Nonsense. You can do clean deconstruction and recycling, and it's being done in many places all over the world. It's just a bit more expensive than dumping the stuff on the lowest bidder. And dumping e-waste in landfills does cause relatively little problems... for the next couple of decades. After that, as landfills are closed and forgotten, they deteriorate, and the fun starts when water seeps in.
Actually we could use something like that in SoCal's parks. There isn't a single day when I don't see new dog turds on my usual running route. This is despite huge signs tha tell you to pick up after your dog, free plastic bag dispensers and large trash cans everywhere. Many dog owners are assholes, that's the only way I can see it. Tax the hell out of them and pay somebody to clean up the dog shit.
200V? Meh. Try 800V in a TV:) Fortunately the capacitor was quite small but I still got a very nice jolt from it. 220V AC in nothing in comparison. Also, try touching a spark plug cable of a flaky engine while it is being cranked. Highly recommended;)
The idiots (who happened to be engineers) at Ford thought it'd be a great idea to stick the Pinto's fuel tank in the back of the car, so crashes were virtually guaranteed to rupture the tank, causing lots of gasoline to quickly vaporize and become flammable, needing only a spark.
Actually this is still quite common today. There are many cars on the road where you can see the tank behind the rear axle. Even BMW did it in their 5-series for a while (until somebody flew across a guardrail that slit his tank and made the car a nice incendiary bomb. He survived and sued BMW IIRC.) In theory, with good steels this is supposedly safe, but *I* would not buy a car where the tank is anywhere but underneath the rear seats.
1) the E.coli used can metabolize citrate under other conditions (so it's not completely new to them)
"Almost" doesn't quite cut it. It doesn't in nature, period. So the bacteria made a significant change in their metabolism.
2) there was an abundance of citrate present compared to other "food".
Yes, that comprises an ecologic pressure. Evolution doesn't happen without ecologic pressure and the availability of food is the second biggest of all ecologic pressures.
3) the time it took (in generations) was way too long for even a minor change to explain anything on a larger scale.
Bad argument. How big is the population in this experiment compared to the worldwide population of E.coli? Of course, if you have a specific probability density for something to happen, it will take much longer in a small population than in a larger population. And bacteria exchange genetic information all the time, so these changes don't have to happen sequentially, they can happen in parallel. I.e., if you take a much larger population, some changes will happen quickly and are exchanged via conjugation, and other bacteria populations can build on top of them, especially if they confer an advantage and these populations expand relative to the total population.
Gaah. There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start, except to mention that you can't even spell principle.
Genes for hyper evolution have been found in several species. It is a basic tenet that the speed of evolution depends on environmental pressure - that has been found again and again. If a species is comfortable in its ecological niche with little pressure, there isn't anything to optimize, and evolution moves sideways and/or towards slower development, longer lifespans and more care for the brood. Under environmental pressure, this changes: Evolution branches out, there is more offspring with less care, and lifespans shorten. This has been found from bacteria to mammals.
And you know that creationism happened... Ok, I know that too. I read about in the paper and on the Net every day. If you mean that creation happened... why? Because people a couple thousand years ago had no better idea than "God did it" and wrote that down? The only creations that happened at some point are abiogenesis and the Big Bang, and, yes, we don't understand how. Yet.
Dawkins gets beat up because he's too harsh and divisive, while creationists get lenience because... why?
Because they're the poor deluded non-thinkers? That's exactly what Dawkins says!
Because being religious is somehow better than being atheist? Why?
Because religious people are "better" than atheists? Yeah right.
May I point out that the major political problems we're having worldwide are at least in part caused by religious differences - from Israel and the Palestinians to Christian soldiers in Mekka, to Christians (or economic interests of a mostly Christian country, or a Christian leader going nuts over terrists, whatever) vs Muslims in Iraq, to Iran feeling threatened by the US and viewing that as a fundie Christian threat (which it probably is to a small degree.) Just listen to Bush and Palin making dangerous statements that the Iraq war was commanded by God. Sheesh. Cut out this nonsense and 90% of the fighting in the world would stop.
This article hits the nail right on the head. It's being criticized for being over the top, but I can only think "Imagine".
