As this post says, the curret useable tracking systems can resolve objects down to the size of a basketball, not a small bolt. Given the Russian's expertise in imaging small objects on earth from orbit, I wouldn't be as doubtful as you concerning their ability to image small objects in orbit from earth.
The canadian version of the DMCA is still being worked out, so for the time being having DeCSS on a.ca is still legal. Considering the nature of the internet, the legislation I would really be concerned about would be international DMCA clone.
This reminds me of a diferent approach used to eradicate the tse-tse fly, wherein large quantities of sterile males are introduced into the wild population. This reduces the aggregate number of births; apparently, this almost destorys the tse-tse population over a 3-year period. Slashdot had a story on this awhile ago; google gives more comprehensive links.
I'm from Halifax, too. It was also shown on the cable-equivilent Global station (what used to be MITV; channel 6) 3hrs early.
Re:Your review is inaccurate as well...
on
Review: U-571
·
· Score: 2
Grr..
As for the bravery of the US militiary, we took 6,000 casualties on the beaches in D-Day, while the British army commanded by their "Hero" Monty (remember, none of the US commanders liked this man) drank his tea. Monty told Ike that the British would have Caen by the end of the day... Six months later it was the US forces who had to come in to help Monty achieve his goal that he was six months late in accomplishing.
Your army lost 6000 on d-day? The Russians lost 250000 at Stalingrad.. that must mean they're 41.6 times as brave as the US military! Monty drank tea on d-day? That's nothing! Ike drank coffee! With sugar!! The British were 6 months late in taking one town? The Americans were 2 years late in joining the war! As you can plainly see, the British and Soviets were way braver than the Americans during the war. See what you can learn when you study history?
This will be of no use against any terrorist. Even if terrorists did attempt to cross the border outside of official channels (rather than use fake IDs, sailing a boat into a harbour, or simply live in the states themselves, they would be less than.1% of the total number of people trying to skip across the US-Canadian border or any other border. The rest would be boardertown locals, drug smugglers (we all know how effective the war on drugs has been, right?), and immigrants. Already, they try to and fail at stopping two of these groups from crossing the boarder, and in Mexico they even get flashy night-vision kit and a wall. It dosen't work. This won't either - more information just means you know more of what's going on. It dosen't mean you can be everywhere at once. The Zepplins will stand out of TV, however.
Re:Neither 2600 nor the EFF have skin in this game
on
2600 Appeal Rejected
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm with you until the last paragraph, where you say
Theoretically if someone on/. finds out that there is a picture of one of the heads of the MPAA in a comprimizing situation, the MPAA can petition the courts to have/. rephrase the story so that it could read there is a picture of Mr. V in some compromising situation out on the internet now.
So far as I can tell... the foundation for the MPAA's case is that DeCSS was a 'tool' for people who stole their copyrighted works - that was why posting, and then linking to, DeCSS was interpreted as a crime in the first place. The defence was based on at least three central points. First, that DeCSS was legitimate to be in possession of, as it was useful as a tool to use content already paid for; moreso, as it was the only way to access such content on particular players (Linux DVD drives). Second, that computer source code is protected speech (I'm not sure if they only argued for symbolic code (C, C++, Java; assembler for your chip of choice) or bianary code (1100, etc.)) as it was a form of written communication, albeit encoded. Thirdly, linking to other websites from your own site does not just imply that you condone or encourage what the linked-to site has in terms of content.
The prosecution would somehow have to argue that the comprimising picture was illegal. Seeing as tabloids flourish (with many a unwanted photo) and there is nothing inherently useful about having a photograph in computer code except for the ease of distribution, the example may be a bit pessimistic. I may be wrong; some places have privacy laws that might cover such distribution. Either way, the disputed data must be illegal in some way. Or so I read it.
On the other hand, IANAL either.
P.S.DeCSS. The US may be the land of the brave, but Canada is the home of the free:)
I had trashed my rc1 moz and installed rc2 by the time I read this.. so I dl'd rc1 again and looked around for this 'link toolbar' in the prefs but couldn't find it. Where is it in the prefs? What did it do?
