Just a couple extra to add to your list: bacteria passing around plasmids and viral insertions. I bet there are several functional genes that were given to us by virii, long ago. I know it would be a little tricky to pass on viral DNA, but if a virus were able to infect a fetus, it might make its way into germ cells. Hell, add phagocytosis to your list, because mitochondria and chloroplasts had to get inside cells somehow.
Additionally, one of the most variable parts of the genome deals with the immune system and pathogen recognition. I bet we have a fair amount of bacterial and viral DNA in our genomes, so our immune systems can better recognize infectious agents.
Yes, all this stuff is on the web. Everything you need to completely and authoritatively refute every argument made by creationists (the "intelligent design" brand or the traditional) is on the web.
The problem with many creationist arguments is that they are untestable, and therefore unrefutable. But what is refutable is that the assertion that there is anything scientific about "Intelligent Design." It's an entirely different type of belief, based on faith rather than fact, so has no place in the classroom.
My favorite of all the idiotic arguments counter to evolution is the one based on the second law of thermodynamics: they say that because life has less entropy than inanimate material, then life cannot be explained by physics, and must be explained by God. Of course, their argument is based on a misunderstanding of the second law--the entropy of the universe (i.e., a global scale) is always increasing, but on a local scale, entropy can decrease. If entropy everywhere were always increasing, it would be impossible to make water into ice. Or to put a bunch of spilled marbles in a bag, for that matter.
Mutations occur, and when they occur in parallel for members of the same species, and those mutations survive into succeeding generations, you achieve speciation. End of story. What am I missing?
You're missing the whole story. The question of speciation is about where the boundary is drawn. After how many generations of being genetically separate is it no longer possible for the populations to successfully mate? How many generations until the populations choose not to mate any longer, even if their offspring could be viable (like the butterflies mentioned in the article, which are "weedy" whatever that means).
If you want to get a bit more controversial, where do you draw the line between subspecies of homo sapiens? People used to say that different races were different species, and people still tend to self-select partners of a similar ethnic background. I had always figured higher genetic diversity would lead to healthier offspring, because of fewer weirdo recessive disorders, but apparently not in butterflies:
The reason evolution favours the emergence of a "team strip" in related species, or sub species, living side-by-side is that hybridisation is not usually a desirable thing.
Although many of the Agrodiaetus species are close enough genetically to breed, their hybrid offspring tend to be rather weedy and less likely to thrive.
Therefore natural selection will favour ways of distinguishing the species, which is why the clear markings exist.
By the way, these same fuzzy "speciation" distinctions are also a problem in linguistics. What makes a language a language and not a dialect? There are many different "dialects" of Chinese, all mutually unintelligible, but they use the same written language. Spanish and Italian are probably as closely related as some Chinese dialects to each other, yet we don't say Spanish is a dialect of Italian, or vice versa.
i can see one very strong reason why a caterpillar would want to be a butterfly: need
That's a teleological argument. That's not how natural selection works; organisms don't evolve with purpose. I would like to know how many mutations were necessary for caterpillars to suddenly start building cocoons. What advantage did cocoon-building give them, as a species? And then, what kind of butterflies came out of those first cocoons? How did their non-functional protowings give them an advantage over other individuals? Or did wings evolve with a single mutation? People have shown that a single mutation can change the number of legs a fly develops--just one gene.
What makes diagramming useful, contrary to the detractions of other respondants to this post, is that it's not a drill; you have to think, in a structured way, about the form of the sentence. Language is immaculately structured, yet most students today don't even learn a subject from an object or a verb from an article until they're forced to in foreign language classes.
While I agree that foreign languages help people learn grammar, I disagree with the use of sentence diagramming. There's no accounting for taste, but I suspect most students would both prefer and benefit more from learning grammar via foreign languages. See
here
for my other comments on the subject.
I returned to public school in the 8th grade after a four year hiatus in a private (Montessori-ish) school where they didn't teach a lick of grammar. One of the first activities in my new English class (also circa 1992, btw) was to diagram sentences. I completely disagree with you about the utility of diagramming sentences, because it was the most retarded, mind-numbing exercise I have ever done. And I'm including doing matrix row reductions by hand.
However, I completely agree that grammar is both important and misunderstood by most people. But you know what? I never learned much grammar from English classes. I never truly understood direct and indirect objects until taking Spanish classes.
