The genome refers specifically to the genes encoded by DNA;
Genome(gene+[chromos]om) refers to all the genetic material, coding and non-coding, gene or not. It has meant that for the past 90 years, before non-coding regions were even thought of I'm guessing, and last I checked it hasn't been redefined. You have very nicely explained why having it refer to simply coding regions is stupid. If I'm wrong then I'd love to know but you'll need to provide me a reference.
The definition of a gene on the other hand may be changing to include both coding and non-coding regions but that's probably still up in the air.
Also not necessarily true. For example, a non-dividing cell has no reason to duplicate its own genome, hence it has almost no chance to acquire mutations.
I believe there's still mutations, I think they come from failures of dna repair mechanisms (there is constant genetic damage happening) rather than dna replication mechanisms.
The genome sure as hell changes, lots of mutations happening all the time in probably every cell of our body. The usual cause of cancer is certain genetic mutations beyond the scope of the body's mechanisms for dealing with them. That in turn causes your gene expressions to change since they're also, to a large extent, controlled by the genome. Purely, or mostly, gene expression caused cancer is apparently also possible however it's not the only cause of cancer.
Hell if I remember correctly my old motherboard had a setting to add random noise so the memory chips couldn't be read from their emissions. So yeah, it's an old and well known problem.
I'm sure you can find some nice radioactive thermal generators that have under a liter of fuel in them. That will get you a hundred thousand miles per liter easily.
5. In my opinion their objection is frivolous, and demonstrates that they are deathly afraid of Audrey Amurao's motion.
I'd say they're just trying all possible options in case one works by pure chance. They have money to burn so filing such things doesn't matter too much to them.
Cancer is by definition a failure of the body to deal with genetic damage. The reason you're not already dead of cancer is because the body has mechanisms for dealing with such damage (which happens all the time). The reason people die of cancer is because at some point a specific set of genetic damage happens that bypasses those safety mechanisms. It's a question of when rather than if.
Interesting how you find no connection between our nation's financial problems and the massive amounts spent on law enforcement and incarceration for marijuana related crimes.
Low Cost? An unlocked iphone costs I believe around $800 in places where it's available legally. In the US you pay $200 because the rest comes from the 2-year contract you're forced to buy alongside the phone.
No, you need to think about it some more and probably go learn some basic physics.
Since you claim to have done so, where does the energy come from? Please do explain where this extra energy magically comes from? Well? I do expect details here, it can't come from nowhere so what is it's exact source? What physical process generates it? Simply driving over a smooth surface won't generate anything so what does?
The picture and most comments indicate the plate is either slightly above ground level or replaces a very small downward ramp. I explained multiple times why neither of those will generate net energy except in very specific conditions.
I agree, it all comes down to how people brake and how much of the energy would have been wasted for braking anyway.
On the other hand hybrid and electric cars have regenerative braking so they even reclaim that energy. Given that they're becoming rather popular there may soon be very few places such a system has any real overall advantage.
*sigh* Like I said before, it's not driving over the surface that generates the energy. It's changing you height compared to your previous surface. The plate is above ground level, regular pavement isn't. Going onto the plate costs extra energy that going down smooth pavement doesn't.
Even if there's a natural upward slope you still lose energy since there's no down slope that usually lets you regain the energy it cost your car to go up the first slope.
The only energy they can reclaim is that from going up the speed bump and that may be regained when the car goes down the other side of the speed bump (ie: car goes faster as it's downhill). It depends on the normal driving patterns of people (do they hit the brakes at the top of a speedbump?) and the efficiency of that downward energy reclamation.
Except they wouldn't have since energy has to come from somewhere and car's don't magically use it for no purpose. The energy they're using comes from raising the car's height (ie: potential energy due to gravity) to the height of the plate. Without the plate that energy would not have been used period as there'd have been no need to raise the car's height.
Had there been a natural downward slope present (say it was a speed bump, small hill, etc.) then the energy would have been partially reclaimed and converted into kinetic energy for the car. In other words going downhill makes the car go faster and that energy came from when the car had to go up the hill.
