This may already be posted above, but since I don't have time to read through I'll go ahead and post it anyhow:
I've heard for some time while they've been drumming up support for this bill that there's one big downside to it. As the article says, the bill permits non-profit calls, but what it doesn't say is that this bill will preempt any state laws that are more restrictive. So, for example, people in Indiana (which already has a very good do-not-call-list law) will get MORE calls under this bill since there is a wader range of calls permitted even when you are on the list.
Actually some companies still do this; if I'm not mistaken, back when I got Jasc Paint Shop Pro 7 a couple years ago it actually had the CD in a little CD envelope, which was in turn in a big envelope with the EULA printed on it and a seal saying that by opening you agreed... It isn't difficult for Jasc to do this, why can't more companies do it?
If I'm not mistaken Sam's site was linked to from another site which was mentioned in a story the other day.. looks like I'm not the only one who stumbled on that little gem in the process of my normal slashdotting!
Amen brother. I've almost forgotten what it's like to have popups anymore, and every time I see news of another IE hole I just laugh... And how can you not love Mozilla, TABS KICK ASS!
Not coincidence, and not global warming either. Aircraft create contrails which function as clouds... with less cloud cover less of the sun's heat is blocked in the day (making it hotter) and less that reflected from the surface is retained in the atmosphere at night (making it colder then). Simple meteorology people, not magic.
Removing all the useless sections should reduce disease caused by gene-copy errors.
Actually, if the odds of errors are more or less constant, having loads of junk DNA would be a way of preventing errors--if junk makes up the majority of DNA, the majority of the errors will show up in the junk, making them harmless.
O well, I haven't checked up on the forums in a year but thats what they were saying then anyhow--it's not surprising they changed their mind to a way of updating that would make more money for them...
BTW, I'm interested in hearing about success people have had in playing these games casually. I'm a massive FPS junkie, so I'm just recovering from that.. a little scared to try anything related to the term 'Evercrack'.
It's probably in the FAQ, but as I remember it they are designing the game to be accessible for casual and hardcore players both... that was one of the reasons they are using a skills based system instead of levels, so a casual player can get a skill point here or there from a quest without having to spend assloads of time on the game leveling.
On the contrary, Star Wars Galaxies is set during the classic movies era, and according to the devs it isn't going to go beyond that time-frame (although they may include locations and such from the novels and prequels). You're thinking of Knights of the Old Republic, which is being developed by Bioware and will not be out for some time.
SWG is being developed by the makers of everquest (LucasArts is only publishing) so it will very likely be similar in many respects... including its widespread popularity. They are planning to be adding new quests, content, etc. and advancing the storyline as the game goes on, and as the name GalaxIES sauggests, there will be many different servers to play on, each indepentent of all the others, so that even if there are very many players, there will still be plenty of content to go around.
Oh no! They're decompiling, editing and recompiling DNA! They're infringing on nature's intellectual property rights! Congress better make a new law ASAP to protect nature's profits from these "pirates"!
Do your part as an upstanding citizen and call your representatives now!
-- I'm viewing it as 'creating life' in the sense that someone who 'creates software' doesn't actually build the computer from sand, program the O/S in machine, and design & implement a compiler --
Actually this would be more akin to pulling the kernel out of an OS (leaving all of the support files intact), decompiling it, looking over the code and deleting the useless parts, retyping the remainder of the code in a new file, recompiling it, then putting it back with the rest of the OS and seeing if it runs. Not an easy task, but not really creating anything either...
That is exactly what I thought when I read the article. They are not creating a life-form; they are only ripping out its DNA and seeing if it still lives with their specific, customized, meticulously built DNA (which just happens to be based on the original DNA). The article says nothing of removing any of the cell's machinery, only the DNA. So, in essence, they will be extracting the DNA and constucting an exact copy with a third or so of the genes missing from it.
Of course, no matter what they do they have to start from -something-, but in this example they are starting from an already living bacteria and rebuilding its DNA. All they are really going to find out is if the process will kill the bacteria or not.
Despite the fact that this experiment won't really prove anything if it succeeds, there will be many people saying that they did in fact create new life and that if they can do it in the lab, then it must be incredibly easy for life to have come into existence on its own on billions of other worlds throughout the universe.
-- "There's no other intelligent life in the universe. There isn't even very much of it on earth."
