Yep. Just because it is not a smooth distribution people feel that it isn't random. I am not sure why.
If you flip a coin a million times it will most likly NOT be 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails. The outcome will most likely be CLOSE, with a vague definition of close, to that, but not likely exactly that. That does not mean that the coin flips were not random events.
"I think it's much more informative to say that evolution is a process guided by the necessities of surviving and reproducing in the environment".
Ok, in your scenerio who is guiding the selection? Just curious, because the enviroment is not sentient as far as I know, so it can't give a shit one way or another.
To use you TV metaphor... And next year, unbeknownst to the competetors, we will be dropping a 40 billion ton rock moving at 40,000 kilometers an hour right on top of their island! Bet they didn't see that one coming! Tune in next season to see whos genes get passed on and whos don't on you favorite show, "Natural Selection".
So, you are saying that because all traits do not have the same chance at continuance it is nonrandom? We must be using different meanings for random, or we are applying them differently. I am using random in the sense of the process being unpredictable or nondeterministic.
If you take the pool of genetic variation that you mention, can you say which genes will be in existence in five generations? Can you determine which mutations will occur?Which will be selected for and which will be selected out? Can you predict whether the conditions within the enviromental niche will be the same, or will the niche even exist?
How is natural selection not a random process? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a deterministic pattern to it. Who survives to breed, and who they breed to, and which sets of genes are passed on are not known before hand. Yes, certain patterns are more likely to passed on as long as they are beneficial to survival in the niche they occupy, but if conditions change others will exhibit patterns more likely to be selected for, and those enviromental changes are not predictable either.
That said, I don't have any problem envisioning a weighted random selection process causing replicating molecules to evolve over billions of years into us and other wonders.
And the foam insulation is slightly less dangerous than the ice. Only a small amount of foam comes off since it is adhered to the outer shell of the external tank. The ice on the other hand simply warms up and...
Wanna bet? Skinheads marching through the suburbs of Chicago were definitly not wanted by a majority of the people who lived there, but the Skokie marches happened. There wer even counter protests. And oh my god, they were in earshot of each other. Yes there were idiots on both sides. Yes people were arrested, but the majority of them were peaceful and were allowed to continue protesting. Oh yeah, Skokie, Chicago, and the state of Illinois tried to stop them. The courts, whos jobs is to decide whether laws and rulings are constitutional or not said they COULDN'T stop the protests just because they didn't want them or like them. In the U.S. even hateful morons have a right to free speech and assembly. Go figure.
For your relatives and friends that may be true. Not for everyone though. Not by a longshot. You obviously don't have anyone doing video editing or music production like I do as a hobby. I have 4 PCs and an AIX box hooked up in the basement plus 802.11g for the laptops. Believe me 802.11g is a godsend for me. Not everybody uses their home network for just surfing the web.
What do you mean NASA is getting smarter? The original shuttle designs with the reusable launchers and such were brilliant for the times, but funding cuts and politics gave us the monstrosity we have. The shuttle as we have it with the production and support nightmare is not what NASA wanted, it's what they got.
That said, heavy lifters for bulk, small light cheap for sattilites, and reusables for the ability to bring things back would be a good idea if you ask me, which no one did.
(No I didn't RTFA. I don't do NYT. I hate feeling dirty aftrewards.)
Really, I don't understand why people find the fact that you SHOULD be able to hold a protest where the group you are protesting can see is critical. That does NOT give you the right to disrupt them or be violent. If the protesters are then they need to be arrested and prosecuted. Protests are not meant to make the protesters feel good. They are meant as a method to influence voters and politicians concerning political issues. If you have your feel good love fest with the people just like you, and the opposition gets to have its feel good love fest with people just like them, it fails to do what protests are meant to do. It's easy and sanitary, but totally misses the point of what protesting is meant for and why the constitution guarantees rights of free speech, assembly, and redress.
Why do so many people fear other view to the point that they don't even want to hear them? Yes, it is inconvienent, but then the constitution doesn't guarantee you won't have to think.
Nope. I wouldn't be upset if any of those groups held peaceful assembalies and protests for political purposes. You have a right to be an idiot or ass in the U.S. as long as you do it peacefully. Notice I said political. To have cemetary owners protest at cremetoriums because they are competeing for the same clients is not a political reason.
The issue with the Secret Service is not that they block protestors, but that they selectivly block protests of only one side of the issue by claiming that it is for securiy reasons. As if someone who was bent on causing harm to the President would not be able to show up at the rally with a propresidential sign and an antipresidential attitude.
