I loved the Fifth Element. The director had some nerve casting his girlfriend as the perfect being... but the film is a huge amount of fun. Come on! How can you not love lines like "Multipass!" and Leeloo's goofy grin.:D
It looks like you're not the only one sick of brightly-lit nights. There is an article in the Independent here on moves to change the situation. And the Campaign for Dark Skies covers any developments on their, quite frankly, rather ugly website.
The first rule of bluffing is not to bluff anything you can't follow through on. Right now, how to use proxies is not common bus and pub conversation. But the more threats like this get bandied about, the more people will be popping up saying - "do this and your safe." You and I probably both know how easy or hard it is to move from IP address to prosecution. Quite possibly we both know how to find good proxies too. This knowledge is not everywhere not because it is difficult to learn, but because few people care. But rubbing people's faces in these issues does my job for me. Next time I talk to someone about privacy, there's a greater chance they'll have an interest.
I view it like the ridiculous anti-drug campaigning. That was very harmful. They say 'Taking an E will destroy your life' and then someone does it and is fine, then they lose credibility when they say that cocaine is harmful. They bluffed, they were called out, people lost respect.
You call it scaring people, I call it educating people. It's about time people began to understand how the Internet works, how to use proxies, etc. The more people who are aware of this, the more audience there is for those who say "hey, want to know how a proxy works?" It's these sort of scare tactics that increase interest in things like .
Sorry to reply to my own post, but it seems that the average donation is about $30 for yesterday, and the page says that most donations are around $25.00. So that answers my question - they're hoping for help from the everyday user.
I'll donate some to them, as I find Wikipedia very useful. I probably qualify as a OS type person as I used Linux exclusively at home for two years now and I'm hoping to be making my first OSS contributions in a few months time.
I'd like to know what the general donation pattern they're after is, though. Are they hoping for my £20 or are they not interested and want hundreds of thousands from corporate sponsors? I'd like to know if they're laughing at my donation or not.
The "correct" solution to the problem is to require the information be available to anyone. In the end, anyone can (in theory) buy a high altitude weather balloon, hook a video camera to it, and gather their own information, so preventing open dissemination doesn't provide for any more privacy or security. It just prevents any guarantees of either.
While I agree with much of your post, what you describe above would be very bad for society. I'm not sure if you're advocating this or simply saying that it's the logical solution if you agree with the aims of universal surveilance. If it's the former then what you are describing is the 'panoptican' - a prison where behaviour is enforced by being watched by everyone else. You can't live like that. It structures society so that any who are different, adventurous or creative are dragged back down.
The current faith in monitoring people all the time is leading to a sick and cowed society because being watched all the time is bad for you. Really bad.
I'm really not sure that you understood my post. The one that I was replying to was modded down -2 Troll last I saw, so maybe you misread it as a reply to someone else's (your own?). If you click the parent link at the bottom of my [previous] post you'll see it.
Therefore, I'm provisionally withholding my response to your insulting post until I know that you really meant to direct it at me. But if you did, then please explain to me how saying that US citizens can hold a different opinion to the US administration is an "apology" for the government of China.
I followed your link and although most of the states in the USA don't require it, the fact that some do require a blood test is extremely offensive. I agree with you. For reference, I am in the UK where there is some notion of people marrying because they love each other.
I don't know what priveleges you're talking about for married couples, but there needs to be some legal recognition of the state of marriage so that there is recourse for protecting people in committed relationships. If the government there is conferring additional benefits for married couples, e.g. tax-breaks then they should certainly be given to same sex couples also. If they are intended to support child-rearing, then they should be for anyone responsible for raising children, not based on marriage. They certainly shouldn't be based on government approval or not of anyone's lifestyle.
So the government of the USA speaks for all people of the USA, does it? And every US citizen loves their government and agrees with it? I agree that banning same sex marriages is harmful, I agree that the US government supports unpleasant national governments for its own profit (though I think of Saudi). But I don't agree that Government is synonymous with people. That is the same "For Us Or Against Us" Patriotism con touted by the government whenever it wants to do something that will hurt the people
If a government makes it more difficult for me to express myself because they dislike what I'm saying, then that is censorship. It seems pretty simple. If you're really unaware how it would make it more difficult to express myself, denying me a domain name in my own country and forcing me to go to find a country that has doesn't have strong diplomatic relations with my own (good luck finding one that will stand up to the US on your behalf), then consider the following:
It is a clear indication to those I'm trying to reach that I am an outsider, that I am persona non gratis.
