The fiddle freaks of the world have yet to clone a Stradivarius.
Every bottle of wine tastes different to wine snobs.
In principle it is possible to make absolutely unique items.
In practice you just have to make cloning prohibitively expensive.
So when something's clonable iff you have a spare wafer fab capable of handling interesting geometries and strange substrates, or the signal is clonable iff you're willing to haul around a quarter ton of DSP racks, then it's _practically_ unclonable.
Really you folks, need to be thinking more Stradivarius, or Stevie Ray's Stratocaster, and cogitating on the way your brain can identify a song given just a fraction of a second, to understand how even cheap RFID tags can be made practically unclonable.
And I'm only thinking of passive tags and tiny amounts of power.
Wasn't Ted Glum's talk at COMDEF-2008 fascinating?
Well, what Russia did is small potatoes compared to what America's foreign policy has been for quite some time. They have attacked a country without provocation and have been occupying it for the past 5 years
What a pile of horseshit.
If you're talking about Iraq*, its actions under Saddam Hussein were perfect examples of provocation. Indeed, Iraq acted so badly that President Bill Clinton -- a Democrat and therefore a super-genius! -- President Clinton repeatedly launched missiles in its general direction.
It's good that you're able to forget, just to make a smartassed comment.
if the US set the example returning to a non-interventionist foreign policy
If the US did that you'd be bitching about the ISOLATIONIST United States.
Because you're just another aintellectual working backwards from the conclusion "the United States is wrong" and selectively omitting facts until you've got a cute little joke.
-- * it's necessary to have this qualifier, because the fantasyland you inhabit might have the United States invading Canadia or Oblivia and occupying Dakistan for the past five years.
Another thing that occurred to me is that this entire article and all it represents are merely a ploy on the part of Big Oil to put the idea of wind power in a bad light. [emph. added]
Only 1.1% of US electricity is from oil, and that is as a stopgap when a coal train is delayed etc., and the rare use of petroleum coke.
Why do people think we burn oil for electricity? The research is very easy to do:
eia.doe.gov
I've got it memorized just for these occasions. EIA dot DOE dot GOV
The NIST report does not explain news reports as that is not their job.
And major network news reported it falling while it was still standing in plain sight behind them.
Duh Media have an aversion to accuracy. Basing anything on what Duh Media reports is hazardous. It is unfortunately possible, even likely, that a reporter can stand in front of a fact and misreport that fact.
But in this instance, they may have been correct. WTC 7 could very well have been falling down during their reports, with beams giving way bolts severing and whatnot, just not enough to be obvious in a news clip.
In any case, you're basing far too much on hurried reportage. Duh Media are idiots and liars on their best days, and whether a day when 3000 Americans died was one of their good days is unfortunately still an open question.
All the radioactive material we could be using to turn water into steam to power electrical generators is already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now
The point of a nuclear reactor is to burn the fuel faster than natural decay, by the process called a "chain reaction." I think Otto Hahn and Enrico Fermi did some work in this area;-)
the 'scarcity' of nuclear fuels
Everything heavier than iron is a potential nuclear fuel. Because with chain reactions and their resultant neutron fluxes, we can make anything radioactive. The supernovas made these tall stacks of energy, all we need to do is add a few neutrons here and there to topple them over.
Conversely, we can take things that are radioactive and "pre-split" their atoms to more stable isotopes before burying them.
The problems with nuclear power are political, and that means they are intentional.
the real key IMHO is a detailed education in history
Seconded! Scientific developments make more sense in historical context.
What generally passes for history education is actually a summary of an idealized point of view about what happened on a bunch of dates
- and that's for the lucky ones! Rumors and propaganda are the modern historian's stock-in-trade.
Herodotus alone displays more skepticism than all 20th century historians combined.
The good news is that historical sciences like archeology are rescuing History from the historians. It will be a slow process, because the scientists themselves are victims of the historians' political perversions, and likewise skepticism is being devalued even in the sciences.
How do we deal with an untrustworthy media?
Shoot them. Until that's made legal, do as you suggest, "compare different sources to learn more."
Real history education begins with researching the original sources, or as close as you can come.