The USians are invading Canada! Surely this is simply a ploy by the military-industrial complex to use the "NOAA" (an organization known for its close ties to the Bush administration!) as a front for surveilance of soverign Canadian territory!
How to they make sure the camera remains at the north pole? It's just sitting on an ice flow in the Arctic Ocean, a flow which moves with the currents...
Anyway, great idea. The world needs more webcams in remote areas... Soon we'll replace 'Global Village' with 'Global Desktop' (yes, Katz, you'll have to get my perission to use that phrase).
Ofcourse Internet2 is also built to have low latencies, however the humongous bandwith doesn't contribute directly to this, except as in making congestion less likely.
So what you're saying is that the students _will_ get low ping times, but the Slashdot Editors got it wrong anyway? Something dosen't compute...
First, the article referenced pointed out that Austin made no mention of certain types of xenoliths which were known to exist in the area. Re-read it for clarification (2nd paragraph). Second, the argument didn't base itself on the ad homonim attack. Furthermore, the attack itself put the word research in quotes and mention Austin's beliefs; while uncalled for, it is not what I would call a scathing attack. As to your last point: yes they could have. That's why you must base your trust of results on the relative skill, experience and record of the geologist submitting the sample and the technician conducting the measurement.
More generally, we could go on for days like this on any topic. Errors in data will always come out. You can never completely get rid of human error. If you want to convince me that radiometric dating is pseudoscience, you'll have to give some idea as to what, other than human error in measurement, would cause such skewed results. There are several areas with potential for inaccuracy: the methodology, incorrect assumptions about the properties of various radioactive elements used in measurement; errors in the underlying theory of radioactive decay. But simply giving specific examples where dating has been shown to be inplausable with no context for the scope of the studies nor the larger context of the field (with numbers for accurate/inaccurate results on objects with known time periods). There must be a reason for the inaccuracies; by themselves, as exceptions to the rule, they prove only that radiometric methods have been inaccurate in the past. They do not prove that radiometric methods have always been inaccurate, nor do they prove that radiometric methods will be inaccurate.
Why would anyone buy a PC when you can get a mac, with better std equipment, for half the price?! I know all the arguments about TCO being better on pcs than macs, but still.. you're paying twice as much for a flashy OS and trendy case-design. For shame!
Lab error? This paper, and the site that it's on, give a good rebuttal; specifically,
"As magmas move through the crust towards the surface or as lava flows over the Earth's surface, they may pickup chunks of surrounding rocks. Sometimes, the magmas and lavas are not hot enough to melt the captured rocks. Once the molten rock solidifies, the plucked rocks remain trapped in the igneous matrix. These trapped rocks are called xenoliths. If the trapped materials are individual minerals, they are called xenocrysts.
Xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts (like metamorphic and weathering features) are often easily identified under the microscope and sometimes even in the field. In some cases, a geologist may be interested in dating xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, or the xenocrysts. However, obviously, if the geologist is interested in dating the younger matrix, he/she will look for and avoid any xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts or xenocrysts. While mainstream geologists know how to avoid xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts when dating igneous rocks, creationist Steve Austin apparently was not careful to avoid them when he conducted his "research" at Mt. St. Helens or the Grand Canyon, see " A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project by Chris Stassen and compare with Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens Volcano, by Steven Austin. In his Mt. St. Helen's study, Austin collected what he thought was a freshly solidified dacite. He removed the gabbro xenoliths, but there's no mention if he found and removed any lighter colored, less obvious xenoliths, such as andesites or quartz diorites. Austin states that xenoliths of gabbro, quartz diorite, basalt, and andesite are common at the Mt. St. Helen site."
The study by Austin the author, a Dr. Henke, is referring to is one which claims impossibly old dates for fresh dacite.
We could go on for a long time, but I would simply say that science is self-correcting: it is a field which encourages criticism and revision, so long as the criticism is valid and demonstrable. No good scientist would ever claim to any perfection in his or her work. A scientific theory is only valid so long as it has been demonstrated in experiment and has not been disproven by other experiments. The reason why I have such a hard time accepting what you're saying is because, so far as I can tell, it has not stood up to peer review.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Were they true I would suggest writing a paper in Science post-haste. That being said, a couple things: RM dating may not be perfect; no scientific tool is. The question is not its perfection, but rather its precision and accuracy. Second, so far as I know the moon is currently falling towards the earth at the rate of ~1cm per year (I could be wrong on that figure).
