Bloody Star Trek isn't scifi, it's fantasy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but real scifi takes a real, scientifically viable idea and extrapolates. There might be *some* hand-waving for plot purposes, but the core idea is always something that might actually be possible in the real world. It's called science fiction for a reason.
Even disregarding the blatant generalization (If it's true in my experience, it must always be true. Fuck that.), how is heroin relevant to this in any way whatsoever?
CBA to look this up right now, but IIRC it's actually the energy required to separate the particle/antiparticle pair that comes from the black hole, and causes a net decrease in mass.
Not commenting on if this is a problem or not since I simply don't know, but the guy in the linked article works for a company called Parimics Inc. which, from what research I did, seems like a particularly blatant patent troll. Their site is rife with terminology that reads very much like an attempt to obfuscate the fact. Hard to determine if they do in fact do useful research and developement from the limited information available, but if my initial impression is correct then this is actually a case of the patent office working *well*, and this company is pissed that they can't get their frivolous patent applications through.
Furthermore, nobody claims that string theory (the 'theory' here being somewhat of a misnomer) is the only possible explanation. It's simply a rather elegant hypothesis that seems able to explain in a consistent framework things that have thus far been difficult to integrate with the rest of our knowledge. Which is why there's been so much effort to come up with (currently) testable predictions based on it. However, until it can be experimentally confirmed or disproven it is just that, an elegant hypothesis, and nothing more.
Repeat after me: radiation at low levels is not dangerous. You get far higher levels than anything caused by humans simply from natural background radiation, even considering medical x-rays (which give you a dose far beyond these things). It's everywhere, and it doesn't hurt you. In fact, the current thinking is that low levels of radiation can in fact make you healthier (see hormesis).
Actually, AFAIK (i.e. read it somewhere, not even remotely sure if it's true, but does make sense) the Great Wall was in fact meant to do neither; or rather, a bit of both. It kept the invaders in. Sure, they'd get over it pretty easily on their way in, and it was impossible to keep constant watch over in any case, but once they'd done their raiding and whatnot they'd have soldiers after them and wouldn't be able to get back over the wall fast enough to escape them, thus discouraging invasions by making it pretty much impossible to get away with your loot and your life.
Actually quite possible, altho not likely to happen for a while. These things work by means of neuroplasticity, ie. the brain learns to send out specific signals that the device can interpret. Should be just as easy (that is, not very) to set up completely new stuff.
Direct neural interfaces currently use new, learned brain patterns (neuroplasticity is a wonderful thing) for control, rather than attempt to read the actual impulses used to control the muscles when you still had them. Hopefully this means that any attempted muscle control while asleep will go through the old pathways, and not trigger the new patterns. Or you could just turn the thing off when you go to sleep.
Way to be open to opposing points of view there. It's a "simple fact" (as you put it, albeit I'd argue that this one's more valid due to not being a question of personal values, but one of basic and well-documented human behavior) that few of those with wealth have any desire to share it. Enforced altruism is simply a fancy way of saying "taxes", and the enforcement of common rules, taxation in this case, is what government is *for*. No enforcement, no rules, no society. Of course, you might argue that government of any kind is a Bad Thing, but I'm fairly certain that'd make you far more of a nutjob than I (quite possibly) am.
I don't need you to misrepresent my views, thank you, I am quite capable of doing that myself. There are degrees of survival; what I see as basic needs are food, clothing, decent housing, medical care and a modest disposable income. I simply hold that the well-off should, to some extent, help those less fortunate, especially in areas of high economic inequality (such as the US, which a higher Gini coefficient - higher meaning more economic inequality - than any European nation).
This doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to most of the fruits of your own labor, and claiming it does is completely disingenuous. What it does mean is tax rates sufficient to guarantee the basics for everyone, and those with means beyond a reasonable amount (based on national mean income or whatever) contributing proportionally more (that is, progressive taxation). Essentially, the point is to slightly decrease the subjective well-being of a few, who are living well beyond the means of the nation as a whole, to substantially increase the well-being of many. I don't object to wishing to live a comfortable life, I simply believe that there is such a thing as comfortable enough to be able to afford some (enforced) altruism.
Also, while my income is in no way relevant to the discussion as I'm speaking for a social system that would, obviously, affect me the same as everyone else, I do spend very little relative to the national average; the reason I don't give away anything is simply that I don't have anything to give. Belief in certain basic rights does not require me to give up those very rights to be valid. Of course, were I a wealthy man, it might be that I'd see things differently; however, I'm not, and thus, I don't. Think of me what you will.
Not a cop-out, simply a difference of belief. Your standards are different from mine, and from an objective point of view neither is more valid than the other. Your 'fact' is not a fact to me, but I can no more convince you that it's untrue than I can convince gravity to stop working. I can, however, express my opinion; if you don't like it, fine. Also, just because I'm talking about the US here (Slashdot being US-centric in nature) doesn't mean that I believe anything I've said to be any less true for any other country you might name.
