To justify that assertion you must have a very specific definition of what "reasoning" entails. Would you care to share it?
In the definition of reasoning that I use, e.g., alpha-beta pruning would count as reasoning. Clearly you disagree.
OTOH, being supported by a widely used OS might well help them to *become* more widely used.
Debian supports lots of systems that aren't widely used. It's even slow to drop systems that nobody appears to use. (But it does, because testing updates for those systems is difficult.)
To be fair, it sounds as if they haven't figured out a decent patch. I mean when they're recommend that users make the systems safe by unplugging them, it doesn't sound like they've got a better idea.
Motivated people with lots of external support tend to win. Remember Vietnam. (I suppose one could reasonably argue that the North Vietnamese were freer than the South Vietnamese, but that's not the opinion the US press ever had.)
According to the summary you get 10X as many points for getting a soldier to surrender as for killing him. But it's not genocide to kill someone who's physically attacking you. Not even if you had the alternative of capturing him (which isn't usual).
Sorry I can't point you at a reference, but thing is that the mitochondrial environment is a really bad place for DNA to live, so over evolutionary time some of the bacterial DNA moved into the cell nucleus. Mitochondria is now an "obligate parasite", though parasite is *really* the wrong term. (I can't think of the term for obligate symbiote.)
OTOH, I'm talking about the function rather then the physical pieces. This is probably similar how some of our DNA "moved into" the plants that we eat, so now we are dependent on them for vitamin C. But the result is that much of the DNA controlling the mitochondria now resides in the cell nucleus.
We still know very little about our genetic variations. Yes, we have mapped out most of the 'standard' basics, but there is so much variation it is astounding and we do not understand most of that at all.
Most importantly, we do not understand the various interactions of what little we do know
A prime example of the issue is Sickle Cell Disease and Malaria. The 'standard' gene is HBB. If you have two of them, you will not get Sickle Cell disease but you are particularly vulnerable to Malaria. There are areas of the world where 10% of children get Malaria. While Malaria does not always kill you, you can even get it multiple times. But it does kill a significant number of victims, even with treatment (particularly if you have other illnesses).
If you have one HBB gene and a variant called HBS gene, you will not get Sickle Cell disease, and you are an estimated 10 times less likely to get Malaria. That is, 1% of children rather than 10% get Malaria.
But if you have two copies of HBS gene, you get Sickle Cell disease and it reduces your life expectancy by about 20 years on average.
This is one example of interactions that we KNOW about. How man others exist that we have no idea about? What if a gene for autoimmune disease also makes you immune to cancer?
This is something that might be a good idea to consider testing in say another 100-200 years. Not now.
Serious question.
Why?
Every time this happens, the people doing it pretend it's the first time this has happened in the last x number of years since the c64's release.
Although, this is the first time a project doing it has filled their entire site with unedited slop. Doesn't make me feel great about the process here.
Things I want from a project like this:
- Technical specifications and circuit board porn.
- Operating system details
- Wifi available, you say? Tell me more about the networking stack!
What exactly am I buying, other than a C64 case that's outfitted to look like an iMac from the early 2000s?
None of this is clear from the website.
It's an opaque project that provides almost no useful information on the product that they're selling.
Is it? Got a reference? I've heard several ideas, and thought there were lots of different causes.
EVERYONE's defective. Guaranteed. They're just defective in different ways, or in different environments.
This isn't gene line surgery. It's inheritable only along the female line. (But, yeah, mistakes WILL happen. Even normal mitochondria have a high mutation rate. And those with problems will be disadvantaged, and probably have no grandchildren. And if they do, only the granddaughters will spread the mutation.)
A point, but given the mutation rate of mitochondria, not a good one. More to the point, if it doesn't fix the problem, or creates a worse problem, the kids probably won't reproduce.
Also, since mitochondria are inherited almost only along the maternal line, it won't spread widely. It will be confined to the descendants in the female line of one family. (Sons may carry it, but won't spread it.)
Mitochondria from the father would be equally experimental. Mitochondria are almost never inherited from the father.
But, yeah, it's experimental. Some mitochondria don't play well with some nuclear DNA combinations. (Part of the mitochondrial DNA is stored in the cell nucleus.) But it won't create a "new genetic disease" because those things already happen once in awhile. It's just that it might not fix the problem. Presumably they check that before they do the implantation though.
This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...