It's no typo, I said sub 60, as in it acutally has a response range down to 20 or 30 where the bass is audible. Most buds you don't hear it at all even if it has classified "response" at that level.
I reckon people turn up their earbuds so they can hear bass or treble but really anything out of an earbud is going to be tinny - especially if it's coming out of an ipod. I'm pretty sure if they got themselves a decent pair of equipment like those they wouldn't feel like compensating for anything with volume.
The government created the housing bubble by manipulating interest rates and having bad regulations because they were trying to get everyone a home. Many of the entities being bailed out now have been bailed out before. In the free market, investment banks wouldn't comit suicidally risky so readily because it would mean their companies would go bust long before they ever got so big (economic boom bust cycles happen frequently but it was in the governments interset to keep the bubble from collapsing, and it still is, hence them trying to keep prices up) and furthermore consumers don't seem to have learned not to leverage themselves 7:1 against their income either on the loans.
And there wouldn't be golden parachutes either. That's created by government regulations allowing limited liability to no liability for managment failure, or that the companies are publically owned - wherethe risk has bee socalized
Market forces are not to blame here, it is government intervention - the stipulation given to Fannie to provide all with housing no matter their ability to pay, government bailouts in the 90s and early 00s leading to risky financial behaviour, the treasury's printing of fiat money allowing debts to accrue that could not possibly have accrued in the free makrets and manipulation of interest rates.
One would think either congressmen know nothing at all about economics or are being manipulated to make the Amero easier to foist on the American public
The thing about doing comparisons with mitochonodrial DNA is that there's not telling whether we lost some of the mitochondrial DNA. So say by chance the maternal lines died out but the males survied... or as an unlikely but extreme example say that the female of hybrids were infertile, the males would then go on to breed but their mtDNA would be lost. We need a bit more genomic evidence, admittedly hard to get, before we can set that timeline in stone.
But the question is, how much is this in relation to all their funding? A drop in the bucket, or could that much money achive something substantial they aren't already doing? I think the reference to training more personell etc needs to be backed up, do they not already have enough money for their intake levels?
I don't understand what it is with the idea that increasing greenery due to increasing CO2 emissions must be counterbalancing exactly. The call can't be made just yet. If the increase took place over eons like all the other natural increases, that might be a good counterbalance mechanism. But the increases we're making are obscenely fast, and could trip other things like methane releases from the ocean and rapid melting of the ice caps before any of these counterbalances can... counterbalance.
Maybe thoughtful isn't the right word, but the important thing to note is that it's a grade up from what twittering is. Usually there'll be a purpose behind what people say. For example from my Facebook:
"Teryn suddenly loves catching the train" I want to know, we had a conversation about it taking 3 hours out of her day every day to get to uni and back, so she must have a damn good reason to like it.
"Ranesh RIP Charlton Heston" I googled Charlton Heston, and now I know a bit more history
"Hannah says the solution to all problems is coffe. lots of coffe." sure, thats noise but it's mildly amusing and somewhat true.
BUT the guy with twitter says "Marucio is twittering the Roxio software is gone now". That doesn't even make sense, I can't tell anything from it. He says stuff like that all the time, I'm sick of him bringing me usless updates every half hour.
The other person with twitter was just as annoying but seems to have gotten rid of it. So it seems that status updates on Facebook encourage sensible use, a place to put things that you want everyone to see but are temporary. These new technologies seem to be trying to fill a gap that isn't there... communication for communications sake. I can only hope it doesn't become popular, because then it's about whose the most extroverted and drowns out everyone else, rather than who has the best news.
Twitter and things like that add useless noise to the Web 2.0. Who's sick of some idiot twittering what they're up to all the time and drowning out all the more thoughtful status updates on Facebook? I don't think even extroverts want to know what everyone is thinking or doing all the time, for fear of realizing how dilute their thoughts really are... it's like those really noiesy couples that talk all the time, but if you ever listen in they're talking about jack all and it deteriorates into whining.
Actually maybe I shouldn't have been so extroverted as to post this. Alright everyone, let's not post at all in protest of extroversion...
Spooky... to be sure. Although Jesus only got the one star and civilization... does the great A. C. Clarke really deserve four including one MASSIVE one that could wipe out like a whole galaxy entirely?
