Hey, I'd love to see this thing online! What's the site? I'm currently studying Latin and have studied Koine a bit, but in the near future plan to heavily hit the books on the Hellenic Greek, and then back-peddle to classical (the idea is not to cause confusion or mental blocks between classical Latin and classical Greek, given their similarities, so I'm purposefully putting material between them and making it harder by doing eras of the languages that are more dissimilar at any given time), and for this have interest in practically any and every Greek/Latin/Ancient-studies site and materials. Thanks for your time!
Which will it be, "made-up words" or "made up-words"? The former is not only more proper, but it's clearer. Not that "pseudo-words" is a good choice of expression given that "leapfrogging" isn't a non-word; he might have faired critciism better if he said something like "non-standard words".
Good one. : ) It's a pain to want to use the word correctly, it is useful and the alternative is circumlocution, which just isn't preferable to succintness; but having to explain the correct sense also defeats the purpose.
would you rather die from a black widow bite or die from internal hemorrhaging from being raped in the ass with a baseball bat non-stop for a week?
See? Works every time.
No, it doesn't. Cytotoxins affect the area immediate to site of injection; neurotoxins affect one systemically; with the amounts injected by spiders, one who is not a masochist would definitely have to prefer the latter to the former; the pain of a cytotoxin is limited to the site's surrounding, a neurotoxin bears on the...see its name; given that neurotoxins tend to open the ion channels in their membranes throughout the body (induces excruciating pain, as well as agonizing mental states) whereas cytotoxins are painful in the area of rot, I would have to go with the cytotoxin: at least with that the affected tissue can be excised if necessary. I am assuming, I don't think unfairly, that you think a cytotoxin causes your entire insides to rot: they do not, at least not from spiders, their affects, (as I've said), typically being limited to the immediate region of entry to the body. Whenever you see a case of spider bites from something like a Brown recluse the affect is limited to the bit region (though of course infection can begin to circulate the body), while the affects of a recluse is almost instant (Recluse & Co. bites are not) pure misery (depending on how much is injected) in mind and body, pain neurons everywhere firing, and of course the various affects of the toxin itself (neurotoxins can and do kill the nerves themselves over time, as well as mediate the deaths of other cells in the body, induce such processes because of the incorrect signalling to the brain, etc. etc.). As for mispellings, sorry dude: to a bio student that mispelling is highly significant; speaking of gaffs, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1721208&cid=32939992
I needed, by the way, to correct myself here (but for some reason the comment wouldn't show up for me a while); "keto" refers to ketone,and they're not fats but are a product of fat breakdown.
I don't know about that. What is a "cetotoxin"? I know of cytotoxins and necrotoxins, but not of "cetotoxins" (which would probably rather be spelled "ketotoxin" and would refer to the poinoning of fat). Whereas a necrotoxin like Brown Recluse venom causes rot around the bite, a Neurotoxin is hell that spread around and affects the entire system: the latter is likely to be worse in almost all cases, even if the former is quite traumatizing/evident to the mind.
It's because it's easier, dedicated to a specific task, makes the music organizable by multiple criteria (whereas folders mean there is only one or another organization structure that can be applied) whether through playlists or tagging or metadata, etc., quickly callable by those various criteria...it's the sort of things we're supposed to be able to do with computers already, but which basic OS offerings just don't support: how long has metadata been touted now, and how many file managers integrate it, and how many of those implement it well or in any useful way, make it searchable, etc. etc.? Dedicated apps that build databases of particular content take a lot of hassle out of things. I also have highly organized file and folder hierarchies, by the way, but note that when it comes to music players and the databases they use to sync to portable devices, highly subordinated folder structures are unsuitable for portable player: the greater the depth of the structure, the more searching a device must do; with the databases the moder programs use, it's like it just has to skim the surface of water rather than wading deep down into it.
