Slashdot Mirror

...and the Europeans nowadays no longer know how to protect their own people against invading savages...

I may have news for you:

Hitler is dead, and since then Europeans, Germans even, stopped killing people just because they are foreign.

The interesting thing to me, with my German/Jewish/Russian heritage, is that there were no "Germans" etc. during the time of this battle. They came from all over Europe, and Hitler's concept of "race" had no meaning for them. Two tribes who came from what we now call Germany, or France, or Italy, were as likely to be allies as enemies, as likely to be allied against other tribes from Germany, France or Italy, and as likely to intermarry.

There were no pure "races". The DNA seems to show continuous mixing. (The Jews were as close as you get to an exclusively interbreeding population, and if you go back before their European dispersal, they were interbreeding as much as everyone else.)

Another bronze-age example was the Egdtved girl http://news.nationalgeographic... http://humanities.ku.dk/news/2... who was revered as Denmark's national ancestor, when her tomb was discovered in 1921, turned out to be from the Black Forest. So there were no Germans, and there were no Danes.

Diverting 93% of the water to grow lettuce in the desert since 1920 had nothing to do with it.

Also, ignore the arctic ice that's been increasing for three years, the antarctic ice that's always grown and hit a new record in 2014, snow in Hawaii, and the great lakes that have frozen early,and that have frozen over compete the last two years. Ignore Niagara falls that has frozen over two years in a row and ignore all the record cold around the country. Ignore the fact we kill killed half the worlds trees in the last 100 years and where we do theres drought and ignore the fact the IPCC did not admit trees ate CO2 until 2010. Ignore the fact NAS falsified the CO2 hypothesis in 2010 and ignore the fact the climate models now have 95% error.Ignore the fact corals have genes that upregulate to ignore acidification and warming and ignore the fact pollution (I'm especially looking at you big oil) has gotten worse while we're distracted by this nonsense. Ignore the fact not a single IPCC prediction ever came true.

And especially ignore NAA/NOAA when they say "there has been no warming this century"

Creation science, social science, climate science... if you have to add "science" to a word to give it legitimacy, it's not science any more than the Democratic People's republic of North Korea is a democracy. Real sciences yield natural laws to quote Feynman.

Instead, look at 01% of a country that is 2% of the world.

Refs:
1) Ice
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...

2) records:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/vide...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
http://www.staradvertiser.com/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/febru...
http://www.latimes.com/local/l...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

3) Trees:
http://www.pri.org/stories/201...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.agu.org/news/press/...

I'm sorry, you're full of shit and don't have a clue what you're talking about. When you disagree with NASA and CERN and the fossil record you better be able to also drop an SUV on mars from a rocket powered skycrane and hold all the worlds antimatter.

The IPCC has not been right about anything, ever, and if you don't think 75% error is meaningful then 2+2=7 is for you.

You wouldn't happen to be the recipient of a climate grant would you?

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
"'I made a mistake'

As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

Oh fuck. The F word. F-f-f-f-f-uding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

"Warming" -> http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...
http://opinion.financialpost.c...
http://www.populartechnology.n...
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/...
http://www.climatechangedispat...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...

If you have some other explanations of all these or proof of a warming world this might be a good time to drag it out.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/...

Why is formal logic not mandatory in grades 9 through 13 ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

""Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Nasa Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data"

When a 150 year melt cycle is "right on time" scientists question how this can happen in a warming world.

Hansen may have had something to do with the headline of this article "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt"

Technically it's correct, there were no satellites 150 years ago. ut an unprecedented cyclical event?

Mr. Hansen left NASA shortly after this - he's the guy that complained the government was muzzling scientists. Personally I think he's clinically insane. Turns out he and the other tat were paid by a company owned by a company that Al Gore ownss to raise a fuss. As a liberal i'm appalled and no longer have faith in the Democratic party (not an uncommon sentiment, and fear not I have less faith in the mean spirited party of thugs formetly kown as th GOP) and fuckit I may move to Scotland or Norway. Their governments are not perfect but atleast they'r not for sale.

