I'm sorry if I came off as questioning evolution. I don't question adaptation, shared ancestry, or survival of the fittest. But I do have a problem with what seems to be jumps to conclusions that aren't neccicarily the simplest hypothesis. And I am in political science, so as for me being a scientist yes and no;).
It's OK (and necessary) to question it. But the problem is, there's a difference between questioning the mechanism and trying to poke holes to reconcile it with one's religion. Trying to tear it down to accomodate religion isn't science.
Also, these conclusions aren't jumped to, they're put forth by people who have spent lifetimes on this research.
In theory, yes. However, I've seen fanatical 'evolutionists' around here on Slashdot. True, they're probably irritated by noisy creationists, but the hypocracy of it is still amazing.
It's not fanatical to be annoyed with the Flat Earth crowd who are trying to take over scientific agencies (ie, NASA) and teach crap to our kids. That's a pretty reasonable response, in my opinion.
You miss the point. This is the presentation of BASIC research with a headline implying "if only we can turn on these genes, we, too could have this 'sixth' sense". You are defending the dumbing down of scientific research. RTFA and my summary suddenly becomes more than fair and accurate. It's lay people that get excited by articles like this (because they think science fiction movie). I'm not a hater, but this simply is not Slashdot-worthy "news".
I did RTFA, and what was said is "this isn't news." I disagree. If the amended statement is that the typical slashdot crowd is too ignorant to discuss this news, then I agree.
I'm going to have to disagree slightly here. There are evolutionists, and they do have an agenda.
Who are they? Are you a scientist? Where have you seen evolution being "pushed" in a way that wasn't scientific? What's the motive?
Since we use these same mechanics for drastically different purposes might it not be a better hypotheses that different species use the same mechanisms due to the unique properties rather than assume a shared ancestor?
No. I'd study some biology if I were going to question evolution. My main problem with the attack on evolution is that most of the people doing so lack the qualifications to know what they're even talking about.
...do different things in different organisms. This is not news. It is a study of cellular fate in two different biological contexts of distantly related organisms.
Oh, piss off. With that attitude there's no point in doing science at all. It's news to discover the genes and the mechanism and also to find out what structure it was that developed into the organ in question.
I don't understand why the evolutionists always use new, would-be completely neutral discoveries to try and push their agenda.
"Evolutionists" don't have an agenda, unless you count science as an "agenda." We don't consider science to be subject to public policy, and as such, laymen don't get a vote.
This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution
If you believe in the general concept of "science" it absolutely does.
My point isn't to try and start a flame war, just simply that it's poor journalism to take something completely irrelevant to origin of life
Read the damned article. They're talking about the same stem cells in the embryo developing into electrosensors in sharks and ears in humans. That absolutely has everything to do with embryonic development which is known to mirror vertebrate evolution, at least to those who follow science.
It makes for bad science.
Are you a scientist? Because among actual scientists, evolution is as much an established fact as gravity. Don't fall off the edge of the flat earth on your way out the door.
Well, you should be reading the license anyway before you either 1) publish content, or 2) reproduce content. At that point, you shouldn't be assuming anything about the license from the fact that it's CC anyway.
This may seem like a silly question, but how can you test for something that won't be there?
Are they just trying to restrict false positives?
Partly. If they're smart, they'll task the things to also search for substances that are somewhat rare but similar to agents of interest, and that are guaranteed to be there. Pick a bacterium carried by 1 person in 1000.
This is just going to be another ineffective technology that too much money was spent on.
Really? You're basing this on a popular news article on face recognition? These technologies can be fairly effective if used correctly, I've worked on some chemical detection in the past.
For example, they still don't have an email service that isn't plastered with advertising (even for a small fee) - which ought to be a clue that they're an advertising company first, functionality is secondary.
That doesn't follow at all. They simply mde the judgement that it made more sense for them and their users to have a free email client with unobtrusive ads compared to for-pay client. None of that impacts the functionality, unless those ads prevent you from working, at which point I'd advise you take your Ritalin.
... RMS could always go looking for another kernel for his crusade.
Bravo Linus, for showing us that one need not have a GPL tatoo to enjoy the benefits of Linux.
Actually, I've heard that Hurd is shipping soon, bundled with Duke Nukem Forever. And I'll close with a reading from the Gospel according to Linus, 1993:
"If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to even start my project."
Marginalize themselves? Why? GPLv2 is still available for those who want it, but others might decide the GPLv3 is for them. Of course, perhaps few projects will adopt GPLv3 because of cross-licensing issues, but that's another story..
Exactly, GPL2 exists already. However, I suspect all the GNU software will become GPL3, which will probably cause either 1) reimplimentation by others, or 2) adoption of equivalent tools licensed in other ways (such as BSD). That would be some serious marginalization.
