Uhhhh yeah... "embryo cells"... you know, the ones that eventually become full humans/animals.
Please stop looking at mere biochemistry with such anthropocentric attitude. Embryo/stem cells are just cells. Yes, they are marvellous in their capability to transform into almost any other cell but they are still cells, biochemical machines that can and should be studied and applied to the good of the human race. The whole stemcell/gene technology discussion is really a throwback to the times when myths and religious/magical thinking ruled.
Potential means nothing. We already exist - the creature which is potentially stored in the DNA of those cells does not.
or even a magnetic pole shift as has happened in the past, wich would be much more catastrofic
How's that? Because the magnetic field that protects us from the high energy particles would "go to zero" in the process?
Like any magnetic field, Earth's field is a dipole. A dipole can reverse its orientation simply by rotating 180 degrees in space. The field amplitude does not need to go through zero. Do you have any reason to assume that the dipole would rather die away and then rebuild in a reversed orientation than simply shift in orientation like it is doing even now?
And before all the luddites, technophobes and "every sperm is sacred" nutjobs hop in: no human/animal life was created here - the experiment experiment was with mere cells.
Global warming means that the average temperature goes up. It does not mean that the climate gets warmer throughout the globe.
This is exactly why arguments like "global warming my ass - where I live the last ten years have been colder than before" really piss me off. Why? Because that's exactly what the global warming leads to: exterme, unusual weather patterns. Somewhere it means schorching heat and somewhere else it is below the average temperatures. The key point is that the weather is out of the norm.
Maybe if we warm things up slightly we won't see any more large-scale ice ages.
Well, since I am a self-confessed ultra-liberal I'd like to take this opportunity to say that it never ceases to amaze me how you ultra-conservatives fail to see the big picture.
Global warming does not mean that you'd get increased temperature everywhere on the globe. It means more extreme weather locally. Somewhere you'll get extremely hot weather (like we're now witnessing in Spain, Italy, UK and France) while somewhere else the temperatures stay well below the yearly average. The change in temperature affects the wind patterns and rain and thus the entire local climate will change.
Ice floating in water displaces as much water as it mass. So when it melts the volume will not change.
If the density of the water from the melting ice is different from that of the sea, the water level will change.
In the context of this article this means following. Polar ice does not turn into salt water when it melts. It's old freshwater snow that has been turned into ice by pressure of the overlying snow layers. Hence, it will melt and produce freshwater. Freshwater has a different density from that of seawater. Hence, there will be a change in volume.
Yeah, if you assume that the liquid phase and the water you get from melting the cubes has the same density, then you're right. You can have freshwater and freshwater ice cubes melting in it and the water level will not rise. The same thing happens with saltwater and saltwater ice cube.
However, if you have freshwater ice (the bulk of the polar cap is not saltwater but snow that has compressed into ice) and saltwater (sea water) you will get an increase in the water level.
It's not the weight but density that decides if the melting will change the water level. It's easy to do the calculations yourself; just apply Archimedes' law and break the mass into density and volume without assuming the same density for the water in the glass and water from the ice cubes.
But doesn't this acknowledge the fact that you will have to pay in order have "free speech", too? I mean what's the point in having code "free as in speech" if you have to defend it in court?
Although I'd like to point out that it's not the size of the ass. It's the size of the ass in relation to the rest of the body. I've never understood men who ogle after a big ass or big breasts as if that single feature makes the girl either attractive or ugly.
A huge ass with an otherwise lithe body does not look good. Huge breasts on a small body don't look nice either. On the other hand, a large ass combined with large breasts (possibly with narrow waist) can be extremely sexy. Sort of a Marilyn Monroe figure. I also find geeky women with small breasts and narrow hips attractive too. What I find unattractive is anything unproportional (augmented, artificial looking breasts for instance) or just something mismatched in the size of the various parts of the body. Symmetry is beautiful.
I for one welcome all methods, biomechanical and biochemical alike, that help me to improve myself with the least amount of effort. Why? Because then I can put effort into improving myself in areas where artificial means are not (yet) available.
What you're saying is similar to dismissing cars, trains and bicycles because" they're for the sick and injured not for the lazy and impatient - just walk to work like the God intended."
Do you have any statistics on these "failure rates"? I suppose not. Can you measure how much time these failures cost in comparison to the time lost when someone has to tweak a Linux installation ("why won't this configure-script run?")?
I suppose people use Microsoft products: 1) Because they get things done in the office with minimal learning effort. If I want to type in a technical report or a letter, I don't want to learn a friggin' programming language like LaTeX. I just want to type in the damn report. 2) Because Office files are a de facto standard when sharing documents. This reason could be mitigated if the ghostscript crowd would get their act together and provide an easily installable (see point 3) distribution of ghostview that would readily integrate with Windows' print manager. 3) Installation requires only a few mouse clicks.
I admit the default security of a fresh Windows installation is (or, after Windows 2003 Server: has been) abyssmal. That's why every self-respecting administrator does either have the new setups behind a proper firewall or he/she has stacks of CDs with all the relevant Service Packs and critical patches on them.
