That's not right. The god's name is Yahweh. We capitalize its title because we capitalize ALL of its titles and pronouns. And He said, "Let there be light", for example.
One thing I find interesting is that many people seem to want a beginning point. On a cosmic perspective, we are tiny. If we start dealing with creators, and their creators, and theirs and so on, we see that what we live in is a consequence of a process that has been going on "forever" (in some strange inter-cosmic sense of time) and will never end.
A surprising amount of Hindu "mythology" is meant to bring this point out. Whatever you can imagine, it isn't even a tiniest fraction of what we can talk about.
I forget some of the specifics, but there is an old Hindu story of a king who ascended to some kind of godhood, and met Ganesh in a weird infinite space (a cube of inward facing mirrors is a good way to picture it). There was an "uncountable" line of ants on the "ground" crawling by Ganesh. The new god had domain over "uncountably" many universes. And was very full of himself, because of that. Ganesh laughed, and said, "Each of those ants is one of your predecessors". The god-king became humbled. (Obviously I'm paraphrasing. I heard this from a Joseph Campbell lecture)
I guess I was hoping for a more positive answer, like, "We've figured out that if chromosomes are in this shape, then..." I already knew that skepticism is our (as scientists) collective default attitude.;0)
Well, a large genome generally means lots of redundancy.
You said "generally", so I'm not jumping on you for this, but "how do we know"? Who is to say the plant doesn't have hundreds of meters of codings for proteins that are no longer useful to the species? We only just sequenced the human genome a few years ago. This thing is 50 times as long. (Yeah, Moore's law is good stuff for the biotech industry, so it might be possible to sequence this plant in under a year, say, but still)
So if there are hundreds of meters of inactive protein coding... things, they're redundant, but not in any useful way.
Re:Can atheists refute one simple fact?
on
Largest Genome Ever
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else
That would be nice, but some things have to be done. And our two-party system ensures that thousands of things that don't have to be and shouldn't be done are included in our necessary bills.
Raising demand elasticity wouldn't hurt the consumer. In fact, higher demand elasticity helps the consumer. I strongly suspect that your economic theory here is just wrong. Higher education has become more necessary for the workforce since the G.I. Bill was passed (which indicates LOWERED demand elasticity). Indeed, the government student loan programs are all tied to being possibly conscripted.
(a side effect of monitors being wider than they are tall while pages are taller than they are wide, and also of the fact that most pages don't benefit from being given more width past a certain point - the extra space is left empty, or the lines of text are too long)
Erm, if you realize this, why do you maximize your browser? Set your browser window to a sane width, place/pin it to the left or right side. Now you've cleared up hundreds or even a 1000 pixels of useful screen space. My monitor is certainly wider than it is tall. And I take advantage of that fact to have TWO greater-than-an-A4-page-sized regions of useful space.
Indeed, throwing a sidebar into the browser is a waste of space. Horizontal space is FAR more valuable than vertical space, when you start putting windows next to each other.
This design looks like it is specialized for being maximized. Some of us don't do that. In fact, some of us really hate maximizing windows. Right now, my browser window is about 10 inches wide by 16 inches tall. And I have a terminal window and video player next to it. (And a text editor with a transparent background over-or-under the browser at all times). My screen space allocation is optimally efficient for my use. Throwing a side-bar in will just waste an inch an a half of my valuable and comparatively scarce (since I use it and would use more if programs became more horizontally efficient...) horizontal space.
So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste.
I disagree. I didn't get a 24inch monitor to make webpages wider. I got one so I could open multiple contexts side-by-side, on a single screen. I have essentially maxed out my utility of vertical space. I have a good 14 inches of vertical space. My documents are rendered on screen bigger that print-size.
That said, my text editor has a tab-like construct attached on its left, and it causes me some browsing problems, because it isn't partially transparent like the rest of the text editor.
Next time, try actually helping, rather than just being hostile. If I'm expressing myself poorly, then I'd much rather you provide helpful suggestions.
