90% of the radioactive material released from Fukushima is in the form of radioactive Iodine. Stuff with a half life of 8 days. In 2 months the radioactive iodine will be basically gone, leaving behind only the cesium which makes up the vast majority of the other 10%. It's going to be close to levels that are dangerous long term, but we're talking a 1% increase in the rate of cancers not growing a 3rd arm and glowing in the dark. If there are no more major releases, the only thing keeping people from moving back in is going to be fear. Not totally, 100% unfounded fear, but statistically the risk will be very low.
It depends how far away your eye is from it. The claim stands.
Then you could make the same claim for anything.
"US Navy reveals a a new battleship that is smaller than the human eye can see*
*if the human is 5 million miles away from said battleship"
Reasonably, 'at the size limit the human eye can see' to me means exactly that. There is a size below which you can't see unaided, no matter how close you bring your eye to the object because there's a limit to how closely your eye can focus. That size is at least one, and probably 2 orders of magnitude smaller than this camera.
And an exploding ball of gas a million miles apart can be much harder to see than a spec of dust. I'd say whoever came up with that statement is kind of retarded, even ignoring the lack of a distance to the object. After all... compare a single pixel - . - to 1mm x 1mm. That's at least an order of magnitude smaller, yet I can see it comfortably from 3 feet away.
Just have it shipped to your hotel before you arrive. Notify the hotel to expect a package and hold it for you and you shouldn't have a problem. Which, of course, just goes to show what a ridiculous piece of security theater the whole thing is.
Look at how much money is spent on the Great Panda, a species that has no habitat to be returned to even if we could somehow boost it's population up to sustainable levels. If you really want to save as many endangered species as possible you would spend the money elsewhere. The same is true for many species; their habitats are gone, their food source evaporated, the populations well below the number required to prevent genetic drift, but we spend millions of dollars on them. That money could be better spent on animals that haven't yet slid past the point of no return.
The new UI has been getting more buggy every week rather than less buggy. Off site links not working, clicking 'score' to view how things are moderated collapsing the comment, scrolling issues, clicking anywhere on the comment navigating to the parent, weird highlighting when submitting a comment... and that's just off the top of my head and coming from someone who was initially supportive of the changes. All on FF4.0
Why? Xenocide was about a 3 intelligent species living together on a planet trying to prevent the evil humans blowing them up. Everyone knew what they were doing, most especially the captain with his finger on the trigger of the doomsday device.
Ender's Game on the other hand, that might cause a shudder.
Ok, fair enough. Technology is the application of science, I'll grant that there is a difference.
People made everything you describe without using scientific theories.
Wait... what? How do you think engineering works? Do you think it's just "well lets try it this way and see what happens" until it magically works? There is a reason that major inventions and discoveries are often made by two otherwise unconnected people, it's because science has advanced to the point that the application is there to be found. The Wright brothers practically invented the science of aerodynamics especially as it applies to propeller design. Without their scientifically derived understanding of the science of airflow they would never have gotten off the ground. Integrated circuits didn't just pop into existence, they were designed by some very smart people in a variety of labs applying very cutting edge theories about electricity and materials.
If a word cannot be used to define itself, than how can Science ever be used to prove itself?
The difference:
Faith describes the universe as the person holding that faith believes it to be. Science verifiable moves toward a system of understanding that more correctly describes the universe than the understanding that came before it.
I suppose you could argue that for many laypersons science is a tiny, tiny subset of faith. It's that portion of faith that doesn't have to be taken solely on faith. You can look at the current (or a new guess at) understanding of the universe, compare it to the old understanding of the universe, and you can come up with an experiment that will produce different results depending on which understanding is correct.
Take 1000 people and leave them on a deserted planet somewhere with stone age technology. Assuming their decedents look at the stars at all they'll eventually come up with Newtons laws. If they come up with some clever experiments regarding the speed of light they'll even come up with relativity. They'll call it something else, and the equations might look different, but they will be mathematically identical. They'll come to understand genetics, metabolic pathways, antimatter, nuclear physics, logic, mathematics, etc. etc. etc. They won't discover them in the same order we did, they might even miss a few that we found and find a few that we missed. They'll certainly go down dead end paths that we never did (and of course, avoid some of the paths that we mistakenly went down) but there will be an inevitable convergence toward a body of knowledge that correctly describes the universe (do note how I said toward, it will never be verifiable perfect obviously).
Now, put the same thousand people on a deserted planet and watch their religions change over time. Do you honestly believe that they'll 'converge' to the wildly divergent religions present in the world today? Hell, I'll even let you throw a copy of each major holy book (or the book of your choice) into the mix. Do you really believe that they'll come up with the exact same interpretation and understanding of those holy books that the majority of our world follows?
