And as a clone, the female would have two copies of the original X chromosome (making XX), i.e. half of the original DNA (XY).
No, that's just wrong.
A clone of male that was engineered to replace the Y sex chromosome with an duplicate of the X would have much more than half the DNA of the original male. The sex chromosome pair is one of 23 chromosome pairs, and the Y chromosome itself has less DNA than the X chromosome. So, the XY -> XX switch would preserve more than half of the DNA of the sex chromosome pair, which is itself only a small fraction of the DNA of the entire set of chromosomes.
Theoretically, taking advantage of the cloud where it fits your organization will offset the "maintenance debt" problem.
"Cloud" (as in, dynamic server provisioning) has very little to do with it.
Outsourcing IT functions to a firm that is contracted to actually perform the maintenance that was being deferred on the in-house systems (whether hardware, infrastructure software, application software, etc.) obviously can address problems related to deferred maintenance, not because of the outsourcing itself, or because the vendor to whom the operations are outsourced happens to use "cloud" technology to power its offerings, but because the maintenance is actually happening.
OTOH, its not a magic wand to deal with maintenance debt with regard to information systems. You still need to conduct ongoing evaluation and updates of business processes and the supporting applications not merely to meet generic needs but to meet the particular needs of your business. If you are using generic apps provided by a "cloud" vendor, your flexibility to keep them up to date with your processes may be limited (the same is true of locally hosted COTS software, of course.) If you are using custom apps -- or scripted customization of off-the-shelf apps -- hasted by a cloud vendor then, just as with similar local-hosted apps, you have to maintain the software as part of that continuous maintenance of the business operations.
Keeping operations -- whether implemented in hardware, in software, or with organized groups of people -- in tune with the changing needs of the business is a fundamental need of business which is largely technology-independent. Using vendor-provided, cloud-hosted services may be a way to outsource some of the more generic parts of that (e.g., someone else gets paid to, among other things, apply basic OS patches and patches to software shared with other users) and may provide tools that simplify some of the rest (if all your key apps are cloud-hosted web apps, the mechanics of rolling out updates may be trivial), but it doesn't eliminate the basic need or make it so internal staff don't have to do anything to address it.
It's called OpenID, http://www.openid.net./ [www.openid.net] move along, nothing to see here.
The problem with OpenID is that, while lots of big sites will let you use your account with that site as an OpenID (acting as OpenID providers), fewer actually accept foreign OpenID for logon.
Everyone wants their accounts to be the web's single-sign-on, but almost no one big wants to accept sign-ons from elsewhere.
So? I'd imagine that the local computer would still generate the data for that and send it to the monitor in a cloud-based OS, just like in, say, Google Chrome OS, another cloud-based OS.
Actually, it was called both F-19 and F-117. When the game was released for the C64, the official name of the plane was not yet known, so Microprose called it F-19. When the Amiga version was released, they changed it to the official name, F-117.
I don't think that's quite right: F-19 and F-117 were on different versions for the same platforms, as I recall. I'm not sure about C-64 and Amiga, but know I owned F-19 Stealth Fighter for the PC and ISTR seeing F-117 Stealth Fighter 2 for the same platform.
Increased sales of a console are meaningless to these companies without an accompanying high attachment rate on buying games.
I thought both the Xbox360 and PS3 had reached the point where the consoles themselves were profitable now, such that while a high attach rate is desirable, sales of consoles in and of themselves are still positives for the company.
If you looked back into my search history far enough, you could probably find places where I searched for all those different things in the past.
But would they also find emails to your lover saying how you were trying to get rid of your wife and, more importantly, would they also find your wife's dead body with evidence of being killed in a manner related to the searches you had conducted?
There was more evidence found here than just the search history.
No, its not, in the absence of an existing legal proceeding, though it may be a component (along with the requisite mental state or other facts) of being an accessory after the fact, obstruction of justice, or some other crime not strictly related to destruction of evidence as such.
and if it’s not evidence of a crime, it’s not evidence.
Wrong. Evidence relevant to non-criminal matters is still evidence.
So the answer might be to make the (or an) internet useless for corporations.
If its useful for any activity which corporations perform (including, anything which consumers want that corporations can make money making easier for consumers), it will be useful for corporations. The only way to make it useless for corporations is to make it useless, period.
who said a new clean Net2 needs to have all those billions of lusers?
If it is usable and unregulated, people will use it. The only way you control that is (1) make it unattractive for use (not just user-unfriendly in applications, but technically incapable of supporting applications that would be attractive to the general population, because otherwise someone will make those applications) or (2) apply some form of governance which actively keeps people off of it.
