However I wasn't questioning the original posters statement that two Y chromosomes are not enough to produce a healthy offspring (obviously true) - merely pointing out that a particular phrase in his post was open to mis-interpretation.
Reading this reminded me of some of the kids I went to school with (many years ago). Perhaps some kids aren't all that different from wiseguys after all.
I see that the article follows the FBI/RIAA agenda of harping on the links between "International Copyright Piracy" and "Organised Crime". Yeah, those kids sharing files are really vicious mafia hitmen in disguise.
The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information
True but misleading.
Yes, the Y chromosomes contains less genetic data but it's information not found in the X chromosome. So because data is repeated, two X chromosomes contain less information than an X and a Y.
I did this on a computer offering free internet access to the public.
Of course you can't really "ditch" IE so I just removed all the shorcuts and put a new shortcut to fire[fox|bird] on the desktop named "Web Browser".
I had so many people asking "where's Internet Explorer?" I had to rename the the shortcut to exactly that. Subsequently no one seemed to notice it wasn't what it said it was.
Is there any evidence to support what you're saying?
The frequency of this (if regular) is very similar in action to ELF radiation, which is proven to cause all sorts of problems.
What kind of problems? What is the proposed mechanism by which this can affect biological processes? Proven by who? Proven how?
there is a frequency component of the microwaves emitted by cell phones which is very close in frequency to the frequency of some biological process
What's a frequency component - if they're microwaves they're in the microwave frequency band. What biological processes have a frequency "close" to microwaves?
Sorry this is more bullshit, it sounds scientific but it's still bullshit.
Python runs well on both Linux and Windows although a lot of functionality can rely on "modules" which are specific to one environment (eg the win32 module) but there are cross platform modules (eg wxWindows) which you can use. So it's mainly a matter of taking care of which modules you use if you want good cross compatibility.
The reasons Python hasn't had the impact of Java are a) it's relatively slow, and b) C/C++ programmers like Java because it perpetuates many of C's syntax crimes.
<quote> Biological Effects of Microwaves and Mobile Telephony
K. Sri Nageswari
Professor & Head,Department of Physiology
Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Prayaas
Building Sector 38, Chandigarh, India
E-Mail:srina_kalluri@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Many of the existing safety guidelines governing microwave/RF/ELF, controlled/uncontrolled exposure are based on intensity of exposure that produces heating of tissues due
to energy absorption leading to temperature rise and manifested as thermal effects. On the
other hand, though the human body could compensate for and handle the extra energy load
through the thermoregulatory mechanisms without obvious increase in temperature, stress
could still develop. The thermal effects are manifested in the living being as well as tissue
preparations, cell lines etc. However, the frequency induced effects in the non thermal low
intensity range, are unique to a living organism, where the "coherence" component of the
electromagnetic waves is discerned by the living organism and the oscillatory similitude of
such waves interferes with the biological endogenous rhythms of the organism, akin to the
electromagnetic interference phenomena occurring while turning on a cell phone inside an
aircraft. The review of existing literature, the standards, the biological effects are discussed.</quote>
Sorry but this is bullshit! I don't think mobile phones produce "coherent" microwaves, they're not masers after all.
WTF is "oscillatory similitude" - does it have anything to do with crytals.
This makes as much sense as reflexology, is this Nageswari a Raelian by any chance?
I am sick of hearing people witter on about business models and making Linux attractive to users.
The fact is, I DON'T CARE. I'm happy that *I* have a decent desktop environment and operating system - I couldn't give a flying fuck about Joe User
I'll admit I partly agree with you. Who cares if Joe User uses linux or not, I'm happy with my OS.
The problem is - having MS Windows so widely used allows MS to continue with it's project to "de-commoditize" standards and protocols. This is the best (and for me, only) reason to be concerned about promoting linux.
1: Patents - Target the programmers or companies supporting Open Source by patenting as many basic technologies as possible then ensuring that the Open Source community cannot use them without a license from Microsoft (this stuffs all software released under the GPL).
Try to enforce their patents against Linux and IBM would enforce their patents against MS. MS couldn't write a line of code without infringing some IBM patent (not that I think this is a good thing).
2: Copyrights - Claiming copyright infringement (even where none exist) - Sony did a good job of this one against BLEEM a couple of years ago: basically the cost of the legal action can soak up all your funds before you have finished defending yourself.
Might have worked if they hadn't chosen such a half-assed frontman (SCO) and warned the OSS world of the danger. Everyone is being more careful now.
