In the first, some friends and I dressed up as adenosine tri-phosphate. I was the ribose part. We had lots of fun hurling the people dressed up as phosphors at people and saying that we had phosphorylated them.:P
My other costume was the "physicsphairy." I had a "wand of power" (dW/dt) a skirt with a bunch of hydrodynamics equations written on the back of it, a bikers jacket with a GIMP-ified physics phairy symbol, and a tiara with still more physics equations on it.
As sad and disturbed as that might sound to people who aren't as weird as me. . . .
Re:Hackaday, meet your new delayed mirror, Slashdo
on
Piezo-Acoustic iPod Hack
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Have we really sunk so low that we now post stories that are substories of previous posted stories?
Dude, he extracted the bootloader using the piezo! It's bloody brilliant.
I'm even looking forward to the dupes of this article which will probably be posted as soon as his server recovers!
I accept your apology for relating relevant information about the subject matter of the article.
For future reference, to avoid this, it helps not to read article. If you must read it, you can always pick out a short phrase and take it out of context. If you are absolutely at a loss on how to comment on a story with presenting useful/interesting information, generally you can get away with "FRIsT POST!!!" or one of the popular Slashdot memes.
Don't worry, I'm sure you will soon fit in just fine.:)
While I think ideally you would endow computers with the same algorithmic usage of speech that is employed by human beings, as these researchers have shown, it is also possible to work with programs that do not 'parse' language but rather categorize it based on massive databases of language that has already been parsed by humans.
This obviously has its failings, but theoretically, you could use a sufficiently large database of common human language coupled with simple algorithms to perform operations like grammar checking.
An internet search would not be quite so useful for that, but I would really be interested in what would be possible with full digital access to the library of congress. I would imagine you could do things like automatically generate books based on existing material.
The types of scam and identity theft are different. The comparison means nothing. "Don't worry about leaving stacks of money on your lawn! 99.9% of thefts are of a different type! Leaving your retirement fund in $20 wads on your front porch is completely safe!"
Consider that an online banking site may *not actually* be an online banking site. A physical bank, on the otherhand, is without fail, a physical bank. However, I don't have to worry about someone rooting through my garbage to find bank statements if all my data is online.
So both systems have their inherent vulnerabilities. The fact is that you are really paranoid, you are ultimately safest doing everything in person and taking proper measures to destroy relevant documents.
All this study says is that there is a higher incidence of paper based identity theft. Which is to be expected: how many low-level criminals do you think know javascript, for example?
Speaking of trolls, you claim not to have the time to read the dissenting commentary on Slashdot, but those actually dissenting should not only read a series of articles you did not take the time to write at a website you only invested the time to link to, but they should also develop welformed rebuttals to those articles?
Let's a see, a short, unresearched post demanding hours upon hours of invested time to dispute. Now how is that not trolling?
"Funny, in biology abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. There are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and induced abortions. Induced abortions may be classified as therapeutic, elective or criminal. A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings."
Funny, I've never encountered such words as "therapeutic" "elective" etc. in biology. Neither have I encountered the word "abortion" and nor was I able to find it defined in any biological glossaries turned up by google. Could it be that you are referring to a medical term?
Why yes! Yes it is! Here is the actual medical definition, if you're interested.
Not that that's remotely relevant. You know full well what the poster was referring to in its political context. He was talking about an abortion of an embryo. Yes, that is not "an abortion". It is an "embryo abortion." You look can up the words embryo and abortion individually in a standard dictionary if you need to figure out what that means. I apologize that no one has created a specialized medical term to refer specifically to the destruction of IVF embryos. Aside from the mindless pedanting of folks such as yourself, I really don't think there is need for one. Thank you English language for being adaptable.
Now that we have that covered, way to subsitute a silly side tangent for a rebuttal. He was arguing that the destruction of these embryos constitutes a more dilemma for those who believe these embryos to constitute human life (he generalized them under the religious right). But I guess in the excitement of your etymological condescension you forgot to address the actual argument.
Well, here's a term that is defined by biology: "life'. Living things have these properties: they have a metabolism, they are homeostatic, they respond to stimuli, they reproduce (better stated, they are a product of reproduction: a sterile breed is obviously still considered to be alive), they grow and develop. Embryos are de facto considered to be alive. I certainly hope we don't have to argue that.
They also obey another rule from biology: the rule of biogenesis. Under this rule we recognize that dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, and humans beget humans. Humans do *not* beget some creature that is not human that later becomes a human.
