The more mainstream the drug, the worse quality. Call it the Dealer-Greed ratio. I spent two years trying to kick meth - I know from first hand experience. A single dose, dependant on size and delivery, is useful for perhaps two-three hours. Sure, you can stay up for a week and not eat if you've got rail after rail, but how possible is that strapped to a chair for ten hours? It may not be impossible, but it's certainly impractical.
Also, the effect of (specifically meth)amphetamines is very bad for gaming. Sure, information retention goes sky-high, comprehension is through the roof, but for any game requiring repetition or strategy, active thinking drops to minimal, as does forward reflex and controllable reaction. Limited ammo? twitch response screws you every time.
There may be minor benefits. But the practicality is nill.
False. For anyone who's unused to amphetamines, it's terrifying. Your system doesn't know how to cope. Ever go without caffeine for a few weeks then have two or three cups of coffee in a sitting? Increase is geometric for amph. Steady users develop "software" as it were to cope with the dive - adjustments in attitude account for a large discount in trouble, but it's there still the same.
Heavy users, conversely, are more likely to use in casual situations like gaming tournaments. If you've never done it before and you take it to work - well, that's just a whole new division of stupid. Depending on what kind of drugs we're looking at, even a twelve hour tournament session would be much longer than the effects of the drug.
Setting yourself up for failure is always fair play in my books. Real competitors look for real advantages. I say let the idiots in, makes for a more amusing competition.
Amphetamines carry an even more debilitating crash than most stimulants. Imagine what happens if, when stuck against a superior competitor who is not drugged, the matches run longer than the duration of the drugs? Final round failure is annoying, but final round narcolepsy? That just proves you're an idiot.
And LP isn't even dead any more! Neither are tapes or slides. Ion Audio just put out a USB turntable for converting 33 and 45rpm records, has a USB tape deck a USB VCR AND a USB slide reader is coming out this fall! The youngest set of slides my parents have is 25 years old! In 25 years, I imagine almost all current formats will be coming back in retro format. It'd be perfect timing.
Riding a bike in a densely populated area with few dedicated bike paths or routes, where no driver will think to spot for you, might be an issue. However, without looking at their plates, how exactly do you tell if someone is a vegetarian?
In Short: Vegetarianism is an invisible differentiator. Your argument is invalid.
Easier answer: Enterprise, at least in TNG, was the FLAG SHIP. Is it that hard to extend the assumption that, while not every ship is filled with officers, that one at least would get the pick of the litter, as it were? Granted, 1400 officers on one ship is overkill, but it would be easier to understand a higher population density of them on the top ship in the fleet.
Conversely, a large number of extras or one-off characters are civilians, and therefore require no rank, enlisted or otherwise. Astrophysicists don't need ranks. Neither do botanists, or many scientists unless they actually have duties to run the ship - which many of them did not. So if assuming a crew of 1400 military personal is faulty then assuming is also faulty. By and large, the main characters are the only ones who get seen because they're the ones to whom life happens in these universes. Otherwise they wouldn't be main characters.
The colour coding changed between the original and TNG. On the original, gold was command, blue was medical, red was factotum (engineering/everything else). On TNG it seems red was both command and factotum, blue remained medical, and gold went to engineering/security. Yet somehow redshirts still get the short end of the phaser. Except, you know, Tasha Yar.
Funny, I went to architecture as well - but non-military. Imagine an architect's delight when he can suddenly make completely invisible all kinds of inaccessible, support-bearing structures. Floating houses, anyone? Shore up the leaning tower permanently?
And if you stopped playing, think of all that revenue you'd be NOT spending on a wasteful excercise! Copyright and patent has gone from being an exercise in competition encouragement, to a competition in litigation. Makes me sad, frankly.
The mechanism used is letting the authors apply restrictions to their customers
An important distinction: the aim is to restrict the competition, not the customers. Ironically, by pirating, people are becoming competition for those to whom they are customers. Part of the issue is the bleeding together of roles, not only the bleeding together of rules.
I agree! Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of regulatory body that reviewed patent ant copyright to ensure that, if unique art is claimed, that unique art is practiced and distributed rather than locked in vaults.
