I was coming here to say Toddler Lock also. I found it to be perfect for letting my daughter play with my phone when she was little. It makes nice chime sounds and bright lines or shapes with any touch of the screen. All the buttons get interrupted also so they can't leave the app and do anything else on your phone or tablet. It does enough to keep little ones interested without being complicated or overstimulating. So great I bought the donate version!
I find the school shootings to be similar to the rashes of teen suicides that follow the media coverage of a teen suicide. There are lots of other teens that decide to copy the first suicide to get the attention that they did. The media got smart and rarely covers teen suicide like it used to to help cut down on the copy-cats. The school shootings are just the new version of that. The person is thinking of suicide and wants the attention. Regular suicide won't get it, but the shooting spree suicide gets lots of national coverage, which one would you choose. When the media stops covering the school shootings, then the homicidal/suicidal people will need to find a new way to get attention. It doesn't solve the underlying problem though, the mental health of the suicidal person. I still think it would go a long way to keeping young people in school safer though. You can't ban the news coverage though, as that's a first amendment right. It needs to be a decision of the news people themselves.
However, #1, you can buy a used Mac Mini for a couple hundred dollars, so it's not that much. #2, the guidelines for what is allowed in the store are very well known, and there is a 95% passage rate. That's not much of a risk. #3, the Apple App Store is still more popular, so if you're selling your apps, you're probably going to make more money there than on Android.
You have some very good points. #1 in particular. I guess I didn't even consider how cheap it might be to get a computer I would need. Right now I am using what I have and learning how Android works.
#3 is a good point and I have thought about it. Even though I know the Apple user base is bigger, I am not aware of how much. Is it only double, or something like 10 times? It would be another system to learn, so my development would slow down. It is something I do in the evenings or weekends. Spitting my time re-coding everything for a whole new system, plus having to learn all the new ways you do things for the iPhone, or learning the new language, are all things that will cut down on how much I can do. Once I am fully up to speed on Android, and have a few games out, then it would be worth looking at porting things over.
#2 is fine, I haven't looked at the guidelines or approval rate. I am sure I could get the app approved. It is more of a principal there. I don't even want to use an iPhone because of the walled garden mentality. So dealing with getting every patch or update I put out through a process sounds annoying. I just post my file and it is immediately published for the world.
The iPhone system has the advantage of more consistent device attributes. Developing for Android is annoying for the huge variety of devices you have to consider. But, it also allows for unique devices. There is a company in Dubai that is setting up some Galaxy tablets for use in expensive hotels where the customers use time credits to access a library of apps. When activated, the app is downloaded. I doubt you could even set up a system like that on iPhone. You certainly can't create and customizations to the OS like you could for Android.
Did you seriously just claim that $99 is HUGE(in all caps, even)? Seriously? I would imagine, for the average developer, $99 per year is VERY low on their expenses, after things like coffee.
We clear have different definitions of HUGE...
You forgot to add in the cost of the Apple computer required to do the development. Then you do the work making or porting the app, and Apple decides they don't want to allow it on their market. That's a loss of $1000 or so all for nothing in return. Sorry, I don't find that worth it. I will stick with Android, where for one single $25 application I am guaranteed to have any apps I make visible and available on the Google Play market for as long as I want them there.
Even the Amazon market wants a yearly $99 fee to puts apps on it. At this time I only have one app. I don't feel like giving up $99 for a possibility of a few more sales. Once I have another game or two I will probably do that. But there is no porting work or new computer to buy so I can justify the cost alone. It's the cost plus extra work plus the restrictions on development and approval that turn me away.
The vaccines don't work as well as the government and pharmaceutical companies will tell you. For one, Merck has been lying for 40 years about the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine. These companies have also been found to falsify the results of the side effects to make that look better than it is.
In the past, people would get measles and most of them would get over it fine. Then they have lifetime immunity. With the vaccine they don't get lifetime immunity, so they need constant boosters, or we end up with outbreaks in populations where most people are immunized. It seems very unscientific to me to say it is the un-immunized people's fault that people who got the vaccine are still getting sick. If the vaccine doesn't work so well, then why risk the side effects of getting it. When you look at all the possible side effects of the vaccine and compare it to the chance of possible problems from getting the disease, sometime there is more risk in getting the vaccine.