Excuse me? This is exactly what I did. You are expressing yourself poorly. I explained what copyright is (the right to restrict distribution of a material), and what that means for your argument. If I hold a copyright on a material, I can choose any license I want, based on my ownership of said copyright. For example, I can grant others the right to distribute my copyrighted materials. Even conditionally. There is nothing special about this. In short, licensing is closer to an issue of contract law.
This sort of thing happens all the time. If the government mandates "cap and trade", they will have turned "surplus" carbon emissions into a kind of "property" which can be bought, sold, and contracted. That doesn't mean that anybody HAS to buy, or sell, or use their surplus. That is up to them. They are given property rights. It is up to the owner of a property to exercise his rights, or not.
Now, what is up with your red herring regarding the Berne convention? Mixing somebody else's quote with mine, and attempting to "substitute" the occurrence is extremely poor rhetoric. Quotations are not referentially transparent. You lost context. In particular: The Berne Convention doesn't mention "special copyrights" because there is no such thing. There are only copyrights, which they do discuss in depth. The mechanism behind what you call "special copyrights" is merely and only copyright as it is known to everybody else. If you make a creative work, you have the right to control how it is distributed. You can choose to not exercise that right, by (1) ignoring that right (effectively but unofficially putting the work in the "public domain") or (2) granting people license to distribute the work, perhaps conditionally as you see fit.
It's not "special" at all. Copyright is the right to restrict distribution. The right, not the responsibility or need. You are free to exercise your right, or to not exercise it.
So substitute phrase ought to be "copyright" in place of "special copyright".
Greed is simply the desire to profit. The "despite the negative consequences" is a kind of greed, perhaps.
That's not what the dictionary says. I can pretend things mean things they don't, too. And typically nobody will know what I'm talking about, or accept my non-standard usage. There is no such thing as a private language. It is no longer language if it is private.
Slashdot Mirror
Clbuttic!
That's not right. The god's name is Yahweh. We capitalize its title because we capitalize ALL of its titles and pronouns. And He said, "Let there be light", for example.
One thing I find interesting is that many people seem to want a beginning point. On a cosmic perspective, we are tiny. If we start dealing with creators, and their creators, and theirs and so on, we see that what we live in is a consequence of a process that has been going on "forever" (in some strange inter-cosmic sense of time) and will never end.
A surprising amount of Hindu "mythology" is meant to bring this point out. Whatever you can imagine, it isn't even a tiniest fraction of what we can talk about.
I forget some of the specifics, but there is an old Hindu story of a king who ascended to some kind of godhood, and met Ganesh in a weird infinite space (a cube of inward facing mirrors is a good way to picture it). There was an "uncountable" line of ants on the "ground" crawling by Ganesh. The new god had domain over "uncountably" many universes. And was very full of himself, because of that. Ganesh laughed, and said, "Each of those ants is one of your predecessors". The god-king became humbled. (Obviously I'm paraphrasing. I heard this from a Joseph Campbell lecture)
Good job. And the mass that will have to be accelerated? Indeed, you are no longer in a "zero gravity" frame of reference if you are accelerating.
I guess I was hoping for a more positive answer, like, "We've figured out that if chromosomes are in this shape, then ..." I already knew that skepticism is our (as scientists) collective default attitude. ;0)
Look! A Vim user!
Well, a large genome generally means lots of redundancy.
You said "generally", so I'm not jumping on you for this, but "how do we know"? Who is to say the plant doesn't have hundreds of meters of codings for proteins that are no longer useful to the species? We only just sequenced the human genome a few years ago. This thing is 50 times as long. (Yeah, Moore's law is good stuff for the biotech industry, so it might be possible to sequence this plant in under a year, say, but still)
So if there are hundreds of meters of inactive protein coding ... things, they're redundant, but not in any useful way.
Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else
You fail right there.
Wasps and hornets are invasive and territorial. And they will dive bomb you while you're in the shower, not surprising or angering them.
Because what they gain from the treaties beats what they could gain from renegotiating them...
Good thing the Holy Wars were settled. Vim won. ;0)
That would be nice, but some things have to be done. And our two-party system ensures that thousands of things that don't have to be and shouldn't be done are included in our necessary bills.
