Slashdot Mirror

Strong bases would work just fine for breaking down protein. Then you take the bones and digest them in the acid of your choice.

Shit, even StackExchange will help you dispose of a body.

I agree on the studies that are currently ongoing -- the grant was awarded to the PI, not to the institution.

But this whole question of who 'owns' the data from research has been coming to ahead for a while. Common arguments are for one of:

* The PI
* The PI's institution
* The funder

The problem is that for years, the disposition of the data was never spelled out clearly in the RFPs. Most people had never heard of a DMP (Data Management Plan) until NSF started requiring them a few years ago.

So ... we get into the problem that because each grant can come up with a different DMP, we have to look to those to see who is the gatekeeper of the data. In some cases, the data is handed off to an IR (Institutional Repository; typically something managed by the library), and if that's spelled out in the DMP, then I'd say that the institution keeps control of the data. In some cases, it all needs to be sent back to the funder (NASA instrument contracts are like this, where the 'final data' must be deposited back to an ARC (Archive Resource Center)). But there might be other ones where the PI is personally responsible for access to the data.

Personally, I prefer the IR or funder, just because most scientists have no clue what they're doing when it comes to archiving data. See Data Sharing and Management Snafu in 3 Short Acts. You also run into problems when PIs retire / die / move / whatever. ... but I don't deal with medical data where you need to have an active gatekeeper (IRB, Institutional Review Board, or similar) where you might need someone with better understanding of the data.

So anyway ... without there being something specifically in the grants, the institution likely can lay claim to keeping a copy of the data ... but I don't know if they can necessarily stop the PI from taking a copy with him, or even the server holding it (if the hardware was paid for through his current grants). They *might* be able to get the IRB involved, and insist that they need to review what's being done with the data that's being moved.

In this particular case, though ... it's not only an NIH grant (which are clearly to the institution), but the PI has only been there for 8 years -- so he's taking data that was collected by previous PIs before him. I'd say that his trying to take all data from the department, and not just that which he was PI for is a rather sleazy move.

(disclaimer : I'm one of the moderators on StackExchange's Open Data site )

thank you, dc genuinely has greater fire hazard implications than ac

as for health, it is a bit more nuanced and complex than i said:

Direct current (DC), because it moves with continuous motion through a conductor, has the tendency to induce muscular tetanus quite readily. Alternating current (AC), because it alternately reverses direction of motion, provides brief moments of opportunity for an afflicted muscle to relax between alternations. Thus, from the concern of becoming "froze on the circuit," DC is more dangerous than AC.

However, AC's alternating nature has a greater tendency to throw the heart's pacemaker neurons into a condition of fibrillation, whereas DC tends to just make the heart stand still. Once the shock current is halted, a "frozen" heart has a better chance of regaining a normal beat pattern than a fibrillating heart. This is why "defibrillating" equipment used by emergency medics works: the jolt of current supplied by the defibrillator unit is DC, which halts fibrillation and gives the heart a chance to recover. ...

One of the reasons that AC might be considered more dangerous is that it arguably has more ways of getting into your body. Since the voltage alternates, it can cause current to enter and exit your body even without a closed loop, since your body (and what ground it's attached to) has capacitance. DC cannot do that. Also, AC is quite easily stepped up to higher voltages using transformers, while with DC that requires some relatively elaborate electronics. Finally, while your skin has a fairly high resistance to protect you, and the air is also a terrific insulator as long as you're not touching any wires, sometimes the inductance of AC transformers can cause high-voltage sparks that break down the air and I imagine can get through your skin a bit as well.

http://physics.stackexchange.c...

"I spent one week locating the problem by digging into verbose logs: it was due to the FDIV bug, which was subtly changing the positions of some trucks."

Similar issues are actually a fairly common occurrence in network code for video games during development when the developer is fairly new to the task. A lot of people writing network code for games run into it before learning their lesson.

See this SE question and the associated links for example for some interesting points:

http://gamedev.stackexchange.c...

I've long wanted a game where you are a wizard, and thieves steal your scrolls, unless you Scroll Lock.

That's fine until you get players using laptops. Imagine the following question in your game's support ticket system or in Arqade:

How do I lock my scrolls?

How do I keep thieves from stealing my scrolls? The game's manual says push the Scroll Lock key on the keyboard. But I'm playing on a Dell [model redacted] laptop whose keyboard doesn't have a Scroll Lock key.

[sparlock] [pc]

So the Apple way is the true Unix way? Baby Jeebus, take me now...

Well...

