Aye, but increasing gas consumption != decreased efficiency. The advantage of a turbocharged car is that you get more power out of a smaller engine when you need (want) it, and the benefits of a small engine when you don't. IIRC the turbocharger isn't quite as efficient as a supercharger because the additional back pressure generated, and turbo lag that you mentioned.
I'd also like to question how increased cost is no longer considered a downside, I don't think steam engines are free. Another thing, the 10 extra kW produced is equivalent to a whoping 13 hp, something you can most likely get cheeper, more simply and by bolting on a blower kit.
The trouble with true freedom is that you have to give it to people you don't like
The trouble with "true" freedom in the libertarian sense is that I sacrifice my safety for someone elses freedom.
In my opinion the second amendment isn't to protect me from Timmy, or Timmy from the giant talking toads. It exists so that I can protect my self from Uncle Sam. IMO (and I'm aware that this arguement can go both ways) this rational has deminished in power since Uncle Sam gained the ability to kill me from 30,000 ft.
Because I think that the 2nd amendment isn't designed to protect me from rif-raf I have less of a problem with M-4s being made available than I do with concealed carry permits. I think (and again this is an opinion) that there is some grounds for allowing us to stock wepons, but considerably less reason to allow people to carry them on public streets.
If Timmy the Meth Head has a M-4 I know for damn sure that I'm staying behind solid objects as I call the police. If Jonny the usually upstanding bouncer has a glock in his coat and some drunk asshat starts something Jonny may feel compeled to fire at him in a crowded bar. That is not a freedom I feel compelled to protect.
for the homeland isn't good enough - the motherland is far superior. Compare for instance difference between the the partiotic furor in Russia (motherland) and Germany (fatherland.) Psycologically its better to be fighting for mom than dad or home.
Yeah but we need some kind of pretense because the American public isn't going to stomach we're going to war to cover our debt. Oh and it has to hold up form more than six months - unlike WMD. Something like an assassination of an archduke, aggression on a friendly country, or bombing of a military installation.. I think Taiwan fits the bill.
What gets me is the "service" that credit card companies and credit reporting bureaus offer to protect you incase your identity is stolen - for a fee. Excuse me but how in the world can they ethically justify turning identity theft into a profit point.
Credit card companies have always (or for quite some time anyway) been on the hook for fraudulent charges, just as banks have always been on the hook for stolen money.
Why the rise of the internet should allow them to offer a service protecting you is nonsense, they are the ones begging for your money, they should be the ones protecting it. If I didn't buy something on credit I should not ever, ever have to pay for it. If it's too easy to pretend to be me that's their fault, not mine.
I hear some people whining about how their fees will increase because someone else's identity was stolen, and they weren't careful enough. Bullshit. You can get your identity stolen even if you're careful, as was the parents point. Holding credit card companies and banks responsible for fraudulent activity only makes sense.
If my car gets stolen because I parked it in a bad neighborhood the car insurance company still owes me money - so long as I didn't intend for it to be stolen ( in which case I'm perpetrating the fraud.) So long as I'm not posting my credit card number to Slashdot I should not be responsible for fraudulent charges.
I don't have any information to back this up but I suspect that they count $ lost to piracy as a "buisness loss" (probably one reason they are calling it theft) and as such write it off on their taxes. This weasly thing to do gives them more incentive inflate the losses, while actually gaining a benifit from the piracy.
This is a terrible suggestion every time it comes up.
Corporations are set up specifically to limit the liablility of the investors. It's management's and the board of director's responsibility to keep the company practices ethical and legal while maximizing share-holder value.
Feel free to criticize the idea of a corporation, but you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If you choose to criticize the corporation bear in mind how hard it would to start a company if every one who wanted to give you money was on the hook for corporate debts. Say for instance you are mislead into investing in Enron (hey it could happen) and the company goes under. Enron's creditors now come after your property to pay Enron's debts.
Whenever money is at stake there will be abuses, and no system is perfect, but corporations help our economy more than hurt it. Now, if corporations could see value in something other than quarterly earnings, had to stand on their own merits, and not be propped up or bailed out by the government we'd be making progress.
Warnings may be occasionally necessary, but in the vast majority of instances they are the result of our litigious society. The GPs point about hairdryers and sleeping is one example. And to veer dangerously close to on topic they are about our unwillingness to be responsible for our actions.
Pop the hood of you car sometime and try to count the warning labels you see. There are so many that the important ones "Don't open your radiator while engine is hot" are eclipse by silly ones, "Don't drink the stuff that comes from the battery."