Those are some reasons why databases are used to keep track of [various particular kinds of files] dude, hope that helps, and have a wonderful night (from my perspective anyways--morning, day, afternoon, evening, whatever).
The Taco Shell controversy happened to be one where people who consumed the Tacos began vomitting violently. I happened to be one of the lukcy bystanders to one such person, though I myself suffered only a mildely upset stomach.
Re:"Ontological" is a synonym for failure.
on
Google Acquires Metaweb
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Ontological" is an essential adjective for describing different aspects of knowledge (science); ontology for ordering it.
Bad idea. Remember that bacteria, fungi, algaes, etc., all tend to use oxygen: those that can live in water suck it right out of that water; if we engineered the world's largest mat of slime it would probably cause a drastic reduction in oxygen content dissolved in the water; even the tiny oil slick in the gulf (relative to this area of plastic) is already causing oxygen loss in the water enough to damage the surrounding areas and wildlife (beyond what just the oil would do) because of the various bacteria (many of which we add to break the oil down) that begin feeding upon it.
Essentially one shouldn't act in such a way as to cause a great imbalance; hasty measures that simplify labor matters "simply" for us (even if implementation is complex) have a tendency to do just that. It's not that you're idea is itself bad, but its consequences are terrible: we do all, after all, depend a great dael upon the ocean to live on this blue orb, whether for the food it provides to many, the reguation of the temperatures it maintains, or the ecosystems nearer to us (coastal) with which it interracts.
Evil corporations are the in thing to attack though
Sadly hoi polloi has been conditioned such that you don't even have to say "evil" explicitly, just "corporation/s" and the brainwashing will attach that meme for you. ; (
Maybe the "most people" you're talking about are those wholly dependent upon others' entrepeneurialship, investments, ideas, and generative labors; as for the kind which isn't into following others around like helpless parasites, including those who're such dependents but not by choice and are just a little more educated or thoughtful, they tend not to see difficulties with profit-making where people can sell. Now I know there really are cases where this isn't just, such as the many instances where monopolies of whatever kind (patent, whatever) are used to distort markets, crush valid competition and better service providers and producers--these things are in fact very common; as far as those cases (each should be viewed case-by-case) in which products or services are sold by prices paid willingly by grateful purchasers (which aren't negated simply because people are willing to steal), there is nothing wrong with gigantic margins: in those cases where function is just right, or perhaps there is excellence, what is wrong with selling for as much as people are wililng to pay?
Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men.--Proverbs 22:29
What essentially makes this a problem with capitalism? What makes it that rather than an endemic phenomena in human society reflective of human nature, particularly the desire to avoid accountability (read "hide from justice when it metes out an unfavorable portion") and create systems of abstractions and hierarchical layers behind which to hide? This sort of behavior as well as the thinking embodied in the statement you quote is found in every nation and people of the world, don't mis-assign blame. It's also more complex than that: trying to put the blame on the guy who pressured vs. the guy/s who bowed to it, or vice versa, rather than assigning credit wherever it is actually do, in proportions that it is due, is a sure sign of simpletonism. I have to be a critical bastard and say straightforwardly that your statement is irrational nonsense; flow of capital in and of itself is fine and dandy, a necessary right for men to be free, that is, something inseparable from free men and a free state, which is capitalism: as for laissez-faire, which I'll comment upon pre-emptively before someone tries to divert attention to a non-issue, that doesn't exist and never has: the U.S. has more regulations than even the European Monstrosity (which seems in its jealous envy to be trying to catch-up) on almost every trival matter you could possibly think of (which also seriously happens to actually diminish and imminently threaten the freedom of its inhabitants), including on transfers of money; those many regulations happen to be for attempting to prevent things like the government failure in this (giving B.P. the "ok" not to follow all the safety measures and procedures required before starting the pump) don't happen, and instituting serious consequences against corporate failures like this (all kinds of things): trouble is that the government is able easily to evade any consequences and even argue in court (with judges colluding) that any amount of mismanagement, incompetence, or gross negligence, is defensible so long as they were attempting to fulfill and exercise legitimate and necessary/proper functions of government (massive explosion in Texas caused by the Feds idiocy that kills many? Nobody in government can be held accountable; approving driling known beforehand to likely destroy entire water tables, which drilling should not have been approved and this was known? Can't be held accountable. Etc etc., "you can't sue the king"--despite that we intentionally don't have one and have made all such titles, even ones just received from other nations, illegal and treasonable offenses); private corporations, on the other hand, can be held up to light and served justice...if the people are vigilant and they elect principled and law-abiding oath-keeping officers. Fail that, and you get what you deserve in proportion to your corporate failures in vigilance.
