Actually, relaxin and respiratin are also important. Relaxin causes the sphincter to relax, respiratin causes it to inhale, and then finally perforin can do its work.:)
When you tweak one thing, something else tends to go out of balance. Still, this is pretty cool, whether it leads directly or indirectly to new treatments.
A lot of European descendants were here when various states became states spoke Spanish as their first language. This is true of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Nevada, and also of Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana. And of course the indigenous people who lived in various states before the Europeans arrived all spoke languages other than English.
By your logic, the voting machines in Nevada should offer a choice between Goshute and Paiute.
The thing that I found interesting about TFA was that a total of 31 people in all of Korea were disconnected over the course of a year. Hardly headline news..
Go down to the local FBI office lobby, light up a doobie, and then tell me our government doesn't try to dictate the choices their citizens get to engage in...
I did say I didn't want to live in China. You might have missed that part. But I really think it's important to distinguish between people behaving in their own interest according to their culture, and people deliberately engaging in attacks.
If you look at American culture, you can find abuses as egregious as those in China without looking very hard. It's just that we have explanations for the abuses that are generally accepted by people in our culture, so we don't identify them as "human rights abuses" or "censorship" or "slavery."
How many Americans are incarcerated, and why, for example? Has America paid the judgment against it in a U.S. court for stealing money owed to Native American tribes? Has America tortured people? How does the $700 million settlement in the RIM patent lawsuits in favor of a patent troll compare to things Chinese companies have done to U.S. companies?
It's easy to point fingers and say the other guy is bad, but it's actually more useful to look at things we're doing that are mistakes, and try to do something about them, because we *can* do something about them. We have no control over China.
Actually, that's precisely what it means. If everybody agreed that copyright infringement were theft, then it would be theft. But everybody doesn't agree, so it's not.
I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't define "killing someone because I hate their stupid arguments" as murder. That's because we all say things that *someone* disagrees with, and we don't think it would be okay for that person to kill us because they disagree with us.
The company I work for doesn't have any trouble getting money from Chinese companies for our software product. The reason is that we offer service along with the software. Maybe your statement is true with respect to some part of the Chinese government--I don't know. But it's pretty clear that at least with respect to the companies we're dealing with, what's going on here is a difference in culture, not some concerted attempt to harm American businesses.
From my perspective as a software developer, it seems to me that what's harming American businesses is copyright and patent maximalism, not some effort on China's part to harm us. I'm much more personally worried about American patent trolls than I am about Chinese software pirates. Indeed, I'm not at all worried about Chinese software pirates.
Nope, I have friends in China who have good jobs and enough money to pay for movies. They're completely unembarrassed about pirating movies. They don't consider it wrong in any sense. They're a lot like us before we became a rich country--Charles Dickens used to be brutally pirated by American publishers, and couldn't do a thing about it.
The idea that a free market only accounts for costs of acquisition that are legal is nonsense, as anybody who's ever tried to create a managed economy can tell you. If you raise the price of an item above its cost of acquisition through illegal means, or decrease its availability sufficiently, a black market will form to serve the demand.
You can try to stop the black market; this raises the cost of acquisition of the goods on the black market (or not, c.f. the War On Some Drugs). But you can't eliminate the black market through any other means than allowing the legal market to function. Hence the black market is an aspect of the free market--it is how markets free themselves.
If Baidu gave you access to all my money, I'd sue my bank. It's a totally different situation--money is rivalrous; copyrighted material is not.
The answer is that China is not America, and they don't believe the same things we do. Sometimes it's because they are wrong, and sometimes it's because we are wrong (for some value of wrong, of course). In this case it's quite interesting how differently they see it--they see the iPad as bad because they don't have any social norm at all in favor of copyright maximalism. To them, copyright maximalism is a bug to be worked around. It's kind of cool. I wish we (our culture) hadn't drunk that kool-aid. This is completely orthogonal to the great firewall (which, by the way, many members of the Communist party consider illegal).
You're right that Baidu probably beat Google by offering free searches for piracy sites. If you stop with the copyright maximalist viewpoint for a minute, that's exactly what you'd expect in a free-market situation. Baidu is better than Google, because it returns more useful results. This is only bad if you are a copyright maximalist, which most Chinese people are not.
