Resources - Hemp is an awesome product all around (Paper, fabric, etc).
Fiber hemp is from a different plant than hallucinogenic hemp. You'd have to smoke many acres of the stuff before you got even the tiniest high.
So why is it illegal at all? Possibly because authorities are afraid people will hide the other kind of hemp in those fields. I also once read a theory that the US cotton industry was behind the marijuana ban in the early 20th century. Or maybe it was the paper industry. Or both.
Well, as far as I remember, it's not illegal for the coffeeshops to sell it, and it's not illegal for people to have less than 3 grams on them at any time (and 3 plants in their homes),
5 plants, is what my neighbour told me. That's how many he had, and he claimed it was legal.
The Dutch drug approach isn't exactly perfect either. Use and purchase in small quantities is legal, but production and trade in large quantities isn't, which leaves the question how coffeshops are supposed to get their weed. The only realistic answer is: illegally. So while use is legal, growth and trade is still illegal and therefore unregulated. And a source of income for organised crime.
Full legalisation and regulation would me much better, but France, the EU and the US would probably complain.
Evolution happens to groups, mutation happens to individuals.
Evolution is nothing more than mutations over time.
Over more time than the life of a single individual. No individual evolves. An individual might carry mutations, but evolution is about the impact that those mutations have on the individual's chance of successful reproduction. That impact is what determines how common that mutation is going to be in the population, and evolution is the changing of the frequencies of various mutations in the population.
Further, you can have a few individuals of a group evolve at a different rate and in a different direction than the remainder of the group. Humans are good example of this.
No, you can have a sub-population evolving in a different direction than the rest of the population. The actual individual members of that population don't do any of the evolving. As carriers of genes, they're only part of the process that works on their entire population.
It's also not surprising given the gamete numbers. A billion sperm are going to produce more mutations than a thousand eggs, even with the size difference between the X and Y chromosomes.
But half of those sperm are going to produce females.
As TFS said, there is rapid evolution on the Y chromosome in the human race. With the exception of a few anomalies, this means males.
Yes the female population benefits from this, but these accelerated mutations and shifts in allele frequency are not within the female population, therefor they are not within the group that is evolving at a more rapid pace.
Males as a group are not evolving at a more rapid pace. Only one particular chromosome is evolving rapidly in males. All our other chromosomes are shared with females.
And exactly what traits are evolving so rapidly on that one chromosome is a mystery to me. As far as I know, the only actual gene that has been identified on the Y chromosome is the gene for hair in your ears. Yippee.
The notion of evolving males is not silly. That's why peacocks have big bright displays, while peahens are boring brown. (This is even within the wild population of peacocks.)
This is called "sex selection," and Darwin wrote extensively about it.
But that doesn't happen independently from the females. In fact, it happens exactly because of the hens. Sexual behaviour is a complex interaction, and the bright displays are only a manifestation of that. It happens because of tastes, roles and behaviours within the entire population, and it's likely that many genes involved in this are carried just as much by the female peacocks, but they only express themselves in the males.
Males are not an independent population. And individuals don't evolve, so the notion of evolving males is silly.
Evolution is something that happens in a population, not in an individual. The female part of out population likely benefits just as much from the continuous changes to the Y chromosome as the male part of the population. Evolutionary speaking, that is. It's unlikely any individual would really care.
Quite brilliant indeed, but I think approaching a girl and just talk to her will be less time consuming and with A LOT more of success rate than this, shall I call it "experiment"?
I doubt it. Approaching girls isn't easy when you don't get out much. Also, he's proven that it's extremely unlikely that he's going to meet the right girl that way. This paper is much more likely to reach the kind of women he's interested in, and also more likely to get them interested in him. I predict he's not going to be single for long.
Common, this is just a stunt in order to get his picture all over the net in order to find a girlfriend !
And I think it could be very successful. He's good looking, smart, quite openly single, and willing to joke about it. Sounds like quite a catch to me.
I mean, there are even single women writing love letters to inmates. Surely a good-looking, funny geek like him will get swamped in similar letters from lonely women?
Financially, my situation improved quite a bit. I switched jobs in 2008 and again in 2009, both times having several interesting options to choose from, and not having a lot of competition from other applicants, as far as I know. Especially at my last job switch, some employers were really disappointed that I didn't pick them. But even in 2008, one kept contacting me after a few months to check if perhaps I wasn't happy about the job I picked and wanted to work for them instead. I now make significantly more money while working 1 day per week less than I did 2 years ago. And I bought a new house and a new car.
