Arrival destination (which page they arrived at) is not from the same universe as source (where they arrived from). Those two would never be expected to sum to 100%.
99.28% arrive directly to www.facebook.com but only 7.7% of those people came from google.com This indicates they weren't searching for facebook, or even entering facebook (without a complete domain name) in Chrome browser which results in a search. They were direct hits, which, as I indicated, sounds like a home page setting, or a mobile app usage.
But WIFI access for "low-income students who don't have the sort of high-tech resources" isn't likely to be all that helpful since they don't have the tech gadgets. (Although wifi is probably cheaper than wiring the building).
There was a story just a few days ago about a library lending ereaders instead of books: http://news.slashdot.org/story... but that will probably require grant money for ebooks and readers.
If anything, Facebook will contract to an identity service provider used by web sites such as Answers.com and The Huffington Post to verify that each account is associated to one real person.
It might do that, but even teens are starting to realize that Facebook provides way too much information to be uses as an identity service provider.
Still THIS particular study seems a bit flaky, because it was done by looking for the frequency that "Facebook" appears in Google searches (which presumably includes simply entering "facebook.com" in the Chrome address bar, which some people still insist results in a search.)
With Facebook ALREADY being the home page of the addicted, and with a Facebook app on just about every mobile device, not many people have to search for Facebook, as it is already at their fingertips. According to Alexa statistics, 99.28% of visitors arrive directly at the site, and only 7.7% arrived from Google. This just screams "Browser Home Page".
Decline in search results might not be indicative of decline in usage. (Unfortunately).
In short, they aren't "breeding" sterile males, they have to make them one by one in a laboratory.
Further nobody has ever demonstrated this in a mammal. Further your statement:
The male offspring cannot reproduce, but still compete with the males that can, which provides a slow generational decline (which is important) in population, until the only female mice still in the area are all carrying the dominant gene,
is chock full of magical thinking.
Where did all these female carrier "mice" come from? (The story is about rats, not mice). Were they the *cough* nonexistent offspring of sterile males perhaps?
Nobody has developed any dominant sterility mechanism, because there is this little contradiction in terms that seems to always get in the way. As someone else in the thread said "sterility doesn't breed true", quite simply because it doesn't breed at all. In a free ranging population like rats, even magically sterilizing an entire male population, or some how converting all females to carriers, would simply breed resistant rats as infiltrating non-treated rats would be king of the heap in no time.
Rat control is food source control. Pure and simple.
Maybe you need generation skipping genetic flaws that will not kick in until the entire population is infected. Then the sterility gene suddenly turns on.
Seems unlikely this could be contained, and would probably spread out of control via some unforeseen vector.
why not just bioengineer dominant male infertility?
In theory, that sounds like the fastest route to reducing rat populations. One generation, and done.
In practice, it simply isn't likely to propagate, so dominant mail infertility is an oxymoron. (I can only assume you had your tongue firmly lodged in your cheek when you suggested it).
However non-lethal chemical castration can work to make a drastic temporary reduction in population, if rats weren't so smart. You would have to come up with constantly changing feeding techniques so you don't end up eradicating only those rats that eat corn, or only those that live in buildings.
shows ORBCOMM sending up with spacex in a bit. That's private money.
To-date, and well into the future, ORBCOMM's plan is to live off of government funded launches. There isn't much private money on their horizon. The odd comm-sat here and there.
No, I think you'll find that cities guard their mass transit federal handouts "earned" by providing the least suitable services that just barely qualify, as if they were the goose that lays the golden egg.
They even pulled their precious obsolete streetcars off the line for fear of looting and rampage after last week's Football game.
Ah, but then they become a common carrier, just like city buses, and competing with city buses. We can't have any private industry competing with City mass transit in the race to the bottom.
"the Ukraine" is a linguistic holdover from the Soviet Union when this was shorthand for "The Ukrainian SSR."
That phraseology predates the Soviet Union by many decades.
