Are they saying this is thought to be the only brown dwarf (thus far) to have water vapor and methane due to its low temperature? Or are they saying this is the only brown dwarf close enough to detect such things?
The US once had enough weapons to raze every city of more than 10,000 in the entire world.
Seems unnecessary and excessive.
Realistically, a hundred vs a few thousand just doesn't seem to matter. Even with 100 we could completely wipe China off the Earth and likely induce a nuclear winter.
I don't know what the issue is...
Pulling this out of my ass here:
I believe the point of having 100 times the MAD dose, apart from the obvious penis waving privileges, is that it means if Russia gets in a cheap shot that neutralizes 99% of our arsenal; we can still eradicate the species with the remaining 1%. No amount of sabotage or defense network will be 100% effective, thus: Deterrent maintained.
Conversely: If we only had 100, Soviet-Era Russia would have had no problem going all out against us if they could take out 99 of them before they hit. We're all dead, they lose Moscow. Deterrent Fail. This is also the point of the ABM treaty. It all goes toward the US and Russia having absolutely no hope of "winning" a nuclear exchange; such that they will both forever refrain from entering one.
You could probably keep 10+ mice, quite comfortably, in the volume of space an adult pig takes up. I could probably keep 100 caged mice in my office, with ample room for them to run around and live relatively normal mouse-lives; whereas a single pig would probably be tearing this place up and demanding half* its body weight in food everyday. It would be ridiculous.
No, the logical solution here is to find out which gene we need to turn off to make mice taste like pork and just go from there.
This post paid for by Monsanto and a grant from the Moreau Foundation. Macon: It ain't just a city in Georgia
You ignore morality. Some people refuse to do things because they believe they are wrong.
I am intentionally ignoring morality to keep this simple. I find it is impossible to assert that moral injury has an objective value without descending into a debate on moral relativism.
As I said - and you ignored - you 1) can't pretend to know ahead of time that you'll definitely get away with such an action, 2) make yourself dependent on the failures of others, and 3) encourage others to violate your rights in the future.
1)Don't have to, the penalty is acceptable.
2) You're welcome to explain whatever that means, because it sounds like you're saying that trying to buy a foreclosed home is somehow irrational because your success depends on the failure of others to pay their mortgage. It sounds like an ethical quandary, not an objective valuation.
3) I encouraged them to exploit the legal loophole surrounding money trees. I will put my money in a bank.
As for your specific incident,
1) I stipulated that the money is not confiscated.
2) Irrelevant, there won't be repeat incidents; nor would any be required.
3) Demonstrably false/irrelevant: I'm rich, don't need a job. Not everyone is going to know, or even care about what I did, some people would even see it as a plus (like my hypothetical homeless chums).
And what do you do with your money? Assuming people are acting rationally and unwilling to trade with someone who is well known for stealing from the money tree, you would be unable to buy from anyone.
That is incredibly naive.
Look, the scenarios that could be labeled "theft" comprise an incredibly complex set of data with nigh infinite variation. To claim that each and every one of those scenarios comes out as a net loss is just silly on the face of it. To claim that not a single antagonist in that dataset could have objectively determined his net gain before hand (ie: rationally) is beyond preposterous.
The rational choice is that which is objectively determined to be in the interest of your life. Thus, theft is always irrational, as it is never in the interest of your life to steal - you violate the rights of others, you make yourself dependent on the failures of others, you cannot pretend to know enough to properly assess the situation (Y), and you encourage others to violate your rights in the process.
Nonsense. This is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Suppose I'm homeless and penniless. If the penalty for stealing 10 million dollars from an endangered money tree is a fine of $100,000 and a year in white collar prison trading high-fives with my fellow inmates, and I get to keep the money, then I would be up $9,900,000. That is an objectively measurable improvement in my circumstances, end of story.
You desire something X much. Your perception of the consequences finds them to be of Y severity. if(X>Y){ stealing = rational } else { stealing = irrational }
You may be wrong about Y, but given the set of information you behaved rationally. In other words: If you feel you would benefit a net life-improvement by taking the object, it seems rational to do so. Doesn't mean it's ethical, but the debate of moral absolutes and human nature is another subject entirely.
I never called you a sheep and there are no strawmen here by my hand.
your time is worth so little to you that you're more than happy to spend your time making up for the failures of the people who provide you with gadgets and software to do their jobs better. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be getting actual work done or having fun with our gadgets.
I merely demonstrated that the assertion that I, as a competent windows user, must either have no time to enjoy myself or be some kind of masochist with OCD; is utter bullshit. Does it makes you feel better to paint me as some kind of mutant merely because I am comfortable with an OS you find formidable and obnoxious? If not, then stop it. I understand people's decision to avoid windows. What I object to is being insulted in the course of defending that choice; it is completely superfluous and intellectually dishonest.
