The plants may require nothing but mother nature, but in this case the farmer did a lot of work to propagate them, actively sowing, harvesting, saving them, and resowing them for 8 generations.
This is a great book, but I don't think a movie can do it justice. Lots of books make great movies, but this book is great precisely because of its subtlety, emotions, and the mind tweaks. I see how you can get a lot of great action sequences out of the story line but they were never even close to the meat of the book, and I am sure the real meat will be lost in the action sequences of the movie. So it will have some cool scenes but will otherwise be just another sci fi movie.
my point is that there was never a stupid and successful politican
Depends on what you mean by successful. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were both successful for quite a while until they said something so stupid that it ended their career. But I don't think they suddenly got stupid in 2012, more likely they were stupid all along and just got away with it.
The distinction between a democracy and a republic is largely pointless. The US is a constitutional republic, and "constitutional" is the important word - it means the rights guaranteed by the constitution overrule the will of the majority. You can have either a constitutional democracy or a constitutional republic.
Perhaps this is is pedantic, but genetics != DNA. DNA is the physical mechanism. Gregor Mendel was studying genetics before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, and many fascinating genetic discoveries have been made just by observing inheritance patterns without any understanding of the underlying DNA. The discovery of DNA really didn't revise evolutionary theory as far as I can tell - DNA sequencing can tell us many interesting things about the evolution of a particular species, and shows we are nearly identical to apes, but none of this changes evolutionary theory.
This isn't to says the theory hasn't been revised - punctuated equilibrium comes to mind as one example.
There may be a set amount of gold on earth, but it is an unknown amount, and the amount of mined gold is constantly increasing. Also the population will (hopefully) not be constantly increasing - if we don't get that under control soon we are seriously screwed - it will either decrease slowly and voluntarily or dramatically and tragically.
I don't agree with your comment on salary, but H1B visas should be converted to green cards after 1 year with minimal paperwork and cost and a streamlined approval process. The indentured servitude aspect of H1B is bad for us all, and we should try to bring in and keep as much talent as possible.
The real goal is advertising, and I am sure advertisers will pay extra for targeted advertising that is only 95% accurate. Heck, they'd probably pay for 55%.
The federal government got involved in regulating marriage a long time ago. Specifically the Supreme Court in 1967. See Loving v. Virginia. Why is this different?
Anyone with talent should be given a green card, so they aren't treated as indentured servants. I don't mind the competition as long as it is a level playing field, and recruiting talent permanently into the country makes us better. Get rid of the H-1B program.
EU != Eurozone. There are 27 countries in the EU, and only 17 in the Eurozone. The mess you are describing is specific to the Eurozone (and the fact that countries in it can't print their own money).
That evidence only shows that they are less crazy regarding evolution. There are plenty of other things to be crazy about, and there are plenty of Hindu extremists.
I'm a techie and I tend to use the terms "box", "machine", or "computer". CPU is technically wrong also, since that refers to the main processor (excluding motherboard, RAM, hard drive, and everything else), but some techies still use it. I can't recall anyone calling it "micro". My wife still calls it a hard drive, no matter how hard I try to teach her otherwise.
Not a very good example. A large percentage of lay people refer to the whole case as 'the hard drive'. Techs, depending on their age, are more likely to call it a 'cpu' or 'micro'. Is either term inherently less intuitive or more technical? They both follow the same naming strategy but from a different point of view,i.e., the focus of importance has shifted. Technically, is it really a computer if the first computers were humans?
While I think he gave himself an out in the specification/qualification of 'first year student', there's a degree of hypocrisy in that vs. this. (Specifically after the 4 minute mark where he basically says you can't properly explain certain things in physics through intuitive metaphors.)
I don't think there is hypocrisy. I think "explain something to a first year student" implies the student is taking a course in physics, i.e. probably 3 hours of lecture per week times 30 weeks, plus a lot of individual study time. What he is saying in the video is that he can't explain magnetic repulsion to a non-student in a 7 minute video. I don't think that is a contradiction. By the way, Feynman taught the freshman physics class taken by everyone (i.e. mostly non-physics majors) at CalTech, so take it in that context.