No. Currently an app has a list of permissions it requires. If that list includes something you don't want that app to have access to, the only course of action is to not give the app access to anything (via not installing it). OP would like the ability to look at the list of permissions and, for example, remove Pandora's permission to view notifications and system logs without removing the rest of the permissions for the app.
I suspect that at least part of the reason this isn't easily done is for a few reasons. Obviously, the app makers aren't going to like it, since it will make advertising less effective and has the potential to generate lots of complaints when the apps don't work as advertised. Less obvious is the way apps are encrypted. I believe their permissions form part of the encryption key such that the app cannot run with more (or fewer) permissions than it was originally built for. This forms one of the central and most powerful anti-malware features of Android phones and I suspect they don't want to risk messing about with it more than they have to.
A 'traditional' dictionary has always included entries for misspelled words, made-up words, anachronisms, slang, and dialects. It is a collection of common usage, nothing more and nothing less.
You can buy any number of micro form factor PCs (usually business workstations) in this power range for equal or less money. I'd argue that nostalgia is the only unique trait that they're bringing to the table.
As much as I hate to defend religious nutjobs, asking St John of Patmos to make clear predictions isn't really fair. Imagine someone from the first or second century really was magically transported to the present (or rather, the future if this international ID thing were to go through). Saying, "There will be this thing-y that you have to have, because if you don't have it you won't be able to work or sell things" seems like a pretty reasonable description for someone from that time period to come up with for a system that requires migrant workers to register for an ID before they're allowed to work.
And now this is coming off as if I really think this card is the mark of the beast or something. For the record, I don't. I just think that your particular argument that valid predictions must be obvious ignores the fact that the predictor might not have understood everything that he 'saw'.
If you hang around an area with 100 mS per hour for an hour, you'll receive a dose likely to cause cancer.
Well, you'll receive a dose that has been statistically shown to increase your chances of getting cancer, which is not quite the same thing as likely.
There was a handful of articles floating around last week that the plant company was looking to hire semi-skilled 'Jumpers' to do the kinds of jobs you're talking about. They'll pay you a ridiculous amount of money ($2500-5000) to get trained in on a simple task like refueling a generator or patching a damaged cable, then you jump in, get the work done as fast as possible, and jump out again. So long as everyone plays by the rules and tracks their dosages you should be fine to do it once or twice; in fact, the practice was common world wide during the 70's and 80's before robots became advanced enough to do those kinds of tasks in healthy reactors.
It just happened so yeah, it's going to have higher levels than Chernobyl. Almost by definition, the more radioactive byproducts have short half-lives. If all of that radiation were from radioactive iodine, for example (and the majority probably is), the levels will drop to current Chernobyl levels in about a month. In two months the levels would be safe enough to work there basically indefinitely while keeping below a 100 Sv exposure limit. Of course, there's almost certainly some longer lived isotopes in there, but at this point the majority of the detected radiation is going to be from shorter lived ones, simply because they put out more radiation.
Free and illegal has legal and financial risks associated with it. Now, even with the efforts of the RIAA and others, the risk of those risks actually coming to fruition is quite small but the costs associated with those risks are massive. That is what the RIAA lawsuits are about. They aren't about recouping lost sales, they are about raising the 'cost of free' by increasing the risk people associate with it. (Of course, they largely neglect to realize the PR damage these lawsuits are doing to their members).
What they are hoping to achieve is this:
$0 + (perceived risk of being sued) * (perceived average judgement) + (guilt over not paying for something) > $1 per song + (guilt over supporting the bastards who sue innocent grandmas)
Because that is the point at which you will pay for the song rather than pirate it.
You obviously don't maintain a computer for your mom, dad, grandma, crazy aunt Judy, annoying cousin Steve, next door neighbor Bob, and clueless manager boss. If you did you'd realize that just because the interest is self serving doesn't mean that doesn't serve others too.
If the world economy stops moving you get people losing their jobs and their homes, and eventually going hungry on the streets. It doesn't matter if you have the most ethical company in the world, they aren't going to be able to keep paying their employees if they aren't selling their products.
Wouldn't FSF's effort be better placed making a tool that intelligently adds whitespace and allows the user to quickly and easily change variable and function names? It would still be above the typical user's level but all it would take is one white hatter de-obfuscate the code and post it somewhere. Seriously, gmail's java script isn't that big, you could probably do it with notepad and find-replace by hand in a couple hours.
It would go a long ways in these conversations if people would switch to 'Libre' and 'Gratis'. "free != Free" doesn't really explain how he is wrong, libre (freedom) != gratis (no charge) at least makes the difference between the terms more obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
90% of the radioactive material released from Fukushima is in the form of radioactive Iodine. Stuff with a half life of 8 days. In 2 months the radioactive iodine will be basically gone, leaving behind only the cesium which makes up the vast majority of the other 10%. It's going to be close to levels that are dangerous long term, but we're talking a 1% increase in the rate of cancers not growing a 3rd arm and glowing in the dark. If there are no more major releases, the only thing keeping people from moving back in is going to be fear. Not totally, 100% unfounded fear, but statistically the risk will be very low.