So that's my counter-proposal: mandate lots of foreign language classes, preferrably a language the kids can speak and practice. Dead and obscure languages have their place, but not for younger kids. A dead language is just tedium unless you can apply the knowledge to a living language. I've gotten much more interested in Latin and etymology after learning Spanish and Portuguese, and finding linguistic patterns in the vocabulary and grammar. For example, I know that in Spanish the word for child is hijo, in Portuguese it's filho, in Italians figlio, in Latin filius. Those changes are pretty consistent for most words, and help me predict words I don't know in one language based on words I do know in another.
Well, all the my moderations just disappeared after posting as AC with no Karma Bonus, so I can comment with impunity. That's never happened to me before, but it seems like a pretty common-sense feature. Good for the admins.
It has been known for quite some long time that you get Vitamin D from sun bathing. It's also known that it is important. If you want to keep the cake and eat it you can buy vitamins and eat them instead of sun batching though. Why risk cancer when you can solve the problem without it?
Not only that, why would you take advice from a scientist who's getting paid by the tanning industry, and discredited in his own academic circle? From the article:
The head of Holick's department, Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, called his book an embarrassment and stripped him of his dermatology professorship, although he kept his other posts.
She also faulted his industry ties. Holick said the school has received $150,000 in grants from the Indoor Tanning Association for his research, far less than the consulting deals and grants that other scientists routinely take from drug companies.
In fact, industry has spent money attacking him. One such statement from the Sun Safety Alliance, funded in part by Coppertone and drug store chains, declared that "sunning to prevent vitamin D deficiency is like smoking to combat anxiety."
Milk ISN'T good for you period, humans weren't supposed to drink another animals milk. We are the only species on the planet to do so, and to our detriment. This is ignoring the pitfalls falls of todays production techniques whereby they pump growth hormones into the cows so they produce milk far longer than they are normally capable of. Plus all the other shit they do in order to meet their quotas.
I was going to mod you troll or flamebait, because that's clearly the intent of your post, but I thought I'd try to educate fellow/.-ers who may otherwise be swayed by your lies. Especially because you added a couple of tidbits of truth to make your argument sound more convincing.
1)Milk ISN'T good for you, period, [sic]
Actually, it all depends on who you mean by "you," and what your underlying assumptions are about resources, technology, etc. If you are lactose intolerant, then by all means stay away from milk. That doesn't mean you can't have cheese and yogurt, though. It is a well-accepted theory that the lactose tolerance mutation of northern European populations is one of the factors that enabled their success (and by success, I mean they didn't all die out). It is also true that Mongolian tribesmen may not have the resources to eat fresh kale to get their calcium, or to buy soy "milk" from their local organic grocery store. However, goats, sheep, and cows can digest grasses and produce milk with--guess what--calcium! But in fact, it's the casein in milk that supplies the protein, and many vegetarian cultures have relied on dairy products for a large part of their protein consumption.
2)humans weren't supposed to drink another animals milk [sic]
You should be careful when using words like "supposed" because you imply you have some sort of insight into the Way the Universe Should Be. Bullshit. You can't say humans weren't supposed to drink milk anymore than you can say humans weren't meant to jump rope. No other animal does that, either. No other animal writes poetry, or commits suicide, or contemplates philosophy. Just because humans differ from other animals does NOT imply any should or ought, so shut your mouth unless you have some Divine Insight. I would like to point out that other animals may not drink milk after infancy, but they do eat organ meat, entrails, eyeballs, and all sorts of other nutrient-rich animal parts that we tend to discard, these days--including partially digested food in the animal's intestinal tract. Maybe you'd prefer eating tripe to drinking milk?
3)This is ignoring the pitfalls falls of todays production techniques whereby they pump growth hormones into the cows so they produce milk far longer than they are normally capable of. [sic]
This is your single valid point, and it is only valid for milk from a regular dairy. Those same organic grocery stores that sell soy milk also sell milk from cows without all those hormones and (though you didn't mention it) antibiotics. But you're tangling the issues, here. That is an argument for better treatment of dairy cattle, not an argument against milk itself. I have a problem eating hot dogs, these days, but that doesn't make all meat repulsive to me.
Maybe someday it will be proven that milk is the poison you make it out to be. But now, the evidence is far from conclusive, and you obviously don't know your milk history. As it stands, milk was probably responsible for my ancestors' survival, and your burden of proof is pretty high. Oh, and a better grasp of English grammar and spelling might help you be more persuasive, in the future. It would be comical that you have a sentence "Milk ISN'T good for you period," ending in a comma, except that I'm pretty sure you didn't intend that.