In "Pan Michael" Sienkiewicz refers to "The Ukraine" in 1893. In "Cossacks of the Ukraine" Krasinsku made it his book's title in 1848. In "An universal history: from the earliest accounts to the present time, Volume 35" (A history of Russia), which is a compilation of works of several authors, The Ukraine is referred to by several different authors. The book was printed in 1762.
Lets not rush to revisionism. There is more than enough of that going on already.
Russia, China, and a dozen other countries have air forces and ex air force officers who have flown MIGs . Did you have an actual point? Staying in the plane is kind of expected in space. But when that thrill dies out, and Virgin's next model can reach something approximating an orbit they can sell space walks. You'll no doubt be around to say it doesn't count if you wear a space suit.
Tell you what, you just go ahead and move the goal posts any where you want. We'll all know tow to your wisdom.
Won't happen, because these government grandstanders aren't going to get in the way. Its official US policy to privitize space launch businesses and make them economically feasible. Virgin has the only plan that gets private money into the game today. Everyone else is launching government payloads at public expense.
The current Virgin ship isn't going to be launching any serious payloads, but it will fund continuing development. Nobody is going to stand in the way of any vehicle until there is a disaster. Noboby is in a position to certify this vehicle is safe, or declare it unsafe. There are no such published standards.
But given you are going to lease, its not that much more expensive to lease a new car and not be inconvenienced by repairs.
The dealers have to charge high enough leases to cover the problem years. That's why the price break for leasing a 3 or 4 year old car isn't that much. Most people will choose to lease new.
A Phonetic equivalence seems quite plausible, and you can whip up a phonetic equivalence chart for your private use, or the use of a small group in a few hours. And that might be the natural course of action for someone trying to document knowledge from an oral tradition.
That this book didn't contain the key to the symbols is also not that unusual. Maybe this scribe needed to retain it for subsequent work.
Western letters drawn with a quill certainly speaks to the possibility of early Spanish origins deliberately trying to encode information to be sent home such that it couldn't be used by just anyone. There may never have been more than a dozen who knew the key or the symbology. Maybe they and the key went down with a subsequent ship, even thought this book or perhaps a few others weren't on that boat.
It means, at best, your assertion, (that is is not precedent), is wishful thinking, akin to a prayer. You don't get to dismiss the possibility out of hand, until you are appointed to the bench.
Dealers are not going to turn you in to the manufacturers. They wan't your continued business, performing maintenance, and they want to sell you your next car. The minute they start acting as enforcers for the manufacturers, they lose all your maintenance business, and you will never buy a car form them again. They aren't going to piss on their customers. (Rape them, perhaps, but smiling all the while).
They will simply reset the codes, and the warranties are already governed by law, manufacturers have to prove anything you did to the car was detrimental to the performance or safety of the vehicle. Just because you put in a new stereo, or defeated your seat belt interlock, doesn't void your power train warranty.
Its very hard for a dealer to re-lease a previously leased car, and they sell most them outright upon the end of the lease. Re-Leases are no where near as lucrative as first leases for the dealer, and no where near as attractive to the customer because they understand they are buying the problem years.
In the first three months of 2013, 27.5 percent of all new vehicles were bought with a lease, according to a State of the Automotive Finance Market report by Experian Automotive. That is a pretty big segment. But is it enough that they will throw in expensive options that they will never get paid for? Or at best, they might get paid the depreciated price after the first lease is over?
I don't think so. I also don't think this will fly in the US, where 3/4 of the market buy the vehicles outright.
Slashdot Mirror
Arrival destination (which page they arrived at) is not from the same universe as source (where they arrived from).
Those two would never be expected to sum to 100%.
99.28% arrive directly to www.facebook.com
but only 7.7% of those people came from google.com
This indicates they weren't searching for facebook, or even entering facebook (without a complete domain name) in Chrome browser which results in a search. They were direct hits, which, as I indicated, sounds like a home page setting, or a mobile app usage.
Agreed about the computers.
But WIFI access for "low-income students who don't have the sort of high-tech resources" isn't likely to be all that
helpful since they don't have the tech gadgets. (Although wifi is probably cheaper than wiring the building).
