Actually I do remember when it used to do that. Not for CDs but for floppies, or thumb-drives. Thing is, every drive had a "desktop" and a "trash", so when you dragged a file from a floppy to the desktop, it didn't copy it to your computer's hard drive, but merely moved it to the desktop area of the floppy. So when you ejected it, the file went greyed-out. Of course, this was back under OS 9, it seems to have changed under OS X.
It should also be pointed out that in many dialogs, pressing command(apple key) and a letter will press a button. For example, in the shutdown dialog, command-R restarts.
I know what they're talking about. Quite a few times I have seen a very nice graphic of HIV infecting a cell or whatever, only to realise the DNA helix is going the wrong way.
Well.. yeah. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant it is initially weird to think that giving up reproduction would be a successful evolutionary strategy. But when you take a look at the genetics behind it, it makes sense.
Ants (and bees) have some pretty interesting genetics going on. The evolutionary reason behind why they form hives and colonies is kind of counter-intuitive - why would a worker give up its reproductive potential?
Bees are haplo-diploid. That means that females are diploid (2 copies of every chromosome) but males are haploid, forming from unfertilised eggs. So when eggs are fertilised by males, the offspring (workers) end up having 1/2 their mother's DNA but all of their fathers. This means that unlike "normal" sexual reproduction, siblings share 3/4 of their DNA on average, which is more than they could share with their own offspring. So it is in their genes best interest to help produce more siblings than to produce their own offspring.
This is a common misconception. There is no single 'gay' gene, just like there is no single 'tall' gene. No scientist believes there is a single gene which absolutely determines orientation. But there is good evidence that there is a genetic influence. There is also good evidence of environmental influences (hormone levels in utero being the main contender at the moment).
People always seem to want to classify things as either "genetic" - in which case the trait is completely and utterly determined solely by genes - or "not genetic" in which case genes have no influence whatsoever. In reality, the vast majority of human traits are affected by both genes and environment (NB: Environment = anything not genetic)
It could have happened. I just got back from a secure biological lab - here you have to leave all your clothes outside, go through an airlock and change into the clothes provided. On the way out you have to have a complete shower for at least 3 minutes. Anything you take inside can't be taken out without being autoclaved, dipped in gluteraldehyde or fumigated with formaldehyde gas.
At first I'm extremely sceptical about this. But apparently they managed to get on the cover on Nature (one of the most prestigious scientific journals) so maybe they're onto something here.
Here's the issue of Nature. You can access the full article text if you've got a University connection or something.
This would work even better if you had access to a lab. The majority of DNA fingerprints are done using microsatellite repeats. These are amplified and analysed using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Theoretically you could get hold of someone elses DNA, and if you knew the particular microsatellites the authorities used, just PCR it. Sprinkle some of that PCR product around, which will be about 100,000,000 times more concentrated than any biological sample, and you're done.
This is essentially what happens. I can't imagine that they actually have a freezer full of DNA samples from people. What they almost certainly do is a microsatellite repeat fingerprint - essentially looking at how many copies of several repeats you've got. So all that would get stored in the database would be like "John Doe:15, 12, 9, 13, 12, 5, 14".
I should point out that in almost every case the number of repeats in each of these cases has absolutely no effect on the person whatsoever.
A friend of mine is "bad at rolling dice". No matter what game you play, he always seems to roll worse than everyone else. Of course, he doesn't actually roll worse - it's just that everyone expects him to, and so when he does roll bad they all take note of it.
I expect the same thing is happening here. People have some songs they like (or dislike) more than others, and so they note when they are being played.
The reason the estimated gene count has gone down so far - from an initial 100,000 beforehand - is mostly due to human ego.
People thought that humans were so much superior to all other life, we must have more genes. I mean, we've got this huge brain and everything, surely that needs lots of genes to work? Well, it turns out that it doesn't. The neurones in your head are pretty much the same as ones in a dog, you've just got more of them. And they're joined together in different shapes.
My solution: An iBook with a composite video out adapter to plug it into my tv. Add one of those usb-ps controller adapters and you've got pretty close to my old Sega Master System. Only about 30 times more expensive.
Um, yes they can. It happened around here somewhere.
It's not the cell signal that causes it. Think for a second - someone rings your phone. Your phone has a loose wire in the "vibrate alert". Your phone just happens to be surrounded by petrol vapour...
I do think it would be better if it were possible to change the UID string for specific sites, and perhaps even to make it impossible to change it for all sites.
You can do this quite easily with Privoxy. Just add a custom rule that changes your browser ID to that of IE, or whatever, and add the sites that you need to.
Ok, first of all, those worrying about insurance companies using the database for screening for genetic diseases, or screening for people of a certain disposition, you can relax. The way this type of genetic identification works is by microsatellites - these are short nucleotide repeats that vary between individuals by the number of repeats. They are in no way related to any physical trait of the person.
You do have to be careful though. The more microsatellites they add (per person) the stronger any match will be. However, you have to balance this against the number of people in the database. I think that most jurys, if told that because the DNA matched, it is 1 million times more likely that this match is real than just a random match, they would convict. But if the database has 1 million people in it, then you'd expect one match by chance.
The end result is DNA evidence is a powerful tool, but it has to be used in conjunction with the other evidence. DNA evidence alone is not enough.
Apparently if lightning strikes near a cow (or any other large quadruped) they can die, simply because the lightning creates enough of a voltage potential in the ground that the difference between their front and hind legs is enough to be lethal.
Humans, on the other hand, don't have as much of a problem, because their feet are so close together.