From what I can tell, the programming job market has been really booming these last few years. In Netherland, at least. I don't live in the US.
(It's nice we're finally getting some. Programmers used to be terribly underpaid around here.)
It would be a good amount for a single person for a few pizzas, but how long would wikileaks survive with it? Slashdot UID is still only running somewhere around 1 700 000.
He needs $600,000 per year at most. So if every slashdotter pays a dollar every three years, they're basically there.
Don't PCs get replaced roughly every 3 years? A dollar for each new PC as free-speech tax.
Big companies have a lot of overhead, and they need big sellers to pay for that. I think a few big mainstream titles are a lot easier to market for them than lots of small and unusual titles. To them, big titles are safe.
Small developers are more flexible and don't have the big marketing and distribution network, so they can or need to rely more on word of mouth and other less controllable forms of marketing. That makes small, innovative games more attractive, and big games risky.
Modern game development focuses more on expensive, movie-like graphics than on clever, original, innovative gameplay. In fact, with budgets like this, innovation is dangerous. Better stick to what's been proven to sell. Just like in Hollywood. Innovation usually starts small, and the bigger the business becomes, the smaller innovation has to start.
What are you complaining about? The GP didn't say critterding or critterdrug suck. He just pointed out it's self-promotion (the submitter of the story is the guy who made critterdrug), and it tries to seem interesting by suggesting there's some sort of controversy, without linking to an article that attacks critterdrug for whatever's supposed to be controversial about it. So brilanon tries to seem more interesting than he is and hopes for attention.
I'm not saying it's less interesting than Spore. Critterding sounds quite interesting (I don't see the point of critterdrug much), but the only thing controversial about critterdrug is that he's trying to hype it through false controversy. Well, now he's got a real one, I guess. I bet that'll make him happy.
Also, because that ass Whedon thought it'd be "edgy" or something to unnecessarily, unceremoniously, and inelegantly kill Wash. What the hell, man? The heroes are supposed to be essentially immortal, unless their death is a Sacrifice for the Greater Good. Just killing Wash like that was a complete failure to adhere to the principles of Good Storytelling.
His death did serve a function. It's exactly like you say: heroes are supposed to be immortal, and that would have made the ending of the movie terribly unexciting. Exactly because Wash and Book were dead, was the audience able to believe that the entire crew was going to die.
I'm not against killing off major characters if it servers the experience like that, but you're entirely correct that the movie tried to wrap up too many loose ends all at the same time.
Also, space has suddenly become a lot smaller in the movie. In the series it takes them ages to get anywhere, but here they zip around at warp 10 with a giant fleet at their tail.
The as-a is seldom used, but objects of one class can be used as-a object of another derived class if the parent supports it and the language supports it. For example... road tire and spare tire both inherit from tire, but one can inherit from the other (like siblings) and be used AS another, while overriding only say max_speed=45 for the spare.
This sounds exactly like the kind of thing Javascript can do. Better than many other OO languages.
The other two (is-a and has-a (which has nothing to do with inheritance, other than that subclasses inherit the property)) are obviously supported by Javascript.
Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.
The movie already wrapped everything up (though not terribly well). Firefly needs to be a series, not a movie. I'd rather forget that the movie happened and continue where the series left off.
(Not that the movie is so terrible. It's not. It was very good considering the circumstances, but it's really not nearly as good as the TV series was.)
Can't believe that one's missing from Wired's original list. The only entry on that list that even makes sense is Buck Rogers. All the others are recent, current, already restarted or animations. Not really the same thing.
In any case, the fan list has far better suggestions, including Blake's 7.
Slashdot Mirror
Resources - Hemp is an awesome product all around (Paper, fabric, etc).
Fiber hemp is from a different plant than hallucinogenic hemp. You'd have to smoke many acres of the stuff before you got even the tiniest high.
So why is it illegal at all? Possibly because authorities are afraid people will hide the other kind of hemp in those fields. I also once read a theory that the US cotton industry was behind the marijuana ban in the early 20th century. Or maybe it was the paper industry. Or both.
