"note that it is not known whether corn pollen would migrate to milkweed plants"
Actually, it is known that the pollen would not migrate in sufficient quantities (I think it was over 5 times the caterpillar's body weight in pollen). And more importantly, the caterpillars would not willingly eat the pollen. Left to themselves, they ate around the bit of pollen, as if, for example, it smelled like insecticide. They had to be FORCE FED the pollen to do the test.
And of course caution is warranted. That corn was tested, and tested, and tested. More so then 'just plain corn', you know, the stuff we've been cross-breeding (read: genetically modifying in a slower fashion) for centuries.
I really don't understand why biotech spawns so much luddite-ism, even from people that as a group should be reasonably intelligent.
"Or maybe it's that the two items being parodied are fairly unrelated"
Actually, I think that the less related the two items are, the better the parody. Picture Ghandi boxing for peace, Bill Gates as the head of a cute penguin, or George Bush graduating from college... wait, that last one actually happened. Sounds like a parody, doesn't it, though?
The courts need to realize that companies should have much, much less in the rights department. If it's a call between a person's rights and a company's, the company should have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with preponderance of the evidence working the other way.
8 marbles... put 1, 2 on one scale and 3, 4 on the other. If one side tips, it's trivial to get which is off in 2 weighings. (weigh 1,2, they're the same, weigh 1 vs 3 (you can't do 3v4, as you don't know which is heavier)) Remember, you don't need to figure out if it's heavier or lighter.
If it's not in 1-4, then put 1, 2 on one side and 5, 6 on the other. see above parenthetical (but 1v5) if they aren't equal. Otherwise, weigh 1v7.
2 weighings gets you which group of 2 it's in. Third one tells you which it is. The important part is to remember that the first 1/2 you weigh tells you either that your target is in that half (so you didn't 'waste' a step) or gives you 4 marbles you know are identical.
You know, I read this bit about the parody thing linked from PA a while ago, and my opinion hasn't changed. It's STILL a AWFUL RULING.
The purpose of trademark protection is to allow you to make money off your trademark, without confusing people... Like the kid says at the end of X-Files: "I made this!". This is obviously a parody of someone. This (the comic) is obviously not from AG. No one could POSSIBLY be confused that PA was trying to make money off of the 'Shortcake' trademark. Copyright? Same thing. I never thought that picture was owned by AG. There was no attempt to make it even look that way.
Luckaly it's only a circuit court (9th, right?) ruling that brings out that part of the definintion. Hopefully, the SC will have a clue when some case related to it comes up. It's like the judge was trying to carve his own personal exception to the exception by adding new bits to the definition of parody.
'Does not target the owner of the copyright' my hairy butt. Like you can't make fun of more than one thing at the same time.
You are obviously not from Massachusetts, because a) you weren't expecting the car to do something it didn't look like it should be doing, and b) the other car was using its turn signal.
I'm still trying to come up with ways to automate signaling, acceleration, etc. If I just knew what these idiots were doing, I wouldn't be so stressed out _I_ drive like an idiot. Wouldn't a, say, purple indicator on the back with a set of bars telling you how much the accelerator on the car is pressed help? And break lights on the _front_ of the car.
Which, of course, makes the whole 'I have the voice mail password' thing secondary. If you can access the guy's PC, connect it to his phone (to auto-pickup) then play back (from the speakers, right? Modems aren't designed for decent human range sound, I think... so you need something to actually pick up the phone), with distortion, which requires some slight, but non-zero amoung of coding knowledge... See? You've changed a remote access of voicemail problem into a 'someone broke in and screwed with my PC' problem.
Example: "YOu are about to accept a collect call. DO you accept?" (wait for 'yes', 'yep', 'uh-huh', whatever, interpret it, continue) 'To verify, please say the following word: (random word from set A)' (verify)
It wouldn't even take much effort. Suppose A includes 'toast', 'ummagumma', 'vaccum', 'moose', 'arbitrary', and of course, 'Forty-two'. They're all VERY distinctive, more so than 'nope' and 'yep', which they have to contend with anyway. Have, oh, 20 different lists, rotate them week to week (they're all on some server, not a problem there). Instant secure. Well, not absolute, but by an order of magnitude or 12.