Basically, I think that a lot of coders and all companies will reject GPL3, and tools licensed with it. Could end up similar to another X11 style fork if they're not careful.
I might've been a little strong-worded and put some words in Linus' mouth (mostly for entertainment value) but it's really easy to take the above stance when you'd lose if you did use software licensing to fight political battles.
Or...perhaps it's not something he actually believes in anyway? This isn't inconsistent with his prior positions.
Translation: "I feel that we do not have the muscle - as open source software developers - to force hardware manufactures to bow to our DRM demands. They'll just laugh at us."
Don't put words in his mouth. Linus has never been the crusader that RMS is, and as he says in the article, doesn't want to be either. He claims that he doesn't feel like using software licensing and copyright as a weapon to fight political battles. I don't blame him, either. He seems to have meant precisely what he said. Since Linus isn't much prone to doublespeak or pulling punches, I'm tempted to believe him.
GPL3 is a tipping point for the FSF. If they go that route, they will lose all corporate support, which they think they don't need but in fact very much do. GPL3 goes way too far. So if they want to marginalize themselves...go right ahead.
Well, I agree with you post except for one thing: What if *ALL* of the telcos/networks adopted this policy? It's certainly in their self interest as well as their financial interest to do so.
Do it to the first one who adopts the policy as soon as they do. If they do it all at once, pick the most egregious violator or rotate.
Better than blocking them would be to return a stub web page that explains exactly why customers of a given network don't have access to those sites, as well as the phone number to that network's customer support number.;)
I don't quite understand the question though, if the company doesn't grow and doesn't pay any dividends the share price is only equal to shareholder's equity/shares (in reality, probably less). It isn't quite as easy as saying that you are expecting google to grow 4x faster yr/yr than microsoft. If you are looking for such a comparision i think you'd be better off looking at the PEG.
It was a hypothetical that I didn't spell out well. Basically, to me it means that the Street implicitly expects something like 3-fold growth in Google's earnings, at least over the horizon that most investors are looking at, to account that Google costs 3x as much as other firms with the same earnings.
Being a member of a political group that wants to legalize marijuana is not the same thing as illegally possessing or using marijuana, as I'm sure every court in the US would find. Nor would being a member be probable cause for believing that a person uses or possesses marijuana. Give it up already.
Yeah, right, I'd like to see the demographic overlap there and I'll kiss your ass if it's below 90%. I'm not so confident you've correctly assessed a court's opinion, unless you've got some directly relevant case law to share.
You should be able to espouse a political opinion and engage in any activities that do not interfere with your duties without fear of retaliation from your employers (the government).
I think anyone with common sense would come to the conclusion that a dope-smoking DEA agent would make a poor agent indeed, and I'd bet that any court with the same would find as much.
If you are fired from a government job for your political beliefs off the job, and not because you are failing to do the job, then a serious injustice has been done.
Except in this case 1) this isn't simply for political beliefs unrelated to the job, and 2) holding and *exercising* those beliefs makes the employee unable to effectively perform the job that is completely antithetical to their beliefs.
This is one step away from firing any policemen who are members of the democratic party.
No, it's one step away from firing Republican campaign workers who are members of the Democratic party. See how stupid that would be? Same thing here.
It is unethical
To fire someone whose actions and opinions are completely antithetical to your business and embarassing in front of clients? Think not.
incompatible with democracy
In what sense, that you should be able to say and do whatever you want and your employer has to take it? That's not democracy, that's insanity.
Slashdot Mirror
It's OK (and necessary) to question it. But the problem is, there's a difference between questioning the mechanism and trying to poke holes to reconcile it with one's religion. Trying to tear it down to accomodate religion isn't science.
Also, these conclusions aren't jumped to, they're put forth by people who have spent lifetimes on this research.
It's not fanatical to be annoyed with the Flat Earth crowd who are trying to take over scientific agencies (ie, NASA) and teach crap to our kids. That's a pretty reasonable response, in my opinion.
I did RTFA, and what was said is "this isn't news." I disagree. If the amended statement is that the typical slashdot crowd is too ignorant to discuss this news, then I agree.
Who are they? Are you a scientist? Where have you seen evolution being "pushed" in a way that wasn't scientific? What's the motive?
Since we use these same mechanics for drastically different purposes might it not be a better hypotheses that different species use the same mechanisms due to the unique properties rather than assume a shared ancestor?
No. I'd study some biology if I were going to question evolution. My main problem with the attack on evolution is that most of the people doing so lack the qualifications to know what they're even talking about.
Oh, piss off. With that attitude there's no point in doing science at all. It's news to discover the genes and the mechanism and also to find out what structure it was that developed into the organ in question.