But the DEFINITION of journalism is to do just that. Report what happened. That's it. Just report the events. Leave the what-fors and why-nots to someone else who doesn't claim to be a journalist or a "news man". That's the problem with the news community today. There is no one out there who even ATTEMPTS to present just the events.
Did you even ATTEMPT to look up the DEFINITION of journalism before submitting your own version of what you THINK journalism should be?
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium 2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretationc : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest
It isn't fair to cherry-pick the definition you like. But even if a reporter tries to present "just the facts," their version of the facts will be colored by their experiences, tastes, personalities, etc. No one can truly be unbiased, because the facts they choose to present are the facts that support the version of the story they experienced. It matters which witnesses the journalist interviews. No one, not even a good journalist, can cover every angle of a story. You're fooling yourself if you believe in unbiased reporting.
I would like to point out that Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary, and the definition of "journalism" is even further from your narrow view in other languages and cultures. The French have newspapers with admitted left- or right-biases, which is how we ought to do things here. Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced," which is the reason I hold them in complete contempt. If they admitted they were a conservative news network, I would have . . . what's the opposite of contempt? respect? no, not quite . . . I would have less contempt for them.
Rule of thumb: "explode" your contractions. It's is a contraction, not a designation of ownership. The same goes for you're, they're, etc. If it doesn't make sense exploded, it won't make sense as a contraction.
I do know and understand the difference between its and it's, but your "rule of thumb" is retarded in this case. For all other nouns (not pronouns), an apostrophe-s signifies possession. It's the only remaining case-ending (well, two if you count plural), which is the
genitive case. Latin and Greek nerds correct me if I'm mistaken.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to assume that "it's" is both a contraction for "it is" and a possessive of "it" at the same time.
"His" is a more obvious exceptions to the apostrophe-s ending, although I can imagine someone incorrectly writing "her's" instead of "hers." If I was talking about Sally's cat, falsely expanding "Sally's" into "Sally is" would just cause confusion. Bottom line, if you meant to write a possessive using the standard English apostrophe-s, then there is no contraction to "explode" as you put it. The same would apply to "your's."
My personal pet peeve (although mistakes with you're, they're etc. are indeed annoying) is when people use an apostrophe for plurals! I once saw a sign in a dinner advertising a special on "ham and egg's." Blech.
No one is objective.
That's just the way it is; we all have opinions.
Anyone who claims to be objective is a fraud, but Jamie Zawinski has opinions, and he's entitled to them. Anyone who doesn't have an opinion needs to decide what he/she really believes.
Nietsche was also very opinionated, but still worth reading.
Oh, and I think that his Dali clock is worthy of a place in history, if nothing else.
On one of the first seasons of the show, Conan and Andy wanted to be able to curse without being censored, so they made up "crunk" as a vulgar exclamation, too vile to present an official definition. I don't know exactly how long they used it (sample usage: "That's a bunch of crunk!") but it certainly preceded the hip-hop use.
SiO2: 0.53 * 44.94% = 23.8%
Al2O3: 0.47 * 35.71% = 16.8%
CaO: 0.29 * 20.57% = 6.0%
Na2O: 0.26 * 0.384% = 0.1%
MgO: 0.40 * 0.53% = 0.2%
-----------
total = 46.9% oxygen by mass in that rock. I couldn't find how much moon dust would be available for processing. I wonder the percent yield necessary to win the contest . ..
I can tell someone either slept through physics or didn't read the NASA contest description. There, it's specified in kilograms (mass) rather than pounds (either force or mass). So whoever translated kilograms into pounds was probably using Earth pounds for their reference, not Moon pounds.
We already have many industrial processes for extracting oxygen from oxides (often used for purifying oxidized metals, not recovering the oxygen itself). This prize is just for developing a system that packages those processes in a way that they can be used on the moon.
I was going to say, if you want oxygen from oxides, why not just use a strong reducing agent? Or would that just make water vapor? I know many reducing agents are hydrides (sodium borohydride and such) but even if they do donate protons to make water, you can split water to make oxygen. And solar energy could work, too, since there are no clouds on the moon. The real problem is managing the mass, power, and time limitations.
