Slashdot Mirror

It is still pretty big in NZ, the largest fireworks time of the year.
so I guess I stand corrected, it is much bigger in here than australia.
(I had assumed that since it is still big here in NZ it was there too.)
as I understand it now, Guy Fawkes (or Bonfire Night as some call it ove there)
used to be a lot bigger in Australia until fireworks were cut down on a bit in the 70s

some good info here: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night

At least in traditional Italian 'fascism' which frankly is the ONLY fascism that has openly tried to work as a governmental philosophy, by and large the corporations do the will of the state. This is important because this brings in nationalism which by and large brings up the lives of many and not just a few at the top. There is a reason why they made jokes about how the trains always ran on time, and how there was little unemployment in those fascist states before they decided to take over the world.

While corporatism on the surface looks similar, it has one underlying difference that is a BIG fucking difference, in that the corporations control the state not the other way around. As a great man that helped found this country said "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." and that distinction makes all the difference in the world. It is why we actually have the government giving tax breaks to those that offshore all the jobs away, it is why we have companies declared "too big to fail" and why we have the lowest taxes on the top 1% while we are looking at a possible default.

So you see the big difference is a fascist state wants to keep the state strong as they wield the power of the state. That is why fascist states are typically VERY nationalistic to the point of xenophobia, because they don't control what is outside the state so the state is all. In corporatism the corporations ONLY care about making as much money as they possibly can, after which they can simply move on like locusts in search of bigger and better profits. A line from a great movie fits the current corporatist philosophy perfectly "It doesn't matter. It's all profit. And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You light a match." and that is what we have been seeing here in the USA. they are stripping out everything of value that ain't nailed down and when they can't wring another drop of profit they'll light a match and walk away. And THAT is the difference between fascism and corporatism my friend.

Citations:

http://www.bookrags.com/research/suicide-and-substance-abuse-dat-03/

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml

The commenter was right, you cannot compare the suicide rates of employed people of one country in one factory against the entire suicide rate across all demographics of another country.

"I think you miss the point...there's always something new and having been exposed to the previous generation will always give you an appreciation for the state of the art."

True, but computers and the internet has lead to a huge boom in instantly shared information, so the rate of advancement has been faster now than ever before.

This has happened many times in history, whenever there was a significant leap in information distribution. The printing press was probably the largest, followed by telegraph, telephone, cars, radio and TV.

Just look how quickly modern society advanced over the past 100 years compared to the past 2,000 years. At the beginning of the 1900s "modern medicine" was still hacking off legs and no sanitation and airplanes consisted of spruce wood. By 1967 we were transplating hearts and in 1969 we walked on the moon.

Don't forget physicist Ibn al-Haitham Al Hazan, one of my favorite classical Muslim scientists.

Did you know! that fish breath water. They breath for the oxygen, and exhale CO2. Every animal consumes food and oxygen, and exhales CO2. The amount of CO2 is equal to burning the food.

Now, not all the CO2 is released, because you still have some of it locked up in the predator that did the consuming.

Now, since the amount of CO2 released is equal to the amount of energy expended, and we can estimate about %90 energy used at each round of transformation: linky (ie phytoplankton to copepods, etc), we can also estimate a %90 release of CO2 at each stage. So, by the time you have reached the whale and squid part of the food chain, %99.9 of the CO2 has been re-released. (%90 after the copepods' feeding, %99 after the amphipods' feeding, then whales)

And if the whales get eaten? or if they die and decompose? you are up to %99.99 CO2 released.

You get the idea. So, unless the organic matter is locked away somehow (in this case, the hope was the dead plankton would get buried at the ocean's bottom) it just continues...

Guess the filter didn't like my url.... http://www.bookrags.com/research/infinite-precisio n-arithmetic-wcs/ in plain text.