3: Legal Threats - (a variation on 2): Threatening individual programmers with legal action citing patents/copyrights infringements as the main reason.
Shown to be ineffective unless there is some substantial grounds behind your threats (SCO).
I think this product is awesome. Elitist "I'm so highly trained" wankers like you will have to share the oceans... no doubt that's your real problem with this.
I could just say to you - "I don't care go out and kill yourself" but I'm actually trying to warn you for your own benefit.
Diving is inherently dangerous, people are not designed for spending any length of time underwater and you need a complex life support system which requires training to use safely.
Most divers are not particularly "highly trained", they basically just get taught the minimum required to get them back to the surface alive.
If you want to go underwater, go in a tourist submarine or get trained for scuba (it's not terribly difficult).
Divers aren't trying to be elitist when they tell people not to dive without training - it comes from genuine concern for their lives.
The glass won't burst due to pressure because the bottom of the dome is open to the water. The pressure in and out will equalize.
Absolutely, just how fucking stupid are some people - this is kindergarten physics. Same goes for attaching a snorkel so you can stay underwater forever... duh!
I have a "fair" amount of experience of scuba diving and this thing goes against every instinct that experience has given me, it looks very much like a death trap.
a) You must always have an alternative air source in case there is a problem with your primary.
b) Nobody should ever go underwater breathing compressed air without significant training by an accredited training agency (PADI are ok, but if you want really good training you need BSAC).
c) Whole face masks or helmets are more technically difficult to use than a normal face mask and regulator combination.
d) It looks like you would be severely restricted in your freedom of movement.
e) This company appear to have no idea of proper safety measures for diving and I wouldn't trust them to make leads for my weight belt never mind my only air supply
If this contraption is really being manufactured someone is going to die as a result.
[alterslash.org] is illegal. And is violating copyright
As a regular slashdot reader I obviously consider myself something of an expert on US copyright law and I don't see how this is a violation.
We've seen from Novell that the a written instrument is required to transfer copyright so slashdot cannot have acquired the copyright to the messages other people have created. Therefore the only way it can be reproduced on slashdot is if it's presumed to have been deliberately released to the public domain. In which case copying it again is perfectly acceptable.
It was presented in a much cleaner format using CSS and a nice clean layout
Yes it's clean and the layouts is pretty good, but they're still abusing the tags for layout purposes:
< table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" >
<tr>
<td valign="top" height="125" bgcolor="#45347b"><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" width="193"><tr><td class="logobg" valign="top" align="center" height="88"><a href="/"><img border="0" src="/images/gtop-s.jpg" alt="Gentoo Logo">
Tut tut.
Using CSS is *so* obviously a good idea that I'm surprised it's even being questioned. Reasons for CSS:
1. Simple - I could probably write an acceptable basic CSS layout in an hour or less. 2. Reduced size - I recently re-wrote a (fairly small) website to CSS and the reduction was astonishing. 3. Logical seperation - Since I've rewritten this website it's been much easier to make changes to both presentation and content because you only need to think about one or the other not two things at the same time. 4. Portability - CSS is better for those viewing documents on mobile phones, PDA's, and other obscure hardware (Macs?) 5. Multiple layouts - write a stylesheet for readers or printing and it's automatically applied appropriately for you. 6. Customisation - don't like the way a documents laid out? - write a stylesheet of your own, use a decent browser and it'll apply your personal stylesheet instead of the authors.
Of course there are probably other advantages I've missed.
Disadvantages:
1. You have to strip all the formatting crap out of existing documents and restructure them in a sensible way. I have discovered this is a non-trivial task (somewhat to my surprise).
Who is arguing against CSS, I'd be very interested to know what reasons they have for opposing it - they must be drawbacks I haven't picked up on.
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Probably in exactly the same way, extradition agreeements are a two way thing. Recently the French successfully extradited a child rapist and murderer from the US. Of course he had committed his crime in France.
I'm amazed that the US tried this (I find it hard to imagine any court US or otherwise agreeing to such an extradition), but that doesn't make them bad guys for trying - just stupid.
"I hate to worry you - but the British Government is on the side of the US. I think it's wrong to assume that the British people are."
As a British person: I, at least, am on the side of the US . . . I may not agree with their current government, their general foreign policy, market protectionism, environmental policy or any number of other things but as a co-worker said to me just before the Iraq War. "When people start shooting, it's time to decide who your real friends are."
Too true!