Anyway, technically B.P. had permission to skip certain steps otherwise required by the government, and the government gave it. So who shares the larger part of the blame, then, but is the public ever going to hear about it? Politics 101, those in power, whatever form their power might take, are never to blame, and will never allow that they should be said to be those who are to blame, period: ever, got it? Good, now you're a LOT wiser for the wear and journey ahead. Maybe if you're Cicero you'll take one powerful criminal down, but remember that the next attempt to foil a plot will probably cost you your life.
However, this is really not the case at all with theory of computation & discrete math. Those branches arose in the 20th century; who figured out what and when is well known.
my point was thus, that knowing the subject matter and knowing the people who came up with it--irregardless of whether they're well known--cannot be identified nor rationally
said to depend on one another in either direction, contra
Someone who has rigorously learned the subject matter would most certainly recognize the name Knuth
It's possible that someone can have interest only in the subject matter and completely spurn care about who made what, for instance. Not knowing the names of celebrated persons isn't a valid nor defensible premise for asserting that such a person hasn't done any serious study in the concepts and their applications. Such a situation might be taken as an indicator with a high probability that they haven't studied that rigorously, "if at all", based perhaps on your personal experience, but stating it any more strongly than that, or stating it as outright proof that such a person hasn't studied seriously, is a mistake.
Makes me wonder why anyone would assume everyone on./ knows who he is, what he's done, or why we should care what he has to announce...
Seriously? To draw a comparison, it's like being a geneticist and not knowing who Gregor Mendel is.
Seriously? Talk about no "respect for [a] field" (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702818&cid=32744060): THE MODERN NOTION OF THE GENE DID NOT COME FROM MENDEL, BUT WAS RE-DISCOVERED, ONLY AFTER WHICH DID THE RESEARCHERS WHO DID THIS SEARCH THE LITERATURE AND FIND THAT SOMEONE ELSE (who had been totally ignored because of Darwin, Darwinism, and unlike either the founder or his school had actually determiend a scientific mechanism rather than engage in a speculative philosophy) HAD ONCE BEFORE DEMONSTRATED A GENE THEORY THAT HAD A MATHEMATICAL, EVIDENTIAL, AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS.
So technically speaking the guy who "came up with [a] major advance[]" (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702818&cid=32744060) is actually quite unimportant and insignificant, as are we all and all our labors when we get right down to it, that is, someone else can and probably will produce it to. If they'd never uncovered that someone else figured-out gene theory before them it still wouldn't matter to us today; that they did and that Mendel, a meticulous methodist's methodist (I'm not talking the religion), monk (how's that for perspective: a guy who did what he did because of the opportunity and interest his position as a monk, (and the duties it required), afforded him), and empiricist, was finally credited is, however, something that makes my heart glad.
