I don't think the concept of "junk" DNA is ever going to go away. Evolution would predict that sequences that are good at replicating themselves would accumulate in the genome, even if they don't do anything "useful".
No, no it wouldn't. I am a fan of taking simple logic like that and concluding "it must be in play", but there are other equally valid pieces of simple logic that it must compete (or be in equilibrium) with. One of those off the top of my head: Evolution would predict that an excess of junk DNA would be detrimental to the organism since the likelihood of a random mutation turning some of that junk into something harmful goes up with the amount of junk. Other mechanisms would be in play too like "too much replicating junk takes resources away from the necessary DNA". It's really hard to say how strong the influence of these factors is or how many more we haven't even thought of.
The only way to prove that the DNA is junk is to remove it and see if the organism still exhibits all the capabilities of the original. And even at that, you don't know if the junk happens to contain something useful only in rare circumstances. But I'd agree if said organism seemed normal and could produce several generations of offspring that seem normal, then we could say the removed DNA was mostly junk.
Well I thought it was commonly known that people are cutting and burning the rain forest, so let's not blame that on CO2. If climates move further toward the poles due to "warming" species may be able to migrate, but that leaves one to wonder what happens in the areas that are warmest already. Many think those areas turn to desert, but we know that doesn't have to be the case:
Reversing desertification In fact we've been causing it, just not with CO2. And if you don't like the sea level rising, you should look at a map that shows bathymety - the continental shelf areas used to be above water, but the level has been rising since the glaciers started melting. There really is no reason to think we're at the high water mark just because people decided to build cities on the present-day coast.
Besides, I think it would be a good idea to get out of this ice age before another glaciation comes along. Yes, we're still in "the ice age" look it up, we're near the end of an interglacial period. I'd rather give warming a shot than let the ice come back.
If species are losing their living space it's due to increasing populations of humans burning their habitat, not from a little CO2. Or from humans using the wrong farming practices, but again not due to CO2 levels.
The problem, as **I** see it, is the societal urge to send everyone to college
That's a part of it. The real issue is "free trade" sending lower level jobs overseas and automation taking care of many more. At the same time there are some nice things that only require 2 years at community college (this x-ray techs and such). So yeah, we should expand the notion of skilled trades. But for people who are just out of high school or didn't finnish, the options seem to be fast food and retail. If we got rid of so-called free trade (it's not a level playing field at all) we'd fix the economy and create jobs, but the big importers (middlemen offering little real value) will not allow it. The simple demand for those jobs would reduce the number of people thinking they need to go to college.
We all see those pictures of Mars with a red atmosphere, but the reality isn't just that the atmosphere doesn't have O2 and N2, but that there really isn't much of ANY atmosphere. It's just enough to add color to the photos and move a bit of dust around. Might as well be planning to live on the moon - it's just as habitable but Mars LOOKS more like earth.
Any plans to terraform it? What life could we actually put there that might survive?
IMHO the GIMP developers needed to get version 2.10 out ASAP so high bit-depth is fully supported - never mind the other new features. Then they also need to get 3.0 done not ASAP but reasonably quick for the GTK 3 port. These are the kind of infrastructure changes that are best done sooner rather than later. Everything else is just features that can be prioritized and added as time permits. Single window mode (2.8) full GEGL (2.10) and GTK 3 (3.0) will be great, but it looks like that's a long way out.
IIRC someone or some entity was storing all the tweets anyway. You have no privacy there to protect - it's explicitly public. It's almost like the EFF is trolling for the government in this case - put your private life out there in public so the government won't even have to ask anyone to violate your privacy to investigate you;-)
If we were burning corncobs there wouldn't be a problem because that carbon is part of the active carbon cycle, but instead we're releasing buried carbon back into the air that hasn't been active carbon since the earth's dinosaur-greenhouse days.