It makes it harder for my audience to reach, my voice is muted.
It makes it easier for governments, ISPs and companies to block access to me.
It increases my costs - both financially and in terms of time and effort - have you ever tried to get a domain registered or a hosting account in France, or Saudi or the Ukraine?
There's a lot in your post, so I'm going to go through it bit by bit. You seem to be arguing with me, though. So please notice that my post was pointing out that the article was saying something other than what the OP thought it was saying.
But businesses can operate them[domain registrations]... with impunity? Without oversight?
Well I have this thing called a contract. Sometimes I have to go to court to enforce it, but I at least have rights in principle and general practice. When a national government steps in and tears up a contract between a company and its customers (as in these cases), I have no recourse. So yes - business is operating under greater obligation to my business than the government is.
Wouldn't it have made the US government more powerful by taking control of the.iq domain itself instead of handing it over to the Iraqi government? Why didn't it do that?
This is addressed in the original article on page 3. Firstly, what makes you think that it did not take control of the domain itself? It actually handed over the domain to Paul Bremmer's Provisional Authority. That was just the USA's occupational government. Secondly, events haven't gone to plan in Iraq. If things had worked out how the Bush administration planned, we wouldn't have elections yet (they were forced on the US by intense local resistance and media hostility). The intention would be that the Iraqi government and its TLD would still be under tight US control, rather than just heavily influenced. Thirdly, in return for the.iq domain, the US government gained political favour from Iraq. Balance this against Media hostility and the joy of processing Iraqi domain applications. The US gained from annexing the TLD. It wasn't some humanitarian act.
Governments are involved because the internet is important to countries, commerce, education, and more. It isn't just a hang-out for geeks, email, and porn.
What in my post made you think I thought control of the DNS (not Internet) wasn't important. Do you think I'd be arguing like this over something that was irrelevant? Vague statements of the I've-said-something-true-so-the-rest-of-what-I-say -is-true are information-neutral.
So, nobody in Iraq was better off...
You're addressing this to me, but I didn't write the article and I didn't make the statement you're questioning. I will say that rejoicing in Iraq's wonderful democracy after a few weeks is overconfident, however. Religious fundamentalism is rising rapidly there, secularism plummeting, Iraqi school girls now having to wear coverings, etc. The results of the election were exactly what the US government did not want.
As to censorship, you can always get a domain name in another TLD
Forcing me to speak my opinions via another country is censorship. Not to mention the threat to my business.
The relationship between myself as domain owner and the domain registrar, is that of a customer and supplier, based on an agreed contract. The article is pointing out that the US government has stepped into this relationship for its own benefit and taken something it did not provide away from us.
Unless you are supporting nations not having control of their own domain
The point that the article is making is exactly that. My post was pointing this out to the OP who, like yourself, had not realised this.
I think govenment control of the registrar is the last thing you need to worry about. First you should worry about government control of it's army.
Happily, I can multitask my annoyances very effectively.
The point that the article makes is that the USA's government is turning the assignment of domain name ownership to the perogative of national governments. The author isn't getting worked up about the two Iraqi domain owners, but about the government assuming the power to withdraw a domain from people it doesn't like. Currently, domain ownership (including top level domains) is a commercial affair run by business. The US government has no right to interfere with this save that of being big and pushy.
Given that as time goes on, control of domain names will come to be a vital resource that can make or break people and companies, the author is probably right that national governments should not be able to mess them around with impunity.
I think it's more basic than that - it's unpredictability that scares people. Try something original and new and people will be shocked all over again, even if it's something much much less offensive than others that are tolerated (your four story urination vs. drunken brawl).
And don't forget the double standards. If a guy urinates off a building, people will frown. If a girl did it - they'd send her to counselling.
Well there's room enough for us both to be right. You're saying that it worked for you and was profitable and that's a fact. I'm saying that there are big risks that in my current situation, I'm not sure I could afford to lose. I actually hope to start my own company in the not too distant future, and a profit sharing bonus scheme is something I think would be good. I'd just prefer to keep it as the bonus I intend it to be, rather than the basis of people's earnings. As you say - you yourself probably wouldn't do it again at this point in your life. And I'd rather be employing the you you are now than the you you were when you were twenty.
Loathe though I am to dispute someone who quotes the "Young Ones" in their sig... No!
If the contract is drawn up correctly (read: by a lawyer), then there will actually be very few things "outside of your control" when it comes to deliverables and payment.