Since OS X is a Certified UNIX (and has been since OS X 10.5 (Leopard)), I would say that, unlike ANY Linux Distro, yes, yes it is.

So the Apple way is the true Unix way? Baby Jeebus, take me now...

Well...

Since OS X is a Certified UNIX (and has been since OS X 10.5 (Leopard)), I would say that, unlike ANY Linux Distro, yes, yes it is.

the user won't need to type in that 60-character password on their mobile device. The user can just unlock the password manager and paste in the saved password.

How would the user get the long password into the mobile device's password manager in the first place?

The password manager should run on the user's own PC

Provided the user has an own PC. Good luck logging in at a public library or Internet cafe.

If an app needs to perform an action on behalf of a user, it should get its own distinct, revocable API key.

And store this "own distinct, revocable API key" in what secure manner? Client applications distributed as free software have already run into problems with how to store an OAuth 1.0a or 2.0 client ID and client secret.

Ken Thompson's C compiler is an interesting read on the subject:
http://programmers.stackexchan...
http://www.reddit.com/comments...
Basically, It's a compiler with a backdoor that injects it's source code when it's compiling itself. pretty interesting idea for 1984.

While I think this has changed over time, initially I think some statisticians were suspicious of techniques coming out of computer science, e.g. SVMs. And still, machine learning is a rather niche field of statistics that requires a fluency in CS that many statisticians don't have (or need). Check out this discussion.

Of course there are some statisticians who are also good CS people (think Trevor Hastie and Rob Tibshirani). And a lot of stats people have great domain knowledge in their areas. But I think "data science" is supposed to be the combination of stats, CS, practical programming ability (e.g., cleaning and manipulating large datasets, which is definitely not part of traditional CS or stats education), ability to communicate results effectively, maybe throw in some visualization, knowledge of how to query databases, and domain knowledge to interpret what data mean. Also, some types of data (e.g. text with the aim of NLP) are pretty infrequently touched upon in stats education.

That said, I get the sense that a lot of places looking for "data scientists" are actually just looking for business intelligence people.

Yes, I saw and do not dispute that definition. You seem to be disputing that you are implying causality, even though definition 1 is because.

Clear communication is not achieved by being able to provide a golden path through various dictionary definitions that aren't strictly wrong. It's by saying things such that they can be understood as easily as possible, without losing the message.

If you can't understand the objections people are raising in this thread, then I very strongly recommend that you avoid the phrase "in light of" entirely. It doesn't matter whether you believe you are using it correctly, because it's not working and we don't seem to be able to communicate to you why it's not working.

One last effort:

If something has two definitions, and the one you want is *not* the primary definition, you should avoid using it in a sentence where the primary definition fits grammatically.

This is how people use "in light of" for "because":

"In light of this new evidence, the police no longer suspect Bob of the Museum Caper."

And this is how people use "in light of" for "in consideration of".

"When you are selecting what university program to apply to, consider them in light of your personal interest in the field, and not just expected salary at graduation"

Yours was in a form like the "because" case, so it's confusing.

Citations where people recommend using "because" as a go-to replacement:

http://english.stackexchange.c...
http://www.4syllables.com.au/r...
http://web.uvic.ca/~gkblank/wo...

Yes, the stack exchange guy did say considering. Considering itself means because in some cases, usually when it's the first word of a sentence. But not that last sentence I used.

"Google has a gun pointed at my head. They haven't promised not to pull the trigger, but they haven't pull the trigger yet. So I've got that going for me." -- AI software developer

Request for prior art on Google patent application. Don't let Google point a gun at our heads. Get their patent applications rejected with prior art.

I use Google Music Player for a lot of my music (the stuff that required bulk-upload; for new music I greatly prefer Amazon). It's decent.

What drives me absolutely crazy though is that all my albums are imported with the wrong art. It would be one thing if most the albums showed up as "art not found", but instead, 10% of my albums show up with the album art for "Pulp", another 10% with album art for "Nick Jaina". It's just darn distracting.

Gee, and again Apple copies Google.

The first point has been addressed many times already - even if you're powering your electric car on 100% fossil-fuel electricity you're still doing better than burning gasoline.

Do you have a link? A document dump is not helpful - just a clear link from an authority.

Googling led to these links:

What is the efficiency of different types of power plants?

The International Energy Administration (IEA) indicates that combined cycle gas plants have a higher average efficiency than coal plants. Simple cycle plants have efficiencies ranging from 35 - 42% and combined cycle plants have efficiencies of 52 - 60% compared to efficiencies of up to 46% for supercritical coal plants and 50% for ultra supercritical coal plants.

