Slashdot Mirror

I found the best way to play some of these older games is through DosBox, full screen.

Yeah, the aspect ratios were different for the lower resolutions especially:
CGA: 160x100: 1.6
CGA/MCGA: 320x200: 1.6 or 160/200: 0.8 (see below)
EGA: 640x350: 1.83
VGA: 640x480 1.33

Every regular non-widescreen resolution above that seems to follow the 4/3, 1.33 aspect ratio EXCEPT for 1280x1024 which has a ratio of 1.25.

Then you have to take account of the size of the pixels on the original display, as well as the various CGA composite-mode hacks that were popular which allowed for text and graphics with more colors, but only on composite monitors. For example, you have CGA 320x200 four-color mode, but the edges of the various pixels blend together in a composite-specific artifacting, which leads to an "effective" 160x200 16-color mode. Looks decent on a composite monitor, but horrible on an RGB monitor or, of course, emulation. This image shows a CGA image on a regular RGB monitor on the left, and the composite monitor on the right.

I got used to the four-color black-white-magenta-cyan color scheme because I had a computer with an EGA adapter and RGB monitor in the late 80s, so all these CGA games would look horrible. King's Quest II -- I played that all the way through with that horrible color scheme. Starflight as well. Then games started getting native EGA support and all was well.

Fortunately DosBox comes with a "composite mode" where it emulates the effect of a composite monitor so you can play composite games under emulation and they'll be in their original intended full-color glory!

Native or not, your teacher was incorrect (or was misunderstood), though may have been intentionally so in order to ease basic understanding via comparison. Don't take my word for it though. Feel free to peruse the country name stamped on official Mexican items, such as their currency or national passports.

'nuff said.

Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.

So, note that that article obliquely references the study which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.

It is one of the most important aldehydes, occurring widely in nature and being produced on a large scale industrially. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit, and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is also produced by oxidation of ethanol and is popularly believed to be a cause of hangovers from alcohol consumption through drinking spirits.[3] Pathways of exposure include air, water, land or groundwater as well as drink and smoke.[4]

But it's everywhere. Every time you walk beside the road and smell car exhaust, you're getting filled up with acetaldehyde.

But, thankfully, millennia of co-evolution has promoted the anti-tumor agents in cannabis to offset the carcinogenic elements generated by smoking it. At this point, after all the co-evolution, you get net zero cancer increase. It's a complete offset. Or you even get a cancer decrease.

Read up on the NIH/UCLA studies conducted by Donald Tashkin. Here are some references:

• also from Web MD ("Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.")
• from the National Cancer Institute
• A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
• Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study

Smoking anything is going to get you some carcinogens. In fact, smoking marijuana results in about 200 different carcinogens. And yet no cancer. It's a puzzle. Something else it at work here. Consider the idea: "anti-tumor."

And what happens if you vaporize , rather than burn? It reduces the carcinogens from 200 to 2.

Hey, you could parlay the anti-tumor property of cannabis by taking the cannabis in a non-burned form. Without the acetaldehyde and other carcinogens from smoking, you'd only get a strong anti-cancer effect.

You could use that to offset an exhaust-sucking urban life's inherent extreme, often acetaldehyde-driven carcinogenicity. Whoa, everyone can benefit from a medical marijuana prescription. I hadn't realized it before.

Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.

So, note that that article obliquely references the study which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.

It is one of the most important aldehydes, occurring widely in nature and being produced on a large scale industrially. Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit, and is produced by plants as part of their normal metabolism. It is also produced by oxidation of ethanol and is popularly believed to be a cause of hangovers from alcohol consumption through drinking spirits.[3] Pathways of exposure include air, water, land or groundwater as well as drink and smoke.[4]

But it's everywhere. Every time you walk beside the road and smell car exhaust, you're getting filled up with acetaldehyde.

But, thankfully, millennia of co-evolution has promoted the anti-tumor agents in cannabis to offset the carcinogenic elements generated by smoking it. At this point, after all the co-evolution, you get net zero cancer increase. It's a complete offset. Or you even get a cancer decrease.

Read up on the NIH/UCLA studies conducted by Donald Tashkin. Here are some references:

• also from Web MD ("Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.")
• from the National Cancer Institute
• A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
• Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study

Smoking anything is going to get you some carcinogens. In fact, smoking marijuana results in about 200 different carcinogens. And yet no cancer. It's a puzzle. Something else it at work here. Consider the idea: "anti-tumor."

