Slashdot Mirror

There are numerous uses for peppers including food, relatively safe weapons (personal defense & crowd control), and as pesticides in farming. Furthermore, medical uses are abundant for capsaicin, including the treatment of wounds, skin disorders, digestive problems, and neuropathy.

So they bred a really hot pepper. Tag as idle and move on, right fellas? I mean it's not about iphones, linux, or obscure physics, so it must not be important.

In fact, this is the very heart of science, and a type of science (plant breeding) that is older, and more important to the long-term survival of the human race, than virtually all others.

Plant breeding is hard, thankless work that most people never even think about (except for the occasional GMO/Non-GMO debate). In some plants, such as trees that take many years to grow and bear fruit, selective breeding programs can take decades just to find one desirable trait for disease resistance. Shawn Mehlenbacher at Oregon State University has spent decades breeding hazelnuts that are resistant to Eastern Filbert Blight so that we don't lose the species of tasty hazelnut that you all enjoy.

This same story is true for virtually all of the food you eat - there is some scientist at some boring agricultural college, at a seed bank, or at a germplasm repository, working his or her life away to make sure that your favorite foods are still available for future generations, and if they have some spare time, breeding them to be bigger, better, and tastier than ever.

the methodology is as important (may be more ) than the conclusion : https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_implication.
What you start with is very important, if it is not true you can conclude what ever you want and the whole statement will be true.

Yes... but are we sure he was working for the Secret Service? Seems a bit far-fetched that the agency tasked with protecting the life of the president would involve itself in something as pedantic as computer hacking in order to catch a few embezzlers....[

And yes, you're right about the distinction between a regular order and a "superior order", but the nomenclature is different in different parts of the world. In Canada, if my superior asks me to do something that's illegal, and I explain that it's illegal, I have a right to not perform the order.

Of course, within certain arms of the military, most of the job description would be illegal for a civilian. I cannot tell you the number of things I learned during my time in radio-telecommunications that would seriously piss off the CRTC in Canada, or the FCC in the US....

Apparently my initial post got lost somewhere. There is a really nice pic of a modern AEGIS destroyer (modern meaning about 30 year old design), that shows positions of two Phalanx CIWS that together cover 360/200ish. Take a look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/USS_Arleigh_Burke_Mediterranean.jpg

The white cylindrical radomes with spheric top are Phalanx CIWS units. They sit in nests that are elevated and pulled out of the superstructure, and have overlapping fields of fire in horizontal pane to ensure 360 degree horizontal coverage. Note that in spite of picture being taken from significant angle, we can still clearly see the rear gun, and while it probably wouldn't be able to fire at photographer's position, photographer would only need to move a few more degrees to be in firing range of both guns.

I find it interesting that it sounds like they're only talking about rocket thrusters that use some kind of chemical propellant. There are many types of thrusters that can get fuel from external sources. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ion_thruster https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Solar_sail This means we don't have to bring as much fuel. Or can generate more thrust than simple chemical reactions alone. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) As some examples. Although, it would seem that the decrease in impulse of the renewable fuel sources would probably mean a longer journey than with chemical propellants. Which would mean more food weight. Which would only increase the problems they have with vitamine deterioration in the food they have on board. Vitamine C deteriorates fairly fast... maybe they should just bring a bunch of cats to eat, they generate their own.

I find it interesting that it sounds like they're only talking about rocket thrusters that use some kind of chemical propellant. There are many types of thrusters that can get fuel from external sources. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ion_thruster https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Solar_sail This means we don't have to bring as much fuel. Or can generate more thrust than simple chemical reactions alone. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) As some examples. Although, it would seem that the decrease in impulse of the renewable fuel sources would probably mean a longer journey than with chemical propellants. Which would mean more food weight. Which would only increase the problems they have with vitamine deterioration in the food they have on board. Vitamine C deteriorates fairly fast... maybe they should just bring a bunch of cats to eat, they generate their own.

I find it interesting that it sounds like they're only talking about rocket thrusters that use some kind of chemical propellant. There are many types of thrusters that can get fuel from external sources. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ion_thruster https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Solar_sail This means we don't have to bring as much fuel. Or can generate more thrust than simple chemical reactions alone. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) As some examples. Although, it would seem that the decrease in impulse of the renewable fuel sources would probably mean a longer journey than with chemical propellants. Which would mean more food weight. Which would only increase the problems they have with vitamine deterioration in the food they have on board. Vitamine C deteriorates fairly fast... maybe they should just bring a bunch of cats to eat, they generate their own.