C-61 is actually a pretty interesting piece of law, if my limited reading is accurate. The thing that really got me was the bit about circumventing DRM. Does it include methods built into the program? For example, an album purchased from the iTunes store comes down as Protected AAC, but when it's "backed up" to CD (which is suggested BY iTunes) it can then be ripped back, also by iTunes, without logging as being DRMed, and can be played on any device. Now, this does coutn as illegal copying, and by extension making available, but could it possibly count as circumventing DRM, when all the functions are built in and even suggested?
My point being, it's not a perfect legislation by any means, but ditching is a bad idea in part - we NEED SOMETHING in place because ambiguity is killing us - refinement is deffinately needed, but the fact that motion is being made is not wholly bad.
What are we talking about here, true control (ie limiting third-party access) or backup for archive and easier editing? If we're talking about no-outside-control then options are, unfortunately limited. I don't think the question of who owns data on colo servers has been answered yet, but the possibility that encryting your data without google having some kind of backup against failure is pretty slim at this point.
If we're talking backup for propensity's sake, there have to be a whole whack of options - straight down to word-for-word copy-and-paste, depending on your determination and the tools at hand. Local and remote backups are never a bad idea, even if it's only control theatre.
So let me get this straight... In a large enough sample group, all hypotheses are wrong? I don't buy that.
The trouble I keep seeing with most new, Large Format Science (as opposed to opperant, small-format math) is interpritation. Application of one, possible correct thesis to another, possibly wrong thesis. Does this disprove both? No. But how do we know which is correct? Further testing.
Granted, the Zen approach of admitting you know nothing as a path to enlightenment doesn't really work for most scientists, but why does it need to? By your argument, we should simply start by questioning every fundamental concept before every new test. To me, that sounds like reinventing the wheel for the sake of driving to the grocery store.
Funding is so limited lately that any wasted time can severely set back your chances of further funding - this relates to both bad results and wasted resources testing. So if you're not going in with the purpose of re-evaluating accepted ideas, likely your sponsors will be ticked off. Similarely, for the argument elsewhere on the thread; this applkies to all funding, regardless of source, although private sector is a LOT more tight-fisted than government, which does unfortunately play a big part in testing methodology.
It's a sad truth, but there just isn't time to re-evaluate every rule and law. Much as it might be tempting to say it's needed - and new advances could be applied to testing old results - it's not likely to happen until emergant results contradict specific arguments enough to make people sit up and notice.
The real question is NOT "do they have access," because I think recent history has shown, you can find workarounds for just about anything. The better question is "do they WANT access"?
Paranoid dystopia or not, protective xenophobia is nothing new, and I have a feeling we'd be looking at a lot more outcry from China if it actually existed. Sure, there's all the kerfuffle about Tibet, lead paint in the toys, human rights violations... I could go on for hours, but it comes down to what the Chinese people feel, say, want, do, think... And I don't think, with the wall up as it is, we have any accurate way to guage that en masse as proxy for them.
What we hear is the rowdy few. Of course they're going to say they're rowdy on everyone's behalf, but is everyone behind them after all? The Olympics, I hope, will provide a better barometer for Chinese public view; it's unavoidable NOT because of the internet, but because of the sheer influx of humans observing. Ticket holders, tourists, hangers-on, volunteers... The volume of eyes in Beijing will inflate this summer, and even if there's no email, people will come home with first-hand accounts of exactly what's going on there, good or bad.
Which if course will all get ruined by the first story we hear of some poor Westerner losing their laptop to customs on the way back and possibly going to jail because they didn't like the service at some government-approved web cafe.
Do we even WANT a candidate Gore? He seems to be coming into his own, publicly, after bowing out of the direct political arena. Inconvenient Truth, and all of his exposure since, while not perfect, has been geometrically less awkward than everything I recall of him beforehand. Perhaps he's doing his best work in the private sector?
Corolary: Perhaps we should be doing some things to move this forward regardless? I'm sure there are other, related developments that could either be applied or explored in parallel to PV dev? Materials and efficiecy are one thing, but adjusting just how much power devices take is another issue entirely. This also falls in line with the inevitability of electric vehicle drain on the grid. If we can't expand the grid, or its suppliments (wind or pv) beyond a certain speed, it might be useful to scale back our requirements in light of future need as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The more mainstream the drug, the worse quality. Call it the Dealer-Greed ratio. I spent two years trying to kick meth - I know from first hand experience. A single dose, dependant on size and delivery, is useful for perhaps two-three hours. Sure, you can stay up for a week and not eat if you've got rail after rail, but how possible is that strapped to a chair for ten hours? It may not be impossible, but it's certainly impractical.
