Besides, this isn't sci-fi anymore. Cross-species cloning using genetic material from one species in the ova of another was done sucessfully more than a decade ago (and I'm not sure if that linked study was even the first one). There really isn't much question about whether it is possible anymore. The only real question is whether we care about a species enough to bother to bring it back from extinction....
Asking (young) kids to remember a lanyard, not lose it, leave the house with it every day, and keep it on all day (even during gym) is too much.
Why? You hang it around your neck, and you never take it off, including during gym. That's the whole point of using a lanyard instead of, for example, something that you carry around in your hand or pocket. It is mindless and automatic.
This is how they did it when I was in elementary school. The staff had a pile of cards of people who got free lunch for every class. Those cards were kept in the cafeteria. When a class came to lunch we all were seated at our assigned table (1-2 tables per class, depending on the size of the class). Then the staff called each student alphabetically and gave them their lunch cards one by one, then that student got in line. The cards were punched and given back to the cashier. It was a pretty simple system that worked.
The problem with those schemes is that everyone in your school knew who was on the free lunch program. One of the benefits of everyone having an ID card is that everyone pays with the card, and everyone's lunch is either billed to the parents or to the free lunch program, thus at least reducing the number of opportunities for stigmatization because of poverty.
Really? Where is the Tasmanian-tiger? And the Dodo?
The dodo has been extinct for over 300 years. I'm talking about species that become extinct now or in the future.
They're still not the same species. There's things like the mitochondrial DNA that is lost as well as other things like the intestinal fauna and even the cultural parts that get passed on by example from parent to child may be important.
The intestinal fauna is going to change over time anyway, and there's a nonzero chance that it contributed to the species' extinction by being incompatible with changing food sources, so replacing it would probably make the species more viable. With regards to cultural issues, IMO, there isn't much difference between that and non-extinct species where the only remaining animals were born in captivity.
As for mitochondrial DNA, you're assuming that the species has been extinct long enough to not have full tissue samples. If you have a frozen tissue sample, I would assume you could use the mitochondria from that sample in addition to the chromosomes. If you don't have a frozen tissue sample, the odds of being able to reconstruct the organism go down pretty rapidly because of the genetic equivalent of code rot.
Not quite - the cost of building out infrastructure is a huge barrier to entry, but it is not insurmountable for an individual, organisation or corporation with deep enough pockets - see Google's Fiber initiative as an example.
The problem is that whole "deep pockets" part. The cost of building out the infrastructure isn't insurmountable, but the payoff is over such a long period of time that no bank would give you a loan to do it. That means it is only possible for a company with enough money that they can do it without taking out a loan. And the vast majority of those companies are run by MBA types who would have the same reaction as the bank. "What do you mean, it will take you 30 years to pay off the cost in the best-case scenario? You want a 60-year loan? We don't make loans with periods that long...."
The government is just about the only organization that has both enough funding to do it and enough reckless disregard for turning a profit on their investment.
That's what lanyards are for. No reason to introduce biometrics when a $0.50 string will do.
Cause... umm... you know... extinct is extinct.
Not anymore, it isn't. We now have the ability to snag the DNA of these animals and recreate them by injecting it into fertilized donor eggs from a similar species, and then release them into a habitat that is better suited to their continued existence, assuming that we choose to do so. Before the rise of technology, extinct was extinct. Now, extinct is more like "resource temporarily unavailable".
Even with the standard sizes defined in most airports, I routinely see people bringing aboard bags that if they were forced to check against the model next to most gates, they would not remotely pass.
The problem is that the sizers are built to the same specs that the airlines ignore, and the airlines ignore the speca for the same reason that the passengers do: they are sized for the smallest Embraer puddle jumper that the airline flies, not for the planes that they fly for 95% of their routes. I routinely travel with a backpack that is at least two or three inches too thick to fit in any of the sizers. However, I've never had trouble sliding it under the seat in front of me in S80s or A3x0s, 7x7s, and even CRJs, IIRC.
These newly proposed standards are absolutely ridiculous. They're so small that the smallest camera bags on the market are too tall to comply. In fact, the maximum thickness is barely tall enough to hold a Canon 1-series vertically with no padding. It would require almost every lens to be horizontal, which would mean you'd end up having to carry two bags instead of one. So in practice, no pro photographer would be able to carry their gear on board any aircraft that required compliance with the new rules. And the airlines explicitly disclaim all liability for photographic gear in checked luggage. Which basically means that any airline that decides to follow the rules is basically saying, "Pro photographers are not allowed to fly on our airline."
CUSTOMERS are not PEERS of their TRANSIT PROVIDER. (To put in English: an end-user is not on the same level as their ISP!)
While true, that's a bit misleading. A company that buys multiple pipes to multiple ISPs and has the ability to transport data across their own internal links for the benefit of their ISPs can potentially become a peer of their ISPs. The ISP is not legally obligated to grant them that status, however, and at such a point as they do so, that customer ceases to be a customer of the ISP, by definition.
Of course, a customer is only a candidate for becoming a peer of an ISP if that customer also has connections to other ISPs, and if that customer's ISP does not already have more direct peering arrangements with those other ISPs that fully meet their bandwidth needs.
And as I've said many times before, what made the Netflix deal problematic was that the ISPs provided competing services that avoided the public Internet, thus giving them an unfair competitive advantage when combined with throttling. It wasn't the throttling, nor the refusal to peer for free with Netflix that caused the problem from a legal perspective, but rather the unfair competition. Unless Commercial Network Services (AFAIK, primarily a colo/hosting provider) is similarly a competitor of TWC in some other space, this strikes me as a frivolous lawsuit that is unlikely to succeed.
Sure the DJ may have claimed to have the licenses required, but the business owner is the one who is required to obtain the licenses.
AFAIK, it isn't even possible for the DJ to obtain a public performance license. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC exclusively sell those licenses to venues and delivery media (websites, radio, etc.), not to performers.
BMI qualifies as "ASCAP or equivalent". Maybe you're thinking of BMG (the music publisher)?
Majoring in what you love without any plan for how to turn it into a revenue stream might be stupid, but so is choosing a major solely for the money. Neither extreme is a good approach. The way I look at it, you have only two good options:
Err... because three motions always take more time than one. (Too many edits. *sigh*)
Solar would be preferred, but it requires more land that way. Then again, there's no reason the government couldn't put the whole thing on stilts a quarter of a mile out into the ocean, which would make that issue somewhat moot.
The most sensible solution is to regulate water so as to price farmers out of production in times of drought. When the rains come back (and they will), they can grow to their heart's content. Ag is 2% of California's economy. It's not worth the investment.
One problem is that many of those farmers have "senior water rights" (pre-1914), which means that although the government can, in an emergency, limit the quantity of water that they draw, they can't charge money for using it, AFAIK. But yes, in principle, I agree that we need to find some way to do so, or the equivalent.
And we really do need to cut back on alfalfa production and water the almond trees less. It will drive up the price of almonds and possibly milk, but it needs to be done.
This is, of course, secondary to the question of whether we need desalination plants. The population is continuing to grow, and the fresh water supply isn't continuing to grow with it. So even if we forced farmers to cut back on water-hungry crops, that's still just a stopgap solution; in the long term, even that won't be enough.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