Ok, fine, this is bad, but instead of doing something stupid, why don't they pressure those places to put better child protection laws into effect? Or give them straight cash for the trial: How about 'The UK will pay for any trial required to prosocute it's citizens found molesting underage boys in other countries {blah, blah, retoric insuring fair trial and rights protections). Instead, they've basically done NOTHING for the problem (you think a wealthy person can't avoid notice in another country from the cops?), and made it worse for very minor 'crimes' (going to Amsterdam for a joint, for example) because most of those can be traced after the fact. (I'll leave the last in there so I can slide over into an explaination... first time through, the discussion sounded like 'all UK laws apply to UK citizens out of country', which explains some of my comments in the last post a bit.)
It's still a rediculous law using a 'Save the Children! Think of the Children!*' to make people bend over for their 'government representitives'.
"Similarly football violence is in line for a similar law"
This is also stupid. You should ALREADY have been arrested at Heathrow, or wherever, and EXTREDITED for assult, insiting a riot, whatever. It's still a pointless law.
This is still extremely bad law. A countries laws govern the country, not the planet. This is the same sort of thing that countries like France haven't been able to figure out (sueing american companies for selling stuff legal to sell in the US).
Sigh... sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm that mad at you. I'm just really bothered by the fact that people in general have been brainwashed into thinking that more laws are needed instead of applying the ones we have better.
* Quote is from George Carlin. Remainder of the quote is: "You know what? Fuck the children. I know what you're thinking: 'He's not going to attack children, is he?' Yes, I'm going to attack children."
"There are UK laws specifically making UK citizens who commit criminal acts abroad responsible under UK law"
That's bizzare and rather perverse... I mean, you go to another country, you're bound by THEIR laws, otherwise you'd get arrested. What if the two laws conflict? And never mind half the point of going some places (Amsterdam?) is getting away from stupid, restrictive laws.
Suppose some guy comes from somewhere where guns are illegal. You want to try one out. You go to (say) the US to try out a.357. Exactly why should the UK care that Theo Retical blew off a clip? He didn't violate local laws, and he was under their jurisdiction.
Just goes to prove that governments aren't there to protect people, they're there to maintain a small group's control over others.
"are you sure that the society, as opposed to individuals within the society"
I didn't consider the distinction important. Rich individuals within the society giving large sums of money for fundimental research is equivilent, for these purposes, to everyone giving a little.
Legal environment: I think that was covered by 'must value observed knowledge...', actually. Lack of valueing the knowledge results in laws against acquiring it.
I don't understand your meaning on the differance between respect for theory and practice.
Ah, hell with it. I'll today's my day to respond to the troll.
I'm sorry, YOU get the F for today. Ever look at that letter you're waving about? I doubt it. The reason it is quoted is twofold: First, Jefferson says, in that letter, to assure a Christian community no less, that what they meant when they wrote "respect no establishment of religion" IS the 'wall of seperation'. And second, the Supreme Court has said the same thing: A rough quote, because I'm not wasting google's server time on you, is 'And while it is not found in the constitution, the 'Wall of Seperation' is an excelent metaphor for the protections granted by the first amendment'.
Net time you troll, could you at least, please, say something different, something that might actually require more than a response that has been given by thousands of people tens of thousands of times?
That is interesting... Let's see what I come up with for requirements:
Secular (to be precise, must value observed knowledge of how the universe works over 'revealed', such as what Bob (PhD, Physics) has to say about his physics theories, or what the preacher says.)
Must be willing to spend money on research (i.e. values progress)
Must have ways for many researchers to test observerations (ah-ha!)
Ok, that last one is a big one. I think it's valid (3 people testing a theory gives us the whole cold fusion scam. 50 gives us a fair amount of proof in the theory). And that requires one major component: Mass production. I bet that a secular society and access to mass production are the two biggest factors in rapid scientific progress.