It follows that embryos are living humans. And the crux of the point you chose to ignore is whether these 'living humans' who are not necessarily conscious at this point still count. For the "religious right" (to borrow from an earlier generalization) it seems the belief tends to be that this is so.
"If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand." If that's true, you have certainly failed to demonstrate that here. And as a side note, you aren't helping with politicization.
"Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing."
Certainly agressive with the rhetoric, aren't we?
If by "facts" you mean your personal spiel about the definition of abortion, well, tersely put, you haven't proven anything. And definitions aren't facts, they are rather arbitrary artifacts of human communication.
If by facts you mean the science related to the issue, you are again rather misguided. There is not, nor ever shall be, a
For those of you who don't catch the reference, this is the story: (or, rather, the debunking of the story)
"The Breast was pretty quiet during the eight years of Janet Reno. As one peeved administration official puts it, "No cameraman was ever at Reno's feet, trying to get a shot of her with that thing." But Minnie Lou's outstanding feature stormed back with Ashcroft. When President Bush visited the Justice Department to rededicate the building to Robert Kennedy, his advance men insisted on a nice blue backdrop: "TV blue," infinitely preferable to the usual dingy background of the Great Hall. Everyone thought the backdrop worked nicely -- made for "good visuals," as they say. This was Deaverism, pure and simple. Ashcroft's people intended to keep using it.
An advance woman on his team had the bright idea of buying the backdrop: It would be cheaper than renting it repeatedly. So she did -- without Ashcroft's knowledge, without his permission, without his caring, everyone in the department insists.
But ABC put out the story that Ashcroft, the old prude, had wanted the Breast covered up, so much did it offend his churchly sensibilities. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, ever clever, wrote that Ashcroft had forced a "blue burka" on Minnie Lou. Comedians had a field day (and are still having it). The Washington Post has devoted great space to the story, letting Cher, for example, tee off on it -- as she went on to do on David Letterman's show.
And yet the story is complete and total bunk. First, Ashcroft had nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop. Second, the backdrop had nothing to do with Breast aversion. But the story was just "too good to check," as we say, and it will probably live forever. Generations from now, if we're reading about John Ashcroft, we will read that he was the boob who draped the Boob. The story is ineffaceable."
This is a bit reverse logic, but the reason they don't collapse is because they're still burning.
You can think of the fusion reaction in a sun as it's 'defense' against collapse. The force driving the future collapse, gravity, is what's sustaining the fusion reaction, which creates internal photonic pressure, which in turn pushes the mass of the star outward, counteracting the force of gravity.
The reason these stars are so large is in fact directly related to the photonic pressure produced by this reaction. If the gases are very hot it prevents the gas from codensing, i.e., you need a lot of it (a big star) to combat gravity. Once these go supernovae and leave clouds of elements that burn at a lower temperature, smaller stars will be able to form.
Well, if they are *actually effective* they won't be a requirement, but you'll take them if you want to effectively compete for jobs against other people who are taking them.
Quite frankly, BitTorrent is the less convenient way to 'steal' movies. I think there have been advertisements here on slashdot for it, but NetFlix is a business where you pay a monthly fee and they mail you movies, and you mail them back and pick new ones as often as you like. If I had the harddrive space, I could easily rip a hundred dvds with much less hastle than downloading them.
What I can't get is TV episodes. If I knew where to buy them, I would (Invader Zim, anyone?) but I can't find any.
So it's really a shame to have the tracker services shutdown.
I have a lot of friends who are math people, and they infallible choose mathematical constants for their passwords. Granted, they know these constants to insane decimal places and so, against a brute force crack, their passwords are of the most secure. But if you happen to know them, guessing their password is often as trivial as looking up pi, e, and gamma.
spamplz@comcast.net
The interesting thing is that the spammers will actually drop my email from their lists in a couple of days. Apparently, they purge their lists of emails that contain the word 'spam' under the (generally correct) presumption that these are junk accounts.
So, if tradition holds, I'll get some spam for the next few days and in a week it will taper off to nothing.
What's funny is that we may have even infected Mars with our own bacteria when we sent several probes there.
It would be great news if there was life capable of surviving both Martian and earth climates, because that would mean we could terriform Mars.
As far as bacteria from Mars that might infect earth, let me put it this way: what about bacteria from the deep sea being brought up by submarines? What about bacteria from deep in the earth's crust being being unearthed by drilling operations? What about all of these micro organism that inhabit exotic environments on our own planet that we risk releasing into our habitat all the time? What happens to them?
Tersely put: they die.