Let's charitably assume (that which the guy did not imply) that he's a genius, just for a moment's consideration. Let's say he's such a genius, in fact, that he's miles ahead and much more advanced in considering various things that the rest of us consider impressive. Now let's consider that what is under consideration is just logical matter that can be derived from first principles anyways, despite that it may be considered impressive, come as "advances in the field", etc. etc.. Should he be uppity or necessarily observant with the same "awe" ("respect"--you must have mean "regard" and that in reference to pesons) as you? Should aliens from off-world who came-up with the same things you did come to bring the same "respect" to your institution Let's charitably assume (that which the guy did not imply) that he's a genius, just for a moment's consideration. Let's say he's such a genius, in fact, that he's miles ahead and much more advanced in considering various things that the rest of us consider impressive. Now let's consider that what is under consideration is just logical matter that can be derived from first principles anyways, despite that it may be considered impressive, come as "advances in the field", etc. etc.. Should he be uppity or necessarily observant with the same "awe" ("respect"--you must have mean "regard" and that in reference to persons) as you? Should aliens from off-world who came-up with the same things you did come to bring the same "respect" to your institution once they arrive here? Probably not.
Similarly, someone "alien" to the same academic circles or schools may not be similarly impressed as are you with certain persons, or care about how significant the "advances" are: this disaffection is, in fact, the reason that patents upon processes and logical matter that is deduced and scientific is not legitimately patentable (despite that, as so many here know, the USPTO keeps granting them); it is the reason that algorithms, which are mathematical and may be produced independently yet be found the same across entire continents, cultures, and ages, are not supposed to be patentable. Note I'm playing devil's advocate here; typically I wish to ensure that credit, insofar is reasonable (if we always granted credit for every idea and concept at all times we'd have pages and pages filled with nothing but names and dates rather than actual matter), is granted, that we remember the circumstance (context, opposing schools, history, method of development, names and their backgrounds and the thoughts that inspired them or directed them, etc. etc.) of the knowledge that's out there, but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily the most important of things.
As to "the major advances", when a field is a progression of reason, there is hardly anything that can correctly be called "major": what criteria do you use to judge "major"? Seriously: the lauding of others, the excitement of the community, the most practically applicable? So much in our day is "major", so many are "renowned/celebrated professors/scientists/authors" etc. etc. (as has been the case through history) that what is truly "major" is often not unimpeachably judged so until the insobriety and politicking died in the receding of history. Also, what is often called "major" is some solution that to others was difficult, but to some other or others was not: a lot of things just depend on background, perspective, and so on, hence the great potential in inter-disciplinary and more-open approaches. I knew an Arab guy who had better algorithms than our University's mathematics department and problems which they though hard were a cinch to him because of his differing background: they consistently failed him for "not doing it the proscribed/approved way" despite that he could mathematically prove and demonstrate the solutions and processs. These weren't hick practitioners of mathematics, either, but well respected academics. So take a step back and ask "why" is such and such "major", or why is a solution "celebrated", or why is such and such p
Did you just seriously say that? So someone who rigorously learns the subject matter hasn't done any "serious" study because they don't give a hoot about the who's whoe's names? Do "the foundations of the field" consist of that subject matter or the names? Come on.
Hell, the philosophies that undergird much of that field are in large part falsely attributed to this or that person who is still known, whose works largely compile that of predecessors; in logic, Plato of Socrates; Xenophon of Socrates; both of various authors and contributors to mathematical philosophy including but definitely not limited to Pythatgoras: most of the actual foundERS of the mathetmatical foundations are actually NOT KNOWN, but does that mean we diss modern mathematicians? No.
Seriously, get over it. And fallacies 101, appeal to personal experience or to authority, "Believe me, I'm not just guessing; I've got 20+ years of experience [bla bla bla]" is so hoi polloi. How wonderful that you combined two rhetorical trickeries into one statement! I'm keeping that one as a demonstration. Deal with what the guy actually said, what are the actual consequences of the statement as well as what are not.
I probably should have mentioned SNPs instead, one of the many subjects studied at university. Speaking of which, Wikipedia's article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism, is not bad, this being of the most relevant quotes to our particular conversation,
Variations in the DNA sequences of humans can affect how humans develop diseases and respond to pathogens, chemicals, drugs, vaccines, and other agents.
