Just about _anyone_ who owned the rights to the OS that IBM distributed with their first widely distributed PC would have become the world's richest man.
Gates had a talent: Being born into a family that had the connections to let him broker a deal between IBM and the guy who wrote MS-DOS.
RTFA and you'll see that the Princeton boys have discovered homeostasis in gene expression.
The hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding their discovery would be more justified if they had actually found something that altered the haploid genetic information of gametes in a homeostatic fashion.
And they're insulting to Darwin when they say that he thought that evolution was "totally random". That's like the argument some of the more idiotic creationists make when they talk about taking a bunch of watch parts, shaking them up in a bag and assembling a watch.
Hey, since we're going all socialist and everything, how about just letting the Library of Congress maintain a complete archive of everything from Usenet as well as the Web? It's not like search technology to actually find stuff and return a list is so advanced that a government bureaucracy can't do it better than Google has(n't) been doing it.
Moreover you're assuming that the very-recent experiment (last generation or so) world of retirees depending solely on money rather than social capital is stable. But that experiment is clearly coming apart at the seams.
Don't forget the Congressional races. There are quite a number incumbents that voted for the "rescue" running against a major party candidate. Also quite a number of Congressmen held firm against the "rescue".
A joint committee between DARPA, Homeland Security, the CIA, NSA, FBI and BATF to day reported scientific findings supporting prior suspicions that neurons are a potential terrorist tool. The blue-ribbon committee recommends HLS licensing the expression of genes for BDNF as a precaution.
It's kind of hard to say "he wasn't talking about outer space" when he makes specific reference to the Apollo program and "rocket scientists". True, his response was to a proposal for an energy prize, but look at his own words.
The deal with Obama is basically "The New Deal" with more emphasis on racial politics this time around. The media is falling all over themselves in moral vanity.
It is certainly plausible that Obama wasn't very serious about what he said. It is, however, unfortunate if our main hope for avoiding another 50 years of technosocialist suppression of progress in space hinges on our faith in the next President's lack of integrity.
This winning flight is welcome good news at a time when many have concerns about a down-turn in commercial space and Obama, the likely next President of the United States has recently said of such prizes, "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win â" he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project..."
Such an engine would, of course, have some features that dynamically encached expansions (and/or "memoizations") similar to the Hotspot optimization technology that originated with the Self programming language (and was later adopted by Sun's Java Virtual Machine). Hence it would make sense to have the OS CD contain a partially pre-expanded/optimized code base.
In other words, one might, by going to a smaller but higher level of description, end up with an even larger binary image.
But there is something more important at stake in compiling from the highest level of description here:
My original reference to "invasion" involved the intent to abuse the L1 visa under outsourcing of jobs, which I consider legitimate with certain restrictions pertaining to intellectual property, to get around the limits on H-1b visas. That abuse is clearly an invasion by fraud.
The question of when immigration by mutual consent is a good thing is analogous to the question of when it is a good thing to adopt or marry. Indeed, if immigration were limited to literal adoption and marriage, it would be consistent with the preamble of the Constitution's reference to "our posterity". Otherwise, it is highly questionable due to carrying capacity limits.
No, the moment a government forms, the individuals have exchanged their sovereignty, which lets them claim as much territory as can defend wherever they like -- just as animals do -- for the government's obligation to uphold certain agreements.
Sometimes this is referred to as a "social contract".
Think of it as someone holding your land in trust for you -- taking on the obligation of defending it against your enemies in exchange for their status as trustee. If they violate that trust by allowing me onto your land against your wishes, then my presence on your land is illegitimate despite the fact that your trustee allowed me onto your land. Now both of us have a claim against the trustee.
If you want to see an example of this kind of "transaction" I suggest you look up the original intent of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the promises made by the Congressmen regarding that Act to the people they supposedly represented. Basically, your occupancy of land here is not legitimate -- you were sold property under improper title. You were defrauded, as were we.
Sovereign territory is, occasionally, exchanged for money. The Louisiana Purchase is a primary example. There is nothing that says sovereign territory allocation must only be money-based. Money isn't everything.