The government likes to push the vaccines onto young kids before their immune system has even developed. They aren't effective for young kids under 15 months old, but they still give them. In the past, the children would get immunity passed on to them from their mothers. But now that the mothers only have the vaccine immunity (which does not work as well), they don't get the immunity they would have gotten. So the medical profession says we must give more vaccines to the kids while they are even younger. Again, when something isn't working, you should not push for more of it.
There are also studies that have found getting a vaccine can increase you risk of getting sick later. Getting a flu shot will make you much more susceptible to getting swine flu. But getting the flu does not. The vaccine derived immunity is not the same as the real thing. It does not last as long, it is not as effective, and it can cause other unexpected results. There was an animal study I read about where different animals were given different types of the same vaccine. The interaction of the two vaccines used for the same thing created a new infectious disease. There is a lot more to vaccines than the "experts" will tell you about. Most doctors probably don't even know all the facts.
Research from the University of Melbourne has shown that two different vaccine viruses- used simultaneously to control the same condition in chickens- have combined to produce new infectious viruses, prompting early response from Australia's veterinary medicines regulator.
It is these issues and more that make me think about each vaccine individually. I do think the herd immunity is valuable and I don't think it is worth skipping a vaccine just because everyone else has it already. But when the disease is only as bad as getting diarrhea or even just a cold, why get a vaccine for that (there are vaccines for very mild diseases). Each shot has it's risk of complications, so minimize to only the ones that provide valuable protection. I also will wait till my child is older to get many of the shots. Once their immune system has developed they work better and have less risks. Plus, since my child got pertussis very young, I will not be giving her the DPT shot. I will instead get individual shots for diphtheria and tetanus. The actual disease has given her lifelong immunity that works way better than the stupid shot does, so why add the extra risks associated with the shot when it adds no benefit.
Yeah, but saying there is no chance of the human race going extinct is a little short sighted. If the temperature changes fast enough or far enough thenthe only technology that would save us would be going into space and collonizing another planet. Perhaps rather than using dinosaurs in my retort it would have been better to use one of the extinct homo-sapien relatives.
Claiming nobody has died from a vaccine is retarded. So they call it death by infection instead, or whatever category they want to stick it under. There is a reason the vaccines have a huge list of side effects, including death, and it isn't for the fun of it. Vaccines are useful, but you must make a risk\benifit analysis or you are just another idiot who expects others to take care of you. Do you also think nobody dies due to being in a hospital. Plenty of people pick up infections in the hospital that kill them. That dosn't mean you don't go to the hospital if you have a serious problem, but it does mean you are stupid if you go there for little reason. Then when you pick up the infection and die, you can rest assured that the cold you went in for didn't kill you.
The anger is to be expected. I don't necessarily agree with the polemical approach, but it's totally understandable. Vaccines are not mysterious at all. We understand how they work, we know that they DO work, and self-important cranks are out there convincing people not to vaccinate their kids. They are within their rights, no doubt, but so are the people who call them any sort of mean names. They cause harm! Not only to themselves, but also to those who cannot receive vaccines and who rely on herd immunity to protect them from dangerous diseases. The proud ignorance combined with the public health issues is enough to cause rage.
I think you need to learn more about what we don't know. For example, we don't know why people who get a disease and get over it are immune for life. But the people who get the vaccine need regular boosters for the rest of their life. Even then, there are cases where a vaccine appears to have given the people who got it less resistance to other, related diseases. The one I read about last was a flu vaccine and the swine flu. Not sure the direction, but the vaccine of one made it much more likely you would get the other in the wild.
I think vaccines are very useful for certain diseases. I also think they are pushing way too many of them and for diseases that are not life threatening. I don't want my 2 year old getting a vaccine for sexually a transmitted disease. If that means I can't put them into the public school system without some sort of exemption, then so be it. If you want to be part of the herd, then go ahead. I don't think you have the right to tell me what I must put into my body. Especially since the companies that make the stuff are not honest and straight forward with their study results.
Care to give some examples for Sallies, Henries and their brothers?