~80% of current Native Americans are direct decedents of Clovis people.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...

The earth is warming? Really?

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate...

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...

Can you please explain these then?

No, but they were successful enough to attempt settling Vinland, and to send roughly-yearly lumbering expeditions for a century after the Skralings chased them out. Their surpluses probably went into internal growth until the climate change suddenly made life untenable, there. If they had learned more from the eskimos they might have been able to keep going.

Surplus? They never made enough off of farming, and had to supplement with hunted animals, mostly seals, even when they arrived.

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.11/greenland_norse_gorged_on_seals/

Couple of things they fail to mention:

1) A lot of that ice grew in the 1940s.
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/
"At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," says Dr. Kurt H. Kjær"

"Kurt H. Kjær has previously worked with his colleague Svend Funder from Center for GeoGenetics on investigating sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean. Results showed that the sea ice extent has been far from stable throughout the last 10,000 years."

2) This is what NASA has to say about the "unprecedented melt":
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

3) "Arctic Ice Threatens Northern Hemisphere
Posted on April 19, 2009 (note the date)
While the eastern Antarctic ice pack continues inexorable year over year growth, Arctic ice is greater than it’s been in the last 8 years, and showing massive expansion again this year."
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSR-E.jpg

4) "Antarctic sea ice grows to record extent while Arctic continues to shrink"
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2750

5) http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/HolocenePeriods.png
The world is warming, or cooling, depending on the time scale you look at. See for yourself.

6) The real problems are pollution in a general sense and deforestation. Given mans contribution to carbon is at best 3% and that we've removed so fucking many trees (look for yourself, fly over the Island of Borneo in google maps would be a good start, its gone, it's all gone)... what did you expect was gong to happen. "By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81

That's right, in 2011 the geniuses that know all about CO2 got the revelation that trees eat the stuff. Next time somebody calls them "experts" rememnber that.

Possibly this was in response to NASA and the NOAA bitch-slapping the IPCC by pointing out in 2012 they'd sort of ignored this fact in their "models":
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

Which doubt caused Gaia-dude to recant, showing he has at least a modicum of intellectual integrity:

""James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die

Right, because the imaginary line between Greenland and "the Arctic" causes a physical difference in the real world. Not.

Whatever numbers you use is fine, point is that ice melts periodically. Note also a large amout of it was deposited after the 1940s cooling period: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/

If NASA says this melt was right on time I'd say that melt this was predictable.

CO2 follows the rise in temperatures.

To have to delve into this again: Both Greenland and Iceland have icy areas and "green" areas; Iceland has a larger percent of "green" areas to be sure, but that doesn't stop it from having the largest glacier in Europe and getting lots of snow every winter, nor does it mean that there aren't even forests (albeit stubby) in Greenland.

Iceland was named by Flóki Vilgerðarson, who witnessed drifting pack ice during his first winter in Barðaströnd in Vestfirðir (the West Fjörds), something unknown in southwestern Norway where he was from (to be fair, it's relatively rare in Iceland, too, but not nearly so rare as in southwestern Norway). Must have seemed crazy to him, to see the sea itself frozen.

Greenland was named (although not discovered), as mentioned, by Eiríkr (TH)órvaldsson (commonly known as Erik the Red). He landed in the southwest side of Greenland. Look at the southwest side of Greenland in Google Maps with the satellite layer on and tell me what you see. It's green. There are quite significant areas of non-glaciated land there, which is why that's where Greenland's population lives. Greenland, as a whole, was not "melted" then "frozen" and now "melting again" on the order of a thousand years; that area has been, in historic times, constantly ice free, while most of the island has, likewise, been constantly ice covered. There's been advance and retreat of glaciers, but nothing so dramatic as what people are talking about here.