That just means your taxes have to be better structured, not lower. Specifically, income tax in the US is ridiculously low, so it has to be made up by other means, which don't necessarily scale with income, leading to more taxation of those that can't afford it. Also, social security measures (which, again, you need taxes to support) to help those that would otherwise be left below the poverty line.
And yeah, I am partly trolling here, but the fact remains that the people of the US seem, from all I've seen, to be ridiculously opposed to anything that would improve the living conditions of those who aren't as well off as they are. It's bloody time for you to stop whining and start paying. Social support in the US is fucking stone-age, and you're all too busy drooling over tax cuts to do anything about it. You want to know why the rest of the world looks down on you? This is why.
What I find strange is the constant whine from US ISPs about increased load on their network. My ISP just deprioritizes p2p, and offers unlimited 100Mb connections at 43e a month. Which is what I've been on since it became available in my area. I use up 50Mbs or more almost 24/7, and they don't seem to mind at all. In fact, I'd be willing to bet, based on cultural aspects, that just about everyone on similar connections around here uses them heavily and constantly, mostly for p2p. And yet, the network is fast as ever, and the ISP stays in business, even making some very decent profits in the process. No idea how yours manage to fuck it up so hard.
"Taxed into poverty" my ass. Take it like men (or women, to be pc), if in fact you are. Ever notice how the European nations with the highest taxation levels also tend to be the ones that consistently rate high on just about any measure of well-being you can think of? Yeah. Note to all Americans: stop thinking only about your own bloody income for fuck's sake.
This, in fact, is how modern anonymous encrypted p2p software works. Can also be used on most non-anonymous networks simply by proxying it via Tor, altho that's pretty severely frowned upon, and most exit nodes are likely to be blocking any non-standard ports. In any case, completely anonymous p2p does in fact exist right now, the problem is that it's slow as fuck due to all traffic having to travel through multiple hosts with varying connectivity.
I'm pretty sure it's not, altho I can't recall any specific cases. There have, however, been several discussions around here on the very topic, and the general consensus (of people who aren't lawyers, obviously) seems to be that it likely won't stand up as a legal defense. Hard to say before it's really tested in the courts tho.
The grinding and brewing is on-demand. The roasting is done daily in small batches, and the roasted beans are in fact stored for around a day before use.
Slashdot Mirror
Bloody Star Trek isn't scifi, it's fantasy. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but real scifi takes a real, scientifically viable idea and extrapolates. There might be *some* hand-waving for plot purposes, but the core idea is always something that might actually be possible in the real world. It's called science fiction for a reason.
Mu.
Even disregarding the blatant generalization (If it's true in my experience, it must always be true. Fuck that.), how is heroin relevant to this in any way whatsoever?
CBA to look this up right now, but IIRC it's actually the energy required to separate the particle/antiparticle pair that comes from the black hole, and causes a net decrease in mass.
What does it imply if I already have one?
Not commenting on if this is a problem or not since I simply don't know, but the guy in the linked article works for a company called Parimics Inc. which, from what research I did, seems like a particularly blatant patent troll. Their site is rife with terminology that reads very much like an attempt to obfuscate the fact. Hard to determine if they do in fact do useful research and developement from the limited information available, but if my initial impression is correct then this is actually a case of the patent office working *well*, and this company is pissed that they can't get their frivolous patent applications through.
Furthermore, nobody claims that string theory (the 'theory' here being somewhat of a misnomer) is the only possible explanation. It's simply a rather elegant hypothesis that seems able to explain in a consistent framework things that have thus far been difficult to integrate with the rest of our knowledge. Which is why there's been so much effort to come up with (currently) testable predictions based on it. However, until it can be experimentally confirmed or disproven it is just that, an elegant hypothesis, and nothing more.
Yes, there are legitimate uses. Hence the need for a license.
Repeat after me: radiation at low levels is not dangerous. You get far higher levels than anything caused by humans simply from natural background radiation, even considering medical x-rays (which give you a dose far beyond these things). It's everywhere, and it doesn't hurt you. In fact, the current thinking is that low levels of radiation can in fact make you healthier (see hormesis).
Actually, AFAIK (i.e. read it somewhere, not even remotely sure if it's true, but does make sense) the Great Wall was in fact meant to do neither; or rather, a bit of both. It kept the invaders in. Sure, they'd get over it pretty easily on their way in, and it was impossible to keep constant watch over in any case, but once they'd done their raiding and whatnot they'd have soldiers after them and wouldn't be able to get back over the wall fast enough to escape them, thus discouraging invasions by making it pretty much impossible to get away with your loot and your life.
Hear hear. This man needs a mod up.
Actually quite possible, altho not likely to happen for a while. These things work by means of neuroplasticity, ie. the brain learns to send out specific signals that the device can interpret. Should be just as easy (that is, not very) to set up completely new stuff.
