You really can't be clear at all. You've declared that you will use words essentially at random and what you mean has no real relationship to what the English definitions are.
How could I possibly be expected to understand you?
So what if my idea that I want to promote and protect is that all black people should be killed and that the people in my organization should go out and kill them right now? Currently my free speech is limited. If I tell my followers to go out and kill black people, I go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder. This is because my free speech rights don't trump other's right to live.
You moved from promoting to inciting: from words which share ideas to instigating actions. It's very much like the actions which incite a panic of "fire" or a belief that your ponzi scheme isn't one. It's no longer "speech".
Beyond that I generally agree, though again think that a reframing makes the idea easier to bright-line test: that doing something to someone isn't a freedom, that having something done would be.
It means your "right to kill who you want" isn't trumped by someone else's right to not be killed, but rather that you never had the right to kill someone in the first place (your rights don't include the circumstances of others)
It's interesting that you mention burden of proof.
Burden of proof discusses how to establish something that might be true is, in actuality, true. You seem to be clashing this with a negative belief
For me to actively believe there is a lack of something: I would need (preferably) a proof that it was impossible, or minimally a knowledge of where the positive assertion came from.
In the case of specific claims regarding the tooth fairy: I have specific knowledge of what does happen.
I don't believe it's proper English to be theistic, agnostic or atheist "towards" something; but ignoring the semantics of your question: I actively disbelieve in the tooth fairy as commonly presented; because that definition makes claims which can be disproven.
How about you? Are you a positive believer that there is definitely nowhere in the universe a flying animal that would, if given the opportunity, steal children's teeth? (not a whole tooth-fairy, but that subset of traits). In the trillions of planets over billions of years you are certain that nothing like that has ever evolved?
There's certainly no evidence that one has. Are you an atheist or an agnostic?
I think that we can remove the "trumped by other rights" quandary by revising our definition of "speech".
If speech is the right to hold and promote an idea or belief, and I think that's what we are all wanting to protect, then clearly shouting "fire" wouldn't pass muster as protected. It would protect "fraud is good" (an idea) while allowing the prohibition of fraud (an action).
We need the freedom to hold and advocate any opinion or position.
But then, that's what I mean when I say "free speech"
There are some thinking that means you can should "fire" in a crowded theater. That would only be appropriate if it was your opinion that there was one. Otherwise you are committing fraud (lying to effect): more an "action" than a "speech", even if it is spoken.
So you are leaving the engine on Earth, but still bringing the reaction mass with you.
Sorry, I did have it confused with laser-sailing which leaves both the reaction mass and engine behind but lacks in thrust.
Yes. Using a laser to vaporize reaction mass could give you decent thrust. I do question that removing the engine itself offers a great deal of savings (certainly in a chemical rocket, the reaction mass and source of energy are one-in-the-same). Similarly, I haven't sen much in the way of how you would get your laser to burn well (controlling output and pressure is important)... in other words: how you would get the lasers to hit the right part of the reaction mass while simultaneously having the reaction mass in a good thrust-control chamber... all on a moving object.
Then there's the stresses on the launch-vehicle itself to consider.
But my misgivings about this specific method aside, the same issue remains: it's still easier to launch from 1/20g in a vacuum than from 1g in an atmosphere.
The same technology that might be developed to decrease the requirements to lift out of Earth's gravity well could be applied to the much shallower lunar gravity well to make that more inexpensive still.
It all boils down to deltaV budgets. Although you might create some "super engine" technology with a very high specific impules and very high thrust-to-mass: it would still be more efficient from the moon... and that's a very big "if".
How easy is your "laser launch" from 1/20th gravity? How much easier is that to power when there's zero chance of cloud cover interfering with either your launch laser, or your solar-collectors powering it.
That said: I don't think lasers will ever be a useful method of liftoff from the Earth's surface. That amount of light-pressure would be too difficult to produce.
I think you may be backwards. The high cost of lifting things into space is the most obvious reason to establish a manned colony.
Is there any reason to establish a manned colony floating in the air (here on Earth)? No. Because if you want something in the air, you put it there.
Getting all those robots, and telescopes, and as you point out correctly, repairs of existing things in orbit from Earth is daunting. In the long term: industrial facilities in space (or in a shallow well like the Moon) may make more economic sense.
You don't need to get "a lot" of people up: but enough to be self-sustaining.
But circletimessquare is also very right: the initial expendatures would be huge and the targets nebulous.
Not to be obvious but: do whatever you can do on your breaks.
I used to go out with someone I met at a work location and do TaiChi. Yoga comes to mind. Crunches/Push-ups/curling a freeweight comes to mind as well.