We'll skip the Vorlon and Shadow ships... They're way overtech, anyway, and are supposed to look pretty much imposible. A million years of design will do that.
Exactly what are you talking about, than? The Earth ships are remarkably realistic. The Starfuries are dead on the way I would design a starfighter. The engines are on the tips of the 'fragile wings'? You mean like a 747 or a B52? Why didn't the designers of those place all the engines in the main body?
What about capital ships? The Hyperion is a huge block. The only things hanging out are turrets, the habitat (I'm assuming, the spinning thing... which is massive, and not structurally unsound) and maybe antennas or something. And if the turrets are a problem, than the turrets on a Abrams are too.
Or the most fragile looking ships, the Mimbari capships. No weights in the 'wings', so there isn't a problem there that isn't in a basic modern plane. Or the White Star class... Outrigger engines (for maneuverability) held by support wings. Sure, the wings look nice, but so what? I'd design them that way if I didn't need to worry about drag, too.
Most of the rest of the alien races aren't that bad, either. Only the elder races.
You could hear my roommate's screams the day I figured out that you can use a teleporter, turn around, and plant a laser mine on the wall for the guy following you.
From across the level... "BEEPBEEPBEEP...BOOM!!!"
From the next room "Z, You SUCK!"
And then there's tossing pipe bombs and rockets through them... And the ever popular hitting them with an rpg and bouncing them THROUGH the teleporter and into the laser mine on the wall...
5 On Error goto 10 6 On Break goto 10 10 Print "Hello! "; 20 goto 10
Apple basic: Translation for those who may not know it. Basically, no matter what you do, it'll keep going. No control C, etc. 80 columns (or 40, depending) and you make sure the spaces cause the thing to scroll to the side. Looks neato. Well, for a simple basic program, anyway.
Well, it's not like MS could screw up life any worse than it already is.
But think about what life as created like linux is would be like... Unlike MSlife, you can have small pets, instead of requiring a brain the size of an elephant to get intelegence. Just use the amount of IQ you need for the application (120+ for an engineer, 80 for a janitor, 60 for a politician or a manager, 20 for a cat, 3 for a dog, etc.), and don't compile the rest of the stuff.
Everyone on the planet can write their own bits of life and distribute them... You can be your own web server! Every time you get a hit you have an orgasm. Beware of the DOS and slashdotting, though...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is known that the pollen would not migrate in sufficient quantities (I think it was over 5 times the caterpillar's body weight in pollen). And more importantly, the caterpillars would not willingly eat the pollen. Left to themselves, they ate around the bit of pollen, as if, for example, it smelled like insecticide. They had to be FORCE FED the pollen to do the test.
And of course caution is warranted. That corn was tested, and tested, and tested. More so then 'just plain corn', you know, the stuff we've been cross-breeding (read: genetically modifying in a slower fashion) for centuries.
I really don't understand why biotech spawns so much luddite-ism, even from people that as a group should be reasonably intelligent.
Actually, I think that the less related the two items are, the better the parody. Picture Ghandi boxing for peace, Bill Gates as the head of a cute penguin, or George Bush graduating from college... wait, that last one actually happened. Sounds like a parody, doesn't it, though?
The courts need to realize that companies should have much, much less in the rights department. If it's a call between a person's rights and a company's, the company should have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with preponderance of the evidence working the other way.
No offence, but the way that's phrased screams '8 marbles!' Add in talking about weighing a total of 4, and then the 'set aside' group of 4...
I'll have to think about doing 12 optimally.
If it's not in 1-4, then put 1, 2 on one side and 5, 6 on the other. see above parenthetical (but 1v5) if they aren't equal. Otherwise, weigh 1v7.
2 weighings gets you which group of 2 it's in. Third one tells you which it is. The important part is to remember that the first 1/2 you weigh tells you either that your target is in that half (so you didn't 'waste' a step) or gives you 4 marbles you know are identical.
