I see that as a slightly different issue. But in any case, I'd say six figure genes are probably fit to survive even if their reproductive mechanisms aren't entirely in order.
That's what I'm saying. It's random, so the results that do work are the ones that are "naturally selected" from the pool of all possible mutations.
Contrast that with human screening. The "working" results will still be naturally selected, but the pool of possible mutations is artificially truncated. We will miss a lot of beneficial mutations that humans don't necessarily prefer.
Yes. But perhaps it is more helpful to have random mutations, and let natural selection decide what is beneficial. Letting humans decide what is preferable would definitely be some kind of selection and would create "evolution" in a sense. But I believe that the time-tested natural selection is more reliable when it comes to the survival of our species.
Kind of off-topic: but I think we're going down a slippery slope when we start screening DNA. It works against the process of evolution. What if there's a new fatal disease that only people with the breast cancer trait are equipped to fight?
Also Gattaca: society could expect a certain baseline of traits for what is "human". So people who don't meet that could be considered disabled, or worse.
Actually in economics, we measure items by "utility", not pure currency. So if art brings joy to someone, it makes sense within the economic framework to produce it, as long as the joy it brought is greater than the work it cost to produce.
Wow my first Slashdot troll in years of being a member.
I have to admit, if I didn't have the word "all" in there, this is easy misinterpret. It's my fault for using the word "any" for emphasis.
Why? To be fair, if I had said "deluded to think any P2P is ethical", it can be ambiguous. It can be interpreted that "thinking there exists an ethical form of P2P is delusional".
On the other hand I used the word "are", which to me implies that "any" in this case is interchangeable with "all". And it should convey to the reader that I meant, "thinking all forms of P2P are ethical is delusional".
So grammatically, you're not completely off-base. But comon... who with any grain of common sense would a) have meant to post #1 and 2) have interpreted my words to have meant #1?
No. It's proof they have the weight of the constitution. That's different from ethics. Don't let this delude you into thinking that any and all forms of p2p are ethical.
Is it just me, or does the article make it seem like Acer is merely bundling 3D software with their hardware. "Built-in software" really means nothing to me unless this is somehow part of the BIOS or it relies on special hardware they provide.
"We would prefer to participate in the sale of our products, especially when we spend years putting one of these things together and we have to continue to provide support for all these new customers without creating any new revenue from it at all," said Pete Hines, vice president of Bethesda Softworks. "We're not big fans of that."
True they spent years putting one of these things together, but they were already compensated by the first play through. True they have to continue to support these "new customers", but they get to stop supporting the "old customers" - that is, the people who sold the games to the new customers.
Why not make a game more self sufficient so they don't have to spend as much resources supporting it, or prolong the lifetime of the game so buyers in the primary market won't want to sell it?
To be clear, my words aren't completely fair to the single player, storyline play-through type of games, like single player RPGs or TPSs. But for those I think they'd have have to suck it up - book publishers have been putting up with the same for years.
Good point. The funny thing is, in my case they don't even get the $200 from me. Gamestop does. These publishers tend to release their games under "Greatest Hits" after a couple of years, so the box is different from the original packaging. Most people, I included, would much rather have the original box than the Greatest Hits box if we plan on keeping the game. Gamestop still sells used games for the same original packaging for an even cheaper price. You just have to find a box that's in good quality.
They are a part of memory management. When a program allocates memory, it has to free it. In most programming languages, the programmer will manually decide when memory is freed. This is usually when the memory that was allocated is no longer needed - say you loaded a file to memory to run some calculations and you just finished, so now you free that file from memory because you don't need to access it anymore. That freed area of memory can now be used for other purposes. Java has a built in "garbage collector" that will take care of freeing memory for you. In general, a garbage collector will keep track of each piece of allocated memory; it is responsible for knowing when your program is no longer using the memory and initiate the freeing of that area of memory.
Let's not forget that there was an avenue by which people can easily vote to name the space module "Colbert". This seems like a poorly thought out prank you're pulling. At least you disguised it under some action news.
Since most adults are not trained from childhood to have "telekinesis", would introducing such a UI help train specific areas of the children's brains so that they are better equipped to use this "telekinesis"?
It's also a balancing act. I don't want everyone in my household to easily have access to my computer without knowing my password. Doesn't mean I expect my computer to be 100% screwdriver proof.
The blog writer is highlighting it in context of "the greater good" of the city. But I'm talking from within the framework for free-market principles. I'm saying the bill doesn't make sense from a free-market perspective either.