And what happens if you vaporize , rather than burn? It reduces the carcinogens from 200 to 2.

Hey, you could parlay the anti-tumor property of cannabis by taking the cannabis in a non-burned form. Without the acetaldehyde and other carcinogens from smoking, you'd only get a strong anti-cancer effect.

You could use that to offset an exhaust-sucking urban life's inherent extreme, often acetaldehyde-driven carcinogenicity. Whoa, everyone can benefit from a medical marijuana prescription. I hadn't realized it before.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg

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

Some studies in the 1950s that used LSD to treat alcoholism professed a 50% success rate,[29] five times higher than estimates near 10% for Alcoholics Anonymous.[30] A 1998 review was inconclusive.[31]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Alcoholism

Because it's a meta-analysis - like the story says. Each of the trials that wikipedia mentions is underpowered by itself - the results are not strongly significant even when they did show 'an effect'. The reason was they were often unable to recruit enough people for the trial. There were also trials that showed little effect (and as the review you quote says - the overall evidence was 'inconclusive'). This is the most comprehensive analysis to date of exactly those past studies - and the picture is more complete and convincing - there IS an effect.
The question is now - is there enough evidence to warrant a proper trial and collect the really important long term data?

Some studies in the 1950s that used LSD to treat alcoholism professed a 50% success rate,[29] five times higher than estimates near 10% for Alcoholics Anonymous.[30] A 1998 review was inconclusive.[31]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Alcoholism

No, you are right. That might have happened in 1990. It was a period of particular unrest and the country was going through a terrible crisis at the time. I was just 6 years old in 1990, and wasn't living in Buenos Aires at the time, so I can't tell for sure. Remember, democracy returned to Argentina in '83, and Alfonsin's government (83' - 89') was a total mess. Menem's was corrupt and totally messed up our economy, but we never saw the kind of civil unrest we saw with Alfonsin.

What you saw is certainly not what the city looks like now, or in the past 20 years.

Seriously, I'm not just blindly defending my country, I'm the first to point out all the things that are wrong with it.

If I had only seen LA in 92', it looked like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/ANG40InfantryDivisionLosAngelesRiot1992.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/1st_Marine_Division_along_Crenshaw.jpg. And If I had posted saying that's what LA looks like, I imagine you would have corrected me to to tell me that's not really what LA looks like.

No, you are right. That might have happened in 1990. It was a period of particular unrest and the country was going through a terrible crisis at the time. I was just 6 years old in 1990, and wasn't living in Buenos Aires at the time, so I can't tell for sure. Remember, democracy returned to Argentina in '83, and Alfonsin's government (83' - 89') was a total mess. Menem's was corrupt and totally messed up our economy, but we never saw the kind of civil unrest we saw with Alfonsin.

What you saw is certainly not what the city looks like now, or in the past 20 years.

Seriously, I'm not just blindly defending my country, I'm the first to point out all the things that are wrong with it.

If I had only seen LA in 92', it looked like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/ANG40InfantryDivisionLosAngelesRiot1992.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/1st_Marine_Division_along_Crenshaw.jpg. And If I had posted saying that's what LA looks like, I imagine you would have corrected me to to tell me that's not really what LA looks like.

Holy hell, warn some of us at work before posting that. Not that I mind reading up on it, but one thing I don't want to look at (at work or at home) is another man's junk.

Try this one instead: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Erotic_electrostimulation
Better yet, install EFF's HTTPS Everywhere.

There's no good reason to expose as much plaintext as possible to as many hops and packet sniffers as possible.

Start with the Warlock in Spite of Himself by Christopher Stasheff.

I quite liked the sequels, up to The Warlock is Missing, but nothing meets the first book. Seriously recommend also reading Escape Velocity which is the prequel to Warlock in Spite of Himself.

For a standalone book, Heinlein's The Door into Summer is excellent.

Start with the Warlock in Spite of Himself by Christopher Stasheff.

I quite liked the sequels, up to The Warlock is Missing, but nothing meets the first book. Seriously recommend also reading Escape Velocity which is the prequel to Warlock in Spite of Himself.

For a standalone book, Heinlein's The Door into Summer is excellent.

Start with the Warlock in Spite of Himself by Christopher Stasheff.