What you're pointing out but ignoring is that the carbon WAS in the biosphere and has been declining. Why not put it back? If it gets too low we'll all die - we were near the lower limit to allow plants to grow. Evidence shows that plants grow better with more CO2 in the air. Desertification has also been show to be quite reversible and has in many cases apparently been cause by human activity other than burning carbon-based fuels (farming practices). I wouldn't be surprised if there is an upper limit to how much CO2 is OK, but I don't think we're anywhere near it. I welcome a warmer climate.
Sorry for the late response. I didn't mean LSFR. Breeder reactors work. France uses them to recycle spent fuel. The official reason not to use them in the US is proliferation risk. It's not a technical problem, and the cost of "disposal" this way should be passed on the plants generating the waste. Simple as that.
I'm just saying you're only looking at a small part of a big picture, and in some of the other parts, there's a case for some sort of DRM.
And the OP has asked for someone to make that case. You have not done so in spite of a lot of text.
What you don't have is a right to enjoy someone else's content on whatever terms you feel like or to enjoy it without compensating them at all for their work to create it. That's illegal whether DRM is used or not.
If I buy it I can legally enjoy it any way I please. I can play music through a flanger, or movies upside down, or with a soundtrack provided by the dark side of the moon. The only rights a copyright holder were supposed to have is first sale, not the right to tell me what to do with it. But I digress, please provide that case for DRM that you speak of.
Most working musicians can barely cover their bar tabs with the money they make performing.
Most working musicians are not that good. The good ones could do better if they could get some air time. Most pop stars can't perform a live show without lip-syncing. Shit, even American Idol has them record in studio and make multiple takes at the lip-syncing "live" competition. And let us not forget that there are very few actual musicians being promoted. Name me a great guitar player, piano player, or any other instrument. It's all about shitty mass-market pop stars now. Oh, and Nickleback. But they still aren't great musicians, they just sound like harder rock.
So, not everyone needs to see the same movies, listen to the same music, and so on. It is perfectly fine to limit these items, to make sure there ARE "have-nots". People don't HAVE to have every single goddam song in their library.
What you are arguing against is mass distribution and centralized control over culture. Sure, the free flow of information causes trends to spread quickly to the furthest reaches of the world, but that does not mean there is little variation. Remember when Beverly HIlls 90210 made it popular to have a fucking bowl-cut? Some called it a mushroom. I think someone in Hollywood made a bet that they could popularize something stupid and won. DRM does nothing to create "haves and have nots" it just makes people pay more - everyone still sees everything, they just may wait for it to be iin the $5 bin at Wallmart if they can't pick it up used sooner than that (DRM tries to disallow resale).
If you actually want diversity then you should want the free flow of "stuff" to destroy Hollywood and the record companies. That is the only way to bring about local or regional (non-centralized) creation of cultural stuff (fassion, music, movies). I'm not advocating this BTW because while individuals and smaller groups will create better diversity, it sometimes takes a big budget to make great quality. I'm just saying that DRM does nothing to relieve the stagnation you're concerned about. It only serves to concentrate wealth, and if you think that will lead to diversity then you should revisit your contrast of decades past to the present.
When peoples devices failed and they couldn't move content they paid for to other devices (even prior to failure). Or the moment someone bought a DVD while on vacation in another region only to find it didn't work when they got home. That's when it started, but I'm not sure just how slippery it is.
Have you actually ever bought a DVD in a "poorer market"? Not a pirated DVD, but one properly licensed and imported? You actually think it is cheaper than the $5 bin at Walmart?
Ummm yeah. You can buy legal (if you can find them) versions of newer movies in foreign markets cheaper than at Walmart. Don't compare new stuff in those markets with old $5 stuff - keep it apples to apples. And then there are titles that are sold only in certain regions - there is no reason those shouldn't work on players in other regions.
There is no "movies without DRM" option available to the standards committee, sorry.
Actually, the video tag works just fine without DRM - go watch YouTube with HTML 5 and no DRM. The reality may be that there is no netflix in HTML 5 without DRM, but there will certainly be a netflix plugin or standalone app with DRM if it's not in HTML5. There really is no purpose for it in the standard - it's just a standard way to embed non-standard stuff in the web, and that's not good for anyone.