One of my favorite places on the whole wide Internet is Fordham's Ancient History Sourcebook. Their more modern sourcebooks are typical products of modern historiography, and may be valuable to document the rates of perversion, but the study of Ancient History began centuries before the modern trends and the brilliance of the Ancients themselves shines through.
That being said, it really is 'just a theory' as one can NEVER prove it. Not EVER. Not even with a time machine, because if it were true it would be damn hard to record the event without altering it dramatically.
The universe is a time machine that has preserved evidence of its inflation.
The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy--although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).
What if socialists are more narrow, short-sighted and selfish than any capitalist in history?
Hell, there ain't no "what if."
Socialists, and the Left in general, are narrow, short-sighted, and the level of hypocrisy attained by their selfishness-for-me-but-not-for-thee attitude requires uncountable infinities to grasp.
Notice that the most hard-core socialists, even back to Robert Owen, are rich, usually through the capitalist hard work of their immediate ancestors. "It is easy to be socialist if you're rich."
Socialism is the ultimate feel-good, spoiled brat belief system. By that, I mean that its purpose is to make spoiled brats feel good about their idiot selves. Instead of making themselves better, they seek to make themselves feel better.
They think they help the poor by taking from the rich and pocketing the cash. "Hate the rich" until you are rich, then target "corporations" until you own them too. The short-sightedness feeds the hypocrisy.
Of course that makes them feel good. All guilt is absolved because their intentions feel good. It's not stealing, it's not selfish, and it feels so good.
That is the narrow view and short-sightedness of the Socialist. Nobody has ever come up with a better way to rationalize pure hedonism - not Caligula, nor Bentham.
Socialism is a parasitic system that can only exist at the sufferance of Capitalism. Socialism produces nothing, moves no goods, adds no value.
Capitalism is the natural extension of trade, and is a human right.
Keep in mind that 90% of all Southern Ossetians hold russian citizenship.
How did they come by this citizenship?
Obviously, many were born in the USSR. So were the ethnic Georgians, but they are now Georgian citizens.
Seems that Russia left this convenient foot in the door for their Everlasting Quest for a warm water port.
Next, Armenians will be declared Russian citizens. Then all inhabitants of any area that was at any time considered part of Greater Armenia. Since this includes Cilicia, they will have their warm water port.
That's easier than declaring all the Turkish people to be Russian citizens. Russia has tried for centuries to control Constantinople, with Cilicia they will not have to.
It doesn't look like their old plan through Afghanistan to Baluchistan is going to happen, and that's George Bush's fault. It will take too long for Iran to crumble enough to give Russia a pretense, so scratch that idea and make Iran an ally.
The oil companies have thousands of miles of land that they have already leased from the government and have full permission to drill. They aren't doing it. Having access to more land isn't the problem. This is all a spin campaign. Why is it so hard to see that?
Not all land is equal.
Not all offshore territory is equal.
Some is economic to produce, some is not.
Your stupid "spin campaign" conspiracy theory falls by these simple, obvious facts.
Why do people fall for conspiracy theories? Conspiracy theories are so damn stupid.
Furthermore, leases are for acres, square miles, or other area measures, not linear miles. I point this out because you are a moron who can't even parrot your chosen bullshit correctly - it's unlikely you committed a typo.
we are already 10 trillion dollars in debt destroying things, perhaps that money would be better spent on a plan to grow some crops to eat.
That is a weird sentence fragment.
The first part, before the comma, complains about the debt. The debt is three-quarters unconstitutional socialist programs. The first part of the fragment correctly says that such spending destroys things - lives, businesses, subcultures, and even farms. Economists know this as The Invisible Foot.
Then, in the second part, the fragment contradicts itself by saying that unconstitutional socialist spending should be used destroying farms, families, and markets.
If we ditch the unconstitutional autogratuity programs there would be no debt whatsoever. And we would have plenty of money to spend on constitutional requirements of common defense and general welfare.
Happy Birthday NASA Now Go Away
on
NASA Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
Since the military space programs are larger than NASA, shouldn't they get more money?
I am not so sure a civilian space program is a worthwhile goal. Most astronauts come from the military. The military was the Space Shuttle's best customer. The military has legitimate uses for the high frontier.
And as demonstrated earlier this year, the U.S. military can clean up its own space messes.
Fold NASA back in to the military.