And a word to the wise for all those yanks who don't like the idea of being "most hated nation" - LIVE WITH IT - we had to put up with it for centuries and it only made us stronger.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when something has two Y chromosomes?
Not a viable embryo.
. . . they have two different versions of the X-chromosome. Not the same.
And given that, "at least 98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees" how much variation do you think there is between two human X chromosomes?
However I wasn't questioning the original posters statement that two Y chromosomes are not enough to produce a healthy offspring (obviously true) - merely pointing out that a particular phrase in his post was open to mis-interpretation.
Reading this reminded me of some of the kids I went to school with (many years ago). Perhaps some kids aren't all that different from wiseguys after all.
I see that the article follows the FBI/RIAA agenda of harping on the links between "International Copyright Piracy" and "Organised Crime". Yeah, those kids sharing files are really vicious mafia hitmen in disguise.
The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information
True but misleading.
Yes, the Y chromosomes contains less genetic data but it's information not found in the X chromosome. So because data is repeated, two X chromosomes contain less information than an X and a Y.
Yes, it's likely that the Y chromosome is a mutation of an X chromosome, but it differentiated so long ago that 95% of the Y chromosome is male specific.
BTW: I'm not suggesting that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
I did this on a computer offering free internet access to the public.
Of course you can't really "ditch" IE so I just removed all the shorcuts and put a new shortcut to fire[fox|bird] on the desktop named "Web Browser".
I had so many people asking "where's Internet Explorer?" I had to rename the the shortcut to exactly that. Subsequently no one seemed to notice it wasn't what it said it was.
And how many people use mozilla with the user agent string set to IE6 so badly written websites won't complain - surely I can't be the only one.
Is there any evidence to support what you're saying?
The frequency of this (if regular) is very similar in action to ELF radiation, which is proven to cause all sorts of problems.
What kind of problems? What is the proposed mechanism by which this can affect biological processes? Proven by who? Proven how?
there is a frequency component of the microwaves emitted by cell phones which is very close in frequency to the frequency of some biological process
What's a frequency component - if they're microwaves they're in the microwave frequency band. What biological processes have a frequency "close" to microwaves?
Sorry this is more bullshit, it sounds scientific but it's still bullshit.
When is the spaceship coming to pick you up?
Python runs well on both Linux and Windows although a lot of functionality can rely on "modules" which are specific to one environment (eg the win32 module) but there are cross platform modules (eg wxWindows) which you can use. So it's mainly a matter of taking care of which modules you use if you want good cross compatibility. The reasons Python hasn't had the impact of Java are a) it's relatively slow, and b) C/C++ programmers like Java because it perpetuates many of C's syntax crimes.
Sorry but this is bullshit! I don't think mobile phones produce "coherent" microwaves, they're not masers after all.
WTF is "oscillatory similitude" - does it have anything to do with crytals.
This makes as much sense as reflexology, is this Nageswari a Raelian by any chance?
Copy and paste work perfectly for me: Mandrake 9.2, KDE 3.1
I'll admit I partly agree with you. Who cares if Joe User uses linux or not, I'm happy with my OS.
The problem is - having MS Windows so widely used allows MS to continue with it's project to "de-commoditize" standards and protocols. This is the best (and for me, only) reason to be concerned about promoting linux.
1: Patents - Target the programmers or companies supporting Open Source by patenting as many basic technologies as possible then ensuring that the Open Source community cannot use them without a license from Microsoft (this stuffs all software released under the GPL).
Try to enforce their patents against Linux and IBM would enforce their patents against MS. MS couldn't write a line of code without infringing some IBM patent (not that I think this is a good thing).
2: Copyrights - Claiming copyright infringement (even where none exist) - Sony did a good job of this one against BLEEM a couple of years ago: basically the cost of the legal action can soak up all your funds before you have finished defending yourself.
Might have worked if they hadn't chosen such a half-assed frontman (SCO) and warned the OSS world of the danger. Everyone is being more careful now.
3: Legal Threats - (a variation on 2): Threatening individual programmers with legal action citing patents/copyrights infringements as the main reason.
Shown to be ineffective unless there is some substantial grounds behind your threats (SCO).
I suggest you try re-reading my post.
No . . . this applies only to PADI recreational dive tables. Divers who've been trained properly (eg by BSAC) often use decompression tables.
You're joking right ? Puking through a regulator is no harder than puking any other way, and I know from personal experience.
As an added benefit you would be amazed at how all the beautiful fish swarm round you afterwards.
