For some reason I look at this and that's the image I get. Killing all the residents as they reach age 30 would sure go a long way towards remaining carbon neutral. Especially when you add in a little "Soylent Green" action.
It's hard to remember back that far, but the stuff I had in my elementary school library included things like the "Tom Swift Jr." series, about a young scientist/engineer. They were sort of in the vein of "The Hardy Boys" or the "Jonny Quest" cartoons but focused on some pretty far-fetched scientific concepts. I really enjoyed them though and must have read 40+ different editions. Like "The Hardy Boys" they were thoroughly formulaic but still good harmless fun for 9 - 12 year olds.
Also, the "Danny Dunn" series was pretty fun. It was more juvenile than the "Tom Swift" stories but had a better scientific foundation. One thing that stood out in these were the inclusion of a girl as a principle character, and adults who weren't shown as being totally stupid-- a failure of a lot of kid's books.
Fantasy wise, I read Anne McCaffery's "Dragonriders of Pern" short stories when I was about 11. I think the short stories preceded the first novel ("Dragonflight") but I could be wrong about that.
I also spent a lot of time reading comics. There were some great stories back then, but many comics today aren't as innocent as those 70's stories were. Or as subversive, as I think the old "Green Lantern/Green Arrow" comics subtly shaped some of my political views. Some comics could provide a nice break if you decide to let them read some of the more serious works others have suggested.
Happy hunting, and good on you for encouraging your kids to read a wide range of things.
Yes, but human particulate pollution is not. Rapid darkening of the ice causes it to absorb more heat and melt even faster. I've been there and seen it first hand.
For all of you who say that the polar bear population is increasing, keep in mind that the numbers are approximations. We can't count them all and since they're excellent swimmers we don't always find the carcasses when they die. Polar bears are threatened and inside of a decade, if the current trends continue, they will be officially endangered.
Now, now, everyone knows the Cosmic Balance was destroyed ages ago. To rid the universe of authority. You know, shortly after that Elric guy blew the Horn of Fate. We puny humans are on our own now.
Find a copy of his short story "Someday". I remember reading it as a child and thinking that there was no way something like that could happen.
It's possible our tools won't need to have a revolution to rule us after all. Maybe we'll just give in quietly, becoming much less than we could and should be.
The true telling opinion about the movie is the release date. March. If Hollywood believed it was going to be a smash they would release it in May. Or around July 4th (for the U.S.). Or at Christmas.
No, this movie is destined to either be a cult classic or a total transdimensional bomb.
But then you would have to subject yourself to the stares and ridicule of people who are in better shape. I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that some people view the Wii Fit as a nonjudgemental personal trainer.
Of course you're right in the absolute sense. But loss of self esteem has a price too.
You're right, but there's a huge difference between selective breeding--which allows for a certain amount of randomization--and genetic engineering, which is highly specific. One big difference, as you say, is the timeframe in which the genome changes occur. A few decades of hit and miss breeding can allow plenty of time for social systems to adapt. And there are no guarantees that the traits you're selecting will breed true. There's much less uncertainty with genetic engineering. You could choose a specific trait without regard to its genetic fitness and select for or against it, specifically, in a single generation. That conscious, specific targeting is what I don't think we're ready for just now.
Anyway, I think I'm starting to beat a dead horse. But I did want to acknowledge your point because you're right, manipulating our genes isn't something new. It's just that the scope is now different.
Finding life is important for at least three reasons. First, the philosophical--if there's life on Mars we're no longer alone. It's an age old question that will finally have an answer. Life on Mars won't be intelligent life, but our estimate of the probability that there's other intelligent life out there somewhere will greatly increase.
Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?
Finally, scientific curiosity. It's just darned interesting to know these things for the sake of knowing them. What's Martian life like? Is it going to kill every human who sets foot on the planet? Might it yield valuable insights into how life evolved here?
I guarantee, if we find life on Mars there will be people who will disagree with you about who owns it. After all, manifest destiny was a great idea unless you were a Native American.
Not at all. If I truly believed "not now, not ever" I wouldn't have said this was a good thing or a milestone.
