I'd be more concerned with the sub $20k/yr salaries being paid to technicians working with dangerous biological agents today.
I would need to be well taken care of to be motivated to do anything nasty, but people with less than myself, who knows. $100k might pay off debt, and provide a fresh start for someone on the edge.
The aquisition or modification of gene function over time is fact. The accumulation of DNA modifications over time is a fact. The aquisition of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is a fact. The modification of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is a fact. The modification of gene function due to transposable element insertions, and remobilizations, is a fact. The alteration of gene function due to chromosomal rearrangements is a fact. The generation of neo-centromeres is a fact. That neo-centromeres are stability propagated over time is a fact.
Evolution is not limited to changes in DNA, it is also caused via chromosomal rearragements that change the environment where the gene is expressed.
It is a fact that retrovirus change gene expression and function. We use them as mutagens all the time in screens for new mutations.
Evolution of mitochondrial sequences is one of the best known ways for mapping the history of the human race.
I can not prove that my closet is not a portal to another universe.
I can not prove that my backyard is free of purple and green unicorns.
I can not prove that god does not exist.
So ? Why would anybody waste their time trying to disprove the existance of things for which there is no evidence of existance in the first place ? The only evidence one can have for the non-existence of something is the non-existence of evidence. There is no evidence that God exists, therefore that utter lack of evidence provides us with evidence that God does not exist.
Religion causes people to reject knowledge and embrace ignorance.
Science is not anti-religion. We don't waste our time trying to prove religion is false.
Religion is anti-science. The religous do pick fights with existing scientific explanations, but in a non-testable "god did it" kind of way.
I don't hate the religious, I pity the ignorant. I see ignorance and lack of education as a more serious threat to this country than any foreign terrorist organization.
The religious have been used as a pawn for the party of big business. Maybe if they voted in their communities best interests, and left religion in thier chruch and private homes, we wouldn't need both parents working 6 days a week.
There is nothing in the constitution to prevent states from forming a pact to cast their electoral college votes for the candidate with the most votes nationwide.
To get rid of the EC would require a constitutional amendment.
I personally wish there were positive votes and negative votes. So many times I don't believe in the candidate I vote for, and would rather cast a negative vote for the candidate I am most fearful of winning. I think this could open up the system to more than two parties. While the L's vote against the C's, the third party candidates with good ideas could be collecting positive votes from people who believe in them.
I don't disagree that the user is the most exploitable part of the computer system.
see
Honestly, I don't care about any computers that I don't use. If all the exploits require user intervention for my chosen systems, then I will continue to feel pretty secure in using them.
seriously . . . Johnny and Joan Wal*Mart are watching ads selling them on a new HDTV to watch their HD cable or Satellite channels.
What adverising moron couldn't connect the dots and hype the HD-DVD player to go with that package . . . at this point they deserve to lose the war because they didn't even make an attempt to get their name out.
Like I said, I respect that we disagree on what a government is supposed to be philosophically. I see government as a treaty ideally. (FWIW, I think what we have now in the US of A is more like a hostage situation, which is why I frequently refer to my government as a foreign government)
In a world of complete unrestricted freedom, one can only possess that which they can defend. In order to advance as a society, we trade some of our freedoms in exchange for protection from threats domestic and foreign, and infrastructure that no individual could build and defend on their own.
I believe rampant poverty, ignorance, and violence are domestic threats from which I believe the government is obligated to protect its population.
I agree with your statement, we have conceded too many freedoms, and government is way too big.
However, I believe social programs act as safety nets for society, providing a way for people to avoid turning to crime, and thus are essential to protecting the freedoms of the population.
There is nothing stopping states from making a pact to give their electoral votes to the most popular candidate.
To get rid of the electoral college would require a change in the constitution, and the people who have the power aren't going to be too interested in such a change.
I can respect that we have philosophical differences as to the role of government. I believe we concede a lot of our freedoms in exchange for services and safety.
2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.
3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.
4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".
5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be more concerned with the sub $20k/yr salaries being paid to technicians working with dangerous biological agents today.
I would need to be well taken care of to be motivated to do anything nasty, but people with less than myself, who knows. $100k might pay off debt, and provide a fresh start for someone on the edge.
measurable, observable, and reproducible . . . facts for all intents and purposes.
Evolution is a change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.
Evolution is an inherited change, wheras a mutation is not always inherited.
The aquisition or modification of gene function over time is fact.
The accumulation of DNA modifications over time is a fact.
The aquisition of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is a fact.
The modification of gene function due to alteration of DNA sequence is a fact.
The modification of gene function due to transposable element insertions, and remobilizations, is a fact.
The alteration of gene function due to chromosomal rearrangements is a fact.
The generation of neo-centromeres is a fact.
That neo-centromeres are stability propagated over time is a fact.
