I may have missed this bit, and the work is unpublished, but I read this article as saying this guy put chunks of RNA into a big fat glob, added water and saw the big fat glob break into smaller fat globs with bits of RNA in them.
Is that not just a kitchen-sink-dishwater effect of division, not replication?
You've obviously never worked in a call center. Often time it does just work. Problem is the user has no clue that a mouse is used by your hand not your foot.
I hear you (former ST:NG fan). I guess the difference would be that several upper echelon townspeople know about the aliens and head a conspiracy that somehow keeps the cobbler and his neighbours who saw the landing, the team of peasants who cleaned up the landing site, the 47 hand-picked guards, and the trashman who collects the aliens garbage every week under wraps.
Occasionally someone speaks out, but never with anything but tales of wooden pulleys that don't squeak and pallid skin tones on odd looking critters (Cmdr Data, I presume).
After a million years of advancement you'd think they'd have more to offer than observation and anal probes...
All I have so far is that our "relationships" are moot (marriage, etc, doesn't transfer) and we can complain as a "host" that the do-badders haven't yet been punished. Beyond the forming of something that ends up being a "bride" to Christ, the whole hereafter thing is pretty well up in the air. So I'll go with your thinking: letting God decide. If left up to some nitwit like me, there'd likely be way too many "ANOTHER field trip to a supernova? Who let that guy be Social Convenor?" complaints.
Thank you. Dead on.
Isn't it troubling how easy it is for everyone (myself included) to "diss" something they actually only know very little about? They haven't read or even vaguely understood what they are so quick to denounce and provide details (!) about.
I try not to do the same to other texts, like the Kuran. I haven't read it. I'm just going by what I've heard/read about it. It muzzles my criticism.
I wonder if I were to say something as distorted about, say, The Lord of the Rings or The Watchmen or a text they *do* know well that they would see how they are applying their ignorance. Probably not.
Since when is "circumventing copy protection" wrong? That's not what is wrong. Making/using an illegal copy of the software is wrong. Applying or modifying a legal copy to run differently is not wrong in any way I can fathom.
I *LOVE* no-cd/dvd hacks. I buy everything I play. But maybe I'm wrong?
I am with you, bud. Every game I play is bought and payed for, and every one that is installed is No-CD/DVD patched (if required). And I have shelves full.
The simple fact is that it is beyond easy to bypass these media-based protection schemes, so they should just not bother at all.
If you've messed with a voice synth and have heard Canadians (especially Eastern ones) speak, you will understand when I say that Stephen will just have to put a question mark after every sentence to fit in.
Adaptability is what makes English a contender for being the language of the future, the amoeba of verbal communication, absorbing (happily) everything it comes across. So, I agree with the passivity to change you're recommending being an advantage.
The "begs" in "begs the question" is actually extinct beyond that saying. Its homonym has taken over, so its a relic. However, the term is a logic argument, and has its own meaning. It is not (originally) an idiom. It has lost its usefulness because ignorance and similarity has driven it to confusion. One would need to describe "you are using self-referential proofs" or some such not-quite-the-same language in order to convey the original values.
"Cut the muster" has the advantage of a missing consonant. Fine. The original had similar meaning to the current and has substitutes.
In another time, I'd argue that we face dialects if we do not correct one another's language back to ubiquitous- or, at least, common- grounds, but technology has made isolation improbable.
Just take note that some words and phrases are important and deserve to remain understandable and clear. We simply need to correct one another when we are using those parts of the language improperly (How else are ya gonna know?). That's long term perspective.
That's because we're looking for HUMAN life. Or, at least, humans wearing minimal bits of latex bumps in strategic places about the face and neck. Oh. And use sound vibration for communication... in English. Or, at least, in English after 10-20 minutes or so of hang-out time. That or subtitles.
Facetious, sure, but even our outward-looking optimists are still anthropocentric at heart.
Any pathogenic symbiote would have evolved to take advantage of the host's physiology -- not ours. Cool! Kirk had it dead right! The green alien chicks are (human pathogenic) STD free!!