So it'd be the same as dropping a giant stone on the plate? Free perpetual energy? No? Then where is the energy coming from? Remember those pesky laws that keep perpetual motion machine from working?
The energy doesn't come from gravity but rather from the potential energy of the car via gravity. The car has to gain that energy from the kinetic energy of it's engine somehow since nothing is free.
Let's say the plate is 1cm above the ground with no car on it. The car's engine exert extra energy to raise the car onto that 1cm plate. The plate then falls and takes that energy from the car by dropping it back to it's previous height. Had the plate not been there the car would not have used the gas needed to generate the energy to raise it 1cm against gravity.
Sort of sad how little physics is taught in school nowadays that people actually believe energy can come from essentially nowhere.
Isn't the "it'll destroy America's economy" an argument based around fairness? Or does fairness only matter if it's applied to the US but not to other nations?
As that argument indicates a system that is absurdly unfair will of course simply not be accepted and likely it'd be considered little more than an attempt by developed nations to establish a monopoly on industries. In the end no one will actually change anything and pollution will continue to be a problem. Any economic impact would need to be spread evenly based on future economic trends not based on current economic conditions. China, for example, with its massively growing economy would be economically crippled if it couldn't increase it's emissions to even close to the existing US levels (technically even that would be harsh for them in terms of future growth).
One random logical solution is to find an acceptable future level of emissions based around something other than arbitrary political divisions. In other words find some desired world level of emissions that is X/person and establish some requires future changes for these levels. So, for example, China may be allowed to triple it's emissions (but only at some slow rate that is balanced out in other areas) while the US would have to drop them 20%. Everyone's economy gets fucked but no one is forced to spend quality time with a sear's tower sized dildo.
In other words you expect China to produce a fifth the emissions per person the US does and you think that's FAIR? Or are you arguing that the US should drop it's own emissions 80% to be on par with China?
DisplayPort is also a standard, no one could use something and it could still be a standard. Like someone else said, either use the right terminology when making a point (which proprietary is not) or don't be surprised when people fail at mind reading your intentions. Plus people here are horribly pedantic so they won't just overlook such misuses even if they should know better.
Probably spend more time learning from your mistakes (by looking at the correct ways of doing the assignment) so you do better n the future (and catch up) which the original poster apparently thinks you shouldn't be allowed. How can you improve when you're not allowed to see the right way of doing things?
It doesn't take a whole lot to screw up a stream with those sorts of bandwith requirements. Downloads just go a little slower for a bit.
And streaming simply uses the buffered download for a bit, your point? Plenty of services already provide hd streaming without too many problems including amazon on-demand and netflix. Downloading is an inconvenient mess since I don't want to wait two hours to watch a show or have to download, and buy, every show I may watch at some point in the future.
Yes, any of the 400+ subway stations. I don't see why you think it'd be hard since it's the exact same method I use nowadays. Go look at subway map in station, find a route, note what to take, check for any service notices, get on subway, double check map in subway for stop to get off on, repeat till home. If the route looks particularly confusing then you can always ask someone for help. Worst case is that you waste some time backtracking if you get on the wrong train.
I finished high school in the last decade and I find these things ridiculous but then again I grew up in a large city. If you couldn't make your way home from any subway station by middle school then something was wrong. So yeah, by middle school I was simply taking the subway/bus to and from school. In elementary school I was walking there by myself (it was a lot closer than my middle school) since both my parents worked. My parents did give me a cellphone at some point just in case but I don't think I ever needed to use it for that.
Slashdot Mirror
The genome refers specifically to the genes encoded by DNA;
Genome(gene+[chromos]om) refers to all the genetic material, coding and non-coding, gene or not. It has meant that for the past 90 years, before non-coding regions were even thought of I'm guessing, and last I checked it hasn't been redefined. You have very nicely explained why having it refer to simply coding regions is stupid. If I'm wrong then I'd love to know but you'll need to provide me a reference.