There was a story just a few days ago about a library lending ereaders instead of books:
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
but that will probably require grant money for ebooks and readers.
If anything, Facebook will contract to an identity service provider used by web sites such as Answers.com and The Huffington Post to verify that each account is associated to one real person.
It might do that, but even teens are starting to realize that Facebook provides way too much information to be uses as an identity service provider.
Still THIS particular study seems a bit flaky, because it was done by looking for the frequency that "Facebook" appears in Google searches (which presumably includes simply entering "facebook.com" in the Chrome address bar, which some people still insist results in a search.)
With Facebook ALREADY being the home page of the addicted, and with a Facebook app on just about every mobile device, not many people have to search for Facebook, as it is already at their fingertips. According to Alexa statistics, 99.28% of visitors arrive directly at the site, and only 7.7% arrived from Google. This just screams "Browser Home Page".
Decline in search results might not be indicative of decline in usage. (Unfortunately).
Mosquitoes are irradiated, not genetically modified.
New experiments that painstakingly injected male mosquito embryos are simply too expensive to use in the field. Surgically injecting a mosquito or a rat does not scale.
In short, they aren't "breeding" sterile males, they have to make them one by one in a laboratory.
Further nobody has ever demonstrated this in a mammal. Further your statement:
The male offspring cannot reproduce, but still compete with the males that can, which provides a slow generational decline (which is important) in population, until the only female mice still in the area are all carrying the dominant gene,
is chock full of magical thinking.
Where did all these female carrier "mice" come from? (The story is about rats, not mice). Were they the *cough* nonexistent offspring of sterile males perhaps?
Nobody has developed any dominant sterility mechanism, because there is this little contradiction in terms that seems to always get in the way. As someone else in the thread said "sterility doesn't breed true", quite simply because it doesn't breed at all. In a free ranging population like rats, even magically sterilizing an entire male population, or some how converting all females to carriers, would simply breed resistant rats as infiltrating non-treated rats would be king of the heap in no time.
Rat control is food source control. Pure and simple.
Maybe you need generation skipping genetic flaws that will not kick in until the entire population is infected.
Then the sterility gene suddenly turns on.
Seems unlikely this could be contained, and would probably spread out of control via some unforeseen vector.
why not just bioengineer dominant male infertility?
In theory, that sounds like the fastest route to reducing rat populations.
One generation, and done.
In practice, it simply isn't likely to propagate, so dominant mail infertility is an oxymoron.
(I can only assume you had your tongue firmly lodged in your cheek when you suggested it).
However non-lethal chemical castration can work to make a drastic temporary reduction in
population, if rats weren't so smart. You would have to come up with constantly changing feeding
techniques so you don't end up eradicating only those rats that eat corn, or only those
that live in buildings.
shows ORBCOMM sending up with spacex in a bit. That's private money.
To-date, and well into the future, ORBCOMM's plan is to live off of government funded launches.
There isn't much private money on their horizon. The odd comm-sat here and there.
No, I think you'll find that cities guard their mass transit federal handouts "earned" by providing the least suitable services that just barely qualify, as if they were the goose that lays the golden egg.
They even pulled their precious obsolete streetcars off the line for fear of looting and rampage after last week's Football game.
Ah, but then they become a common carrier, just like city buses, and competing with city buses.
We can't have any private industry competing with City mass transit in the race to the bottom.
such as?
Seriously?
Go read it yourself: http://craphound.com/images/di...
His point is that "Ukraine" is acceptable. "The Ukraine" is not.
Its been used in print as "The Ukraine" for well over 300 years.
"the Ukraine" is a linguistic holdover from the Soviet Union when this was shorthand for "The Ukrainian SSR."
That phraseology predates the Soviet Union by many decades.
In "Pan Michael" Sienkiewicz refers to "The Ukraine" in 1893.
In "Cossacks of the Ukraine" Krasinsku made it his book's title in 1848.
In "An universal history: from the earliest accounts to the present time, Volume 35" (A history of Russia), which is a compilation of works of several authors, The Ukraine is referred to by several different authors. The book was printed in 1762.