I think we can reach a consensus on ethical issues. After all, we've done it before. How many cultures used to sanction slavery as part of a viable economic model? I think we've pretty much rejected that today. In the same way I think we can reach a consensus on specific ways to use genetic engineering in humans. It won't be easy. Nor should it be. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. But the dissenters should have their say and they should be listened to and their concerns should be addressed before we blindly press ahead.
As I said, I doubt if anyone would object to using genetic manipulation to cure diseases, and I'm sure we could reach a consensus quickly on some of the more horrible ones. But like all powerful scientific tools the potential for abuse and misuse is pretty great, and the only way to prevent that from happening is to tread carefully during the early stages of the tools' development.
Another poster said that this is just another stage of our evolution, and perhaps that's so. But unlike natural selection we're consciously choosing to manipulate our DNA without regard to external factors or competition. At this stage we don't *need* to do this to survive. What's wrong with taking our time to consider the ramifications?
In the long run the Cornell scientists have probably done a good thing, as I'm sure this will be a milestone in manipulating our genome. A great proof of concept. But you have to wonder if, as a species, we're ready for this.
Few people would object to using genetic manipulation to eliminate diseases or birth defects. What about homosexuality? Or dark skin? Or some other socially marginalized trait that has no bearing on the genetic fitness of the individual? What effect would "enhanced humans" have on a society built by "mundane" humans?
I personally believe we don't yet have the wisdom or foresight necessary to manipulate our genes. Until we can reach some sort of ethical consensus on the how, why and when of human genome manipulation we should collectively say no.
It's so rare to see a public-private venture in media/entertainment that ultimately benefits everyone. I doubt if most of us would have a chance to peruse the NASA archives otherwise. And the US taxpayer gets historically significant data upgraded to a modern, longer lasting medium for free. A win-win all around.
No. It's intended to sway governments that have passed laws requiring all documents to be created using open standards. This is all about Microsoft being able to sell Office to European countries and (soon) California.
It seems to me that gesture is indistinguishable from a swipe, which is used to scroll in some applications and to select for deletion (for instance, mail messages) in others.
The next poster suggests moving the cursor to a text area and dragging to select. This also fails, as you have to have a way to mark the beginning position you want to select, end that gesture, and not have the succeeding drag interpreted as a swipe.
My point is that it's non trivial to come up with an idea for this that's consistent with the existing interface. The original poster suggested that it was simple. Maybe with a stylus it is. It isn't with the existing multitouch interface. There's no devotion on my part to whether or not it couldn't, shouldn't or won't ever be done because Apple didn't do it. I have no doubt that they will, or some independent developer will soon enough. But it most likely won't be simple.
"...cannot do even simple things like copy and paste."
So tell me, how would you implement copy and paste in a multitouch environment? What gesture sequence would you use for select that hasn't already been assigned to another function? The loop tool can be used to select the paste point, but what gesture would you then use to do the paste?
What's that? You have no idea how you would implement this without breaking the existing intuitive functionality of the interface? I didn't think so.
How much would you bet that the vendors of crapware pay Sony to add their trial software? Sony knows perfectly well that their customers hate this stuff but rather than forgo the revenue they wanted to try to pass the paying on to you, the customer.
Sony's offer to make this service "free, with upgrade to business version" still allows them to get paid. I suspect the spread between the OEM OS cost of the consumer edition vs. the business one is still less than they'll charge for the upgrade. In other words, this is a better way to hide the fact that they just want to get paid.
Many countries, including the US and China have decreed an end to incandescent bulbs. The number of compact fluorescents are about to hugely increase in number. Yes, the amount of mercury per bulb is small but when they're the only bulbs available to billions of people that small amount will become significant. Without a good recycling system this will become a greater environmental issue.
I'm sure urban environments will do fine with recycling. I wouldn't want to bet on that in rural China if I got my water from local wells. Or rural Mississippi for that matter.
The latest energy bill signed by President Bush requires the phase out of incandescents to either begin or be complete ( I don't recall which) by 2012.