Counter-examples that I can give you without thinking... poorly written specifications leading to unrealistic project timescales, co-workers not pulling their weight either through lack of effort or simply in over their head, management problems - e.g. personal problems interfering with the project leader's focus, disputes with the customer over sign-off.
How will your lawyer deal with each of the above? If you have to go to court to claim your bonus, try explaining that a small change in specification meant redesigning the database interface half-way through. I've written software used by London Stock Exchange, I still have nightmares about specification documents and I know that nothing stays the same through a development. So will your employer provide a blanket agreement that nothing will change through the life-cycle of the project? Of course not, but anything less takes you back to explaining to a court how something they don't understand is significant whilst your employer explains that it isn't. And you know (don'cha) how the non-technical always think anything they don't understand is easy!
What about the co-workers who don't pull their weight? If they're not turning up to work, then maybe your lawyer can do something... but the one that you keep having to debug their code? I say it slowed me down, my boss says there was no problem (and so does the co-worker). My options are to take the court through the CVS records [pause for insane laughter] or to have seperate schemes for each part of our perfectly modular code (that'll be fun). Ditto for problems with management.
And what about the other issues? Dispute with customer? We all sit around waiting for the lawsuit to resolve on minimum wage? We were probably burning through savings or a loan just to make it to the end of the project, you know. Get sacked? Project folds? Partner gets ill and you have to quit, early? Think any company will offer you a contract where you still get the bonus? Company goes under or has a crisis? Lawyers take money - they don't print it. Salary, I have some in the bag. Bonus - I've got nothing.
This sort of scheme will attract inexperienced people who don't need a steady income, can quit a job casually if they think the specifications for the latest project don't cut the mustard and above all, don't think anything bad can happen to them. I'm picturing school leavers and students. I.e. not me.
Add to this finding an employer who understands that underlying principles matter more. I tried to get a job with a company as a VB developer and my background was pure C / C++ and Telecomms. At the interview they really didn't like being told that I'd just go and learn the VB language before I started. But what do you know? I did. Five weeks into it I was reviewing everyone elses code.
But that only happened because the company was desperate and couldn't find another candidate. They'd have taken any monkey with a nightschool qualification in VB over me if they could.
(Of course, I was only applying there because I was desperate for a job too, but that's another grimmer story).
I can tell you this - no matter how large the bonus is, I wouldn't work for this person's company under those terms. On a project, I will try to meet any deadline that isn't too far from reasonable, but only for a fixed wage that recognizes my worth. Why will I not take the equivalent or slightly higher in low wage + bonus, then? Because the bonus depends on things that are outside of my control. Should the project manager mess around with specifications, should other colleagues not pull their weight, should their be staff laid off, or any of a dozen more factors beyond my control, I'm left with... what's minimum wage in the USA... about $5.00 per hour? And this is all working on spec, aswell? (I.e. you get the money at the end in a lump, not as you go along which is more convenient)?
An employment model like this may be good at motivating staff, but it is also good for exploiting staff for the reasons stated above.
I looked at your link, but it amounted to little more than someone saying there wasn't an incentive and a pharmceutical rep saying there was. I'm inclined to disbelieve pharmaceutical companies just out of habit by now, but why isn't there an incentive to develop an HIV vaccine?
If it was static, then buying in would cost the same amount as buying out (well, okay - there are many other factors, but pretend). Money is made in the change of value in Microsoft's worth. I'll break out the analogies and as this is a techy community... think of it like Geothermal energy, substituting a span of time for the length of the shaft. It's the difference in temperature at each end that your capitalising on.
Yes - you could invest in Microsoft and depend on steady dividends, but that's thinking long-term, and the market wants everything now!
I hope whoever paid/. for this story spot doesn't think they'll get their money's worth. 98% of the page hits will be people who clicked the link, saw a meaningless collection of statistics and closed the tab before the ads had even finished loading. And most people will open the story first, see the first three comments describing the article as rubbish and not bothering to click the link at all.
I think traditional breeding techniques have been woefully underused. Recent breeding experiments with foxes in Russia have shown that a noticeable difference can be produced in a much shorter time than expected. So my suggestions for controlled breeding are as follows:
Dogs should be bred for intelligence. Never mind making them big / small / whatever... selectively test and breed only those dogs that show exceptional intelligence. If we'd been doing that for as long we've been turning wolves into poodles and pugs, we'd have super-intelligent dogs by now.