I don't see how something like a default Redhat 7.2 or 8.0 installation would be different. Every conceivable exploit is known not only to the real pros but to script kiddies (or actually their root kits) too.
Happen to read one of the replies?
Sure. I still stand behind my post. It's still not an easy, one stop. My advise is to use Microsoft Update (which you should do at least once a week) and then install the patch separately so that it does not get overwritten by the Update process.
If you assumed that I was bashing Microsoft, you assumed wrong. They've done all right. The stupid people who are too lazy to patch up their systems themselves and too paranoid not to use the perfectly good automatic update system are the ones to blame.
Smart-alec. It is evident that you do not administer anything complex..
Ever thought that's it's good practise to burn Service Packs and any critical patches on a CD-RW as they come by using an already secured computer? Then you don't have to expose your new setup? I know it's folly to trust the default Windows installation and don't fool yourself into thinking that a common distribution like RedHat 8/9 is secure out of box.
Do not connect to the net until you've secured the box. Standad practise and pure common sense when you think about it.
The box wouldn't stay up long enough for him to install the patches:P
Uh... why didn't he just unplug the net cable and install the patches?
I mean that's how you're supposed to setup any operating system. No net connection until you've got all the necessary patches installed and firewalls set up. Don't give them even the smallest window of opportunity.
Oh Christ, yet another open source zealot calling for a holy war and talking about the end of the world. You aren't a recent convert by any chance?
we are NOT like microsoft. We're retaliating and defending ourselves.
(Who's "we" by the way? Do you have a mandate to represent all of the open source community or what?)
Wrong. Microsoft is retaliating and defending itself because its marketshare is being threatened. Don't take their FUD so fucking personally. It's business.
Having a version of gcc available for their OS enables them to sell more copies of their software
Oh, the humanity! A company might actually use "our" software in profitable business! This cannot be! It must be stopped! I call for an immediate boycott of these oppressive corporations, crippling of any open software that interoperates with their product and re-education of their clients.
And I thought it was all about freedom...
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Any idea how much damage hysterical trash-talk like this would do to the reputation of the open source if people like you would get to spout it on TV?
This is the time to be assertive and not let them bully you around.
Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld of the Open Source commomwealth, for your awe inspiring words. Your doctrines of escalation, pre-emptive aggression and eye-for-an-eye retaliation - if adopted - will surely change the world.
But just let me ask you this. Who appointed you? Who made you into the Defender of the Faith and the Lord Protector of the Source? From which divine source (if you'll excuse the pun) do you receive these crystal clear truths you speak of?
Men who are convinced that their cause is just and righteous, dare I say holy, are the most dangerous men of all since nothing they do seems wrong to them.
First of all, what fucking battle? Secondly, who's "we"?
While "we" are at it, why not cripple all the open software so that it will not interoperate properly with those evil, nasty companies? Surely that will coer... eh, help people to "get it" and migrate to free software.
Oh, wait. Wasn't that exactly what Microsoft is being accused of doing?!
Slashdot Mirror
Please stop looking at mere biochemistry with such anthropocentric attitude. Embryo/stem cells are just cells. Yes, they are marvellous in their capability to transform into almost any other cell but they are still cells, biochemical machines that can and should be studied and applied to the good of the human race. The whole stemcell/gene technology discussion is really a throwback to the times when myths and religious/magical thinking ruled.
Potential means nothing. We already exist - the creature which is potentially stored in the DNA of those cells does not.
How's that? Because the magnetic field that protects us from the high energy particles would "go to zero" in the process?
Like any magnetic field, Earth's field is a dipole. A dipole can reverse its orientation simply by rotating 180 degrees in space. The field amplitude does not need to go through zero. Do you have any reason to assume that the dipole would rather die away and then rebuild in a reversed orientation than simply shift in orientation like it is doing even now?
And before all the luddites, technophobes and "every sperm is sacred" nutjobs hop in: no human/animal life was created here - the experiment experiment was with mere cells.
Global warming means that the average temperature goes up. It does not mean that the climate gets warmer throughout the globe.
This is exactly why arguments like "global warming my ass - where I live the last ten years have been colder than before" really piss me off. Why? Because that's exactly what the global warming leads to: exterme, unusual weather patterns. Somewhere it means schorching heat and somewhere else it is below the average temperatures. The key point is that the weather is out of the norm.
Well, since I am a self-confessed ultra-liberal I'd like to take this opportunity to say that it never ceases to amaze me how you ultra-conservatives fail to see the big picture.
Global warming does not mean that you'd get increased temperature everywhere on the globe. It means more extreme weather locally. Somewhere you'll get extremely hot weather (like we're now witnessing in Spain, Italy, UK and France) while somewhere else the temperatures stay well below the yearly average. The change in temperature affects the wind patterns and rain and thus the entire local climate will change.
If the density of the water from the melting ice is different from that of the sea, the water level will change.
In the context of this article this means following. Polar ice does not turn into salt water when it melts. It's old freshwater snow that has been turned into ice by pressure of the overlying snow layers. Hence, it will melt and produce freshwater. Freshwater has a different density from that of seawater. Hence, there will be a change in volume.