Language changes.
Next, you'll tell me "cuts the mustard" is valid. Have you ever asked someone to explain their condiment-smeared distortion? Dried bits at the end of the squeeze bottle. They haven't a clue.
I think they're idiots because they're stupid.
Now THAT begs the question.
"Our data"? Is that even a legal position to take? You know, I was all ready to "hear hear" that sentiment, and then I thought of the Postal Service. The content of a letter is mine (keep it simple and bypass copyright, etc), but the responsibility of delivery is theirs. They can't lose it, have it stolen, altered, copied or viewed by anyone (again, simplify) without "failing" their purpose. Same goes for the IM handlers, I guess. Having control over the in- and out- points, along with the channels between is just easier to meet the responsibilities.
So, not to defend the actions or strategies of MS, but the aspect you've focused on is at least open for discussion.
Effectively, the original is destroyed and a perfect copy comes out at the other end. Note that "destroyed" could be "altered". Measurement may eventually simply disrupt, not disintegrate.
Someone needs to read a book on how the eye works. I agree, and rather than correct all the bad science both in the article and the comments here, I'll just remind everyone what it is like to try and look at one of the floaters in your eye. Look at the white on the screen now, pick a floater of some tangible density, then try to look at it. Cat and mouse, huh? Except that Tom could actually catch Jerry someday...
Eyeglasses, ok. Contact lens? Whatcha gonna have? A ticker?
Only when we can completely digitize our brains can we even cope with any stresses of space travel. Egad, man! Have you thought about the consequences of that?!? Set up the right bittorrent and I am everywhere...
Hell, can't you see the power that gives the RIAA!!!!
Think before you postulate, dammit!!
Oh, and the human brain is not digital, the human conscious is most likely not transferable (sorta like dupe'ing a statue: yeah, it's identical, but not the original), and the only complete convergence with a "technical" brain would be something figuratively identical to what's sloshing around in our skulls right now, making the exercise pretty well redundant. Not impossible. Redundant. Just my 2c. Which is not twice the speed of light, BTW.
Slashdot Mirror
I may have missed this bit, and the work is unpublished, but I read this article as saying this guy put chunks of RNA into a big fat glob, added water and saw the big fat glob break into smaller fat globs with bits of RNA in them. Is that not just a kitchen-sink-dishwater effect of division, not replication?
You've obviously never worked in a call center. Often time it does just work. Problem is the user has no clue that a mouse is used by your hand not your foot.
Oh shit.
(Puts his sock back on)
Complaining about Hollywood acting like Hollywood is ... well ...cookie-cutter complaining.
Ooooh, thanks for the good corollary point that I've never realized:
Seeing a Hollywood film and complaining that it was a Hollywood film is idiotic.
Want a non-Hollywood film? Watch a non-Hollywood film. Otherwise, read a book.
I hear you (former ST:NG fan). I guess the difference would be that several upper echelon townspeople know about the aliens and head a conspiracy that somehow keeps the cobbler and his neighbours who saw the landing, the team of peasants who cleaned up the landing site, the 47 hand-picked guards, and the trashman who collects the aliens garbage every week under wraps.
Occasionally someone speaks out, but never with anything but tales of wooden pulleys that don't squeak and pallid skin tones on odd looking critters (Cmdr Data, I presume).
After a million years of advancement you'd think they'd have more to offer than observation and anal probes...
How do all these aliens actually pull off the secrecy... amidst all these people that LUST for its exposure?
Don't tell me that "Take me to your leader." actually works!!!
I read "My Father was caned by Mario Brothers" ... Oh, well ... common mistake.
Ditto. Common indeed.
I double-taked on the "caned" part 'cause it didn't fit. I shy from hearing what YOUR brain did, though.
All I have so far is that our "relationships" are moot (marriage, etc, doesn't transfer) and we can complain as a "host" that the do-badders haven't yet been punished. Beyond the forming of something that ends up being a "bride" to Christ, the whole hereafter thing is pretty well up in the air. So I'll go with your thinking: letting God decide. If left up to some nitwit like me, there'd likely be way too many "ANOTHER field trip to a supernova? Who let that guy be Social Convenor?" complaints.