Also, the effect of (specifically meth)amphetamines is very bad for gaming. Sure, information retention goes sky-high, comprehension is through the roof, but for any game requiring repetition or strategy, active thinking drops to minimal, as does forward reflex and controllable reaction. Limited ammo? twitch response screws you every time.
There may be minor benefits. But the practicality is nill.
False. For anyone who's unused to amphetamines, it's terrifying. Your system doesn't know how to cope. Ever go without caffeine for a few weeks then have two or three cups of coffee in a sitting? Increase is geometric for amph. Steady users develop "software" as it were to cope with the dive - adjustments in attitude account for a large discount in trouble, but it's there still the same.
Heavy users, conversely, are more likely to use in casual situations like gaming tournaments. If you've never done it before and you take it to work - well, that's just a whole new division of stupid. Depending on what kind of drugs we're looking at, even a twelve hour tournament session would be much longer than the effects of the drug.
Setting yourself up for failure is always fair play in my books. Real competitors look for real advantages. I say let the idiots in, makes for a more amusing competition.
Amphetamines carry an even more debilitating crash than most stimulants. Imagine what happens if, when stuck against a superior competitor who is not drugged, the matches run longer than the duration of the drugs? Final round failure is annoying, but final round narcolepsy? That just proves you're an idiot.
And LP isn't even dead any more! Neither are tapes or slides. Ion Audio just put out a USB turntable for converting 33 and 45rpm records, has a USB tape deck a USB VCR AND a USB slide reader is coming out this fall! The youngest set of slides my parents have is 25 years old! In 25 years, I imagine almost all current formats will be coming back in retro format. It'd be perfect timing.
Bravo. Seriously. Path of Least Resistance is a lot stronger of a motivator than most people give credit for.
Riding a bike in a densely populated area with few dedicated bike paths or routes, where no driver will think to spot for you, might be an issue. However, without looking at their plates, how exactly do you tell if someone is a vegetarian?
In Short: Vegetarianism is an invisible differentiator.
Your argument is invalid.
Easier answer: Enterprise, at least in TNG, was the FLAG SHIP. Is it that hard to extend the assumption that, while not every ship is filled with officers, that one at least would get the pick of the litter, as it were? Granted, 1400 officers on one ship is overkill, but it would be easier to understand a higher population density of them on the top ship in the fleet.
Conversely, a large number of extras or one-off characters are civilians, and therefore require no rank, enlisted or otherwise. Astrophysicists don't need ranks. Neither do botanists, or many scientists unless they actually have duties to run the ship - which many of them did not. So if assuming a crew of 1400 military personal is faulty then assuming is also faulty. By and large, the main characters are the only ones who get seen because they're the ones to whom life happens in these universes. Otherwise they wouldn't be main characters.
The colour coding changed between the original and TNG. On the original, gold was command, blue was medical, red was factotum (engineering/everything else). On TNG it seems red was both command and factotum, blue remained medical, and gold went to engineering/security. Yet somehow redshirts still get the short end of the phaser. Except, you know, Tasha Yar.
Funny, I went to architecture as well - but non-military. Imagine an architect's delight when he can suddenly make completely invisible all kinds of inaccessible, support-bearing structures. Floating houses, anyone? Shore up the leaning tower permanently?
Citation needed...?
And if you stopped playing, think of all that revenue you'd be NOT spending on a wasteful excercise! Copyright and patent has gone from being an exercise in competition encouragement, to a competition in litigation. Makes me sad, frankly.
The mechanism used is letting the authors apply restrictions to their customers
An important distinction: the aim is to restrict the competition, not the customers. Ironically, by pirating, people are becoming competition for those to whom they are customers. Part of the issue is the bleeding together of roles, not only the bleeding together of rules.
I agree! Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of regulatory body that reviewed patent ant copyright to ensure that, if unique art is claimed, that unique art is practiced and distributed rather than locked in vaults.
C-61 is actually a pretty interesting piece of law, if my limited reading is accurate. The thing that really got me was the bit about circumventing DRM. Does it include methods built into the program? For example, an album purchased from the iTunes store comes down as Protected AAC, but when it's "backed up" to CD (which is suggested BY iTunes) it can then be ripped back, also by iTunes, without logging as being DRMed, and can be played on any device. Now, this does coutn as illegal copying, and by extension making available, but could it possibly count as circumventing DRM, when all the functions are built in and even suggested?