You're thinking of Archemedies. From school-for-champions.com(link),
Story of Archimedes
The ancient Greek philosopher and scientist, Archimedes was asked by the king to determine if a gold statue he had was 100% gold. Since it was an odd shape, Archimedes could not simply measure the volume to determine the object's density and thus its composition.
Archimedes decided to take a hot bath, to help him think about this problem. When he got in the bath tub, he noticed the water rise. This clue led to the discovery that an object will displace its volume when immersed in a liquid. When Archimedes realized that objects displace their volume in water, he excitedly jumped out of the tub and ran down the streets shouting, "Eureka! Eureka!" which means, "I have found it!" Unfortunately, he didn't notice that he forgot to put his clothes on!
When Archimedes put the statue in a container full of water, he measured the volume of the overflow to determine the volume of the statue. Then he measured the weight of the statue and compared its density with the known density of pure gold. He discovered that the statue was not made of pure gold, rather it contained some other metal, like lead.
I had heard in SciAm awhile ago that the moon was created when a mars-sized asteroid hit a young (~4bn yrs), molten earth. This sent a v. large mass of rock into orbit which coalesced into what is now the moon.
In fact, after a little searching I found this at NASA:
How did the Moon come to be? The leading theory is that a Mars-sized body once hit Earth and the resulting debris (from both Earth and the impacting body) accumulated to form the Moon. Scientists believe that the Moon was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago (the age of the oldest collected lunar rocks). When the Moon formed, its outer layers melted under very high temperatures, forming the lunar crust, probably from a global "magma ocean."
It doesn't require any installation other than dragging it into the dock. From what I can tell, it simply hides/reveals windows, sorting active windows into interchangeable 'spaces'. You can access windows in another space by clicking on the program icon in the dock - that will bring the window forward in your current space and vacate that window from its former space.
All in all a small, elegant, responsive program. Only 77kb.
Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, the companies plan a multi-year alliance to research and develop new open standards-based technologies for next-generation storage networks, systems and solutions.
In addition to, and separate from, the systems alliance, the two companies intend to combine various hard disk drive (HDD) operations into a new standalone, joint venture company, integrating their world-class research, development and manufacturing operations, as well as related sales and marketing teams. Upon completion of negotiations, Hitachi is expected to hold 70 percent of the joint venture and make a payment to IBM for its HDD assets.
Seems you're mostly right - they'll still do research; they're just leaving the mfg business to Hitachi.
Calm down a little.. you might have noticed that nearly all the jokes posted today were just references to other april fool's jokes on the net... this only happens once a year. To paraphrase slashdot itself, "It's funny. Laugh."
No, I would claim that every industrialized country's population is exposing itself to unsafe levels of nasty little hydrocarbons. The 'weapon' part, genius, comes from using it in battle situations for the express purpose of killing/destroying things. Agent orange, a chemical, was used to kill off particular swaths of lush jungle vegitation by the US army. It was a weaponized chemical. The fact that the stuff kills people (though cancer and SIDS, among other things) was what I suppose you would call collateral damage, though I would call manslaughter.
Not to mention the fact that the US used chemical weapons against another state (Agent Orange:Vietnam). By Bomber Harris' logic, the US has _already_ forfited it's right to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
As this post says, the curret useable tracking systems can resolve objects down to the size of a basketball, not a small bolt. Given the Russian's expertise in imaging small objects on earth from orbit, I wouldn't be as doubtful as you concerning their ability to image small objects in orbit from earth.
The canadian version of the DMCA is still being worked out, so for the time being having DeCSS on a .ca is still legal. Considering the nature of the internet, the legislation I would really be concerned about would be international DMCA clone.
This reminds me of a diferent approach used to eradicate the tse-tse fly, wherein large quantities of sterile males are introduced into the wild population. This reduces the aggregate number of births; apparently, this almost destorys the tse-tse population over a 3-year period. Slashdot had a story on this awhile ago; google gives more comprehensive links.