It's a publicity stunt, but it's not "just" a publicity stunt: epigenetics research can use this sort of information, and Ozzie is an easy choice given that it's out in the open. As others have pointed-out, though, having samples prior to his binge of abuse would be useful: maybe him mom has hair or a foreskin laying around from childhood (yes, people do actually keep that sort of stuff).
Well I apologize for misconstruing anything, and hope that the comment was interesting for the general/. readership nonetheless. One it being remote, sure: the same, however, can well be said about microbes surviving in space on previous vehicles we've had up there. I just wanted to diminish any diminishing of wonder or thought that could be possible produced in the minds of readers by the statement of very bad likelihood of this possibly happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I'd love to see this thing online! What's the site? I'm currently studying Latin and have studied Koine a bit, but in the near future plan to heavily hit the books on the Hellenic Greek, and then back-peddle to classical (the idea is not to cause confusion or mental blocks between classical Latin and classical Greek, given their similarities, so I'm purposefully putting material between them and making it harder by doing eras of the languages that are more dissimilar at any given time), and for this have interest in practically any and every Greek/Latin/Ancient-studies site and materials. Thanks for your time!
Which will it be, "made-up words" or "made up-words"? The former is not only more proper, but it's clearer. Not that "pseudo-words" is a good choice of expression given that "leapfrogging" isn't a non-word; he might have faired critciism better if he said something like "non-standard words".
But this is the English language version of Slashdot.
In this milieu, "the body" refers to human beings, while the article (and the summary) points out that human beings do not have this enzyme.
Good one. : ) It's a pain to want to use the word correctly, it is useful and the alternative is circumlocution, which just isn't preferable to succintness; but having to explain the correct sense also defeats the purpose.
seems to demonstrate that that commentator hasn's spent much time around the general populace.
No, it doesn't. Cytotoxins affect the area immediate to site of injection; neurotoxins affect one systemically; with the amounts injected by spiders, one who is not a masochist would definitely have to prefer the latter to the former; the pain of a cytotoxin is limited to the site's surrounding, a neurotoxin bears on the...see its name; given that neurotoxins tend to open the ion channels in their membranes throughout the body (induces excruciating pain, as well as agonizing mental states) whereas cytotoxins are painful in the area of rot, I would have to go with the cytotoxin: at least with that the affected tissue can be excised if necessary. I am assuming, I don't think unfairly, that you think a cytotoxin causes your entire insides to rot: they do not, at least not from spiders, their affects, (as I've said), typically being limited to the immediate region of entry to the body. Whenever you see a case of spider bites from something like a Brown recluse the affect is limited to the bit region (though of course infection can begin to circulate the body), while the affects of a recluse is almost instant (Recluse & Co. bites are not) pure misery (depending on how much is injected) in mind and body, pain neurons everywhere firing, and of course the various affects of the toxin itself (neurotoxins can and do kill the nerves themselves over time, as well as mediate the deaths of other cells in the body, induce such processes because of the incorrect signalling to the brain, etc. etc.). As for mispellings, sorry dude: to a bio student that mispelling is highly significant; speaking of gaffs, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1721208&cid=32939992
I needed, by the way, to correct myself here (but for some reason the comment wouldn't show up for me a while); "keto" refers to ketone,and they're not fats but are a product of fat breakdown.
I don't know about that. What is a "cetotoxin"? I know of cytotoxins and necrotoxins, but not of "cetotoxins" (which would probably rather be spelled "ketotoxin" and would refer to the poinoning of fat). Whereas a necrotoxin like Brown Recluse venom causes rot around the bite, a Neurotoxin is hell that spread around and affects the entire system: the latter is likely to be worse in almost all cases, even if the former is quite traumatizing/evident to the mind.
