Years later, this might just fix the crash that I always got about 98% of the way through the game, keeping me from ever finishing it and findoug out how it ends. If only I kept my friggin save game....
Unfortunately, such a system as you propose is not feasible, as properly classifying all creatures would require a complete analysis of all of their DNA. It's taken us years just to get ours done. And besides, as this research seems to show, DNA is just as similar (if not more so) than physical characteristics when comparing different species--such that a new system of classification based on DNA could be even more convoluted and ambiguous than the existing one.
If you understod what made up the 99.4%, you would ndersand what they are saying. look at a chimpanzee and a humna standing side by side. hoe different are they? not much. 2 eyes, nose 1 mouth, couple of years, arms legs, etc... a full grown human is bigger, but thats not much of a genetic changes. Internal, we're pretty damn similiar. heart lung etc.
Oddly enough, ALL mammals have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two ears, four appendages, and the same vital organs. All other vertebrates come pretty close to that (i.e. birds/reptiles have all the basics but not really a nose in the same sense as we do, and some organs are very different).
So by your reasoning, we could have 98-99.4% of DNA in common with every mammal and not much less with all other vertebrates...
Gotta agree there, middle-click tab opening is amazingly convenient... I just happend to stumble on it a few weeks ago when I was tweaking my prefs! Another thing I stumbled on is middle-clicking on a tab closes it, even if it's in the background! No more needing to right-click and slap the menu to open or close tabs anymore!
One second, we were watching Neo and the other dude on the table, and then all of a sudden the movie abruptly said "To be continued", and went straight switched to the credits!
Where's the conclusion? I'm out here hanging in the wind! Half the audience was booing...
** WARNING! SPOILERS! WARNING! SPOILERS! **
That's known as a "blatant cliffhanger"... and I have to agree it really sucks that they do that, any movie should wrap things up and start a new part of the plot in the next movie, instead of just cutting it off in the middle like that.
Overall I thought that the movie was really slow to get started... Some of the scenes seemed really drawn out and nothing important really happened. Then, when it was starting to get really good with some plot twists, it was suddenly over.
Bank notes issued by the Bank of England will always be acepted by the Bank of England, even if they're 400 years old.
However, only a fool would cash in a 400 year-old note, as I'm sure it would be worth significantly more than that to a collector if it was still in good enough contidion to cash in.
The easiest way is to look at the number in the corner.
So very true. I dont know why foreginers compain so much--as a literate American, I have no trouble at all distinguishing between bills by number or even by the look of the design on the bill. There's simply no need to make your money look like it fell out of a Monopoly box. If you can't count well enough to tell the bills apart, you shouldn't bother trying to use money in the first place.
Why you think that common law (unwritten, a tradition embedded in thousands of precedential cases contained in law reporters that few public libraries have) is necessarily better for the "average Joe" than civil law...
Common law is better for the average Joe because, being unwritten as it is, it is by neccessity far simpler and more straightforward. This as opposed to the contorted legalese that comprises nearly all civil law, specially designed to be so complicated that you have to hire someone who makes a living of knowing it all to defend you in court... yet so very easy for the courts to interpret far more broadly than it should.
Also, more recently there was the LS-120 which used a laser-guided disk head and an IDE interface, as well as backward compatibility with normal floppies... too bad they never gained wide acceptance.
The college I used to go to had LS120s in all of their lab computers... seems they bought them right when they came out instead of waiting to see if they caught on.
I got a couple of drives for my home computers when they first came out too, but one of them went bad so that the other was only useful for carrying large files to and from college...
How does that make consumer culture sustainable? burning oil in your car is still going to choke us off the planet...
It makes it sustainable because it opens up the possibility of closing the CO2 cycle.
(1) Plants take CO2 from the air. (2) Plants are eaten by people/eaten by animals (which in turn are eaten by people as well)/processed for manufactured goods/etc. (3) Resultant human, industrial, and municipal wastes are converted into oil. (4) Oil is burned, producing CO2. (5) Goto (1)
Instead of using fossil fuels, we can produce our own from CO2 already existing on the surface. Thus the atmospheric levels of CO2 become variable, but limited amounts, constantly being recycled into new fuel thanks to photosynthesis and good old Amercan ingenuity.
