Write an article and submit to ARRL's QST and join and post to the AMSAT mailing lists as there are quite a few keys there as well. Talk to your local amateur radio club and get the word out and you might even talk to your area coordinator.
Re:Ruby isn't dying, it's purpose is changing
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 1
No mod points available, but this is the most spot on post on the whole page. It's sad you got a score of 1.
What severely frustrates me is that they put these beautiful screens in ultrabooks, but they continue to insist on putting a paltry amount of RAM inside. This is nearly 2014 not 2009!!! I was moments from buying a Yoga Pro 2 the day they were released online, but the 4 Gig of RAM soldered on to the motherboard thereby ruining any chance of upgrading stayed my finger. I was also not keen on a lower end U processor that didn't support VT-d as I do a lot of virtualization. I'd eagerly pay major $$$ if I could get a lightweight, hi-res (> 1080), i7-4558U haswell proc (inludes 5100 Iris), with the max supported 16GB of RAM, but alas none of the manufacturers (even apple) are offering the right combination of top of the line ultrabook hardware.
Could you not even be bothered enough to watch the entire article video I linked in my last post? Not only was the researcher able to suppress the leaf response through the entire plant using the same agent typically used to suppress a human's central nervous system, but he was also able to measure an electrical response throughout the plant slower but similar to an animal's central nervous system when he burned a leaf on that plant with a lighter.
Once again I think you need to reevaluate your qualifications. A central nervous system may very well not be the deciding factor of whether or not a living thing can feel pain or feel suffering.
How do you know plants or fungi or bacteria don't suffer? Maybe you just don't understand their suffering any better than a plant understands your cries of pain.
Check out http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/video/titles/12151/do-plants-respond-to-pain and you might consider re-evaluating your qualification for what has the capacity for feeling suffering. Then you'll have to backtrack on what can be eaten and what is qualified for personhood, or go the other way and begin to starve yourself to death.
You are really selling the cow short while at the same time attempting to defend it with presuppositions. What makes you so certain that cows will NEVER be able to tell us what they want or think? I find that extremely speciest and unfounded. Now say extremely unlikely and you're less definitively limiting the future capabilities of cows, but then supporting a stereotype that might take cows a millennium to see squashed outside of the extreme corners of the galaxy where the CCC meets in secret.
Since we're now down to generalizations, I will generalize that it will take a VERY long time for a significant enough portion of the population to agree with your view set while only humans are advocating for cow personage. Show me a cow advocating for personage and THEN a significant enough portion of the population will begin doubting the morality of using cows as a food source. Once again, the MAJORITY burden is on the cow. Perhaps at some point it truly can comprehend its identity as self and wants not only itself eaten, but that of any of its species as well. Otherwise the minority burden is on this small minority of people who prefer to anthropomorphise animals to compensate for their own lack of evidence and rigor to delineate between morally valid and invalid food sources. After all, what makes <insert non-human animalia> any more deserving of not being eaten than <insert any plantae, fungi, chromista, protozoa, or bacteria>? You know those nuts you are eating are something's fertilized or aborted baby and its womb, right?
In a human dominated society that currently doesn't recognize other species as persons, the burden of proof is on the other species. The point I was trying to make is that even though there were sympathetic politicians from the north, in order for a caucasian American society to recognize that African American slaves had the same cognitive abilities as their owners, it took an exceptional African American slave like Frederick Douglass to travel the country and demonstrate a slave reading, writing, and giving oratory at an educated mans level to convince society to revert their longstanding opinions. Likewise until these other species provide a similar demonstration of abilities, it is unlikely that any sympathetic organization will be able to provide enough compelling evidence to convince any majority society or authoritative body of law to recognize the personhood of any other species. Nobody human is going to be able to provide a better burden of proof than something directly from the species itself, rather than by proxy.
In that same vein, I'll consider granting personhood to other species when they themselves can communicate and stand up for rights those species believe they are entitled to. Like a chimp or dolphin Frederick Douglass.
I'd start by not advertising to a large public forum containing a lot of people with security exploit experience and motive about your companies web security vulnerabilities where your synopsis easily reduces the attack vector to significantly less than 500 potential targets. How many fortune 500 companies exist that target kids, let alone ones that have a female web software development manager? Also, it should be fairly easy for somebody in the industry to discover which fortune 500 kid targeted companies outsource their system administration.
At this point, I would do nothing. If they aren't hacked within a week after you posting this article then the security vulnerabilities don't really matter.
How dare you associate Sheldon with such an imbecilic experiment. Sheldon and any other mathematician worth his weight had ALREADY proven the existence of high speed neutrinos. I takes a pack of idiots to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to "prove" something when we had already done so YEARS ago.