Also free-market vs. socialism would be a much more apt debate if this project was funded by tax dollars, which it seems not to be (for the most part).
They're trying to kill other such projects in the womb. The less incentive to work on such a risky project, the fewer people will try to do it. If Bumble, NC, sees Wilson, NC running a successful ISP which manages to pay for costs AND other projects, they have a big incentive to start their own ISP. On the other hand, if the ISP just does what it does but doesn't benefit other departments, there's almost zero incentive for Bumble, NC to do this. They don't already have an ISP department - they just care about running their other services.
Not only does it show that these companies should be able to do better than 10-4/phone/35, but it shows that these companies should be able to do better than 10-10/phone/81. This business is definitely an economy of scale with technology being a common resource that can be easily reapplied.
This is a very interesting idea. Logistically how would that work? How do you ensure that a for-profit organization will not act in the direction of how TWC acts?
This has happened before, for a municipal-sponsored project.
From the project manager's blog, some of what they are doing is actually fair: not allowing cities to price below costs. This makes a lot of sense and is actually good for competition. Not allowing subscription fees to pay for other city projects - this on the other hand is not necessarily fair. Ideally TWC should be pricing their service competitively to Greenlight such that no extra profit is left over to fund other city projects. But they don't want to do that. They just want to minimize the threat from Greenlight given that they can't get rid of them. In my opinion, though, a public service using public resources should not overcharge to begin with - it should charge all subscribers a fair rate so that it's a self-contained project which provides exactly the service it was created to do.
The lower down the family tree you go the more sense it makes. I can say "evolution is measured by how many descendants currently in existence" and that would be better than "number of children" or "number of grandchildren", but still not as good as "the number of descendants will ever exist".
The difference is, most people only live to see their grandchildren and thus only get to affect the lives of their grandchildren directly. From that point on it's the responsibility of their children to ensure the survival of the family genes. Thus natural selection should have a reasonable impact on grandparenting as well as parenting, not just survival.
Slashdot Mirror
I see that as a slightly different issue. But in any case, I'd say six figure genes are probably fit to survive even if their reproductive mechanisms aren't entirely in order.
That's what I'm saying. It's random, so the results that do work are the ones that are "naturally selected" from the pool of all possible mutations.
Contrast that with human screening. The "working" results will still be naturally selected, but the pool of possible mutations is artificially truncated. We will miss a lot of beneficial mutations that humans don't necessarily prefer.
People have cared about the survival of their genes since the beginning of time. It's why our species still exists.
Yes. But perhaps it is more helpful to have random mutations, and let natural selection decide what is beneficial. Letting humans decide what is preferable would definitely be some kind of selection and would create "evolution" in a sense. But I believe that the time-tested natural selection is more reliable when it comes to the survival of our species.
Actually outlawing sex selection doesn't solve the problem. Allowing it might lead to a more humane situation than what is currently going on.
Kind of off-topic: but I think we're going down a slippery slope when we start screening DNA. It works against the process of evolution. What if there's a new fatal disease that only people with the breast cancer trait are equipped to fight?
Also Gattaca: society could expect a certain baseline of traits for what is "human". So people who don't meet that could be considered disabled, or worse.
Actually in economics, we measure items by "utility", not pure currency. So if art brings joy to someone, it makes sense within the economic framework to produce it, as long as the joy it brought is greater than the work it cost to produce.
Wow my first Slashdot troll in years of being a member.
I have to admit, if I didn't have the word "all" in there, this is easy misinterpret. It's my fault for using the word "any" for emphasis.
Why? To be fair, if I had said "deluded to think any P2P is ethical", it can be ambiguous. It can be interpreted that "thinking there exists an ethical form of P2P is delusional".
On the other hand I used the word "are", which to me implies that "any" in this case is interchangeable with "all". And it should convey to the reader that I meant, "thinking all forms of P2P are ethical is delusional".
So grammatically, you're not completely off-base. But comon... who with any grain of common sense would a) have meant to post #1 and 2) have interpreted my words to have meant #1?
No. It's proof they have the weight of the constitution. That's different from ethics. Don't let this delude you into thinking that any and all forms of p2p are ethical.
Is it just me, or does the article make it seem like Acer is merely bundling 3D software with their hardware. "Built-in software" really means nothing to me unless this is somehow part of the BIOS or it relies on special hardware they provide.