I could just say to you - "I don't care go out and kill yourself" but I'm actually trying to warn you for your own benefit.
Diving is inherently dangerous, people are not designed for spending any length of time underwater and you need a complex life support system which requires training to use safely.
Most divers are not particularly "highly trained", they basically just get taught the minimum required to get them back to the surface alive.
If you want to go underwater, go in a tourist submarine or get trained for scuba (it's not terribly difficult).
Divers aren't trying to be elitist when they tell people not to dive without training - it comes from genuine concern for their lives.
Absolutely, just how fucking stupid are some people - this is kindergarten physics. Same goes for attaching a snorkel so you can stay underwater forever ... duh!
I have a "fair" amount of experience of scuba diving and this thing goes against every instinct that experience has given me, it looks very much like a death trap.
a) You must always have an alternative air source in case there is a problem with your primary.
b) Nobody should ever go underwater breathing compressed air without significant training by an accredited training agency (PADI are ok, but if you want really good training you need BSAC).
c) Whole face masks or helmets are more technically difficult to use than a normal face mask and regulator combination.
d) It looks like you would be severely restricted in your freedom of movement.
e) This company appear to have no idea of proper safety measures for diving and I wouldn't trust them to make leads for my weight belt never mind my only air supply
If this contraption is really being manufactured someone is going to die as a result.
[alterslash.org] is illegal. And is violating copyright
As a regular slashdot reader I obviously consider myself something of an expert on US copyright law and I don't see how this is a violation.
We've seen from Novell that the a written instrument is required to transfer copyright so slashdot cannot have acquired the copyright to the messages other people have created. Therefore the only way it can be reproduced on slashdot is if it's presumed to have been deliberately released to the public domain. In which case copying it again is perfectly acceptable.
Or am I missing something
IANAL (to the best of my knowledge)
Follow the money. It's *always* the giveaway.
It was presented in a much cleaner format using CSS and a nice clean layout Yes it's clean and the layouts is pretty good, but they're still abusing the tags for layout purposes: < table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" > <tr> <td valign="top" height="125" bgcolor="#45347b"><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" width="193"><tr><td class="logobg" valign="top" align="center" height="88"><a href="/"><img border="0" src="/images/gtop-s.jpg" alt="Gentoo Logo"> Tut tut.
Using CSS is *so* obviously a good idea that I'm surprised it's even being questioned. Reasons for CSS:
1. Simple - I could probably write an acceptable basic CSS layout in an hour or less.
2. Reduced size - I recently re-wrote a (fairly small) website to CSS and the reduction was astonishing.
3. Logical seperation - Since I've rewritten this website it's been much easier to make changes to both presentation and content because you only need to think about one or the other not two things at the same time.
4. Portability - CSS is better for those viewing documents on mobile phones, PDA's, and other obscure hardware (Macs?)
5. Multiple layouts - write a stylesheet for readers or printing and it's automatically applied appropriately for you.
6. Customisation - don't like the way a documents laid out? - write a stylesheet of your own, use a decent browser and it'll apply your personal stylesheet instead of the authors.
Of course there are probably other advantages I've missed.
Disadvantages:
1. You have to strip all the formatting crap out of existing documents and restructure them in a sensible way. I have discovered this is a non-trivial task (somewhat to my surprise).
Who is arguing against CSS, I'd be very interested to know what reasons they have for opposing it - they must be drawbacks I haven't picked up on.
One wonders how the US government would react if a foreign nation tried a similar approach.
Probably in exactly the same way, extradition agreeements are a two way thing. Recently the French successfully extradited a child rapist and murderer from the US. Of course he had committed his crime in France.
I'm amazed that the US tried this (I find it hard to imagine any court US or otherwise agreeing to such an extradition), but that doesn't make them bad guys for trying - just stupid.
"I hate to worry you - but the British Government is on the side of the US. I think it's wrong to assume that the British people are."
As a British person: I, at least, am on the side of the US . . . I may not agree with their current government, their general foreign policy, market protectionism, environmental policy or any number of other things but as a co-worker said to me just before the Iraq War. "When people start shooting, it's time to decide who your real friends are."
Too true!
And a word to the wise for all those yanks who don't like the idea of being "most hated nation" - LIVE WITH IT - we had to put up with it for centuries and it only made us stronger.
The HURD kernel has (IMHO) a better basic design and eventually this (or some other microkernel design) is likely to take over from linux.
Admittedly the HURD currently isn't far enough along in development, but . . .