I just want tools that do what I want them to do. If I want to scrape grout out with my screwdriver, who is Craftsman to tell me I can't? I accept that I might hurt the screwdriver if using it for things other than driving screws. I'm a big boy, I think I can handle that responsibility. This whole rant here:
When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web. I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there. When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.
Total fabrication or serious, compound, operator error
Time to update virus definitions: 10-15 seconds, in the background, at boot. That's right, my computer does it for me; with nary an apple in sight.
Steps required to surf web safely: click the icon for my browser du jour; or [win],i if I don't have a quarter second to spare.
Steps to install and launch most software: "Accept the EULA"; "Pick a folder"; "Next", "Finish".
Let's see, what other maintenance do I do to keep this incomprehensible and beastly OS running... Defrag every year or two? Update my video card driver as a new game may require?
Wow, when I lay it all out like that, it's a wonder I can get anything done.
If not wasting my time... makes me a sheep, then baa baa baa, guilty as charged.
I wouldn't say that it does, but that part about "baa baa baa" comes across a little sheepy.
The summary may have jumped the gun a little, but the article does present some interesting evidence with regard to theoretical color:
The microscopes revealed a number of small structures all less than a micrometre long. In shape and size, they are identical to the melanosomes of modern birds. There include two broad categories. The phaemelanosomes are rod-like and produce phaeomelanin, a reddish-brown or yellow pigment, while the eumelanosomes are more spherical in shape and produce black-grey eumelanin.
Variations of that color:
In some cases, the fossil feathers are clearly striped by bands of pigment and the alleged eumelanosomes only turn up in the dark ones, just as you'd expect.
Just not absolute proof of specific color:
We don't even know how melanosome distributions in modern birds lead to specific colours.
My interpretation of the first and 3rd quote is that, perhaps, on a microscopic level we see the cell structures that produce variations of X and Y color, but like pixels on a screen, the overall color may be quite different.
Do you mean CJD? If MS suggests a lack of prions you have to ask if they are missing because they are misfolded, or because your body did not produce them in sufficient numbers. A failure to produce prions should technically protect you from CJD as they can't run amok in your brain if they aren't there.
I don't think this case means what you (or TFS) think it means. I can't read the massively article at work, but the JoongAng article just seems to suggest these guys ran afoul of some regulation meant to prevent exchanging real money via on-line gambling and they were to be fined 8 million won as a result. The judge ruled that, because the game in question was skill based (not luck based), it was not gambling, and they were acquitted.
Acquitted of what, I don't know. The article was kind of vague on that.
If there is no competing non-DRM product to buy, my non-purchase wallet-vote isn't worth a damn.
The only people counting non-sales are filing them under "sales lost to piracy" which count for DRM media, not against it. In your Democracy analogy this is slightly worse than the equivalent of not voting. It's pundits claiming that non-voters are probably the terrorists that the candidates are trying to stop.
But can we vote with our wallets? Let's face facts, no matter how stongly you or I oppose these measures; Joe Public will probably just buy a new player with that fancy DRM stuff. Hoping that this DRM will not be accepted in significant numbers is optimism bordering on naivete. They will spin it as a value add, and the public will buy it. If all the content producers come together and stand firm behind this DRM scheme, they will still make money on said public, and effectively eliminate consumer choice for us (piracy is not a real 'consumer option').
I think it is more realistic to think this will be the case; and in the event that it is: what are our options? Are they running afoul of some FTC regulation relating to price fixing and anti-competitive behavior? Or will we have to file a class action suit, on the dwindling hope that Fair Use still means something to the courts?
The planet is mostly water; why not drop it in the middle of the Pacific? A tsunami seems better than a dust cloud blocking out the sun because we put it down in the Sahara. Then we could try to detonate nuclear weapons around it to disperse the the wave, and post it on youtube. Because that would be crazy-awesome.
And I could make the flash site accessible to search engines and the blind (Sorry, blind search engines, no support yet). Flash is not incapable of being standards compliant, it is just attractive to lazy web-developers who couldn't care less.
Slashdot Mirror
Using the Gemini Observatory, follow-up spectroscopic analysis has detected methane and water vapor in its atmosphere.
I must be new here.
Are they saying this is thought to be the only brown dwarf (thus far) to have water vapor and methane due to its low temperature? Or are they saying this is the only brown dwarf close enough to detect such things?
The US once had enough weapons to raze every city of more than 10,000 in the entire world.
Seems unnecessary and excessive.
Realistically, a hundred vs a few thousand just doesn't seem to matter. Even with 100 we could completely wipe China off the Earth and likely induce a nuclear winter.
I don't know what the issue is...