As for "Grænland": first, think of what was known about Greenland before Eiríkr. It's said that on a very clear day you can see Greenland from certain parts of Vestfirðir, although I've never tried myself. It's about 300 kilometers. About 50% of days here during the summer in Reykjavík we can see details on Snæfell which I think is something like 150 kilometers away, so I wouldn't discount it. If you could see it, all you'd see was icy mountains. Then Gunnbjarnarsker (Grunnbjörn's Skerries) were discovered off the Greenland coast before Eiríkr, which Snæbjörn Galti tried (and horribly failed) to colonize. The east coast of Greenland and the straits are just too harsh. But, exiled from Iceland for three years for murder, Eiríkr sailed through icy seas, and along the frozen coasts of Greenland, and then discovered... well, green. And lots of it. So should it really be a surprise that he named it that? Yes, the saga says that he wanted to give it a good name to encourage colonists, but that wasn't unusual; to him, it compared similarly to Iceland. He wasn't calling a frozen rock "green" to trick people.

In the early 1920s and 1930s, temperatures were high, similar to that of the present, and this affected the glacial melt. At the time many glaciers underwent a melt similar or even higher than what we have seen in the last ten years. When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," - University of Copenhagen

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/

We'll see how it turns out. What's funny is that these tree ring and ice core sources are "controversial" yet they both match up pretty well. What an odd coincidence.

Sorry, I must have mistyped the html on the link.

Aerosols at best delay the rising temperatures. Perhaps we can come up with a temporary fix for the oceans, to tide us over until we can come up with a solution.

If this report is correct, we'll need some quick hacks, because sustainable energy production has no chance to solve the problem on time.

My first year teacher at mathematics (Soren Eilers at University of Copenhagen) has put a lot of work into the counting problem of combining six two-by-four Lego blocks. It's a huge problem to figure out how many ways you can combine six of those, and he describes how he with mathematics and programming methods approaches this problem at http://www.math.ku.dk/~eilers/lego.html.

Lego themselves computed in 1974 that the ways you can combine those six blocks is 102,981,500 - and that number has been referenced ever since in different media - and it's wrong.

Now, if you want to compute the total number of possibilities, bear in mind what Soren Eilers writes on his site:

the mathematics of the total number of combinations is so irregular that it is very difficult to come up with a formula for it. Thus one has to essentially go through all the possibilities. Based on our data, we estimate the total number of ways to combine 25 two-by-four LEGO bricks to be a 47 digit number.

With the current efficiency of our computer programs we further estimate that it would take us something like

130,881,177,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

years to compute the correct number. After some 5,000,000,000 years we will have to move our computer out of the Solar system, as the Sun is expected to become a red giant at about that time.

(37065N-89115)(46^(N-4))+(2N-1)(2(^N-1)) in fact, and that is just for N number of bricks in a tower N-1 bricks tall. I think they predict the final value to be around 100^n

Check the math here if you want.

http://www.math.ku.dk/~eilers/lego.html#howgetrigh t

Nope, but this is their site.

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side39251.htm

My math professors mostly use their own books in the courses, and we are told to buy those. But then again, the most recent version is usually found at www.math.ku.dk/noter. That's textbooks enough for the first 3 years in college studying math, before it gets too specialized. All books are in danish, though, so maybe not so interesting for everyone.

This smells vaguely like vaporware. At least none of the speakers at this years or last years Spin and Qubit conference seemed nearly as optimistic as these guys, even though there were several top notch people (and last year the focus was VERY much quantum computing).

In any case, the technology that comes to mind when I hear "very cold superconducting niobium quantum computer" is Josephson junctions. There's an article on it here.

What people does DWave have? What have they published previously?

Oh, and for proof that I'm not just making up the concept of proto-Japonic, here's a page that lists some scholarly articles written about it by people at Oxford, Hawaii, National Institute for Japanese Language, etc.

I lived next door to one of the leaders in the ice core project in Greenland. The goal was to drill down and get a "map" back in time looking at the ice.

Several conclusions came of this project and more will follow, but in regards to global warming he told me the following (in my own words):

"The ice core showed that we have seen several very cold and warm periods in the past, and none can be conclusive about our weather today."

and

"The measurements we have today, of temperature dates back about 150 years. That was a very cold period according to the ice core. So that the weather is getting warmer could be an obvious thing from that point."