Rabbits should be bred for size. Right now, rabbits are cute and make great housepets. But think how much cuter they would be if you bred them bigger! You could have a retriever-sized dutch lop hopping around your house. That would be so adorable and cuddly.
Bears should also be bred for both size and temperament. In addition to breeding really really big bears for security work and Japanese gameshows, you could breed really little friendly ones. They'd be even better than dogs because their body shape is squatter and more huggable. If they were bred without the claws, then you'd have great pets for young children. Very comforting for kids at night - I know I'd buy one for my children.
And that's just off the top of my head right now. I'm sure I could think of much more when I'm sober.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said pedantry was dead?
You did. Just now.
I loved the Fifth Element. The director had some nerve casting his girlfriend as the perfect being... but the film is a huge amount of fun. Come on! How can you not love lines like "Multipass!" and Leeloo's goofy grin.
It looks like you're not the only one sick of brightly-lit nights. There is an article in the Independent here on moves to change the situation. And the Campaign for Dark Skies covers any developments on their, quite frankly, rather ugly website.
So there is hope.
The first rule of bluffing is not to bluff anything you can't follow through on. Right now, how to use proxies is not common bus and pub conversation. But the more threats like this get bandied about, the more people will be popping up saying - "do this and your safe." You and I probably both know how easy or hard it is to move from IP address to prosecution. Quite possibly we both know how to find good proxies too. This knowledge is not everywhere not because it is difficult to learn, but because few people care. But rubbing people's faces in these issues does my job for me. Next time I talk to someone about privacy, there's a greater chance they'll have an interest.
I view it like the ridiculous anti-drug campaigning. That was very harmful. They say 'Taking an E will destroy your life' and then someone does it and is fine, then they lose credibility when they say that cocaine is harmful. They bluffed, they were called out, people lost respect.
You call it scaring people, I call it educating people. It's about time people began to understand how the Internet works, how to use proxies, etc. The more people who are aware of this, the more audience there is for those who say "hey, want to know how a proxy works?" It's these sort of scare tactics that increase interest in things like .
Sorry to reply to my own post, but it seems that the average donation is about $30 for yesterday, and the page says that most donations are around $25.00. So that answers my question - they're hoping for help from the everyday user.
I'll donate some to them, as I find Wikipedia very useful. I probably qualify as a OS type person as I used Linux exclusively at home for two years now and I'm hoping to be making my first OSS contributions in a few months time.
I'd like to know what the general donation pattern they're after is, though. Are they hoping for my £20 or are they not interested and want hundreds of thousands from corporate sponsors? I'd like to know if they're laughing at my donation or not.
The "correct" solution to the problem is to require the information be available to anyone. In the end, anyone can (in theory) buy a high altitude weather balloon, hook a video camera to it, and gather their own information, so preventing open dissemination doesn't provide for any more privacy or security. It just prevents any guarantees of either.
While I agree with much of your post, what you describe above would be very bad for society. I'm not sure if you're advocating this or simply saying that it's the logical solution if you agree with the aims of universal surveilance. If it's the former then what you are describing is the 'panoptican' - a prison where behaviour is enforced by being watched by everyone else. You can't live like that. It structures society so that any who are different, adventurous or creative are dragged back down.
The current faith in monitoring people all the time is leading to a sick and cowed society because being watched all the time is bad for you. Really bad.
I'm really not sure that you understood my post. The one that I was replying to was modded down -2 Troll last I saw, so maybe you misread it as a reply to someone else's (your own?). If you click the parent link at the bottom of my [previous] post you'll see it.
Therefore, I'm provisionally withholding my response to your insulting post until I know that you really meant to direct it at me. But if you did, then please explain to me how saying that US citizens can hold a different opinion to the US administration is an "apology" for the government of China.
I followed your link and although most of the states in the USA don't require it, the fact that some do require a blood test is extremely offensive. I agree with you. For reference, I am in the UK where there is some notion of people marrying because they love each other.
I don't know what priveleges you're talking about for married couples, but there needs to be some legal recognition of the state of marriage so that there is recourse for protecting people in committed relationships. If the government there is conferring additional benefits for married couples, e.g. tax-breaks then they should certainly be given to same sex couples also. If they are intended to support child-rearing, then they should be for anyone responsible for raising children, not based on marriage. They certainly shouldn't be based on government approval or not of anyone's lifestyle.