After every call (or every 30min without one) drop and do (say) 20 of any of the above. Even if that ends up being once an hour (hour long calls?) a 10-hour-day will have 200 push-ups/stomach crunches (for a freeweight, working it while at your desk isn't bad; but remember to switch arms from time to time).
Even looking at real losses (the person who would have baught the movie), certainly not all of those profits would go into hiring more people to do more work. In many cases, they represent better incomes for stock-holders and those who have residuals.
Also: It's not like the person who didn't spend $25 on that BluRay (likely manufacturered in China) is going to set the money on fire. He will spend it somewhere else.
Get an air-card or (unless you are in the dorms) your local cable comapny.
Obviously there are any number of more complex options:
- You could date/bribe/extort someone in IT into exempting you.
- If the network will accept connections without this app, you could use any number of tactics to not run it (remove it, run an incompatable OS (do they have an Amegia Workbench version?), Run Black-ICE to toggle off functionality, block it at the firewall.
- If the client is required to connect, you could setup the client on a proxy server and attach through that using your real box.
It's worth noting that your useage can be monitored whether you have installed software on your PC or not (that's what a network sniffer is for). The only way around that would be to establish an encrypted connection to something outside their WAN and use it as a proxy.
I want an eBook device that can read the eBooks I already bought and own.
If they don't have DRM on them, you can use products like Libre' to change their format to whatever your eBook reader reads. If they are DRM'd, you'll need to find a reader that reads that format.
They are in PDF and some on CHM format.
Most all will read PDFs. If they are the "fixed sized" PDFs look for a large screen and something with good pan/zoom features (Sony 700 or new large kindle). If they are the "Digitial Editions" type PDFs, they can be read natively in sony 505 and 700 readers.
If I am going to spend $300 or more for an eBook device I might as well buy a Netbook that can use PDF and CHM formats for the same price.
That depends on your needs. My ebook reader lasts more than a week on a charge... tens of hours of actual reading at the speed I can read. How about your netbook?
My epaper display is very easy to read on the beach. How about the netbook?
My ebook is thinner than a pencil, weighs less than a pount, and fits in the hip-pockets on my BDUs. Your netbook?
And in the case of the Kindle (which I don't have), one can download news and books on the fly from anywhere there's cell service, and automatically store/retrieve books through the cell system.
Of course your netbook can do things my ebook cannot. Play games for example. It also likely has a color display. I'm likely to get a netbook in the near future; but it won't replact my ebook reader.
You can read ebooks on a netbook. I can browse the web on my ebook reader. In neither case to I find those thoughts ideal. They have different specialities and meet the needs of different people.
I wasn't aware that they were allowed to run cable across (non-easment) private property to begin with.
I understand in the CIA's case if they do this, but running cable to a cell tower across a private farm? Did your dad forget that he let them do that, or buy the farm after it was done?
Isn't that the point where charity becomes communism?
I suppose we need to decide what we are as a community? The autors of free works or the traders of non-free works; an open community, or a community only of those who contribute.
If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US? No.
And in saying that you defeat your own argument.
The argument boils down to "It's currently run well, why change it?". I agree with you. If the international community had ownership and was running it well, there would be no reason to want to move it to America.
What you don't realize is that you agree with me too.
Those growths are why the Klingons are called clit-heads, or vulva-faces. Without those features, the Klingons wouldn't have any personality or geek popularity at all.
Dissect a pig on an iPod? Nope. Build a robot through a webinar? Not that either. Get good critique on a sculpture as I make if from an art-teacher 3 time-zones away? nope? I suppose I could make a remote-operated microscope, but who will work the petri dish.
I suppose some fieds perhaps. Other require work in the field (anthropology for example) or in a lab (biology, physics) or in a group (music performance) or at an event (equestrian) or "on the job" (medicine).
Sadly, I cannot follow the link from here at work: but my first question is "what's an app?" Make it too broad and your anti-virus and IM client leave you with only one. Make it to narrow and it's an easy to circumvent limitation
Slashdot Mirror
I've usually heard it with dragons.
I wonder if you are making a distinction between "suspending judgment", "not believing", and "disbelieving".
If my friend, prone to lying, tells me he won the lottery I don't believe him. I'm also not certain he's wrong.
If my neighbor I know nothing about tells me the same thing: I "suspend judgment" and neither believe nor fail to believe (I'm simply unsure)
Can I make it any clearer?
You really can't be clear at all. You've declared that you will use words essentially at random and what you mean has no real relationship to what the English definitions are.
How could I possibly be expected to understand you?