Anyway, I'm not about to move to China--there are a lot of disadvantages to living there, particularly if you aren't Chinese. But I think it's worth thinking about this from a free market perspective, and not from the perspective of a system of law that is really not very widely accepted.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that merely keeping the status quo on common carrier would work for this case. But turning around the general trend that we've been seeing of making everybody liable for everything would be a step in the right direction. It's a damned shame that the old days of open WiFi everywhere are largely gone.
Your printer doesn't need to connect to the Internet. Who cares whether it's running IPv4 or IPv6? Your SIP phone is a bit of a problem--you and the ten other people who have one will probably have to upgrade the firmware or buy a replacement. Just lie back, close your eyes, and think of the economy.
Actually, we pretty much are out of IPv4 addresses. You don't see it because you're not looking in the right places. My parents have a connection to the Internet that double-NATs a couple of hundred users across a single IP address. They don't ever see a big message pop up that says "sorry, no address for you." What they see is that streaming video sometimes drops for no obvious reason. Ssh connections die. Maps don't load, or partially load. Things take a really long time, because the IP address you started your first connection with got reclaimed by the lame double NAT, and your browser has to time out and retry.
So what you see isn't a clear indication that you are out of addresses. What you see is that the network starts sucking more and more, in no clear and consistent way, and for no obvious reason.
The way CGN works is to spread multiple users across the same IP address. So forget about dyndns. Also forget about google maps, because it runs through ports like water, and TCP requires a 90-second timeout before releasing a port. Basically, CGN is a hack to cushion the blow, but it doesn't eliminate the need to switch to IPv6. You will like CGN a lot less than you like your present NAT.
A much better choice would be to go to NAT64. That way you get end-to-end connectivity for the hosts that do IPv6 (e.g., Google Maps can do IPv6 at this point) and use IPv4 ports for the hosts that haven't converted yet. Less demand on the scarce IPv4 ports means better performance for the cases where they are needed. And you get end-to-end when you really care about it--e.g., when Skyping your pal who also has NAT64.
What bothers me about this idea, actually, is all the non-carbon nutrients it takes out of the ecosystem. There's a reason why we have compost piles, you know--we use the output from them to fertilize our gardens, so we can grow more stuff. That's not to say it's a bad idea, but I think it would be necessary to think a little harder about it--what plant waste contains minimal nutrients, and can be safely sequestered? What plant waste is better recycled? Clearly, anything that's currently being burned could be piled, and that would be a better deal for the environment, so that's a place to start.
Of course, anybody who believes in self-improvement is going to test low for self-esteem if self-esteem is measured on the basis of how satisfied one is with oneself...
Actually, it's not the same as Y2K claims, because Y2K claims were credible. This supposed threat is not at all credible. Only someone who has no technical understanding of how networking works would think that having a kill switch for the Internet could help in some way. What a kill switch for the internet does is provide a handy switch for an attacker to throw that will shut down the entire country.
On the plus side, there's a good chance that after the switch is installed, its first use will be by a black hat trying to cause economic havoc, not by the government. The outcry following this attack will result in its removal.
he should just release it under GPLv3. The anti-tivoization clause prevents anyone else from selling it in the app store, but it's totally open source then.
The frustrating thing about reading Scott Adams' article, though, is just how many mistakes he made. Siting his house without planning for solar gain. Not hiring an experienced energy consultant. Not hiring people who knew what they were doing, basically. Building a green house is difficult--you have to do a lot of research. Unfortunately, very few builders know how to build one. But there are builders who do it for a living. So if you want a green house, and you don't want to build it yourself, hire one of *them*, not some builder who doesn't know anything about it and thinks it's a bad idea.
The whole sad saga of the attic fan was the worst of it. Has he never heard of a vented roof? A cupola to draw wind up, or a peak vent that does the same? Most green building techniques are just what everybody did before air conditioning was invented. Back when you couldn't cool a house with refrigeration, you *had* to make it energy-efficient, because the only thing cooling the house was going to be whatever passive environmental system you were able to come up with.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, relaxin and respiratin are also important. Relaxin causes the sphincter to relax, respiratin causes it to inhale, and then finally perforin can do its work. :)
When you tweak one thing, something else tends to go out of balance. Still, this is pretty cool, whether it leads directly or indirectly to new treatments.