It's because it's easier, dedicated to a specific task, makes the music organizable by multiple criteria (whereas folders mean there is only one or another organization structure that can be applied) whether through playlists or tagging or metadata, etc., quickly callable by those various criteria...it's the sort of things we're supposed to be able to do with computers already, but which basic OS offerings just don't support: how long has metadata been touted now, and how many file managers integrate it, and how many of those implement it well or in any useful way, make it searchable, etc. etc.? Dedicated apps that build databases of particular content take a lot of hassle out of things. I also have highly organized file and folder hierarchies, by the way, but note that when it comes to music players and the databases they use to sync to portable devices, highly subordinated folder structures are unsuitable for portable player: the greater the depth of the structure, the more searching a device must do; with the databases the moder programs use, it's like it just has to skim the surface of water rather than wading deep down into it.
Those are some reasons why databases are used to keep track of [various particular kinds of files] dude, hope that helps, and have a wonderful night (from my perspective anyways--morning, day, afternoon, evening, whatever).
The Taco Shell controversy happened to be one where people who consumed the Tacos began vomitting violently. I happened to be one of the lukcy bystanders to one such person, though I myself suffered only a mildely upset stomach.
"Ontological" is an essential adjective for describing different aspects of knowledge (science); ontology for ordering it.
Bad idea. Remember that bacteria, fungi, algaes, etc., all tend to use oxygen: those that can live in water suck it right out of that water; if we engineered the world's largest mat of slime it would probably cause a drastic reduction in oxygen content dissolved in the water; even the tiny oil slick in the gulf (relative to this area of plastic) is already causing oxygen loss in the water enough to damage the surrounding areas and wildlife (beyond what just the oil would do) because of the various bacteria (many of which we add to break the oil down) that begin feeding upon it.
Essentially one shouldn't act in such a way as to cause a great imbalance; hasty measures that simplify labor matters "simply" for us (even if implementation is complex) have a tendency to do just that. It's not that you're idea is itself bad, but its consequences are terrible: we do all, after all, depend a great dael upon the ocean to live on this blue orb, whether for the food it provides to many, the reguation of the temperatures it maintains, or the ecosystems nearer to us (coastal) with which it interracts.
Sadly hoi polloi has been conditioned such that you don't even have to say "evil" explicitly, just "corporation/s" and the brainwashing will attach that meme for you. ; (
Wise advice.
What essentially makes this a problem with capitalism? What makes it that rather than an endemic phenomena in human society reflective of human nature, particularly the desire to avoid accountability (read "hide from justice when it metes out an unfavorable portion") and create systems of abstractions and hierarchical layers behind which to hide? This sort of behavior as well as the thinking embodied in the statement you quote is found in every nation and people of the world, don't mis-assign blame. It's also more complex than that: trying to put the blame on the guy who pressured vs. the guy/s who bowed to it, or vice versa, rather than assigning credit wherever it is actually do, in proportions that it is due, is a sure sign of simpletonism. I have to be a critical bastard and say straightforwardly that your statement is irrational nonsense; flow of capital in and of itself is fine and dandy, a necessary right for men to be free, that is, something inseparable from free men and a free state, which is capitalism: as for laissez-faire, which I'll comment upon pre-emptively before someone tries to divert attention to a non-issue, that doesn't exist and never has: the U.S. has more regulations than even the European Monstrosity (which seems in its jealous envy to be trying to catch-up) on almost every trival matter you could possibly think of (which also seriously happens to actually diminish and imminently threaten the freedom of its inhabitants), including on transfers of money; those many regulations happen to be for attempting to prevent things like the government failure in this (giving B.P. the "ok" not to follow all the safety measures and procedures required before starting the pump) don't happen, and instituting serious consequences against corporate failures like this (all kinds of things): trouble is that the government is able easily to evade any consequences and even argue in court (with judges colluding) that any amount of mismanagement, incompetence, or gross negligence, is defensible so long as they were attempting to fulfill and exercise legitimate and necessary/proper functions of government (massive explosion in Texas caused by the Feds idiocy that kills many? Nobody in government can be held accountable; approving driling known beforehand to likely destroy entire water tables, which drilling should not have been approved and this was known? Can't be held accountable. Etc etc., "you can't sue the king"--despite that we intentionally don't have one and have made all such titles, even ones just received from other nations, illegal and treasonable offenses); private corporations, on the other hand, can be held up to light and served justice...if the people are vigilant and they elect principled and law-abiding oath-keeping officers. Fail that, and you get what you deserve in proportion to your corporate failures in vigilance.