So what if my idea that I want to promote and protect is that all black people should be killed and that the people in my organization should go out and kill them right now? Currently my free speech is limited. If I tell my followers to go out and kill black people, I go to jail for conspiracy to commit murder. This is because my free speech rights don't trump other's right to live.
You moved from promoting to inciting: from words which share ideas to instigating actions. It's very much like the actions which incite a panic of "fire" or a belief that your ponzi scheme isn't one. It's no longer "speech".
Beyond that I generally agree, though again think that a reframing makes the idea easier to bright-line test: that doing something to someone isn't a freedom, that having something done would be.
It means your "right to kill who you want" isn't trumped by someone else's right to not be killed, but rather that you never had the right to kill someone in the first place (your rights don't include the circumstances of others)
It's interesting that you mention burden of proof.
Burden of proof discusses how to establish something that might be true is, in actuality, true. You seem to be clashing this with a negative belief
For me to actively believe there is a lack of something: I would need (preferably) a proof that it was impossible, or minimally a knowledge of where the positive assertion came from.
In the case of specific claims regarding the tooth fairy: I have specific knowledge of what does happen.
I don't believe it's proper English to be theistic, agnostic or atheist "towards" something; but ignoring the semantics of your question: I actively disbelieve in the tooth fairy as commonly presented; because that definition makes claims which can be disproven.
How about you? Are you a positive believer that there is definitely nowhere in the universe a flying animal that would, if given the opportunity, steal children's teeth? (not a whole tooth-fairy, but that subset of traits). In the trillions of planets over billions of years you are certain that nothing like that has ever evolved?
There's certainly no evidence that one has. Are you an atheist or an agnostic?
You'd be an agnostic. You don't believe in a magic man in the sky (or any other god(s)).
I think that we can remove the "trumped by other rights" quandary by revising our definition of "speech".
If speech is the right to hold and promote an idea or belief, and I think that's what we are all wanting to protect, then clearly shouting "fire" wouldn't pass muster as protected. It would protect "fraud is good" (an idea) while allowing the prohibition of fraud (an action).
We need the freedom to hold and advocate any opinion or position.
But then, that's what I mean when I say "free speech"
There are some thinking that means you can should "fire" in a crowded theater. That would only be appropriate if it was your opinion that there was one. Otherwise you are committing fraud (lying to effect): more an "action" than a "speech", even if it is spoken.
The terms confused me for a long time, but the dictionaries are pretty consistent.
An Agnostic doesn't believe in God.
An Atheist believes in a lack of a God.
This puts the Atheist in the same boat as the theist: with a belief that lacks any evidence.
But most people who say they are Atheist are actually Agnostic and are just not using the standard English definitions.
So you are leaving the engine on Earth, but still bringing the reaction mass with you.
Sorry, I did have it confused with laser-sailing which leaves both the reaction mass and engine behind but lacks in thrust.
Yes. Using a laser to vaporize reaction mass could give you decent thrust. I do question that removing the engine itself offers a great deal of savings (certainly in a chemical rocket, the reaction mass and source of energy are one-in-the-same). Similarly, I haven't sen much in the way of how you would get your laser to burn well (controlling output and pressure is important)... in other words: how you would get the lasers to hit the right part of the reaction mass while simultaneously having the reaction mass in a good thrust-control chamber... all on a moving object.
Then there's the stresses on the launch-vehicle itself to consider.
But my misgivings about this specific method aside, the same issue remains: it's still easier to launch from 1/20g in a vacuum than from 1g in an atmosphere.
The same technology that might be developed to decrease the requirements to lift out of Earth's gravity well could be applied to the much shallower lunar gravity well to make that more inexpensive still.
It all boils down to deltaV budgets. Although you might create some "super engine" technology with a very high specific impules and very high thrust-to-mass: it would still be more efficient from the moon... and that's a very big "if".
How easy is your "laser launch" from 1/20th gravity? How much easier is that to power when there's zero chance of cloud cover interfering with either your launch laser, or your solar-collectors powering it.
That said: I don't think lasers will ever be a useful method of liftoff from the Earth's surface. That amount of light-pressure would be too difficult to produce.
A shallow gravity well and (once you figure out how to station there) easy access to useful resources for interplanitary travel.
Also: basically unlimited solar power.
I think you may be backwards. The high cost of lifting things into space is the most obvious reason to establish a manned colony.
Is there any reason to establish a manned colony floating in the air (here on Earth)? No. Because if you want something in the air, you put it there.
Getting all those robots, and telescopes, and as you point out correctly, repairs of existing things in orbit from Earth is daunting. In the long term: industrial facilities in space (or in a shallow well like the Moon) may make more economic sense.
You don't need to get "a lot" of people up: but enough to be self-sustaining.