I always do a format and a secure erase (one pass of zeros). In addition to finding bad sectors I want to be sure to get rid of any trace of whatever crap they put on it at the factory (viruses, kiddie porn, crapware, etc).
I am still totally perplexed as to why rational thinking people could consider a law giving the right to bear arms, written in the days where arms meant sabres, brown bess muskets and the occasional long rifle (half a century before the invention of the Minié ball or rotating bolt) entitles them to buy AR-15 rifles and automatic handguns.
It's clear the intent of the founding fathers was to provide the people with the ability to overthrow the government. If you only allow people to have sabres and muskets in this age that clearly isn't following the intent. Automatic weapons are necessary to even have a chance.
However, I think we should definitely consider whether that is still necessary. Our democracy has had a long history of success and we have resolved many tough issues peacefully. We should repeal the second amendment. That doesn't mean that all guns would be illegal, but it would mean the government has the power to regulate them.
If there is life on Venus it never learned to use photosynthesis to store energy from the sun by converting CO2 into higher energy molecules - if it had there would be a lot less CO2 and a lot more O2. I find that hard to believe, it's an awfully valuable resource, and life has a way of figuring out how to use all resources available. On the other hand, I find it very easy to believe that the initial spark of life comes from a set of extremely unlikely coincidences and many planets, even with ideal conditions, won't have life.
Combined PTO encourages workers to come into the office even when they are sick so they can save their PTO days for vacation. Then they infect their co-workers and more productivity is lost. What is the benefit you are referring to?
And what do you expect Congress to do about people that can't drive worth shit?
Not much. On the other hand, there is heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and many other diseases which all kill far more people each year than were killed in 9/11, and which could probably all be reduced for far less money than we spent fighting the war on terror. Even suicide (over 36,000 deaths) could probably be greatly reduced with a little more money into our mental health system.
Slashdot Mirror
Except when the seed is the product, as in soybeans, corn, wheat, etc.
The plants may require nothing but mother nature, but in this case the farmer did a lot of work to propagate them, actively sowing, harvesting, saving them, and resowing them for 8 generations.
This is a great book, but I don't think a movie can do it justice. Lots of books make great movies, but this book is great precisely because of its subtlety, emotions, and the mind tweaks. I see how you can get a lot of great action sequences out of the story line but they were never even close to the meat of the book, and I am sure the real meat will be lost in the action sequences of the movie. So it will have some cool scenes but will otherwise be just another sci fi movie.
my point is that there was never a stupid and successful politican
Depends on what you mean by successful. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were both successful for quite a while until they said something so stupid that it ended their career. But I don't think they suddenly got stupid in 2012, more likely they were stupid all along and just got away with it.
The distinction between a democracy and a republic is largely pointless. The US is a constitutional republic, and "constitutional" is the important word - it means the rights guaranteed by the constitution overrule the will of the majority. You can have either a constitutional democracy or a constitutional republic.
Perhaps this is is pedantic, but genetics != DNA. DNA is the physical mechanism. Gregor Mendel was studying genetics before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, and many fascinating genetic discoveries have been made just by observing inheritance patterns without any understanding of the underlying DNA. The discovery of DNA really didn't revise evolutionary theory as far as I can tell - DNA sequencing can tell us many interesting things about the evolution of a particular species, and shows we are nearly identical to apes, but none of this changes evolutionary theory.
This isn't to says the theory hasn't been revised - punctuated equilibrium comes to mind as one example.
you can write illegible code in any language and people do.
Yes, but you can also write legible code in most languages, the exception being Perl.
(I love Perl for quick one-off scripts to do text manipulation but I would hate to have to use it for any big project that has to be maintained)
There may be a set amount of gold on earth, but it is an unknown amount, and the amount of mined gold is constantly increasing. Also the population will (hopefully) not be constantly increasing - if we don't get that under control soon we are seriously screwed - it will either decrease slowly and voluntarily or dramatically and tragically.
I don't think they did it on their own :)
The wrong word in that sentence is "migrated"
I don't agree with your comment on salary, but H1B visas should be converted to green cards after 1 year with minimal paperwork and cost and a streamlined approval process. The indentured servitude aspect of H1B is bad for us all, and we should try to bring in and keep as much talent as possible.