Anyway, technically B.P. had permission to skip certain steps otherwise required by the government, and the government gave it. So who shares the larger part of the blame, then, but is the public ever going to hear about it? Politics 101, those in power, whatever form their power might take, are never to blame, and will never allow that they should be said to be those who are to blame, period: ever, got it? Good, now you're a LOT wiser for the wear and journey ahead. Maybe if you're Cicero you'll take one powerful criminal down, but remember that the next attempt to foil a plot will probably cost you your life.
my point was thus, that knowing the subject matter and knowing the people who came up with it--irregardless of whether they're well known--cannot be identified nor rationally said to depend on one another in either direction, contra
It's possible that someone can have interest only in the subject matter and completely spurn care about who made what, for instance. Not knowing the names of celebrated persons isn't a valid nor defensible premise for asserting that such a person hasn't done any serious study in the concepts and their applications. Such a situation might be taken as an indicator with a high probability that they haven't studied that rigorously, "if at all", based perhaps on your personal experience, but stating it any more strongly than that, or stating it as outright proof that such a person hasn't studied seriously, is a mistake.
Si erro, mone me.
Seriously? Talk about no "respect for [a] field" (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702818&cid=32744060): THE MODERN NOTION OF THE GENE DID NOT COME FROM MENDEL, BUT WAS RE-DISCOVERED, ONLY AFTER WHICH DID THE RESEARCHERS WHO DID THIS SEARCH THE LITERATURE AND FIND THAT SOMEONE ELSE (who had been totally ignored because of Darwin, Darwinism, and unlike either the founder or his school had actually determiend a scientific mechanism rather than engage in a speculative philosophy) HAD ONCE BEFORE DEMONSTRATED A GENE THEORY THAT HAD A MATHEMATICAL, EVIDENTIAL, AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS.
I gave a little rant questioning how, exactly, should we appraise that which is logically deducibile and reproducible here, http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702818&cid=32747442
So technically speaking the guy who "came up with [a] major advance[]" (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702818&cid=32744060) is actually quite unimportant and insignificant, as are we all and all our labors when we get right down to it, that is, someone else can and probably will produce it to. If they'd never uncovered that someone else figured-out gene theory before them it still wouldn't matter to us today; that they did and that Mendel, a meticulous methodist's methodist (I'm not talking the religion), monk (how's that for perspective: a guy who did what he did because of the opportunity and interest his position as a monk, (and the duties it required), afforded him), and empiricist, was finally credited is, however, something that makes my heart glad.
Let's charitably assume (that which the guy did not imply) that he's a genius, just for a moment's consideration. Let's say he's such a genius, in fact, that he's miles ahead and much more advanced in considering various things that the rest of us consider impressive. Now let's consider that what is under consideration is just logical matter that can be derived from first principles anyways, despite that it may be considered impressive, come as "advances in the field", etc. etc.. Should he be uppity or necessarily observant with the same "awe" ("respect"--you must have mean "regard" and that in reference to pesons) as you? Should aliens from off-world who came-up with the same things you did come to bring the same "respect" to your institution Let's charitably assume (that which the guy did not imply) that he's a genius, just for a moment's consideration. Let's say he's such a genius, in fact, that he's miles ahead and much more advanced in considering various things that the rest of us consider impressive. Now let's consider that what is under consideration is just logical matter that can be derived from first principles anyways, despite that it may be considered impressive, come as "advances in the field", etc. etc.. Should he be uppity or necessarily observant with the same "awe" ("respect"--you must have mean "regard" and that in reference to persons) as you? Should aliens from off-world who came-up with the same things you did come to bring the same "respect" to your institution once they arrive here? Probably not.
