Actually, due to cellular factors - a clone is biologically the age of the parent at the time the source cells were harvested, plus the age of the cloned organism. This is not a gut reaction, this is quite factural.
Regarding the breeding process, you don't always get results, but a complex mammal (say a dog, or if you want an example that already was made, a sheep), takes hundreds of tries for ONE viable offspring.
some reading for you, since you've neglected your knowledge in genetics dolly - There theory about telomeres is a bit outdated - the againg is actually suspected to be mainly oxidisation of cellular components that persist through the duplication of cells. Junk DNA at the end of a strand is usually long enough for a creature to live much longer than the max expected lifespand of an organism of its species.
Cloning Look at species cloned and health aspects - my "gut" as you ignorantly jumped the gun and called it, was based firmly on facts. The author of the article got the telomere part wrong, but if you look up telomeres
Aging You can look here at the free-radical and waste-buildup theories of aging to see a few better reasons for the accelerated aging than the telomere theory in the first argument.
Hint: Mice age and die and have telomerase actively produced during their lifecycle - aging is usually not due to telomere shortening.
As for the breeding, if you can get a purebred for the sniffing characteristics, maybe find the gene relevant to to the desired olfactory characteristics, then you can easily produce a pure-breeding strain of drug sniffing dogs for a much lower overhead. Heck, we've been breeding animals for purebreds of various characteristics for over 3000 years now, no reason we can't do that now.
logically? It's a waste of time and money. Old fashioned breeding produces a much higher result rate (multiple puppies per litter, rather than multiple litters to get a viable puppy). Additionally, the results of breeding will be a lot healthier and long lived than those of cloning.
This is simply a 'nifty' factor thing, and is logically a waste, at least for the purpose they are suggesting to use it for.
Scientifically, I think it'll produce a lot of good data. Commercially it'll just produce some ripped-off customers and unhealthy dogs.
I don't smoken, I hate the "smell". I quoted that because I don't mind the actual smell that much really, but it stings my sinuses and throat.
I don't like dealing with inconsiderate smokers however. I know plenty of smokers who smoke outside to respect the non-smokers around them, who make sure to go down wind of non smokers, etc. But there are smokers that will not care, get smoke in your face, and then get mad at you for walking away. It's the latter kind that I don't like dealing with.
What you do with your body is your business, have fun with it. Just don't force it on me.
I think they are planning on modified nicotine. Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part - it's just the part that makes it hard for you to quit.
Well, in the quantities present, it's not the worst part, but put a drop of that stuff on your tongue, and it's all over.
People like mice because the way the GUI interfaces is set up with a mouse gives people information on the fly now to use the program, while doing things with a mouse. Accessing those same things with a keybaord can only really be done with the menus, and those are usually set up to be more mouse efficient.
I think the author hit the nail on the head with his article. You can't just make the application do everything via the keybaord. Rather, you have to have it able to use the keyboard for any task, and able to prompt the user so that they don't have to keep going to references to find what they want.
The overlay idea is fairly interesting and ingenious compared to what a normal keyboard-only interface produces. I kinda like that solution.
I've nothing against the tapping in and of itself, I keep on the legal side of the fence, and honestly, I don't know anyone who will do the tapping so I don't care if they hear me complaining on the phone to a friend about the results of that extra-bean burrito I ate...
Regardless, a government that does not follow the rules and restrictions set for it by itself and its people is just as much of a threat as any malicious foreign party. Which leads me to my next question - can they take further action on this case, or was it pretty much shot down, and prevented from going higher? The quotes didn't seem optimistic.
I use QT4, it's easily extendable, and unlike Cocoa, it doesn't limit me to one platform. Cocoa would limit me to a platform I find difficult to use (nearsighted + Mac UI = bad).
Additionally, it's not $3000 per developer, but $3000 for the first developer, for each dev thereafter, the price decreases sharply. Also, if you do your program right, you shouldn't need a lot of UI developers.
And, depending on what you are doing and how you are releasing it, you may still be able to use the Free version.
I typically use QT as it works in just about anything.
You can use GTK instead if you like. Or if you want something that works in anything, but looks different every version, you can always use WX.
Add in a platform independant language like Python if your application is not extremely intensive (and sometimes, even then), and you have an extremely nice setup for anyone to use.
And QT has a very modern (and more importantly, customisable) look. It comes with a little app, and you [the user], can set GUI appearances that the developer left as default, to look like Windows, MacOS 9, MacOS X, and QTs native, amongst others. It also pulls the system default colors for various field types, which is extremely nice.
That, and the added gravitational pull could strip some atmosphere (albeit slowly)
maybe drop some heavy stuff onto Mons Olympus as well, to help encourage some extra pressure there, and hence some geological shifting. Maybe add stuff to a few other places as well.