I quite liked the sequels, up to The Warlock is Missing, but nothing meets the first book. Seriously recommend also reading Escape Velocity which is the prequel to Warlock in Spite of Himself.

For a standalone book, Heinlein's The Door into Summer is excellent.

... what? I assumed you were a troll, but skimming through your recent comments you seem to be a plenty reasonable person.

The United States is certainly further to the left politically compared to the start of the 20th centry (see: The Jungle), but it very far to the left compared to, say, most of Europe. Barack Obama is barely to the left of the Republican nominees, although I suppose you might believe they are also too far to the left. Anyway, I don't know what the heck "leftist slavery" is unless you mean higher taxes=slavery or something like that.

Wrong. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg

Windows release was in late 2002. You can see here that iPod didn't really start to take off until 2004.

Well, it's relative. Of course you can't see it in this chart, because the later numbers are overwhelming. The Windows release was the point when the device was well-known in non-geek circles. You can't measure that in sales numbers.

The iPod took off with the Windows-release, which was well before the iTunes Music Store.

Wrong. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg

Windows release was in late 2002. You can see here that iPod didn't really start to take off until 2004.

the onus is on the accused to prove they have a license.

Why wouldn't a 117(a)(1) defense be easy to argue in summary judgment?

Recent issues around intellectual property for fonts I am unfamiliar with, but interested in.

Are you familiar with the Best Western case? This logo is not copyrighted because this letter from the Copyright Office says it isn't.

the onus is on the accused to prove they have a license.

Why wouldn't a 117(a)(1) defense be easy to argue in summary judgment?

Recent issues around intellectual property for fonts I am unfamiliar with, but interested in.

Are you familiar with the Best Western case? This logo is not copyrighted because this letter from the Copyright Office says it isn't.

News for nerds ?
Stuff that matters ?

This is "stuff" (concrete)... that matters. Yes, seriously.

Maybe you're just not a stuff nerd...
Well, nerd-up, motherfucker! ;D

The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party.

Wehrmacht units burned down plenty of villages in Belarus. And, while not every soldier was a Nazi, plenty were, and plenty more were sympathetic.

E.g. this picture depicts Wehrmacht soldiers holding a blackboard saying "The Russian must die, so that we may live" - a clear reference to Lebensraum.

The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat.

Waffen-SS never ran death camps, that was the job of "general" SS. Some Waffen SS units (e.g. Totenkopf) were formed from death camp guards, yes. Most were not.

As for performance, it was actually higher than regular army units in those divisions that were formed from Western European volunteers - pretty much all German ones except for Totenkopf, and especially Das Reich and Leibstandarte; but also Wiking, Nordland, Charlemagne etc. The remains of Nordland, for example, were defending Reichstag in the final battle right until the point where they learned of Hitler's suicide, and they did real well there, effecting casualties far in excess of what they have themselves sustained.

Divisions which did have poor performance, and a particularly nasty war crime record, were usually those recruited among collaborationists in Eastern Europe - Croatian, Albanian, Baltic, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorusian, and various legions from Caucasus. Reason being, those guys were more eager to settle old scores (i.e. Croatians and Albanians against Serbs, Ukrainians and Belorusians against Poles and Russians etc) than to fight the common "war on bolshevism" that Axis promoted

The volt is a completely new class of car. It's a trailblazer.

No it's not. this is a Trailblazer.

I believe you're mistaken. Raytracing IS the technique where you're tracing light much the way it happens in the real world. The techniques usually used in GPUs are quite backward. It hasn't really been all that downhill, though; they've gotten pretty good at faking a lot of the effects, but when it comes to things like shadows, local lighting, radiosity, and refraction, Raytracing is where it's at.

Examples:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Glasses_800_edit.png
http://hof.povray.org/images/chado_Big.jpg
http://hof.povray.org/micra1_09.html
http://hof.povray.org/images/warm_up_Big.jpg
http://hof.povray.org/images/kitchen.jpg

All of those are from POV-Ray. There are plenty more in their gallery over here:
http://hof.povray.org/

Feel free to send some counterexamples of other techniques doing it better.

+1 Purple Heart for RTFA for us. Thanks for your service.

Cute try, but I would think Wikipedia's traffic reports are a bit more accurate.

Here is an example of real world data. I know such things can be very disturbing if you bought into the economic woo spread lately, but hey, believe what you want. Reality, however, is independent of your personal religion.