The earth will be here until the sun goes nova, and short of a nuclear holocaust, earth will be livable for humans for just as long. Not everything on earth is quite so adaptable, however, and that is the point of some eco-laws.
The problem with most eco-laws, however, is that they seek to govern activities that are contributing very little to environmental changes. Certainly, dumping a few hundred gallons of sludge in your river is a bad thing, but when you look at large-scale things like global warming, there's a problem. There is a mountain of evidence that earth has been warming little by little ever since the last Ice Age, and nothing we do for good or bad will change that. Additionally, there is just as much evidence (saltiness levels in the oceans, changes in currents) that we are headed not for an overblown greenhouse effect, but another Ice Age.
To sum it all up, we can do little things to keep X species or X environment more or less intact, but global weather trends are way out of human control. Over-restrictive laws trying to slow earth's natural processes down do nothing but hurt our economies.
This'll probably get down-modded, but it needs to be said. Although we scientists blame religious people for blindly refusing to listen to reason, there are many who _claim_ to be scientists who are just as bad.
Simply put, mutation does not equal evolution. The Chernobyl example cited is simply the result of radiation damaged genes, not evolution.
No true evolution has been observed in microbiology either; the rise of antimicrobial resistant microbes is simply the result of those already resistant microbes surviving and producing more offspring, just like people who are resistant to a disease that kills most others. This is survival of the fittest (a simple, provable fact, not evolution), and can be applied to most any other 'example' of present-day evolution (peppered moths, finch beaks, etc.); all of the 'new' versions already existed, only in smaler numbers.
Extinction is merely a result of the survival of the fittest--the unfit usually die. However, that is reaching into the realm of History, as I stated above. My point is simply that evolution cannot be observed as _CURRENTLY_ occurring (I am not saying that it has not occurred in aeons past).
The purpose of science is to expain the world as it exists today, not how it got here--no matter how much your mind burns to find out the answer to that question.
And no, I am not some crackpot fundamentalist nut-job; I am a humble seeker of scientific fact. As I stated above, Origins are largely unexperimentable and must forever remain in the realm of unproven theories and faiths; as such just let these pointless arguments die.
To roman_mir: Nice troll yourself. Although few people here do, at least TRY to think before you post.
2) Science is RESEARCH and EXPERIMENTATION resulting in PROVABLE EXPLANATIONS about the world around us. When you read the rest of this post, don't get me wrong. I love real, old-fashined, provable science (mostly of the physics and astronomy variety, although I am more than happy to read and study ideas and concepts in other fields in a never-ending quest to quench my thirst for knowledge). But I know I can't be the only one who has to suppress the sudden urge to deposit my latest meal on my keyboard every time I see a thread degenerate into mindless bickering.
3) Religion cannot be EXPERIMENTED on and thus is not science. It must be taken based on FAITH, the believing of something unprovable. (Religion is however not without its own merits, such as providing moral codes for decent living which many people are lacking in current times.)
4) On the other side, no matter how much you RESEARCH, evolution cannot be EXPERIMENTED on for the most part either (It is in the realm of history, and is not observably active today; only a few experiments could be performed, such as comparing the DNA of moden men with that of Neanderthals, etc). ASSUMPTIONS can be made based on exhaustive RESEARCH, but at the end of the day they are still just educated ASSUMPTIONS and must be taken on FAITH. (Evolution has some merits as well, in that it causes people--although fewer and fewer it sems--to research and study and question, which may lead to some real scientific discoveries).
5) As both Religion and Evolution cannot be EXPERIMENTED on, both must be taken on FAITH, and neither is truly Science.
6) Since neither Religion or Evolution is Science, everyone is free to believe whatever the hell he pleases, and no matter how much you flame/argue/troll you will never change his mind. The Origins of species, and for that matter, everthing, is in the realm of History, not Science.
7) In light of the above points, just STFU! There's no point to perpetually arguing over non-Science!
I was under the impression that neanderthals were proven to be merely an extinct race of Homo Sapiens, but this book shows them as a different species again? Somebody explain plz
A simple way to think of it is this: Movement through space is represented as distance/time. How would one represent movement through time? It should be time/, but there is nothing to put in the denominator.