Inspector Javert

I still see Archimedean hulls over there :p (easy, in a place formerly behind the Iron Curtain - quite a bit of Meteor or Voskhod hydrofoils around)

I say it very precisely, "ships' hulls"/etc., for a reason :p But congrats, you're only the second, I believe, out of at least two dozen people replying to such posts [1] / how hardly anybody realizes the existence of hydrofoils is another example of ultimately limited (just liking to tell itself how "broad" it is) imagination (hydrofoils which don't change much of course, their properties resulting in limited use, and how their essence is quite "ancient" - dynamic suspension above the equilibrium by moving surfaces is how a lot of "biological" swimming happens. Also, we can probably agree that small bike-like hydrofoils without hulls, often muscle-powered, are a joke ;) )

1. Generally, posts dispelling tendencies to mix fiction and wishful thinking with reality, most often when... related to space activities, as above. This picture is useful too (airplanes from "our" times, no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech 100+ years ago [2] - and we can even build them: take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... doesn't make it a good idea), vs. "boring" reality (yes, typically this picture ;p It's not only a nice shot; also the most widely used passenger airliner, the airline (as far as my part of the woods goes), and one of few profitable ones)

2. One can wonder how strong was this effect in giving us the Shuttle - after all, scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s (times of rapid advances in airplane technology / I can see a pattern...) was full of "spaceplanes". Shuttle designers and decisionmakers grew up on those works of fiction before they gave us... an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst); something which, again, looked very soothing to public already quite accustomed to airliners / Concorde. And which probably robbed as at least of a decade of progress; was obsolete (with automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s) before it seriously got onto drawing boards.

That's the wrong term. The life+70 is for most works, but in the EU there is a different term for sound recordings and similar things - the idea being that you can make a sound recording of something already out of copyright and it will still be protected, but it should have a lesser protection than the music itself.

Across the EU this is currently "harmonised" at 50 years (not life+50, only 50 years), but the plan is to increase it to 70 or 95 years. Under current law, sound recordings from the 60s are beginning to fall out of copyright. Looking down Wikipedia's list of 1960s music groups it isn't hard to see why this extension is being pushed for. If anything, current artists are going to lose out on this (it isn't like they'll get a 40% pay rise overnight...) as it will encourage the major studios to reinvest in their existing works (that they own the copyright to) rather than investing in new material.

For anyone interested in doing something about this issue, it is currently before JURI (the EP's legal affairs committee) and you can find a list of its members here. Please do email or write to them.

It is, in France, in most of the collèges . But I chose Latin instead and studied it for 2 years.

people-who-copy-books-for-a-living.

Not to sound snarky or anything, but those people were called scribes.

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

And this is a great proof that playing WoW teaches you things!

You jest, but that kind of thinking actually happened, once. Team B argued that the Soviet Union had developed a new submarine detection system that didn't depend on sound. When faced with the fact that nobody had found anything like it, they argued that this only proved the point: since the detection system didn't depend on sound, it could not itself be detected.

You're missing the point. whether or not my data is worth compromising (which I whole heatedly believe that it is), is irrelevant.
Setting aside the fact that I may have cached passwords and financial information stored on my hard drive, the fourth amendment
is meant to guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since the US government has chosen to ignore the constitution, I believe that a "better safe than sorry" approach is quite prudent to say the least. You might want to check if you're currently located in a Constitution Free Zone as well.

Isn't everyone concerned about security already using hardware encryption - which is higher performance, and built in to almost every hard drive?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hardware-based_full_disk_encryption

Checking that fount of all knowledge https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Carnot_efficiency we get that the combustion products need to be 1560 degC for the theoretical efficiency of .6 and this would give a practical efficiency of about .55. 1560 dec C can only be done in a combustion chamber with extra oxygen

but what is the alert useful for other than having a scared, paranoid population?

That is exactly what it is useful for.

I keep hearing this, but it's at least the third: the INES scale lists two events it classifies as worse disasters: Chernobyl and Mayak are both significantly worse in terms of radiation release. Also read about the contamination of Lake Karachay.

That said, I don't think comparing current disasters to those caused by the Soviet Union is necessarily a good comparison. We should strive to do better.

I keep hearing this, but it's at least the third: the INES scale lists two events it classifies as worse disasters: Chernobyl and Mayak are both significantly worse in terms of radiation release. Also read about the contamination of Lake Karachay.

That said, I don't think comparing current disasters to those caused by the Soviet Union is necessarily a good comparison. We should strive to do better.

I keep hearing this, but it's at least the third: the INES scale lists two events it classifies as worse disasters: Chernobyl and Mayak are both significantly worse in terms of radiation release. Also read about the contamination of Lake Karachay.