So basically he says the data is inconclusive... but in the end he stated:

"When we look at CO2 and other green-house gasses in the ice core, we see a jump in the last few decades. I geological terms this increase is so significant that the only word we use for such a geological event is: Disaster or catastrophe! Its way off scale compared to any other event in time. What the effects are or will be I can't tell..."

Their site is here http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/ngrip/hovedside_en g.htm

Hey, I know these guys! Way to go!

This just confirms my suspicion that the chance of a Nature publication is directly proportional to alcohol consumption. (Wonder what it takes to get on /.) OTOH, having an advisor from the Bohr family probably doesn't hurt.

The academic lowdown:

ArXiv preprint
The full B. Sc. project

Now, if only we could make 60gons...

A lot of the data, particularly ice cores, is all publicly available. Look it, do your own analysis.

Solar variation data: http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/
Ice core data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/
Detailed Greenland ice core Data: http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/pages/data.html

Jedidiah.

The original file is a bit slow ATM. I might take down the mirror again in a day or two.

just a few comments!

-> ASTER is not completely free, but it's close - and it's definately worth the 'handling fee' - especially if you need newer images than you can get from Landsat

- As for software you could try CHIPS (http://www.geogr.ku.dk/CHIPS) for windows - it's free and will do all the basic stuff. It also includes a GPS interface so you can upload and download data from most handheld GPS's. It also do live plotting of your location from a GPS.

For the people asking about "haven't these things been detected before?:

This was an optical afterglow from a "very short duration" GRB.

Optical afterglows from OTHER, longer duration GRBs (e.g. GRB000630) HAVE been detected.

There are different types of GRBs, and this is the first time people detected an optical afterglow of this type. Here's some on this (cf. SWIFT):

* There are two classes of GRB: those that last less than about 2 seconds, and those that last longer than about 2 seconds
* The long bursts occur at cosmological distances; while distances of the short bursts have not been measured
* Given the distance of the long bursts, they must put out about 1053 ergs of energy (if they emit energy equally in all directions)

To get an idea of how much energy 1053 ergs really is, our Sun puts out about 1033 ergs each second. It would take our Sun, then, 880 billion years to put out the same energy as a GRB! For perspective, our Sun will only live to be about 10 billion years, and our Universe is only about 12 billion years old.

Putting the facts together, astrophysicists have narrowed the field to two promising theories for the origin of GRBs: neutron star/neutron star mergers and hypernovae. The truth may lie between these two theories somewhere -- for example, the long bursts may be from hypernovae while the short bursts are from neutron star/neutron star mergers. However, it may also be that GRBs originate from something that astronomers haven't considered yet.

Neutron Star/Neutron Star Merger:

As two neutron stars orbit each other, they lose rotational energy to gravitational energy, thus decaying their orbit. (Actually, the orbit of any two bodies decays, but in the case of two neutron stars, it occurs much faster than it would in, say, the Earth-Moon or Sun-Earth system.) Eventually the two neutron stars will collide, forming a black hole and possibly radiating a large amount of energy.

Hypernovae:

At the end of a massive star's life (mass greater than about 10 Suns), it dies spectacularly in a supernova explosion, leaving behind a neutron star or black hole. Astronomers have known about supernovae for quite some time. However, if the star is very massive (mass greater than about 40 Suns) the collapse may appear different from a supernova, with an energy output greater than a regular supernova by about 100 times. Such large explosions are called hypernovae, and could be the source of at least some GRBs.

Motion of the rovers? I would imagine the lower moisture levels (if any) would make the dust there less sticky

While that is certainly true to some extent, extremely dry air, like that found on mars, allows large static electric charges to build up (especially considering how close the atmosphere is to vaccuum). MER scientists speculate that a lot of dust buildup is caused by electrostatic attraction (I have even heard this in regards to the wheels, but am unsure how well verified that claim is).

On the other hand, there are some places on the rover where we want dust to build up!

I'd be curious to know if the rovers went through any serious inclines just bfore the power boost.

The science team has noted that both rovers were on an incline during the cleaning events. It is considered to be unlikely to be a cooincidence, considering how often the rovers are flat, though it still could be.

Cheers,
Justin Wick

I've been unable to verify the link, (doesn't have a ps-viewer handy), but it should be there.

It's by no means a historical journal, or anything like that, but I've got no reason to doubt the veracity of the quote.

Sorry, only got the first file

Yeah, I read about that as well - and reading between the lines of the media take, they were forced to drop the issue by the government. Apparently the Prime Minister who don't like "so called" experts telling people what to think, don't really like it, when people take issues with his own handpicked experts.

Since I have not read the (now withdrawn) findings by the Committee, I choose not to base my judgements on their findings.

By the way - I wasn't even thinking of that Committee, but was thinking of a smallish 5 page (I think) dissection (page 12 to 17 of that pdf) of a just a small part of his book - by Inge Henningsen, who is an associate professor at the Statistic Department of the Institute for Mathematical Sciences at Copenhagen University.

She also notes in her piece, that he's not actually a statistician like they know them at her department, as he has a M.A in Political Science from Århus Universitet and teaches "Methods" there as well. He is (as is noted) "an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Politital Science".

As to who has the better credentials when it comes to statistics - well, my oppinion is fairly obvious, but I've given you plenty of venues to explore yourself and leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Yeah, I read about that as well - and reading between the lines of the media take, they were forced to drop the issue by the government. Apparently the Prime Minister who don't like "so called" experts telling people what to think, don't really like it, when people take issues with his own handpicked experts.

Since I have not read the (now withdrawn) findings by the Committee, I choose not to base my judgements on their findings.

By the way - I wasn't even thinking of that Committee, but was thinking of a smallish 5 page (I think) dissection (page 12 to 17 of that pdf) of a just a small part of his book - by Inge Henningsen, who is an associate professor at the Statistic Department of the Institute for Mathematical Sciences at Copenhagen University.

She also notes in her piece, that he's not actually a statistician like they know them at her department, as he has a M.A in Political Science from Århus Universitet and teaches "Methods" there as well. He is (as is noted) "an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Politital Science".

As to who has the better credentials when it comes to statistics - well, my oppinion is fairly obvious, but I've given you plenty of venues to explore yourself and leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Yeah, I read about that as well - and reading between the lines of the media take, they were forced to drop the issue by the government. Apparently the Prime Minister who don't like "so called" experts telling people what to think, don't really like it, when people take issues with his own handpicked experts.

Since I have not read the (now withdrawn) findings by the Committee, I choose not to base my judgements on their findings.

By the way - I wasn't even thinking of that Committee, but was thinking of a smallish 5 page (I think) dissection (page 12 to 17 of that pdf) of a just a small part of his book - by Inge Henningsen, who is an associate professor at the Statistic Department of the Institute for Mathematical Sciences at Copenhagen University.

She also notes in her piece, that he's not actually a statistician like they know them at her department, as he has a M.A in Political Science from Århus Universitet and teaches "Methods" there as well. He is (as is noted) "an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Politital Science".

As to who has the better credentials when it comes to statistics - well, my oppinion is fairly obvious, but I've given you plenty of venues to explore yourself and leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Yeah, I read about that as well - and reading between the lines of the media take, they were forced to drop the issue by the government. Apparently the Prime Minister who don't like "so called" experts telling people what to think, don't really like it, when people take issues with his own handpicked experts.

Since I have not read the (now withdrawn) findings by the Committee, I choose not to base my judgements on their findings.

By the way - I wasn't even thinking of that Committee, but was thinking of a smallish 5 page (I think) dissection (page 12 to 17 of that pdf) of a just a small part of his book - by Inge Henningsen, who is an associate professor at the Statistic Department of the Institute for Mathematical Sciences at Copenhagen University.

She also notes in her piece, that he's not actually a statistician like they know them at her department, as he has a M.A in Political Science from Århus Universitet and teaches "Methods" there as well. He is (as is noted) "an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Politital Science".