Slow as heck and can't actually climb anything (as far as I can tell from the video) which is the only real reason to have legs instead of wheels.
The real goal is advertising, and I am sure advertisers will pay extra for targeted advertising that is only 95% accurate. Heck, they'd probably pay for 55%.
The federal government got involved in regulating marriage a long time ago. Specifically the Supreme Court in 1967. See Loving v. Virginia. Why is this different?
Both religion and marriage existed long before Christianity. Christianity is mostly recycled.
Anyone with talent should be given a green card, so they aren't treated as indentured servants. I don't mind the competition as long as it is a level playing field, and recruiting talent permanently into the country makes us better. Get rid of the H-1B program.
EU != Eurozone. There are 27 countries in the EU, and only 17 in the Eurozone. The mess you are describing is specific to the Eurozone (and the fact that countries in it can't print their own money).
That evidence only shows that they are less crazy regarding evolution. There are plenty of other things to be crazy about, and there are plenty of Hindu extremists.
I'm a techie and I tend to use the terms "box", "machine", or "computer". CPU is technically wrong also, since that refers to the main processor (excluding motherboard, RAM, hard drive, and everything else), but some techies still use it. I can't recall anyone calling it "micro". My wife still calls it a hard drive, no matter how hard I try to teach her otherwise.
Not a very good example. A large percentage of lay people refer to the whole case as 'the hard drive'. Techs, depending on their age, are more likely to call it a 'cpu' or 'micro'. Is either term inherently less intuitive or more technical? They both follow the same naming strategy but from a different point of view,i.e., the focus of importance has shifted. Technically, is it really a computer if the first computers were humans?
While I think he gave himself an out in the specification/qualification of 'first year student', there's a degree of hypocrisy in that vs. this. (Specifically after the 4 minute mark where he basically says you can't properly explain certain things in physics through intuitive metaphors.)
I don't think there is hypocrisy. I think "explain something to a first year student" implies the student is taking a course in physics, i.e. probably 3 hours of lecture per week times 30 weeks, plus a lot of individual study time. What he is saying in the video is that he can't explain magnetic repulsion to a non-student in a 7 minute video. I don't think that is a contradiction. By the way, Feynman taught the freshman physics class taken by everyone (i.e. mostly non-physics majors) at CalTech, so take it in that context.
that's scary in and of itself
I always do a format and a secure erase (one pass of zeros). In addition to finding bad sectors I want to be sure to get rid of any trace of whatever crap they put on it at the factory (viruses, kiddie porn, crapware, etc).
I am still totally perplexed as to why rational thinking people could consider a law giving the right to bear arms, written in the days where arms meant sabres, brown bess muskets and the occasional long rifle (half a century before the invention of the Minié ball or rotating bolt) entitles them to buy AR-15 rifles and automatic handguns.
It's clear the intent of the founding fathers was to provide the people with the ability to overthrow the government. If you only allow people to have sabres and muskets in this age that clearly isn't following the intent. Automatic weapons are necessary to even have a chance.
However, I think we should definitely consider whether that is still necessary. Our democracy has had a long history of success and we have resolved many tough issues peacefully. We should repeal the second amendment. That doesn't mean that all guns would be illegal, but it would mean the government has the power to regulate them.
If there is life on Venus it never learned to use photosynthesis to store energy from the sun by converting CO2 into higher energy molecules - if it had there would be a lot less CO2 and a lot more O2. I find that hard to believe, it's an awfully valuable resource, and life has a way of figuring out how to use all resources available. On the other hand, I find it very easy to believe that the initial spark of life comes from a set of extremely unlikely coincidences and many planets, even with ideal conditions, won't have life.
Combined PTO encourages workers to come into the office even when they are sick so they can save their PTO days for vacation. Then they infect their co-workers and more productivity is lost. What is the benefit you are referring to?
And what do you expect Congress to do about people that can't drive worth shit?
Not much. On the other hand, there is heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and many other diseases which all kill far more people each year than were killed in 9/11, and which could probably all be reduced for far less money than we spent fighting the war on terror. Even suicide (over 36,000 deaths) could probably be greatly reduced with a little more money into our mental health system.