The term "Gas" was coined by Chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont as a phonetic spelling of the flemish pronunciation for the Greek word for chaos. Based upon it's original definiton, gasoline, or gas makes perfect sense. After tall, it's not as abiguous as tele, do they mene television or telephone. Or rubbers, these are the boots you wear on your feet, not the condoms, but boots are rear storage areas of an automobile. Finally, petrol isn't even British, it was borrowed from the French. So here's a two finger salute to you.

http://www.bookrags.com/Gas
http://www.bookrags.com/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=etymology+gas oline

The term "Gas" was coined by Chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont as a phonetic spelling of the flemish pronunciation for the Greek word for chaos. Based upon it's original definiton, gasoline, or gas makes perfect sense. After tall, it's not as abiguous as tele, do they mene television or telephone. Or rubbers, these are the boots you wear on your feet, not the condoms, but boots are rear storage areas of an automobile. Finally, petrol isn't even British, it was borrowed from the French. So here's a two finger salute to you.

http://www.bookrags.com/Gas
http://www.bookrags.com/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=etymology+gas oline

But compared to other computers, blade servers have a higher density of processors to other expenses (especially if you include server space), so your $100K buys more CPUs. I know it's certainly arguable which is the most relevant metric, but look at it this way: the Eniac pulled 150,000 watts. Since computers are so much more efficient now, the total burden from computers must have fallen, right? Wrong. Because the economics now allow google to run 200K computers (a guess, since it's a secret). Sure, if google had to run on Enacs, it would have to be plugged straight into the sun. But the total amount of computation "required" is not fixed after all.

An encyclopedia is meant to be an amalgam of information from citable sources. Wikipedia's editing guidelines follow this - you're only supposed to include information that has a verifiable source. So follow the cited sources from Wikipedia (if they exist) and reference those, or if you're lazy, use a site like BookRags that compiles citable sources on tons of topics (including info from Wikipedia), or even (god forbid!) use the library.

Two words for two questions, "Bleak House".

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Bleak_House

Sorry, this is the best I could find. I'm just not that good with this Google thing. I was looking for a picture, but FTL:
Rising fuel prices during the 1970s prompted the development of a new technology that used sails shaped like aircraft wings turned on end to take some of the burden off the engines and save fuel. Slightly curved to form a wing shape, these sails were attached to a mast that could pivot and locate the best angle for the sail to catch the wind. Once the computers set the mast at the best angle to the wind, the sail created the same "lifting" force that an airplane's wing generates, except that the force pushed the ship along the water. However, this system did not always prove to be efficient for extremely large vessels. I thought what I saw was that the mast itself was a rigid aerodynamic sail.

I disagree with your assertion that "this seems unlikely to happen". Wasn't the film studio United Artstsoriginally founded by a bunch of actors that got tired of getting screwed by the studios? (Before it sold out and became every bit as corporate as the moguls they were trying to avoid in the first place, that is.)

Oil is formed from decayed organisms, of which there are a notable lack in the asteroid belt

Ever heard of methane? That building block of "natural gas" that is found throughout the universe? Ever heard of one of Saturn's moons called Titan? One *gigantic* methane gas station right in our own backyard. Now obviously we don't have the ability to "mine" Titan yet or in the foreseeable future, but there are plenty of sources of energy out there besides organically created fossil fuel, and in VAST quantities.

There are some carbonaceous asteroids up there, but not many, and those that do exist have a small proportion of organic materials

First, stop thinking about fossil fuel, and start thinking about the basic *components* of fossil fuel, aka hydrocarbons. Those are available for the taking, its only a question of the economics of getting there, processing the asteroid ore for the stuff we want, and getting it back to Earth. Second, you may want to read this and other similar articles, before you start implying that most asteroids are worthless lumps of dirt. Note: Around 30-40% of those "asteroids" are actually "orbit-captured" comets. Comets have more "volatiles", the lighter elements that can be used for fuel, then even God apparently knew what to do with, which may be why he just left them scattered all over creation. :) Also, even the homogeneous asteroids from our own system will have volatiles of their own embedded within them, just not as much as a comet.

And even if there were huge sources of energy-rich material up there, the costs involved in getting to it, mining it, and getting it back to earth would be... astronomical, if you'll pardon the pun.

But would still end up being worthwhile if your return-on-investment was astronomical too, if you'll pardon *my* pun. :)

Seriously, just google "asteroid mining" and start reading. There is a reason there is so much interest in the idea of getting at the Near Earth Asteroids. Perhaps one reason is that one of them, which is metal rich, is estimated to be worth 30 trillion USD (2001 dollar value). Yes, I said TRILLION, not billion, but this assumes, of course, that you sell it slowly over time, not all at once!. As for all that methane on Titan....