And OPEC oil is pegged to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nixon_Shock

Check https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Companies+ruined+or+almost+ruined+by+Forward+caste
Sanjiv Ahuja belong to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Forward_caste

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland

Since the image that "Azure" and "Cloud" conjurs up is more "sky" than "cloud" it would be my suggestion that Microsoft simply register chickenlit.tl and set up an Azure service status monitor/report page there.

They could have an adorable cartoon chicken that, when the system is working normally, runs around scratching and pecking(speed dependent on load). When downtime occurs, it would begin squawking about how the sky is falling. What could make failure more endearing?

Just to add that Microsoft touch, they could do the entire thing as a Microsoft Agent ActiveX control!

Once you normalize a criminal behavior, it supposedly becomes easier to break more serious laws. To migrate from schedule 8 to schedule 7 or schedule 3.

lol, you Americans with your silly "schedules". Under your system, the worst drugs are schedule 1, which includes drugs like LSD and MDMA.

Now, look at this chart (you know, actual information, rather than trusting your ignorant biases) and tell me how that "scheduling" system makes any sense. Please, enlighten us.

Once you normalize a criminal behavior, it supposedly becomes easier to break silly laws.

FTFY

This is only true if you equal "invasion of privacy" with "assault", and if you can show clearly that the intent of the spying was to effect violence, or fear of violence on the gay person. From the article in New Yorker I can't see either. All I see is a bigot taping a gay guy for the lulz. It is irresponsible, bigoted and stupid, but it is very far from a hate crime.

I'm only working with New Mexico law, because that's the only one I'm familiar with, and I don't know the specific jurisdiction under which this case is being tried.

However, that being said, in New Mexico "hate crime" does not have to be a violent crime, it just has to be a crime.

This is only true if you equal "invasion of privacy" with "assault", and if you can show clearly that the intent of the spying was to effect violence, or fear of violence on the gay person. From the article in New Yorker I can't see either. All I see is a bigot taping a gay guy for the lulz. It is irresponsible, bigoted and stupid, but it is very far from a hate crime.

Mod parent +1 insightful. I think this is one of the most important potential advances the human race can achieve: the bidet. See how wonderful it would be if women and men washed their assholes clean using a bidet!
 
We need to have bidets installed in all toilets everywhere worldwide. It should be a basic human right to have access to a bidet for asshole cleanliness wherever you may find yourself, be it in a truck stop bathroom, the shitter at a strip club, or even while visiting the white house.

Sounds like NK found an innovative way to circumvent
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nixon_Shock

Here's one way to reckon abuse potential for a drug:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

Heroin: far and away a leader!

Let me ask you: Why are you asking what makes heroin worse than LSD? Are you just being pedagogical? Do you really not know? Do you just not know what this particular person thinks are the criteria?

Do you realize your presentation here strongly hints at the implication that you feel, aside from the specifically excepted points, heroin is no worse than LSD? I personally feel it's much, much more dangerous, again aside from the excepted points. If you'd like details on why I think so, please feel free to ask.

NB: I have not done heroin.

The symbol of Simon Peter is: "a little boat (and ... great fisherman!)".

The symbol of the 2 metal keys like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg is the symbol of fake authority for auto-profiting itself this pontifical harlot of Rome for nearly 2 millennia. And the announcement of the fake authority and of that is beneath it is abomination.

Jesuchrist said that he gave him the keys, but never said that of the 2 metallic keys.

The question now is, is Simon Peter in his place? (after of his possible martyrdom). If not then somebody will have to go there and to occupy its position, perhaps i'm, namely that who starts is who ends, that means that, the last body that is positioned should be the first, and all the saints who follow him will be saved.

Rome is not the rock you were looking for on which Jesuchrist will build the Church, nor the place to be accessible to the Kingdom of Heaven. Simon Peter knew it, i might do, but I will have to try it with my faith that has guided me. If you follow me then I'll lead the place for the saints can access to the Kingdom of Heaven.

During all that time, the fake authority has never had access to the Kingdom of Heaven, because otherwise if any, how is it that they do not know the aramaic that also is the first (native) language of Simon Peter?

Holy gentle, gentile saints, do you want to see the living angels? You will can have a chance if you abandon the evil current empire and follow me.

From now, the current symbol is: "a little boat", and not that of Rome and not that from Rome.

JCPM: i did decipher it! Now it will be my time of reacting myself for acting myself divinely!.