And as a site note, if 1 of 1,000,000 dies due to an illness comming from vaccination, that is far better than if 300,000 from 1,000,000 die because no one is vaccined.
Except that the vaccine company lied about their studies, and it's actually more like 50,000 that die from the vaccination's side effects. They also lied about the effectiveness of the vaccine, so you still have another 200,000 get the disease and die anyway. And then, most diseases were on their way down due to people starting to wash their hands and things like that at the time vaccination was invented, so the 300,000 would actually be more like 150,000. So, I don't buy your argument at all.
I was there! I saw the Y2K things going wrong. I don't understand the people who say that nothing happened on that day. I experienced power outages in a dark underground bar. Then when things came back online, the registers would not work for the rest of the night. That's Y2K, right there! Plus, I'm sure glad that people put in the effort to fix the really bad things that could have happened.
I think it is a stupid idea to place this where there will be lots of damage when things get out. And they will get out. Just like it is impossible to have code with zero bugs, it is impossible there will be no mistakes.
Does anyone else remember this report about the air flow being redirected from inside the lab to the hallway outside where people don't wear protective gear? Bad Air Vents
In February, air from inside a potentially contaminated lab briefly blew outward into a “clean” corridor where a group of visitors weren’t wearing any protective gear which raised concern about exposure risks, according to e-mails reporting and discussing what happened. Research animals in the lab had not yet been infected at the time of the incident, the records say.
Investors don't care about inertia. They care about growth. Microsoft really has nowhere left to grow, at least nowhere that hasn't already been solidly claimed by another company. Their stock has been flat for 10 years. That's a long fucking time. Who wants to invest in a company without much real visible future growth potential? So the investors will pull out, and MS will coast on "inertia" for a while, but then what? What's their long-term plan for growth? I don't see them competing effectively in any market, at least with Ballmer at the wheel.
What do investors or stock have anything to do with running a company. Do you think that the stock price going up somehow ends up with more money in Microsoft's pocketbook? It is simply gambling on what people think companies will do in the future. The only time a company gets money from stock is at the IPO. Someone can feel free to correct me if I got this wrong, I'm not really a stock expert. I just don't understand why companies care all that much about their stock price, unless they are looking to sell to another company.
So you use the electricity to turn CO2 and water into long chains of hydrocarbons. We have the technology to do this. In fact, I read it here an/. not too long ago.
To wit: The government should simply stay out of it. No repressing or encouraging one form of energy or another. The Market will out the most cost effective and desirable energy supply without government interference.
I am mostly a minimal government guy. I would rather they stop messing with as much as they do. They mostly just screw it up and cost too much in taxes. But the other day I heard a pretty good point on the radio. The new forms of sustainable energy (solar panels, etc.) will take a while before they become economical. During that time, if we aren't putting in the research into making them better and more cost effective we will be out of the race. So 20 years from now, oil is so expensive that we all use wind and solar and whatever else to make electricity to run everything. The panels and wind generators will end up being made by Chinese companies because their government paid for their companies to create those products. The business world is only interested in something if it can generate a profit in the next quarter or two. A couple decades out is way too far for our business environment to wait.
Perhaps the "free market" is the way we should go. We might pull something out at the last minute or we might be a third world country at that point with all the latest and greatest made elsewhere. It's gone that way already with most manufacturing, but we still seem to be at the top of the computing world. Good thing the government invested in all that computing and internet stuff back in the day.
Sure, it's logic in that you determine if the symbol already exists in the row or column. And you could write a program to solve them, and programs are math. But you can also write a program to print out the English dictionary, so the words in the English language are now math. That has gotten us nowhere. Thanks for your very helpful insight.
Personally, I don't use any addition, multiplication, subtraction, or division when doing Sudoku. Nor do I use and AND, OR, or XOR logic. To me it is the elimination of possibilities until you find the only number that can go in a square. If the Russian flag was already in a column and I narrow that space down to the Red Triangle, I don't see that as very math related at all.
I like the uni-ball pens pretty well. They have very dark black ink, not the greyish squiggles that most pens leave. Plus, they write immediately without the dry tip that lots of pens have. It may leave a small glob at the start though and it takes a minute to dry so if you touch it right away it will smear.