I don't need a warning that my coffee is hot, I don't need a warning that I should keep infants away from open windows, and I certainly don't need a warning not to do shots of Drano. But the precedent has been set that I can sue for any injury sustained, regardless that it was my own stupid fault, if I wasn't explicitly warned about it (and maybe even if I was.) Because of this we can't tell if something we don't know about is really dangerous, i.e. airbags, or if the manufacturer has just slapped a please don't sue us label on something relatively benign.
I was dismayed to learn that Shakespeare coined the odious terms marketable and gossip, but all is well because he also apparently gave us addiction, aroused, zany and puking - four words I couldn't have made it through college without.
Yeah, but Beetoven and Bach also didn't have to deal with the pro/con aspects of mass production/distribution. Also how many musicians can you name from before 1900? I'd guess somewhere around 20, if you're into classical music maybe 50 or 60... Now, how many musicians can you name after 1980? I'm sure that I could come up with hundreds.
Your assertion that we'd have more "talented" musicians w/o labels is deeply flawed. In all likelyhood we'd have fewer because the truely talented musicians would be less able to support themselves. Musicians are good at making music, not advertising. I am very much not a fan of the music labels, but I find it highly unlikely that you could find more talent in your geographic area without labels, then you can in the world with them.
The record labels still have a very important roll today, and that is promotion. The problem is their important roll used to be distribution, but they are becoming less and less proficient at it. If they'd take a step back and focus on what they do well, rather than what their historic role was I think that we could have a world where free music and record labels could coexist.
Most of the made in China stuff I own isn't made by Chinese companies.
Further, suporting a Chinese company or work force isn't supporting censorship in the same way as, "here this software will allow you to censor your population."
Since any goods that go through China ultimately pay some taxes to the government imposing the censorship, there is some merit to your arguement, but I think you overstated a bit.
Sorry, he in this sentence, "It would be like a math prof debunking Gauss et al if he were "debunking" the work of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd." Referred to the religious studies prof, not the hypothetical math prof.
Just because most (all?) major religions believe that the universe wasn't created as the result of chance, doesn't mean that these religions should be logically compelled to argue ID in biology. Christianity for example would be good to argue that God is the reason the universe and physical "laws" are the way they are - sort of an anthropic principle with God as the answer to the question why?
I'm not sure that anyone should be chastised for criticizing fundamentalist anything. Fundies typically refuse to change their position regardless of evidence. Oh, and Catholics mock themselves all the time, I should know, I do.
But in all seriousness this blew up on him because he wasn't careful about his language, something a professor should know better than, especially when addressing something as incendiary as ID.
Whoa there, don't go elevating ID beyond what it is.
He's debunking a transitory, but (sociologically) interesting myth. It would be like a math prof debunking Gauss et al if he were "debunking" the work of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd.
As it is he's just grubbing for headlines with reactionary tactics.
Are you saying that no material depicting penetration can be art? I'd point to the kama sutra and call that art, due to its significant cultural impact and age.
If you can't catagorize porn and notporn, what makes you think you can catagorize within the catagory?
Fortunately I had the good sence to read the replies to the GP before I typed almost the exact same thing.
ICANN should not be a regulatory agency, any attempt to make them become one only bastardizes the concept of the web. Any enforcement needs to be done at a local level applying local laws, or failing that a federal one.
The GP's suggestion is one of many ironic comments suggesting that we make the internet more US centric in an article "playing down U.S. influence."
While I agree with you I'd like to point out how silly this buisness plan is.
1. Oh no! sales are declining what ever will we do? 2. Scapegoat the "digital revolution" 3. Sue our customer base, fostering good will towards us, and hate toward those scurvy dogs (arghh).
and so some AC doen't have to point it out 4. Profit!
But Law & Order, from which the vast majority of both the slashdot crowd, and the public at-large gather the bulk of their legal knowledge, is doing just that.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that they won't throw people off the jury for any reason they can think of.
My anecdotal evidence: I used to work in a medical research lab, and was informed that if I were ever selected for criminal jury duty to answer the question, "What is your profession?" with, "I work with DNA." I know several people who were dismissed for this very reason, presumably because they knew too much about evidence.
would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale
This may or may not be a microfluidic device. The reason I think that it is a smaller traditional lab device was that it makes little sense to me to isolate a PCR machine on a micro device. The paper you linked to combines the PCR step with the electrophoresis. Since a traditional PCR machine works with >1ml samples I suspect that this is a single well traditional PCR machine, the size of a paperclip. The decreased thermal load i.e. no massive aluminum 96 well plate, allows the faster cycling.
If it were indeed a microfluidics device how in God's name would you recover the microliter sample to perform the genotyping?
Slashdot Mirror
Aye, but increasing gas consumption != decreased efficiency. The advantage of a turbocharged car is that you get more power out of a smaller engine when you need (want) it, and the benefits of a small engine when you don't. IIRC the turbocharger isn't quite as efficient as a supercharger because the additional back pressure generated, and turbo lag that you mentioned.
