Yes, I did explain I understood that in my comment. I was a little unclear, because I used an untraditional writing style. What I did was bring up all the problems I found reading it, and try solve them. The intent was to help others who had similar misunderstandings. I should have been more clear on this.
So, I do understand the part abut releasing only the males, but I didn't understand why that would be very effective. It seemed to me that a sterile male would fail to impregnate a fertile female, and she would just get busy with some other, more virile male. Someone responded to that with the fact that female mosquitoes die soon after sex.
So, ultimately, TFA was lacking in two points. It was unclear as why "sterile females can still transmit malaria" whereas males cannot. It was also unclear on why this would be significantly effective. Statistically speaking, mosquitoes dying after sex makes this far, far more effective than having mosquitoes get it on like bonobos.
Anywho, thanks for getting a pretty dang good quote, even though I mention TFA says that females "still spread malaria" (blame my poor memory for the misquote). My main problem was that if you have no knowledge of the habits of mosquitoes, the effectiveness of the plan seems fairly questionable. Of course, this being a scientific journal, they have the right to assume the reader either has knowledge on the subject, or the ability to find knowledge on the subject. If you'll notice, I cite wikipedia as a source on why "sterile females can still transmit malaria," a fact I was previously unaware of.
I understand the function (and failings) of the model. What I didn't understand is why not release both males and females that were sterile. I figured out why, and explained it. Male mosquitoes don't suck blood, and thus do not spread the disease. When you release them, they cannot infect anyone.
Sorry that I was unclear above. I guess I used an unconventional writing style. =[
Thank you for explaining about the mating =]. That was bugging me (pun unintended).
The article wasn't too specific on the source of the mosquitoes, but an engineered population makes more sense than a captured one. Also, I'm pretty sure that the mosquitoes are bred in a lab, to give'em all glowin' gonads. Thus, by "sterilize them all" I meant sterilze both the males and females of the lab population. Ultimately, the problem with that is to release both genders is to release a disease-spreading insect. Thats why their gonads glow, so they only hafta release the males. That's what I meant above.
I refuted my own inquiry when I mentioned it. I wasn't very clear, I tried to suggest the thoughts I had on the article along with explanations I came across in case they were common misunderstandings.
Okay, why make their "gonads" flouresce if you're just gonna make'em sterile? Doesn't help in sorting the offspring.
This is what I gathered from TFA:
1 - Breed thousands of modified mosquitoes in a lab so the males have flourescent "gonads"
2 - Put them through a sorting machine that sorts out all the ones that glow
3 - Sterilize the batch that were glowing
4 - Release them into the wild and they'll hook up with the females
5 - Less baby mosquitoes
Problems that first occured to me with that:
1 - Why not just sterilize them all? Is that hard or something? It said that the females "still spread malaria" so maybe it's that only female mosquitoes suck blood. Thats what wikipedia says. So I guess they just don't want to introduce a whole bunch of disease carrying insects.
2 - Are mosquitoes monogamous? Why will this cut down on their population? If the males are sterile, won't the females still want to breed or something? Wikipedia doesn't go into that...
Firstly, I understand your point. It is irrational to fear new technologies and live in paranoia, and to be honest I do a lot of online shopping. I even send my debit info to any online store that has something shiny that catches my eye =].
But I never use online banking. I simply have no need to find out whether my rent check has been cashed or whatever, because I don't live paycheck to paycheck and I am perfectly able to live within my means. I am not a gambler, I mean day trader, and I keep my investments mostly in mutual funds that I actually talk to a human being for. That is what I mean by investing in person.
It is not too much trouble to pay four or five bills once a month by hand. Why do I trust the US Post more than the internet? Because it's a federal offense to tamper with the US mail. I can trust that totally insecure system because there's a legal catchall when the system fails me.
Lastly, this is not meant as a reciprocal flame (not that you were flaming me, just an ironically worded counterpoint, really), but just a funny thing I've been wanting to say for a while: Oh noes! Someone on the internets is making the fun of me! *cries*
Mac addresses can be faked and credit cards (and random number generators!) can be stolen. And whatever technical solution you can possibly find, it cannot interface with an insecure OS (such as Windows or many *nixs, prolly Macs too, but I'm not too savvy there) and remain secure. And as long as the vast majority of people use insecure OSes, a secure technical solution is unfeasible.
Thus, I disagree whole-heartedly. Law is the best safe-gaurd against criminals. Providing and advocating a legal recourse against online fraud will provide an avenue for banks to fight back. And it would be completely transparent for the end-user. They keep getting scammed while the banks go around pressing charges on the scammers until they're gone. I know it's fighting the symptom, not the cause, but sometimes that's better.
We all want to code like Torvalds and redesign the entire system from the bottom up whenever theres the teensiest bug, but we also all know that's unrealistic. Look at law as a CPU-intensive bug-fix for society. It'll provide it quick and easy stop-gap to the problems created by shifting to the e-commerce. We can worry about properly rebuilding the infrastructure in the next update =].