The new pen I have found that I like pretty well is the Tul pen and pencil. I got the one with the cap, not the retractable. I think the retractable is a gel pen so I don't know how good it may be. The pen has a pretty good black, not quite as dark as the uni-ball, but not really a grey color either. It is a very fine line and it has no glob at the start, but there may be a slight bit of dry ink at the start of the writing. It isn't as bad as most pens that have that characteristic, but it does exhibit that problem slightly. I bet the glob vs dry tip are a trade off and it would be hard to find a pen that doesn't have one or the other of these traits. One of the things I love about the pencil is that the eraser holder has a screw thread that pushes it out further for when it gets warn down. Most mechanical pencil erasers are pretty useless as they wear down quick and then that's it.
Fine, I'll take it any time. Not only do I hate getting the flu, when the deadly avian flu desaster strikes some day, I'd finally like to put all the doomsday scenario survival skills I've practised in video games for years to a test.:-)
You probably won't get the chance.
There's probably a VERY good reason these conserved regions are not attacked by antibodies, even though it would be evolutionarily beneficial to do so. About the only good reasons are
(1) the way antibodies work, it is impossible (if that were the case, this article wouldn't be here for a few more decades - until we have better gene therapy and could change what antibodies can do)
(2) targeting that site would lead to false positives on things that are more beneficial than the flu is harmful.
Plus, some studies have found that getting the regular flu shot has made it more likely you will catch the swine flu. So if you are happy being an experimental Guinea pig, then that is fine by me.
Slashdot Mirror
I was coming here to say Toddler Lock also. I found it to be perfect for letting my daughter play with my phone when she was little. It makes nice chime sounds and bright lines or shapes with any touch of the screen. All the buttons get interrupted also so they can't leave the app and do anything else on your phone or tablet. It does enough to keep little ones interested without being complicated or overstimulating. So great I bought the donate version!
I find the school shootings to be similar to the rashes of teen suicides that follow the media coverage of a teen suicide. There are lots of other teens that decide to copy the first suicide to get the attention that they did. The media got smart and rarely covers teen suicide like it used to to help cut down on the copy-cats. The school shootings are just the new version of that. The person is thinking of suicide and wants the attention. Regular suicide won't get it, but the shooting spree suicide gets lots of national coverage, which one would you choose. When the media stops covering the school shootings, then the homicidal/suicidal people will need to find a new way to get attention. It doesn't solve the underlying problem though, the mental health of the suicidal person. I still think it would go a long way to keeping young people in school safer though. You can't ban the news coverage though, as that's a first amendment right. It needs to be a decision of the news people themselves.
Good for you; I hope you're successful.
However, #1, you can buy a used Mac Mini for a couple hundred dollars, so it's not that much. #2, the guidelines for what is allowed in the store are very well known, and there is a 95% passage rate. That's not much of a risk. #3, the Apple App Store is still more popular, so if you're selling your apps, you're probably going to make more money there than on Android.
You have some very good points. #1 in particular. I guess I didn't even consider how cheap it might be to get a computer I would need. Right now I am using what I have and learning how Android works.
#3 is a good point and I have thought about it. Even though I know the Apple user base is bigger, I am not aware of how much. Is it only double, or something like 10 times? It would be another system to learn, so my development would slow down. It is something I do in the evenings or weekends. Spitting my time re-coding everything for a whole new system, plus having to learn all the new ways you do things for the iPhone, or learning the new language, are all things that will cut down on how much I can do. Once I am fully up to speed on Android, and have a few games out, then it would be worth looking at porting things over.
#2 is fine, I haven't looked at the guidelines or approval rate. I am sure I could get the app approved. It is more of a principal there. I don't even want to use an iPhone because of the walled garden mentality. So dealing with getting every patch or update I put out through a process sounds annoying. I just post my file and it is immediately published for the world.
The iPhone system has the advantage of more consistent device attributes. Developing for Android is annoying for the huge variety of devices you have to consider. But, it also allows for unique devices. There is a company in Dubai that is setting up some Galaxy tablets for use in expensive hotels where the customers use time credits to access a library of apps. When activated, the app is downloaded. I doubt you could even set up a system like that on iPhone. You certainly can't create and customizations to the OS like you could for Android.