I read in Scientific American not long ago about using the (software) ant strategy to find a solution to the traveling salesman problem, or something in that family of problems. I think it was lumped together with swarm technology, but I don't have the magazine with me, so I can't be more specific than that. I do know that DNA "computers" have been used to solve such combinatorial problems. This sugar cube problem is very similar--no exact solution, but you can converge on something close to exact.
Anyway, you want to find the shortest route that goes through n number of cities. I know in one variation of the problem you can't hit the same city twice, but I don't know if that constraint applied in this case. The ants leave a "pheremone trail" which evaporates after a certain amount of time. If the ants start out randomly choosing routes, but over time the routes with more software pheremone are reinforced, because the ant objects choose those paths preferentially.
I've got mod points today, but so far no one has said much of interest on this topic. The best use of this device would be monitors for blood sugar levels, to be transmitted to an insulin pump. Having an implanted glucose monitor would remove all the guesswork from insulin administration.
Note: I'm not saying that the device would lower glucose levels by consuming glucose, but since it is powered by sugar, the current should be proportional to the amount of sugar. If blood sugar is high, the implant's signal is high, and the pump delivers more insulin. No real logic required. That's why it's such a good fit. And they say so in the article:
The newly developed cell in the size of a tiny coin is able to generate 0,2 milliwatts of electricity, enough to power a device that measures blood sugar level and transmits data elsewhere, the group said.
So what happens if I decide to tell the office my name is Tom Dick? The cop gives "Tom Dick" a ticket which nothing ever comes about?
Pretty much. But that's only if the cops obey the law. Someone else asked me the same question, more or less, and
this is what I said.
Really, though, what would the ticket be for? If you're a pedestrian, minding your own business, I guess you could get a ticket for jaywalking, or littering, or some other petty crime. If the offense is so slight that you will only get a citation, not get arrested, most police officers are not going to waste their time taking you downtown because you didn't show ID. If you did something bad enough to get arrested, then you'd probably be better off saying "yes sir" and showing ID, and hoping for leniency. Cops love it when people grovel at their authority. In fact, most of the times a cop has asked for my ID, I wasn't doing anything wrong. It's just a show of force, an assertion of their authority. If I were a passenger and the driver had been pulled over, damn straight I'm not going to give my ID. There's no reason a cop should need to see a passenger's ID when the driver was the one with the traffic violation.
Just this morning a friend of mine told me ebay removed one of her auctions, for Kaplan books, because Kaplan said it was a copyright violation to sell them! That's complete bullshit, but my friend has little recourse, even though what she was doing was completely legal. No matter what laws are on the books, might makes right. That's why I think it's important to assert the right to not carry ID, even though it's more convenient to show it. Pretty soon, people are going to routinely consent to body cavity searches just because it's more convenient than protesting.
Out of curiosity, what happens if I just lie, either convincingly or blatantly?
If you get caught, it's obstruction of justice. I've wondered about this myself. I frequently bike to work, and there's no requirement to have ID while riding a bicycle, so what would I do if a cop pulled me over and tried to give me a ticket? I would probably give a fake name and be done with it. But if I tried to pull a "John Smith" then I might get taken to the station and beaten.
As someone else pointed out, cops don't always (or often) follow the letter of the law. Cops break the law all the time. So if you want to lie about your identity, you'd better do it convincingly. You have a better chance of persuading an officer to let you go your merry way than asserting your (legitimate) rights. Be polite, and pretend to be naive. And you'd better not be black or latino if you want to try this in the US. Or Indian, for that matter--I know of at least one Bengali guy who was harassed by a cop in Texas who thought he was Mexican.
I did read the opinion, but apparently you did not. From the link you provided:
The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists.
The man declined to identify himself. He was unwilling to even state his name (and I can't say that I blame him). The court held that people are required to say who they are, but nothing more.
Here's an article in the Christian Science Monitor about the Nevada case. Most interesting passage:
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.
I take that to mean that even if a state does require you to identify yourself, that does not mean you must produce a document to do so. I was unable to find anything suggesting a pedestrian must produce an ID card.
Symantec no longer has a Eugene presence. That's not to say people in Eugene couldn't drive 20 minutes to Springfield, but the call center in Eugene is gone. Poof. And one of the other comments said that other than enterprise software, tech support has moved to India. I never said the customer support moved to India, because I know better. A friend of mine recently had an interview for one of those jobs.
I couldn't get out of the ticket in court, and had to pay it. It appears to vary state to state.