As to your final statement, when it turns violent it is no longer peaceful. Which part of that don't you seem to get. If it is violent is NOT a peaceful assembly. The constitution does not guarentee you violent assembly, it guarntees you peaceful assembly. Below is a cut and paste of the first amendment. Notice it says "peacably to assemble." As long as they are peaceful they have the right to assemble. It's a right you seem to want to deny citizens of the U.S. because you fear others views and use the rationalization that a protest MAY turn violent to deny them their rights. Why don't you just have all of the arrested since one of them MAY mug you at some time. Same lack of logic. It's the only way to be sure.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Several of your descriptions go well past peaceful and would therefore be prohibited. The reason for the wording was so that people of differing views could air their views without it degenerating into chaos.
So, lets use your scenerio candidates for simplicities sake. I would have chosen others. So, lets say that the members of PETA wish to attempt to influence the Republican party which sets non-binding policy for its members. There is a major difference between them holding a protest within view of the members of the RNC than having someone simply say, "Did you see those nuts across town on the news last night?" The whole reason for peaceful assembly and protests is to attempt to influence the political views and beliefs of the people you are protesting. It is a nonviolent method to change their minds. If they can't see the protest then the"speech" isn't even moot, it's non existent for the purposes of protest.
The Secret Service allowing people to assemble who support his beliefs within view of the speech while those who oppose his views are relegated to areas that are not in line of sight of the speech, and then claiming it is for security reasons is a bit... questionable. No matter my other views on the President, that is one behavior that I dislike.
Yes, but the trade secret stuff was not part of the patents. They can have trade secrets and they can have patents, but they can not patent a trade secret. At that point it becomes public as part of the patent and is no longer a trade secret. Lots of companies use both patents and trade secrets. It is very common. you just cannot claim one as part of the other. With DVDs the encryption algorithim was a licensed patent i believe, but the key management protocol was a trade secret. The key management was their downfall when Xing, I think, didn't follow the protocol.
Why should a patent holder give up his monopoly to the highest bidder? If merck is willing to pay $50M for the patent the new chemical compound I have discovered, but I could license it for $20M a pop to 5 drug manufacturers, you have just taken $50M of my potential money away and given Merck the monopoly. On top of that, if I licensed it to 5 manufacturers which maximized my profit, it would force them to compete which would mean lower prices. Your plan would cost ME money and society as a whole. Sorry. Don't like it.
The problem with my scenerio is that most patent holders are either large corporations that intend to exploit the patents themselves, or are simply going to sell exclusive rights to someone for an upfront lump sum and a percentage of the take. Not all by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot.
No. If it is a patent it is public. You can't have a patent that says...
The patent covers the process and procedure to create wormholes between universes by utilizing {Trade Secret} and {Trade Secret}. The application of this process is {Trade Secret}.
That defeats the entire reason for Patents. You can not patent a trade secret and keep it secret, nor can you claim a patent as part of your trade secret. This doesn't mean that your trade secret process can't include things that are patented, but you can't claim that by discussing the patent someone has violated your trade secret.
It would have been legally obtained, but illegally disclosed in that case. Note the thing is called a "Non Disclosure" , not a "Non Obtainment", agreement.
(Not a lawyer and all that. Just working from my time in gradeschool english.)
Yes. You do need to wait for the "boomers" to go away. Sadly they most likely will not do so before the country is bankrupt. They are the largest voting block, and for the most part vote themselves "bread and circuses". Now that they are grown up, the last thing they want is for their children to be allowd to do the things they did. They experimented with sex, drugs, and rock & roll. They had a blast, but now see the error of their ways and won't let their children ruin their lives that way. Hypocrites for the most part. The sad thing is that I am a boomer. I'm at the bottom of the age bracket, but technically still a boomer. And there are times when I feel saddened by this fact.
Old libertarian curmudgeon boomer, free to nice generation! Gen-X, Slacker? Anyone? Anyone?
Yep. "Hey, my Fragmaster (TM), needs to work on his trade skills, so I'm gonna stock up the backpacks and go watch the Lame-O Sucky Movie trailer a few dozen times." Then not go see the Lame-O Sucky Movie. If I've got to waste time in game anyway, I might as well cost some annoying advertiser some cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Just because it is not a smooth distribution people feel that it isn't random. I am not sure why. If you flip a coin a million times it will most likly NOT be 500,000 heads and 500,000 tails. The outcome will most likely be CLOSE, with a vague definition of close, to that, but not likely exactly that. That does not mean that the coin flips were not random events.
"I think it's much more informative to say that evolution is a process guided by the necessities of surviving and reproducing in the environment".