The purpose of trademark protection is to allow you to make money off your trademark, without confusing people... Like the kid says at the end of X-Files: "I made this!". This is obviously a parody of someone. This (the comic) is obviously not from AG. No one could POSSIBLY be confused that PA was trying to make money off of the 'Shortcake' trademark. Copyright? Same thing. I never thought that picture was owned by AG. There was no attempt to make it even look that way.
Luckaly it's only a circuit court (9th, right?) ruling that brings out that part of the definintion. Hopefully, the SC will have a clue when some case related to it comes up. It's like the judge was trying to carve his own personal exception to the exception by adding new bits to the definition of parody.
'Does not target the owner of the copyright' my hairy butt. Like you can't make fun of more than one thing at the same time.
I'm still trying to come up with ways to automate signaling, acceleration, etc. If I just knew what these idiots were doing, I wouldn't be so stressed out _I_ drive like an idiot. Wouldn't a, say, purple indicator on the back with a set of bars telling you how much the accelerator on the car is pressed help? And break lights on the _front_ of the car.
I should patent that. Anyone got 10 grand?
Lack of a lameness filter is why we have this Supreme Court, isn't it? Don't be so down on it.
And, if you managed to do well enough, in the original Metroid, you could play as Samus without the armor.
Which, of course, makes the whole 'I have the voice mail password' thing secondary. If you can access the guy's PC, connect it to his phone (to auto-pickup) then play back (from the speakers, right? Modems aren't designed for decent human range sound, I think... so you need something to actually pick up the phone), with distortion, which requires some slight, but non-zero amoung of coding knowledge... See? You've changed a remote access of voicemail problem into a 'someone broke in and screwed with my PC' problem.
Example: "YOu are about to accept a collect call. DO you accept?" (wait for 'yes', 'yep', 'uh-huh', whatever, interpret it, continue) 'To verify, please say the following word: (random word from set A)' (verify)
It wouldn't even take much effort. Suppose A includes 'toast', 'ummagumma', 'vaccum', 'moose', 'arbitrary', and of course, 'Forty-two'. They're all VERY distinctive, more so than 'nope' and 'yep', which they have to contend with anyway. Have, oh, 20 different lists, rotate them week to week (they're all on some server, not a problem there). Instant secure. Well, not absolute, but by an order of magnitude or 12.
You say that like there's something WRONG with that...
Ok, fine, this is bad, but instead of doing something stupid, why don't they pressure those places to put better child protection laws into effect? Or give them straight cash for the trial: How about 'The UK will pay for any trial required to prosocute it's citizens found molesting underage boys in other countries {blah, blah, retoric insuring fair trial and rights protections). Instead, they've basically done NOTHING for the problem (you think a wealthy person can't avoid notice in another country from the cops?), and made it worse for very minor 'crimes' (going to Amsterdam for a joint, for example) because most of those can be traced after the fact. (I'll leave the last in there so I can slide over into an explaination... first time through, the discussion sounded like 'all UK laws apply to UK citizens out of country', which explains some of my comments in the last post a bit.)
It's still a rediculous law using a 'Save the Children! Think of the Children!*' to make people bend over for their 'government representitives'.
"Similarly football violence is in line for a similar law"
This is also stupid. You should ALREADY have been arrested at Heathrow, or wherever, and EXTREDITED for assult, insiting a riot, whatever. It's still a pointless law.
This is still extremely bad law. A countries laws govern the country, not the planet. This is the same sort of thing that countries like France haven't been able to figure out (sueing american companies for selling stuff legal to sell in the US).
Sigh... sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm that mad at you. I'm just really bothered by the fact that people in general have been brainwashed into thinking that more laws are needed instead of applying the ones we have better.
* Quote is from George Carlin. Remainder of the quote is: "You know what? Fuck the children. I know what you're thinking: 'He's not going to attack children, is he?' Yes, I'm going to attack children."
That's bizzare and rather perverse... I mean, you go to another country, you're bound by THEIR laws, otherwise you'd get arrested. What if the two laws conflict? And never mind half the point of going some places (Amsterdam?) is getting away from stupid, restrictive laws.