Lets not rush to revisionism. There is more than enough of that going on already.
But mounting a GoPro on a molotov would be cool while at the same time incendiary.
This chart has some interesting tidbits on laws that were just put in place in the Ukraine.
Lots of those outlawed things are also crimes in the US, as well as many EU countries.
Me think thou doth pedant too much.
Russia, China, and a dozen other countries have air forces and ex air force officers who have flown MIGs .
Did you have an actual point?
Staying in the plane is kind of expected in space. But when that thrill dies out, and Virgin's next model can reach something approximating an orbit they can sell space walks. You'll no doubt be around to say it doesn't count if you wear a space suit.
Tell you what, you just go ahead and move the goal posts any where you want. We'll all know tow to your wisdom.
Won't happen, because these government grandstanders aren't going to get in the way.
Its official US policy to privitize space launch businesses and make them economically feasible.
Virgin has the only plan that gets private money into the game today. Everyone else is launching government payloads at public expense.
The current Virgin ship isn't going to be launching any serious payloads, but it will fund continuing development.
Nobody is going to stand in the way of any vehicle until there is a disaster. Noboby is in a position to certify this vehicle is safe, or declare it unsafe. There are no such published standards.
But given you are going to lease, its not that much more expensive to lease a new car and not
be inconvenienced by repairs.
The dealers have to charge high enough leases to cover the problem years. That's why
the price break for leasing a 3 or 4 year old car isn't that much. Most people will choose
to lease new.
That's not even remotely plausible. You can't develop a writing system overnight.
Well not over night, but it doesn't take that long.
A Phonetic equivalence seems quite plausible, and you can whip up a phonetic equivalence chart for your private
use, or the use of a small group in a few hours.
And that might be the natural course of action for someone trying to document knowledge from an oral tradition.
That this book didn't contain the key to the symbols is also not that unusual. Maybe this scribe needed to retain
it for subsequent work.
Western letters drawn with a quill certainly speaks to the possibility of early Spanish origins deliberately trying to
encode information to be sent home such that it couldn't be used by just anyone. There may never have been more
than a dozen who knew the key or the symbology. Maybe they and the key went down with a subsequent ship,
even thought this book or perhaps a few others weren't on that boat.
Actually my example is better than yours.
Capacity on demand is a SERVICE, sold with a leased machine.
In my case, the university OWNED the computer.
It means, at best, your assertion, (that is is not precedent), is wishful thinking, akin to a prayer.
You don't get to dismiss the possibility out of hand, until you are appointed to the bench.
Look, you don't realize how it really works.
Dealers are not going to turn you in to the manufacturers. They wan't your continued business, performing maintenance, and they want to sell you your next car. The minute they start acting as enforcers for the manufacturers, they lose all your maintenance business, and you will never buy a car form them again. They aren't going to piss on their customers. (Rape them, perhaps, but smiling all the while).
They will simply reset the codes, and the warranties are already governed by law, manufacturers have to prove anything you did to the car was detrimental to the performance or safety of the vehicle. Just because you put in a new stereo, or defeated your seat belt interlock, doesn't void your power train warranty.
Well, leases really only last three years or so.
Its very hard for a dealer to re-lease a previously leased car, and they sell most them outright upon the end of the lease.
Re-Leases are no where near as lucrative as first leases for the dealer, and no where near as attractive to the customer
because they understand they are buying the problem years.
In the first three months of 2013, 27.5 percent of all new vehicles were bought with a lease, according to a State of the Automotive Finance Market report by Experian Automotive. That is a pretty big segment. But is it enough that they will throw in expensive options that
they will never get paid for? Or at best, they might get paid the depreciated price after the first lease is over?
I don't think so.
I also don't think this will fly in the US, where 3/4 of the market buy the vehicles outright.
From your lips to the Judges ears.
And entire web sites devoted to hacking car "feature codes".
And the only way the manufacturers could LEGALLY control it would be via some sort of DCMA lockouts.
Still, this would be hacked within days.
Your dealer isn't going to turn you in either, because he knows where is bread is buttered.