It's evolution, my friends. Organisms have specialized to compete in their own biological niches and developed the best tools available to do so, at the cost of performing well in alternative environments. Any organism introduced from such a foreign environment as I've mentioned, even if it could survive our human environment, it would be horrifically outcompeted by the existing organisms in our ecosystem and die handily.
Notions of a superplague from another planet wiping out life on earth are strictly fantasy stories which ignore real evolutionary fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there were two costumes.
In the first, some friends and I dressed up as adenosine tri-phosphate. I was the ribose part. We had lots of fun hurling the people dressed up as phosphors at people and saying that we had phosphorylated them. :P
My other costume was the "physicsphairy." I had a "wand of power" (dW/dt) a skirt with a bunch of hydrodynamics equations written on the back of it, a bikers jacket with a GIMP-ified physics phairy symbol, and a tiara with still more physics equations on it.
As sad and disturbed as that might sound to people who aren't as weird as me. . . .
Dude, he extracted the bootloader using the piezo! It's bloody brilliant.
I'm even looking forward to the dupes of this article which will probably be posted as soon as his server recovers!
I accept your apology for relating relevant information about the subject matter of the article.
For future reference, to avoid this, it helps not to read article. If you must read it, you can always pick out a short phrase and take it out of context. If you are absolutely at a loss on how to comment on a story with presenting useful/interesting information, generally you can get away with "FRIsT POST!!!" or one of the popular Slashdot memes.
Don't worry, I'm sure you will soon fit in just fine. :)
This obviously has its failings, but theoretically, you could use a sufficiently large database of common human language coupled with simple algorithms to perform operations like grammar checking.
An internet search would not be quite so useful for that, but I would really be interested in what would be possible with full digital access to the library of congress. I would imagine you could do things like automatically generate books based on existing material.
Consider that an online banking site may *not actually* be an online banking site. A physical bank, on the otherhand, is without fail, a physical bank. However, I don't have to worry about someone rooting through my garbage to find bank statements if all my data is online.
So both systems have their inherent vulnerabilities. The fact is that you are really paranoid, you are ultimately safest doing everything in person and taking proper measures to destroy relevant documents.
All this study says is that there is a higher incidence of paper based identity theft. Which is to be expected: how many low-level criminals do you think know javascript, for example?
Brilliant work guys!
Well, I'm not really one to talk: the only 'sport' I play is chess. (I wonder what the odds are of 2K making a killer chess engine?)
My problem is: I have no formal (or any other, for that matter) management training.
Everything I ever needed to know about management, I learned from Dilbert.
Now, granted, I don't actually have a job. . . .
(On that note, I think it will be the one sure sign of true artificial intelligence when our programs start 'cheating' to win.)
Let's a see, a short, unresearched post demanding hours upon hours of invested time to dispute. Now how is that not trolling?
But I thought it was 70 years after the death of the author (as opposed to the cited 95) or is that just for literature?
A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings."
Funny, I've never encountered such words as "therapeutic" "elective" etc. in biology. Neither have I encountered the word "abortion" and nor was I able to find it defined in any biological glossaries turned up by google. Could it be that you are referring to a medical term?
Why yes! Yes it is! Here is the actual medical definition, if you're interested.
Not that that's remotely relevant. You know full well what the poster was referring to in its political context. He was talking about an abortion of an embryo. Yes, that is not "an abortion". It is an "embryo abortion." You look can up the words embryo and abortion individually in a standard dictionary if you need to figure out what that means. I apologize that no one has created a specialized medical term to refer specifically to the destruction of IVF embryos. Aside from the mindless pedanting of folks such as yourself, I really don't think there is need for one. Thank you English language for being adaptable.
Now that we have that covered, way to subsitute a silly side tangent for a rebuttal. He was arguing that the destruction of these embryos constitutes a more dilemma for those who believe these embryos to constitute human life (he generalized them under the religious right). But I guess in the excitement of your etymological condescension you forgot to address the actual argument.
Well, here's a term that is defined by biology: "life'. Living things have these properties: they have a metabolism, they are homeostatic, they respond to stimuli, they reproduce (better stated, they are a product of reproduction: a sterile breed is obviously still considered to be alive), they grow and develop. Embryos are de facto considered to be alive. I certainly hope we don't have to argue that.
They also obey another rule from biology: the rule of biogenesis. Under this rule we recognize that dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, and humans beget humans. Humans do *not* beget some creature that is not human that later becomes a human.
It follows that embryos are living humans. And the crux of the point you chose to ignore is whether these 'living humans' who are not necessarily conscious at this point still count. For the "religious right" (to borrow from an earlier generalization) it seems the belief tends to be that this is so.