The symbol of Simon Peter is: "a little boat (and ... great fisherman!)".

The symbol of the 2 metal keys like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg is the symbol of fake authority for auto-profiting itself this pontifical harlot of Rome for nearly 2 millennia. And the announcement of the fake authority and of that is beneath it is abomination.

Jesuchrist said that he gave him the keys, but never said that of the 2 metallic keys.

The question now is, is Simon Peter in his place? (after of his possible martyrdom). If not then somebody will have to go there and to occupy its position, perhaps i'm, namely that who starts is who ends, that means that, the last body that is positioned should be the first, and all the saints who follow him will be saved.

Rome is not the rock you were looking for on which Jesuchrist will build the Church, nor the place to be accessible to the Kingdom of Heaven. Simon Peter knew it, i might do, but I will have to try it with my faith that has guided me. If you follow me then I'll lead the place for the saints can access to the Kingdom of Heaven.

During all that time, the fake authority has never had access to the Kingdom of Heaven, because otherwise if any, how is it that they do not know the aramaic that also is the first (native) language of Simon Peter?

Holy gentle, gentile saints, do you want to see the living angels? You will can have a chance if you abandon the evil current empire and follow me.

From now, the current symbol is: "a little boat", and not that of Rome and not that from Rome.

JCPM: i did decipher it! Now it will be my time of reacting myself for acting myself divinely!.

The Economist is certainly right of center, economically. They are downright "right-wing" by European standards and slightly right of center by US standards.

Of course, they don't often speak highly of the Republican party because of all the other crazy fringes like the moralistic religious wing, or the libertarian kooks who think the EPA is wasted space.

It's NOT the Economist who has shifted positions in the last 15 years. If you read back, they have been very very consistent.

It's the Republican party who has gone completely insane. Frankly, Obama is to the RIGHT of Bob Dole and quite a bit further to the right from Ronald Reagan.

I don't live in the US anymore. While you may find some of the crazy nuts on the left wing to be a little bit nuts (as do I), Most of the world sees the Republican "base" as completely insane... often even not too far behind some of the crazier Islamic regimes. I mean.. seriously, 68% of republicans don't believe that evolution is a scientifically sound theory. 32% answer surveys saying that Obama is "definitely a Muslim". 51% believe that he wasn't born in the US.

That's pretty damn insane too.

Your commentary on ideal taxation rates not being strictly related to maximum income collection is reasonable, but it is worth pointing out that I might argue the small change in slope of the curve between 19% and 20% (the differences in federal tax rate as a portion of GDP between the Bush tax cuts and Clinton rates) hardly justifies the estimated $1.2 trillion deficits that it likely causes. Additionally, we are NOWHERE NEAR the range where the slope starts to change dramatically.

It's very very hard to argue that at the rate of between 22-26% of GDP, the overall US taxation rate is too high. In fact, it's lower than ANY OTHER developed nation already, as a fraction of GDP (unless you count Korea and Lithuania)... and that data is according to a study conducted by the Conservative "Heritage Foundation", so it's hard to question the source as "liberally biased" as so many like to do when they don't like the conclusions it points to.

I'm not sure what your point is other than you are angry some people aren't well versed in economics. But it is important to remember that arguments about the Laffer curve is almost completely irrelevant because we are, by every study I've ever heard of, not only left of the peak, but possibly left of even the linear part of the curve and into the area where government cutbacks begin to drag down infrastructure and research investment, actually HURTING productivity, rather than increasing it. (This is the reason the bottom part of the Laffer curve is likely logarithmic, rather than linear)

And I do want to point out that the Laffer curve is a hypothetical theory that is essentially based on nothing more than a thought experiment. While it MUST be true from a sheer economic sentiment, the actual shape of it is highly theoretical and probably not even consistent across various cultures and countries. Despite this, most evidence indicates it would probably take the shape similar to a negative-skew lognormal distribution with a peak at around 70-80% taxation as a portion of GDP.

In case you aren't familiar with a lognormal, here is a picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Skewness_Statistics.svg/446px-Skewness_Statistics.svg.png

I do feel obligated to point out that the "fall off" in productivity you mention as the curve begins to inflect is probably not significant in the types of rates we are talking about (20-26% of GDP).