If you eschew central control in favor of freedom at each node, #2 is ruled out; if you actually want it to be useful, #1 is ruled out.
mean, seriously, don't let commercial devices like toasters and fridges and cars use the Net2 until you get enough infrastructure
they can easily control the physical cable networks, but, if people start setting up wireless networks with powerful in-home devices, then it would become a real network that could live dynamically.
Yeah, and its not like government regulates wireless broadcasts using "powerful in-home devices" at all
You can, right now, today. How much would it cost you to string up a cable to your neighbor's house or set up a wireless link? How much would it cost them to do the same? Once you have a few hundred houses, you'll need someone to spend some time configuring it all.
I'm imagining that latency would be pretty bad for anything outside of your ZIP code on a 1-house = 1-hop network topology, not to mention that if you want a global network, someone's going to have to pay for the house-to-house connection from a house on one side of the (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.) to a house on the other, which is going to be a pretty big cost.
Netflix aside, those new TVs have support for apps in general. Why not just add a Microsoft/Google TV app? These new set top boxes seem dated before they're even out. Google should apply the android model to TVs.
GoogleTV isn't an app, it is Android for TVs (including a plan to roll-out support early this year for apps from the Android Market.) Just as Android normally comes installed on a device, it comes installed on TVs. It also can be run on set-top boxes using the TV as a display device (this is a cheaper option for those with an existing TV, since you don't have to replace the TV.)
Suggesting that GoogleTV -- which is really Android for TVs -- should made available as an app for the other "smartTV" platforms is like suggesting that Google should make Android available as an iPhone app.
'The moment the "net neutrality" debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network — its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation — is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them — that network loses its power to effect change.
The fate of the Internet was in the government's hands the whole time it was ARPAnet, and it went directly from their into the hands of the corporations who, in Rushkoff's view, fund policymakers. All of this was well before the "net neutrality" debate began, and much of it was before the term "the Internet" for the particular batch of systems was even coined.
If we were to accept Rushkoff's premise, then, the Internet was doomed before it even existed and we should have all just ignored it and made our own, with neither corporate nor government involvement, using neither public nor corporate infrastructure (I'm not sure if Rushkoff's idea of "corporations" includes for-profit businesses operated under forms other than the corporate form -- e.g., sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, etc.; if it doesn't, its not clear what the meaningful distinction of the corporate form is, if it does, I'm not sure how you avoid "corporations" having disproportionate influence over it even if you do keep government out of it, since the people with the most incentive to put money into the infrastructure will be those who have a profit-earning business that uses the network in one way or another, and the owners of the infrastructure or going to have absolute control if the government is kept completely out.)
Really, Rushkoff's analysis seems to be entirely disconnected from the history (and technical architecture in his suggestion that FidoNet is somehow decentralized in a way that the internet is not) of the Internet in assessing the problem, and as a result his solution is "let's just surrender the existing Internet to corporate control with no governance, and build a new one just like it, with no governance plan, and hope that magic fairies keep it free."
It its unregulated and commercially useful, corporate control will follow.
Java is pretty much only GC language I'm aware of where temp objects are passed to GC. Perl (and I'm sure myriad of other GC languages) at compile time takes note what objects are not used outside of the context and destroys them immediately.
Ruby 1.8.x certainly GCs temp objects rather than treating them specially (refactoring code to mutate string objects rather than creating unnecessary temp strings and the GC overhead associated with them is a common performance-improvement recommendation for Ruby code); I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the Ruby implementations that use a compilation step rather than an AST-walking interpreter (Ruby 1.9.x, JRuby, Rubinius) do something to optimize the handling of local variables that become unreachable when they go out of scope.
(Of course, that illustrates another point -- GC behavior at this level usually isn't a language feature, per se, its an interpreter/VM feature.)
There is no good reason to support the barely-spec bottom rung devices.
Actually, there is a pretty good reason to support "barely-spec" devices, since, by definition, those devices meet (if only just) the specification for which a support commitment has been made.
I thought it was rather embarrassing for the republicans when they tried these tactics against Obama. It saddens me that apparently some democrats are sinking to their level.
The people doing it don't even claim to be Democrats.
Have you considered that it might not really be democrats behind it?
The people behind it don't even claim to be "Democrats" that's just something invented by TFS; they claim to be "liberal individuals" who want "Democrats and Independents" to vote for Palin.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries.
Closed primaries do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of an organized effort launched two years prior to an election to get people to vote in a particular primary of a particular party, regardless of where there loyalties lie.