A lot of European descendants were here when various states became states spoke Spanish as their first language. This is true of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Nevada, and also of Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana. And of course the indigenous people who lived in various states before the Europeans arrived all spoke languages other than English.
By your logic, the voting machines in Nevada should offer a choice between Goshute and Paiute.
The thing that I found interesting about TFA was that a total of 31 people in all of Korea were disconnected over the course of a year. Hardly headline news..
Sad, but true. The myth of the lone inventor striking it rich is very deeply ingrained in our cultural ethos, despite being a load of hooey.
It's such a fun word--who can resist? :) It's like Maximilian, only it's a word instead of a name!
I wish you could be modded above five.
Did you ever release your scheme compiler?
Go down to the local FBI office lobby, light up a doobie, and then tell me our government doesn't try to dictate the choices their citizens get to engage in...
I did say I didn't want to live in China. You might have missed that part. But I really think it's important to distinguish between people behaving in their own interest according to their culture, and people deliberately engaging in attacks.
If you look at American culture, you can find abuses as egregious as those in China without looking very hard. It's just that we have explanations for the abuses that are generally accepted by people in our culture, so we don't identify them as "human rights abuses" or "censorship" or "slavery."
How many Americans are incarcerated, and why, for example? Has America paid the judgment against it in a U.S. court for stealing money owed to Native American tribes? Has America tortured people? How does the $700 million settlement in the RIM patent lawsuits in favor of a patent troll compare to things Chinese companies have done to U.S. companies?
It's easy to point fingers and say the other guy is bad, but it's actually more useful to look at things we're doing that are mistakes, and try to do something about them, because we *can* do something about them. We have no control over China.
Actually, that's precisely what it means. If everybody agreed that copyright infringement were theft, then it would be theft. But everybody doesn't agree, so it's not.
I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't define "killing someone because I hate their stupid arguments" as murder. That's because we all say things that *someone* disagrees with, and we don't think it would be okay for that person to kill us because they disagree with us.
Won't be content, you mean.
The company I work for doesn't have any trouble getting money from Chinese companies for our software product. The reason is that we offer service along with the software. Maybe your statement is true with respect to some part of the Chinese government--I don't know. But it's pretty clear that at least with respect to the companies we're dealing with, what's going on here is a difference in culture, not some concerted attempt to harm American businesses.
From my perspective as a software developer, it seems to me that what's harming American businesses is copyright and patent maximalism, not some effort on China's part to harm us. I'm much more personally worried about American patent trolls than I am about Chinese software pirates. Indeed, I'm not at all worried about Chinese software pirates.
Nope, I have friends in China who have good jobs and enough money to pay for movies. They're completely unembarrassed about pirating movies. They don't consider it wrong in any sense. They're a lot like us before we became a rich country--Charles Dickens used to be brutally pirated by American publishers, and couldn't do a thing about it.
The idea that a free market only accounts for costs of acquisition that are legal is nonsense, as anybody who's ever tried to create a managed economy can tell you. If you raise the price of an item above its cost of acquisition through illegal means, or decrease its availability sufficiently, a black market will form to serve the demand.
You can try to stop the black market; this raises the cost of acquisition of the goods on the black market (or not, c.f. the War On Some Drugs). But you can't eliminate the black market through any other means than allowing the legal market to function. Hence the black market is an aspect of the free market--it is how markets free themselves.
If Baidu gave you access to all my money, I'd sue my bank. It's a totally different situation--money is rivalrous; copyrighted material is not.
The answer is that China is not America, and they don't believe the same things we do. Sometimes it's because they are wrong, and sometimes it's because we are wrong (for some value of wrong, of course). In this case it's quite interesting how differently they see it--they see the iPad as bad because they don't have any social norm at all in favor of copyright maximalism. To them, copyright maximalism is a bug to be worked around. It's kind of cool. I wish we (our culture) hadn't drunk that kool-aid. This is completely orthogonal to the great firewall (which, by the way, many members of the Communist party consider illegal).
You're right that Baidu probably beat Google by offering free searches for piracy sites. If you stop with the copyright maximalist viewpoint for a minute, that's exactly what you'd expect in a free-market situation. Baidu is better than Google, because it returns more useful results. This is only bad if you are a copyright maximalist, which most Chinese people are not.