Raising demand elasticity wouldn't hurt the consumer. In fact, higher demand elasticity helps the consumer. I strongly suspect that your economic theory here is just wrong. Higher education has become more necessary for the workforce since the G.I. Bill was passed (which indicates LOWERED demand elasticity). Indeed, the government student loan programs are all tied to being possibly conscripted.
Russia does not have to follow USSR treaties. But renegotiation is pointless, if since they don't have the bargaining power the USSR did...
Your view of reality is severely warped. :0(
(a side effect of monitors being wider than they are tall while pages are taller than they are wide, and also of the fact that most pages don't benefit from being given more width past a certain point - the extra space is left empty, or the lines of text are too long)
Erm, if you realize this, why do you maximize your browser? Set your browser window to a sane width, place/pin it to the left or right side. Now you've cleared up hundreds or even a 1000 pixels of useful screen space. My monitor is certainly wider than it is tall. And I take advantage of that fact to have TWO greater-than-an-A4-page-sized regions of useful space.
Indeed, throwing a sidebar into the browser is a waste of space. Horizontal space is FAR more valuable than vertical space, when you start putting windows next to each other.
This design looks like it is specialized for being maximized. Some of us don't do that. In fact, some of us really hate maximizing windows. Right now, my browser window is about 10 inches wide by 16 inches tall. And I have a terminal window and video player next to it. (And a text editor with a transparent background over-or-under the browser at all times). My screen space allocation is optimally efficient for my use. Throwing a side-bar in will just waste an inch an a half of my valuable and comparatively scarce (since I use it and would use more if programs became more horizontally efficient...) horizontal space.
So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste.
I disagree. I didn't get a 24inch monitor to make webpages wider. I got one so I could open multiple contexts side-by-side, on a single screen. I have essentially maxed out my utility of vertical space. I have a good 14 inches of vertical space. My documents are rendered on screen bigger that print-size.
That said, my text editor has a tab-like construct attached on its left, and it causes me some browsing problems, because it isn't partially transparent like the rest of the text editor.
Because they want to stay on top.
Next time, try actually helping, rather than just being hostile. If I'm expressing myself poorly, then I'd much rather you provide helpful suggestions.
Excuse me? This is exactly what I did. You are expressing yourself poorly. I explained what copyright is (the right to restrict distribution of a material), and what that means for your argument. If I hold a copyright on a material, I can choose any license I want, based on my ownership of said copyright. For example, I can grant others the right to distribute my copyrighted materials. Even conditionally. There is nothing special about this. In short, licensing is closer to an issue of contract law.
This sort of thing happens all the time. If the government mandates "cap and trade", they will have turned "surplus" carbon emissions into a kind of "property" which can be bought, sold, and contracted. That doesn't mean that anybody HAS to buy, or sell, or use their surplus. That is up to them. They are given property rights. It is up to the owner of a property to exercise his rights, or not.
Now, what is up with your red herring regarding the Berne convention? Mixing somebody else's quote with mine, and attempting to "substitute" the occurrence is extremely poor rhetoric. Quotations are not referentially transparent. You lost context. In particular: The Berne Convention doesn't mention "special copyrights" because there is no such thing. There are only copyrights, which they do discuss in depth. The mechanism behind what you call "special copyrights" is merely and only copyright as it is known to everybody else. If you make a creative work, you have the right to control how it is distributed. You can choose to not exercise that right, by (1) ignoring that right (effectively but unofficially putting the work in the "public domain") or (2) granting people license to distribute the work, perhaps conditionally as you see fit.
It's not "special" at all. Copyright is the right to restrict distribution. The right, not the responsibility or need. You are free to exercise your right, or to not exercise it.
So substitute phrase ought to be "copyright" in place of "special copyright".
The government has presented evidence that he is an accessory to theft, and so can be charged with theft.
Ahmadinejad is an ethic Arab...
If the train is so close you can't get out of the car in time, you're screwed whether you can start it or not.
Greed is simply the desire to profit. The "despite the negative consequences" is a kind of greed, perhaps.
That's not what the dictionary says. I can pretend things mean things they don't, too. And typically nobody will know what I'm talking about, or accept my non-standard usage. There is no such thing as a private language. It is no longer language if it is private.