So? The policy of every administration has been to try to appoint people of like mindedness. The only reason it's an issue with Bush is because of the people who don't like him.
There are lots of stupid things Bush does. Focus on those instead of ridiculous crap like this.
A quick search reveals that here telomeres were in fact abnormal (short), and a big ruckus was made over what consequences that would have.
"But Dr. Alan Colman, the research director of PPL Therapeutics, said scientists had repeatedly asked his group to check on Dolly's telomeres. "Right from the start, when Dolly's birth was announced, people said, 'Have you looked at the telomeres yet?"' Colman reported.
Shiels and his colleagues compared Dolly's telomeres to those taken from cells of 18 other sheep and to those from a sheep cloned from an embryo cell and one cloned from the cell of a fetus.
Dolly's telomeres were about 20 percent shorter than those of the sheep that were not clones, the scientists said."
"IP does not exist. It's not allowed by the US Constitution"
Doesn't matter, and displays your ignorance of the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't list the things you CAN do, but rather the things which government is restricted from doing.
And if you look around, you'll see IP does exist, and is everywhere. Denying reality won't get you what you want, but it will get you diagnosed with a mental disorder, so be careful with that.
by saying "Duh" to something that is much more complex than you state, perhaps you should give all sides.
The GPL in developing countries, and the US too, has the unpleasant side effect of insulating companies with lots of IP.
Company A, in the US, has spent say twenty years developing proprietary stuff. None of it is GPL'd.
Company B, in a developing country, has no such history, and must use GPL'd code, or go proprietary. There are other options, but these are the two most likely.
So company A has 20 years of IP, AND all the GPL'd code they care to use, while company B has no IP at all.
Before you go off on me, yes they are similar, in that you buy a movie in a format that is chosen by someone else. You can't control the previews, nor can you control the commercials.
Truthfully, your "right" to view SOMEONE ELSE'S movie in the form and fashion you choose has never existed. That fact that technology ALLOWS you to do something doesn't make it a right.
One last thing. You don't own a movie, you own a copy of the movie that you have purchased viewing (and in a small way, copying) PRIVILEGES for. If the manufacturer says no fast forwarding, you have no "right" to do otherwise. Instead, use the rights your wallet gives you and refuse to buy such movies.
I simply can't attribute that much creativity to the editors. It's a great idea, but if the editors were that creative, they wouldn't have DUPE THE SAME GODDAMNED STORY 5 TIMES.
I've always thought it was talent. In the case of Johnny Depp, he's a very good actor, while Denise Crosby is just Bing Crosby's granddughter, with marginal acting talent.
I was going to post the same thing, almost word for word.
While typecasting can become problem, it really is only an issue for mediocre actors. The good ones will get parts, regardless of their history. Maybe he knows something about his own skill that we don't.
Um, no offense, but you can't possibly know what you claim to, unless the judges TOLD you they weren't on CH's side. They didn't, so you are a liar, and the rest of your post is moot.
I don't know what "facts" you claim to have looked at, but I saw nothing that even remotely indicates you are correct. The only "facts" in this case regarding the outcome are the OBJECTIVE scores, where MIT was better. The rest is VERY open to the judges bias. Why are you trying so hard to avoid admitting that? Why do SO MANY of you try so hard to avoid admitting that?
Subjective categories in judging means that "facts" are irrelevant anyway. Point to the subjective scores and try to claim they are "facts" then get laughed out of the building by people who know better.
If you were a judge in this competition, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe their backgroud didn't even moderately change the outcome.
Which was exactly my point, even if I didn't state it clearly. In a competition where there are essentially 2 equals, who wins? I go with the kids, because just hanging in with MIT deserves serious recognition.
Slashdot Mirror
Ouch. Isn't there a name for such a screwup?
:P
Where can I get WMP for mac he says. I hope you read the artilcle at least.
I guess they're on to this now that their pet vegetable is dead.
And people complain about Bush. The real power to fuck up your life is resting in the hands of these idiots.
So? The policy of every administration has been to try to appoint people of like mindedness. The only reason it's an issue with Bush is because of the people who don't like him.
There are lots of stupid things Bush does. Focus on those instead of ridiculous crap like this.
So, he finds reasonable EVIDENCE that you are wrong, and you refute that by... calling him stupid. Sad
"if you don't realize that the two are different, you are a potzer" Do you hear that? It's your credibility vanishing. No logical fallacies please.
Horrible, yet still far superior to the other attempts.
But that still doesn't explain why you claimed she had normal telomeres.
But Dolly didn't have normal telomeres.
A quick search reveals that here telomeres were in fact abnormal (short), and a big ruckus was made over what consequences that would have.