Perhaps the ratio of [rate of time passage for traveler] / [rate of time passage on earth at sea level] or something the like? Granted it isn't 'precise' but it would serve the purpose just as well...
Slashdot Mirror
This may already be posted above, but since I don't have time to read through I'll go ahead and post it anyhow:
I've heard for some time while they've been drumming up support for this bill that there's one big downside to it. As the article says, the bill permits non-profit calls, but what it doesn't say is that this bill will preempt any state laws that are more restrictive. So, for example, people in Indiana (which already has a very good do-not-call-list law) will get MORE calls under this bill since there is a wader range of calls permitted even when you are on the list.
Actually some companies still do this; if I'm not mistaken, back when I got Jasc Paint Shop Pro 7 a couple years ago it actually had the CD in a little CD envelope, which was in turn in a big envelope with the EULA printed on it and a seal saying that by opening you agreed... It isn't difficult for Jasc to do this, why can't more companies do it?
If I'm not mistaken Sam's site was linked to from another site which was mentioned in a story the other day.. looks like I'm not the only one who stumbled on that little gem in the process of my normal slashdotting!
Amen brother. I've almost forgotten what it's like to have popups anymore, and every time I see news of another IE hole I just laugh... And how can you not love Mozilla, TABS KICK ASS!
Not coincidence, and not global warming either. Aircraft create contrails which function as clouds... with less cloud cover less of the sun's heat is blocked in the day (making it hotter) and less that reflected from the surface is retained in the atmosphere at night (making it colder then). Simple meteorology people, not magic.
Actually, if the odds of errors are more or less constant, having loads of junk DNA would be a way of preventing errors--if junk makes up the majority of DNA, the majority of the errors will show up in the junk, making them harmless.
O well, I haven't checked up on the forums in a year but thats what they were saying then anyhow--it's not surprising they changed their mind to a way of updating that would make more money for them...
It's probably in the FAQ, but as I remember it they are designing the game to be accessible for casual and hardcore players both... that was one of the reasons they are using a skills based system instead of levels, so a casual player can get a skill point here or there from a quest without having to spend assloads of time on the game leveling.
On the contrary, Star Wars Galaxies is set during the classic movies era, and according to the devs it isn't going to go beyond that time-frame (although they may include locations and such from the novels and prequels). You're thinking of Knights of the Old Republic, which is being developed by Bioware and will not be out for some time.
SWG is being developed by the makers of everquest (LucasArts is only publishing) so it will very likely be similar in many respects... including its widespread popularity. They are planning to be adding new quests, content, etc. and advancing the storyline as the game goes on, and as the name GalaxIES sauggests, there will be many different servers to play on, each indepentent of all the others, so that even if there are very many players, there will still be plenty of content to go around.
Oh no! They're decompiling, editing and recompiling DNA! They're infringing on nature's intellectual property rights! Congress better make a new law ASAP to protect nature's profits from these "pirates"!
Do your part as an upstanding citizen and call your representatives now!
--
I'm viewing it as 'creating life' in the sense that someone who 'creates software' doesn't actually build the computer from sand, program the O/S in machine, and design & implement a compiler
--
Actually this would be more akin to pulling the kernel out of an OS (leaving all of the support files intact), decompiling it, looking over the code and deleting the useless parts, retyping the remainder of the code in a new file, recompiling it, then putting it back with the rest of the OS and seeing if it runs. Not an easy task, but not really creating anything either...
That is exactly what I thought when I read the article. They are not creating a life-form; they are only ripping out its DNA and seeing if it still lives with their specific, customized, meticulously built DNA (which just happens to be based on the original DNA). The article says nothing of removing any of the cell's machinery, only the DNA. So, in essence, they will be extracting the DNA and constucting an exact copy with a third or so of the genes missing from it.
Of course, no matter what they do they have to start from -something-, but in this example they are starting from an already living bacteria and rebuilding its DNA. All they are really going to find out is if the process will kill the bacteria or not.
Despite the fact that this experiment won't really prove anything if it succeeds, there will be many people saying that they did in fact create new life and that if they can do it in the lab, then it must be incredibly easy for life to have come into existence on its own on billions of other worlds throughout the universe.
--
"There's no other intelligent life in the universe. There isn't even very much of it on earth."
The earth will be here until the sun goes nova, and short of a nuclear holocaust, earth will be livable for humans for just as long. Not everything on earth is quite so adaptable, however, and that is the point of some eco-laws.