Did you seriously just claim that $99 is HUGE(in all caps, even)? Seriously? I would imagine, for the average developer, $99 per year is VERY low on their expenses, after things like coffee.
We clear have different definitions of HUGE...
You forgot to add in the cost of the Apple computer required to do the development. Then you do the work making or porting the app, and Apple decides they don't want to allow it on their market. That's a loss of $1000 or so all for nothing in return. Sorry, I don't find that worth it. I will stick with Android, where for one single $25 application I am guaranteed to have any apps I make visible and available on the Google Play market for as long as I want them there.
Even the Amazon market wants a yearly $99 fee to puts apps on it. At this time I only have one app. I don't feel like giving up $99 for a possibility of a few more sales. Once I have another game or two I will probably do that. But there is no porting work or new computer to buy so I can justify the cost alone. It's the cost plus extra work plus the restrictions on development and approval that turn me away.
The vaccines don't work as well as the government and pharmaceutical companies will tell you. For one, Merck has been lying for 40 years about the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine. These companies have also been found to falsify the results of the side effects to make that look better than it is.
In the past, people would get measles and most of them would get over it fine. Then they have lifetime immunity. With the vaccine they don't get lifetime immunity, so they need constant boosters, or we end up with outbreaks in populations where most people are immunized. It seems very unscientific to me to say it is the un-immunized people's fault that people who got the vaccine are still getting sick. If the vaccine doesn't work so well, then why risk the side effects of getting it. When you look at all the possible side effects of the vaccine and compare it to the chance of possible problems from getting the disease, sometime there is more risk in getting the vaccine.
The government likes to push the vaccines onto young kids before their immune system has even developed. They aren't effective for young kids under 15 months old, but they still give them. In the past, the children would get immunity passed on to them from their mothers. But now that the mothers only have the vaccine immunity (which does not work as well), they don't get the immunity they would have gotten. So the medical profession says we must give more vaccines to the kids while they are even younger. Again, when something isn't working, you should not push for more of it.
There are also studies that have found getting a vaccine can increase you risk of getting sick later. Getting a flu shot will make you much more susceptible to getting swine flu. But getting the flu does not. The vaccine derived immunity is not the same as the real thing. It does not last as long, it is not as effective, and it can cause other unexpected results. There was an animal study I read about where different animals were given different types of the same vaccine. The interaction of the two vaccines used for the same thing created a new infectious disease. There is a lot more to vaccines than the "experts" will tell you about. Most doctors probably don't even know all the facts.
Research from the University of Melbourne has shown that two different vaccine viruses- used simultaneously to control the same condition in chickens- have combined to produce new infectious viruses, prompting early response from Australia's veterinary medicines regulator.
It is these issues and more that make me think about each vaccine individually. I do think the herd immunity is valuable and I don't think it is worth skipping a vaccine just because everyone else has it already. But when the disease is only as bad as getting diarrhea or even just a cold, why get a vaccine for that (there are vaccines for very mild diseases). Each shot has it's risk of complications, so minimize to only the ones that provide valuable protection. I also will wait till my child is older to get many of the shots. Once their immune system has developed they work better and have less risks. Plus, since my child got pertussis very young, I will not be giving her the DPT shot. I will instead get individual shots for diphtheria and tetanus. The actual disease has given her lifelong immunity that works way better than the stupid shot does, so why add the extra risks associated with the shot when it adds no benefit.
Yeah, but saying there is no chance of the human race going extinct is a little short sighted. If the temperature changes fast enough or far enough thenthe only technology that would save us would be going into space and collonizing another planet. Perhaps rather than using dinosaurs in my retort it would have been better to use one of the extinct homo-sapien relatives.
Claiming nobody has died from a vaccine is retarded. So they call it death by infection instead, or whatever category they want to stick it under. There is a reason the vaccines have a huge list of side effects, including death, and it isn't for the fun of it. Vaccines are useful, but you must make a risk\benifit analysis or you are just another idiot who expects others to take care of you. Do you also think nobody dies due to being in a hospital. Plenty of people pick up infections in the hospital that kill them. That dosn't mean you don't go to the hospital if you have a serious problem, but it does mean you are stupid if you go there for little reason. Then when you pick up the infection and die, you can rest assured that the cold you went in for didn't kill you.
