Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious. Overall survival value is the name of the game, and the physical strength of the strongest - or even average - individual doesn't speak to a survival advantage in modern or ancient society. The higher percentage body fat in female humans is a significant survival advantage in cold weather conditions, while the lower body mass and associated lower energy overhead can be the difference between starving exhaustion and mental and physical readiness. It's a complex issue and it was rather naive of you to announce a "winner" in a complex, argument-launching question on the basis of a single attribute.
There are already provisions to provide audio or braille versions of books for blind kids. The Kindle's book licences, not so much. The devices are supposed to have built-in TTS but there's a strong pressure from the books-on-tape industry to hobble it.
(I should say, this is a favourite of pharmaceutical companies. If a drug fails to hit statistical significance in a trial, find a subgroup that it worked in and say it's suitable for that group. They may have simply done the reverse: searched for subgroups which it is harmful in and say it's dangerous.)
Certainly there are aspects of it which reek of "data mining": checking every possible correlation, and seeing what ones turn out to be statistically significant, then hypothesising on that. The post-hoc hypothesis is unscientific off the bat, and doing so greatly tightens the criteria for statistical significance, because it's like taking several gambles at once. The chances that one or more of them will come up are higher than any individual bet.
The plants don't have insecticide properties. They're modified to resist damage by specific pesticides. The article's a re-analysis of the data that was used to gain approval of the GM corn in the first place.
This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown
It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.
It's not thought to be "space junk" any more: it was thought it might be an old booster segment but apparently based on its path there's no rocket launch that it could've come from.
Nokia proposed a power-harvesting (and power-sipping) handset over the summer last year, to derive its power from cellular signals rather than wi-fi. Although their target amount of 50mW is way off, they claim to have a prototype that can pull in a few milliwatts, which inspired a mixture of scepticism and existential terror from researchers in the field.
"Reboot" means what it means, no more, no less. The last comic-book reboot was Batman Begins, a full-hearted plunge into the spirit and fiction of the original that terminated an increasingly lost and bewildered series of films.
It's a franchise, they can't not have a new one. That's how Hollywood works now: yearly installments of something that's proven to be successful, with three-move reboots to relaunch the franchise and introduce it to new customers when the current viewership grows out of it.
The point from my perspective as a consumer, I should say. DRM should've been a proper compromise between copy prevention tech and the transferrability of digital media.
They've got some cheek, acting like letting us view the same content on multiple devices is an amazing new revolution. We could do that before DRM, and it would've been easy for them to manage DRM such that people could grab more authorised, licenced copies in different formats. That's the whole point of having a licence instead of a physical product.
Something in common with the Transporter from Star Trek, then. Transfers matter over long distances and sometimes you get someone else's random appendage arriving in your office for no reason.
My bad, I had assumed that a term like "non-startup" could only have dropped in from someone's PR department. For that kind of lingo to spawn by itself in the wild terrifies me.
What, pray tell, does that mean? They had to start up at some point. Or do they just mean "we're on the up and up, honest, guvnor, we're not some fly by night outfit, nosiree, we've been around ages"? In which case calling attention to it has a shade of "the lady doth protest too much".
Homology with "wi-fi" and "hi-fi" demands that the two parts rhyme. The obvious is "why-die" but the alternatives such as "wee-dee" (weedy) and "whih-dhih" don't exactly jump off the tongue either.
Trademarks are not patents. You don't have to register one to prosecute someone for trademark infringement. It helps, but there's an automatic protection there.
A quick perusal of the USPTO database suggests otherwise. A title is a mark, which is used in trade to associate a product with a commercial entity: whether's it's Windows and Microsoft or Rainbow Six and Tom Clancy is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious. Overall survival value is the name of the game, and the physical strength of the strongest - or even average - individual doesn't speak to a survival advantage in modern or ancient society. The higher percentage body fat in female humans is a significant survival advantage in cold weather conditions, while the lower body mass and associated lower energy overhead can be the difference between starving exhaustion and mental and physical readiness. It's a complex issue and it was rather naive of you to announce a "winner" in a complex, argument-launching question on the basis of a single attribute.