Ok, in your scenerio who is guiding the selection? Just curious, because the enviroment is not sentient as far as I know, so it can't give a shit one way or another.
To use you TV metaphor... And next year, unbeknownst to the competetors, we will be dropping a 40 billion ton rock moving at 40,000 kilometers an hour right on top of their island! Bet they didn't see that one coming! Tune in next season to see whos genes get passed on and whos don't on you favorite show, "Natural Selection".
So, you are saying that because all traits do not have the same chance at continuance it is nonrandom? We must be using different meanings for random, or we are applying them differently. I am using random in the sense of the process being unpredictable or nondeterministic.
If you take the pool of genetic variation that you mention, can you say which genes will be in existence in five generations? Can you determine which mutations will occur?Which will be selected for and which will be selected out? Can you predict whether the conditions within the enviromental niche will be the same, or will the niche even exist?
How is natural selection not a random process? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a deterministic pattern to it. Who survives to breed, and who they breed to, and which sets of genes are passed on are not known before hand. Yes, certain patterns are more likely to passed on as long as they are beneficial to survival in the niche they occupy, but if conditions change others will exhibit patterns more likely to be selected for, and those enviromental changes are not predictable either.
That said, I don't have any problem envisioning a weighted random selection process causing replicating molecules to evolve over billions of years into us and other wonders.
And the foam insulation is slightly less dangerous than the ice. Only a small amount of foam comes off since it is adhered to the outer shell of the external tank. The ice on the other hand simply warms up and...
Wanna bet? Skinheads marching through the suburbs of Chicago were definitly not wanted by a majority of the people who lived there, but the Skokie marches happened. There wer even counter protests. And oh my god, they were in earshot of each other. Yes there were idiots on both sides. Yes people were arrested, but the majority of them were peaceful and were allowed to continue protesting. Oh yeah, Skokie, Chicago, and the state of Illinois tried to stop them. The courts, whos jobs is to decide whether laws and rulings are constitutional or not said they COULDN'T stop the protests just because they didn't want them or like them. In the U.S. even hateful morons have a right to free speech and assembly. Go figure.
For your relatives and friends that may be true. Not for everyone though. Not by a longshot. You obviously don't have anyone doing video editing or music production like I do as a hobby. I have 4 PCs and an AIX box hooked up in the basement plus 802.11g for the laptops. Believe me 802.11g is a godsend for me. Not everybody uses their home network for just surfing the web.
Just get several internet connections and agregate the bandwidth. Then give me your SSID and WEP keys. ;)
And it will keep that bandwith maxed for YEARS!
What do you mean NASA is getting smarter? The original shuttle designs with the reusable launchers and such were brilliant for the times, but funding cuts and politics gave us the monstrosity we have. The shuttle as we have it with the production and support nightmare is not what NASA wanted, it's what they got.
That said, heavy lifters for bulk, small light cheap for sattilites, and reusables for the ability to bring things back would be a good idea if you ask me, which no one did.
(No I didn't RTFA. I don't do NYT. I hate feeling dirty aftrewards.)
Really, I don't understand why people find the fact that you SHOULD be able to hold a protest where the group you are protesting can see is critical. That does NOT give you the right to disrupt them or be violent. If the protesters are then they need to be arrested and prosecuted. Protests are not meant to make the protesters feel good. They are meant as a method to influence voters and politicians concerning political issues. If you have your feel good love fest with the people just like you, and the opposition gets to have its feel good love fest with people just like them, it fails to do what protests are meant to do. It's easy and sanitary, but totally misses the point of what protesting is meant for and why the constitution guarantees rights of free speech, assembly, and redress.
Why do so many people fear other view to the point that they don't even want to hear them? Yes, it is inconvienent, but then the constitution doesn't guarantee you won't have to think.
Nope. I wouldn't be upset if any of those groups held peaceful assembalies and protests for political purposes. You have a right to be an idiot or ass in the U.S. as long as you do it peacefully. Notice I said political. To have cemetary owners protest at cremetoriums because they are competeing for the same clients is not a political reason.
The issue with the Secret Service is not that they block protestors, but that they selectivly block protests of only one side of the issue by claiming that it is for securiy reasons. As if someone who was bent on causing harm to the President would not be able to show up at the rally with a propresidential sign and an antipresidential attitude.