Similarly, someone "alien" to the same academic circles or schools may not be similarly impressed as are you with certain persons, or care about how significant the "advances" are: this disaffection is, in fact, the reason that patents upon processes and logical matter that is deduced and scientific is not legitimately patentable (despite that, as so many here know, the USPTO keeps granting them); it is the reason that algorithms, which are mathematical and may be produced independently yet be found the same across entire continents, cultures, and ages, are not supposed to be patentable. Note I'm playing devil's advocate here; typically I wish to ensure that credit, insofar is reasonable (if we always granted credit for every idea and concept at all times we'd have pages and pages filled with nothing but names and dates rather than actual matter), is granted, that we remember the circumstance (context, opposing schools, history, method of development, names and their backgrounds and the thoughts that inspired them or directed them, etc. etc.) of the knowledge that's out there, but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily the most important of things.
As to "the major advances", when a field is a progression of reason, there is hardly anything that can correctly be called "major": what criteria do you use to judge "major"? Seriously: the lauding of others, the excitement of the community, the most practically applicable? So much in our day is "major", so many are "renowned/celebrated professors/scientists/authors" etc. etc. (as has been the case through history) that what is truly "major" is often not unimpeachably judged so until the insobriety and politicking died in the receding of history. Also, what is often called "major" is some solution that to others was difficult, but to some other or others was not: a lot of things just depend on background, perspective, and so on, hence the great potential in inter-disciplinary and more-open approaches. I knew an Arab guy who had better algorithms than our University's mathematics department and problems which they though hard were a cinch to him because of his differing background: they consistently failed him for "not doing it the proscribed/approved way" despite that he could mathematically prove and demonstrate the solutions and processs. These weren't hick practitioners of mathematics, either, but well respected academics. So take a step back and ask "why" is such and such "major", or why is a solution "celebrated", or why is such and such p
Did you just seriously say that? So someone who rigorously learns the subject matter hasn't done any "serious" study because they don't give a hoot about the who's whoe's names? Do "the foundations of the field" consist of that subject matter or the names? Come on.
Hell, the philosophies that undergird much of that field are in large part falsely attributed to this or that person who is still known, whose works largely compile that of predecessors; in logic, Plato of Socrates; Xenophon of Socrates; both of various authors and contributors to mathematical philosophy including but definitely not limited to Pythatgoras: most of the actual foundERS of the mathetmatical foundations are actually NOT KNOWN, but does that mean we diss modern mathematicians? No.
Seriously, get over it. And fallacies 101, appeal to personal experience or to authority, "Believe me, I'm not just guessing; I've got 20+ years of experience [bla bla bla]" is so hoi polloi. How wonderful that you combined two rhetorical trickeries into one statement! I'm keeping that one as a demonstration. Deal with what the guy actually said, what are the actual consequences of the statement as well as what are not.
: ) underrated.
It's a publicity stunt, but it's not "just" a publicity stunt: epigenetics research can use this sort of information, and Ozzie is an easy choice given that it's out in the open. As others have pointed-out, though, having samples prior to his binge of abuse would be useful: maybe him mom has hair or a foreskin laying around from childhood (yes, people do actually keep that sort of stuff).
No you didn't. And for such an innocuous comment, why'd you go A.C.?
Well I apologize for misconstruing anything, and hope that the comment was interesting for the general /. readership nonetheless. One it being remote, sure: the same, however, can well be said about microbes surviving in space on previous vehicles we've had up there. I just wanted to diminish any diminishing of wonder or thought that could be possible produced in the minds of readers by the statement of very bad likelihood of this possibly happening.