Maximum theoretical efficiency of internal combustion engine

Asked on the Stack Exchange network:
Why not build Saturn V's again?

And there is always Macs - although running a Unix-like OS on a machine that is also Unix-like might be something for the department of redundancy department.

Correction. OS X is certified as UNIX, it's not UNIX-like. http://unix.stackexchange.com/...

There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.

(Sorry for the Clinton-esque answer) It depends on what you mean by "use". The problem with the original question is that there's not enough information to give a useful answer.. it's just fodder to get people talking with no real goal.

You can use GPL's software all you want, modify and recompile to your hearts content, and you don't have to release jack shit - unless you then distribute that stuff, and then only if you distribute it together (you can distribute your patches on their own with any license you choose).

That said, it sounds likely that the choices that NicknamesAreStupid made regarding various sources to include may not be very good choices, and they may be incompatible with his goals. Since he specifically mentioned the GPL (and especially since he didn't say LGPL instead), these compatibility pages should help:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp...

The FSF (Free Software Foundation) comments on GPL works within the Apple App store is also quite relevant:
http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-0...
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licen...
http://apple.stackexchange.com... (see 2nd answer)

Essentially, if you do not hold the copyright for the GPL'd work you are including in your iPhone App that you want to put on the Apple App Store, then you're SOL.... the App Store agreements are incompatible with that (GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", but the the Mac App Store Terms of Service explicitly add other restrictions, such as "you may only install the software on five approved devices"). You might be able to get permission from the works authors, but that permission would be to distribute said code under a non-GPL license (possibly 3 clause BSD?)

I recommend this link: http://programmers.stackexchan...

There is someone asking whether 8 lines of slightly clumsy looking code can be replaced with something better. The beginner wouldn't ask that question and wouldn't know an answer. The master would say "your code is just fine", because it is actually straightforward, easy to understand, easy to check for correctness. The first answer on stackexchange adds two arrays, one 20 line function, and a few lines of function calls resulting in code that is hard to understand and verify.

Now where C++ is a bit unfortunate is the fact that once you leave beginner level and think you know it all, you have unlimited potential to create code that nobody can understand.

First, ignoring all the ad Hominem attack, Mr. anonymous COWARD, as it so happens, I am an embedded developer with over 4 DECADES of paid experience doing same (and, BTW, often using Apple computers as the development platform), and so DO understand the Nyquist criteria in sampling systems. I also understand that neither the best speaker, nor our own ears, do justice to a square wave, at pretty much any frequency. So what? Very few people listen to music comprised of raw square waves.

Even a modest-frequency square wave will have harmonics well-past the range of human hearing. Here's a pretty good discussion related to what you are saying.

HOWEVER, this does not explain the whole thing. It's not about reproducing square waves; digital is rather good at that; but rather, reproducing SINE waves (in the form of harmonics), that is the REAL goal. While you would think that 44.1 ks/s would be enough for anybody (bit-depth being a WHOLE 'nuther discussion; but suffice it to say, 16 bits ain't enough); BUT that doesn't take into account "aliasing", or frequency-foldback, that occurs in sampling systems. For those who are following along, this is akin to "Heterodyning" in analog radio, where you can consider the sample rate as the "carrier" frequency, and for every frequency in the "program" material, the sum and DIFFERENCE between the carrier and program frequency(ies) are produced. This is managed in digitized playback systems by a (usually digital) "brick wall" filter (a low-pass filter with at least a 24/dBV/octave slope).

For accurate reproduction, You need the sampling high enough that your antialiasing brick-wall filter can be ideally at least an octave above 20 Khz. But you can't get there when all you have is two samples per WAVEFORM for a recorded harmonic approaching or exceeding 20k. This is why things like cymbals, tambourines, bells, and other "metallics" sound so horrible on Red Book CDs.

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE my CD and AAC/ALAC collection; but there are certain instruments, as mentioned above, that simply aren't captured well, even to a casual-listening-criteria, at 44.1/16, period. I don't know about you, but I don't like cymbals that sound like escaping steam, and tambourines that have aliased frequencies so low they reach down into the upper-bass regions!

Those artifacts are completely gone on my Meridian Lossless 24/96 versions (DVD-A) or 1-bit DSD (SACD) versions of those same recordings.

While I agree that 24/96 is a good place to stop, the reason for higher sampling rates and greater bit depths is to allow for DSP manipulation and dithering back down to 24/96 with no loss over the original.

