But while I abhor this typicall British style of referring to a collective noun as a plural, it is generally considered correct. See, e.g. The American Heritage Book of English Usage or any other extensive usage manual.
Here's what Microsoft's press release on the inadvertent release says:
[I]nvestigation has shown this was not the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security, nor is it related to Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative or its Government Security Program...
Interesting. From this, one must conclude that either (a) Microsoft legitimately releases the code to others outside these two programs, but we don't know about it; (b) Microsoft has absolutely no idea how the source was released but is lying through its teeth claiming there was no security breach nor an unauthorized release from its shared source programs; (c) Microsoft leaked the code itself for nefarious purposes (e.g. destroying ReactOS).
But the original poster asked about the astronaut's lives, not the expense or the future of the space program. Unfortunately, if the decision on whether space missions could proceed were based on whether there were any risk for the astronauts, there would not be a space program at all.
Please, realise that your unfounded statements about usage are not canon.;-)
Here in the UK, "(" and ")" are parentheses. I'm not going to discuss this further. If you want to call "{" an left-facing aardvark that's fine with me, but don't claim that it is common usage outside the U.S. without any evidence.
Slashdot is more international that you realise (see, there's another word to get worked up about).
Is the other word to get worked up about your use of the word "that?" In most of the world, that use is spelled "than" and "that" has an entirely different meaning. Where are you from anyway?
"{" and "}" are called parentheses.
Just so no one actually believes this (Blatant troll? Or just ignorance?), I should point out that the Oxford English Dictionary, that paragon of non-American usage, only refers to "(" and ")" as parentheses.
You said "more complicated than a bacterium," not multicellular.:-) But in any case, I'm not arguing that it fits the requirements of your challenge so it's not important.
Hypotheses have been put forth regarding lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes, largely based on phylogenetic evidence. See e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9724962&dopt=Abstract . Trends Genet. 14 (1998), pp. 307-311. But if the biological mechanism for such a thing were actually demonstrated, it would be big news.
Your bonus question is easier: See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12225916&dopt=Abstrac t
Quite simply there is no sequencing ocurring. It's merely separation of DNA molecules. This will just tell you their size. There's not sufficient information in the article or the store blurb for me to figure out if restriction enzymes are being included, which would make things slightly more interesting. In the days before PCR and DNA sequencing was as easy as it is now, genetic tests were done via Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms, so your DNA would break up into differently sized bits depending on which sequence was present at a cutting site.
Slashdot Mirror
But while I abhor this typicall British style of referring to a collective noun as a plural, it is generally considered correct. See, e.g. The American Heritage Book of English Usage or any other extensive usage manual.
a Beowulf cluster of those! Highly tuned Kiwi performance!
What exactly does radiation look like? What I once thought was an entire spectrum is now limited to a narrow part of it, apparently.
Interesting. From this, one must conclude that either (a) Microsoft legitimately releases the code to others outside these two programs, but we don't know about it; (b) Microsoft has absolutely no idea how the source was released but is lying through its teeth claiming there was no security breach nor an unauthorized release from its shared source programs; (c) Microsoft leaked the code itself for nefarious purposes (e.g. destroying ReactOS).
We report, you decide.
Actually I run Biopython on a 1200+ node Beowulf cluster on a regular basis, so the answer is yes.
I assure you that teenyboppers will not be getting ahold of Duke Nukem Forever anytime soon, M rating or not.
By that reasoning it is not from Greek origin either, since the very reference he used said that it was from Proto-Indo-European "ster."
You can't justify your claim that the "astro" in "astronaut" does NOT come from latin origin.
You haven't been here long, have you?
But the original poster asked about the astronaut's lives, not the expense or the future of the space program. Unfortunately, if the decision on whether space missions could proceed were based on whether there were any risk for the astronauts, there would not be a space program at all.
They know the risks. Most of the active astronauts would jump at the chance to go on another Hubble mission.
As other posters have noticed, this was clearly sarcasm. Bradley was _not_ talking about the NT logon procedure.
Please, realise that your unfounded statements about usage are not canon. ;-)
Here in the UK, "(" and ")" are parentheses. I'm not going to discuss this further. If you want to call "{" an left-facing aardvark that's fine with me, but don't claim that it is common usage outside the U.S. without any evidence.
-- grouse, in England
The article specifically said he was getting an honorary KBE (Knight Commander).
You said "more complicated than a bacterium," not multicellular. :-) But in any case, I'm not arguing that it fits the requirements of your challenge so it's not important.
You're welcome!
Hypotheses have been put forth regarding lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes, largely based on phylogenetic evidence. See e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9724962&dopt=Abstract . Trends Genet. 14 (1998), pp. 307-311. But if the biological mechanism for such a thing were actually demonstrated, it would be big news.
= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12225916&dopt=Abstrac t
Your bonus question is easier: See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
The Emperor's New Clothes ends with everyone seeing the Emperor naked... So, when do we get to see Carly naked???
A. There's nothing wrong with it at all!
Q. What's wrong with top-posting?
Yeah, the need for security on a project like this makes it obvious that NASA should have used OpenBSD!
Quite simply there is no sequencing ocurring. It's merely separation of DNA molecules. This will just tell you their size. There's not sufficient information in the article or the store blurb for me to figure out if restriction enzymes are being included, which would make things slightly more interesting. In the days before PCR and DNA sequencing was as easy as it is now, genetic tests were done via Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms, so your DNA would break up into differently sized bits depending on which sequence was present at a cutting site.
And you obviously have never been in charge of a mission critical production environment.
This is the first time I have ever seen "Score:5, Troll." Astounding.
What, you expected the editors to RTFA? Haven't been here long, have you?