Roddenberry: "DAMN! Lost another believer! How does Hubbard do it?"
Thank you. Dead on. Isn't it troubling how easy it is for everyone (myself included) to "diss" something they actually only know very little about? They haven't read or even vaguely understood what they are so quick to denounce and provide details (!) about.
I try not to do the same to other texts, like the Kuran. I haven't read it. I'm just going by what I've heard/read about it. It muzzles my criticism.
I wonder if I were to say something as distorted about, say, The Lord of the Rings or The Watchmen or a text they *do* know well that they would see how they are applying their ignorance. Probably not.
Since when is "circumventing copy protection" wrong? That's not what is wrong. Making/using an illegal copy of the software is wrong. Applying or modifying a legal copy to run differently is not wrong in any way I can fathom.
I *LOVE* no-cd/dvd hacks. I buy everything I play. But maybe I'm wrong?
I am with you, bud. Every game I play is bought and payed for, and every one that is installed is No-CD/DVD patched (if required). And I have shelves full. The simple fact is that it is beyond easy to bypass these media-based protection schemes, so they should just not bother at all.
If you've messed with a voice synth and have heard Canadians (especially Eastern ones) speak, you will understand when I say that Stephen will just have to put a question mark after every sentence to fit in.
I don't care how warm it is, I could never get my junk around Greenland.
Speak for yourself, shorty.
And we at Slashdot value our smugness!
Screw those Slashdotters and their radical smug agenda!
Adaptability is what makes English a contender for being the language of the future, the amoeba of verbal communication, absorbing (happily) everything it comes across. So, I agree with the passivity to change you're recommending being an advantage.
The "begs" in "begs the question" is actually extinct beyond that saying. Its homonym has taken over, so its a relic. However, the term is a logic argument, and has its own meaning. It is not (originally) an idiom. It has lost its usefulness because ignorance and similarity has driven it to confusion. One would need to describe "you are using self-referential proofs" or some such not-quite-the-same language in order to convey the original values.
"Cut the muster" has the advantage of a missing consonant. Fine. The original had similar meaning to the current and has substitutes.
In another time, I'd argue that we face dialects if we do not correct one another's language back to ubiquitous- or, at least, common- grounds, but technology has made isolation improbable.
Just take note that some words and phrases are important and deserve to remain understandable and clear. We simply need to correct one another when we are using those parts of the language improperly (How else are ya gonna know?). That's long term perspective.
That's because we're looking for HUMAN life. Or, at least, humans wearing minimal bits of latex bumps in strategic places about the face and neck. Oh. And use sound vibration for communication... in English. Or, at least, in English after 10-20 minutes or so of hang-out time. That or subtitles.
Facetious, sure, but even our outward-looking optimists are still anthropocentric at heart.
Next, you'll tell me "cuts the mustard" is valid. Have you ever asked someone to explain their condiment-smeared distortion? Dried bits at the end of the squeeze bottle. They haven't a clue.
I think they're idiots because they're stupid.
Now THAT begs the question.
Music Industry Rep: "Damn! I told you we should have offered three goats!"
Ahhh! A Realist! Kudos.
So, not to defend the actions or strategies of MS, but the aspect you've focused on is at least open for discussion.
The letters for today were:
m and c
The number for today was:
squared .
Eyeglasses, ok. Contact lens? Whatcha gonna have? A ticker?
Hell, can't you see the power that gives the RIAA!!!!
Think before you postulate, dammit!!
Oh, and the human brain is not digital, the human conscious is most likely not transferable (sorta like dupe'ing a statue: yeah, it's identical, but not the original), and the only complete convergence with a "technical" brain would be something figuratively identical to what's sloshing around in our skulls right now, making the exercise pretty well redundant. Not impossible. Redundant. Just my 2c. Which is not twice the speed of light, BTW.