The definition of a gene on the other hand may be changing to include both coding and non-coding regions but that's probably still up in the air.
Also not necessarily true. For example, a non-dividing cell has no reason to duplicate its own genome, hence it has almost no chance to acquire mutations.
I believe there's still mutations, I think they come from failures of dna repair mechanisms (there is constant genetic damage happening) rather than dna replication mechanisms.
The genome sure as hell changes, lots of mutations happening all the time in probably every cell of our body. The usual cause of cancer is certain genetic mutations beyond the scope of the body's mechanisms for dealing with them. That in turn causes your gene expressions to change since they're also, to a large extent, controlled by the genome. Purely, or mostly, gene expression caused cancer is apparently also possible however it's not the only cause of cancer.
Yes it is, either that or cnn has had some drastic budget cuts recently.
Hell if I remember correctly my old motherboard had a setting to add random noise so the memory chips couldn't be read from their emissions. So yeah, it's an old and well known problem.
I'm sure you can find some nice radioactive thermal generators that have under a liter of fuel in them. That will get you a hundred thousand miles per liter easily.
And you didn't setup scheduled backups (even with something like Mozy) for them why?
5. In my opinion their objection is frivolous, and demonstrates that they are deathly afraid of Audrey Amurao's motion.
I'd say they're just trying all possible options in case one works by pure chance. They have money to burn so filing such things doesn't matter too much to them.
Cancer is by definition a failure of the body to deal with genetic damage. The reason you're not already dead of cancer is because the body has mechanisms for dealing with such damage (which happens all the time). The reason people die of cancer is because at some point a specific set of genetic damage happens that bypasses those safety mechanisms. It's a question of when rather than if.
Interesting how you find no connection between our nation's financial problems and the massive amounts spent on law enforcement and incarceration for marijuana related crimes.
No the fair trade price would be, for example, $5.10 in both places as another post very nicely explained.
10 cents does not allow even close to enough profits to cover initial costs even with increased sales in the US.
$5 would cause almost no sales in India so the overall profit would drop.
$5.10 (or some amount over $5) would be the price at which the profits are back up to current levels.
Low Cost? An unlocked iphone costs I believe around $800 in places where it's available legally. In the US you pay $200 because the rest comes from the 2-year contract you're forced to buy alongside the phone.
No, you need to think about it some more and probably go learn some basic physics.
Since you claim to have done so, where does the energy come from? Please do explain where this extra energy magically comes from? Well? I do expect details here, it can't come from nowhere so what is it's exact source? What physical process generates it? Simply driving over a smooth surface won't generate anything so what does?
The picture and most comments indicate the plate is either slightly above ground level or replaces a very small downward ramp. I explained multiple times why neither of those will generate net energy except in very specific conditions.
I agree, it all comes down to how people brake and how much of the energy would have been wasted for braking anyway.
On the other hand hybrid and electric cars have regenerative braking so they even reclaim that energy. Given that they're becoming rather popular there may soon be very few places such a system has any real overall advantage.
*sigh* Like I said before, it's not driving over the surface that generates the energy. It's changing you height compared to your previous surface. The plate is above ground level, regular pavement isn't. Going onto the plate costs extra energy that going down smooth pavement doesn't.
Even if there's a natural upward slope you still lose energy since there's no down slope that usually lets you regain the energy it cost your car to go up the first slope.
The only energy they can reclaim is that from going up the speed bump and that may be regained when the car goes down the other side of the speed bump (ie: car goes faster as it's downhill). It depends on the normal driving patterns of people (do they hit the brakes at the top of a speedbump?) and the efficiency of that downward energy reclamation.
Except they wouldn't have since energy has to come from somewhere and car's don't magically use it for no purpose. The energy they're using comes from raising the car's height (ie: potential energy due to gravity) to the height of the plate. Without the plate that energy would not have been used period as there'd have been no need to raise the car's height.