Suppose some guy comes from somewhere where guns are illegal. You want to try one out. You go to (say) the US to try out a .357. Exactly why should the UK care that Theo Retical blew off a clip? He didn't violate local laws, and he was under their jurisdiction.
Just goes to prove that governments aren't there to protect people, they're there to maintain a small group's control over others.
I didn't consider the distinction important. Rich individuals within the society giving large sums of money for fundimental research is equivilent, for these purposes, to everyone giving a little.
Legal environment: I think that was covered by 'must value observed knowledge...', actually. Lack of valueing the knowledge results in laws against acquiring it.
I don't understand your meaning on the differance between respect for theory and practice.
I'm sorry, YOU get the F for today. Ever look at that letter you're waving about? I doubt it. The reason it is quoted is twofold: First, Jefferson says, in that letter, to assure a Christian community no less, that what they meant when they wrote "respect no establishment of religion" IS the 'wall of seperation'. And second, the Supreme Court has said the same thing: A rough quote, because I'm not wasting google's server time on you, is 'And while it is not found in the constitution, the 'Wall of Seperation' is an excelent metaphor for the protections granted by the first amendment'.
Net time you troll, could you at least, please, say something different, something that might actually require more than a response that has been given by thousands of people tens of thousands of times?
Secular (to be precise, must value observed knowledge of how the universe works over 'revealed', such as what Bob (PhD, Physics) has to say about his physics theories, or what the preacher says.)
Must be willing to spend money on research (i.e. values progress)
Must have ways for many researchers to test observerations (ah-ha!)
Ok, that last one is a big one. I think it's valid (3 people testing a theory gives us the whole cold fusion scam. 50 gives us a fair amount of proof in the theory). And that requires one major component: Mass production. I bet that a secular society and access to mass production are the two biggest factors in rapid scientific progress.
Is this a trick question?
Just to point out... Notice the word 'government' in there? Stupid is implied.
Exactly what are you talking about, than? The Earth ships are remarkably realistic. The Starfuries are dead on the way I would design a starfighter. The engines are on the tips of the 'fragile wings'? You mean like a 747 or a B52? Why didn't the designers of those place all the engines in the main body?
What about capital ships? The Hyperion is a huge block. The only things hanging out are turrets, the habitat (I'm assuming, the spinning thing... which is massive, and not structurally unsound) and maybe antennas or something. And if the turrets are a problem, than the turrets on a Abrams are too.
Or the most fragile looking ships, the Mimbari capships. No weights in the 'wings', so there isn't a problem there that isn't in a basic modern plane. Or the White Star class... Outrigger engines (for maneuverability) held by support wings. Sure, the wings look nice, but so what? I'd design them that way if I didn't need to worry about drag, too.
Most of the rest of the alien races aren't that bad, either. Only the elder races.
"...I thought chicks just didn't have assholes!" Of course they do. They're called 'boyfriends'.
Ummm... Can we make this an "Instant Sex Suit"?
Welcome to /., Mr. Ray-gun!
DZ: What truth?
Z: That there is no page.
From across the level... "BEEPBEEPBEEP...BOOM!!!"
From the next room "Z, You SUCK!"
And then there's tossing pipe bombs and rockets through them... And the ever popular hitting them with an rpg and bouncing them THROUGH the teleporter and into the laser mine on the wall...
And it was my first screen saver!
But think about what life as created like linux is would be like... Unlike MSlife, you can have small pets, instead of requiring a brain the size of an elephant to get intelegence. Just use the amount of IQ you need for the application (120+ for an engineer, 80 for a janitor, 60 for a politician or a manager, 20 for a cat, 3 for a dog, etc.), and don't compile the rest of the stuff.
Everyone on the planet can write their own bits of life and distribute them... You can be your own web server! Every time you get a hit you have an orgasm. Beware of the DOS and slashdotting, though...
Yeah, I have a strange thought process.