I'd also like to question how increased cost is no longer considered a downside, I don't think steam engines are free. Another thing, the 10 extra kW produced is equivalent to a whoping 13 hp, something you can most likely get cheeper, more simply and by bolting on a blower kit.
The trouble with "true" freedom in the libertarian sense is that I sacrifice my safety for someone elses freedom.
In my opinion the second amendment isn't to protect me from Timmy, or Timmy from the giant talking toads. It exists so that I can protect my self from Uncle Sam. IMO (and I'm aware that this arguement can go both ways) this rational has deminished in power since Uncle Sam gained the ability to kill me from 30,000 ft.
Because I think that the 2nd amendment isn't designed to protect me from rif-raf I have less of a problem with M-4s being made available than I do with concealed carry permits. I think (and again this is an opinion) that there is some grounds for allowing us to stock wepons, but considerably less reason to allow people to carry them on public streets.
If Timmy the Meth Head has a M-4 I know for damn sure that I'm staying behind solid objects as I call the police. If Jonny the usually upstanding bouncer has a glock in his coat and some drunk asshat starts something Jonny may feel compeled to fire at him in a crowded bar. That is not a freedom I feel compelled to protect.
for the homeland isn't good enough - the motherland is far superior. Compare for instance difference between the the partiotic furor in Russia (motherland) and Germany (fatherland.) Psycologically its better to be fighting for mom than dad or home.
Yeah but we need some kind of pretense because the American public isn't going to stomach we're going to war to cover our debt. Oh and it has to hold up form more than six months - unlike WMD. Something like an assassination of an archduke, aggression on a friendly country, or bombing of a military installation.. I think Taiwan fits the bill.
Fortuanatly for the Chineese our president seems to be assasinating his character all by himself.
How much information is that with units of Library of Congresses? (Congrii?)
What gets me is the "service" that credit card companies and credit reporting bureaus offer to protect you incase your identity is stolen - for a fee. Excuse me but how in the world can they ethically justify turning identity theft into a profit point.
Credit card companies have always (or for quite some time anyway) been on the hook for fraudulent charges, just as banks have always been on the hook for stolen money.
Why the rise of the internet should allow them to offer a service protecting you is nonsense, they are the ones begging for your money, they should be the ones protecting it. If I didn't buy something on credit I should not ever, ever have to pay for it. If it's too easy to pretend to be me that's their fault, not mine.
I hear some people whining about how their fees will increase because someone else's identity was stolen, and they weren't careful enough. Bullshit. You can get your identity stolen even if you're careful, as was the parents point. Holding credit card companies and banks responsible for fraudulent activity only makes sense.
If my car gets stolen because I parked it in a bad neighborhood the car insurance company still owes me money - so long as I didn't intend for it to be stolen ( in which case I'm perpetrating the fraud.) So long as I'm not posting my credit card number to Slashdot I should not be responsible for fraudulent charges.
I prefer to think of it as identity piracy. Arrgh.
I don't have any information to back this up but I suspect that they count $ lost to piracy as a "buisness loss" (probably one reason they are calling it theft) and as such write it off on their taxes. This weasly thing to do gives them more incentive inflate the losses, while actually gaining a benifit from the piracy.
So long as the text doesn't underline itself when you mouse over it I'm good.
This is a terrible suggestion every time it comes up.
Corporations are set up specifically to limit the liablility of the investors. It's management's and the board of director's responsibility to keep the company practices ethical and legal while maximizing share-holder value.
Feel free to criticize the idea of a corporation, but you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If you choose to criticize the corporation bear in mind how hard it would to start a company if every one who wanted to give you money was on the hook for corporate debts. Say for instance you are mislead into investing in Enron (hey it could happen) and the company goes under. Enron's creditors now come after your property to pay Enron's debts.
Whenever money is at stake there will be abuses, and no system is perfect, but corporations help our economy more than hurt it. Now, if corporations could see value in something other than quarterly earnings, had to stand on their own merits, and not be propped up or bailed out by the government we'd be making progress.
Warnings may be occasionally necessary, but in the vast majority of instances they are the result of our litigious society. The GPs point about hairdryers and sleeping is one example. And to veer dangerously close to on topic they are about our unwillingness to be responsible for our actions.
Pop the hood of you car sometime and try to count the warning labels you see. There are so many that the important ones "Don't open your radiator while engine is hot" are eclipse by silly ones, "Don't drink the stuff that comes from the battery."