"Evolutionists" don't have an agenda, unless you count science as an "agenda." We don't consider science to be subject to public policy, and as such, laymen don't get a vote.
This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution
If you believe in the general concept of "science" it absolutely does.
My point isn't to try and start a flame war, just simply that it's poor journalism to take something completely irrelevant to origin of life
Read the damned article. They're talking about the same stem cells in the embryo developing into electrosensors in sharks and ears in humans. That absolutely has everything to do with embryonic development which is known to mirror vertebrate evolution, at least to those who follow science.
It makes for bad science.
Are you a scientist? Because among actual scientists, evolution is as much an established fact as gravity. Don't fall off the edge of the flat earth on your way out the door.
2 routers in my house, 2 verizon, 5 L3, 4 google=14.
Well, you should be reading the license anyway before you either 1) publish content, or 2) reproduce content. At that point, you shouldn't be assuming anything about the license from the fact that it's CC anyway.
Kind of my point, Captain Obvious.
Believing it and having credible insider testimony aren't the same thing.
Pisspail! Where ya been man!
Partly. If they're smart, they'll task the things to also search for substances that are somewhat rare but similar to agents of interest, and that are guaranteed to be there. Pick a bacterium carried by 1 person in 1000.
This is just going to be another ineffective technology that too much money was spent on.
Really? You're basing this on a popular news article on face recognition? These technologies can be fairly effective if used correctly, I've worked on some chemical detection in the past.
Dude, seriously, lay off the reefer. It looks like it's rotting your brane.
That doesn't follow at all. They simply mde the judgement that it made more sense for them and their users to have a free email client with unobtrusive ads compared to for-pay client. None of that impacts the functionality, unless those ads prevent you from working, at which point I'd advise you take your Ritalin.
Actually, I've heard that Hurd is shipping soon, bundled with Duke Nukem Forever. And I'll close with a reading from the Gospel according to Linus, 1993:
Classic.
Exactly, GPL2 exists already. However, I suspect all the GNU software will become GPL3, which will probably cause either 1) reimplimentation by others, or 2) adoption of equivalent tools licensed in other ways (such as BSD). That would be some serious marginalization.
Basically, I think that a lot of coders and all companies will reject GPL3, and tools licensed with it. Could end up similar to another X11 style fork if they're not careful.
Or...perhaps it's not something he actually believes in anyway? This isn't inconsistent with his prior positions.
Don't put words in his mouth. Linus has never been the crusader that RMS is, and as he says in the article, doesn't want to be either. He claims that he doesn't feel like using software licensing and copyright as a weapon to fight political battles. I don't blame him, either. He seems to have meant precisely what he said. Since Linus isn't much prone to doublespeak or pulling punches, I'm tempted to believe him.
GPL3 is a tipping point for the FSF. If they go that route, they will lose all corporate support, which they think they don't need but in fact very much do. GPL3 goes way too far. So if they want to marginalize themselves...go right ahead.
Do it to the first one who adopts the policy as soon as they do. If they do it all at once, pick the most egregious violator or rotate.
Better than blocking them would be to return a stub web page that explains exactly why customers of a given network don't have access to those sites, as well as the phone number to that network's customer support number. ;)
It was a hypothetical that I didn't spell out well. Basically, to me it means that the Street implicitly expects something like 3-fold growth in Google's earnings, at least over the horizon that most investors are looking at, to account that Google costs 3x as much as other firms with the same earnings.
What's standard for a mature company, ~20-25 PE? So Google would have to double or triple earnings to maintain current price if one assumed no growth?
I'd be all for it if it were more unilateral. It would help force China to play more by international rules than by their own.
1) Who makes these "international rules?" Not a representative body that I can vote for, that's for sure. Screw that.
2) What gives us the right to do that to China and not vice versa?
Yeah, right, I'd like to see the demographic overlap there and I'll kiss your ass if it's below 90%. I'm not so confident you've correctly assessed a court's opinion, unless you've got some directly relevant case law to share.
I think anyone with common sense would come to the conclusion that a dope-smoking DEA agent would make a poor agent indeed, and I'd bet that any court with the same would find as much.
Except in this case 1) this isn't simply for political beliefs unrelated to the job, and 2) holding and *exercising* those beliefs makes the employee unable to effectively perform the job that is completely antithetical to their beliefs.
This is one step away from firing any policemen who are members of the democratic party.
No, it's one step away from firing Republican campaign workers who are members of the Democratic party. See how stupid that would be? Same thing here.
It is unethical
To fire someone whose actions and opinions are completely antithetical to your business and embarassing in front of clients? Think not.
incompatible with democracy
In what sense, that you should be able to say and do whatever you want and your employer has to take it? That's not democracy, that's insanity.
and illegal
Hell it is. What law?