It depends how far away your eye is from it. The claim stands.
Then you could make the same claim for anything.
"US Navy reveals a a new battleship that is smaller than the human eye can see*
*if the human is 5 million miles away from said battleship"
Reasonably, 'at the size limit the human eye can see' to me means exactly that. There is a size below which you can't see unaided, no matter how close you bring your eye to the object because there's a limit to how closely your eye can focus. That size is at least one, and probably 2 orders of magnitude smaller than this camera.
And an exploding ball of gas a million miles apart can be much harder to see than a spec of dust. I'd say whoever came up with that statement is kind of retarded, even ignoring the lack of a distance to the object. After all... compare a single pixel - . - to 1mm x 1mm. That's at least an order of magnitude smaller, yet I can see it comfortably from 3 feet away.
Just have it shipped to your hotel before you arrive. Notify the hotel to expect a package and hold it for you and you shouldn't have a problem. Which, of course, just goes to show what a ridiculous piece of security theater the whole thing is.
Look at how much money is spent on the Great Panda, a species that has no habitat to be returned to even if we could somehow boost it's population up to sustainable levels. If you really want to save as many endangered species as possible you would spend the money elsewhere. The same is true for many species; their habitats are gone, their food source evaporated, the populations well below the number required to prevent genetic drift, but we spend millions of dollars on them. That money could be better spent on animals that haven't yet slid past the point of no return.
The new UI has been getting more buggy every week rather than less buggy. Off site links not working, clicking 'score' to view how things are moderated collapsing the comment, scrolling issues, clicking anywhere on the comment navigating to the parent, weird highlighting when submitting a comment... and that's just off the top of my head and coming from someone who was initially supportive of the changes. All on FF4.0
Why? Xenocide was about a 3 intelligent species living together on a planet trying to prevent the evil humans blowing them up. Everyone knew what they were doing, most especially the captain with his finger on the trigger of the doomsday device.
Ender's Game on the other hand, that might cause a shudder.
You are describing technology, not science.
Ok, fair enough. Technology is the application of science, I'll grant that there is a difference.
People made everything you describe without using scientific theories.
Wait... what? How do you think engineering works? Do you think it's just "well lets try it this way and see what happens" until it magically works? There is a reason that major inventions and discoveries are often made by two otherwise unconnected people, it's because science has advanced to the point that the application is there to be found. The Wright brothers practically invented the science of aerodynamics especially as it applies to propeller design. Without their scientifically derived understanding of the science of airflow they would never have gotten off the ground. Integrated circuits didn't just pop into existence, they were designed by some very smart people in a variety of labs applying very cutting edge theories about electricity and materials.
If a word cannot be used to define itself, than how can Science ever be used to prove itself?
The difference:
Faith describes the universe as the person holding that faith believes it to be.
Science verifiable moves toward a system of understanding that more correctly describes the universe than the understanding that came before it.
I suppose you could argue that for many laypersons science is a tiny, tiny subset of faith. It's that portion of faith that doesn't have to be taken solely on faith. You can look at the current (or a new guess at) understanding of the universe, compare it to the old understanding of the universe, and you can come up with an experiment that will produce different results depending on which understanding is correct.
Take 1000 people and leave them on a deserted planet somewhere with stone age technology. Assuming their decedents look at the stars at all they'll eventually come up with Newtons laws. If they come up with some clever experiments regarding the speed of light they'll even come up with relativity. They'll call it something else, and the equations might look different, but they will be mathematically identical. They'll come to understand genetics, metabolic pathways, antimatter, nuclear physics, logic, mathematics, etc. etc. etc. They won't discover them in the same order we did, they might even miss a few that we found and find a few that we missed. They'll certainly go down dead end paths that we never did (and of course, avoid some of the paths that we mistakenly went down) but there will be an inevitable convergence toward a body of knowledge that correctly describes the universe (do note how I said toward, it will never be verifiable perfect obviously).
Now, put the same thousand people on a deserted planet and watch their religions change over time. Do you honestly believe that they'll 'converge' to the wildly divergent religions present in the world today? Hell, I'll even let you throw a copy of each major holy book (or the book of your choice) into the mix. Do you really believe that they'll come up with the exact same interpretation and understanding of those holy books that the majority of our world follows?
No. Currently an app has a list of permissions it requires. If that list includes something you don't want that app to have access to, the only course of action is to not give the app access to anything (via not installing it). OP would like the ability to look at the list of permissions and, for example, remove Pandora's permission to view notifications and system logs without removing the rest of the permissions for the app.