I don't need a warning that my coffee is hot, I don't need a warning that I should keep infants away from open windows, and I certainly don't need a warning not to do shots of Drano. But the precedent has been set that I can sue for any injury sustained, regardless that it was my own stupid fault, if I wasn't explicitly warned about it (and maybe even if I was.) Because of this we can't tell if something we don't know about is really dangerous, i.e. airbags, or if the manufacturer has just slapped a please don't sue us label on something relatively benign.
It is on a geological time scale.
Mod parent up that is a interesting link...
I was dismayed to learn that Shakespeare coined the odious terms marketable and gossip, but all is well because he also apparently gave us addiction, aroused, zany and puking - four words I couldn't have made it through college without.
Yeah, but Beetoven and Bach also didn't have to deal with the pro/con aspects of mass production/distribution. Also how many musicians can you name from before 1900? I'd guess somewhere around 20, if you're into classical music maybe 50 or 60... Now, how many musicians can you name after 1980? I'm sure that I could come up with hundreds.
Your assertion that we'd have more "talented" musicians w/o labels is deeply flawed. In all likelyhood we'd have fewer because the truely talented musicians would be less able to support themselves. Musicians are good at making music, not advertising. I am very much not a fan of the music labels, but I find it highly unlikely that you could find more talent in your geographic area without labels, then you can in the world with them.
The record labels still have a very important roll today, and that is promotion. The problem is their important roll used to be distribution, but they are becoming less and less proficient at it. If they'd take a step back and focus on what they do well, rather than what their historic role was I think that we could have a world where free music and record labels could coexist.
Most of the made in China stuff I own isn't made by Chinese companies.
Further, suporting a Chinese company or work force isn't supporting censorship in the same way as, "here this software will allow you to censor your population."
Since any goods that go through China ultimately pay some taxes to the government imposing the censorship, there is some merit to your arguement, but I think you overstated a bit.
Sorry, he in this sentence, "It would be like a math prof debunking Gauss et al if he were "debunking" the work of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd." Referred to the religious studies prof, not the hypothetical math prof.
Just because most (all?) major religions believe that the universe wasn't created as the result of chance, doesn't mean that these religions should be logically compelled to argue ID in biology. Christianity for example would be good to argue that God is the reason the universe and physical "laws" are the way they are - sort of an anthropic principle with God as the answer to the question why?
I'm not sure that anyone should be chastised for criticizing fundamentalist anything. Fundies typically refuse to change their position regardless of evidence. Oh, and Catholics mock themselves all the time, I should know, I do.
But in all seriousness this blew up on him because he wasn't careful about his language, something a professor should know better than, especially when addressing something as incendiary as ID.
Whoa there, don't go elevating ID beyond what it is.
He's debunking a transitory, but (sociologically) interesting myth. It would be like a math prof debunking Gauss et al if he were "debunking" the work of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd.
As it is he's just grubbing for headlines with reactionary tactics.
Less important to whom?
Are you saying that no material depicting penetration can be art? I'd point to the kama sutra and call that art, due to its significant cultural impact and age.
If you can't catagorize porn and notporn, what makes you think you can catagorize within the catagory?
Please mod parent up.
Fortunately I had the good sence to read the replies to the GP before I typed almost the exact same thing.
ICANN should not be a regulatory agency, any attempt to make them become one only bastardizes the concept of the web. Any enforcement needs to be done at a local level applying local laws, or failing that a federal one.
The GP's suggestion is one of many ironic comments suggesting that we make the internet more US centric in an article "playing down U.S. influence."
While I agree with you I'd like to point out how silly this buisness plan is.
1. Oh no! sales are declining what ever will we do?
2. Scapegoat the "digital revolution"
3. Sue our customer base, fostering good will towards us, and hate toward those scurvy dogs (arghh).
and so some AC doen't have to point it out
4. Profit!
(note: that item 3. doubles as ???)
But Law & Order, from which the vast majority of both the slashdot crowd, and the public at-large gather the bulk of their legal knowledge, is doing just that.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that they won't throw people off the jury for any reason they can think of.
My anecdotal evidence: I used to work in a medical research lab, and was informed that if I were ever selected for criminal jury duty to answer the question, "What is your profession?" with, "I work with DNA." I know several people who were dismissed for this very reason, presumably because they knew too much about evidence.
This love bomb basically
This may or may not be a microfluidic device. The reason I think that it is a smaller traditional lab device was that it makes little sense to me to isolate a PCR machine on a micro device. The paper you linked to combines the PCR step with the electrophoresis. Since a traditional PCR machine works with >1ml samples I suspect that this is a single well traditional PCR machine, the size of a paperclip. The decreased thermal load i.e. no massive aluminum 96 well plate, allows the faster cycling.
If it were indeed a microfluidics device how in God's name would you recover the microliter sample to perform the genotyping?