So the government of the USA speaks for all people of the USA, does it? And every US citizen loves their government and agrees with it? I agree that banning same sex marriages is harmful, I agree that the US government supports unpleasant national governments for its own profit (though I think of Saudi). But I don't agree that Government is synonymous with people. That is the same "For Us Or Against Us" Patriotism con touted by the government whenever it wants to do something that will hurt the people
If a government makes it more difficult for me to express myself because they dislike what I'm saying, then that is censorship. It seems pretty simple. If you're really unaware how it would make it more difficult to express myself, denying me a domain name in my own country and forcing me to go to find a country that has doesn't have strong diplomatic relations with my own (good luck finding one that will stand up to the US on your behalf), then consider the following:
It is a clear indication to those I'm trying to reach that I am an outsider, that I am persona non gratis.
It makes it harder for my audience to reach, my voice is muted.
It makes it easier for governments, ISPs and companies to block access to me.
It increases my costs - both financially and in terms of time and effort - have you ever tried to get a domain registered or a hosting account in France, or Saudi or the Ukraine?
Censorship.
There's a lot in your post, so I'm going to go through it bit by bit. You seem to be arguing with me, though. So please notice that my post was pointing out that the article was saying something other than what the OP thought it was saying.
But businesses can operate them[domain registrations]... with impunity? Without oversight?
Well I have this thing called a contract. Sometimes I have to go to court to enforce it, but I at least have rights in principle and general practice. When a national government steps in and tears up a contract between a company and its customers (as in these cases), I have no recourse. So yes - business is operating under greater obligation to my business than the government is.
Wouldn't it have made the US government more powerful by taking control of the
This is addressed in the original article on page 3. Firstly, what makes you think that it did not take control of the domain itself? It actually handed over the domain to Paul Bremmer's Provisional Authority. That was just the USA's occupational government. Secondly, events haven't gone to plan in Iraq. If things had worked out how the Bush administration planned, we wouldn't have elections yet (they were forced on the US by intense local resistance and media hostility). The intention would be that the Iraqi government and its TLD would still be under tight US control, rather than just heavily influenced. Thirdly, in return for the
Governments are involved because the internet is important to countries, commerce, education, and more. It isn't just a hang-out for geeks, email, and porn.
What in my post made you think I thought control of the DNS (not Internet) wasn't important. Do you think I'd be arguing like this over something that was irrelevant? Vague statements of the I've-said-something-true-so-the-rest-of-what-I-sa
So, nobody in Iraq was better off...
You're addressing this to me, but I didn't write the article and I didn't make the statement you're questioning. I will say that rejoicing in Iraq's wonderful democracy after a few weeks is overconfident, however. Religious fundamentalism is rising rapidly there, secularism plummeting, Iraqi school girls now having to wear coverings, etc. The results of the election were exactly what the US government did not want.
As to censorship, you can always get a domain name in another TLD
Forcing me to speak my opinions via another country is censorship. Not to mention the threat to my business.
The relationship between myself as domain owner and the domain registrar, is that of a customer and supplier, based on an agreed contract. The article is pointing out that the US government has stepped into this relationship for its own benefit and taken something it did not provide away from us.
Unless you are supporting nations not having control of their own domain
The point that the article is making is exactly that. My post was pointing this out to the OP who, like yourself, had not realised this.
I think govenment control of the registrar is the last thing you need to worry about. First you should worry about government control of it's army.
Happily, I can multitask my annoyances very effectively.
The point that the article makes is that the USA's government is turning the assignment of domain name ownership to the perogative of national governments. The author isn't getting worked up about the two Iraqi domain owners, but about the government assuming the power to withdraw a domain from people it doesn't like. Currently, domain ownership (including top level domains) is a commercial affair run by business. The US government has no right to interfere with this save that of being big and pushy.
Given that as time goes on, control of domain names will come to be a vital resource that can make or break people and companies, the author is probably right that national governments should not be able to mess them around with impunity.
I think it's more basic than that - it's unpredictability that scares people. Try something original and new and people will be shocked all over again, even if it's something much much less offensive than others that are tolerated (your four story urination vs. drunken brawl).
And don't forget the double standards. If a guy urinates off a building, people will frown. If a girl did it - they'd send her to counselling.
Well there's room enough for us both to be right. You're saying that it worked for you and was profitable and that's a fact. I'm saying that there are big risks that in my current situation, I'm not sure I could afford to lose. I actually hope to start my own company in the not too distant future, and a profit sharing bonus scheme is something I think would be good. I'd just prefer to keep it as the bonus I intend it to be, rather than the basis of people's earnings. As you say - you yourself probably wouldn't do it again at this point in your life. And I'd rather be employing the you you are now than the you you were when you were twenty.