How do you capture 121% of the wealth? Did they take 100%, then give 21% back and then steal it again or something?
Whatever the increase in total wealth was, the top 1 percent got 121 percent of that number. This means the other 99 percent lost 21 percent of that number. So if there was 1 trillion dollars in new wealth, the one percent got $1.21T richer and the 99 percent got 210B poorer. In otherwords the 1 percent had structured their investments/the rules/whatever such that they tend to accumulate wealth at the expense of everyone else, and on average all new wealth goes to them. Hope that clears it up a little.
Do they know why all the activity seems to be concentrated in 2 bands? One in the northern and one in the southern hemisphere. I would presume there is some sort of convection going on like on earth where there are westerly winds at some latitudes and easterly winds at others. But then why would that activity be on a 11 year cycle? I found this puzzling and am wondering if anyone knows the answers.
One properly placed nuclear "test" could blow the entire Fuck-U-Shima plant into the ocean. Question is if that would be safer than trying to deal with it on land;-) For me it's an honest question even though it sounds absurd.
The problem is that there were supposed to be other types of reactors that would "burn" the waste. That would generate even more power while getting rid of the "spent" fuel. Problem is those reactors never got approved due to proliferation risk. But of course they keep renewing licenses for the existing ones to create more waste and IIRC even allowing some more to be built.
I'm not sure why this doesn't come up when they talk about where to bury the waste - building a reactor to make use of it IS an option. Of course the longer we wait, the more spent fuel will be contained in giant blocks of cement that can't be used as fuel either.
They want DRM but since that doesn't actually work they'll be wanting secure boot with a signed software stack all the way down. This would require the exclusion of Firefox and others. Somehow I doubt the Encrypted Media Extension would actually allow the plugin to work in an open source browser. If it does, then all it really does is allow a locked down app to be displayed in the web browser and get stuff fed into it from said browser. Why not just give people your locked down app and forget about the browser? The browser can still be told to open links using external apps, so this would still allow people to link to videos and such.
I really don't see the need for adding EME to HTML5. What are the actual use cases that don't have simple solutions without it?
If you don't like it, release your own free operating system where you package your search engine it.
They could release their own devices using Android. Or they could get handset manufacturers to use their search and advertising services. I don't want this to happen, but they really are just whining about nothing.
If you make it a criminal act to violate a websites terms of service, you delegate law making to websites. They'll be determining what's OK on their site and baiting people. You know, because if they don't want people to do something on their site, they should not make it possible to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you see the input voltage for this thing being 2.4V? I was going to ask what it is.
No, no it wouldn't. I am a fan of taking simple logic like that and concluding "it must be in play", but there are other equally valid pieces of simple logic that it must compete (or be in equilibrium) with. One of those off the top of my head: Evolution would predict that an excess of junk DNA would be detrimental to the organism since the likelihood of a random mutation turning some of that junk into something harmful goes up with the amount of junk. Other mechanisms would be in play too like "too much replicating junk takes resources away from the necessary DNA". It's really hard to say how strong the influence of these factors is or how many more we haven't even thought of.
The only way to prove that the DNA is junk is to remove it and see if the organism still exhibits all the capabilities of the original. And even at that, you don't know if the junk happens to contain something useful only in rare circumstances. But I'd agree if said organism seemed normal and could produce several generations of offspring that seem normal, then we could say the removed DNA was mostly junk.
Well I thought it was commonly known that people are cutting and burning the rain forest, so let's not blame that on CO2. If climates move further toward the poles due to "warming" species may be able to migrate, but that leaves one to wonder what happens in the areas that are warmest already. Many think those areas turn to desert, but we know that doesn't have to be the case: Reversing desertification In fact we've been causing it, just not with CO2. And if you don't like the sea level rising, you should look at a map that shows bathymety - the continental shelf areas used to be above water, but the level has been rising since the glaciers started melting. There really is no reason to think we're at the high water mark just because people decided to build cities on the present-day coast.