All mutations witnessed so far, have been removal of information, which sometimes can in fact be beneficial.
Wrong. See Lenski's results of E.coli developing the capability to metabolize citrate. E.coli can not even transport citrate into the cell; those strains developed first that capability, then learned to metabolize it. And how do you define "new"? Do you say that any of the random mutations that are witnessed in any genome that is analyzed have been there before? There's a contradiction in there. Or do you say that a random mutation is not "new genetic information" unless... what?
It's hilarious anyone would think that. We're talking about a web browser, not a web server. Even on platforms where process creation is "slow", it's still going to be instantaneous from a single human's point of view. It's not like the user is opening 100 tabs per second.
But the speed at which Chrome and IE8 spawn new processes depends on user interaction. Unless you use something like FF's Linky extension that allows you to open 99 tabs at a time, you won't notice a performance hitch. I don't think you can click faster than your system can start processes - unless it's *really* maxed out and/or paging. Which, BTW, happened to me just yesterday when FF3's VM size approached 1GB (after a week or so.) Killing the process and letting it restore windows and tabs reduced the VM size to 200-something MB.
Slashdot Mirror
why enterprises run Windows?
Does anybody have links to success stories of large(-ish) corporations converting to Zarafa?
Linux is for the garbage can!
Sweet! What won't Linux run on these days?
The used condoms inside the garbage can.
Well there are condoms with built-in vibrators now so we just need to add a processor.
Hmm, who gets heavily into martial arts in their teens?
The small, skinny, scared guys. The guys who are big or well-connected have no need for it.
Just use a larger population, do some scare tests and political survey double-blind, and correlate later.
If you want to run a test yourself, check out the cute woman in this video: :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Uxe9xG6HA
Nonsense. You can do clean deconstruction and recycling, and it's being done in many places all over the world. It's just a bit more expensive than dumping the stuff on the lowest bidder.
And dumping e-waste in landfills does cause relatively little problems... for the next couple of decades. After that, as landfills are closed and forgotten, they deteriorate, and the fun starts when water seeps in.
Actually we could use something like that in SoCal's parks. There isn't a single day when I don't see new dog turds on my usual running route. This is despite huge signs tha tell you to pick up after your dog, free plastic bag dispensers and large trash cans everywhere.
Many dog owners are assholes, that's the only way I can see it. Tax the hell out of them and pay somebody to clean up the dog shit.
200V? Meh. Try 800V in a TV :) ;)
Fortunately the capacitor was quite small but I still got a very nice jolt from it. 220V AC in nothing in comparison.
Also, try touching a spark plug cable of a flaky engine while it is being cranked. Highly recommended
The idiots (who happened to be engineers) at Ford thought it'd be a great idea to stick the Pinto's fuel tank in the back of the car, so crashes were virtually guaranteed to rupture the tank, causing lots of gasoline to quickly vaporize and become flammable, needing only a spark.
Actually this is still quite common today. There are many cars on the road where you can see the tank behind the rear axle. Even BMW did it in their 5-series for a while (until somebody flew across a guardrail that slit his tank and made the car a nice incendiary bomb. He survived and sued BMW IIRC.)
In theory, with good steels this is supposedly safe, but *I* would not buy a car where the tank is anywhere but underneath the rear seats.
There's no way they're going to go faster than a BASE jump, which is human powered if you climb up by yourself.
And it'll probably take as long to boot as filling a kiddy pool with a garden hose.
Is there a better way to make your corporate slump more obvious?
They could buy CA.
Read. The. Fine. Article.
You got the meaning of RTFA wrong.
You mean... no piles of JS or worse and loads/renders quickly? Sounds like a winner to me.
Why isn't all government (i.e. taxpayer) funded research public?
Just wondering.
Amen. I see more and more Golfs, Jettas and Passats with TDI engines here in SoCal. And they *don't* stink when you're behind one.
Me too.
Damn. How hard could it be to add space for a few pens?
1) the E.coli used can metabolize citrate under other conditions (so it's not completely new to them)
"Almost" doesn't quite cut it. It doesn't in nature, period. So the bacteria made a significant change in their metabolism.