That said, I don't think comparing current disasters to those caused by the Soviet Union is necessarily a good comparison. We should strive to do better.

Why are all evolution vs. intelligent design debates always really just deism vs. atheism debates?

Because "Intelligent Design" was a drop-in replacement for "Creation" used in the different editions of the book 'Of Pandas and People'.

Intelligent design does not predicate a deity.

Of course it doesn't. It predicts that an entity A was created by Intelligent Designer B. It then states that Intelligent Designer B was created by Intelligent Designer C, and so on.

The only exception is if you decide at some point that an entity was either created using natural processes (in which case, you're describing Evolution), or was created by a supernatural entity such as a god (in which case, you're describing Creationism). If you stick to the ID path, you have turtles all the way down.

If a police officer has probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, he doesn't need a warrant to intervene. The standard of evicence for probable cause is usually par with what would be needed to actually get a warrant, but does not actually require you go through the hoops to actually secure a warrant. It's usually used in cases where getting a warrant would mean enough time lapsing that the suspect could escape, but could easily be extended to the example in TFA.

You or I probably have nothing to worry about from such a search. I'd be seriously miffed if they decided to take my laptop away for "search", but it wouldn't really cause me any concern at losing my data, as there isn't anything on my laptop that isn't replaceable, and I'm due for buying a new one anyway... when they find nothing incriminating on my laptop I could easily file suit and have them contribute to the cost of a new one. That said, I've crossed the US border from Canada dozens of times, and have never been asked to do more than turn my laptop on. Usually, not even that, they just wave the wand over it to sniff for bombs, x-ray it, and send me on my way. They have never wanted to snoop around my home directory, and even if they did I wouldn't have a problem with that... all of my private files and sensitive information is stored on a fileserver at home (that I can access via VPN if I really need to when I'm on the road), and all they'd find in my "Documents" directory are programs I've downloaded from the web (Firefox, GIMP), savegames from Dragon Age and Civilization, and I think there's probably a couple of lolcat pictures in there that I've been lazy about deleting.

Your body language is a major deciding factor at border crossings, btw. If you're cagey or sketchey in answering the questions of the border guard, that's going to set off some major alarms. I'm usually a very tired person when I cross the border, because I usually take off-hours flights, either a red eye or an early morning departure, and that probably reflects with the border guards. Couple that with the fact that I'm female, have past military experience, and have current military and civilian clearances (all of which probably comes up when they scan my passport), and I'm probably put into a very low risk category for doing something nefarious on a plane. I still have problems with those damned backscatter xray machines though.

And even those should be nowhere close to anti-matter in toxicity.

Tell that to anyone who's ever had a PET scan.

She did not write that for Watching The Watchers - she wrote it for the Wikimedia Blog and they just took it. Please correct this and link to the original source.

They had IFR before WWII. Jimmy Doolittle made the first blind take off, flight, and landing back in 1929 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jimmy_Doolittle#Instrument_flight here is a brief history of the airway system that started around the same time http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/navigation/POL13.htm

I have been an EAA member since 1978 and soloed in a 2-33 glider at 16 many years ago. I have been involved in aviation for a very long time and I have never heard a single reference to nuclear aircraft or submarines in reference to IFR flight. What documentary was this? I am asking for some hard reference because it makes no sense. The ocean is very large and the total number of submarines has always been pretty small compared to aircraft. You never have 100 subs coming into port on any single day. Not even during WWII. I doubt that you would even have 10 in a day. Before nuclear subs subs spent most of their time on the surface anyway. The would transit to and from their patrol areas on the surface because they had to use diesels to move any real distance at speed and they where actually more trackable on sonar when snorkeling than on the surface because more of the sound would get transmitted to the water.

Since the first nuclear submarine was not launched until 1954-55 It is far more probable that submarine operating procedures where influenced by IFR rules. And in now real way where they influenced by the single test aircraft with a nuclear reactor. Oh and as to aviation documentaries they are often terrible sources of information. You have no idea how many times I have seen crap on the Military channel or History channel that makes me want to beat people.

So again do you have any references? Some documentary isn't one and I can find no reference to what you are saying in any history of IFR fight I have access to. A lot of aviation practices have been derived form maritime practices but your suggestion that IFR rules where put into place because of the low outward visibility of nuclear bombers that where never built and submarines doesn't make a lot of sense and I can not find any supporting documentation.
Now in an interesting aviation to submarine cross over when the US built the first teardrop shaped sub named the Albacore which lead to the Skipjack class of really fast nuclear subs the navy used bimps to train the helmsmen. It was so maneuverable that it was much more like a blimp than any ship. Reference http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Submarines-Since-1945-Illustrated/dp/1557502609

I'm not sure what Watching the Waters is, but this article is an exact copy of what's in the wikimedia blog.