Besides, I think it would be a good idea to get out of this ice age before another glaciation comes along. Yes, we're still in "the ice age" look it up, we're near the end of an interglacial period. I'd rather give warming a shot than let the ice come back.
If species are losing their living space it's due to increasing populations of humans burning their habitat, not from a little CO2. Or from humans using the wrong farming practices, but again not due to CO2 levels.
That's a part of it. The real issue is "free trade" sending lower level jobs overseas and automation taking care of many more. At the same time there are some nice things that only require 2 years at community college (this x-ray techs and such). So yeah, we should expand the notion of skilled trades. But for people who are just out of high school or didn't finnish, the options seem to be fast food and retail. If we got rid of so-called free trade (it's not a level playing field at all) we'd fix the economy and create jobs, but the big importers (middlemen offering little real value) will not allow it. The simple demand for those jobs would reduce the number of people thinking they need to go to college.
We all see those pictures of Mars with a red atmosphere, but the reality isn't just that the atmosphere doesn't have O2 and N2, but that there really isn't much of ANY atmosphere. It's just enough to add color to the photos and move a bit of dust around. Might as well be planning to live on the moon - it's just as habitable but Mars LOOKS more like earth.
Any plans to terraform it? What life could we actually put there that might survive?
IMHO the GIMP developers needed to get version 2.10 out ASAP so high bit-depth is fully supported - never mind the other new features. Then they also need to get 3.0 done not ASAP but reasonably quick for the GTK 3 port. These are the kind of infrastructure changes that are best done sooner rather than later. Everything else is just features that can be prioritized and added as time permits. Single window mode (2.8) full GEGL (2.10) and GTK 3 (3.0) will be great, but it looks like that's a long way out.
IIRC someone or some entity was storing all the tweets anyway. You have no privacy there to protect - it's explicitly public. It's almost like the EFF is trolling for the government in this case - put your private life out there in public so the government won't even have to ask anyone to violate your privacy to investigate you ;-)
What you're pointing out but ignoring is that the carbon WAS in the biosphere and has been declining. Why not put it back? If it gets too low we'll all die - we were near the lower limit to allow plants to grow. Evidence shows that plants grow better with more CO2 in the air. Desertification has also been show to be quite reversible and has in many cases apparently been cause by human activity other than burning carbon-based fuels (farming practices). I wouldn't be surprised if there is an upper limit to how much CO2 is OK, but I don't think we're anywhere near it. I welcome a warmer climate.
Sorry for the late response. I didn't mean LSFR. Breeder reactors work. France uses them to recycle spent fuel. The official reason not to use them in the US is proliferation risk. It's not a technical problem, and the cost of "disposal" this way should be passed on the plants generating the waste. Simple as that.
And the OP has asked for someone to make that case. You have not done so in spite of a lot of text.
If I buy it I can legally enjoy it any way I please. I can play music through a flanger, or movies upside down, or with a soundtrack provided by the dark side of the moon. The only rights a copyright holder were supposed to have is first sale, not the right to tell me what to do with it. But I digress, please provide that case for DRM that you speak of.
Most working musicians are not that good. The good ones could do better if they could get some air time. Most pop stars can't perform a live show without lip-syncing. Shit, even American Idol has them record in studio and make multiple takes at the lip-syncing "live" competition. And let us not forget that there are very few actual musicians being promoted. Name me a great guitar player, piano player, or any other instrument. It's all about shitty mass-market pop stars now. Oh, and Nickleback. But they still aren't great musicians, they just sound like harder rock.
What you are arguing against is mass distribution and centralized control over culture. Sure, the free flow of information causes trends to spread quickly to the furthest reaches of the world, but that does not mean there is little variation. Remember when Beverly HIlls 90210 made it popular to have a fucking bowl-cut? Some called it a mushroom. I think someone in Hollywood made a bet that they could popularize something stupid and won. DRM does nothing to create "haves and have nots" it just makes people pay more - everyone still sees everything, they just may wait for it to be iin the $5 bin at Wallmart if they can't pick it up used sooner than that (DRM tries to disallow resale).