If the planet has little/no water or 'stuff-that-can-be-made-to-water', and/or little or little/no oxygen that can be put into the atmosphere (with respect to the size of the planet, not an absolute "little" here), then it'll take more than just tossing some hearty growing things on the planet.
Note the underlined "if", and the fact that "the planet" was used and not "Mars".
As you can see, your reply (a specific case, Mars) has nothing to do with my post (a general case - any planet with the assumption of lack of knowledge before entering the decision process).
Actually, there's probably plenty of water on Mars.
I'm thinking about other hypothetical situations (the GP seemed to suggest biological organisms would be the only necessary thing.)
My thought is, find any organism that can grow in martian-simialr conditions, and just put a handful on anything intended to land on Mars, so that it'll be safe on the descent, and can be ejected after landing.
If the planet has little/no water or 'stuff-that-can-be-made-to-water', and/or little or little/no oxygen that can be put into the atmosphere (with respect to the size of the planet, not an absolute "little" here), then it'll take more than just tossing some hearty growing things on the planet.
As for 100 years, it depends on what they plant, but that seems fairly reasonable, if they can find something both (a) hearty enough, and (b) fast growing enough. I saw a project reling on Kudzu, but that stuff is not hearty to environmental extremes and probably couldn't be trivially made to survive the martian environment (it requires near-tropical environments).
The problem is that "hearty" does not fit well with the K type philosophy of reporduction (reproduce fast and wild, without a minimum expenditure of energy for any individual or offspring - short lives, lots of reproducing - example: a fly is K type, humans are not).
actually, it'd probably start out with photosynthetic bacteria, or plants that not need to be "planted", so much as just allow their seeds sit on the soil for a while.
Still, the article is written by a physicist, I'd rather see a biologists perspective on this one, involving life and all.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, due to cellular factors - a clone is biologically the age of the parent at the time the source cells were harvested, plus the age of the cloned organism. This is not a gut reaction, this is quite factural.
Regarding the breeding process, you don't always get results, but a complex mammal (say a dog, or if you want an example that already was made, a sheep), takes hundreds of tries for ONE viable offspring.
some reading for you, since you've neglected your knowledge in genetics
dolly - There theory about telomeres is a bit outdated - the againg is actually suspected to be mainly oxidisation of cellular components that persist through the duplication of cells. Junk DNA at the end of a strand is usually long enough for a creature to live much longer than the max expected lifespand of an organism of its species.
Cloning Look at species cloned and health aspects - my "gut" as you ignorantly jumped the gun and called it, was based firmly on facts. The author of the article got the telomere part wrong, but if you look up telomeres
Aging You can look here at the free-radical and waste-buildup theories of aging to see a few better reasons for the accelerated aging than the telomere theory in the first argument.
Hint: Mice age and die and have telomerase actively produced during their lifecycle - aging is usually not due to telomere shortening.
As for the breeding, if you can get a purebred for the sniffing characteristics, maybe find the gene relevant to to the desired olfactory characteristics, then you can easily produce a pure-breeding strain of drug sniffing dogs for a much lower overhead. Heck, we've been breeding animals for purebreds of various characteristics for over 3000 years now, no reason we can't do that now.
logically? It's a waste of time and money. Old fashioned breeding produces a much higher result rate (multiple puppies per litter, rather than multiple litters to get a viable puppy). Additionally, the results of breeding will be a lot healthier and long lived than those of cloning.
This is simply a 'nifty' factor thing, and is logically a waste, at least for the purpose they are suggesting to use it for.
Scientifically, I think it'll produce a lot of good data. Commercially it'll just produce some ripped-off customers and unhealthy dogs.
I wasn't criticiznig smoking or smokers...
I don't smoken, I hate the "smell". I quoted that because I don't mind the actual smell that much really, but it stings my sinuses and throat.
I don't like dealing with inconsiderate smokers however. I know plenty of smokers who smoke outside to respect the non-smokers around them, who make sure to go down wind of non smokers, etc. But there are smokers that will not care, get smoke in your face, and then get mad at you for walking away. It's the latter kind that I don't like dealing with.
What you do with your body is your business, have fun with it. Just don't force it on me.
But they're a "family" company. That's what the commercials say! That means we can "trust" them right?
</sarcasm>
I think they are planning on modified nicotine. Anyway, considering all the stuff in cigarettes, I don't think nicotine is the worst part - it's just the part that makes it hard for you to quit.
Well, in the quantities present, it's not the worst part, but put a drop of that stuff on your tongue, and it's all over.
s/write/wrist
damn typo daemon.
I tried that, the pain it caused in my thumb was much worse than any write pain a mouse ever caused.
People like mice because the way the GUI interfaces is set up with a mouse gives people information on the fly now to use the program, while doing things with a mouse. Accessing those same things with a keybaord can only really be done with the menus, and those are usually set up to be more mouse efficient.