I'm from Halifax, too. It was also shown on the cable-equivilent Global station (what used to be MITV; channel 6) 3hrs early.
As you can plainly see, the British and Soviets were way braver than the Americans during the war. See what you can learn when you study history?
This will be of no use against any terrorist. Even if terrorists did attempt to cross the border outside of official channels (rather than use fake IDs, sailing a boat into a harbour, or simply live in the states themselves, they would be less than .1% of the total number of people trying to skip across the US-Canadian border or any other border. The rest would be boardertown locals, drug smugglers (we all know how effective the war on drugs has been, right?), and immigrants. Already, they try to and fail at stopping two of these groups from crossing the boarder, and in Mexico they even get flashy night-vision kit and a wall. It dosen't work. This won't either - more information just means you know more of what's going on. It dosen't mean you can be everywhere at once. The Zepplins will stand out of TV, however.
So far as I can tell... the foundation for the MPAA's case is that DeCSS was a 'tool' for people who stole their copyrighted works - that was why posting, and then linking to, DeCSS was interpreted as a crime in the first place. The defence was based on at least three central points. First, that DeCSS was legitimate to be in possession of, as it was useful as a tool to use content already paid for; moreso, as it was the only way to access such content on particular players (Linux DVD drives). Second, that computer source code is protected speech (I'm not sure if they only argued for symbolic code (C, C++, Java; assembler for your chip of choice) or bianary code (1100, etc.)) as it was a form of written communication, albeit encoded. Thirdly, linking to other websites from your own site does not just imply that you condone or encourage what the linked-to site has in terms of content.
The prosecution would somehow have to argue that the comprimising picture was illegal. Seeing as tabloids flourish (with many a unwanted photo) and there is nothing inherently useful about having a photograph in computer code except for the ease of distribution, the example may be a bit pessimistic. I may be wrong; some places have privacy laws that might cover such distribution. Either way, the disputed data must be illegal in some way. Or so I read it.
On the other hand, IANAL either.
P.S.DeCSS. The US may be the land of the brave, but Canada is the home of the free :)
I had trashed my rc1 moz and installed rc2 by the time I read this.. so I dl'd rc1 again and looked around for this 'link toolbar' in the prefs but couldn't find it. Where is it in the prefs? What did it do?
The USians are invading Canada! Surely this is simply a ploy by the military-industrial complex to use the "NOAA" (an organization known for its close ties to the Bush administration!) as a front for surveilance of soverign Canadian territory!
How to they make sure the camera remains at the north pole? It's just sitting on an ice flow in the Arctic Ocean, a flow which moves with the currents...
Anyway, great idea. The world needs more webcams in remote areas... Soon we'll replace 'Global Village' with 'Global Desktop' (yes, Katz, you'll have to get my perission to use that phrase).
It's referring to this collective hyperventilation on the part of the slashdot crowd.
The link is broken.. try this link, to the main page of the event, insted.
So what you're saying is that the students _will_ get low ping times, but the Slashdot Editors got it wrong anyway? Something dosen't compute...
More generally, we could go on for days like this on any topic. Errors in data will always come out. You can never completely get rid of human error. If you want to convince me that radiometric dating is pseudoscience, you'll have to give some idea as to what, other than human error in measurement, would cause such skewed results. There are several areas with potential for inaccuracy: the methodology, incorrect assumptions about the properties of various radioactive elements used in measurement; errors in the underlying theory of radioactive decay. But simply giving specific examples where dating has been shown to be inplausable with no context for the scope of the studies nor the larger context of the field (with numbers for accurate/inaccurate results on objects with known time periods). There must be a reason for the inaccuracies; by themselves, as exceptions to the rule, they prove only that radiometric methods have been inaccurate in the past. They do not prove that radiometric methods have always been inaccurate, nor do they prove that radiometric methods will be inaccurate.
Why would anyone buy a PC when you can get a mac, with better std equipment, for half the price?! I know all the arguments about TCO being better on pcs than macs, but still.. you're paying twice as much for a flashy OS and trendy case-design. For shame!