The ONLY other countries in the world (excluding the artificially stimulated economies of Dubai and Singapore) rivalling the US in per-capita GDP output (the best approximation of "productivity" we have) are all very high taxation countries. In fact, the majority of the top 10 regions in "productivity" are also

That doesn't help - because Canadian copyright law does not match US copyright law, Canadians are violating US copyright law with what they call "public domain," and not changing their laws to match ours makes them evil slimy bastards that owe our publishers lots of money. The only recourse is to have all the countries in the world change their copyright law to match US copyright law, and yeah, that just isn't going to happen, nor should it, because that is stepping on each countries sovereign rights. Incidentally, most countries have pretty much the same copyright law as Canada (life + 50 years is the most common, life + 70 years second most common - here is a picture)

Therefore it does not exists, right?

Now where did I say that? I didn't. I just don't believe in natural rights. You can, of course, but I'm merely trying to imply that there is, as far as I know, no actual evidence for their existence.

If speaking of the context of a concept definition, the correct form of expression would be "I don't accept your definition" (on which I'd ask: what do you find unacceptable: the genus or the differentia?).

Of course, in a discussion context of "embodiment of the concept in reality", one can ask for a proof/evidence of how the concept is observable in the current human behavior. Or, even one may wonder if one needs to ponder on philosophical concepts at all - I believe it still worth it.

Why should I? It's a matter of defining a concept, not a proof.

"Information sharing is a natural right"

That was a statement of a fact, not a statement of a mere belief or opinion. That led me to believe that you might have some actual evidence to back that up.

That was a statement of a definition... I think this very confusion is the root of us "speaking together and understanding separately".

Indeed, they are not. So...?

"It is only because the government allowed you to share information with your girl/boy-friend that you are able to say "I love you"."

You spoke of being "able" to do something as if having the ability to do something was relevant. But maybe I misinterpreted you.

Well, I was discussing in the context of "natural right - the definition". "Able" was a poor choice of words indeed.

Side-track: do you believe one has the right to dig 1 foot hole on the Mars surface? (should daVinci have waited for someone to grant him the right to fly before designing his air screw or glider. Obviously, he wasn't been able to fly).

Right! Evidence for the definition of philosophical concepts

Well, okay. I just don't see any reason that anyone, or more specifically, I, should believe in such philosophical concepts when there's no evidence that they're true. Especially in cases like this where they seem indistinguishable from something that we already know exists (rights granted by law) and their supposed existence doesn't seem to affect anything.

Not willing to think of things that don't exists? Not believing some of these things things worth the effort of being transposed into reality?

PS My admiration for still staying in touch on the topic in spite of the rude artistic licenses I used.

Add to that the "yellow circles" patterns that are in various currencies (like the pattern of "20s" on a $20 bill) and they have been working with copier/scanner/software makers to flag those items as non-copy able as well.

That pattern is called the EURion constellation, a portmanteau (of "EUR" and "Orion,") coined when it was discovery in 2002, six years after it began appearing on banknotes.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eurion_constellation

and both trace their origins to the same place. NextStep was the inspiration for windowmaker and OS X is a direct evolution of the nextsteps codebase.

this is nextstep: http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/nextstep-os.jpg
this is windowmaker: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Windowmaker.jpg
and mac OS X: http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/4/48/Aqua_(Mac_OS_X)_screenshot.jpg

the similar looks of finder and next's file browser is not a coincidence.

Procedural and even legal barriers to spying on citizens are not very effective.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

According to the USDA, organic produce carries significantly fewer pesticide residues than does conventional produce.

(Though studies need yet to be performed to find out whether this translates to improved health.)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Organic_food#Environmental_impact :

A 2007 study[21] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that

...organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

(from the abstract)

A study of the sustainability of apple production systems showed that in comparing a conventional farming system to an organic method of farming, the organic system is more energy efficient.

Also, not all biofuels are ethanol. Some, like algal oil, can be produced using marginal lands. Maybe you should denigrate specific biofuels.

Addressing the lot of responses...

Eating poison ivy or fire: Co-evolution with a species is critically dependent on the manner of interaction between the species. That is, using a plant as a poison for millennia does not mean it's also safe to eat. It does mean it's likely to be a good poison.

Modern crops are different from older species, just by hybridization/breeding: Yes. But they're based on the genes of crops that have co-evolved with humans, using a process that's also naturally occurring (though using it somewhat artificially). And they may indeed be lacking benefits afforded by progenitor cultivars and species. Likely no one tested the resulting breeds for the subtle (and certainly not the unknown) benefits of the original species when selecting their "successes". Older species are probably better for you, generally, if not as tasty or pretty.