But circletimessquare is also very right: the initial expendatures would be huge and the targets nebulous.
May I be the first to welcome our new Tuna overloards...
Not to be obvious but: do whatever you can do on your breaks.
I used to go out with someone I met at a work location and do TaiChi. Yoga comes to mind. Crunches/Push-ups/curling a freeweight comes to mind as well.
After every call (or every 30min without one) drop and do (say) 20 of any of the above. Even if that ends up being once an hour (hour long calls?) a 10-hour-day will have 200 push-ups/stomach crunches (for a freeweight, working it while at your desk isn't bad; but remember to switch arms from time to time).
Durnig your break, go for a run.
Even looking at real losses (the person who would have baught the movie), certainly not all of those profits would go into hiring more people to do more work. In many cases, they represent better incomes for stock-holders and those who have residuals.
Also: It's not like the person who didn't spend $25 on that BluRay (likely manufacturered in China) is going to set the money on fire. He will spend it somewhere else.
Buying movies legitemately may cost jobs too.
Get an air-card or (unless you are in the dorms) your local cable comapny.
Obviously there are any number of more complex options:
- You could date/bribe/extort someone in IT into exempting you.
- If the network will accept connections without this app, you could use any number of tactics to not run it (remove it, run an incompatable OS (do they have an Amegia Workbench version?), Run Black-ICE to toggle off functionality, block it at the firewall.
- If the client is required to connect, you could setup the client on a proxy server and attach through that using your real box.
It's worth noting that your useage can be monitored whether you have installed software on your PC or not (that's what a network sniffer is for). The only way around that would be to establish an encrypted connection to something outside their WAN and use it as a proxy.
I want an eBook device that can read the eBooks I already bought and own.
If they don't have DRM on them, you can use products like Libre' to change their format to whatever your eBook reader reads. If they are DRM'd, you'll need to find a reader that reads that format.
They are in PDF and some on CHM format.
Most all will read PDFs. If they are the "fixed sized" PDFs look for a large screen and something with good pan/zoom features (Sony 700 or new large kindle). If they are the "Digitial Editions" type PDFs, they can be read natively in sony 505 and 700 readers.
If I am going to spend $300 or more for an eBook device I might as well buy a Netbook that can use PDF and CHM formats for the same price.
That depends on your needs. My ebook reader lasts more than a week on a charge... tens of hours of actual reading at the speed I can read. How about your netbook?
My epaper display is very easy to read on the beach. How about the netbook?
My ebook is thinner than a pencil, weighs less than a pount, and fits in the hip-pockets on my BDUs. Your netbook?
And in the case of the Kindle (which I don't have), one can download news and books on the fly from anywhere there's cell service, and automatically store/retrieve books through the cell system.
Of course your netbook can do things my ebook cannot. Play games for example. It also likely has a color display. I'm likely to get a netbook in the near future; but it won't replact my ebook reader.
You can read ebooks on a netbook. I can browse the web on my ebook reader. In neither case to I find those thoughts ideal. They have different specialities and meet the needs of different people.
I wasn't aware that they were allowed to run cable across (non-easment) private property to begin with.
I understand in the CIA's case if they do this, but running cable to a cell tower across a private farm? Did your dad forget that he let them do that, or buy the farm after it was done?
Isn't that the point where charity becomes communism?
I suppose we need to decide what we are as a community? The autors of free works or the traders of non-free works; an open community, or a community only of those who contribute.
If the US did not have control of DNS then would the arguments convince anyone to hand the control to the US? No.
And in saying that you defeat your own argument.
The argument boils down to "It's currently run well, why change it?". I agree with you. If the international community had ownership and was running it well, there would be no reason to want to move it to America.
What you don't realize is that you agree with me too.
True: but statistically you should average "only" half that to succeed (it won't be the last possible password that's true, generally).
The constitution has long since been overruled by (among others) the patriot act.
Those growths are why the Klingons are called clit-heads, or vulva-faces. Without those features, the Klingons wouldn't have any personality or geek popularity at all.
A Trekker would recognize those body parts?!?
Dissect a pig on an iPod? Nope.
Build a robot through a webinar? Not that either.
Get good critique on a sculpture as I make if from an art-teacher 3 time-zones away? nope?
I suppose I could make a remote-operated microscope, but who will work the petri dish.
I suppose some fieds perhaps. Other require work in the field (anthropology for example) or in a lab (biology, physics) or in a group (music performance) or at an event (equestrian) or "on the job" (medicine).
Sadly, I cannot follow the link from here at work: but my first question is "what's an app?" Make it too broad and your anti-virus and IM client leave you with only one. Make it to narrow and it's an easy to circumvent limitation