Hypocritical, eh? How about if some folks just walk into your house to engage in "free and fair competition" with you for occupancy of it? "Oh, but national boundaries are different!" hypocrites like you say. No, they ceased being different the moment the government was formed.
I used to advocate outsourcing as the proper alternative to H-1b visas because outsourcing doesn't violate freedom of association -- the foundation of all other human rights. However, I've recently learned that the L1 visa circumvents the H-1b visa by using outsourcing as a foot-in-the-door to get into a company which then transfers the employee to the US via the L1 visa.
The solution: Bring down the Federal government so we can defend out land from invasion.
governments, many of which are, like the American one, "of, by, and for the people".
And you indict my argument as ridiculous?
Thomas Jefferson at least had the excuse that to the west lay a huge territory largely occupied by people with relatively low carrying capacity technologies -- so he could more or less presume the assortative migration required for crafting an ethical State by scientists, as Jefferson saw himself, and as many other founders saw themselves.
However, to posit the language of that time and context can fit today's "liberal democracies", without a dramatic revision of language to take into account the unstated assumptions of their time, is itself ridiculous.
I've done that revision.
What scientists as citizens need to do is recognize that they do have a responsibility that falls to them as heirs of the tradition of Jefferson and other founders of the "laboratory of the states" to speak out and, if necessary, act, to prevent the further abuse of human rights entailed by the closing of the frontier -- now generations old.
Nor were court astrologers merely ranting on a street corner. They frequently served very important functions such as legitimizing the politically motivated decisions of the monarchs.
Among scientists, however, there is something known as the ethics. Scientific ethics have much to do with not only knowing, and admitting, the limits of your knowledge, but applying those ethics in their relationships with the rest of society.
In the present instance, the soft sciences have an ethical obligation to stand against the kind of systems that routinely subject humans to experimental treatment without their consent. Yes, this does mean that the international regime based on the idea of "liberal democracies", where populations within fixed territorial boundaries are subjected to a experimental treatments (aka "tyranny of the majority" limited only by a laundry list of selectively enforced "human rights") is ethically bankrupt from a scientific point of view.
The economists, sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, etc., have an ethical obligation to demand that their theories not be tested except on individuals that have consented to adopt them as working hypotheses (as quasi religious beliefs). This does mean that soft scientists have an ethical obligation to the rest of society to advocate the formation of experimental controls via assortative migration -- migration supported with all the moral and material force supporting human rights -- so that ideological purity is maintained within respective human ecologies.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow that got posted anonymously. A slip of the mouse I guess.
Anything that enhances BDNF or brain derived neurotrophic factor
Gates had a talent: Being born into a family that had the connections to let him broker a deal between IBM and the guy who wrote MS-DOS.
Gladwell is a sycophant.
RTFA and you'll see that the Princeton boys have discovered homeostasis in gene expression. The hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding their discovery would be more justified if they had actually found something that altered the haploid genetic information of gametes in a homeostatic fashion. And they're insulting to Darwin when they say that he thought that evolution was "totally random". That's like the argument some of the more idiotic creationists make when they talk about taking a bunch of watch parts, shaking them up in a bag and assembling a watch.
Hey, since we're going all socialist and everything, how about just letting the Library of Congress maintain a complete archive of everything from Usenet as well as the Web? It's not like search technology to actually find stuff and return a list is so advanced that a government bureaucracy can't do it better than Google has(n't) been doing it.
Moreover you're assuming that the very-recent experiment (last generation or so) world of retirees depending solely on money rather than social capital is stable. But that experiment is clearly coming apart at the seams.
Nice.
Only above the subsistence exemption: median price of a home plus median capitalization of a job.
And do you know how banks assess the in-place liquidation value of an asset presented as collateral?
This is yet another reason that in-place liquidation value, rather than economic activity, should be the basis for taxation.
Don't forget the Congressional races. There are quite a number incumbents that voted for the "rescue" running against a major party candidate. Also quite a number of Congressmen held firm against the "rescue".
If they voted for the "rescue plan", vote for the other guy.