My point being, it's not a perfect legislation by any means, but ditching is a bad idea in part - we NEED SOMETHING in place because ambiguity is killing us - refinement is deffinately needed, but the fact that motion is being made is not wholly bad.
/devils-advocate
What are we talking about here, true control (ie limiting third-party access) or backup for archive and easier editing? If we're talking about no-outside-control then options are, unfortunately limited. I don't think the question of who owns data on colo servers has been answered yet, but the possibility that encryting your data without google having some kind of backup against failure is pretty slim at this point.
If we're talking backup for propensity's sake, there have to be a whole whack of options - straight down to word-for-word copy-and-paste, depending on your determination and the tools at hand. Local and remote backups are never a bad idea, even if it's only control theatre.
This conversation makes me wish I was Schrödinger's Cat.
Bar and grill built over hot land! Think of the savings on overhead oven costs!
Does it END?
1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Do you feel ENJOY !!! Sorry for Disturb
If my toes were made of broccoli, I would rule the world.
So let me get this straight... In a large enough sample group, all hypotheses are wrong? I don't buy that.
The trouble I keep seeing with most new, Large Format Science (as opposed to opperant, small-format math) is interpritation. Application of one, possible correct thesis to another, possibly wrong thesis. Does this disprove both? No. But how do we know which is correct? Further testing.
Granted, the Zen approach of admitting you know nothing as a path to enlightenment doesn't really work for most scientists, but why does it need to? By your argument, we should simply start by questioning every fundamental concept before every new test. To me, that sounds like reinventing the wheel for the sake of driving to the grocery store.
Funding is so limited lately that any wasted time can severely set back your chances of further funding - this relates to both bad results and wasted resources testing. So if you're not going in with the purpose of re-evaluating accepted ideas, likely your sponsors will be ticked off. Similarely, for the argument elsewhere on the thread; this applkies to all funding, regardless of source, although private sector is a LOT more tight-fisted than government, which does unfortunately play a big part in testing methodology.
It's a sad truth, but there just isn't time to re-evaluate every rule and law. Much as it might be tempting to say it's needed - and new advances could be applied to testing old results - it's not likely to happen until emergant results contradict specific arguments enough to make people sit up and notice.
WTF? GTFO.
The real question is NOT "do they have access," because I think recent history has shown, you can find workarounds for just about anything. The better question is "do they WANT access"?
Paranoid dystopia or not, protective xenophobia is nothing new, and I have a feeling we'd be looking at a lot more outcry from China if it actually existed. Sure, there's all the kerfuffle about Tibet, lead paint in the toys, human rights violations... I could go on for hours, but it comes down to what the Chinese people feel, say, want, do, think... And I don't think, with the wall up as it is, we have any accurate way to guage that en masse as proxy for them.
What we hear is the rowdy few. Of course they're going to say they're rowdy on everyone's behalf, but is everyone behind them after all? The Olympics, I hope, will provide a better barometer for Chinese public view; it's unavoidable NOT because of the internet, but because of the sheer influx of humans observing. Ticket holders, tourists, hangers-on, volunteers... The volume of eyes in Beijing will inflate this summer, and even if there's no email, people will come home with first-hand accounts of exactly what's going on there, good or bad.
Which if course will all get ruined by the first story we hear of some poor Westerner losing their laptop to customs on the way back and possibly going to jail because they didn't like the service at some government-approved web cafe.
Progress. Who needs it.
No, the One True Jenova. Have you heard about the life stream?
Do we even WANT a candidate Gore? He seems to be coming into his own, publicly, after bowing out of the direct political arena. Inconvenient Truth, and all of his exposure since, while not perfect, has been geometrically less awkward than everything I recall of him beforehand. Perhaps he's doing his best work in the private sector?
Corolary: Perhaps we should be doing some things to move this forward regardless? I'm sure there are other, related developments that could either be applied or explored in parallel to PV dev? Materials and efficiecy are one thing, but adjusting just how much power devices take is another issue entirely. This also falls in line with the inevitability of electric vehicle drain on the grid. If we can't expand the grid, or its suppliments (wind or pv) beyond a certain speed, it might be useful to scale back our requirements in light of future need as well.
I never say Jehovah. I'm Jenova's Witness.