(Probably
Loathe though I am to dispute someone who quotes the "Young Ones" in their sig... No!
If the contract is drawn up correctly (read: by a lawyer), then there will actually be very few things "outside of your control" when it comes to deliverables and payment.
Counter-examples that I can give you without thinking... poorly written specifications leading to unrealistic project timescales, co-workers not pulling their weight either through lack of effort or simply in over their head, management problems - e.g. personal problems interfering with the project leader's focus, disputes with the customer over sign-off.
How will your lawyer deal with each of the above? If you have to go to court to claim your bonus, try explaining that a small change in specification meant redesigning the database interface half-way through. I've written software used by London Stock Exchange, I still have nightmares about specification documents and I know that nothing stays the same through a development. So will your employer provide a blanket agreement that nothing will change through the life-cycle of the project? Of course not, but anything less takes you back to explaining to a court how something they don't understand is significant whilst your employer explains that it isn't. And you know (don'cha) how the non-technical always think anything they don't understand is easy!
What about the co-workers who don't pull their weight? If they're not turning up to work, then maybe your lawyer can do something... but the one that you keep having to debug their code? I say it slowed me down, my boss says there was no problem (and so does the co-worker). My options are to take the court through the CVS records [pause for insane laughter] or to have seperate schemes for each part of our perfectly modular code (that'll be fun). Ditto for problems with management.
And what about the other issues? Dispute with customer? We all sit around waiting for the lawsuit to resolve on minimum wage? We were probably burning through savings or a loan just to make it to the end of the project, you know. Get sacked? Project folds? Partner gets ill and you have to quit, early? Think any company will offer you a contract where you still get the bonus? Company goes under or has a crisis? Lawyers take money - they don't print it. Salary, I have some in the bag. Bonus - I've got nothing.
This sort of scheme will attract inexperienced people who don't need a steady income, can quit a job casually if they think the specifications for the latest project don't cut the mustard and above all, don't think anything bad can happen to them. I'm picturing school leavers and students. I.e. not me.
Add to this finding an employer who understands that underlying principles matter more. I tried to get a job with a company as a VB developer and my background was pure C / C++ and Telecomms. At the interview they really didn't like being told that I'd just go and learn the VB language before I started. But what do you know? I did. Five weeks into it I was reviewing everyone elses code.
But that only happened because the company was desperate and couldn't find another candidate. They'd have taken any monkey with a nightschool qualification in VB over me if they could.
(Of course, I was only applying there because I was desperate for a job too, but that's another grimmer story).
I can tell you this - no matter how large the bonus is, I wouldn't work for this person's company under those terms. On a project, I will try to meet any deadline that isn't too far from reasonable, but only for a fixed wage that recognizes my worth. Why will I not take the equivalent or slightly higher in low wage + bonus, then? Because the bonus depends on things that are outside of my control. Should the project manager mess around with specifications, should other colleagues not pull their weight, should their be staff laid off, or any of a dozen more factors beyond my control, I'm left with... what's minimum wage in the USA... about $5.00 per hour? And this is all working on spec, aswell? (I.e. you get the money at the end in a lump, not as you go along which is more convenient)?
An employment model like this may be good at motivating staff, but it is also good for exploiting staff for the reasons stated above.
We're fine so long as no idiot engineers one with an opposable thumb. You try and stage a revolution with your teeth.
I looked at your link, but it amounted to little more than someone saying there wasn't an incentive and a pharmceutical rep saying there was. I'm inclined to disbelieve pharmaceutical companies just out of habit by now, but why isn't there an incentive to develop an HIV vaccine?
If it was static, then buying in would cost the same amount as buying out (well, okay - there are many other factors, but pretend). Money is made in the change of value in Microsoft's worth. I'll break out the analogies and as this is a techy community... think of it like Geothermal energy, substituting a span of time for the length of the shaft. It's the difference in temperature at each end that your capitalising on.
Yes - you could invest in Microsoft and depend on steady dividends, but that's thinking long-term, and the market wants everything now!
I hope whoever paid
I think traditional breeding techniques have been woefully underused. Recent breeding experiments with foxes in Russia have shown that a noticeable difference can be produced in a much shorter time than expected. So my suggestions for controlled breeding are as follows:
And that's just off the top of my head right now. I'm sure I could think of much more when I'm sober.