Evolution is not limited to changes in DNA, it is also caused via chromosomal rearragements that change the environment where the gene is expressed.
It is a fact that retrovirus change gene expression and function. We use them as mutagens all the time in screens for new mutations.
Evolution of mitochondrial sequences is one of the best known ways for mapping the history of the human race.
Evolution is a fact.
Evolution accounting for some of the diversity of life on this planet is also fact.
The theory is that evolution accounts for all of the diversity in life on this planet.
There may well be multiple instances of origins of life, thus evolution as the basis for all diversity would be false.
There is no logical reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence of its existence.
You present no evidence that x or y exist, therefore it is pointless to care about such things.
Your question is more like which is greater the tooth fairy with a sword or the easter bunny with a hammer.
Similarly, we know evolution happens.
We observe evolution in model organisms when they aquire a change in function, or new phenotypes.
We trace change of function to alteration of DNA sequences, either in their location in the genome or their sequence composition.
Evolution is a fact. The theory is that evolution accounts for the variety of life on this planet.
I can not prove that my closet is not a portal to another universe.
I can not prove that my backyard is free of purple and green unicorns.
I can not prove that god does not exist.
So ? Why would anybody waste their time trying to disprove the existance of things for which there is no evidence of existance in the first place ? The only evidence one can have for the non-existence of something is the non-existence of evidence. There is no evidence that God exists, therefore that utter lack of evidence provides us with evidence that God does not exist.
Religion causes people to reject knowledge and embrace ignorance.
Science is not anti-religion. We don't waste our time trying to prove religion is false.
Religion is anti-science. The religous do pick fights with existing scientific explanations, but in a non-testable "god did it" kind of way.
I don't hate the religious, I pity the ignorant. I see ignorance and lack of education as a more serious threat to this country than any foreign terrorist organization.
The religious have been used as a pawn for the party of big business. Maybe if they voted in their communities best interests, and left religion in thier chruch and private homes, we wouldn't need both parents working 6 days a week.
good point
This only affects unlocked iPhones, so I assume by "fix", that you mean use as intended ?
There is nothing in the constitution to prevent states from forming a pact to cast their electoral college votes for the candidate with the most votes nationwide.
To get rid of the EC would require a constitutional amendment.
I personally wish there were positive votes and negative votes. So many times I don't believe in the candidate I vote for, and would rather cast a negative vote for the candidate I am most fearful of winning. I think this could open up the system to more than two parties. While the L's vote against the C's, the third party candidates with good ideas could be collecting positive votes from people who believe in them.
I don't disagree that the user is the most exploitable part of the computer system. see Honestly, I don't care about any computers that I don't use. If all the exploits require user intervention for my chosen systems, then I will continue to feel pretty secure in using them.
A user can be educated.
An OS that can be exploited with no user intervention is an insecure operating system.
Let me reiterate my point.
There are ZERO pieces of self propagating malware in the wild for MacOS X.
I'd prefer to focus on the ZERO self propagating pieces of malware in the wild.
seriously . . . Johnny and Joan Wal*Mart are watching ads selling them on a new HDTV to watch their HD cable or Satellite channels.
What adverising moron couldn't connect the dots and hype the HD-DVD player to go with that package . . . at this point they deserve to lose the war because they didn't even make an attempt to get their name out.
good idea, you can have a spot in my cabinet.
Like I said, I respect that we disagree on what a government is supposed to be philosophically. I see government as a treaty ideally. (FWIW, I think what we have now in the US of A is more like a hostage situation, which is why I frequently refer to my government as a foreign government)
In a world of complete unrestricted freedom, one can only possess that which they can defend. In order to advance as a society, we trade some of our freedoms in exchange for protection from threats domestic and foreign, and infrastructure that no individual could build and defend on their own.
I believe rampant poverty, ignorance, and violence are domestic threats from which I believe the government is obligated to protect its population.
what percentage of the population is incarcerated ?
Prison life must be peaceful, it's got maximum security and minimal freedom.
I agree with your statement, we have conceded too many freedoms, and government is way too big.
However, I believe social programs act as safety nets for society, providing a way for people to avoid turning to crime, and thus are essential to protecting the freedoms of the population.
There is nothing stopping states from making a pact to give their electoral votes to the most popular candidate.
To get rid of the electoral college would require a change in the constitution, and the people who have the power aren't going to be too interested in such a change.
Um, in case you haven't been paying attention, executive power is on the rise.
Bush has rendered congress irrelevant, I'm just extrapolating to the future.
I can respect that we have philosophical differences as to the role of government. I believe we concede a lot of our freedoms in exchange for services and safety.
1) I will repeal corporate personhood.
2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.
3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.
4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".
5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.
rendezvous : less configuration time, works over wire and wireless distances greater than 3cm, is open source.
Plus, 3cm of additional walking is worth it, just to avoid touching another SONY product.