Amaya is there to educate web designers and web-browser designers, so it has to be picky. That probably means that it's not a good web browser to use for browsing today's largely non-conforming www.
I agree. Furthermore, Amaya is pretty useful for viewing extremely compliant web pages that use parts of the w3c standard that neither Netscape nor IE support. Try viewing Amaya's default page in Netscape or IE...
Granted, there aren't many pages out there like that, but it's nice to know there's a browser that can save you in those cases.
ADH is the hormone responsible for water reabsorption in the lymph nodes (or something.) So if you have too much caffiene, you won't reabsorb much water, and then Nature will be calling much more often.
It's correct to say that "Red Hat is Not Linux" because it can be argued that the word "is" implies exclusiveness.
I think you can say "Red Hat is Linux" if Linux were used as a sort of adjective. "Red Hat is Good" wouldn't imply that Red Hat is the only thing that is good.
But I agree that "Linux is Not Red Hat." It's much less confusing.
No guarantees here-- I'm no English major. Or whatever.
Genetic engineering has a lot of good intentions, especially with medicinal uses. But this isn't the only use. There's also a great propensity for things like genetic enhancements and irreparable mistakes.
Genetic enhancements don't seem bad at first glance, because it would be very cool to increase your child's IQ or height by just changing a few codons around. But this has consequences that society might not be able to deal with. First, it has the potential for stratifying society. Affluents will have great opportunity to get these enhancements whereas the impoverished will have very little chance. As a result, we get a soceity where the rich not only have more money, but also can be smarter, stronger, better looking, etc. This creates a bad standard for society if we want to still adhere to principles of equality or equal opportunity. But secondly, social coercion becomes factor when some people start using genetic engineering. It'll become harder and harder for individuals to compete with those who are enhanced genetically. This, in turn, pressures parents to use genetic engineering on their children if they want to give them a fighting chance to survive in today's competitive society.
Of course, things like social stratification and social coerion aren't unique to genetic engineering at all. But there's no other technology that actually changes the people themselves in such a way that it passes down one's genetic legacy. This actually creates another problem with genetic engineering-- the possibility of damaging the human gene pool.
Once society starts eliminating all of the "bad" genes, genetic variety is drastically reduced. It sounds nice to be able to have a society without genes that cause cancer or cystic fibrosis, but the elimination of these genes can have negative effects. Without the sickle-cell anemia gene, individuals lose resistance to malaria. Likewise, the heterozygous trait for cystic fibrosis provides immunity to typhoid fever. Granted, genetic engineering could always put these genes back in with gene machines and gene splicing. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho wrote that "correct attempts at gene therapy are uniformly unsuccessful and are already posing unacceptable hazards for patients. At least 22 new germ-line mutations arise in each person [during germ-line therapy]." This might not be something we want to risk.
If we want to weigh the abuse and the intended purpose of genetic engineering, we should look at the consequences of both. Regardless of the way we use genetic engineering, there will be repercussions that we'll have to live with.
Slashdot Mirror
This guys used to call himself the blindfolded pianist. Identity crisis?
> This isn't the first time someone's made this claim, or second, or third ...
And if this story gets reposted, it'll seem like a fourth!
Who knows... you could have a Menuet based PDA or phone next year.
x86 assembly... that's one helluva porting job. do you really think they could be out next year?
An analysis of the WEP algorithm can be found here. The document points out a lot of the flaws in the algorithm and what attacks it is vulnurable to.
Perhaps they should try the Remora banner. =)
Is this a new song by Weird Al? What happened to It's All About the Pentium (2) and (3)?
(sorry =P)
And that would've been great publicity for Apple in the scientific community!
The maze is a Java applet.
If there's a time element, it's the wait for your browser to support Java =)
But not to worry, the source code is available.
Amaya is there to educate web designers and web-browser designers, so it has to be picky. That probably means that it's not a good web browser to use for browsing today's largely non-conforming www.
I agree. Furthermore, Amaya is pretty useful for viewing extremely compliant web pages that use parts of the w3c standard that neither Netscape nor IE support. Try viewing Amaya's default page in Netscape or IE...
Granted, there aren't many pages out there like that, but it's nice to know there's a browser that can save you in those cases.
Notice the animated "order products" button inviting us to buy their products?
ADH is the hormone responsible for water reabsorption in the lymph nodes (or something.) So if you have too much caffiene, you won't reabsorb much water, and then Nature will be calling much more often.
Firstbrook also takes issue with Linux's most famous feature--the fact that it is free.
Wrong "free".
Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous.
So you'd trust Microsoft?
It's correct to say that "Red Hat is Not Linux" because it can be argued that the word "is" implies exclusiveness.
I think you can say "Red Hat is Linux" if Linux were used as a sort of adjective. "Red Hat is Good" wouldn't imply that Red Hat is the only thing that is good.
But I agree that "Linux is Not Red Hat." It's much less confusing.
No guarantees here-- I'm no English major. Or whatever.
Genetic engineering has a lot of good intentions, especially with medicinal uses. But this isn't the only use. There's also a great propensity for things like genetic enhancements and irreparable mistakes.
Genetic enhancements don't seem bad at first glance, because it would be very cool to increase your child's IQ or height by just changing a few codons around. But this has consequences that society might not be able to deal with. First, it has the potential for stratifying society. Affluents will have great opportunity to get these enhancements whereas the impoverished will have very little chance. As a result, we get a soceity where the rich not only have more money, but also can be smarter, stronger, better looking, etc. This creates a bad standard for society if we want to still adhere to principles of equality or equal opportunity. But secondly, social coercion becomes factor when some people start using genetic engineering. It'll become harder and harder for individuals to compete with those who are enhanced genetically. This, in turn, pressures parents to use genetic engineering on their children if they want to give them a fighting chance to survive in today's competitive society.
Of course, things like social stratification and social coerion aren't unique to genetic engineering at all. But there's no other technology that actually changes the people themselves in such a way that it passes down one's genetic legacy. This actually creates another problem with genetic engineering-- the possibility of damaging the human gene pool.
Once society starts eliminating all of the "bad" genes, genetic variety is drastically reduced. It sounds nice to be able to have a society without genes that cause cancer or cystic fibrosis, but the elimination of these genes can have negative effects. Without the sickle-cell anemia gene, individuals lose resistance to malaria. Likewise, the heterozygous trait for cystic fibrosis provides immunity to typhoid fever. Granted, genetic engineering could always put these genes back in with gene machines and gene splicing. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho wrote that "correct attempts at gene therapy are uniformly unsuccessful and are already posing unacceptable hazards for patients. At least 22 new germ-line mutations arise in each person [during germ-line therapy]." This might not be something we want to risk.
If we want to weigh the abuse and the intended purpose of genetic engineering, we should look at the consequences of both. Regardless of the way we use genetic engineering, there will be repercussions that we'll have to live with.
The JPEG committee page has links to more information regarding this image format. http://www.jpeg.org/public/jpeglinks.htm
There's also a Stanford search at www.google.com/stanford