Anyway, I'm not about to move to China--there are a lot of disadvantages to living there, particularly if you aren't Chinese. But I think it's worth thinking about this from a free market perspective, and not from the perspective of a system of law that is really not very widely accepted.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that merely keeping the status quo on common carrier would work for this case. But turning around the general trend that we've been seeing of making everybody liable for everything would be a step in the right direction. It's a damned shame that the old days of open WiFi everywhere are largely gone.
Yes. Vote in the November election. Lobby your congresscritters to keep the common carrier defense applicable to the Internet.
Your printer doesn't need to connect to the Internet. Who cares whether it's running IPv4 or IPv6? Your SIP phone is a bit of a problem--you and the ten other people who have one will probably have to upgrade the firmware or buy a replacement. Just lie back, close your eyes, and think of the economy.
Actually, we pretty much are out of IPv4 addresses. You don't see it because you're not looking in the right places. My parents have a connection to the Internet that double-NATs a couple of hundred users across a single IP address. They don't ever see a big message pop up that says "sorry, no address for you." What they see is that streaming video sometimes drops for no obvious reason. Ssh connections die. Maps don't load, or partially load. Things take a really long time, because the IP address you started your first connection with got reclaimed by the lame double NAT, and your browser has to time out and retry.
So what you see isn't a clear indication that you are out of addresses. What you see is that the network starts sucking more and more, in no clear and consistent way, and for no obvious reason.
The way CGN works is to spread multiple users across the same IP address. So forget about dyndns. Also forget about google maps, because it runs through ports like water, and TCP requires a 90-second timeout before releasing a port. Basically, CGN is a hack to cushion the blow, but it doesn't eliminate the need to switch to IPv6. You will like CGN a lot less than you like your present NAT.
A much better choice would be to go to NAT64. That way you get end-to-end connectivity for the hosts that do IPv6 (e.g., Google Maps can do IPv6 at this point) and use IPv4 ports for the hosts that haven't converted yet. Less demand on the scarce IPv4 ports means better performance for the cases where they are needed. And you get end-to-end when you really care about it--e.g., when Skyping your pal who also has NAT64.
What bothers me about this idea, actually, is all the non-carbon nutrients it takes out of the ecosystem. There's a reason why we have compost piles, you know--we use the output from them to fertilize our gardens, so we can grow more stuff. That's not to say it's a bad idea, but I think it would be necessary to think a little harder about it--what plant waste contains minimal nutrients, and can be safely sequestered? What plant waste is better recycled? Clearly, anything that's currently being burned could be piled, and that would be a better deal for the environment, so that's a place to start.
Of course, anybody who believes in self-improvement is going to test low for self-esteem if self-esteem is measured on the basis of how satisfied one is with oneself...
Actually, it's not the same as Y2K claims, because Y2K claims were credible. This supposed threat is not at all credible. Only someone who has no technical understanding of how networking works would think that having a kill switch for the Internet could help in some way. What a kill switch for the internet does is provide a handy switch for an attacker to throw that will shut down the entire country.
On the plus side, there's a good chance that after the switch is installed, its first use will be by a black hat trying to cause economic havoc, not by the government. The outcry following this attack will result in its removal.
he should just release it under GPLv3. The anti-tivoization clause prevents anyone else from selling it in the app store, but it's totally open source then.
The frustrating thing about reading Scott Adams' article, though, is just how many mistakes he made. Siting his house without planning for solar gain. Not hiring an experienced energy consultant. Not hiring people who knew what they were doing, basically. Building a green house is difficult--you have to do a lot of research. Unfortunately, very few builders know how to build one. But there are builders who do it for a living. So if you want a green house, and you don't want to build it yourself, hire one of *them*, not some builder who doesn't know anything about it and thinks it's a bad idea.
The whole sad saga of the attic fan was the worst of it. Has he never heard of a vented roof? A cupola to draw wind up, or a peak vent that does the same? Most green building techniques are just what everybody did before air conditioning was invented. Back when you couldn't cool a house with refrigeration, you *had* to make it energy-efficient, because the only thing cooling the house was going to be whatever passive environmental system you were able to come up with.