Sounds like you got a shitty judge. And, like most people, not enough money to appeal a bad ruling. My condolences, because that's complete bullshit. That's an "activist judge" if I've ever seen one;)
Slashdot Mirror
Just a couple extra to add to your list: bacteria passing around plasmids and viral insertions. I bet there are several functional genes that were given to us by virii, long ago. I know it would be a little tricky to pass on viral DNA, but if a virus were able to infect a fetus, it might make its way into germ cells. Hell, add phagocytosis to your list, because mitochondria and chloroplasts had to get inside cells somehow.
Additionally, one of the most variable parts of the genome deals with the immune system and pathogen recognition. I bet we have a fair amount of bacterial and viral DNA in our genomes, so our immune systems can better recognize infectious agents.
Yes, all this stuff is on the web. Everything you need to completely and authoritatively refute every argument made by creationists (the "intelligent design" brand or the traditional) is on the web.
The problem with many creationist arguments is that they are untestable, and therefore unrefutable. But what is refutable is that the assertion that there is anything scientific about "Intelligent Design." It's an entirely different type of belief, based on faith rather than fact, so has no place in the classroom.
My favorite of all the idiotic arguments counter to evolution is the one based on the second law of thermodynamics: they say that because life has less entropy than inanimate material, then life cannot be explained by physics, and must be explained by God. Of course, their argument is based on a misunderstanding of the second law--the entropy of the universe (i.e., a global scale) is always increasing, but on a local scale, entropy can decrease. If entropy everywhere were always increasing, it would be impossible to make water into ice. Or to put a bunch of spilled marbles in a bag, for that matter.
You're missing the whole story. The question of speciation is about where the boundary is drawn. After how many generations of being genetically separate is it no longer possible for the populations to successfully mate? How many generations until the populations choose not to mate any longer, even if their offspring could be viable (like the butterflies mentioned in the article, which are "weedy" whatever that means).
If you want to get a bit more controversial, where do you draw the line between subspecies of homo sapiens? People used to say that different races were different species, and people still tend to self-select partners of a similar ethnic background. I had always figured higher genetic diversity would lead to healthier offspring, because of fewer weirdo recessive disorders, but apparently not in butterflies:
By the way, these same fuzzy "speciation" distinctions are also a problem in linguistics. What makes a language a language and not a dialect? There are many different "dialects" of Chinese, all mutually unintelligible, but they use the same written language. Spanish and Italian are probably as closely related as some Chinese dialects to each other, yet we don't say Spanish is a dialect of Italian, or vice versa.That's a teleological argument. That's not how natural selection works; organisms don't evolve with purpose. I would like to know how many mutations were necessary for caterpillars to suddenly start building cocoons. What advantage did cocoon-building give them, as a species? And then, what kind of butterflies came out of those first cocoons? How did their non-functional protowings give them an advantage over other individuals? Or did wings evolve with a single mutation? People have shown that a single mutation can change the number of legs a fly develops--just one gene.
However, I completely agree that grammar is both important and misunderstood by most people. But you know what? I never learned much grammar from English classes. I never truly understood direct and indirect objects until taking Spanish classes.
So that's my counter-proposal: mandate lots of foreign language classes, preferrably a language the kids can speak and practice. Dead and obscure languages have their place, but not for younger kids. A dead language is just tedium unless you can apply the knowledge to a living language. I've gotten much more interested in Latin and etymology after learning Spanish and Portuguese, and finding linguistic patterns in the vocabulary and grammar. For example, I know that in Spanish the word for child is hijo, in Portuguese it's filho, in Italians figlio, in Latin filius. Those changes are pretty consistent for most words, and help me predict words I don't know in one language based on words I do know in another.
Now time to go back make more comments . . .
Not only that, why would you take advice from a scientist who's getting paid by the tanning industry, and discredited in his own academic circle? From the article:
1) Milk ISN'T good for you, period, [sic]
Actually, it all depends on who you mean by "you," and what your underlying assumptions are about resources, technology, etc. If you are lactose intolerant, then by all means stay away from milk. That doesn't mean you can't have cheese and yogurt, though. It is a well-accepted theory that the lactose tolerance mutation of northern European populations is one of the factors that enabled their success (and by success, I mean they didn't all die out). It is also true that Mongolian tribesmen may not have the resources to eat fresh kale to get their calcium, or to buy soy "milk" from their local organic grocery store. However, goats, sheep, and cows can digest grasses and produce milk with--guess what--calcium! But in fact, it's the casein in milk that supplies the protein, and many vegetarian cultures have relied on dairy products for a large part of their protein consumption.
