Actually, the reason that these coats don't look entirely alike is probably entirely genetic. Although, you're correct, it's not predictable or controllable.
When a female cat is conceived, it begins to grow, duplicating its cells. Each of these cells, however, has two copies of the x-chromosome. Only one of these is useful. So, in a random pattern, the cells will switch off one of the chromosomes by forming Barr bodies that surround it. It's a well understood process called Lyonization for anybody interested in looking into it. However, this only happens for females.
One might then ask whether a male cat's clone would look identical. My guess is again that it would not, although Lyonization would not be an adequate explanation. However, I believe that they would look much more similar than any two cloned calico cats (which are all female and whose coats are formed by this mechanism).
Probably not aromatic. Aromatics are less reactive due to the pi electron delocalization and other things, and, in general, they are MUCH more toxic than simple alkenes. Benzene, the simplest aromatic compound, for example, is highly carcinogenic due to the liver's inability to metabolize it properly - whereas alkene compounds that aren't conjugated around a ring (such as unsaturated fats) tend to be pretty easy to metabolize.
Ultimately polarization experiments may be able to investigate the Universe in the very first fractions of a second after the Big Bang -- when it underwent a period of extremely rapid expansion known as 'inflation'.
So, the Universe started a few fractions of a second before Carter was elected? Fascinating.
I assume you're responding to my post, although I'm quite confused, because I never mentioned anything about parties. Nor did anyone else, as far as I can tell....
Personally, I don't care for parties at all, and I particularly don't care for Supreme Court Justices. With the exception of Old Mr. Stevens, I don't care for any of them. Whereas Stevens is a repentant man - one concerned with applying a consistent set of logical rules to legal issues, and willing to admit it when he believes he's made a mistake - I find that Scalia and Rehnquist happen to act in the completely opposite manner.
Rehnquist seems to just be harmlessly moronic. Scalia, however, is a severely demented man whose opinions are formulated entirely from his racist and mysogynistic beliefs. The interesting thing about Scalia is that, in one case, he may decide to apply a set of "logical" rules when those rules result in a conclusion that is profitable for white male society, and then, in another case, he'll completely abandon his "logic" if it results in a conclusion profitable for white male society. What's truly remarkable about the beast, however, is that he claims that he's sticking to the same set of rules! But his comparisons are merely emotion disguised as sophistry disguised as intelligent thought.
The fact that both of these Justices happen to identify as Republican is merely a coincidence.
Anyhow, this has gotten far off-topic. I just felt I should explain how I really feel. I don't hate Republicans... just Rehnquist and Scalia, and pretty much all the other Supreme Court Justices.
We granted review to determine whether the trial court properly exercised
jurisdiction over Pavlovich's person based solely on the posting of the DeCSS
source code on the LiVid Web site. We conclude it did not.
That's from the California Supreme Court. In short, it tells what specific decision of the trial court that they are addressing - namely, they only addressed the matter of jurisdiction.
So, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be limiting the appeal to that question as well. While they won't be addressing the details of whether or not the DVD CCA is within their rights to prosecute anyone, anywhere for this "crime," this case might mark an important decision in how far U.S. protection of big business extends through optical fiber.
My prediction:
*Bill Gates will be named amicus curiae for the case
*Scalia will conclude that, since electrical pulses travel at nearly the speed of light, the distance between the LiVid servers and California will have shrunk to nothing, thereby placing the server within the jurisdiction of California.
*Satan will invite Rehnquist to tea.
Second post... fantastic.
I have a question (poll I guess) for foosball players out there. Spinning or no spinning? Personally, I don't like spinning - especially since it can damage a table - but I've found that depending on where I play, house rules seem to change. What do you think?
This leads me to an idea for a neat feature for a high-tech table - a spin detector that doles out appropriate punishment (i.e. not counting points scored from spins, or whatever).
It'd also be interesting to see if there's a correlation between having a SHITTY ECONOMY and the rise of unemployment in fields who have MORE WORKERS THAN THERE IS DEMAND. But surely that's not possible. Blogging must be the cause.
Read: Correlation
Not: Causal relationship
Correlations are useful outside of determining whether or not one trend directly results in another because it is an underlying cause. An example: there is a strong correlation between shoe size and height, so shoe size might be a decent predictor of height. It doesn't mean that because someone has big feet, they're also tall. They have big feet and are tall because of their genes, environment, childhood diet, lack of osteoperosis, whatever. In the world of economics, correlations are used as what are called "leading" and "lagging" indicators. Leading indicators are especially useful because, whether or not there's a causal relationship or not, you can often use them to predict what might happen with the economy next.
There are some questions which really don't deserve any attention, though. I really don't see much, if any, scientific value in this.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drop a blog in the toilet.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the reason that these coats don't look entirely alike is probably entirely genetic. Although, you're correct, it's not predictable or controllable. When a female cat is conceived, it begins to grow, duplicating its cells. Each of these cells, however, has two copies of the x-chromosome. Only one of these is useful. So, in a random pattern, the cells will switch off one of the chromosomes by forming Barr bodies that surround it. It's a well understood process called Lyonization for anybody interested in looking into it. However, this only happens for females. One might then ask whether a male cat's clone would look identical. My guess is again that it would not, although Lyonization would not be an adequate explanation. However, I believe that they would look much more similar than any two cloned calico cats (which are all female and whose coats are formed by this mechanism).
Probably not aromatic. Aromatics are less reactive due to the pi electron delocalization and other things, and, in general, they are MUCH more toxic than simple alkenes. Benzene, the simplest aromatic compound, for example, is highly carcinogenic due to the liver's inability to metabolize it properly - whereas alkene compounds that aren't conjugated around a ring (such as unsaturated fats) tend to be pretty easy to metabolize.
Ultimately polarization experiments may be able to investigate the Universe in the very first fractions of a second after the Big Bang -- when it underwent a period of extremely rapid expansion known as 'inflation'.
So, the Universe started a few fractions of a second before Carter was elected? Fascinating.
I assume you're responding to my post, although I'm quite confused, because I never mentioned anything about parties. Nor did anyone else, as far as I can tell....
Personally, I don't care for parties at all, and I particularly don't care for Supreme Court Justices. With the exception of Old Mr. Stevens, I don't care for any of them. Whereas Stevens is a repentant man - one concerned with applying a consistent set of logical rules to legal issues, and willing to admit it when he believes he's made a mistake - I find that Scalia and Rehnquist happen to act in the completely opposite manner.
Rehnquist seems to just be harmlessly moronic. Scalia, however, is a severely demented man whose opinions are formulated entirely from his racist and mysogynistic beliefs. The interesting thing about Scalia is that, in one case, he may decide to apply a set of "logical" rules when those rules result in a conclusion that is profitable for white male society, and then, in another case, he'll completely abandon his "logic" if it results in a conclusion profitable for white male society. What's truly remarkable about the beast, however, is that he claims that he's sticking to the same set of rules! But his comparisons are merely emotion disguised as sophistry disguised as intelligent thought.
The fact that both of these Justices happen to identify as Republican is merely a coincidence.
Anyhow, this has gotten far off-topic. I just felt I should explain how I really feel. I don't hate Republicans... just Rehnquist and Scalia, and pretty much all the other Supreme Court Justices.
We granted review to determine whether the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over Pavlovich's person based solely on the posting of the DeCSS source code on the LiVid Web site. We conclude it did not.
That's from the California Supreme Court. In short, it tells what specific decision of the trial court that they are addressing - namely, they only addressed the matter of jurisdiction.
So, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be limiting the appeal to that question as well. While they won't be addressing the details of whether or not the DVD CCA is within their rights to prosecute anyone, anywhere for this "crime," this case might mark an important decision in how far U.S. protection of big business extends through optical fiber.
My prediction:
*Bill Gates will be named amicus curiae for the case
*Scalia will conclude that, since electrical pulses travel at nearly the speed of light, the distance between the LiVid servers and California will have shrunk to nothing, thereby placing the server within the jurisdiction of California.
*Satan will invite Rehnquist to tea.
Second post... fantastic. I have a question (poll I guess) for foosball players out there. Spinning or no spinning? Personally, I don't like spinning - especially since it can damage a table - but I've found that depending on where I play, house rules seem to change. What do you think? This leads me to an idea for a neat feature for a high-tech table - a spin detector that doles out appropriate punishment (i.e. not counting points scored from spins, or whatever).
So he chose to use a rotor of a large KKK brand turbocharger. Sorry. I just find that funny.
It'd also be interesting to see if there's a correlation between having a SHITTY ECONOMY and the rise of unemployment in fields who have MORE WORKERS THAN THERE IS DEMAND. But surely that's not possible. Blogging must be the cause. Read: Correlation Not: Causal relationship Correlations are useful outside of determining whether or not one trend directly results in another because it is an underlying cause. An example: there is a strong correlation between shoe size and height, so shoe size might be a decent predictor of height. It doesn't mean that because someone has big feet, they're also tall. They have big feet and are tall because of their genes, environment, childhood diet, lack of osteoperosis, whatever. In the world of economics, correlations are used as what are called "leading" and "lagging" indicators. Leading indicators are especially useful because, whether or not there's a causal relationship or not, you can often use them to predict what might happen with the economy next. There are some questions which really don't deserve any attention, though. I really don't see much, if any, scientific value in this. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drop a blog in the toilet.