Surespot is most likely toast now. I see two possible attacks from someone who controls the servers:

• Send fake pubkeys (standard MitM attack, really)
• Crack the crypto directly. Surespot uses the secp521r1 Elliptic Curve, which was created by NSA and published by NIST, and may be backdoored.

It doesn't save stderr messages to the journal.

It most certainly does.

There have been several bugs that have cropped up from time to time relating to logging, but they get fixed as soon as they are found. The far more common problem is that by default the logging now goes through journald, and rather than rtfm, people often seem inclined to claim its broken rather than seek out the answers. You can find a good description for how to find the logs here

Some tasks that may just be too sensitive to put on non-isolated networks except in extreme, carefully-controlled circumstances.

If you don't get the reference,

1) see https://scifi.stackexchange.co... .
2) What are you doing on Slashdot?

Not when they claim that a large portion of the $500 million they raised was spent on building houses.

Read the link again. The Red Cross made no such claim.

I wouldn't call that "debunked". People are certainly throwing around the $500 million number assuming that all went to housing, which is not correct (only about $100 million did), but the Red Cross still failed at their own stated goals, and their lawyers refuse to provide any accurate accounting of where the money went beyond lumping large sums into large buckets (e.g., $24 million went into development of Campeche). The Haitians living in Campeche are equally curious about where the money went, because they haven't seen much done beyond some sidewalks and a wall painted with the Red Cross logo. The Red Cross specifically said they were going to build hundreds of homes and rebuild entire neighborhoods, and they've done neither. Even though it's true that they did not budget $500 million to that single effort, they still have failed to accomplish what they said they were going to do, and they have still failed to account for where that money went.

That's a good summary of the Pro Publica/NPR article. https://www.propublica.org/art...

I would add that the people who wrote that article actually went to Haiti where the Red Cross said they provided aid, and talked to the people there on the ground.

I will bet money that the guy who wrote that attack job http://skeptics.stackexchange.... did all his research sitting on his/her ass surfing the Internet within the US.

This has already been debunked on skeptics stackexchange http://skeptics.stackexchange....

The boost converter will run as low as 0.6v. That IS an improvement, since most devices DO power down at 1.0v.

Funnily enough I actually built something like this for a school project a little under 20 years ago. Naturally the batteries were external and the convertor box was large, but that's not the point. The point is that the battery discharge curves are very far from linear.Just google "battery discharge curve". While they vary, the essential characteristics are the same:

http://robotics.stackexchange....

The voltage quickly drops down to the nominal voltage from the fresh voltage [*]. It then very slowly drops until the battery is exhausted at which point the drop is catastrophic. At the corner, the chemical energy is nearly gone and the internal resistance goes way up. So, probably 95% of the battery energy has gone by the time the cell hits 1V. While you can scavenge the remainder between 1 and 0.6, there's little energy there and the voltage will drop very very fast so it won't last long.

[*]And here's where the deception comes in. They claim that people discard batteries at 1.3V, which is not true. That's the point where the batteries finish the initial rapid drop off and start the long, slow discharge curve. No one throws them out then since no equipment minds---the equipment makers know to expect voltages down to about 1V and build accordingly. NB if they didn't, rechargable batteries with a nominal voltage of 1.2V would never work.

So, their claim is true if people discard alkaline batteries at 1.3V. However people don't.

You can't. In particular,

• "Has the project released files? If not, we will honor the removal request."
• "Projects which have moved to another hosting provider are typically retained at SourceForge.net (though you can make a note on the project web site and project summary page directing users to the new home) for sake of retaining materials of historical value."
• "Projects that are moving to closed source do not qualify for removal."

Sourceforge prevents it.

http://webapps.stackexchange.c...

No, from an outside perspective it's never inside the event horizon. Only from the perspective of the matter entering the black hole does it cross. Saying "by then it's well within the event horizon" is simply not accurate from an outside perspective.

The problem is you're having this argument while not taking into account the problems with discussing "simultaneity" in general relativity. One might argue, by this logic, that black holes never really exist (even though we seem to observe them, or at least clear evidence of their effects), or that they could never grow (even though we could see them getting bigger in finite time).

While some people are happy to just argue for those things, e.g., that black holes never really exist, it gets at a deeper epistemological question of what sort of observation is necessary to prove something "exists." We infer the existence of a lot of things by their effects, even if we can't observe them directly. For very long periods of time, black holes do exist according to that latter definition.

No data collected from Earth will ever correspond to a reality in which the object has passed the event horizon.