Thank you for the clarification. You are of course correct, and I could have been more specific. The point remains, if you start mail services (which are enabled by simply clicking a check box) ClamAv starts without the administrator explicitly asking for it. The scanning rules are predefined and no user interaction is explicitly required. Extending it to check other files could still be enabled via Software Update.
My bad for not being as clear as I should have been. I trust folks with mod points will do the right thing here...
I note that Leopard Server runs ClamAV by default, and does so without user intervention. Of course the mission for the server release is different from that of the desktop, and there may be an expectation that you'll be interacting with Windows at some point. It's capable of supporting Windows clients, and for that you should have an AV suite. It would be beyond foolish not to have one.
Still, many people interact with Windows from their client Macs too, but not everyone. Windows is not a part of my life, for instance.
Apple obviously felt it necessary to include an AV suite for the server release. They've tailored it for the OS, so why not ship it by default with the client release as well? Perhaps because they feel it isn't necessary, and they're choosing to err on the side of fewer wasted cycles for the majority of their users? I suspect that if a bona fide threat to OS X ever does appear ClamAV will be made available for the client release via Software Update the next day.
You laugh, but this idea probably isn't off the table.
If Silverlight is sufficiently open Apple wouldn't have a problem using it. Their relationship with Microsoft isn't quite as adversarial as it once was. It's the fans who imagine that it is so much more than the companies themselves.
Microsoft would absolutely jump at the chance to have a software "win" for Silverlight on a popular device, even if it's one they don't control. The publicity and visibility would be a huge boost.
Of course Silverlight would still have to deliver and at the moment I don't think there's much chance of that. But both companies would benefit immensely if it could be made to meet Apple's needs and it gained critical mass in the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
For some reason I look at this and that's the image I get. Killing all the residents as they reach age 30 would sure go a long way towards remaining carbon neutral. Especially when you add in a little "Soylent Green" action.
It's hard to remember back that far, but the stuff I had in my elementary school library included things like the "Tom Swift Jr." series, about a young scientist/engineer. They were sort of in the vein of "The Hardy Boys" or the "Jonny Quest" cartoons but focused on some pretty far-fetched scientific concepts. I really enjoyed them though and must have read 40+ different editions. Like "The Hardy Boys" they were thoroughly formulaic but still good harmless fun for 9 - 12 year olds.
Also, the "Danny Dunn" series was pretty fun. It was more juvenile than the "Tom Swift" stories but had a better scientific foundation. One thing that stood out in these were the inclusion of a girl as a principle character, and adults who weren't shown as being totally stupid-- a failure of a lot of kid's books.
Fantasy wise, I read Anne McCaffery's "Dragonriders of Pern" short stories when I was about 11. I think the short stories preceded the first novel ("Dragonflight") but I could be wrong about that.
I also spent a lot of time reading comics. There were some great stories back then, but many comics today aren't as innocent as those 70's stories were. Or as subversive, as I think the old "Green Lantern/Green Arrow" comics subtly shaped some of my political views. Some comics could provide a nice break if you decide to let them read some of the more serious works others have suggested.
Happy hunting, and good on you for encouraging your kids to read a wide range of things.
I read these as well. The "Incarnations of Immortality" series:
"On A Pale Horse" (Death)
"Bearing an Hourglass" (Time)
"With a Tangled Skein" (Fate)
"Being a Green Mother" (Nature)
"Wielding a Red Sword" (War)
"For Love of Evil" (Evil)
"And Eternity" (Good)
I found them very enjoyable, but I think I was around 15 at the time.
Yes, but human particulate pollution is not. Rapid darkening of the ice causes it to absorb more heat and melt even faster. I've been there and seen it first hand.
For all of you who say that the polar bear population is increasing, keep in mind that the numbers are approximations. We can't count them all and since they're excellent swimmers we don't always find the carcasses when they die. Polar bears are threatened and inside of a decade, if the current trends continue, they will be officially endangered.
More like Transvestites. "More than meets the eye!"
Now, now, everyone knows the Cosmic Balance was destroyed ages ago. To rid the universe of authority. You know, shortly after that Elric guy blew the Horn of Fate. We puny humans are on our own now.
OK, it sounded funny to me at least.