"We would prefer to participate in the sale of our products, especially when we spend years putting one of these things together and we have to continue to provide support for all these new customers without creating any new revenue from it at all," said Pete Hines, vice president of Bethesda Softworks. "We're not big fans of that."
True they spent years putting one of these things together, but they were already compensated by the first play through. True they have to continue to support these "new customers", but they get to stop supporting the "old customers" - that is, the people who sold the games to the new customers.
Why not make a game more self sufficient so they don't have to spend as much resources supporting it, or prolong the lifetime of the game so buyers in the primary market won't want to sell it?
To be clear, my words aren't completely fair to the single player, storyline play-through type of games, like single player RPGs or TPSs. But for those I think they'd have have to suck it up - book publishers have been putting up with the same for years.
Good point. The funny thing is, in my case they don't even get the $200 from me. Gamestop does. These publishers tend to release their games under "Greatest Hits" after a couple of years, so the box is different from the original packaging. Most people, I included, would much rather have the original box than the Greatest Hits box if we plan on keeping the game. Gamestop still sells used games for the same original packaging for an even cheaper price. You just have to find a box that's in good quality.
They are a part of memory management. When a program allocates memory, it has to free it. In most programming languages, the programmer will manually decide when memory is freed. This is usually when the memory that was allocated is no longer needed - say you loaded a file to memory to run some calculations and you just finished, so now you free that file from memory because you don't need to access it anymore. That freed area of memory can now be used for other purposes. Java has a built in "garbage collector" that will take care of freeing memory for you. In general, a garbage collector will keep track of each piece of allocated memory; it is responsible for knowing when your program is no longer using the memory and initiate the freeing of that area of memory.
Let's not forget that there was an avenue by which people can easily vote to name the space module "Colbert". This seems like a poorly thought out prank you're pulling. At least you disguised it under some action news.
No but if you eventually produced children and they eventually produced children before your liver kicked it from shrapnel, then you survived it.
Since most adults are not trained from childhood to have "telekinesis", would introducing such a UI help train specific areas of the children's brains so that they are better equipped to use this "telekinesis"?
Hmpff! Never would it deter a properly trained ninja...
It's also a balancing act. I don't want everyone in my household to easily have access to my computer without knowing my password. Doesn't mean I expect my computer to be 100% screwdriver proof.
The blog writer is highlighting it in context of "the greater good" of the city. But I'm talking from within the framework for free-market principles. I'm saying the bill doesn't make sense from a free-market perspective either.
Also free-market vs. socialism would be a much more apt debate if this project was funded by tax dollars, which it seems not to be (for the most part).
They're trying to kill other such projects in the womb. The less incentive to work on such a risky project, the fewer people will try to do it. If Bumble, NC, sees Wilson, NC running a successful ISP which manages to pay for costs AND other projects, they have a big incentive to start their own ISP. On the other hand, if the ISP just does what it does but doesn't benefit other departments, there's almost zero incentive for Bumble, NC to do this. They don't already have an ISP department - they just care about running their other services.
Not only does it show that these companies should be able to do better than 10-4/phone/35, but it shows that these companies should be able to do better than 10-10/phone/81. This business is definitely an economy of scale with technology being a common resource that can be easily reapplied.
This is a very interesting idea. Logistically how would that work? How do you ensure that a for-profit organization will not act in the direction of how TWC acts?
This has happened before, for a municipal-sponsored project.
From the project manager's blog, some of what they are doing is actually fair: not allowing cities to price below costs. This makes a lot of sense and is actually good for competition. Not allowing subscription fees to pay for other city projects - this on the other hand is not necessarily fair. Ideally TWC should be pricing their service competitively to Greenlight such that no extra profit is left over to fund other city projects. But they don't want to do that. They just want to minimize the threat from Greenlight given that they can't get rid of them. In my opinion, though, a public service using public resources should not overcharge to begin with - it should charge all subscribers a fair rate so that it's a self-contained project which provides exactly the service it was created to do.
What do you mean the earth goes around the sun in a much higher percentage? They should go around each other exactly the same.
The lower down the family tree you go the more sense it makes. I can say "evolution is measured by how many descendants currently in existence" and that would be better than "number of children" or "number of grandchildren", but still not as good as "the number of descendants will ever exist".
The difference is, most people only live to see their grandchildren and thus only get to affect the lives of their grandchildren directly. From that point on it's the responsibility of their children to ensure the survival of the family genes. Thus natural selection should have a reasonable impact on grandparenting as well as parenting, not just survival.