Pulling this out of my ass here:
I believe the point of having 100 times the MAD dose, apart from the obvious penis waving privileges, is that it means if Russia gets in a cheap shot that neutralizes 99% of our arsenal; we can still eradicate the species with the remaining 1%. No amount of sabotage or defense network will be 100% effective, thus: Deterrent maintained.
Conversely: If we only had 100, Soviet-Era Russia would have had no problem going all out against us if they could take out 99 of them before they hit. We're all dead, they lose Moscow. Deterrent Fail. This is also the point of the ABM treaty. It all goes toward the US and Russia having absolutely no hope of "winning" a nuclear exchange; such that they will both forever refrain from entering one.
You could probably keep 10+ mice, quite comfortably, in the volume of space an adult pig takes up. I could probably keep 100 caged mice in my office, with ample room for them to run around and live relatively normal mouse-lives; whereas a single pig would probably be tearing this place up and demanding half* its body weight in food everyday. It would be ridiculous.
No, the logical solution here is to find out which gene we need to turn off to make mice taste like pork and just go from there.
This post paid for by Monsanto and a grant from the Moreau Foundation.
Macon: It ain't just a city in Georgia
*IANAPF
You ignore morality. Some people refuse to do things because they believe they are wrong.
I am intentionally ignoring morality to keep this simple. I find it is impossible to assert that moral injury has an objective value without descending into a debate on moral relativism.
As I said - and you ignored - you 1) can't pretend to know ahead of time that you'll definitely get away with such an action, 2) make yourself dependent on the failures of others, and 3) encourage others to violate your rights in the future.
1)Don't have to, the penalty is acceptable.
2) You're welcome to explain whatever that means, because it sounds like you're saying that trying to buy a foreclosed home is somehow irrational because your success depends on the failure of others to pay their mortgage. It sounds like an ethical quandary, not an objective valuation.
3) I encouraged them to exploit the legal loophole surrounding money trees. I will put my money in a bank.
As for your specific incident,
1) I stipulated that the money is not confiscated.
2) Irrelevant, there won't be repeat incidents; nor would any be required.
3) Demonstrably false/irrelevant: I'm rich, don't need a job. Not everyone is going to know, or even care about what I did, some people would even see it as a plus (like my hypothetical homeless chums).
And what do you do with your money? Assuming people are acting rationally and unwilling to trade with someone who is well known for stealing from the money tree, you would be unable to buy from anyone.
That is incredibly naive.
Look, the scenarios that could be labeled "theft" comprise an incredibly complex set of data with nigh infinite variation. To claim that each and every one of those scenarios comes out as a net loss is just silly on the face of it. To claim that not a single antagonist in that dataset could have objectively determined his net gain before hand (ie: rationally) is beyond preposterous.
The rational choice is that which is objectively determined to be in the interest of your life. Thus, theft is always irrational, as it is never in the interest of your life to steal - you violate the rights of others, you make yourself dependent on the failures of others, you cannot pretend to know enough to properly assess the situation (Y), and you encourage others to violate your rights in the process.
Nonsense. This is a simple cost-benefit analysis. Suppose I'm homeless and penniless. If the penalty for stealing 10 million dollars from an endangered money tree is a fine of $100,000 and a year in white collar prison trading high-fives with my fellow inmates, and I get to keep the money, then I would be up $9,900,000. That is an objectively measurable improvement in my circumstances, end of story.
You desire something X much. Your perception of the consequences finds them to be of Y severity.
if(X>Y){
stealing = rational
} else {
stealing = irrational
}
You may be wrong about Y, but given the set of information you behaved rationally. In other words: If you feel you would benefit a net life-improvement by taking the object, it seems rational to do so. Doesn't mean it's ethical, but the debate of moral absolutes and human nature is another subject entirely.
Bus Per Owl
Are you working on the MTAC too? Bus/Owl is a unit of measure for the multiple token Avian Carrier network architecture we're developing.
The reason, quite obviously, is that those things are awesome.
IG-88, Gonk, R2-D5, that one in cloud city.. and um.... damn. Geek-fail
your time is worth so little to you that you're more than happy to spend your time making up for the failures of the people who provide you with gadgets and software to do their jobs better. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be getting actual work done or having fun with our gadgets.
I merely demonstrated that the assertion that I, as a competent windows user, must either have no time to enjoy myself or be some kind of masochist with OCD; is utter bullshit. Does it makes you feel better to paint me as some kind of mutant merely because I am comfortable with an OS you find formidable and obnoxious? If not, then stop it. I understand people's decision to avoid windows. What I object to is being insulted in the course of defending that choice; it is completely superfluous and intellectually dishonest.