Commission astronauts so they can make territorial claims. Make planting the flag a national goal. Pulp all the America-limiting treaties and recycle them into flight manuals.
The civilian space agency is a relic of the Cold War, like the "under God" of the revised Pledge of Allegiance, and both should be got rid of.
The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored.
Exactly correct.
It's pathetic
Not really, as that would mean others should have pathos for these lying sacks of shit. "Disgusting" might be a better choice.
George Bush, for example, claims to be a Christian. Hasn't he heard "thou shalt not kill?" Yet when he was Governor of the state that executes more men than any other state, he executed more men than any other Governor of that state. How could anyone who believed the Bible act like that?
Slashdot Mirror
The fiddle freaks of the world have yet to clone a Stradivarius.
Every bottle of wine tastes different to wine snobs.
In principle it is possible to make absolutely unique items.
In practice you just have to make cloning prohibitively expensive.
So when something's clonable iff you have a spare wafer fab capable of handling interesting geometries and strange substrates, or the signal is clonable iff you're willing to haul around a quarter ton of DSP racks, then it's _practically_ unclonable.
Really you folks, need to be thinking more Stradivarius, or Stevie Ray's Stratocaster, and cogitating on the way your brain can identify a song given just a fraction of a second, to understand how even cheap RFID tags can be made practically unclonable.
And I'm only thinking of passive tags and tiny amounts of power.
Wasn't Ted Glum's talk at COMDEF-2008 fascinating?
Well, what Russia did is small potatoes compared to what America's foreign policy has been for quite some time. They have attacked a country without provocation and have been occupying it for the past 5 years
What a pile of horseshit.
If you're talking about Iraq*, its actions under Saddam Hussein were perfect examples of provocation. Indeed, Iraq acted so badly that President Bill Clinton -- a Democrat and therefore a super-genius! -- President Clinton repeatedly launched missiles in its general direction.
It's good that you're able to forget, just to make a smartassed comment.
if the US set the example returning to a non-interventionist foreign policy
If the US did that you'd be bitching about the ISOLATIONIST United States.
Because you're just another aintellectual working backwards from the conclusion "the United States is wrong" and selectively omitting facts until you've got a cute little joke.
--
* it's necessary to have this qualifier, because the fantasyland you inhabit might have the United States invading Canadia or Oblivia and occupying Dakistan for the past five years.
I would love to teach creationism and ID.
I could even do it in a science class, if that class was archaeology.
Another thing that occurred to me is that this entire article and all it represents are merely a ploy on the part of Big Oil to put the idea of wind power in a bad light. [emph. added]
Only 1.1% of US electricity is from oil, and that is as a stopgap when a coal train is delayed etc., and the rare use of petroleum coke.
Why do people think we burn oil for electricity? The research is very easy to do:
eia.doe.gov
I've got it memorized just for these occasions. EIA dot DOE dot GOV
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
Electricity comes from coal, nuclear, and natural gas in that order.
I guess it's just easier to make up a conspiracy theory that fits political prejudice than do any actual research or thought.
The NIST report does not explain news reports as that is not their job.
And major network news reported it falling while it was still standing in plain sight behind them.
Duh Media have an aversion to accuracy. Basing anything on what Duh Media reports is hazardous. It is unfortunately possible, even likely, that a reporter can stand in front of a fact and misreport that fact.
But in this instance, they may have been correct. WTC 7 could very well have been falling down during their reports, with beams giving way bolts severing and whatnot, just not enough to be obvious in a news clip.
In any case, you're basing far too much on hurried reportage. Duh Media are idiots and liars on their best days, and whether a day when 3000 Americans died was one of their good days is unfortunately still an open question.
All the radioactive material we could be using to turn water into steam to power electrical generators is already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now
The point of a nuclear reactor is to burn the fuel faster than natural decay, by the process called a "chain reaction." I think Otto Hahn and Enrico Fermi did some work in this area ;-)
the 'scarcity' of nuclear fuels
Everything heavier than iron is a potential nuclear fuel. Because with chain reactions and their resultant neutron fluxes, we can make anything radioactive. The supernovas made these tall stacks of energy, all we need to do is add a few neutrons here and there to topple them over.