A joint committee between DARPA, Homeland Security, the CIA, NSA, FBI and BATF to day reported scientific findings supporting prior suspicions that neurons are a potential terrorist tool. The blue-ribbon committee recommends HLS licensing the expression of genes for BDNF as a precaution.
It's kind of hard to say "he wasn't talking about outer space" when he makes specific reference to the Apollo program and "rocket scientists". True, his response was to a proposal for an energy prize, but look at his own words.
The deal with Obama is basically "The New Deal" with more emphasis on racial politics this time around. The media is falling all over themselves in moral vanity.
It is certainly plausible that Obama wasn't very serious about what he said. It is, however, unfortunate if our main hope for avoiding another 50 years of technosocialist suppression of progress in space hinges on our faith in the next President's lack of integrity.
This winning flight is welcome good news at a time when many have concerns about a down-turn in commercial space and Obama, the likely next President of the United States has recently said of such prizes, "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win â" he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project..."
In other words, one might, by going to a smaller but higher level of description, end up with an even larger binary image.
But there is something more important at stake in compiling from the highest level of description here:
Clarity.
The question of when immigration by mutual consent is a good thing is analogous to the question of when it is a good thing to adopt or marry. Indeed, if immigration were limited to literal adoption and marriage, it would be consistent with the preamble of the Constitution's reference to "our posterity". Otherwise, it is highly questionable due to carrying capacity limits.
Sometimes this is referred to as a "social contract".
Think of it as someone holding your land in trust for you -- taking on the obligation of defending it against your enemies in exchange for their status as trustee. If they violate that trust by allowing me onto your land against your wishes, then my presence on your land is illegitimate despite the fact that your trustee allowed me onto your land. Now both of us have a claim against the trustee.
If you want to see an example of this kind of "transaction" I suggest you look up the original intent of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the promises made by the Congressmen regarding that Act to the people they supposedly represented. Basically, your occupancy of land here is not legitimate -- you were sold property under improper title. You were defrauded, as were we.
Sovereign territory is, occasionally, exchanged for money. The Louisiana Purchase is a primary example. There is nothing that says sovereign territory allocation must only be money-based. Money isn't everything.
Hypocritical, eh? How about if some folks just walk into your house to engage in "free and fair competition" with you for occupancy of it? "Oh, but national boundaries are different!" hypocrites like you say. No, they ceased being different the moment the government was formed.
The solution: Bring down the Federal government so we can defend out land from invasion.
And you indict my argument as ridiculous?
Thomas Jefferson at least had the excuse that to the west lay a huge territory largely occupied by people with relatively low carrying capacity technologies -- so he could more or less presume the assortative migration required for crafting an ethical State by scientists, as Jefferson saw himself, and as many other founders saw themselves.
However, to posit the language of that time and context can fit today's "liberal democracies", without a dramatic revision of language to take into account the unstated assumptions of their time, is itself ridiculous.
I've done that revision.
What scientists as citizens need to do is recognize that they do have a responsibility that falls to them as heirs of the tradition of Jefferson and other founders of the "laboratory of the states" to speak out and, if necessary, act, to prevent the further abuse of human rights entailed by the closing of the frontier -- now generations old.
Among scientists, however, there is something known as the ethics. Scientific ethics have much to do with not only knowing, and admitting, the limits of your knowledge, but applying those ethics in their relationships with the rest of society.
In the present instance, the soft sciences have an ethical obligation to stand against the kind of systems that routinely subject humans to experimental treatment without their consent. Yes, this does mean that the international regime based on the idea of "liberal democracies", where populations within fixed territorial boundaries are subjected to a experimental treatments (aka "tyranny of the majority" limited only by a laundry list of selectively enforced "human rights") is ethically bankrupt from a scientific point of view.
The economists, sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, etc., have an ethical obligation to demand that their theories not be tested except on individuals that have consented to adopt them as working hypotheses (as quasi religious beliefs). This does mean that soft scientists have an ethical obligation to the rest of society to advocate the formation of experimental controls via assortative migration -- migration supported with all the moral and material force supporting human rights -- so that ideological purity is maintained within respective human ecologies.
The point is that there was no consensus model adhered to by the vast majority of economists that produced a consensus prediction.