Had there been a natural downward slope present (say it was a speed bump, small hill, etc.) then the energy would have been partially reclaimed and converted into kinetic energy for the car. In other words going downhill makes the car go faster and that energy came from when the car had to go up the hill.
So it'd be the same as dropping a giant stone on the plate? Free perpetual energy? No? Then where is the energy coming from? Remember those pesky laws that keep perpetual motion machine from working?
The energy doesn't come from gravity but rather from the potential energy of the car via gravity. The car has to gain that energy from the kinetic energy of it's engine somehow since nothing is free.
Let's say the plate is 1cm above the ground with no car on it. The car's engine exert extra energy to raise the car onto that 1cm plate. The plate then falls and takes that energy from the car by dropping it back to it's previous height. Had the plate not been there the car would not have used the gas needed to generate the energy to raise it 1cm against gravity.
Sort of sad how little physics is taught in school nowadays that people actually believe energy can come from essentially nowhere.
Isn't the "it'll destroy America's economy" an argument based around fairness? Or does fairness only matter if it's applied to the US but not to other nations?
As that argument indicates a system that is absurdly unfair will of course simply not be accepted and likely it'd be considered little more than an attempt by developed nations to establish a monopoly on industries. In the end no one will actually change anything and pollution will continue to be a problem. Any economic impact would need to be spread evenly based on future economic trends not based on current economic conditions. China, for example, with its massively growing economy would be economically crippled if it couldn't increase it's emissions to even close to the existing US levels (technically even that would be harsh for them in terms of future growth).
One random logical solution is to find an acceptable future level of emissions based around something other than arbitrary political divisions. In other words find some desired world level of emissions that is X/person and establish some requires future changes for these levels. So, for example, China may be allowed to triple it's emissions (but only at some slow rate that is balanced out in other areas) while the US would have to drop them 20%. Everyone's economy gets fucked but no one is forced to spend quality time with a sear's tower sized dildo.
In other words you expect China to produce a fifth the emissions per person the US does and you think that's FAIR? Or are you arguing that the US should drop it's own emissions 80% to be on par with China?
The US is the single largest carbon emissions producer in the world by a decent margin. China is second and India is far away in fifth place.
On a per capita basis it's even worse as the US produces five times as much co2 as China and sixteen times as much as India.
So no, it's only a drop in the bucket if your intelligence makes our previous president look like nobel prize winner.
DisplayPort is also a standard, no one could use something and it could still be a standard. Like someone else said, either use the right terminology when making a point (which proprietary is not) or don't be surprised when people fail at mind reading your intentions. Plus people here are horribly pedantic so they won't just overlook such misuses even if they should know better.
Probably spend more time learning from your mistakes (by looking at the correct ways of doing the assignment) so you do better n the future (and catch up) which the original poster apparently thinks you shouldn't be allowed. How can you improve when you're not allowed to see the right way of doing things?
It doesn't take a whole lot to screw up a stream with those sorts of bandwith requirements. Downloads just go a little slower for a bit.
And streaming simply uses the buffered download for a bit, your point? Plenty of services already provide hd streaming without too many problems including amazon on-demand and netflix. Downloading is an inconvenient mess since I don't want to wait two hours to watch a show or have to download, and buy, every show I may watch at some point in the future.
Yes, any of the 400+ subway stations. I don't see why you think it'd be hard since it's the exact same method I use nowadays. Go look at subway map in station, find a route, note what to take, check for any service notices, get on subway, double check map in subway for stop to get off on, repeat till home. If the route looks particularly confusing then you can always ask someone for help. Worst case is that you waste some time backtracking if you get on the wrong train.
I finished high school in the last decade and I find these things ridiculous but then again I grew up in a large city. If you couldn't make your way home from any subway station by middle school then something was wrong. So yeah, by middle school I was simply taking the subway/bus to and from school. In elementary school I was walking there by myself (it was a lot closer than my middle school) since both my parents worked. My parents did give me a cellphone at some point just in case but I don't think I ever needed to use it for that.