My first thought was 'no DIlbert?' but that one is already mentioned in comments. Another 'greatest engineer' would be Grunf from Alan Ford. and my fav: Gaston Lagaffe http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Gastonpied.gif

[A] "treadmill" that sits under the car wheels and spins with the wheel so the car can "drive" while going nowhere (they exist, you'll see them in plenty of mechanics' shops) [...]

That device is called a dynamometer.

The future may be closer than you think

Unless my knowledge of geography is really bad, and the border between Armenia and Georgia is only about 2mm wide, having a single country that you can run Internet connections from is still no excuse for having only one uplink. At the very least, there should be two, a few miles apart, connected to the country's network at different points.

It's really bad: map from wikipedia

Seriously, friend. Can you tell me what a "pam stack" is? I'm having trouble understanding the google results. I'm half a moron, so if you could be gentle, I'd appreciate it.

PAM is the Pluggable Authentication Modules system.

I read about this years ago, and also nuclear aircraft more recently. a bit hazy on the rocket theory, but I was rather amazed they actually attempted airborne... the potential for fail is beyond ridiculous... like a B-52 doesn't make a big enough mess with just nuclear weapons, never mind a reactor on board...

I read about this years ago, and also nuclear aircraft more recently. a bit hazy on the rocket theory, but I was rather amazed they actually attempted airborne... the potential for fail is beyond ridiculous... like a B-52 doesn't make a big enough mess with just nuclear weapons, never mind a reactor on board...

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29">Project Orion from the 1950s

Fixed URL.

religion is, you guessed it, the "cathedral" of top down closed ideas

Well, not really. Sure, many might claim that, their followers convinced in that... but there are crazy amounts of syncretism around.

When applying some rigor, it's not very clear if local flavors of Christianity are closer to Christianity from X century [1] or to pagan practices from the same time (in either case, vast majority of present "Christians" would be branded - and treated - as very strong heretics by "Christians" living just few short centuries ago)

1. The time of "National Baptism" myth from my place - while the Pagan Reaction from XI century is of course forgotten; when the Christian ruler had to escape, priests & churches were annihilated as readily as it was done few decades earlier to old temples & "holy" men, and the "order" was restored few years later thanks to warriors borrowed from the Holy Roman Emperor (but don't tell that to the true faithful, they often don't like Germans, they get confused...[2]). After a quick look at basic historical demographics, number of priests & parishes, and recorded sermons condemning widespread pagan practices from as late as XVII-XVIII century (recorded = widespread enough to be noticed by higher clergy in the cities), the official PR regarding Christianization starts to look even more suspect.

Looking at the present: only the absolute sketch of Abrahamic mythology followed; many local saints (or Marian devotion) are relatively direct continuations of pagan deities (heck, one mistreated physical puppet / doll was supposed to be Judas from some point); all Church celebrations dominated by ex-pagan customs (and some locally big ones aren't even particularly observed in other Catholic places - but similar celebrations were a hit of local paganism); churches, chapels or crosses being placed even now according to the old rules for "holy places"; Catholic sacred groves and springs (I kid you not); quite clearly praying to the dead, saints or statues (a lot of new opportunities lately;GTranslate works ok); still trying to hijack clearly very old celebrations (summer solstice, most notably... still; and failing for almost a millenium)

2. The 1410 Grunwald battle is even better - basically, "we" managed to beat knighthood from most of Christian Europe which was amassed under the banner of one Crusading Order... Largely thanks to one close alliance (which generally would last centuries afterwards; creating "Commonwealth") with heathen Lithuania; its Duke becoming our king some years before, after some formalities (baptism, etc.) relatively late in his life, 3 days later marrying the reigning 12-year old king (that was her title, to recognize her as an independent monarch). Even better: notable contribution to the victory came from our local Muslims! (Tatars)

But of course (still) cherishing such victory in one of greatest battles of Middle Ages doesn't quite fully register (except for "we were fighting and won with ze Germans, Germans are bad") and we're the "bulwark of Christianity"... well, held very dear by the Vatican (and no wonder, one of few remaining places in Europe with very strong Catholic majority, officially)

All of which is is by no means unique / there's no reason for it to be.

If a "moderate" Republican wants to spend $223 million on a quarter-mile "bridge to nowhere" then "moderate" has no meaning.

And there's still the mystery of why he inserted an earmark for a contributor in Florida after the bill involved had passed the House and Senate. That bit of extra-Constitutional law-jiggering was hardly the act of a moderate, Republican or not.