"If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand."
If that's true, you have certainly failed to demonstrate that here. And as a side note, you aren't helping with politicization.
"Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing."
Certainly agressive with the rhetoric, aren't we?
If by "facts" you mean your personal spiel about the definition of abortion, well, tersely put, you haven't proven anything. And definitions aren't facts, they are rather arbitrary artifacts of human communication.
If by facts you mean the science related to the issue, you are again rather misguided. There is not, nor ever shall be, a
For those of you who don't catch the reference, this is the story: (or, rather, the debunking of the story)
"The Breast was pretty quiet during the eight years of Janet Reno. As one peeved administration official puts it, "No cameraman was ever at Reno's feet, trying to get a shot of her with that thing." But Minnie Lou's outstanding feature stormed back with Ashcroft. When President Bush visited the Justice Department to rededicate the building to Robert Kennedy, his advance men insisted on a nice blue backdrop: "TV blue," infinitely preferable to the usual dingy background of the Great Hall. Everyone thought the backdrop worked nicely -- made for "good visuals," as they say. This was Deaverism, pure and simple. Ashcroft's people intended to keep using it.
An advance woman on his team had the bright idea of buying the backdrop: It would be cheaper than renting it repeatedly. So she did -- without Ashcroft's knowledge, without his permission, without his caring, everyone in the department insists.
But ABC put out the story that Ashcroft, the old prude, had wanted the Breast covered up, so much did it offend his churchly sensibilities. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, ever clever, wrote that Ashcroft had forced a "blue burka" on Minnie Lou. Comedians had a field day (and are still having it). The Washington Post has devoted great space to the story, letting Cher, for example, tee off on it -- as she went on to do on David Letterman's show.
And yet the story is complete and total bunk. First, Ashcroft had nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop. Second, the backdrop had nothing to do with Breast aversion. But the story was just "too good to check," as we say, and it will probably live forever. Generations from now, if we're reading about John Ashcroft, we will read that he was the boob who draped the Boob. The story is ineffaceable."
Now we'll know where the stars are!
Some of the things you link too. . . .
Duh, since they got mod points. You really stink at sucking up to the mods. ;)
Global warming produces increased precipitation.
So what's changing the wind patterns?
You can think of the fusion reaction in a sun as it's 'defense' against collapse. The force driving the future collapse, gravity, is what's sustaining the fusion reaction, which creates internal photonic pressure, which in turn pushes the mass of the star outward, counteracting the force of gravity.
The reason these stars are so large is in fact directly related to the photonic pressure produced by this reaction. If the gases are very hot it prevents the gas from codensing, i.e., you need a lot of it (a big star) to combat gravity. Once these go supernovae and leave clouds of elements that burn at a lower temperature, smaller stars will be able to form.
Well, if they are *actually effective* they won't be a requirement, but you'll take them if you want to effectively compete for jobs against other people who are taking them.
What I can't get is TV episodes. If I knew where to buy them, I would (Invader Zim, anyone?) but I can't find any.
So it's really a shame to have the tracker services shutdown.
Just something I thought was interesting. . . .
So, essentially what they've proven is that the motor skills part of the brain may effect the development of our motor skills?
Man, I can't wait until I get my Ph.D.! This research scientist stuff is going to be a piece of cake!
spamplz@comcast.net The interesting thing is that the spammers will actually drop my email from their lists in a couple of days. Apparently, they purge their lists of emails that contain the word 'spam' under the (generally correct) presumption that these are junk accounts. So, if tradition holds, I'll get some spam for the next few days and in a week it will taper off to nothing.
It would be great news if there was life capable of surviving both Martian and earth climates, because that would mean we could terriform Mars.
As far as bacteria from Mars that might infect earth, let me put it this way: what about bacteria from the deep sea being brought up by submarines? What about bacteria from deep in the earth's crust being being unearthed by drilling operations? What about all of these micro organism that inhabit exotic environments on our own planet that we risk releasing into our habitat all the time? What happens to them?
Tersely put: they die.
It's evolution, my friends. Organisms have specialized to compete in their own biological niches and developed the best tools available to do so, at the cost of performing well in alternative environments. Any organism introduced from such a foreign environment as I've mentioned, even if it could survive our human environment, it would be horrifically outcompeted by the existing organisms in our ecosystem and die handily.
Notions of a superplague from another planet wiping out life on earth are strictly fantasy stories which ignore real evolutionary fact.
It is actually profitable to be sued by you.