As to your final statement, when it turns violent it is no longer peaceful. Which part of that don't you seem to get. If it is violent is NOT a peaceful assembly. The constitution does not guarentee you violent assembly, it guarntees you peaceful assembly. Below is a cut and paste of the first amendment. Notice it says "peacably to assemble." As long as they are peaceful they have the right to assemble. It's a right you seem to want to deny citizens of the U.S. because you fear others views and use the rationalization that a protest MAY turn violent to deny them their rights. Why don't you just have all of the arrested since one of them MAY mug you at some time. Same lack of logic. It's the only way to be sure.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Several of your descriptions go well past peaceful and would therefore be prohibited. The reason for the wording was so that people of differing views could air their views without it degenerating into chaos.
So, lets use your scenerio candidates for simplicities sake. I would have chosen others. So, lets say that the members of PETA wish to attempt to influence the Republican party which sets non-binding policy for its members. There is a major difference between them holding a protest within view of the members of the RNC than having someone simply say, "Did you see those nuts across town on the news last night?" The whole reason for peaceful assembly and protests is to attempt to influence the political views and beliefs of the people you are protesting. It is a nonviolent method to change their minds. If they can't see the protest then the"speech" isn't even moot, it's non existent for the purposes of protest.
The Secret Service allowing people to assemble who support his beliefs within view of the speech while those who oppose his views are relegated to areas that are not in line of sight of the speech, and then claiming it is for security reasons is a bit... questionable. No matter my other views on the President, that is one behavior that I dislike.
Yes, but the trade secret stuff was not part of the patents. They can have trade secrets and they can have patents, but they can not patent a trade secret. At that point it becomes public as part of the patent and is no longer a trade secret. Lots of companies use both patents and trade secrets. It is very common. you just cannot claim one as part of the other. With DVDs the encryption algorithim was a licensed patent i believe, but the key management protocol was a trade secret. The key management was their downfall when Xing, I think, didn't follow the protocol.
Why should a patent holder give up his monopoly to the highest bidder? If merck is willing to pay $50M for the patent the new chemical compound I have discovered, but I could license it for $20M a pop to 5 drug manufacturers, you have just taken $50M of my potential money away and given Merck the monopoly. On top of that, if I licensed it to 5 manufacturers which maximized my profit, it would force them to compete which would mean lower prices. Your plan would cost ME money and society as a whole. Sorry. Don't like it.
The problem with my scenerio is that most patent holders are either large corporations that intend to exploit the patents themselves, or are simply going to sell exclusive rights to someone for an upfront lump sum and a percentage of the take. Not all by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot.
No. If it is a patent it is public. You can't have a patent that says...
The patent covers the process and procedure to create wormholes between universes by utilizing {Trade Secret} and {Trade Secret}. The application of this process is {Trade Secret}.
That defeats the entire reason for Patents. You can not patent a trade secret and keep it secret, nor can you claim a patent as part of your trade secret. This doesn't mean that your trade secret process can't include things that are patented, but you can't claim that by discussing the patent someone has violated your trade secret.
SunOS 4 -> Solaris 1 -> Solaris2 ...
Lots of backward compatability, and some were almost indistinguishable from one another, but you can't tell me Solaris 10 is the same as SunOS 4.
If these are the same chips discussed a year or so ago, they get their power from the mag field of the reader.
Dude, that's their plan!
It would have been legally obtained, but illegally disclosed in that case. Note the thing is called a "Non Disclosure" , not a "Non Obtainment", agreement.
(Not a lawyer and all that. Just working from my time in gradeschool english.)
Yes. You do need to wait for the "boomers" to go away. Sadly they most likely will not do so before the country is bankrupt. They are the largest voting block, and for the most part vote themselves "bread and circuses". Now that they are grown up, the last thing they want is for their children to be allowd to do the things they did. They experimented with sex, drugs, and rock & roll. They had a blast, but now see the error of their ways and won't let their children ruin their lives that way. Hypocrites for the most part. The sad thing is that I am a boomer. I'm at the bottom of the age bracket, but technically still a boomer. And there are times when I feel saddened by this fact.
Old libertarian curmudgeon boomer, free to nice generation! Gen-X, Slacker? Anyone? Anyone?
Yes. 16 bps on an 8W transmitter. At least for the pioneer 6-10 series if I read the data correctly.
Yep. "Hey, my Fragmaster (TM), needs to work on his trade skills, so I'm gonna stock up the backpacks and go watch the Lame-O Sucky Movie trailer a few dozen times." Then not go see the Lame-O Sucky Movie. If I've got to waste time in game anyway, I might as well cost some annoying advertiser some cash.
Ack. Sorry. That should have been Gb, not MB in my original post. MB was simply habitual, I type MB too often.
Quick math. 40 years at 16 bits per second, that's right, 16 BITS per second, is... 19.2MB of data.
BTW, the Pioneer spacecraft were launched in the 1960's, not 70's, so even older tech.