I want tools that DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO
I just want tools that do what I want them to do. If I want to scrape grout out with my screwdriver, who is Craftsman to tell me I can't? I accept that I might hurt the screwdriver if using it for things other than driving screws. I'm a big boy, I think I can handle that responsibility. This whole rant here:
When I want to use a web enabled device, I want to just surf the goddamn web. I don't want to spend 30 minutes checking for the latest viruses and exploits, scanning my system, and dealing with all that bullshit - I just want to surf the web and do whatever it is I'm going to do there. When I want to install an application on my computer I don't want to have to dick around with making sure permissions are right or that all dependencies are met or any of that - I just want to click as few buttons as possible and then use the application.
Total fabrication or serious, compound, operator error
Time to update virus definitions: 10-15 seconds, in the background, at boot. That's right, my computer does it for me; with nary an apple in sight.
Steps required to surf web safely: click the icon for my browser du jour; or [win],i if I don't have a quarter second to spare.
Steps to install and launch most software: "Accept the EULA"; "Pick a folder"; "Next", "Finish".
Let's see, what other maintenance do I do to keep this incomprehensible and beastly OS running... Defrag every year or two? Update my video card driver as a new game may require?
Wow, when I lay it all out like that, it's a wonder I can get anything done.
If not wasting my time ... makes me a sheep, then baa baa baa, guilty as charged.
I wouldn't say that it does, but that part about "baa baa baa" comes across a little sheepy.
The microscopes revealed a number of small structures all less than a micrometre long. In shape and size, they are identical to the melanosomes of modern birds. There include two broad categories. The phaemelanosomes are rod-like and produce phaeomelanin, a reddish-brown or yellow pigment, while the eumelanosomes are more spherical in shape and produce black-grey eumelanin.
Variations of that color:
In some cases, the fossil feathers are clearly striped by bands of pigment and the alleged eumelanosomes only turn up in the dark ones, just as you'd expect.
Just not absolute proof of specific color:
We don't even know how melanosome distributions in modern birds lead to specific colours.
My interpretation of the first and 3rd quote is that, perhaps, on a microscopic level we see the cell structures that produce variations of X and Y color, but like pixels on a screen, the overall color may be quite different.
More likely factors:
Having no means to control an internet full of Flash apps and games vs the App Store
Hulu, Netflix, and the like vs iTunes video.
Do you mean CJD? If MS suggests a lack of prions you have to ask if they are missing because they are misfolded, or because your body did not produce them in sufficient numbers. A failure to produce prions should technically protect you from CJD as they can't run amok in your brain if they aren't there.
Insert photo of a drone with such a disclaimer painted on it's belly: flying at 20,000 feet.
"Happy now? We tried having the drone project it on the ground as it loitered overhead, but that was way too creepy" - Big Brother
That way you can stop all them tractor thieves and cashpoint burglers.
Right along with the tractor or cashpoint; thus preventing any future crimes involving them.
They need to hop on ye ole usenet and download something.
I don't think this case means what you (or TFS) think it means. I can't read the massively article at work, but the JoongAng article just seems to suggest these guys ran afoul of some regulation meant to prevent exchanging real money via on-line gambling and they were to be fined 8 million won as a result. The judge ruled that, because the game in question was skill based (not luck based), it was not gambling, and they were acquitted.
Acquitted of what, I don't know. The article was kind of vague on that.
I've not yet read Diamond Age, but I am looking forward to shouting unpleasantries at my neighbor's Library grapes when he isn't around.
If there is no competing non-DRM product to buy, my non-purchase wallet-vote isn't worth a damn.
The only people counting non-sales are filing them under "sales lost to piracy" which count for DRM media, not against it. In your Democracy analogy this is slightly worse than the equivalent of not voting. It's pundits claiming that non-voters are probably the terrorists that the candidates are trying to stop.
But can we vote with our wallets? Let's face facts, no matter how stongly you or I oppose these measures; Joe Public will probably just buy a new player with that fancy DRM stuff. Hoping that this DRM will not be accepted in significant numbers is optimism bordering on naivete. They will spin it as a value add, and the public will buy it. If all the content producers come together and stand firm behind this DRM scheme, they will still make money on said public, and effectively eliminate consumer choice for us (piracy is not a real 'consumer option').
I think it is more realistic to think this will be the case; and in the event that it is: what are our options? Are they running afoul of some FTC regulation relating to price fixing and anti-competitive behavior? Or will we have to file a class action suit, on the dwindling hope that Fair Use still means something to the courts?
The planet is mostly water; why not drop it in the middle of the Pacific? A tsunami seems better than a dust cloud blocking out the sun because we put it down in the Sahara. Then we could try to detonate nuclear weapons around it to disperse the the wave, and post it on youtube. Because that would be crazy-awesome.
I could misuse images in much the same way.
And I could make the flash site accessible to search engines and the blind (Sorry, blind search engines, no support yet). Flash is not incapable of being standards compliant, it is just attractive to lazy web-developers who couldn't care less.
Our competitive practices aren't like your competitive practices.