While I meant computers, the thermal depolymerization process could indeed convert your average commuter into "38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water." Nothing like running your car on Soylent oil!
Thats the thing about this process--it doesnt require special equipment in your car, but breaks ANY organic matter into gasoline, light oil (which can be further refined into gasoline), water, and leftover minerals; it can refine leftovers from normal crude refineries, and can refine coal into a clean, fast burning powder. It can also be used just to break down comuters and appliances into raw minerals and metals for reuse. They say the only thing it can't do is nuclear waste, which understandably would still be radioactive afterwards... It is the ultimate in recycling--a clean, low cost way of making useful oil and minerals from useless garbage and junk.
Why people are still talking about running a car on vegetable oil when we can turn vegetables into real (petroleum) oil, I don't know...
This assumption is, quite simply, mistaken. If anyone else had been in power, the current war would never have happened. Give me a solid, non-White House, non-US right source showing that Iraq was a definite, clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America, and I might start to consider otherwise. Until then, I consider the Iraq "crisis" a creation of the Bush administration.
I am fully aware of this, and was merely supposing for the sake of the discussion that while the war is a direct result of the current administration and will have a profound affect on the budget deficit, that it is a variable not directly related to Bush's economic policies--not that it would have happened. I could also have phrased it as "assuming the war had not happened when comapring his economic handling to that which others would have done."
Also, if you're a liberal-basher, keep in mind that most left-leaning Americans do not believe in free hand outs. They believe in social assistance, which is simply helping someone out until they can get on their feet for themselves. The stereotype of a lazy bastard living off welfare for 20 years is plain and simple unrealistic, and it just doesn't happen - despite all the whining about "government handouts giving away my money to good-for-nothings" that might lead you to believe otherwise.
I did not say that liberals believe in free handouts, but it is a fact that many elected Democrats tend to see handouts not as a tool to help those who are truly in need, but as a way of getting more votes at the next election. The problem of handouts going to those who do not deserve them is a problem with the bureaucracy handling the programs, not the ideas themselves.
I believe you're mixing up the tech market and the general economy. The failure of the dot-coms was an early precursor to the current downturn, but not the cause of it. Slow economies happen - you'll get no argument on that here. But claiming that a government's economic policies don't have a hand in shaping the economy is failing to see the forest for the trees.
The thing is that the tech market and the general economy are becoming increasingly more interconnected; however the problem of greed was not limited to the tech market, and when reality struck it struck everyone. I did not mean to imply that government policies are meaningless, but within the framework of an open capitalist economy there is little that can be done without directly intervening and regulating areas which are traditionally left to their own devices.
it's looking like the federal government could possibly lose as much as $500 billion this year alone, and even that may be a conservative estimate. Think about that. That's a half-trillion dollar loss in one year......The budget set up under the previous administration WAS scheduled to pay off the debt by 2012, however, with the left over going to other government programs. Not too shabby considering the national debt is something to the tune of $3.7 trillion
Granted there is increased spending on the military and "homeland defense," but when comparing the surplus during Clinton's administration with the projected deficit now, one must keep in mind that Clinton's budget was hung on significantly higher income due due a booming economy and higher taxes. Additionally, the tables show that spending under Clinton continued to rise from the levels under H.W. Bush--Clinton's administration only gained a surplus because the economy was growing faster than they could spend.
Had the economy continued to grow until now at the average rate it did during Clinton's second term ($110b per year), and tax levels remained constant, The government would be seeing income of $2,360b--given this year's projected expenses (minus tax rebates but plus war costs) there would still be a surplus of over $200b!
It is in fact real and scientifically sound (tried submitting it earlier but got rejected...); widespread deployment of these plants could eliminate the need for landfills, while also making oil dirt cheap. As an added bonus, they can refine previously unusable types of petroleum, and break down inorganic substances into reusable raw minerals as well. Understandably, Japan for one is VERY interested in this... Philadelphia is looking at deploying these plants as well as soon as they see how viable it is on a larger scale.