The problem with most eco-laws, however, is that they seek to govern activities that are contributing very little to environmental changes. Certainly, dumping a few hundred gallons of sludge in your river is a bad thing, but when you look at large-scale things like global warming, there's a problem. There is a mountain of evidence that earth has been warming little by little ever since the last Ice Age, and nothing we do for good or bad will change that. Additionally, there is just as much evidence (saltiness levels in the oceans, changes in currents) that we are headed not for an overblown greenhouse effect, but another Ice Age.
To sum it all up, we can do little things to keep X species or X environment more or less intact, but global weather trends are way out of human control. Over-restrictive laws trying to slow earth's natural processes down do nothing but hurt our economies.
This'll probably get down-modded, but it needs to be said. Although we scientists blame religious people for blindly refusing to listen to reason, there are many who _claim_ to be scientists who are just as bad.
Simply put, mutation does not equal evolution. The Chernobyl example cited is simply the result of radiation damaged genes, not evolution.
No true evolution has been observed in microbiology either; the rise of antimicrobial resistant microbes is simply the result of those already resistant microbes surviving and producing more offspring, just like people who are resistant to a disease that kills most others. This is survival of the fittest (a simple, provable fact, not evolution), and can be applied to most any other 'example' of present-day evolution (peppered moths, finch beaks, etc.); all of the 'new' versions already existed, only in smaler numbers.
Extinction is merely a result of the survival of the fittest--the unfit usually die. However, that is reaching into the realm of History, as I stated above. My point is simply that evolution cannot be observed as _CURRENTLY_ occurring (I am not saying that it has not occurred in aeons past).
The purpose of science is to expain the world as it exists today, not how it got here--no matter how much your mind burns to find out the answer to that question.
And no, I am not some crackpot fundamentalist nut-job; I am a humble seeker of scientific fact. As I stated above, Origins are largely unexperimentable and must forever remain in the realm of unproven theories and faiths; as such just let these pointless arguments die.
To roman_mir: Nice troll yourself. Although few people here do, at least TRY to think before you post.
1) Science is not a religion.
2) Science is RESEARCH and EXPERIMENTATION resulting in PROVABLE EXPLANATIONS about the world around us. When you read the rest of this post, don't get me wrong. I love real, old-fashined, provable science (mostly of the physics and astronomy variety, although I am more than happy to read and study ideas and concepts in other fields in a never-ending quest to quench my thirst for knowledge). But I know I can't be the only one who has to suppress the sudden urge to deposit my latest meal on my keyboard every time I see a thread degenerate into mindless bickering.
3) Religion cannot be EXPERIMENTED on and thus is not science. It must be taken based on FAITH, the believing of something unprovable. (Religion is however not without its own merits, such as providing moral codes for decent living which many people are lacking in current times.)
4) On the other side, no matter how much you RESEARCH, evolution cannot be EXPERIMENTED on for the most part either (It is in the realm of history, and is not observably active today; only a few experiments could be performed, such as comparing the DNA of moden men with that of Neanderthals, etc). ASSUMPTIONS can be made based on exhaustive RESEARCH, but at the end of the day they are still just educated ASSUMPTIONS and must be taken on FAITH. (Evolution has some merits as well, in that it causes people--although fewer and fewer it sems--to research and study and question, which may lead to some real scientific discoveries).
5) As both Religion and Evolution cannot be EXPERIMENTED on, both must be taken on FAITH, and neither is truly Science.
6) Since neither Religion or Evolution is Science, everyone is free to believe whatever the hell he pleases, and no matter how much you flame/argue/troll you will never change his mind. The Origins of species, and for that matter, everthing, is in the realm of History, not Science.
7) In light of the above points, just STFU! There's no point to perpetually arguing over non-Science!
I was under the impression that neanderthals were proven to be merely an extinct race of Homo Sapiens, but this book shows them as a different species again? Somebody explain plz
A simple way to think of it is this: Movement through space is represented as distance/time. How would one represent movement through time? It should be time/, but there is nothing to put in the denominator.
Perhaps the ratio of [rate of time passage for traveler] / [rate of time passage on earth at sea level] or something the like? Granted it isn't 'precise' but it would serve the purpose just as well...