Find a copy of his short story "Someday". I remember reading it as a child and thinking that there was no way something like that could happen.
It's possible our tools won't need to have a revolution to rule us after all. Maybe we'll just give in quietly, becoming much less than we could and should be.
It's a small planet and an even smaller country, relatively speaking. They're your neighbors too.
The true telling opinion about the movie is the release date. March. If Hollywood believed it was going to be a smash they would release it in May. Or around July 4th (for the U.S.). Or at Christmas.
No, this movie is destined to either be a cult classic or a total transdimensional bomb.
But then you would have to subject yourself to the stares and ridicule of people who are in better shape. I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that some people view the Wii Fit as a nonjudgemental personal trainer.
Of course you're right in the absolute sense. But loss of self esteem has a price too.
You're right, but there's a huge difference between selective breeding--which allows for a certain amount of randomization--and genetic engineering, which is highly specific. One big difference, as you say, is the timeframe in which the genome changes occur. A few decades of hit and miss breeding can allow plenty of time for social systems to adapt. And there are no guarantees that the traits you're selecting will breed true. There's much less uncertainty with genetic engineering. You could choose a specific trait without regard to its genetic fitness and select for or against it, specifically, in a single generation. That conscious, specific targeting is what I don't think we're ready for just now.
Anyway, I think I'm starting to beat a dead horse. But I did want to acknowledge your point because you're right, manipulating our genes isn't something new. It's just that the scope is now different.
Finding life is important for at least three reasons. First, the philosophical--if there's life on Mars we're no longer alone. It's an age old question that will finally have an answer. Life on Mars won't be intelligent life, but our estimate of the probability that there's other intelligent life out there somewhere will greatly increase.
Next, Mars has similarities to Earth. If it once supported life but no longer does what changed? Could that same change possibly happen to us?
Finally, scientific curiosity. It's just darned interesting to know these things for the sake of knowing them. What's Martian life like? Is it going to kill every human who sets foot on the planet? Might it yield valuable insights into how life evolved here?
I guarantee, if we find life on Mars there will be people who will disagree with you about who owns it. After all, manifest destiny was a great idea unless you were a Native American.
Not at all. If I truly believed "not now, not ever" I wouldn't have said this was a good thing or a milestone.
I think we can reach a consensus on ethical issues. After all, we've done it before. How many cultures used to sanction slavery as part of a viable economic model? I think we've pretty much rejected that today. In the same way I think we can reach a consensus on specific ways to use genetic engineering in humans. It won't be easy. Nor should it be. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. But the dissenters should have their say and they should be listened to and their concerns should be addressed before we blindly press ahead.
As I said, I doubt if anyone would object to using genetic manipulation to cure diseases, and I'm sure we could reach a consensus quickly on some of the more horrible ones. But like all powerful scientific tools the potential for abuse and misuse is pretty great, and the only way to prevent that from happening is to tread carefully during the early stages of the tools' development.
Another poster said that this is just another stage of our evolution, and perhaps that's so. But unlike natural selection we're consciously choosing to manipulate our DNA without regard to external factors or competition. At this stage we don't *need* to do this to survive. What's wrong with taking our time to consider the ramifications?
In the long run the Cornell scientists have probably done a good thing, as I'm sure this will be a milestone in manipulating our genome. A great proof of concept. But you have to wonder if, as a species, we're ready for this.
Few people would object to using genetic manipulation to eliminate diseases or birth defects. What about homosexuality? Or dark skin? Or some other socially marginalized trait that has no bearing on the genetic fitness of the individual? What effect would "enhanced humans" have on a society built by "mundane" humans?
I personally believe we don't yet have the wisdom or foresight necessary to manipulate our genes. Until we can reach some sort of ethical consensus on the how, why and when of human genome manipulation we should collectively say no.
It's so rare to see a public-private venture in media/entertainment that ultimately benefits everyone. I doubt if most of us would have a chance to peruse the NASA archives otherwise. And the US taxpayer gets historically significant data upgraded to a modern, longer lasting medium for free. A win-win all around.
The OLPC project has officially lost its way. I can buy Windows performance as being tangentially relevant, although I don't agree with it. But Flash?