Direct neural interfaces currently use new, learned brain patterns (neuroplasticity is a wonderful thing) for control, rather than attempt to read the actual impulses used to control the muscles when you still had them. Hopefully this means that any attempted muscle control while asleep will go through the old pathways, and not trigger the new patterns. Or you could just turn the thing off when you go to sleep.
Way to be open to opposing points of view there. It's a "simple fact" (as you put it, albeit I'd argue that this one's more valid due to not being a question of personal values, but one of basic and well-documented human behavior) that few of those with wealth have any desire to share it. Enforced altruism is simply a fancy way of saying "taxes", and the enforcement of common rules, taxation in this case, is what government is *for*. No enforcement, no rules, no society. Of course, you might argue that government of any kind is a Bad Thing, but I'm fairly certain that'd make you far more of a nutjob than I (quite possibly) am.
I don't need you to misrepresent my views, thank you, I am quite capable of doing that myself. There are degrees of survival; what I see as basic needs are food, clothing, decent housing, medical care and a modest disposable income. I simply hold that the well-off should, to some extent, help those less fortunate, especially in areas of high economic inequality (such as the US, which a higher Gini coefficient - higher meaning more economic inequality - than any European nation).
This doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to most of the fruits of your own labor, and claiming it does is completely disingenuous. What it does mean is tax rates sufficient to guarantee the basics for everyone, and those with means beyond a reasonable amount (based on national mean income or whatever) contributing proportionally more (that is, progressive taxation). Essentially, the point is to slightly decrease the subjective well-being of a few, who are living well beyond the means of the nation as a whole, to substantially increase the well-being of many. I don't object to wishing to live a comfortable life, I simply believe that there is such a thing as comfortable enough to be able to afford some (enforced) altruism.
Also, while my income is in no way relevant to the discussion as I'm speaking for a social system that would, obviously, affect me the same as everyone else, I do spend very little relative to the national average; the reason I don't give away anything is simply that I don't have anything to give. Belief in certain basic rights does not require me to give up those very rights to be valid. Of course, were I a wealthy man, it might be that I'd see things differently; however, I'm not, and thus, I don't. Think of me what you will.
Not a cop-out, simply a difference of belief. Your standards are different from mine, and from an objective point of view neither is more valid than the other. Your 'fact' is not a fact to me, but I can no more convince you that it's untrue than I can convince gravity to stop working. I can, however, express my opinion; if you don't like it, fine. Also, just because I'm talking about the US here (Slashdot being US-centric in nature) doesn't mean that I believe anything I've said to be any less true for any other country you might name.
It is impossible to give a reason to someone who doesn't see the moral obligation. How would you describe color to a blind man?
That just means your taxes have to be better structured, not lower. Specifically, income tax in the US is ridiculously low, so it has to be made up by other means, which don't necessarily scale with income, leading to more taxation of those that can't afford it. Also, social security measures (which, again, you need taxes to support) to help those that would otherwise be left below the poverty line.
And yeah, I am partly trolling here, but the fact remains that the people of the US seem, from all I've seen, to be ridiculously opposed to anything that would improve the living conditions of those who aren't as well off as they are. It's bloody time for you to stop whining and start paying. Social support in the US is fucking stone-age, and you're all too busy drooling over tax cuts to do anything about it. You want to know why the rest of the world looks down on you? This is why.
Quite right, and that's exactly why the awesomebar is so awesome.
What I find strange is the constant whine from US ISPs about increased load on their network. My ISP just deprioritizes p2p, and offers unlimited 100Mb connections at 43e a month. Which is what I've been on since it became available in my area. I use up 50Mbs or more almost 24/7, and they don't seem to mind at all. In fact, I'd be willing to bet, based on cultural aspects, that just about everyone on similar connections around here uses them heavily and constantly, mostly for p2p. And yet, the network is fast as ever, and the ISP stays in business, even making some very decent profits in the process. No idea how yours manage to fuck it up so hard.
"Taxed into poverty" my ass. Take it like men (or women, to be pc), if in fact you are. Ever notice how the European nations with the highest taxation levels also tend to be the ones that consistently rate high on just about any measure of well-being you can think of? Yeah. Note to all Americans: stop thinking only about your own bloody income for fuck's sake.
This, in fact, is how modern anonymous encrypted p2p software works. Can also be used on most non-anonymous networks simply by proxying it via Tor, altho that's pretty severely frowned upon, and most exit nodes are likely to be blocking any non-standard ports. In any case, completely anonymous p2p does in fact exist right now, the problem is that it's slow as fuck due to all traffic having to travel through multiple hosts with varying connectivity.
I'm pretty sure it's not, altho I can't recall any specific cases. There have, however, been several discussions around here on the very topic, and the general consensus (of people who aren't lawyers, obviously) seems to be that it likely won't stand up as a legal defense. Hard to say before it's really tested in the courts tho.
Dunno, I personally always go to Wikipedia first.
The grinding and brewing is on-demand. The roasting is done daily in small batches, and the roasted beans are in fact stored for around a day before use.