It would affect the effectiveness of similar efforts conducted at the last minute, or individuals crossing over based on late polls.
In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever, Democrats are beginning to organize to purposely vote for Palin in the 2012 Republican primaries.
Its actually fairly common for organizations claiming to prefer one major party or the other seeking to influence primaries of the other major party in this way, and for major parties or their supporters to attempt to influence minor parties nominations (both as to who is nominated and whether anyone is nominated by that minor party) as tactical ploys.
Also, note that despite TFS's claims that these are Democrats, there is no source for this information, and the site itself claims only that its anonymous creators are "liberal individuals" who want "Democrats and Independents" to work to nominate Palin.
Probably been said a million times before, but I'll have another go at it. Amazon is a private platform, and if the subject matter in question irks the management or board, they are well within their rights to not sell related product. It's not censorship.
There are two problems with this: First: While government censorship is restricted under the US constitution, "censorship" is not limited to government censorship, and includes action by private parties. Second: Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not exist in nature. They are created, subsidized, and structured by governments through law. Their characterization as "private" is a deliberate fiction.
But Amazon certainly has no 'official' capacity in any sense that doesn't render the word meaningless.
An official is someone who holds a position with defined authority (an office.) Someone in the Amazon corporate heirarchy holds an office within that heirarchy wherein they have the authority to determine, based on (among other considerations) content, what should and should not be distributed by Amazon. Insofar as such decisions are made based on content, those decisions are acts of censorship.
Please cite an example of this where a corporation committed murder & was not punished by the law. ----- I can guarantee you the government has done it FAR more often.
It is, of course, true by definition that government has done anything corporations have done at least as much as corporations themselves have done it, because corporations are creatures of government, and therefore every act committed by a corporation is an act commited by government.
However, the legal fiction that corporations are private persons just like natural persons rather than organs of government results in corporations being free from all the Constitutional limitations on action that are placed on other creatures of government, and the particular manner in which they are constituted by government also makes their action less accountable to the citizenry than those of other organs of government power.
Slashdot Mirror
And as a clone, the female would have two copies of the original X chromosome (making XX), i.e. half of the original DNA (XY).
No, that's just wrong.
A clone of male that was engineered to replace the Y sex chromosome with an duplicate of the X would have much more than half the DNA of the original male. The sex chromosome pair is one of 23 chromosome pairs, and the Y chromosome itself has less DNA than the X chromosome. So, the XY -> XX switch would preserve more than half of the DNA of the sex chromosome pair, which is itself only a small fraction of the DNA of the entire set of chromosomes.
Theoretically, taking advantage of the cloud where it fits your organization will offset the "maintenance debt" problem.
"Cloud" (as in, dynamic server provisioning) has very little to do with it.
Outsourcing IT functions to a firm that is contracted to actually perform the maintenance that was being deferred on the in-house systems (whether hardware, infrastructure software, application software, etc.) obviously can address problems related to deferred maintenance, not because of the outsourcing itself, or because the vendor to whom the operations are outsourced happens to use "cloud" technology to power its offerings, but because the maintenance is actually happening.
OTOH, its not a magic wand to deal with maintenance debt with regard to information systems. You still need to conduct ongoing evaluation and updates of business processes and the supporting applications not merely to meet generic needs but to meet the particular needs of your business. If you are using generic apps provided by a "cloud" vendor, your flexibility to keep them up to date with your processes may be limited (the same is true of locally hosted COTS software, of course.) If you are using custom apps -- or scripted customization of off-the-shelf apps -- hasted by a cloud vendor then, just as with similar local-hosted apps, you have to maintain the software as part of that continuous maintenance of the business operations.
Keeping operations -- whether implemented in hardware, in software, or with organized groups of people -- in tune with the changing needs of the business is a fundamental need of business which is largely technology-independent. Using vendor-provided, cloud-hosted services may be a way to outsource some of the more generic parts of that (e.g., someone else gets paid to, among other things, apply basic OS patches and patches to software shared with other users) and may provide tools that simplify some of the rest (if all your key apps are cloud-hosted web apps, the mechanics of rolling out updates may be trivial), but it doesn't eliminate the basic need or make it so internal staff don't have to do anything to address it.
It's called OpenID, http://www.openid.net./ [www.openid.net] move along, nothing to see here.
The problem with OpenID is that, while lots of big sites will let you use your account with that site as an OpenID (acting as OpenID providers), fewer actually accept foreign OpenID for logon.
Everyone wants their accounts to be the web's single-sign-on, but almost no one big wants to accept sign-ons from elsewhere.
ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work this.
A 1920 x 1200 desktop at 32 bits a lot of data.
So? I'd imagine that the local computer would still generate the data for that and send it to the monitor in a cloud-based OS, just like in, say, Google Chrome OS, another cloud-based OS.
Actually, it was called both F-19 and F-117. When the game was released for the C64, the official name of the plane was not yet known, so Microprose called it F-19. When the Amiga version was released, they changed it to the official name, F-117.
I don't think that's quite right: F-19 and F-117 were on different versions for the same platforms, as I recall. I'm not sure about C-64 and Amiga, but know I owned F-19 Stealth Fighter for the PC and ISTR seeing F-117 Stealth Fighter 2 for the same platform.
Increased sales of a console are meaningless to these companies without an accompanying high attachment rate on buying games.
I thought both the Xbox360 and PS3 had reached the point where the consoles themselves were profitable now, such that while a high attach rate is desirable, sales of consoles in and of themselves are still positives for the company.
If you looked back into my search history far enough, you could probably find places where I searched for all those different things in the past.
But would they also find emails to your lover saying how you were trying to get rid of your wife and, more importantly, would they also find your wife's dead body with evidence of being killed in a manner related to the searches you had conducted?
There was more evidence found here than just the search history.
Destroying evidence of a crime is always illegal
No, its not, in the absence of an existing legal proceeding, though it may be a component (along with the requisite mental state or other facts) of being an accessory after the fact, obstruction of justice, or some other crime not strictly related to destruction of evidence as such.
and if it’s not evidence of a crime, it’s not evidence.
Wrong. Evidence relevant to non-criminal matters is still evidence.
So the answer might be to make the (or an) internet useless for corporations.
If its useful for any activity which corporations perform (including, anything which consumers want that corporations can make money making easier for consumers), it will be useful for corporations. The only way to make it useless for corporations is to make it useless, period.
who said a new clean Net2 needs to have all those billions of lusers?
If it is usable and unregulated, people will use it. The only way you control that is (1) make it unattractive for use (not just user-unfriendly in applications, but technically incapable of supporting applications that would be attractive to the general population, because otherwise someone will make those applications) or (2) apply some form of governance which actively keeps people off of it.
If you eschew central control in favor of freedom at each node, #2 is ruled out; if you actually want it to be useful, #1 is ruled out.
mean, seriously, don't let commercial devices like toasters and fridges and cars use the Net2 until you get enough infrastructure
How do you not let them use it?
they can easily control the physical cable networks, but, if people start setting up wireless networks with powerful in-home devices, then it would become a real network that could live dynamically.
Yeah, and its not like government regulates wireless broadcasts using "powerful in-home devices" at all
You can, right now, today. How much would it cost you to string up a cable to your neighbor's house or set up a wireless link? How much would it cost them to do the same? Once you have a few hundred houses, you'll need someone to spend some time configuring it all.
I'm imagining that latency would be pretty bad for anything outside of your ZIP code on a 1-house = 1-hop network topology, not to mention that if you want a global network, someone's going to have to pay for the house-to-house connection from a house on one side of the (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.) to a house on the other, which is going to be a pretty big cost.
Netflix aside, those new TVs have support for apps in general. Why not just add a Microsoft/Google TV app? These new set top boxes seem dated before they're even out. Google should apply the android model to TVs.
GoogleTV isn't an app, it is Android for TVs (including a plan to roll-out support early this year for apps from the Android Market.) Just as Android normally comes installed on a device, it comes installed on TVs. It also can be run on set-top boxes using the TV as a display device (this is a cheaper option for those with an existing TV, since you don't have to replace the TV.)
Suggesting that GoogleTV -- which is really Android for TVs -- should made available as an app for the other "smartTV" platforms is like suggesting that Google should make Android available as an iPhone app.
'The moment the "net neutrality" debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network — its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation — is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them — that network loses its power to effect change.
The fate of the Internet was in the government's hands the whole time it was ARPAnet, and it went directly from their into the hands of the corporations who, in Rushkoff's view, fund policymakers. All of this was well before the "net neutrality" debate began, and much of it was before the term "the Internet" for the particular batch of systems was even coined.