Perhaps Nick Neg is more interested in delivering advertising to his customers than he is learning opportunities?
No. It's intended to sway governments that have passed laws requiring all documents to be created using open standards. This is all about Microsoft being able to sell Office to European countries and (soon) California.
It seems to me that gesture is indistinguishable from a swipe, which is used to scroll in some applications and to select for deletion (for instance, mail messages) in others.
The next poster suggests moving the cursor to a text area and dragging to select. This also fails, as you have to have a way to mark the beginning position you want to select, end that gesture, and not have the succeeding drag interpreted as a swipe.
My point is that it's non trivial to come up with an idea for this that's consistent with the existing interface. The original poster suggested that it was simple. Maybe with a stylus it is. It isn't with the existing multitouch interface. There's no devotion on my part to whether or not it couldn't, shouldn't or won't ever be done because Apple didn't do it. I have no doubt that they will, or some independent developer will soon enough. But it most likely won't be simple.
"...cannot do even simple things like copy and paste."
So tell me, how would you implement copy and paste in a multitouch environment? What gesture sequence would you use for select that hasn't already been assigned to another function? The loop tool can be used to select the paste point, but what gesture would you then use to do the paste?
What's that? You have no idea how you would implement this without breaking the existing intuitive functionality of the interface? I didn't think so.
How much would you bet that the vendors of crapware pay Sony to add their trial software? Sony knows perfectly well that their customers hate this stuff but rather than forgo the revenue they wanted to try to pass the paying on to you, the customer.
Sony's offer to make this service "free, with upgrade to business version" still allows them to get paid. I suspect the spread between the OEM OS cost of the consumer edition vs. the business one is still less than they'll charge for the upgrade. In other words, this is a better way to hide the fact that they just want to get paid.
Many countries, including the US and China have decreed an end to incandescent bulbs. The number of compact fluorescents are about to hugely increase in number. Yes, the amount of mercury per bulb is small but when they're the only bulbs available to billions of people that small amount will become significant. Without a good recycling system this will become a greater environmental issue.
I'm sure urban environments will do fine with recycling. I wouldn't want to bet on that in rural China if I got my water from local wells. Or rural Mississippi for that matter.
The latest energy bill signed by President Bush requires the phase out of incandescents to either begin or be complete ( I don't recall which) by 2012.
Thank you for the clarification. You are of course correct, and I could have been more specific. The point remains, if you start mail services (which are enabled by simply clicking a check box) ClamAv starts without the administrator explicitly asking for it. The scanning rules are predefined and no user interaction is explicitly required. Extending it to check other files could still be enabled via Software Update.
My bad for not being as clear as I should have been. I trust folks with mod points will do the right thing here...
I note that Leopard Server runs ClamAV by default, and does so without user intervention. Of course the mission for the server release is different from that of the desktop, and there may be an expectation that you'll be interacting with Windows at some point. It's capable of supporting Windows clients, and for that you should have an AV suite. It would be beyond foolish not to have one.
Still, many people interact with Windows from their client Macs too, but not everyone. Windows is not a part of my life, for instance.
Apple obviously felt it necessary to include an AV suite for the server release. They've tailored it for the OS, so why not ship it by default with the client release as well? Perhaps because they feel it isn't necessary, and they're choosing to err on the side of fewer wasted cycles for the majority of their users? I suspect that if a bona fide threat to OS X ever does appear ClamAV will be made available for the client release via Software Update the next day.
And here I thought phony Beatlemania had bitten the dust...
You laugh, but this idea probably isn't off the table.
If Silverlight is sufficiently open Apple wouldn't have a problem using it. Their relationship with Microsoft isn't quite as adversarial as it once was. It's the fans who imagine that it is so much more than the companies themselves.
Microsoft would absolutely jump at the chance to have a software "win" for Silverlight on a popular device, even if it's one they don't control. The publicity and visibility would be a huge boost.
Of course Silverlight would still have to deliver and at the moment I don't think there's much chance of that. But both companies would benefit immensely if it could be made to meet Apple's needs and it gained critical mass in the marketplace.