I just tried using this RC. There are a few problems, which I think would put a lot of people off using it in the first few minutes. First of all, when you initially launch it, no problem. On every subsequent launch, however, no menus show up in the menubar (except Firefox) and you cannot type in the URL bar. This can be fixed by switching to another app and then switching back.
Second, the extensions provide some great features, but are often inconsistent. I installed AdBlock, and it's preferences show up in the tools menu. With mousegestures, however, the preferences don't show up anywhere.
Basically you hit command-option-k in any app and it brings up a window showing all the current connections to or from your computer. And you can kill any of them (by adding a rule to IPFW) right then and there.
The telomere problem may, in fact, not exist. It was found that Dolly did have shortened telomeres, but there's not really any evidence that this caused her any problems. On the other hand, cloning cattle seems to reset the telomere length, much like happens during normal fertalisation. Have a look here.
In fact, if I remember correctly, some species' telomeres actually lengthen after cloning.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I do remember when it used to do that. Not for CDs but for floppies, or thumb-drives. Thing is, every drive had a "desktop" and a "trash", so when you dragged a file from a floppy to the desktop, it didn't copy it to your computer's hard drive, but merely moved it to the desktop area of the floppy. So when you ejected it, the file went greyed-out. Of course, this was back under OS 9, it seems to have changed under OS X.
It should also be pointed out that in many dialogs, pressing command(apple key) and a letter will press a button. For example, in the shutdown dialog, command-R restarts.
Simple. Because if they don't, someone else will publish first.
I know what they're talking about. Quite a few times I have seen a very nice graphic of HIV infecting a cell or whatever, only to realise the DNA helix is going the wrong way.
Well.. yeah. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant it is initially weird to think that giving up reproduction would be a successful evolutionary strategy. But when you take a look at the genetics behind it, it makes sense.
Bees are haplo-diploid. That means that females are diploid (2 copies of every chromosome) but males are haploid, forming from unfertilised eggs. So when eggs are fertilised by males, the offspring (workers) end up having 1/2 their mother's DNA but all of their fathers. This means that unlike "normal" sexual reproduction, siblings share 3/4 of their DNA on average, which is more than they could share with their own offspring. So it is in their genes best interest to help produce more siblings than to produce their own offspring.
This is a common misconception. There is no single 'gay' gene, just like there is no single 'tall' gene. No scientist believes there is a single gene which absolutely determines orientation. But there is good evidence that there is a genetic influence. There is also good evidence of environmental influences (hormone levels in utero being the main contender at the moment).
People always seem to want to classify things as either "genetic" - in which case the trait is completely and utterly determined solely by genes - or "not genetic" in which case genes have no influence whatsoever. In reality, the vast majority of human traits are affected by both genes and environment (NB: Environment = anything not genetic)
It could have happened. I just got back from a secure biological lab - here you have to leave all your clothes outside, go through an airlock and change into the clothes provided. On the way out you have to have a complete shower for at least 3 minutes. Anything you take inside can't be taken out without being autoclaved, dipped in gluteraldehyde or fumigated with formaldehyde gas.
Here's the issue of Nature. You can access the full article text if you've got a University connection or something.
This would work even better if you had access to a lab. The majority of DNA fingerprints are done using microsatellite repeats. These are amplified and analysed using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Theoretically you could get hold of someone elses DNA, and if you knew the particular microsatellites the authorities used, just PCR it. Sprinkle some of that PCR product around, which will be about 100,000,000 times more concentrated than any biological sample, and you're done.
I should point out that in almost every case the number of repeats in each of these cases has absolutely no effect on the person whatsoever.
I expect the same thing is happening here. People have some songs they like (or dislike) more than others, and so they note when they are being played.
It's happened.
Here's one
People thought that humans were so much superior to all other life, we must have more genes. I mean, we've got this huge brain and everything, surely that needs lots of genes to work? Well, it turns out that it doesn't. The neurones in your head are pretty much the same as ones in a dog, you've just got more of them. And they're joined together in different shapes.
Galaxias gollumoides, a type of fresh-water fish from New Zealand. See here
My solution: An iBook with a composite video out adapter to plug it into my tv. Add one of those usb-ps controller adapters and you've got pretty close to my old Sega Master System. Only about 30 times more expensive.
It's not the cell signal that causes it. Think for a second - someone rings your phone. Your phone has a loose wire in the "vibrate alert". Your phone just happens to be surrounded by petrol vapour...
You can do this quite easily with Privoxy. Just add a custom rule that changes your browser ID to that of IE, or whatever, and add the sites that you need to.
Just for anyone who's interested, Emulation.net is probably the best source for all sorts of emulators under Mac OS X.
You do have to be careful though. The more microsatellites they add (per person) the stronger any match will be. However, you have to balance this against the number of people in the database. I think that most jurys, if told that because the DNA matched, it is 1 million times more likely that this match is real than just a random match, they would convict. But if the database has 1 million people in it, then you'd expect one match by chance.
The end result is DNA evidence is a powerful tool, but it has to be used in conjunction with the other evidence. DNA evidence alone is not enough.
Humans, on the other hand, don't have as much of a problem, because their feet are so close together.
Second, the extensions provide some great features, but are often inconsistent. I installed AdBlock, and it's preferences show up in the tools menu. With mousegestures, however, the preferences don't show up anywhere.
Basically you hit command-option-k in any app and it brings up a window showing all the current connections to or from your computer. And you can kill any of them (by adding a rule to IPFW) right then and there.
In fact, if I remember correctly, some species' telomeres actually lengthen after cloning.