Mission
The United States Marine Corps serves as an amphibious force-in-readiness. As outlined in 10 U.S.C. 5063 and as originally introduced under the National Security Act of 1947, it has three primary areas of responsibility:

• The seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns;
• The development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces; and
• Such other duties as the President may direct.

This last clause, while seemingly redundant given the president's position as Commander-in-chief, is a codification of the expeditionary duties of the Marine Corps.

Yet another example of regulatory capture at work.

Isnt it so much fun when the Industry shills get into policy positions? They make a lot of noise, and formulate some of the most arcane policies that just happen to fall right into the lap of the same industry groups that the policies are supposed to police :P can there be no end to the constant churn of people between lobbying groups and the lobbied groups?

P.S. - HTTPS on a wikipedia link! dont think i've seen that too often ;)

RkR

Yet another example of regulatory capture at work.

There's a list of old stations here. Apparently there were quite a few, although most of them seem to have been set up for mechanical tv sets.

the Soviet N1?

Except that the N1 never reached orbit (read your own article if you don't believe me).

Space-X has already launched, orbited, and successfully recovered a payload. For a private company using almost all private dollars, that's a significant achievement and I don't doubt that the Falcon Heavy will succeed.

the Soviet N1?

Actually you're not so far off from a point under the radar.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
Take a look at what became of the Regional Bell Operating Companies.

Most of the former split companies are now rolled up into AT&T and Verizon.

Did you ever consider that socialism is also using force as a means of defense? The safety net built by social policies is a defense line against the unexpected and the lottery of life, that gives different opportunities and starting points to each one. People entering the social contract are exerting their right to self-defense through collaboration.

It's also using force to defend the common, which is a form of shared property agreed upon by members of the society. If you avoid paying your due tax as agreed by the legal elected representatives, you're using force and/or deceit against the shared property; the state has all the right to send the police to avoid you hurting your peers; the money taken for taxes from your bank account was not yours to begin with, since your peers didn't agree to recognize your property over it.

So your 'big difference' is not clear-cut, it's a matter of opinion and of the social constructs that people will recognize as valid. I'm not in favor of government micro-management, but I don't think the "government intervention is coercion" is a valid line of reasoning - at least when dealing with representative democratic governments.

Actually, there's a theory in economics that, while it mostly talks about tax rate vs. revenue, can be applied to price versus profit. The short version is that Price v. Profit follows an inverted parabolic line. There's a sweet spot where revenues are maximized, and it most emphatically is not at the highest possible rate in the graph. The same applies to sales (and in fact, it was in that context that my HS Economics teacher presented it): as you raise the price beyond a butter zone, your profits actually drop because fewer people can afford to buy your product, and either buy the products from the competition or steal it.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Laffer_curve is a good starting point, though that's the theory as it applies specifically to taxation.

Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.

Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski.

Wow. One famous Taser victim. Care for a larger sample size?

There is a character in the extended Latin alphabet that expresses the sound... it gets used in Slavic, Baltic, and Finno-Ugric languages... it's a Z with a caron (hacek) on top of it. Unfortunately, Slashdot eats Unicode, so I can't copy it into this post, but if you go to Wiki and search for U+017E, the first link is the article about that particular character. :)

Let's see if this works...

OK here's a deal, I'll give you 144 USD (12 usd/month as per your link) one year after you fund and operate a similar site doing the same thing:

1) One that produces reports like this:
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?query=&searchtype=&formFields=eyJOYXRpb25hbEludGVyZXN0QWN0aW9uIjpbIkd1bGYgT2lsIFNwaWxsIDA0MTAiXX0=
(and the other reports the original site provides).

FYI: that page is about spending related to the recent Gulf Oil Spill.

2) The data+reports have to be reasonably accurate and updated in a timely manner (from the various entities required, some potentially uncooperative or even hostile).

3) the site has to cope with the load when linked to by Slashdot or mainstream media. And have similar performance to the original site.

4) the site should be about as hard to hack/deface as a similar gov site (e.g. probably possible, but not too easy).

For comparison here's the Wikimedia annual report:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/AR_web_all-spreads_24mar11_72_FINAL.pdf

Summary their expenses are about USD10 million. 3.5 million in salaries/wages.

While that's for multiple wikimedia sites do remember that much wikipedia content is created by volunteers for free.

Consider that LaVey's Church of Satan are actually atheists

Deliciously ironic: Anton LaVey died on October 29, 1997, in St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco of pulmonary edema.[13] He was taken to St. Mary's, a Catholic hospital, because it was the closest available.

Guy looked like a dick, incidentally. If you're going to lead a cult, try not to look like such a walking cliche.

Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.

Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski.