Being woefully ignorant of the proper legal routes you're supposed to take doesn't exempt you from being held responsible if and when you don't take those routes. This article just says that they didn't intentionally break the law, but I don't see any difference.
"But Wikipedia doesn't really have a totally egalitarian editing policy. When the content of a page is disputed by an admin and a non-admin, the admin is going to win the dispute 9 times out of 10. That might not be explicit policy, but it is the de facto reality of the situation. Admins tend to support other admins."
Can you show evidence of this? You make it sound as if admins are constantly checking whether the people they talk to are also admins. I've never done this. If someone can cite their sources in a discussion, it doesn't really matter if they're an admin or not.
"The difference between micro and macro is the former is the enhancement of features already present while the latter is the addition of features not formerly present."
This difference only exists if you remain ignorant of the many intermediate steps that led to the evolution of wings. Your description of "macroevolution" also smacks of predetermination.
I just tried using those drivers for a Logitech QuickCam, but it still wouldn't install. I also tried going through Logitech's site and getting the Vista x64 drivers; still didn't work.
From the article: "As the compound is already patented, her team will probably have to design something slightly different to be able to patent it as a new drug."
So is the public at large now generally accepting the beliefs that not only are biological compounds patentable, but that slightly changing them results in something sufficiently different to also be patentable?
This is equivalent to saying they are making 3 times what I make, when they're only making 2 times what I make. Regardless of which number is correct, I'm still left feeling screwed over.
"Inspiration for finely-honed Google searches for authoritative sites"
That's actually how I've gone about writing many of the articles I've put together on Wikipedia, by scouring internet/book search engines using very specific terms to find authoritative sources.
Activision holds the license to one of the greatest franchises of all time: Zork. Back when Zork Grand Inquisitor came out (1996?), they had planned it to be the first in a trilogy (much to the excitement of fans). Since then, they've done nothing. You can't even find any results for the work "zork" on their site anymore (they used to have a nice interactive site to promote ZGI). They're just sitting on the license and doing nothing with it.
Pace VanDevender, a plasma physicist who used to be the VP of the organization I worked in at Sandia National Labs, Albuquerque, NM. He gave a fascinating talk on ball lightning a couple summers ago, and he seems like an all-round brilliant guy. As for the ball lightning created in the Brazilian lab, this doesn't seem to have any of the physical properties of observed ball lightning (except that it's a glowing ball). The ball lightning that has been observed is much larger (up to a meter or more wide), lasts for much longer (minutes/hours), seems to float or move in *any* direction at "will" (unlike this stuff, which just moves like a marble dropped on the floor), and most importantly, is capable of seemingly passing through some objects while completely obliterating others. One possibility is that there are multiple classes of what we would call "ball lightning", each with their own unrelated cause.
Is there any evidence this will be effective against the cancer stem cells that are thought to continually produce cancer cells? Those are supposed to be much more difficult to destroy, and if you don't kill them, the cancer will just keep coming back.
Manned missions haven't made good press since Apollo. These days it's the unmanned missions, such as Hubble and WMAP, that are making scientific breakthroughs and providing the necessary eye candy to get the public's attention. Now manned missions only get attention if something goes wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I read about this back in November, and it was known even in 2005. How many people's lives were affected in the interim due to slow news sources?
That headline should read, "Building Tomorrow's More Solid Today"
Being woefully ignorant of the proper legal routes you're supposed to take doesn't exempt you from being held responsible if and when you don't take those routes. This article just says that they didn't intentionally break the law, but I don't see any difference.
What are the chances that anyone will ever - ever - be arrested over this?
Zeus would be pissed to know that his minions screwed up our genes so we'd believe in the wrong god.
"the theist can argue that the direction towards worship is part of the Creator's plan."
He can argue that all he wants, but without evidence, he's just blowing hot air.
"But Wikipedia doesn't really have a totally egalitarian editing policy. When the content of a page is disputed by an admin and a non-admin, the admin is going to win the dispute 9 times out of 10. That might not be explicit policy, but it is the de facto reality of the situation. Admins tend to support other admins."
Can you show evidence of this? You make it sound as if admins are constantly checking whether the people they talk to are also admins. I've never done this. If someone can cite their sources in a discussion, it doesn't really matter if they're an admin or not.
"the creatures tend to stick to trees"
I agree with your argument completely; I just wanted to know what your explanation was for why they tended to stick to trees.
"The difference between micro and macro is the former is the enhancement of features already present while the latter is the addition of features not formerly present."
This difference only exists if you remain ignorant of the many intermediate steps that led to the evolution of wings. Your description of "macroevolution" also smacks of predetermination.
"Watch a sporting event such as football or especially baseball. You will see the ads placed around the stadium change. "
This is especially noticeable in baseball games when the camera is shaking due to the wind, but the advertisements in the background don't move.
I just tried using those drivers for a Logitech QuickCam, but it still wouldn't install. I also tried going through Logitech's site and getting the Vista x64 drivers; still didn't work.
From the article: "As the compound is already patented, her team will probably have to design something slightly different to be able to patent it as a new drug."
So is the public at large now generally accepting the beliefs that not only are biological compounds patentable, but that slightly changing them results in something sufficiently different to also be patentable?
This is equivalent to saying they are making 3 times what I make, when they're only making 2 times what I make. Regardless of which number is correct, I'm still left feeling screwed over.
"Inspiration for finely-honed Google searches for authoritative sites"
That's actually how I've gone about writing many of the articles I've put together on Wikipedia, by scouring internet/book search engines using very specific terms to find authoritative sources.
Except that it's generally a good idea for individuals to retain their ability to think in all situations.
Activision holds the license to one of the greatest franchises of all time: Zork. Back when Zork Grand Inquisitor came out (1996?), they had planned it to be the first in a trilogy (much to the excitement of fans). Since then, they've done nothing. You can't even find any results for the work "zork" on their site anymore (they used to have a nice interactive site to promote ZGI). They're just sitting on the license and doing nothing with it.
Bastards.
Pace VanDevender, a plasma physicist who used to be the VP of the organization I worked in at Sandia National Labs, Albuquerque, NM. He gave a fascinating talk on ball lightning a couple summers ago, and he seems like an all-round brilliant guy. As for the ball lightning created in the Brazilian lab, this doesn't seem to have any of the physical properties of observed ball lightning (except that it's a glowing ball). The ball lightning that has been observed is much larger (up to a meter or more wide), lasts for much longer (minutes/hours), seems to float or move in *any* direction at "will" (unlike this stuff, which just moves like a marble dropped on the floor), and most importantly, is capable of seemingly passing through some objects while completely obliterating others. One possibility is that there are multiple classes of what we would call "ball lightning", each with their own unrelated cause.
Did you click the link? .....
The full article can be found here.
In other words, they have to say the same thing in 20 different ways to hide the fact that there is no story here.
From the article:
"There is no story there," the official told The Globe and Mail.
In other words... "These aren't the loons you're looking for."
The slashdot story text is taken directly from the Oak Ridge article. Try again.
Is there any evidence this will be effective against the cancer stem cells that are thought to continually produce cancer cells? Those are supposed to be much more difficult to destroy, and if you don't kill them, the cancer will just keep coming back.
Manned missions haven't made good press since Apollo. These days it's the unmanned missions, such as Hubble and WMAP, that are making scientific breakthroughs and providing the necessary eye candy to get the public's attention. Now manned missions only get attention if something goes wrong.
Ok, so not in the US, but it made a good joke.