"As magmas move through the crust towards the surface or as lava flows over the Earth's surface, they may pickup chunks of surrounding rocks. Sometimes, the magmas and lavas are not hot enough to melt the captured rocks. Once the molten rock solidifies, the plucked rocks remain trapped in the igneous matrix. These trapped rocks are called xenoliths. If the trapped materials are individual minerals, they are called xenocrysts.
Xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts (like metamorphic and weathering features) are often easily identified under the microscope and sometimes even in the field. In some cases, a geologist may be interested in dating xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, or the xenocrysts. However, obviously, if the geologist is interested in dating the younger matrix, he/she will look for and avoid any xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts or xenocrysts. While mainstream geologists know how to avoid xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts when dating igneous rocks, creationist Steve Austin apparently was not careful to avoid them when he conducted his "research" at Mt. St. Helens or the Grand Canyon, see " A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project by Chris Stassen and compare with Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens Volcano, by Steven Austin. In his Mt. St. Helen's study, Austin collected what he thought was a freshly solidified dacite. He removed the gabbro xenoliths, but there's no mention if he found and removed any lighter colored, less obvious xenoliths, such as andesites or quartz diorites. Austin states that xenoliths of gabbro, quartz diorite, basalt, and andesite are common at the Mt. St. Helen site."
The study by Austin the author, a Dr. Henke, is referring to is one which claims impossibly old dates for fresh dacite.
We could go on for a long time, but I would simply say that science is self-correcting: it is a field which encourages criticism and revision, so long as the criticism is valid and demonstrable. No good scientist would ever claim to any perfection in his or her work. A scientific theory is only valid so long as it has been demonstrated in experiment and has not been disproven by other experiments. The reason why I have such a hard time accepting what you're saying is because, so far as I can tell, it has not stood up to peer review.
My mistake. That'll teach me not to use sketchy memories of grade 12 physics as evidence :)
FYI - a link on 'the uses and limitations of radiometric dating'. Hard to find amongst the chaff of creationist debunking attempts.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Were they true I would suggest writing a paper in Science post-haste. That being said, a couple things: RM dating may not be perfect; no scientific tool is. The question is not its perfection, but rather its precision and accuracy. Second, so far as I know the moon is currently falling towards the earth at the rate of ~1cm per year (I could be wrong on that figure).
In fact, after a little searching I found this at NASA:
A few more links: Perty image and more detailed explanation; a google search on the topic.
It doesn't require any installation other than dragging it into the dock. From what I can tell, it simply hides/reveals windows, sorting active windows into interchangeable 'spaces'. You can access windows in another space by clicking on the program icon in the dock - that will bring the window forward in your current space and vacate that window from its former space. All in all a small, elegant, responsive program. Only 77kb.
Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, the companies plan a multi-year alliance to research and develop new open standards-based technologies for next-generation storage networks, systems and solutions.
In addition to, and separate from, the systems alliance, the two companies intend to combine various hard disk drive (HDD) operations into a new standalone, joint venture company, integrating their world-class research, development and manufacturing operations, as well as related sales and marketing teams. Upon completion of negotiations, Hitachi is expected to hold 70 percent of the joint venture and make a payment to IBM for its HDD assets.
Seems you're mostly right - they'll still do research; they're just leaving the mfg business to Hitachi.Calm down a little.. you might have noticed that nearly all the jokes posted today were just references to other april fool's jokes on the net... this only happens once a year. To paraphrase slashdot itself, "It's funny. Laugh."
No, I would claim that every industrialized country's population is exposing itself to unsafe levels of nasty little hydrocarbons. The 'weapon' part, genius, comes from using it in battle situations for the express purpose of killing/destroying things. Agent orange, a chemical, was used to kill off particular swaths of lush jungle vegitation by the US army. It was a weaponized chemical. The fact that the stuff kills people (though cancer and SIDS, among other things) was what I suppose you would call collateral damage, though I would call manslaughter.
Not to mention the fact that the US used chemical weapons against another state (Agent Orange:Vietnam). By Bomber Harris' logic, the US has _already_ forfited it's right to exist.