I think the author hit the nail on the head with his article. You can't just make the application do everything via the keybaord. Rather, you have to have it able to use the keyboard for any task, and able to prompt the user so that they don't have to keep going to references to find what they want.
The overlay idea is fairly interesting and ingenious compared to what a normal keyboard-only interface produces. I kinda like that solution.
Two good reasons I can think of at the moment:
/aren't/ they'll be more agressive in their interactions and get things done faster, with possibly better organization.
If people know they are being spied on an tapped, they'll take fewer risks and give less away.
Likewise, if they know they
I've nothing against the tapping in and of itself, I keep on the legal side of the fence, and honestly, I don't know anyone who will do the tapping so I don't care if they hear me complaining on the phone to a friend about the results of that extra-bean burrito I ate...
Regardless, a government that does not follow the rules and restrictions set for it by itself and its people is just as much of a threat as any malicious foreign party. Which leads me to my next question - can they take further action on this case, or was it pretty much shot down, and prevented from going higher? The quotes didn't seem optimistic.
I use QT4, it's easily extendable, and unlike Cocoa, it doesn't limit me to one platform. Cocoa would limit me to a platform I find difficult to use (nearsighted + Mac UI = bad).
No, I don't statically link to QT, I use it as a library, and the specifically allow that useage.
The people at PC-BSD thought the same thing. So PC-BSD specific software was GPLed since they used QT.
It's now BSD also, for the same reason that you are incorrect. Namely - you can use QT without having to GPL your stuff.
Additionally, it's not $3000 per developer, but $3000 for the first developer, for each dev thereafter, the price decreases sharply. Also, if you do your program right, you shouldn't need a lot of UI developers.
And, depending on what you are doing and how you are releasing it, you may still be able to use the Free version.
Yes, but you don't need KDE functions to use QT.
I did not know about the developer cost, I just use the free download.
Then again, my software is free and BSDed...
I typically use QT as it works in just about anything.
You can use GTK instead if you like. Or if you want something that works in anything, but looks different every version, you can always use WX.
Add in a platform independant language like Python if your application is not extremely intensive (and sometimes, even then), and you have an extremely nice setup for anyone to use.
And QT has a very modern (and more importantly, customisable) look. It comes with a little app, and you [the user], can set GUI appearances that the developer left as default, to look like Windows, MacOS 9, MacOS X, and QTs native, amongst others. It also pulls the system default colors for various field types, which is extremely nice.
just as insighteful as the GP I'd think.
Yeah, I can see it now:
"We only have a 10% break-in rate!"
That, and the added gravitational pull could strip some atmosphere (albeit slowly)
maybe drop some heavy stuff onto Mons Olympus as well, to help encourage some extra pressure there, and hence some geological shifting. Maybe add stuff to a few other places as well.
Note the underlined "if", and the fact that "the planet" was used and not "Mars".
As you can see, your reply (a specific case, Mars) has nothing to do with my post (a general case - any planet with the assumption of lack of knowledge before entering the decision process).
Actually, there's probably plenty of water on Mars.
I'm thinking about other hypothetical situations (the GP seemed to suggest biological organisms would be the only necessary thing.)
My thought is, find any organism that can grow in martian-simialr conditions, and just put a handful on anything intended to land on Mars, so that it'll be safe on the descent, and can be ejected after landing.
As another alternative, newegg has one for slightly cheaper ($1 cheaper), but some people might like to know that as well.
That's very possible, it's been a few years. I was thinking it was K Type and S Type, but now that you say that, R does sound right...
less than a weeks lessons from Bio in '01 or '02.
call me nuts, but the idea of breating an atmosphere of water vapor leaves me breathless...
depends on the planet.
If the planet has little/no water or 'stuff-that-can-be-made-to-water', and/or little or little/no oxygen that can be put into the atmosphere (with respect to the size of the planet, not an absolute "little" here), then it'll take more than just tossing some hearty growing things on the planet.
As for 100 years, it depends on what they plant, but that seems fairly reasonable, if they can find something both (a) hearty enough, and (b) fast growing enough. I saw a project reling on Kudzu, but that stuff is not hearty to environmental extremes and probably couldn't be trivially made to survive the martian environment (it requires near-tropical environments).
The problem is that "hearty" does not fit well with the K type philosophy of reporduction (reproduce fast and wild, without a minimum expenditure of energy for any individual or offspring - short lives, lots of reproducing - example: a fly is K type, humans are not).
actually, it'd probably start out with photosynthetic bacteria, or plants that not need to be "planted", so much as just allow their seeds sit on the soil for a while.
Still, the article is written by a physicist, I'd rather see a biologists perspective on this one, involving life and all.