That's true in the sense that there is no visible event of an object crossing the event horizon in finite time.

But, on the other hand, we can also observe changes in the black hole occurring in finite time (formation, growth, evaporation), which seems to imply actual travel across the event horizon. It's complicated to explain why both such things are possible, though this answer seems to get at some of the problems.

Which is why there's no information paradox: the information is never in an unreachable state from any perspective.

That's somewhat true, but it's a somewhat different question to determine what it means for a distant observer to judge "whether something is inside the event horizon." Do we mean:

(1) "I visually saw that thing go inside the event horizon" (false -- obviously, since the definitely of "event horizon" precludes observation of such a thing)

Or

(2) "That black hole appears bigger than it did a billion years ago, so it must have absorbed mass from that thing" (could be true)

Personally, I think (2) would count as "data collected from Earth [that] correspond[s] to a reality in which the object has passed the event horizon."

Poincaré recurrence probably applies to our universe**, so the sequence of Boltzmann brains is not going to be infinite. On a more subjective note, I think that (at least the perception of) continuity is a central aspect of conscious existence, so Boltzmann brains highly dispersed throughout eternity lacks appeal.

**See chosen answer at http://physics.stackexchange.c...

According to the discussion here, http://electronics.stackexchan... ...assuming full, direct sunlight, some panels output up to 20 volts without a load, and 14 or so volts with. Others exist which will output 24 to 36 volts.

Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer has a history of getting these graphs wrong.

Additionally, it should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". His use as an expert on climate matters is significantly diminished by that public declaration that "god will fix it for us". If his signing of that declaration is sincere, he is no longer performing scientific research.

This StackExchange question has a nice answer showing why you have to be at the equator to have a geostationary orbit...

And this one addresses exactly the question posted in the summary: Lowest gravity on Earth's surface?

This StackExchange question has a nice answer showing why you have to be at the equator to have a geostationary orbit...

And this one addresses exactly the question posted in the summary: Lowest gravity on Earth's surface?

This StackExchange question has a nice answer showing why you have to be at the equator to have a geostationary orbit...

the rights to it are a separate matter from recording real life events.

Here are the restrictions for cameras at the Olympics:

Large photographic and broadcast equipment over 30cm in length, including tripods and monopods. You cannot use photographic or broadcast equipment for commercial purposes unless you hold media accreditation.

IOW, there are restrictions against taking commercial quality photos/videos at many/most sporting events, unless you pay or get permission.

Here is a typesetting comparison between Word and LaTeX. Here is some more discussion. Really, I think LaTeX was created by people who are passionate about the 2000 year old art of typography (Roman). For a long time, MS has ignored far too much of that history in the way it typesets. In my experience, I can always tell a Word document from a LaTeX document, even if the fonts are substantially identical. There is something sub-consciously beautiful about proper typesetting.

You may be having an XY problem. You say you want Sudafed but what you most likely want is a decongested nose. I'm no physician, so I'll just tell you what worked for me: I switched from pseudoephedrine tablets to oxymetazoline nasal spray. Brands include Afrin, Sudafed OM, and store brands. To avoid dependency, I use it in one nostril in the morning and the other at night.

It's also often a corporate standard, especially for companies and their clients with older, Windows specific software tools. And many proxies are configured to lie about the web client they are proxying for, in order to provide access to upstream websites which demand IE. There are many examples, such as:

        http://unix.stackexchange.com/...

I thought Kerbal was missing N-Body mechanics

That's probably why I ask questions like this: http://physics.stackexchange.c...

"because there is less flickering in DirectX games". DirectX games played under Wine, or are your problems with AMD/ATI not actually directly related to Linux at all? I'm not sure what you mean by "flickering", but the problem anti-aliasing is designed to solve is, well, aliasing - that is, jagged edges on objects caused by the unavoidable fact that the on-screen image is composed of individual pixels, which becomes noticeable whenever different coloured objects don't line themselves up perfectly along pixel boundaries (i.e. most of the time).

http://blender.stackexchange.c...

If the problem is not strictly to do with jagged edges on objects, you may also want to read up on mipmapping and/or anisotropic filtering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

You might be misunderstanding the problem and exacerbating things through poor graphics options, or you might simply be abnormally sensitive to the limitations of interactive 3D graphics rendering. Alternatively, if by "flickering" you mean entire objects are actually disappearing/reappearing, that sounds like an application bug, or a hardware failure waiting to happen (e.g. video memory corruption resulting from overheating).