Well, as far as I remember, it's not illegal for the coffeeshops to sell it, and it's not illegal for people to have less than 3 grams on them at any time (and 3 plants in their homes),
5 plants, is what my neighbour told me. That's how many he had, and he claimed it was legal.
Pot is basically as harmless as alcohol,
Alcohol harmless? I don't think there's any drug that does as much damage as alcohol. Pot is very benign in comparison to alcohol and even nicotine.
The Dutch drug approach isn't exactly perfect either. Use and purchase in small quantities is legal, but production and trade in large quantities isn't, which leaves the question how coffeshops are supposed to get their weed. The only realistic answer is: illegally. So while use is legal, growth and trade is still illegal and therefore unregulated. And a source of income for organised crime.
Full legalisation and regulation would me much better, but France, the EU and the US would probably complain.
You are correct. I'm making the exact same error as smooth wombat: taking one aspect of evolution and claiming that's what it's really about.
Evolution happens to groups, mutation happens to individuals.
Evolution is nothing more than mutations over time.
Over more time than the life of a single individual. No individual evolves. An individual might carry mutations, but evolution is about the impact that those mutations have on the individual's chance of successful reproduction. That impact is what determines how common that mutation is going to be in the population, and evolution is the changing of the frequencies of various mutations in the population.
Further, you can have a few individuals of a group evolve at a different rate and in a different direction than the remainder of the group. Humans are good example of this.
No, you can have a sub-population evolving in a different direction than the rest of the population. The actual individual members of that population don't do any of the evolving. As carriers of genes, they're only part of the process that works on their entire population.
It's also not surprising given the gamete numbers. A billion sperm are going to produce more mutations than a thousand eggs, even with the size difference between the X and Y chromosomes.
But half of those sperm are going to produce females.
Maybe "don't be evil" is a healthier basis for foreign policy than whatever Microsoft's mission statement is.
Didn't MS once decide that their goal was "world domination"?
As TFS said, there is rapid evolution on the Y chromosome in the human race. With the exception of a few anomalies, this means males.
Yes the female population benefits from this, but these accelerated mutations and shifts in allele frequency are not within the female population, therefor they are not within the group that is evolving at a more rapid pace.
Males as a group are not evolving at a more rapid pace. Only one particular chromosome is evolving rapidly in males. All our other chromosomes are shared with females.
And exactly what traits are evolving so rapidly on that one chromosome is a mystery to me. As far as I know, the only actual gene that has been identified on the Y chromosome is the gene for hair in your ears. Yippee.
The notion of evolving males is not silly. That's why peacocks have big bright displays, while peahens are boring brown. (This is even within the wild population of peacocks.)
This is called "sex selection," and Darwin wrote extensively about it.
But that doesn't happen independently from the females. In fact, it happens exactly because of the hens. Sexual behaviour is a complex interaction, and the bright displays are only a manifestation of that. It happens because of tastes, roles and behaviours within the entire population, and it's likely that many genes involved in this are carried just as much by the female peacocks, but they only express themselves in the males.
My newspaper said that Google is shaping US foreign policy. And they're working closely with Hillary Clinton on this.
It's great, exciting, but also a bit scary.
Males are not an independent population. And individuals don't evolve, so the notion of evolving males is silly.
Evolution is something that happens in a population, not in an individual. The female part of out population likely benefits just as much from the continuous changes to the Y chromosome as the male part of the population. Evolutionary speaking, that is. It's unlikely any individual would really care.
Quite brilliant indeed, but I think approaching a girl and just talk to her will be less time consuming and with A LOT more of success rate than this, shall I call it "experiment"?
I doubt it. Approaching girls isn't easy when you don't get out much. Also, he's proven that it's extremely unlikely that he's going to meet the right girl that way. This paper is much more likely to reach the kind of women he's interested in, and also more likely to get them interested in him. I predict he's not going to be single for long.
Common, this is just a stunt in order to get his picture all over the net in order to find a girlfriend !
And I think it could be very successful. He's good looking, smart, quite openly single, and willing to joke about it. Sounds like quite a catch to me.
I mean, there are even single women writing love letters to inmates. Surely a good-looking, funny geek like him will get swamped in similar letters from lonely women?