A Yahoo spokesperson insisted that the company had "strict controls in place to protect the security of our datacenters" and that "we have not given access to our data centers to the NSA or to any other government agency, unless Edward Snowden has evidence that we were cooperating the entire time at which point we will clam up and not be available for comment."
There, fixed that for you unnamed Yahoo spokesperson.
Um....people have already been doing this for some time now. News that would be interesting to me would be to make 3d metal printing semi-affordable for the common hacker since most of these machines cost around $1,000,000. Right now 3d printing molds for metal casting is the only practical solution.
Reaching interstellar space wasn't the original goal. As revealed in Robotic Exploration of the Solar System: Part I: The Golden Age 1957-1982, there were numerous primary scientific objectives focused mainly on the Jupiter and Saturn's systems (not even the unprecedented Neptune and Uranus discoveries we take for granted today) that were the only reason why the Voyager projects managed to receive the significantly reduced congressional funding it did. Everything beyond that had been a balancing act and genius of project management who painfully understood the extremely unique and rare window of opportunity as well as the scientific team dedication and collaboration to squeeze as much scientific value out of the proverbial stone amidst an ever year-over-year declining operational budget.
Perhaps your comment would have been understood and modded funny if you had used the name Harold Wolowitz. As exceptionally nerdy and admirable as it seems that some near-genius guy was smart and subtle enough to think of monitoring the antenna oscillation without provocation, the reality of space exploration is that an earlier satellite or probe that cost many millions of 1960's-1970's dollars was sent WITHOUT antenna oscillation measurement instruments which caused certain data to be returned that was less than accurate. Then a group of physicists analyzing the data had to then determine the inaccuracies were caused due to antenna oscillation at which point antenna oscillation sensors were developed so the next costly project could be deployed without this weakness. What IS admirable and whelming is how scientists were able to create a "problem" like antennae oscillations and hack it in to a value-add instrument that could decades later be used to confirm the first entrance of a man-made object in to interstellar space.
Slashdot Mirror
Write an article and submit to ARRL's QST and join and post to the AMSAT mailing lists as there are quite a few keys there as well. Talk to your local amateur radio club and get the word out and you might even talk to your area coordinator.
No mod points available, but this is the most spot on post on the whole page. It's sad you got a score of 1.
What severely frustrates me is that they put these beautiful screens in ultrabooks, but they continue to insist on putting a paltry amount of RAM inside. This is nearly 2014 not 2009!!! I was moments from buying a Yoga Pro 2 the day they were released online, but the 4 Gig of RAM soldered on to the motherboard thereby ruining any chance of upgrading stayed my finger. I was also not keen on a lower end U processor that didn't support VT-d as I do a lot of virtualization. I'd eagerly pay major $$$ if I could get a lightweight, hi-res (> 1080), i7-4558U haswell proc (inludes 5100 Iris), with the max supported 16GB of RAM, but alas none of the manufacturers (even apple) are offering the right combination of top of the line ultrabook hardware.
I'm no rocket scientist, but perhaps this is just what we need to fix the moon orbit expansion problem.
Can't you see they're white and nerdy?
Could you not even be bothered enough to watch the entire article video I linked in my last post? Not only was the researcher able to suppress the leaf response through the entire plant using the same agent typically used to suppress a human's central nervous system, but he was also able to measure an electrical response throughout the plant slower but similar to an animal's central nervous system when he burned a leaf on that plant with a lighter.
Once again I think you need to reevaluate your qualifications. A central nervous system may very well not be the deciding factor of whether or not a living thing can feel pain or feel suffering.
To use your own logic:
How do you know plants or fungi or bacteria don't suffer? Maybe you just don't understand their suffering any better than a plant understands your cries of pain.
Check out http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/video/titles/12151/do-plants-respond-to-pain and you might consider re-evaluating your qualification for what has the capacity for feeling suffering. Then you'll have to backtrack on what can be eaten and what is qualified for personhood, or go the other way and begin to starve yourself to death.
You are really selling the cow short while at the same time attempting to defend it with presuppositions. What makes you so certain that cows will NEVER be able to tell us what they want or think? I find that extremely speciest and unfounded. Now say extremely unlikely and you're less definitively limiting the future capabilities of cows, but then supporting a stereotype that might take cows a millennium to see squashed outside of the extreme corners of the galaxy where the CCC meets in secret.