Actually, I don't believe adding additional protections to the websites is the idea. The idea is that the richest institutions in the world (banks) should be fighting phishers. They have the clout and the wearwithall to easily take scammers to court, and likely have branches in enough countries to try them locally, rather than sending futile "DMCA cease and desist"-like letters to non-US countries.
This might turn out to be a good idea, or maybe the banks will realize that the scammers are just doing what banks (historically) do, which is ripoff the poor and uneducated. Anywho, being a well-informed and adept engineer of the internet age, I still do all my investing in person because I'm paranoid as heck =].
They're trying to reconcile making the mad cash from catering to the soon-to-be-richest country in the world and compromising their company motto.
Imma write them a nasty letter. A girl I know is from Taiwan (mmm... hot Taiwanese girl...) and imma send them all the Taiwanese facts about their independence. I suggest you all find hot Taiwanese girls and do the same.
I'm just worried that focusing on only chemical-based rockets will drown out alternative rocket types (such as nuclear rockets). This will thereby not be (although it seems obvious it should be) a boon to rocket design and theory, but just a high-cost spectator sport. That would be a pity.
I just meant that the Otto-cycle internal combustion engines we use in cars today aren't the end-allbe-all of motive power. Given the amount of attention they've been given over the past hundred years or so, any other type of engine could easily be as efficient, or even more so.
Chemical rockets are simply too heavy to be realistically used for inter-planetary travel. What we really need is a type of propulsion that's much, much lighter for space travel.
I've always felt throwing small things would be the best method. Maybe simple radioactive decay, or using a power source to spin something to immense speeds and "throw" it at regular intervals.
Anywho, what I mean is chemical rockets are unrealistic for interplanetary travel, which is what we should be concentrating on if we're really thinking long-term.
Maybe that'll be the next type of race introduced. They had race cars and now race rockets, maybe I'm just hoping for a real space race. I suppose the costs would be unrealistic at this time to launch a bunch of competing ships into space.
Slashdot Mirror
I still have Windows 386 in the box in mint condition. I'm thinking of selling it on eBay for my kids' college funds in a decade or so.
If you can compile it, it will run.
Of course, that's a pretty big if.
Mod the summary -1 flamebait?
I liked your sig, so I clicked the ads a few times =]
I meant male-to-male 1/8" mini audio cables...
Regardless of what they sell in the front half of the store, I contend that Radio Shack remains a geek haven. =]
Solution not requiring electrical skillz: you can buy those now.
Yes, I did explain I understood that in my comment. I was a little unclear, because I used an untraditional writing style. What I did was bring up all the problems I found reading it, and try solve them. The intent was to help others who had similar misunderstandings. I should have been more clear on this.
So, I do understand the part abut releasing only the males, but I didn't understand why that would be very effective. It seemed to me that a sterile male would fail to impregnate a fertile female, and she would just get busy with some other, more virile male. Someone responded to that with the fact that female mosquitoes die soon after sex.
So, ultimately, TFA was lacking in two points. It was unclear as why "sterile females can still transmit malaria" whereas males cannot. It was also unclear on why this would be significantly effective. Statistically speaking, mosquitoes dying after sex makes this far, far more effective than having mosquitoes get it on like bonobos.
Anywho, thanks for getting a pretty dang good quote, even though I mention TFA says that females "still spread malaria" (blame my poor memory for the misquote). My main problem was that if you have no knowledge of the habits of mosquitoes, the effectiveness of the plan seems fairly questionable. Of course, this being a scientific journal, they have the right to assume the reader either has knowledge on the subject, or the ability to find knowledge on the subject. If you'll notice, I cite wikipedia as a source on why "sterile females can still transmit malaria," a fact I was previously unaware of.
Smart thinkin' =]
I understand the function (and failings) of the model. What I didn't understand is why not release both males and females that were sterile. I figured out why, and explained it. Male mosquitoes don't suck blood, and thus do not spread the disease. When you release them, they cannot infect anyone.
Sorry that I was unclear above. I guess I used an unconventional writing style. =[
Thank you for explaining about the mating =]. That was bugging me (pun unintended).
The article wasn't too specific on the source of the mosquitoes, but an engineered population makes more sense than a captured one. Also, I'm pretty sure that the mosquitoes are bred in a lab, to give'em all glowin' gonads. Thus, by "sterilize them all" I meant sterilze both the males and females of the lab population. Ultimately, the problem with that is to release both genders is to release a disease-spreading insect. Thats why their gonads glow, so they only hafta release the males. That's what I meant above.
I refuted my own inquiry when I mentioned it. I wasn't very clear, I tried to suggest the thoughts I had on the article along with explanations I came across in case they were common misunderstandings.
No, no, it's only IBM that doesn't care if your gonads glow.
Try to get a job at Sun (chosen at random) and you hafta drop your pants =]
Okay, why make their "gonads" flouresce if you're just gonna make'em sterile? Doesn't help in sorting the offspring.