Financially, my situation improved quite a bit. I switched jobs in 2008 and again in 2009, both times having several interesting options to choose from, and not having a lot of competition from other applicants, as far as I know. Especially at my last job switch, some employers were really disappointed that I didn't pick them. But even in 2008, one kept contacting me after a few months to check if perhaps I wasn't happy about the job I picked and wanted to work for them instead. I now make significantly more money while working 1 day per week less than I did 2 years ago. And I bought a new house and a new car.
From what I can tell, the programming job market has been really booming these last few years. In Netherland, at least. I don't live in the US.
(It's nice we're finally getting some. Programmers used to be terribly underpaid around here.)
It would be a good amount for a single person for a few pizzas, but how long would wikileaks survive with it? Slashdot UID is still only running somewhere around 1 700 000.
He needs $600,000 per year at most. So if every slashdotter pays a dollar every three years, they're basically there.
Don't PCs get replaced roughly every 3 years? A dollar for each new PC as free-speech tax.
Big companies have a lot of overhead, and they need big sellers to pay for that. I think a few big mainstream titles are a lot easier to market for them than lots of small and unusual titles. To them, big titles are safe.
Small developers are more flexible and don't have the big marketing and distribution network, so they can or need to rely more on word of mouth and other less controllable forms of marketing. That makes small, innovative games more attractive, and big games risky.
Modern game development focuses more on expensive, movie-like graphics than on clever, original, innovative gameplay. In fact, with budgets like this, innovation is dangerous. Better stick to what's been proven to sell. Just like in Hollywood. Innovation usually starts small, and the bigger the business becomes, the smaller innovation has to start.
What are you complaining about? The GP didn't say critterding or critterdrug suck. He just pointed out it's self-promotion (the submitter of the story is the guy who made critterdrug), and it tries to seem interesting by suggesting there's some sort of controversy, without linking to an article that attacks critterdrug for whatever's supposed to be controversial about it. So brilanon tries to seem more interesting than he is and hopes for attention.
I'm not saying it's less interesting than Spore. Critterding sounds quite interesting (I don't see the point of critterdrug much), but the only thing controversial about critterdrug is that he's trying to hype it through false controversy. Well, now he's got a real one, I guess. I bet that'll make him happy.
Also, because that ass Whedon thought it'd be "edgy" or something to unnecessarily, unceremoniously, and inelegantly kill Wash. What the hell, man? The heroes are supposed to be essentially immortal, unless their death is a Sacrifice for the Greater Good. Just killing Wash like that was a complete failure to adhere to the principles of Good Storytelling.
His death did serve a function. It's exactly like you say: heroes are supposed to be immortal, and that would have made the ending of the movie terribly unexciting. Exactly because Wash and Book were dead, was the audience able to believe that the entire crew was going to die.
I'm not against killing off major characters if it servers the experience like that, but you're entirely correct that the movie tried to wrap up too many loose ends all at the same time.
Also, space has suddenly become a lot smaller in the movie. In the series it takes them ages to get anywhere, but here they zip around at warp 10 with a giant fleet at their tail.
It is OO, but you did not make a new instance of a class, you made a new object.
How is that not the same thing? Where are instances not objects?
A porche IS A car.
You already know about this, obviously.
A car HAS A carburetor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Has-a
The as-a is seldom used, but objects of one class can be used as-a object of another derived class if the parent supports it and the language supports it. For example... road tire and spare tire both inherit from tire, but one can inherit from the other (like siblings) and be used AS another, while overriding only say max_speed=45 for the spare.
This sounds exactly like the kind of thing Javascript can do. Better than many other OO languages.
The other two (is-a and has-a (which has nothing to do with inheritance, other than that subclasses inherit the property)) are obviously supported by Javascript.
Maybe jQuery is the frontrunner because everybody is tired of XML and wants to use JSON instead?
Firefly was nice, but if they can get the money to complete the movies, it doesn't need a reboot.
The movie already wrapped everything up (though not terribly well). Firefly needs to be a series, not a movie. I'd rather forget that the movie happened and continue where the series left off.
(Not that the movie is so terrible. It's not. It was very good considering the circumstances, but it's really not nearly as good as the TV series was.)
Can't believe that one's missing from Wired's original list. The only entry on that list that even makes sense is Buck Rogers. All the others are recent, current, already restarted or animations. Not really the same thing.
In any case, the fan list has far better suggestions, including Blake's 7.