Did they mean Dorkubator? And what will be the implications of this ungodly dork breeding program, if hell in fact does freeze over and it is successful?
I work for a nuclear signalling laboratory at Monash University, and one of my collegues is working on an effective non-viral gene therapy approach. Essentially you can get histone like protiens to carry the DNA into cells easily, and into the nucleus even better by incorporating a nuclear localization sequence. This improves the efficiency several fold. It also means the genes don't insert themselves randomly in a genome as with viral vectors, but can be coaxed into become exosomes that replicate with the cell and form their own chromosome like body, i.e. it won't cause cancer.
Good point, especially since "an Orbital Sciences Corporation Minotaur IV launch vehicle" doesn't sound like it would fit very well on the average shelf.
Although the maize geneome is of comparable size to the human genome, it could theoreticaly be simplified a dozen fold and retain the same amount of information... it's an allopolyploid. It has heaps and heaps of copies of the same genetic material. In fact, this has been selected for so that they grow bigger which seems to work for plants. For humans though, having just three copies of a particular chromosome can give you a disease, like Downs Syndrome!
It is the outer few milimeters of brain tissue that starts to go first during Alzheimer's and thus if the device works it could buy quite some time for sufferers detected at early onset.
Finding diseases that eventuate in 1 in 2000 people with a genomic study of 1000 people is entirely possible... with one thousand people you have two thousand sets of genes. Since most genetic diseases are caused by two of the same recessive alleles (usually resulting from broken genes) in a single haplotype there would be lots of carriers; those with a single disease allele that could be spotted as a major deletion relative to the genomic reference sequence.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no typo, I said sub 60, as in it acutally has a response range down to 20 or 30 where the bass is audible. Most buds you don't hear it at all even if it has classified "response" at that level.
I got myself a pair of these headphones: http://www.trustedreviews.com/multimedia/review/2006/03/20/Acoustic-Authority-iRhythms-A-9900-Sound-Cancelling-Headphones/p1 - Acoustic Authority iRhythms which are noise cancelling. Pair it with my Samsung T10 and you have cost effective quality audio with sub 60khz bass to knock your socks off (if you like).
I reckon people turn up their earbuds so they can hear bass or treble but really anything out of an earbud is going to be tinny - especially if it's coming out of an ipod. I'm pretty sure if they got themselves a decent pair of equipment like those they wouldn't feel like compensating for anything with volume.
The government created the housing bubble by manipulating interest rates and having bad regulations because they were trying to get everyone a home. Many of the entities being bailed out now have been bailed out before. In the free market, investment banks wouldn't comit suicidally risky so readily because it would mean their companies would go bust long before they ever got so big (economic boom bust cycles happen frequently but it was in the governments interset to keep the bubble from collapsing, and it still is, hence them trying to keep prices up) and furthermore consumers don't seem to have learned not to leverage themselves 7:1 against their income either on the loans. And there wouldn't be golden parachutes either. That's created by government regulations allowing limited liability to no liability for managment failure, or that the companies are publically owned - wherethe risk has bee socalized
Market forces are not to blame here, it is government intervention - the stipulation given to Fannie to provide all with housing no matter their ability to pay, government bailouts in the 90s and early 00s leading to risky financial behaviour, the treasury's printing of fiat money allowing debts to accrue that could not possibly have accrued in the free makrets and manipulation of interest rates.
One would think either congressmen know nothing at all about economics or are being manipulated to make the Amero easier to foist on the American public
Accoring to http://perotcharts.com/challenges/ this is only the beginning
The thing about doing comparisons with mitochonodrial DNA is that there's not telling whether we lost some of the mitochondrial DNA. So say by chance the maternal lines died out but the males survied... or as an unlikely but extreme example say that the female of hybrids were infertile, the males would then go on to breed but their mtDNA would be lost. We need a bit more genomic evidence, admittedly hard to get, before we can set that timeline in stone.
But the question is, how much is this in relation to all their funding? A drop in the bucket, or could that much money achive something substantial they aren't already doing? I think the reference to training more personell etc needs to be backed up, do they not already have enough money for their intake levels?
I don't understand what it is with the idea that increasing greenery due to increasing CO2 emissions must be counterbalancing exactly. The call can't be made just yet. If the increase took place over eons like all the other natural increases, that might be a good counterbalance mechanism. But the increases we're making are obscenely fast, and could trip other things like methane releases from the ocean and rapid melting of the ice caps before any of these counterbalances can... counterbalance.
In future, we all speaka the Chinese?!
Anyone got any bright ideas?
I mean, if even the supporting computer network is smashing particles into each other it's got to be 133+!
they don't call it "The Federation" for nothing in Star Trek
Maybe thoughtful isn't the right word, but the important thing to note is that it's a grade up from what twittering is. Usually there'll be a purpose behind what people say. For example from my Facebook:
"Teryn suddenly loves catching the train" I want to know, we had a conversation about it taking 3 hours out of her day every day to get to uni and back, so she must have a damn good reason to like it.
"Ranesh RIP Charlton Heston" I googled Charlton Heston, and now I know a bit more history
"Hannah says the solution to all problems is coffe. lots of coffe." sure, thats noise but it's mildly amusing and somewhat true.
BUT the guy with twitter says "Marucio is twittering the Roxio software is gone now". That doesn't even make sense, I can't tell anything from it. He says stuff like that all the time, I'm sick of him bringing me usless updates every half hour.
The other person with twitter was just as annoying but seems to have gotten rid of it. So it seems that status updates on Facebook encourage sensible use, a place to put things that you want everyone to see but are temporary. These new technologies seem to be trying to fill a gap that isn't there... communication for communications sake. I can only hope it doesn't become popular, because then it's about whose the most extroverted and drowns out everyone else, rather than who has the best news.
Twitter and things like that add useless noise to the Web 2.0. Who's sick of some idiot twittering what they're up to all the time and drowning out all the more thoughtful status updates on Facebook? I don't think even extroverts want to know what everyone is thinking or doing all the time, for fear of realizing how dilute their thoughts really are... it's like those really noiesy couples that talk all the time, but if you ever listen in they're talking about jack all and it deteriorates into whining.
Actually maybe I shouldn't have been so extroverted as to post this. Alright everyone, let's not post at all in protest of extroversion...
"Hey dude have you got a map?" *gets a wad shot at her* "Ewww! What the hell was that for?!"
"well you didn't say what kind of map..."
Spooky... to be sure. Although Jesus only got the one star and civilization... does the great A. C. Clarke really deserve four including one MASSIVE one that could wipe out like a whole galaxy entirely?
In Soviet Russia, the night watches YOU! So he wasn't needed in his current profession back there and had time to excell in math.
Did they mean Dorkubator? And what will be the implications of this ungodly dork breeding program, if hell in fact does freeze over and it is successful?
I work for a nuclear signalling laboratory at Monash University, and one of my collegues is working on an effective non-viral gene therapy approach. Essentially you can get histone like protiens to carry the DNA into cells easily, and into the nucleus even better by incorporating a nuclear localization sequence. This improves the efficiency several fold. It also means the genes don't insert themselves randomly in a genome as with viral vectors, but can be coaxed into become exosomes that replicate with the cell and form their own chromosome like body, i.e. it won't cause cancer.
Good point, especially since "an Orbital Sciences Corporation Minotaur IV launch vehicle" doesn't sound like it would fit very well on the average shelf.
Although the maize geneome is of comparable size to the human genome, it could theoreticaly be simplified a dozen fold and retain the same amount of information... it's an allopolyploid. It has heaps and heaps of copies of the same genetic material. In fact, this has been selected for so that they grow bigger which seems to work for plants. For humans though, having just three copies of a particular chromosome can give you a disease, like Downs Syndrome!
Toshiba was "paid off" by Toshiba deciding to buy a risky venture for $835 Million... what?
It is the outer few milimeters of brain tissue that starts to go first during Alzheimer's and thus if the device works it could buy quite some time for sufferers detected at early onset.
Finding diseases that eventuate in 1 in 2000 people with a genomic study of 1000 people is entirely possible... with one thousand people you have two thousand sets of genes. Since most genetic diseases are caused by two of the same recessive alleles (usually resulting from broken genes) in a single haplotype there would be lots of carriers; those with a single disease allele that could be spotted as a major deletion relative to the genomic reference sequence.
Maybe you would appreciate it if it were explained in libraries of congress.... anyone?