When Bush entered office in Jan 2001, the federal government was running a $127 billion surplus.
If the federal government was running a $127 billion surplus, then it was only because of atrocious overtaxation. However, that money did not go back into the hands of the people it belonged to, and I seriously doubt it was used to pay off a tiny portion of the national debt. It most likely went right back into the government and was spent as if it had never existed. Now stop for a moment to analyze the projected $300 billion deficit for this year.
Firstly, you must keep in mind the war. Whatever your opinion on that is, you need to realize that wars are VERY expensive. This alone will account for some $180 billion or so last I heard.
Add on top of that the tax cuts and beefed up spending for all of the 'homeland security' BS and that covers the rest of the $300 billion easily.
Almost the entire difference between the surplus now and the budget then can be attributed to attempted economic assistance, post-Sep. 11th 'security', and the 'War on Terror' (which is part of the preceding security spending really).
Also keep in mind the reasons for the rise and fall of the economy. It had little to nothing to do with ANY President or Congress (although they try very hard to take credit for it). It was entirely caused by new technology, overgrowth, and especially greed. Then when the unsustainable business models that were propping up the economy ran out of fuel, it all fell apart.
All that can be done now is to try and help the economy find its footing and get back up. Bush has tried to do this, but there is in fact very little that he can do to help (also if you are a Bush-basher, keep in mind that if the Dems had their way they would only increase welfare and unemployment payments, which would most likely increase dependence on government handouts and make things worse in the long run).
You may criticize Bush's handling of the economy, but ask yourself this: If someone else were in his place (and assuming other things such as the war still happened), do you really, truthfully believe that the economy would be any better?
The biggest differences were near the bottom of the scale
And that's where it matters most; the people who are willing and able to shell out the cash for the big guns typically dont care whether they need to pay another $30 or something to get a miniscule amount of extra performance... They're only buying the CPU for bragging rights, as theres no real useful performace advantage in that range. Everything above 100 fps is just gravy. Hell, you don't even need anyhting over your refresh rate to make games run silky-smooth...
Three: Most modern Americans are too wussy/etc. to use the Death Penalty on criminals who deserve it, instead giving them relatively comfy 'apartments' (read: jail cells) in which to live the rest of their lives... all on federal tax dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
You act as if you seriously expected a first-posting AC to have RTFA... this is /., remember?
Partial Reinforcement. Like in gambling. Who knows, maybe this is my lucky post!
Years later, this might just fix the crash that I always got about 98% of the way through the game, keeping me from ever finishing it and findoug out how it ends. If only I kept my friggin save game....
Not likely, as in some cases animals already have just as many (if not more) rights than humans.... thanks to PETA and the like, anyways.
Unfortunately, such a system as you propose is not feasible, as properly classifying all creatures would require a complete analysis of all of their DNA. It's taken us years just to get ours done. And besides, as this research seems to show, DNA is just as similar (if not more so) than physical characteristics when comparing different species--such that a new system of classification based on DNA could be even more convoluted and ambiguous than the existing one.
If you understod what made up the 99.4%, you would ndersand what they are saying.
look at a chimpanzee and a humna standing side by side. hoe different are they? not much. 2 eyes, nose 1 mouth, couple of years, arms legs, etc... a full grown human is bigger, but thats not much of a genetic changes.
Internal, we're pretty damn similiar. heart lung etc.
Oddly enough, ALL mammals have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two ears, four appendages, and the same vital organs. All other vertebrates come pretty close to that (i.e. birds/reptiles have all the basics but not really a nose in the same sense as we do, and some organs are very different).
So by your reasoning, we could have 98-99.4% of DNA in common with every mammal and not much less with all other vertebrates...
Gotta agree there, middle-click tab opening is amazingly convenient... I just happend to stumble on it a few weeks ago when I was tweaking my prefs! Another thing I stumbled on is middle-clicking on a tab closes it, even if it's in the background! No more needing to right-click and slap the menu to open or close tabs anymore!