Many or most modern food plants are a novelty to any given person's ancestry: True, but not a novelty to humans in general. So the question here is how much pressure is put on the humans to evolve versus the crops? Also, there are differences between what foods different races can tolerate.

What's precaution and what's science-stifling irrational fear:

Yes, absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence....but in the absence of hard evidence, how are the opponents of GMO any different that the opponents of vaccination?

As stupid as that may sound at first, there is actually a very important concept being asked about. What's prudent and what's ignorantly fearful?

We need to weigh several factors. The possibility and degree of benefit. The possibility and degree of harm. The amount of knowledge we have about the topic. The amount of knowledge we have about the scope of the topic. (Rumsfeld's "known knowns" and "unknown unknowns" idea.) My review of these leaves me on the side of playing it safe.

The primary wildcard that makes me sit up and pay close attention to folks playing with the genes of food crops is the fact that "Life finds a way." Crops breed out of our control. We've seen it already with GMO. If you're not using a time-tested method for changing crop genes (breeding, for example), you want to figure out more clearly what kind of results you'll be making. Fuck it up in a bad way and the "life finds a way" factor could leverage your mistake into a catastrophe.

But, even if life does tend to find a way, I'd be for scientists experimenting with Frankenstein GMO crops in tightly controlled environments, and testing the results over the course of a couple generations of test subjects. But I guess that's infeasible.

Likely we'll all be test subjects. And then we'll just have to wait a few generations to iron out the big problems, and a few hundred generations to smooth out the relationship, and a few hundred more generations to polish it out to a beautifully symbiotic sheen.

There's basically nobody saying the world is cooling. The whole argument is:

- WHY is it warming?
- WHAT, if anything, should be done about it.

The science says it's probably due to a bunch of things humans are doing, which implies we should curtail those activities, assuming we desire to remain at the status quo temperatures (and there's good reasons to want that). There's another thread that's very small in the science world, but huge in the US political sphere that says it's not humankind's fault, and will go away on its own, so we should do nothing about it.

Other less-talked-about niche opinions are:

- It's our fault, but we shouldn't do anything about it anyway.
- It's not our fault, but we should try to fix it anyway.
- Regardless of whether it's our fault, it's too late to do anything about it.
- etc.

Nobody with any sense at all claims that the world has been cooling for the past 10 years, because that's ridiculous reality-denial: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg.

Try being a rape survivor with PTSD triggers on non-consensual groping. Try having a colostomy or other embarrassing medical device of your choice. Try being a transgendered person forced to risk being outed to some random TSA chimp to travel. The epsilon-minus Wal-Mart rejects they hire are not exactly the sort of people who can be relied on to handle such situations discreetly and respectfully.

Moreover, even for someone who has no such special vulnerability, this sort of treatment is simply unacceptable. You may not have a problem with it - hell, you probably like it and wish they'd shove that jackboot up your ass just that much harder - but the notion that one should be expected to be okay with having the government inspect one's genitals is simply obscene. Make no mistake, this is a rape, and it's about the same thing most other rapes are: the assertion of power so absolute as to abrogate the victims' control over even the most intimate parts of their own bodies. This is the forcible reduction of free persons to 'bare life', as Agamben would put it. This is a seed, and thanks to people like you willing to accept and defend it, it has taken root and become almost impossible to challenge, and now we wait in fear of the next step. When fully matured, this is O'Brian saying to Winston Smith, "If you are a man, Winston, you are the last man. Your kind is extinct; we are the inheritors. Do you understand that you are alone? You are outside history, you are non-existent."

All in all, I recommend you reconsider your position.

I hope this cleaning satellite is a giant wad of bubblegum with a couple of boosters attached to it. It'll just float around getting in the way of the little stuff, all of which will stick to the bubblegum. We all know how well gum picks up little bits of metal like the keys to a jail door, so it should be perfect for satellite debris.

Don't you remember? That was done successfully about ten years from now, but after several years of operation and combining with other material from space, it fell into a wormhole and came back to earth in the 50's. There were some issues. Some might remember it as The Blob.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Blob

Oh, now, come on. Everyone here knows that professional software engineers would never fuck up the software running a machine designed to dose people with radiation. I mean, that's a serious safety issue, someone could get killed.