If you actually want diversity then you should want the free flow of "stuff" to destroy Hollywood and the record companies. That is the only way to bring about local or regional (non-centralized) creation of cultural stuff (fassion, music, movies). I'm not advocating this BTW because while individuals and smaller groups will create better diversity, it sometimes takes a big budget to make great quality. I'm just saying that DRM does nothing to relieve the stagnation you're concerned about. It only serves to concentrate wealth, and if you think that will lead to diversity then you should revisit your contrast of decades past to the present.
When peoples devices failed and they couldn't move content they paid for to other devices (even prior to failure). Or the moment someone bought a DVD while on vacation in another region only to find it didn't work when they got home. That's when it started, but I'm not sure just how slippery it is.
Ummm yeah. You can buy legal (if you can find them) versions of newer movies in foreign markets cheaper than at Walmart. Don't compare new stuff in those markets with old $5 stuff - keep it apples to apples. And then there are titles that are sold only in certain regions - there is no reason those shouldn't work on players in other regions.
Actually, the video tag works just fine without DRM - go watch YouTube with HTML 5 and no DRM. The reality may be that there is no netflix in HTML 5 without DRM, but there will certainly be a netflix plugin or standalone app with DRM if it's not in HTML5. There really is no purpose for it in the standard - it's just a standard way to embed non-standard stuff in the web, and that's not good for anyone.
Whatever the increase in total wealth was, the top 1 percent got 121 percent of that number. This means the other 99 percent lost 21 percent of that number. So if there was 1 trillion dollars in new wealth, the one percent got $1.21T richer and the 99 percent got 210B poorer. In otherwords the 1 percent had structured their investments/the rules/whatever such that they tend to accumulate wealth at the expense of everyone else, and on average all new wealth goes to them. Hope that clears it up a little.
Do they know why all the activity seems to be concentrated in 2 bands? One in the northern and one in the southern hemisphere. I would presume there is some sort of convection going on like on earth where there are westerly winds at some latitudes and easterly winds at others. But then why would that activity be on a 11 year cycle? I found this puzzling and am wondering if anyone knows the answers.
One properly placed nuclear "test" could blow the entire Fuck-U-Shima plant into the ocean. Question is if that would be safer than trying to deal with it on land ;-) For me it's an honest question even though it sounds absurd.
The problem is that there were supposed to be other types of reactors that would "burn" the waste. That would generate even more power while getting rid of the "spent" fuel. Problem is those reactors never got approved due to proliferation risk. But of course they keep renewing licenses for the existing ones to create more waste and IIRC even allowing some more to be built.
I'm not sure why this doesn't come up when they talk about where to bury the waste - building a reactor to make use of it IS an option. Of course the longer we wait, the more spent fuel will be contained in giant blocks of cement that can't be used as fuel either.
They want DRM but since that doesn't actually work they'll be wanting secure boot with a signed software stack all the way down. This would require the exclusion of Firefox and others. Somehow I doubt the Encrypted Media Extension would actually allow the plugin to work in an open source browser. If it does, then all it really does is allow a locked down app to be displayed in the web browser and get stuff fed into it from said browser. Why not just give people your locked down app and forget about the browser? The browser can still be told to open links using external apps, so this would still allow people to link to videos and such.
I really don't see the need for adding EME to HTML5. What are the actual use cases that don't have simple solutions without it?
I've been waiting for TV tuners, but I suppose this would cut down on bandwidth which would reduce profits...
Why shoot on film if you're going to do digital editing?
They could release their own devices using Android. Or they could get handset manufacturers to use their search and advertising services. I don't want this to happen, but they really are just whining about nothing.
If you make it a criminal act to violate a websites terms of service, you delegate law making to websites. They'll be determining what's OK on their site and baiting people. You know, because if they don't want people to do something on their site, they should not make it possible to do that.