100% pure pie-in-the-sky. We have no way of GETTING anywhere else in the galaxy in anything like a reasonable amount of time.

Let me guess, you're not much of a Star Trek fan are you? :) I don't believe the OP was talking about the immediate future on this... Time, and humanity's relentless pursuit of knowledge, tends to often make the "impossible" merely "difficult" 4 or 5 decades later, and then "routine" in another century.

I mean they said the same thing about trans-Atlantic travel before the age of the iron-hulled, steam-driven ships. They said the same thing about trans-Continental travel before the locomotive and auto. The airplane then came along and made all that had come before out to be mere slugs. Then they said the same about the sound speed barrier before Yeager and the X1. Finally it was ditto with a Moon landing before the Apollo missions, and here you are saying the exact same thing about the next great leap humanity will take. No surprise here, its always been the pessimists that provided the prime motivation for humanity's optimists. :) My response: if humanity doesn't manage to kill itself off in the next century, then my bet is on humanity taking this next step in 2 or 3 centuries. Besides, what is a "reasonable amount of time" to pilgrims leaving Earth forever fo

When on X use the middle mouse button.

I hate using the mouse. Period. Mice are for wimps (pardon the pun :-)

Isn't this just the catharsis argument? One study's opinion:

"Catharsis theory is elegant and highly plausible, but it is false. It justifies and perpetuates the myth that viewing violence is healthy and beneficial, when in fact viewing violence is unhealthy and detrimental. After reviewing the scientific research, Carol Tavris (1988) concluded, 'It is time to put a bullet, once and for all, through the heart of the catharsis hypothesis. The belief that observing violence (or `ventilating it`) gets rid of hostilities has virtually never been supported by research.'"

http://www.bookrags.com/other/communication/cathar sis-theory-and-media-effects-eci-01.html

Gravitons are supposed to be the exchange particle for gravitation, as the photon is for electromagnetic force. The graviton and photon are chargeless, massless particles, differentiated by their spin. The strong and weak nuclear forces are also mediated by exchange particles (W & Z for the weak, Gluons for strong quark interactions, Pions for strong nucleon interactions). The graviton's importance is in serving as a moderator of the gravitational force; if this theory is correct, then it won't be long before someone will come up with an idea for exposing the graviton to the light of day.

Real Old Men used WAIS to search. During the Reagan Administration!

BookRags has all the Gutenberg etexts in html format among all their student products (study guides, essays etc).

No, this was a sign.

Huh, Earl Warren had less qualifications than Ashcroft when he was made Chief Justice. Ashcroft hasn't been a DA, but he was a state attorney general and, of course, US attorney general.

At some point in high school I realized that the skills kids learned for themselves were more important than the knowledge in the books - and sad to say, the people that were successful in high school through cheating or using study guides were likely to be more successful in work life than the kids with their studious flash cards and study groups. Think of the ladder jumpers at your workplace - it usually involves a lot of backstabbing and laying claim to other people's work.

There's also the question of sites like http://www.bookrags.com/, which have mostly accepted stuff like Cliffs Notes, but also essays and essay editing. The thing is, if a student spends hours cobbling together and rewriting other people's essays, they're probably learning useful skills--different from the ones intended, but not too different from a heavy research paper. Just a thought.

Here is a link to the full appendix about newspeak, often not present in various online versions of the book.

Please read that appendix; it will be one of the most important appendix you will ever read.

For a slightly different take on Christianity as it collides with the concept of extra-terrestrial life, there's always Arthur C. Clarke's The Star, which became a Twilight Zone episode, from the mid-1980's revival of that series.

The basis of the story is the wavering faith of a priest who has to come to terms with God sacrificing a entire civilization with a peaceful, rich culture, so that a star would shine over Bethlehem.

And when they've proved their calmatives work on rioters and crowds of terrorists (a strange concept, but one which the article suggests is possible) what's the betting they'll get all generous and start handing them out to the rest of us