"But Dr. Alan Colman, the research director of PPL Therapeutics, said scientists had repeatedly asked his group to check on Dolly's telomeres. "Right from the start, when Dolly's birth was announced, people said, 'Have you looked at the telomeres yet?"' Colman reported.
Shiels and his colleagues compared Dolly's telomeres to those taken from cells of 18 other sheep and to those from a sheep cloned from an embryo cell and one cloned from the cell of a fetus.
Dolly's telomeres were about 20 percent shorter than those of the sheep that were not clones, the scientists said."
Did I maybe misread something?
"You are also ignoring BSD licensed code, which is a major omission"
When I said other options, that's what I meant. As far as major omission, that's just ridiculous. BSD is a marginalized niche OS, nothing more.
What you said has nothing to do with my comment specifically
"Company A also has 20 years of cruft. Company A's motivation to rid itself of this cruft is based purely on economic considerations"
None of that relates. How is it "cruft" instead if useful IP? Is IBM's IP cruft? Of course not. The rest is just as silly.
If you're going to make incorrect, blanket, ridiculous unsupported assumptions, then don't bother with what I said, and just make your own shit up.
"IP does not exist. It's not allowed by the US Constitution"
Doesn't matter, and displays your ignorance of the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't list the things you CAN do, but rather the things which government is restricted from doing.
And if you look around, you'll see IP does exist, and is everywhere. Denying reality won't get you what you want, but it will get you diagnosed with a mental disorder, so be careful with that.
by saying "Duh" to something that is much more complex than you state, perhaps you should give all sides.
The GPL in developing countries, and the US too, has the unpleasant side effect of insulating companies with lots of IP.
Company A, in the US, has spent say twenty years developing proprietary stuff. None of it is GPL'd.
Company B, in a developing country, has no such history, and must use GPL'd code, or go proprietary. There are other options, but these are the two most likely.
So company A has 20 years of IP, AND all the GPL'd code they care to use, while company B has no IP at all.
I would say that is a real disadvantage.
You mean like at the movies, right?
Before you go off on me, yes they are similar, in that you buy a movie in a format that is chosen by someone else. You can't control the previews, nor can you control the commercials.
Truthfully, your "right" to view SOMEONE ELSE'S movie in the form and fashion you choose has never existed. That fact that technology ALLOWS you to do something doesn't make it a right.
One last thing. You don't own a movie, you own a copy of the movie that you have purchased viewing (and in a small way, copying) PRIVILEGES for. If the manufacturer says no fast forwarding, you have no "right" to do otherwise. Instead, use the rights your wallet gives you and refuse to buy such movies.
I simply can't attribute that much creativity to the editors. It's a great idea, but if the editors were that creative, they wouldn't have DUPE THE SAME GODDAMNED STORY 5 TIMES.
It's not you. They just aren't funny.
Well, since I've always hated Dr. Who, you can't be talking about me. As far as the other slashbotters, I can't speak for them.
I've always thought it was talent. In the case of Johnny Depp, he's a very good actor, while Denise Crosby is just Bing Crosby's granddughter, with marginal acting talent.
"No, in all seriousness, Eddie would make a great Dr. I was surprised to see him in Oceans Twelve. He did a good job"
And then we shot him.
I was going to post the same thing, almost word for word.
While typecasting can become problem, it really is only an issue for mediocre actors. The good ones will get parts, regardless of their history. Maybe he knows something about his own skill that we don't.
A sci-fi version of the OC? I'll pass.
Um, no offense, but you can't possibly know what you claim to, unless the judges TOLD you they weren't on CH's side. They didn't, so you are a liar, and the rest of your post is moot.
I don't know what "facts" you claim to have looked at, but I saw nothing that even remotely indicates you are correct. The only "facts" in this case regarding the outcome are the OBJECTIVE scores, where MIT was better. The rest is VERY open to the judges bias. Why are you trying so hard to avoid admitting that? Why do SO MANY of you try so hard to avoid admitting that? Subjective categories in judging means that "facts" are irrelevant anyway. Point to the subjective scores and try to claim they are "facts" then get laughed out of the building by people who know better. If you were a judge in this competition, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe their backgroud didn't even moderately change the outcome.
Ok, so to extend your analogy, what happens if I don't lock my stuff. It gets stolen. What is the equivalent situation regarding anonymous domains?
Oh, wait there isn't one. A little more reason, and a little less (ridiculous) rhetoric would do you good.
I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a few hundred years on average.
Which was exactly my point, even if I didn't state it clearly. In a competition where there are essentially 2 equals, who wins? I go with the kids, because just hanging in with MIT deserves serious recognition.