One second, we were watching Neo and the other dude on the table, and then all of a sudden the movie abruptly said "To be continued", and went straight switched to the credits!
Where's the conclusion? I'm out here hanging in the wind! Half the audience was booing...
** WARNING! SPOILERS! WARNING! SPOILERS! **
That's known as a "blatant cliffhanger"... and I have to agree it really sucks that they do that, any movie should wrap things up and start a new part of the plot in the next movie, instead of just cutting it off in the middle like that.
Overall I thought that the movie was really slow to get started... Some of the scenes seemed really drawn out and nothing important really happened. Then, when it was starting to get really good with some plot twists, it was suddenly over.
And for the record, it said "To be concluded."
Yesterday. No foolin.
And not everybody keeps their money in banks.
I saw two old-style twenties just a few hours ago, when I withdrew money from the bank to pay some bills...
Bank notes issued by the Bank of England will always be acepted by the Bank of England, even if they're 400 years old.
However, only a fool would cash in a 400 year-old note, as I'm sure it would be worth significantly more than that to a collector if it was still in good enough contidion to cash in.
In addition to the use of red on the $2 Silver Certificates, I have a $1 Silver Certificate which uses blue for the seal.
The easiest way is to look at the number in the corner.
So very true. I dont know why foreginers compain so much--as a literate American, I have no trouble at all distinguishing between bills by number or even by the look of the design on the bill. There's simply no need to make your money look like it fell out of a Monopoly box. If you can't count well enough to tell the bills apart, you shouldn't bother trying to use money in the first place.
Pity the men whose small sacks are now illegal...
Why you think that common law (unwritten, a tradition embedded in thousands of precedential cases contained in law reporters that few public libraries have) is necessarily better for the "average Joe" than civil law...
Common law is better for the average Joe because, being unwritten as it is, it is by neccessity far simpler and more straightforward. This as opposed to the contorted legalese that comprises nearly all civil law, specially designed to be so complicated that you have to hire someone who makes a living of knowing it all to defend you in court... yet so very easy for the courts to interpret far more broadly than it should.
Also, more recently there was the LS-120 which used a laser-guided disk head and an IDE interface, as well as backward compatibility with normal floppies... too bad they never gained wide acceptance.
The college I used to go to had LS120s in all of their lab computers... seems they bought them right when they came out instead of waiting to see if they caught on.
I got a couple of drives for my home computers when they first came out too, but one of them went bad so that the other was only useful for carrying large files to and from college...
So that's where my other seeing stone went... damned hobbits just can't keep their hands off it, can they?
It makes it sustainable because it opens up the possibility of closing the CO2 cycle.
(1) Plants take CO2 from the air.
(2) Plants are eaten by people/eaten by animals (which in turn are eaten by people as well)/processed for manufactured goods/etc.
(3) Resultant human, industrial, and municipal wastes are converted into oil.
(4) Oil is burned, producing CO2.
(5) Goto (1)
Instead of using fossil fuels, we can produce our own from CO2 already existing on the surface. Thus the atmospheric levels of CO2 become variable, but limited amounts, constantly being recycled into new fuel thanks to photosynthesis and good old Amercan ingenuity.
While I meant computers, the thermal depolymerization process could indeed convert your average commuter into "38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water." Nothing like running your car on Soylent oil!
Thats the thing about this process--it doesnt require special equipment in your car, but breaks ANY organic matter into gasoline, light oil (which can be further refined into gasoline), water, and leftover minerals; it can refine leftovers from normal crude refineries, and can refine coal into a clean, fast burning powder. It can also be used just to break down comuters and appliances into raw minerals and metals for reuse. They say the only thing it can't do is nuclear waste, which understandably would still be radioactive afterwards... It is the ultimate in recycling--a clean, low cost way of making useful oil and minerals from useless garbage and junk.
Why people are still talking about running a car on vegetable oil when we can turn vegetables into real (petroleum) oil, I don't know...
I am fully aware of this, and was merely supposing for the sake of the discussion that while the war is a direct result of the current administration and will have a profound affect on the budget deficit, that it is a variable not directly related to Bush's economic policies--not that it would have happened. I could also have phrased it as "assuming the war had not happened when comapring his economic handling to that which others would have done."