If we were to accept Rushkoff's premise, then, the Internet was doomed before it even existed and we should have all just ignored it and made our own, with neither corporate nor government involvement, using neither public nor corporate infrastructure (I'm not sure if Rushkoff's idea of "corporations" includes for-profit businesses operated under forms other than the corporate form -- e.g., sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, etc.; if it doesn't, its not clear what the meaningful distinction of the corporate form is, if it does, I'm not sure how you avoid "corporations" having disproportionate influence over it even if you do keep government out of it, since the people with the most incentive to put money into the infrastructure will be those who have a profit-earning business that uses the network in one way or another, and the owners of the infrastructure or going to have absolute control if the government is kept completely out.)
Really, Rushkoff's analysis seems to be entirely disconnected from the history (and technical architecture in his suggestion that FidoNet is somehow decentralized in a way that the internet is not) of the Internet in assessing the problem, and as a result his solution is "let's just surrender the existing Internet to corporate control with no governance, and build a new one just like it, with no governance plan, and hope that magic fairies keep it free."
It its unregulated and commercially useful, corporate control will follow.
Java is pretty much only GC language I'm aware of where temp objects are passed to GC. Perl (and I'm sure myriad of other GC languages) at compile time takes note what objects are not used outside of the context and destroys them immediately.
Ruby 1.8.x certainly GCs temp objects rather than treating them specially (refactoring code to mutate string objects rather than creating unnecessary temp strings and the GC overhead associated with them is a common performance-improvement recommendation for Ruby code); I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the Ruby implementations that use a compilation step rather than an AST-walking interpreter (Ruby 1.9.x, JRuby, Rubinius) do something to optimize the handling of local variables that become unreachable when they go out of scope.
(Of course, that illustrates another point -- GC behavior at this level usually isn't a language feature, per se, its an interpreter/VM feature.)
Additionally, Android runs Java bytecode during animation
Except in the real world, where Android uses a non-Java VM with its own bytecode, and doesn't run Java bytecode at all.
There is no good reason to support the barely-spec bottom rung devices.
Actually, there is a pretty good reason to support "barely-spec" devices, since, by definition, those devices meet (if only just) the specification for which a support commitment has been made.
I thought it was rather embarrassing for the republicans when they tried these tactics against Obama. It saddens me that apparently some democrats are sinking to their level.
The people doing it don't even claim to be Democrats.
Have you considered that it might not really be democrats behind it?
The people behind it don't even claim to be "Democrats" that's just something invented by TFS; they claim to be "liberal individuals" who want "Democrats and Independents" to vote for Palin.
This will just lead to more state parties moving to closed primaries.
Closed primaries do nothing to reduce the effectiveness of an organized effort launched two years prior to an election to get people to vote in a particular primary of a particular party, regardless of where there loyalties lie.
It would affect the effectiveness of similar efforts conducted at the last minute, or individuals crossing over based on late polls.
Its actually fairly common for organizations claiming to prefer one major party or the other seeking to influence primaries of the other major party in this way, and for major parties or their supporters to attempt to influence minor parties nominations (both as to who is nominated and whether anyone is nominated by that minor party) as tactical ploys.
Also, note that despite TFS's claims that these are Democrats, there is no source for this information, and the site itself claims only that its anonymous creators are "liberal individuals" who want "Democrats and Independents" to work to nominate Palin.
Probably been said a million times before, but I'll have another go at it. Amazon is a private platform, and if the subject matter in question irks the management or board, they are well within their rights to not sell related product. It's not censorship.
There are two problems with this:
First: While government censorship is restricted under the US constitution, "censorship" is not limited to government censorship, and includes action by private parties.
Second: Amazon is a corporation. Corporations do not exist in nature. They are created, subsidized, and structured by governments through law. Their characterization as "private" is a deliberate fiction.
But Amazon certainly has no 'official' capacity in any sense that doesn't render the word meaningless.
An official is someone who holds a position with defined authority (an office.) Someone in the Amazon corporate heirarchy holds an office within that heirarchy wherein they have the authority to determine, based on (among other considerations) content, what should and should not be distributed by Amazon. Insofar as such decisions are made based on content, those decisions are acts of censorship.
The free market is the ultimate form of democracy where dollars are your votes
Um, if "dollars are your votes", that's a plutocracy, not a democracy.
Please cite an example of this where a corporation committed murder & was not punished by the law. ----- I can guarantee you the government has done it FAR more often.
It is, of course, true by definition that government has done anything corporations have done at least as much as corporations themselves have done it, because corporations are creatures of government, and therefore every act committed by a corporation is an act commited by government.
However, the legal fiction that corporations are private persons just like natural persons rather than organs of government results in corporations being free from all the Constitutional limitations on action that are placed on other creatures of government, and the particular manner in which they are constituted by government also makes their action less accountable to the citizenry than those of other organs of government power.