2) there was an abundance of citrate present compared to other "food".
Yes, that comprises an ecologic pressure. Evolution doesn't happen without ecologic pressure and the availability of food is the second biggest of all ecologic pressures.
3) the time it took (in generations) was way too long for even a minor change to explain anything on a larger scale.
Bad argument. How big is the population in this experiment compared to the worldwide population of E.coli? Of course, if you have a specific probability density for something to happen, it will take much longer in a small population than in a larger population. And bacteria exchange genetic information all the time, so these changes don't have to happen sequentially, they can happen in parallel. I.e., if you take a much larger population, some changes will happen quickly and are exchanged via conjugation, and other bacteria populations can build on top of them, especially if they confer an advantage and these populations expand relative to the total population.
Mod parent up!
And s/Islam/evangelical Christianity/ in many places.
So, science is open to all topics except religion, eh?
No it's not and nobody ever claimed it was.
You know, there *are* topics outside of science.
Gaah. There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start, except to mention that you can't even spell principle.
Genes for hyper evolution have been found in several species. It is a basic tenet that the speed of evolution depends on environmental pressure - that has been found again and again. If a species is comfortable in its ecological niche with little pressure, there isn't anything to optimize, and evolution moves sideways and/or towards slower development, longer lifespans and more care for the brood. Under environmental pressure, this changes: Evolution branches out, there is more offspring with less care, and lifespans shorten. This has been found from bacteria to mammals.
And you know that creationism happened... Ok, I know that too. I read about in the paper and on the Net every day. If you mean that creation happened... why? Because people a couple thousand years ago had no better idea than "God did it" and wrote that down?
The only creations that happened at some point are abiogenesis and the Big Bang, and, yes, we don't understand how. Yet.
That's what really bothers me.
Dawkins gets beat up because he's too harsh and divisive, while creationists get lenience because... why?
Because they're the poor deluded non-thinkers? That's exactly what Dawkins says!
Because being religious is somehow better than being atheist? Why?
Because religious people are "better" than atheists? Yeah right.
May I point out that the major political problems we're having worldwide are at least in part caused by religious differences - from Israel and the Palestinians to Christian soldiers in Mekka, to Christians (or economic interests of a mostly Christian country, or a Christian leader going nuts over terrists, whatever) vs Muslims in Iraq, to Iran feeling threatened by the US and viewing that as a fundie Christian threat (which it probably is to a small degree.)
Just listen to Bush and Palin making dangerous statements that the Iraq war was commanded by God. Sheesh. Cut out this nonsense and 90% of the fighting in the world would stop.
This article hits the nail right on the head. It's being criticized for being over the top, but I can only think "Imagine".
All mutations witnessed so far, have been removal of information, which sometimes can in fact be beneficial.
Wrong. See Lenski's results of E.coli developing the capability to metabolize citrate. E.coli can not even transport citrate into the cell; those strains developed first that capability, then learned to metabolize it.
And how do you define "new"? Do you say that any of the random mutations that are witnessed in any genome that is analyzed have been there before? There's a contradiction in there. Or do you say that a random mutation is not "new genetic information" unless... what?
Swart, P.K. Global Synchronous Changes in the Carbon Isotopic Composition of Carbonate Sediments Unrelated to Changes in the Global Carbon Cycle, Proc Nat. Acad. Sci. 37, 13741-13745.
Note that the paper is only about carbon dating of shelf sediments, *not* fossils.
It's hilarious anyone would think that. We're talking about a web browser, not a web server. Even on platforms where process creation is "slow", it's still going to be instantaneous from a single human's point of view. It's not like the user is opening 100 tabs per second.
Check out Linky.
But the speed at which Chrome and IE8 spawn new processes depends on user interaction. Unless you use something like FF's Linky extension that allows you to open 99 tabs at a time, you won't notice a performance hitch. I don't think you can click faster than your system can start processes - unless it's *really* maxed out and/or paging. Which, BTW, happened to me just yesterday when FF3's VM size approached 1GB (after a week or so.) Killing the process and letting it restore windows and tabs reduced the VM size to 200-something MB.