediately attempt to destroy any time travel technology they were carrying, to assure that they will not travel further back in time and directly or indirectly delete me from ever having existed, other than as any retained memories in their heads. I would strive mightily not to kill them in this process, as it would prevent:
2. I, and all others I can persuade, would immediately after strongly suggest, beg, plead, bribe, cajole, or argue that they - and/or force them to - do all they could to prevent the invention and successful use of time travel in this new reality they are making. I would assume that they would agree, as otherwise someone else could in the future, use the technology to delete them from having ever existed.