Since we're now down to generalizations, I will generalize that it will take a VERY long time for a significant enough portion of the population to agree with your view set while only humans are advocating for cow personage. Show me a cow advocating for personage and THEN a significant enough portion of the population will begin doubting the morality of using cows as a food source. Once again, the MAJORITY burden is on the cow. Perhaps at some point it truly can comprehend its identity as self and wants not only itself eaten, but that of any of its species as well. Otherwise the minority burden is on this small minority of people who prefer to anthropomorphise animals to compensate for their own lack of evidence and rigor to delineate between morally valid and invalid food sources. After all, what makes <insert non-human animalia> any more deserving of not being eaten than <insert any plantae, fungi, chromista, protozoa, or bacteria>? You know those nuts you are eating are something's fertilized or aborted baby and its womb, right?
In a human dominated society that currently doesn't recognize other species as persons, the burden of proof is on the other species. The point I was trying to make is that even though there were sympathetic politicians from the north, in order for a caucasian American society to recognize that African American slaves had the same cognitive abilities as their owners, it took an exceptional African American slave like Frederick Douglass to travel the country and demonstrate a slave reading, writing, and giving oratory at an educated mans level to convince society to revert their longstanding opinions. Likewise until these other species provide a similar demonstration of abilities, it is unlikely that any sympathetic organization will be able to provide enough compelling evidence to convince any majority society or authoritative body of law to recognize the personhood of any other species. Nobody human is going to be able to provide a better burden of proof than something directly from the species itself, rather than by proxy.
In that same vein, I'll consider granting personhood to other species when they themselves can communicate and stand up for rights those species believe they are entitled to. Like a chimp or dolphin Frederick Douglass.
If that was the OP's strategy, then (his|her) brilliance is inversely proportional to the terms of the NDA s?he may have signed on employment.
I'd start by not advertising to a large public forum containing a lot of people with security exploit experience and motive about your companies web security vulnerabilities where your synopsis easily reduces the attack vector to significantly less than 500 potential targets. How many fortune 500 companies exist that target kids, let alone ones that have a female web software development manager? Also, it should be fairly easy for somebody in the industry to discover which fortune 500 kid targeted companies outsource their system administration.
At this point, I would do nothing. If they aren't hacked within a week after you posting this article then the security vulnerabilities don't really matter.
Um.....what do you think a theoretical physicist is, ignoramus?
How dare you associate Sheldon with such an imbecilic experiment. Sheldon and any other mathematician worth his weight had ALREADY proven the existence of high speed neutrinos. I takes a pack of idiots to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to "prove" something when we had already done so YEARS ago.
I find that question a little hard to swallow.
What's not clear or pragmatic about the project goal of taking over the world?
Obligatory Drugwars link
A Yahoo spokesperson insisted that the company had "strict controls in place to protect the security of our datacenters" and that "we have not given access to our data centers to the NSA or to any other government agency, unless Edward Snowden has evidence that we were cooperating the entire time at which point we will clam up and not be available for comment."
There, fixed that for you unnamed Yahoo spokesperson.
That's what she said.
After an extensive audit, it was uncovered that Keith Alexander had system administrator right.
Very cool. Thanks for sharing.
Um....people have already been doing this for some time now. News that would be interesting to me would be to make 3d metal printing semi-affordable for the common hacker since most of these machines cost around $1,000,000. Right now 3d printing molds for metal casting is the only practical solution.
If a quantum computer makes a calculation in a forest and no one is around to verify it, does it solve the problem?
Reaching interstellar space wasn't the original goal. As revealed in Robotic Exploration of the Solar System: Part I: The Golden Age 1957-1982, there were numerous primary scientific objectives focused mainly on the Jupiter and Saturn's systems (not even the unprecedented Neptune and Uranus discoveries we take for granted today) that were the only reason why the Voyager projects managed to receive the significantly reduced congressional funding it did. Everything beyond that had been a balancing act and genius of project management who painfully understood the extremely unique and rare window of opportunity as well as the scientific team dedication and collaboration to squeeze as much scientific value out of the proverbial stone amidst an ever year-over-year declining operational budget.
Perhaps your comment would have been understood and modded funny if you had used the name Harold Wolowitz. As exceptionally nerdy and admirable as it seems that some near-genius guy was smart and subtle enough to think of monitoring the antenna oscillation without provocation, the reality of space exploration is that an earlier satellite or probe that cost many millions of 1960's-1970's dollars was sent WITHOUT antenna oscillation measurement instruments which caused certain data to be returned that was less than accurate. Then a group of physicists analyzing the data had to then determine the inaccuracies were caused due to antenna oscillation at which point antenna oscillation sensors were developed so the next costly project could be deployed without this weakness. What IS admirable and whelming is how scientists were able to create a "problem" like antennae oscillations and hack it in to a value-add instrument that could decades later be used to confirm the first entrance of a man-made object in to interstellar space.