This is what I gathered from TFA:
1 - Breed thousands of modified mosquitoes in a lab so the males have flourescent "gonads"
2 - Put them through a sorting machine that sorts out all the ones that glow
3 - Sterilize the batch that were glowing
4 - Release them into the wild and they'll hook up with the females
5 - Less baby mosquitoes
Problems that first occured to me with that:
1 - Why not just sterilize them all? Is that hard or something? It said that the females "still spread malaria" so maybe it's that only female mosquitoes suck blood. Thats what wikipedia says. So I guess they just don't want to introduce a whole bunch of disease carrying insects.
2 - Are mosquitoes monogamous? Why will this cut down on their population? If the males are sterile, won't the females still want to breed or something? Wikipedia doesn't go into that...
I know it's silly pseudoscience, I was just providing a link relevant to that movie =]
Tequila is made from agave, which often have a very slow life span. In some parts of the US a particular species is known as the "century plant."
This has been your biology update from the town drunkard.
Here's the guy (horrendous quality):
http://www.autodynamics.org/einstein_wrong.html
Arnold Poindexter: Wait - would you rather live in the ascendency of a civilization, or during its decline?
Haha, yes, I forgot that little part tying together providing legal recourse and making the banks use it. Thanks =].
Firstly, I understand your point. It is irrational to fear new technologies and live in paranoia, and to be honest I do a lot of online shopping. I even send my debit info to any online store that has something shiny that catches my eye =].
But I never use online banking. I simply have no need to find out whether my rent check has been cashed or whatever, because I don't live paycheck to paycheck and I am perfectly able to live within my means. I am not a gambler, I mean day trader, and I keep my investments mostly in mutual funds that I actually talk to a human being for. That is what I mean by investing in person.
It is not too much trouble to pay four or five bills once a month by hand. Why do I trust the US Post more than the internet? Because it's a federal offense to tamper with the US mail. I can trust that totally insecure system because there's a legal catchall when the system fails me.
Lastly, this is not meant as a reciprocal flame (not that you were flaming me, just an ironically worded counterpoint, really), but just a funny thing I've been wanting to say for a while: Oh noes! Someone on the internets is making the fun of me! *cries*
Mac addresses can be faked and credit cards (and random number generators!) can be stolen. And whatever technical solution you can possibly find, it cannot interface with an insecure OS (such as Windows or many *nixs, prolly Macs too, but I'm not too savvy there) and remain secure. And as long as the vast majority of people use insecure OSes, a secure technical solution is unfeasible.
Thus, I disagree whole-heartedly. Law is the best safe-gaurd against criminals. Providing and advocating a legal recourse against online fraud will provide an avenue for banks to fight back. And it would be completely transparent for the end-user. They keep getting scammed while the banks go around pressing charges on the scammers until they're gone. I know it's fighting the symptom, not the cause, but sometimes that's better.
We all want to code like Torvalds and redesign the entire system from the bottom up whenever theres the teensiest bug, but we also all know that's unrealistic. Look at law as a CPU-intensive bug-fix for society. It'll provide it quick and easy stop-gap to the problems created by shifting to the e-commerce. We can worry about properly rebuilding the infrastructure in the next update =].
Actually, I don't believe adding additional protections to the websites is the idea. The idea is that the richest institutions in the world (banks) should be fighting phishers. They have the clout and the wearwithall to easily take scammers to court, and likely have branches in enough countries to try them locally, rather than sending futile "DMCA cease and desist"-like letters to non-US countries.
This might turn out to be a good idea, or maybe the banks will realize that the scammers are just doing what banks (historically) do, which is ripoff the poor and uneducated. Anywho, being a well-informed and adept engineer of the internet age, I still do all my investing in person because I'm paranoid as heck =].
I seriously thought it was a comparison between Python and some scripting language I'd never heard of called Alligator.
I need to get out to the swamp more.
They're trying to reconcile making the mad cash from catering to the soon-to-be-richest country in the world and compromising their company motto.
Imma write them a nasty letter. A girl I know is from Taiwan (mmm... hot Taiwanese girl...) and imma send them all the Taiwanese facts about their independence. I suggest you all find hot Taiwanese girls and do the same.
Google! Don't be evil!
I already did.
I'm just worried that focusing on only chemical-based rockets will drown out alternative rocket types (such as nuclear rockets). This will thereby not be (although it seems obvious it should be) a boon to rocket design and theory, but just a high-cost spectator sport. That would be a pity.
I just meant that the Otto-cycle internal combustion engines we use in cars today aren't the end-all be-all of motive power. Given the amount of attention they've been given over the past hundred years or so, any other type of engine could easily be as efficient, or even more so.
Chemical rockets are simply too heavy to be realistically used for inter-planetary travel. What we really need is a type of propulsion that's much, much lighter for space travel.
I've always felt throwing small things would be the best method. Maybe simple radioactive decay, or using a power source to spin something to immense speeds and "throw" it at regular intervals.
Anywho, what I mean is chemical rockets are unrealistic for interplanetary travel, which is what we should be concentrating on if we're really thinking long-term.
Maybe that'll be the next type of race introduced. They had race cars and now race rockets, maybe I'm just hoping for a real space race. I suppose the costs would be unrealistic at this time to launch a bunch of competing ships into space.