2) humans weren't supposed to drink another animals milk [sic]
You should be careful when using words like "supposed" because you imply you have some sort of insight into the Way the Universe Should Be. Bullshit. You can't say humans weren't supposed to drink milk anymore than you can say humans weren't meant to jump rope. No other animal does that, either. No other animal writes poetry, or commits suicide, or contemplates philosophy. Just because humans differ from other animals does NOT imply any should or ought, so shut your mouth unless you have some Divine Insight. I would like to point out that other animals may not drink milk after infancy, but they do eat organ meat, entrails, eyeballs, and all sorts of other nutrient-rich animal parts that we tend to discard, these days--including partially digested food in the animal's intestinal tract. Maybe you'd prefer eating tripe to drinking milk?
3) This is ignoring the pitfalls falls of todays production techniques whereby they pump growth hormones into the cows so they produce milk far longer than they are normally capable of. [sic]
This is your single valid point, and it is only valid for milk from a regular dairy. Those same organic grocery stores that sell soy milk also sell milk from cows without all those hormones and (though you didn't mention it) antibiotics. But you're tangling the issues, here. That is an argument for better treatment of dairy cattle, not an argument against milk itself. I have a problem eating hot dogs, these days, but that doesn't make all meat repulsive to me.
Maybe someday it will be proven that milk is the poison you make it out to be. But now, the evidence is far from conclusive, and you obviously don't know your milk history. As it stands, milk was probably responsible for my ancestors' survival, and your burden of proof is pretty high. Oh, and a better grasp of English grammar and spelling might help you be more persuasive, in the future. It would be comical that you have a sentence "Milk ISN'T good for you period," ending in a comma, except that I'm pretty sure you didn't intend that.
Did you even ATTEMPT to look up the DEFINITION of journalism before submitting your own version of what you THINK journalism should be?
Here's what Merriam-Webster has for "journalism":
It isn't fair to cherry-pick the definition you like. But even if a reporter tries to present "just the facts," their version of the facts will be colored by their experiences, tastes, personalities, etc. No one can truly be unbiased, because the facts they choose to present are the facts that support the version of the story they experienced. It matters which witnesses the journalist interviews. No one, not even a good journalist, can cover every angle of a story. You're fooling yourself if you believe in unbiased reporting.I would like to point out that Merriam-Webster is an American dictionary, and the definition of "journalism" is even further from your narrow view in other languages and cultures. The French have newspapers with admitted left- or right-biases, which is how we ought to do things here. Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced," which is the reason I hold them in complete contempt. If they admitted they were a conservative news network, I would have . . . what's the opposite of contempt? respect? no, not quite . . . I would have less contempt for them.
I do know and understand the difference between its and it's, but your "rule of thumb" is retarded in this case. For all other nouns (not pronouns), an apostrophe-s signifies possession. It's the only remaining case-ending (well, two if you count plural), which is the genitive case. Latin and Greek nerds correct me if I'm mistaken.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to assume that "it's" is both a contraction for "it is" and a possessive of "it" at the same time. "His" is a more obvious exceptions to the apostrophe-s ending, although I can imagine someone incorrectly writing "her's" instead of "hers." If I was talking about Sally's cat, falsely expanding "Sally's" into "Sally is" would just cause confusion. Bottom line, if you meant to write a possessive using the standard English apostrophe-s, then there is no contraction to "explode" as you put it. The same would apply to "your's."
My personal pet peeve (although mistakes with you're, they're etc. are indeed annoying) is when people use an apostrophe for plurals! I once saw a sign in a dinner advertising a special on "ham and egg's." Blech.
That's just the way it is; we all have opinions.
Anyone who claims to be objective is a fraud, but Jamie Zawinski has opinions, and he's entitled to them. Anyone who doesn't have an opinion needs to decide what he/she really believes.
Nietsche was also very opinionated, but still worth reading.
Oh, and I think that his Dali clock is worthy of a place in history, if nothing else.
That's your opinion. But I think HeLa cells may as well be independent organisms. They've outlived Henrietta Lacks by about 50 years so far.