Yes, because humans are completely incapable of adapting to a changing environment. I totally remember when the last glacial period wiped us all out.
Things change. We change. Things go on. We go on.
I think the dinosaurs said the same thing just a century or two before they were wiped out.
If you want to collapse civilisation, stop using fossil fuels. That'll do it.
The same fossil fuels that the deceased dinosaurs turned into. How ironic.
The anger is to be expected. I don't necessarily agree with the polemical approach, but it's totally understandable. Vaccines are not mysterious at all. We understand how they work, we know that they DO work, and self-important cranks are out there convincing people not to vaccinate their kids. They are within their rights, no doubt, but so are the people who call them any sort of mean names. They cause harm! Not only to themselves, but also to those who cannot receive vaccines and who rely on herd immunity to protect them from dangerous diseases. The proud ignorance combined with the public health issues is enough to cause rage.
I think you need to learn more about what we don't know. For example, we don't know why people who get a disease and get over it are immune for life. But the people who get the vaccine need regular boosters for the rest of their life. Even then, there are cases where a vaccine appears to have given the people who got it less resistance to other, related diseases. The one I read about last was a flu vaccine and the swine flu. Not sure the direction, but the vaccine of one made it much more likely you would get the other in the wild.
I think vaccines are very useful for certain diseases. I also think they are pushing way too many of them and for diseases that are not life threatening. I don't want my 2 year old getting a vaccine for sexually a transmitted disease. If that means I can't put them into the public school system without some sort of exemption, then so be it. If you want to be part of the herd, then go ahead. I don't think you have the right to tell me what I must put into my body. Especially since the companies that make the stuff are not honest and straight forward with their study results.
Care to give some examples for Sallies, Henries and their brothers?
And as a site note, if 1 of 1,000,000 dies due to an illness comming from vaccination, that is far better than if 300,000 from 1,000,000 die because no one is vaccined.
Except that the vaccine company lied about their studies, and it's actually more like 50,000 that die from the vaccination's side effects. They also lied about the effectiveness of the vaccine, so you still have another 200,000 get the disease and die anyway. And then, most diseases were on their way down due to people starting to wash their hands and things like that at the time vaccination was invented, so the 300,000 would actually be more like 150,000. So, I don't buy your argument at all.
I was there! I saw the Y2K things going wrong. I don't understand the people who say that nothing happened on that day. I experienced power outages in a dark underground bar. Then when things came back online, the registers would not work for the rest of the night. That's Y2K, right there! Plus, I'm sure glad that people put in the effort to fix the really bad things that could have happened.
I think it is a stupid idea to place this where there will be lots of damage when things get out. And they will get out. Just like it is impossible to have code with zero bugs, it is impossible there will be no mistakes.
Does anyone else remember this report about the air flow being redirected from inside the lab to the hallway outside where people don't wear protective gear? Bad Air Vents
In February, air from inside a potentially contaminated lab briefly blew outward into a “clean” corridor where a group of visitors weren’t wearing any protective gear which raised concern about exposure risks, according to e-mails reporting and discussing what happened. Research animals in the lab had not yet been infected at the time of the incident, the records say.
Investors don't care about inertia. They care about growth. Microsoft really has nowhere left to grow, at least nowhere that hasn't already been solidly claimed by another company. Their stock has been flat for 10 years. That's a long fucking time. Who wants to invest in a company without much real visible future growth potential? So the investors will pull out, and MS will coast on "inertia" for a while, but then what? What's their long-term plan for growth? I don't see them competing effectively in any market, at least with Ballmer at the wheel.
What do investors or stock have anything to do with running a company. Do you think that the stock price going up somehow ends up with more money in Microsoft's pocketbook? It is simply gambling on what people think companies will do in the future. The only time a company gets money from stock is at the IPO. Someone can feel free to correct me if I got this wrong, I'm not really a stock expert. I just don't understand why companies care all that much about their stock price, unless they are looking to sell to another company.
But they are the same greenhouse gasses that were removed from the air to make the hydrocarbons. In the end it is carbon neutral.