I did not say that liberals believe in free handouts, but it is a fact that many elected Democrats tend to see handouts not as a tool to help those who are truly in need, but as a way of getting more votes at the next election. The problem of handouts going to those who do not deserve them is a problem with the bureaucracy handling the programs, not the ideas themselves.
The thing is that the tech market and the general economy are becoming increasingly more interconnected; however the problem of greed was not limited to the tech market, and when reality struck it struck everyone. I did not mean to imply that government policies are meaningless, but within the framework of an open capitalist economy there is little that can be done without directly intervening and regulating areas which are traditionally left to their own devices.
Granted there is increased spending on the military and "homeland defense," but when comparing the surplus during Clinton's administration with the projected deficit now, one must keep in mind that Clinton's budget was hung on significantly higher income due due a booming economy and higher taxes. Additionally, the tables show that spending under Clinton continued to rise from the levels under H.W. Bush--Clinton's administration only gained a surplus because the economy was growing faster than they could spend.
Had the economy continued to grow until now at the average rate it did during Clinton's second term ($110b per year), and tax levels remained constant, The government would be seeing income of $2,360b--given this year's projected expenses (minus tax rebates but plus war costs) there would still be a surplus of over $200b!
Here are som
It is in fact real and scientifically sound (tried submitting it earlier but got rejected...); widespread deployment of these plants could eliminate the need for landfills, while also making oil dirt cheap. As an added bonus, they can refine previously unusable types of petroleum, and break down inorganic substances into reusable raw minerals as well. Understandably, Japan for one is VERY interested in this... Philadelphia is looking at deploying these plants as well as soon as they see how viable it is on a larger scale.
When Bush entered office in Jan 2001, the federal government was running a $127 billion surplus.
If the federal government was running a $127 billion surplus, then it was only because of atrocious overtaxation. However, that money did not go back into the hands of the people it belonged to, and I seriously doubt it was used to pay off a tiny portion of the national debt. It most likely went right back into the government and was spent as if it had never existed. Now stop for a moment to analyze the projected $300 billion deficit for this year.
Firstly, you must keep in mind the war. Whatever your opinion on that is, you need to realize that wars are VERY expensive. This alone will account for some $180 billion or so last I heard.
Add on top of that the tax cuts and beefed up spending for all of the 'homeland security' BS and that covers the rest of the $300 billion easily.
Almost the entire difference between the surplus now and the budget then can be attributed to attempted economic assistance, post-Sep. 11th 'security', and the 'War on Terror' (which is part of the preceding security spending really).
Also keep in mind the reasons for the rise and fall of the economy. It had little to nothing to do with ANY President or Congress (although they try very hard to take credit for it). It was entirely caused by new technology, overgrowth, and especially greed. Then when the unsustainable business models that were propping up the economy ran out of fuel, it all fell apart.
All that can be done now is to try and help the economy find its footing and get back up. Bush has tried to do this, but there is in fact very little that he can do to help (also if you are a Bush-basher, keep in mind that if the Dems had their way they would only increase welfare and unemployment payments, which would most likely increase dependence on government handouts and make things worse in the long run).
You may criticize Bush's handling of the economy, but ask yourself this: If someone else were in his place (and assuming other things such as the war still happened), do you really, truthfully believe that the economy would be any better?
That's exactly what I thought when I saw it, flatlander cosmonauts! Incredible!
The biggest differences were near the bottom of the scale
And that's where it matters most; the people who are willing and able to shell out the cash for the big guns typically dont care whether they need to pay another $30 or something to get a miniscule amount of extra performance... They're only buying the CPU for bragging rights, as theres no real useful performace advantage in that range. Everything above 100 fps is just gravy. Hell, you don't even need anyhting over your refresh rate to make games run silky-smooth...
Three: Most modern Americans are too wussy/etc. to use the Death Penalty on criminals who deserve it, instead giving them relatively comfy 'apartments' (read: jail cells) in which to live the rest of their lives... all on federal tax dollars.