I suspect that at least part of the reason this isn't easily done is for a few reasons. Obviously, the app makers aren't going to like it, since it will make advertising less effective and has the potential to generate lots of complaints when the apps don't work as advertised. Less obvious is the way apps are encrypted. I believe their permissions form part of the encryption key such that the app cannot run with more (or fewer) permissions than it was originally built for. This forms one of the central and most powerful anti-malware features of Android phones and I suspect they don't want to risk messing about with it more than they have to.
A 'traditional' dictionary has always included entries for misspelled words, made-up words, anachronisms, slang, and dialects. It is a collection of common usage, nothing more and nothing less.
If you're not stealing market share from yourself, someone else is.
You can buy any number of micro form factor PCs (usually business workstations) in this power range for equal or less money. I'd argue that nostalgia is the only unique trait that they're bringing to the table.
As much as I hate to defend religious nutjobs, asking St John of Patmos to make clear predictions isn't really fair. Imagine someone from the first or second century really was magically transported to the present (or rather, the future if this international ID thing were to go through). Saying, "There will be this thing-y that you have to have, because if you don't have it you won't be able to work or sell things" seems like a pretty reasonable description for someone from that time period to come up with for a system that requires migrant workers to register for an ID before they're allowed to work.
And now this is coming off as if I really think this card is the mark of the beast or something. For the record, I don't. I just think that your particular argument that valid predictions must be obvious ignores the fact that the predictor might not have understood everything that he 'saw'.
If you hang around an area with 100 mS per hour for an hour, you'll receive a dose likely to cause cancer.
Well, you'll receive a dose that has been statistically shown to increase your chances of getting cancer, which is not quite the same thing as likely.
There was a handful of articles floating around last week that the plant company was looking to hire semi-skilled 'Jumpers' to do the kinds of jobs you're talking about. They'll pay you a ridiculous amount of money ($2500-5000) to get trained in on a simple task like refueling a generator or patching a damaged cable, then you jump in, get the work done as fast as possible, and jump out again. So long as everyone plays by the rules and tracks their dosages you should be fine to do it once or twice; in fact, the practice was common world wide during the 70's and 80's before robots became advanced enough to do those kinds of tasks in healthy reactors.
It just happened so yeah, it's going to have higher levels than Chernobyl. Almost by definition, the more radioactive byproducts have short half-lives. If all of that radiation were from radioactive iodine, for example (and the majority probably is), the levels will drop to current Chernobyl levels in about a month. In two months the levels would be safe enough to work there basically indefinitely while keeping below a 100 Sv exposure limit. Of course, there's almost certainly some longer lived isotopes in there, but at this point the majority of the detected radiation is going to be from shorter lived ones, simply because they put out more radiation.
Early 2013 is still not "ready in 2012" IMO.
Free and illegal has legal and financial risks associated with it. Now, even with the efforts of the RIAA and others, the risk of those risks actually coming to fruition is quite small but the costs associated with those risks are massive. That is what the RIAA lawsuits are about. They aren't about recouping lost sales, they are about raising the 'cost of free' by increasing the risk people associate with it. (Of course, they largely neglect to realize the PR damage these lawsuits are doing to their members).
What they are hoping to achieve is this:
$0 + (perceived risk of being sued) * (perceived average judgement) + (guilt over not paying for something) > $1 per song + (guilt over supporting the bastards who sue innocent grandmas)
Because that is the point at which you will pay for the song rather than pirate it.
Shhh, if he says it often enough it becomes true. Magically. Like unicorns.
Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! Unicorns! It's not working! _0xd0ad you lied to me!
You obviously don't maintain a computer for your mom, dad, grandma, crazy aunt Judy, annoying cousin Steve, next door neighbor Bob, and clueless manager boss. If you did you'd realize that just because the interest is self serving doesn't mean that doesn't serve others too.
If the world economy stops moving you get people losing their jobs and their homes, and eventually going hungry on the streets. It doesn't matter if you have the most ethical company in the world, they aren't going to be able to keep paying their employees if they aren't selling their products.
Can't you do this with greasemonkey (and presumably other tools) already?
Wouldn't FSF's effort be better placed making a tool that intelligently adds whitespace and allows the user to quickly and easily change variable and function names? It would still be above the typical user's level but all it would take is one white hatter de-obfuscate the code and post it somewhere. Seriously, gmail's java script isn't that big, you could probably do it with notepad and find-replace by hand in a couple hours.
It would go a long ways in these conversations if people would switch to 'Libre' and 'Gratis'. "free != Free" doesn't really explain how he is wrong, libre (freedom) != gratis (no charge) at least makes the difference between the terms more obvious.