So you use the electricity to turn CO2 and water into long chains of hydrocarbons. We have the technology to do this. In fact, I read it here an /. not too long ago.
It just like the child that was abused. When they grow up, they become the abuser of their own children.
Ok, ok. I concede that formal logic is involved in solving Sudoku puzzles.
To wit: The government should simply stay out of it. No repressing or encouraging one form of energy or another. The Market will out the most cost effective and desirable energy supply without government interference.
I am mostly a minimal government guy. I would rather they stop messing with as much as they do. They mostly just screw it up and cost too much in taxes. But the other day I heard a pretty good point on the radio. The new forms of sustainable energy (solar panels, etc.) will take a while before they become economical. During that time, if we aren't putting in the research into making them better and more cost effective we will be out of the race. So 20 years from now, oil is so expensive that we all use wind and solar and whatever else to make electricity to run everything. The panels and wind generators will end up being made by Chinese companies because their government paid for their companies to create those products. The business world is only interested in something if it can generate a profit in the next quarter or two. A couple decades out is way too far for our business environment to wait.
Perhaps the "free market" is the way we should go. We might pull something out at the last minute or we might be a third world country at that point with all the latest and greatest made elsewhere. It's gone that way already with most manufacturing, but we still seem to be at the top of the computing world. Good thing the government invested in all that computing and internet stuff back in the day.
Sudoku is logic and logic is math.
Sure, it's logic in that you determine if the symbol already exists in the row or column. And you could write a program to solve them, and programs are math. But you can also write a program to print out the English dictionary, so the words in the English language are now math. That has gotten us nowhere. Thanks for your very helpful insight.
Personally, I don't use any addition, multiplication, subtraction, or division when doing Sudoku. Nor do I use and AND, OR, or XOR logic. To me it is the elimination of possibilities until you find the only number that can go in a square. If the Russian flag was already in a column and I narrow that space down to the Red Triangle, I don't see that as very math related at all.
Except you don't add anything in a Sudoku puzzle! Have you ever played one?!
Sudoku is not math related in any way. You could do a Sudoku puzzle with letters or pictures of flags if you wanted, they are just symbols.
If you aren't willing to be sued if your software fails or if your train drives into a car you aren't an engineer.
Fixed that for you.
What if I write the software for a train (locomotive)? My software could very well cause problems with the train.
I like the uni-ball pens pretty well. They have very dark black ink, not the greyish squiggles that most pens leave. Plus, they write immediately without the dry tip that lots of pens have. It may leave a small glob at the start though and it takes a minute to dry so if you touch it right away it will smear.
The new pen I have found that I like pretty well is the Tul pen and pencil. I got the one with the cap, not the retractable. I think the retractable is a gel pen so I don't know how good it may be. The pen has a pretty good black, not quite as dark as the uni-ball, but not really a grey color either. It is a very fine line and it has no glob at the start, but there may be a slight bit of dry ink at the start of the writing. It isn't as bad as most pens that have that characteristic, but it does exhibit that problem slightly. I bet the glob vs dry tip are a trade off and it would be hard to find a pen that doesn't have one or the other of these traits. One of the things I love about the pencil is that the eraser holder has a screw thread that pushes it out further for when it gets warn down. Most mechanical pencil erasers are pretty useless as they wear down quick and then that's it.
They cannot sue unless there is a shipping product. You can't sue for vaporware.
Now we just need to make it so you can't sue unless you have a shipping product. You shouldn't be able to sue with vaporware.
Fine, I'll take it any time. Not only do I hate getting the flu, when the deadly avian flu desaster strikes some day, I'd finally like to put all the doomsday scenario survival skills I've practised in video games for years to a test. :-)
You probably won't get the chance.
There's probably a VERY good reason these conserved regions are not attacked by antibodies, even though it would be evolutionarily beneficial to do so. About the only good reasons are
(1) the way antibodies work, it is impossible (if that were the case, this article wouldn't be here for a few more decades - until we have better gene therapy and could change what antibodies can do) (2) targeting that site would lead to false positives on things that are more beneficial than the flu is harmful.
Plus, some studies have found that getting the regular flu shot has made it more likely you will catch the swine flu. So if you are happy being an experimental Guinea pig, then that is fine by me.