There are already provisions to provide audio or braille versions of books for blind kids. The Kindle's book licences, not so much. The devices are supposed to have built-in TTS but there's a strong pressure from the books-on-tape industry to hobble it.
(I should say, this is a favourite of pharmaceutical companies. If a drug fails to hit statistical significance in a trial, find a subgroup that it worked in and say it's suitable for that group. They may have simply done the reverse: searched for subgroups which it is harmful in and say it's dangerous.)
Certainly there are aspects of it which reek of "data mining": checking every possible correlation, and seeing what ones turn out to be statistically significant, then hypothesising on that. The post-hoc hypothesis is unscientific off the bat, and doing so greatly tightens the criteria for statistical significance, because it's like taking several gambles at once. The chances that one or more of them will come up are higher than any individual bet.
Actually I'm full of crap, two of them do have insecticide properties. That's what I get for reading the article and ignoring the summary.
The plants don't have insecticide properties. They're modified to resist damage by specific pesticides. The article's a re-analysis of the data that was used to gain approval of the GM corn in the first place.
From their conclusions:
This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown
It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.
It's not thought to be "space junk" any more: it was thought it might be an old booster segment but apparently based on its path there's no rocket launch that it could've come from.
Nokia proposed a power-harvesting (and power-sipping) handset over the summer last year, to derive its power from cellular signals rather than wi-fi. Although their target amount of 50mW is way off, they claim to have a prototype that can pull in a few milliwatts, which inspired a mixture of scepticism and existential terror from researchers in the field.
You're forgetting the huge number that just plain didn't reach Mars.
God forbid they breach the cannon of Spider-Man.
"Reboot" means what it means, no more, no less. The last comic-book reboot was Batman Begins, a full-hearted plunge into the spirit and fiction of the original that terminated an increasingly lost and bewildered series of films.
It's a franchise, they can't not have a new one. That's how Hollywood works now: yearly installments of something that's proven to be successful, with three-move reboots to relaunch the franchise and introduce it to new customers when the current viewership grows out of it.
He's not saying diesels are pointless, he's saying diesel hybrids are a waste of time.
Ironically many of the shows fawned over in that article would never have been made in the kind of risk-averse environment that loves remakes.
The point from my perspective as a consumer, I should say. DRM should've been a proper compromise between copy prevention tech and the transferrability of digital media.
Formats lead to acceptance. Acceptance leads to dominance. Dominance leads to a de facto standard. De facto standards lead to the dark side.
They've got some cheek, acting like letting us view the same content on multiple devices is an amazing new revolution. We could do that before DRM, and it would've been easy for them to manage DRM such that people could grab more authorised, licenced copies in different formats. That's the whole point of having a licence instead of a physical product.
To be fair, it takes him a few solid whallops before it does break, and the rep doesn't look the least bit concerned until it actually snaps.
Something in common with the Transporter from Star Trek, then. Transfers matter over long distances and sometimes you get someone else's random appendage arriving in your office for no reason.
My bad, I had assumed that a term like "non-startup" could only have dropped in from someone's PR department. For that kind of lingo to spawn by itself in the wild terrifies me.
What, pray tell, does that mean? They had to start up at some point. Or do they just mean "we're on the up and up, honest, guvnor, we're not some fly by night outfit, nosiree, we've been around ages"? In which case calling attention to it has a shade of "the lady doth protest too much".
Homology with "wi-fi" and "hi-fi" demands that the two parts rhyme. The obvious is "why-die" but the alternatives such as "wee-dee" (weedy) and "whih-dhih" don't exactly jump off the tongue either.
3D handheld shaky-cam shots. My eyes can't wait!
Trademarks are not patents. You don't have to register one to prosecute someone for trademark infringement. It helps, but there's an automatic protection there.
A quick perusal of the USPTO database suggests otherwise. A title is a mark, which is used in trade to associate a product with a commercial entity: whether's it's Windows and Microsoft or Rainbow Six and Tom Clancy is irrelevant.