Google is moving more and more utilities to Play Services, which is not open source.
Play Services is not only about Google-related services, it is also about OAuth for instance.
Unknowing developers rely on Play Services, making their apps incompatible with pure-Android devices.

To solve this problem, an Open Source implementation of Google Play Services is being developed:
http://softwarerecs.stackexcha...

Google really needs to split Play Services.

I get that they want to make the framework updateable without a full OS update. I think that is a great idea. They should make an "Android Frameworks" app and release it as open source. Mandate that it be pre-installed on any device that passes their QA, and recommend that everybody else use it as well. Why wouldn't they - it is FOSS and just makes the device better.

Then limit Play Services to, well, Play Services. It might handle authentication to your Google Account, verify that paid apps are legit, and so on. If you remove it then you might not be able to use your Google account with the device, or use the Play Store, but otherwise Android works just fine. This can be proprietary.

Honestly, though, I'd actually like the Google Account stuff to be FOSS. I should be able to sign into my own server and have contacts/etc sync and backups and all that. It is great that you don't HAVE to use Google's services, but it would be better if you also had the option of rolling your own.

yep kind of what went through my mind when I read the summary, I was was thinking of that old Star Trek episode where the Voyager probe had evolved into a big super computer and what not and I figured the first hardware running Hurd 1.0 should look just like it.

http://scifi.stackexchange.com...

On not-Android operating systems, you can choose to deny a particular app access to a particular permission if you don't use features of that app that require access to that particular permission. For example, on iOS, you can deny an app access to your contacts without blocking the rest of the app from installing, and the App Store Review Guidelines state that the rest of an app must continue working without the permission. Android permissions commonly cited as useful to some but overly intrusive to others include "access network state" (be notified when Internet access comes back so that the app can sync data for offline use), "start after boot" (be notified when the device has been turned back on so that the app can sync data for offline use), and contacts (spell-check your friends' names). One could in theory ship a bare-bones app without these features and make separate helper service apps that just grant each of these permissions to the main app, but I'm told that would create a poor user experience.

Google is moving more and more utilities to Play Services, which is not open source.
Play Services is not only about Google-related services, it is also about OAuth for instance.
Unknowing developers rely on Play Services, making their apps incompatible with pure-Android devices.

To solve this problem, an Open Source implementation of Google Play Services is being developed:
http://softwarerecs.stackexcha...

Then wouldn't the dark matter clouds just collapse in on themselves and form singularities as there would be no counterforce to gravitational attraction?

Gravity is the attraction of masses. The reason that things don't pass through each other is something else. It involves the electric repulsion of electrons and protons, but a more detailed answer is here

Those four towers are the lightning protection system.

For more details, search for "rolling sphere" lighting protection system design. The idea is that if you roll a sphere of size X (usually 150ft or 45.7m) across the points of the masts, the area below the ball will be ~95% protected against a strike of power level Y. That is, any leader passing through the sphere will be more attracted to the mast, then to something below that point.

This isn't about safety.

'Denial' isn't just a river in Egypt.

Quadcopters are dangerous, and those are just the toys that don't carry packages across town.

This is a question of public safety being sacrificed to suit Amazon's corporate goals and customers who will pay premiums for faster service.

Basically, set up two VMs, the first only gets networking through the second, and the second is configured to run everything through TOR and TOR alone.

Now this has been made easy and "done for us" so to speak (but always, ymmv, everything has bugs, security is a mindset, etc etc etc):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

From the whonix homepage: "Whonix is an operating system focused on anonymity, privacy and security. It's based on the Tor anonymity network[1], Debian GNU/Linux[2] and security by isolation. DNS leaks are impossible, and not even malware with root privileges can find out the user's real IP. "
https://www.whonix.org/

For latest developments, here is where it's at:
https://www.whonix.org/blog/ma...
https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Qu...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...

PS, some current "wisdom" (but check out the cutting edge above, which also more generic solutions):
https://blog.torproject.org/bl...
https://torrentfreak.com/tribl...
http://torguard.net/howtodownl...
http://www.tribler.org/
http://tor.stackexchange.com/q...
https://wiki.vuze.com/w/Tor_Ho...
http://www.howtogeek.com/76801...

Seriously, we live in abundance - enjoy :)

Off topic, but this has nothing to do with the catholic church; neither I nor CS Lewis are/were catholic.

In any case, and for the final time, the right of a business to choose to refuse service is a time honored right (with the exception of cases involving "protected groups"). Ill leave you a few links to get you started; argue with them, not me.

http://politics.stackexchange....
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-...