On one of the first seasons of the show, Conan and Andy wanted to be able to curse without being censored, so they made up "crunk" as a vulgar exclamation, too vile to present an official definition. I don't know exactly how long they used it (sample usage: "That's a bunch of crunk!") but it certainly preceded the hip-hop use.
Thanks.
SiO2: 0.53 * 44.94% = 23.8% .
Al2O3: 0.47 * 35.71% = 16.8%
CaO: 0.29 * 20.57% = 6.0%
Na2O: 0.26 * 0.384% = 0.1%
MgO: 0.40 * 0.53% = 0.2%
-----------
total = 46.9% oxygen by mass in that rock. I couldn't find how much moon dust would be available for processing. I wonder the percent yield necessary to win the contest . .
I can tell someone either slept through physics or didn't read the NASA contest description. There, it's specified in kilograms (mass) rather than pounds (either force or mass). So whoever translated kilograms into pounds was probably using Earth pounds for their reference, not Moon pounds.
Anyway, you want to find the shortest route that goes through n number of cities. I know in one variation of the problem you can't hit the same city twice, but I don't know if that constraint applied in this case. The ants leave a "pheremone trail" which evaporates after a certain amount of time. If the ants start out randomly choosing routes, but over time the routes with more software pheremone are reinforced, because the ant objects choose those paths preferentially.
Note: I'm not saying that the device would lower glucose levels by consuming glucose, but since it is powered by sugar, the current should be proportional to the amount of sugar. If blood sugar is high, the implant's signal is high, and the pump delivers more insulin. No real logic required. That's why it's such a good fit. And they say so in the article:
Pretty much. But that's only if the cops obey the law. Someone else asked me the same question, more or less, and this is what I said.
Really, though, what would the ticket be for? If you're a pedestrian, minding your own business, I guess you could get a ticket for jaywalking, or littering, or some other petty crime. If the offense is so slight that you will only get a citation, not get arrested, most police officers are not going to waste their time taking you downtown because you didn't show ID. If you did something bad enough to get arrested, then you'd probably be better off saying "yes sir" and showing ID, and hoping for leniency. Cops love it when people grovel at their authority. In fact, most of the times a cop has asked for my ID, I wasn't doing anything wrong. It's just a show of force, an assertion of their authority. If I were a passenger and the driver had been pulled over, damn straight I'm not going to give my ID. There's no reason a cop should need to see a passenger's ID when the driver was the one with the traffic violation.
Just this morning a friend of mine told me ebay removed one of her auctions, for Kaplan books, because Kaplan said it was a copyright violation to sell them! That's complete bullshit, but my friend has little recourse, even though what she was doing was completely legal. No matter what laws are on the books, might makes right. That's why I think it's important to assert the right to not carry ID, even though it's more convenient to show it. Pretty soon, people are going to routinely consent to body cavity searches just because it's more convenient than protesting.
If you get caught, it's obstruction of justice. I've wondered about this myself. I frequently bike to work, and there's no requirement to have ID while riding a bicycle, so what would I do if a cop pulled me over and tried to give me a ticket? I would probably give a fake name and be done with it. But if I tried to pull a "John Smith" then I might get taken to the station and beaten.
As someone else pointed out, cops don't always (or often) follow the letter of the law. Cops break the law all the time. So if you want to lie about your identity, you'd better do it convincingly. You have a better chance of persuading an officer to let you go your merry way than asserting your (legitimate) rights. Be polite, and pretend to be naive. And you'd better not be black or latino if you want to try this in the US. Or Indian, for that matter--I know of at least one Bengali guy who was harassed by a cop in Texas who thought he was Mexican.
The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists.
The man declined to identify himself. He was unwilling to even state his name (and I can't say that I blame him). The court held that people are required to say who they are, but nothing more.
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document.
I take that to mean that even if a state does require you to identify yourself, that does not mean you must produce a document to do so. I was unable to find anything suggesting a pedestrian must produce an ID card.
Symantec no longer has a Eugene presence. That's not to say people in Eugene couldn't drive 20 minutes to Springfield, but the call center in Eugene is gone. Poof. And one of the other comments said that other than enterprise software, tech support has moved to India. I never said the customer support moved to India, because I know better. A friend of mine recently had an interview for one of those jobs.
Sounds like you got a shitty judge. And, like most people, not enough money to appeal a bad ruling. My condolences, because that's complete bullshit. That's an "activist judge" if I've ever seen one ;)