Yeah, if you assume that the liquid phase and the water you get from melting the cubes has the same density, then you're right. You can have freshwater and freshwater ice cubes melting in it and the water level will not rise. The same thing happens with saltwater and saltwater ice cube.
However, if you have freshwater ice (the bulk of the polar cap is not saltwater but snow that has compressed into ice) and saltwater (sea water) you will get an increase in the water level.
It's not the weight but density that decides if the melting will change the water level. It's easy to do the calculations yourself; just apply Archimedes' law and break the mass into density and volume without assuming the same density for the water in the glass and water from the ice cubes.
But doesn't this acknowledge the fact that you will have to pay in order have "free speech", too? I mean what's the point in having code "free as in speech" if you have to defend it in court?
I'd pay a fortune for a robot with Bender's in-your-face-interface.
Although I'd like to point out that it's not the size of the ass. It's the size of the ass in relation to the rest of the body. I've never understood men who ogle after a big ass or big breasts as if that single feature makes the girl either attractive or ugly.
A huge ass with an otherwise lithe body does not look good. Huge breasts on a small body don't look nice either. On the other hand, a large ass combined with large breasts (possibly with narrow waist) can be extremely sexy. Sort of a Marilyn Monroe figure. I also find geeky women with small breasts and narrow hips attractive too. What I find unattractive is anything unproportional (augmented, artificial looking breasts for instance) or just something mismatched in the size of the various parts of the body. Symmetry is beautiful.
What you're saying is similar to dismissing cars, trains and bicycles because" they're for the sick and injured not for the lazy and impatient - just walk to work like the God intended."
I suppose people use Microsoft products: 1) Because they get things done in the office with minimal learning effort. If I want to type in a technical report or a letter, I don't want to learn a friggin' programming language like LaTeX. I just want to type in the damn report. 2) Because Office files are a de facto standard when sharing documents. This reason could be mitigated if the ghostscript crowd would get their act together and provide an easily installable (see point 3) distribution of ghostview that would readily integrate with Windows' print manager. 3) Installation requires only a few mouse clicks.
Constitutional freedom of speech protects political speech. Nothing else.
Better to be sure and first update the system and then install the patch separately.
I admit the default security of a fresh Windows installation is (or, after Windows 2003 Server: has been) abyssmal. That's why every self-respecting administrator does either have the new setups behind a proper firewall or he/she has stacks of CDs with all the relevant Service Packs and critical patches on them.
I don't see how something like a default Redhat 7.2 or 8.0 installation would be different. Every conceivable exploit is known not only to the real pros but to script kiddies (or actually their root kits) too.
If you assumed that I was bashing Microsoft, you assumed wrong. They've done all right. The stupid people who are too lazy to patch up their systems themselves and too paranoid not to use the perfectly good automatic update system are the ones to blame.
You get all the patches on a CD: downloaded and burnt using a computer that's behind a firewall or ordered from Microsoft and delivered via snailmail.
I admire the strength of your belief.
Ever thought that's it's good practise to burn Service Packs and any critical patches on a CD-RW as they come by using an already secured computer? Then you don't have to expose your new setup? I know it's folly to trust the default Windows installation and don't fool yourself into thinking that a common distribution like RedHat 8/9 is secure out of box.
Do not connect to the net until you've secured the box. Standad practise and pure common sense when you think about it.
Uh... why didn't he just unplug the net cable and install the patches?
I mean that's how you're supposed to setup any operating system. No net connection until you've got all the necessary patches installed and firewalls set up. Don't give them even the smallest window of opportunity.
Read more on SecurityFocus' mailing list.
Nice sig. Do you have a reference somewhere?
we are NOT like microsoft. We're retaliating and defending ourselves.
(Who's "we" by the way? Do you have a mandate to represent all of the open source community or what?)
Wrong. Microsoft is retaliating and defending itself because its marketshare is being threatened. Don't take their FUD so fucking personally. It's business.
Having a version of gcc available for their OS enables them to sell more copies of their software
Oh, the humanity! A company might actually use "our" software in profitable business! This cannot be! It must be stopped! I call for an immediate boycott of these oppressive corporations, crippling of any open software that interoperates with their product and re-education of their clients.
And I thought it was all about freedom...
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Any idea how much damage hysterical trash-talk like this would do to the reputation of the open source if people like you would get to spout it on TV?
Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld of the Open Source commomwealth, for your awe inspiring words. Your doctrines of escalation, pre-emptive aggression and eye-for-an-eye retaliation - if adopted - will surely change the world.
But just let me ask you this. Who appointed you? Who made you into the Defender of the Faith and the Lord Protector of the Source? From which divine source (if you'll excuse the pun) do you receive these crystal clear truths you speak of?
Men who are convinced that their cause is just and righteous, dare I say holy, are the most dangerous men of all since nothing they do seems wrong to them.
First of all, what fucking battle? Secondly, who's "we"?
While "we" are at it, why not cripple all the open software so that it will not interoperate properly with those evil, nasty companies? Surely that will coer... eh, help people to "get it" and migrate to free software.
Oh, wait. Wasn't that exactly what Microsoft is being accused of doing?!