As to who has the better credentials when it comes to statistics - well, my oppinion is fairly obvious, but I've given you plenty of venues to explore yourself and leave you to draw your own conclusions.

The joint IAU/IAG/COSPAR committee who wrote this triennial report decides. Some objects have surface features that define the origin. Other objects simply have conventional longitudes defined presuming that they are tidally locked to their parent body. Until further notice Titan is one of the latter.

here (temporarily)

Bandwidth sponsored by danish research funding.

The analysis.
Fridays memorandum

The analysis.
Fridays memorandum

I've put up a list of voting results (Will stay ~1 week)

"Vote plenary" is the result (y=yes/n=no/x=not voted). "Vote" is the FFII voting recommendation. (from - - - to +++)

Well I think it sounds useful, and my situation's rather common:

I have an account at the university, and I like to work with the files there from home. (or the other way round). It's annoying to scp my files back and forth. (Even though konqueror can show sftp://me@my-uni as "just another folder"). If I can have it completely integrated, I'm all for it - then I could keep the relevant files at my nightly-backed-up university account, and it would seem like a folder on my harddrive at home. (slightly "W00T!")

"Aargh! I've been slashdotted!"

This one is much better at saying "slashdotted". Neither of them do the "Aargh!" very well. Especially the IBM one ought to be convincing, given current circumstances ;-)

Generate more samples for yourself at http://www.naturalvoices.att.com/demos/

uttering the sequence:
"Aargh! I've been slashdotted!"

Bandwidth sponsored by danish research funding...

You'd probably be interested in this article, The Swarming Body, which addresses exactly what you're talking about. It brings up some amazing stuff about the immune system and its relationship with the brain.

here

here

Bandwidth sponsored by danish research funding...

Nice clip.

http://www.fys.ku.dk/~nvj/malda/kathleendowntheais le.mpg

Bandwidth sponsored by danish research funding...

Sure, the astrometry (positions) in Hipparcos are better than in Tycho 2, and Hipparcos contains more information about the stars than Tycho 2 (e.g. variability), but still. I would in fact think that Tycho 2 would be better for SETI than Hipparcos, but they may have their reasons.

Until this year, the science department of this university (University of Copenhagen (Denmark)) from where I am posting used SuSE Linux 7.3 exclusively with FVWM2 as the default Window Manager. Now, you take a guess to how many people were turned off from using Linux because of that? Sure it is rock solid and is easy as hell to support, but it is also a major turn-off for most people. Fortunately, they also have KDE2 installed, but there is just no way to use it except editing ~/.xsession manually - fat chance that the normal users would ever figure that out. My disappointment in the admin was enormous when I came back from summer break to find that they had installed Windows 2000 on the machines. Why switch from something that just works and does so every single time to something that... well... doesn't? Needless to say, I quite often see strange things happening under Windows. My reaction: hard reboot the machine next to it and get on with some serious work (or reading /. ^_^). And you wouldn't believe how many lusers type their stuff in Word now instead of using LaTeX-mode in (X)Emacs... They haven't even bothered to install OOo. Disappointed in them I am!

Actually I want to add to this. The majority here are not lawyers in any capacity, and the advice you see here reflects that fact. There's a reason it takes several years to be a lawyer. And no Websters(TM) isn't going to make anyone an instant lawyer. If the "/." are going to be true to what they profess to believe (the results of a "/." poll come to mind)? Then they need to have a firmer grasp of both the legal, and political system. A court, nor a politician is going to be impressed by your ability to yell at the top of your voice "I want my rights!", or "You evil people are taking away my rights!". The opposition has a firm grasp of both processes, and the results reflect that fact. The "/." wants to change things? Then drag yourself out of your self-imposed isolation, and study the law and politics with the same fevor that you devoted to technical issues, otherwise you'll lose face when you complain about the results..

US Legal resource

Danish law in english

Foregn law resources

US guide to Denmark

The US political process & advocacy