Conversely, we can take things that are radioactive and "pre-split" their atoms to more stable isotopes before burying them.
The problems with nuclear power are political, and that means they are intentional.
It should be noted that President Clinton cut the military - manpower, order of battle, the whole show - some 40%.
Not quite in half, but close enough.
The results have been on display in Georgia for about a week.
4E+08 Gbit/s Plaid!
I've always thought that was a joke about the Doppler effect.
Russian peace keepers
Russia has not had peace keepers since the Mongols "pacified" them!
'nuff said.
the real key IMHO is a detailed education in history
Seconded! Scientific developments make more sense in historical context.
What generally passes for history education is actually a summary of an idealized point of view about what happened on a bunch of dates
- and that's for the lucky ones! Rumors and propaganda are the modern historian's stock-in-trade.
Herodotus alone displays more skepticism than all 20th century historians combined.
The good news is that historical sciences like archeology are rescuing History from the historians. It will be a slow process, because the scientists themselves are victims of the historians' political perversions, and likewise skepticism is being devalued even in the sciences.
How do we deal with an untrustworthy media?
Shoot them. Until that's made legal, do as you suggest, "compare different sources to learn more."
Real history education begins with researching the original sources, or as close as you can come.
One of my favorite places on the whole wide Internet is Fordham's Ancient History Sourcebook. Their more modern sourcebooks are typical products of modern historiography, and may be valuable to document the rates of perversion, but the study of Ancient History began centuries before the modern trends and the brilliance of the Ancients themselves shines through.
That being said, it really is 'just a theory' as one can NEVER prove it. Not EVER. Not even with a time machine, because if it were true it would be damn hard to record the event without altering it dramatically.
The universe is a time machine that has preserved evidence of its inflation.
God hates idiots.
The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy--although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).
What if socialists are more narrow, short-sighted and selfish than any capitalist in history?
Hell, there ain't no "what if."
Socialists, and the Left in general, are narrow, short-sighted, and the level of hypocrisy attained by their selfishness-for-me-but-not-for-thee attitude requires uncountable infinities to grasp.
Notice that the most hard-core socialists, even back to Robert Owen, are rich, usually through the capitalist hard work of their immediate ancestors. "It is easy to be socialist if you're rich."
Socialism is the ultimate feel-good, spoiled brat belief system. By that, I mean that its purpose is to make spoiled brats feel good about their idiot selves. Instead of making themselves better, they seek to make themselves feel better.
They think they help the poor by taking from the rich and pocketing the cash. "Hate the rich" until you are rich, then target "corporations" until you own them too. The short-sightedness feeds the hypocrisy.
Of course that makes them feel good. All guilt is absolved because their intentions feel good. It's not stealing, it's not selfish, and it feels so good.
That is the narrow view and short-sightedness of the Socialist. Nobody has ever come up with a better way to rationalize pure hedonism - not Caligula, nor Bentham.
Socialism is a parasitic system that can only exist at the sufferance of Capitalism. Socialism produces nothing, moves no goods, adds no value.
Capitalism is the natural extension of trade, and is a human right.
Socialism is crap.
It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not.
If you think it's hard to teach biology now, just wait until the so-oversold-it's-ridiculous AGW doesn't pan out.
Piltdown Man times 1000.
Welcome to the Dark Ages, bitches.
The US is going to get criticized by someone for any choice it could possibly make, including doing nothing.
This applies to much, much more than just satellite disposal.
Keep in mind that 90% of all Southern Ossetians hold russian citizenship.
How did they come by this citizenship?
Obviously, many were born in the USSR. So were the ethnic Georgians, but they are now Georgian citizens.
Seems that Russia left this convenient foot in the door for their Everlasting Quest for a warm water port.
Next, Armenians will be declared Russian citizens. Then all inhabitants of any area that was at any time considered part of Greater Armenia. Since this includes Cilicia, they will have their warm water port.
That's easier than declaring all the Turkish people to be Russian citizens. Russia has tried for centuries to control Constantinople, with Cilicia they will not have to.
It doesn't look like their old plan through Afghanistan to Baluchistan is going to happen, and that's George Bush's fault. It will take too long for Iran to crumble enough to give Russia a pretense, so scratch that idea and make Iran an ally.
The Second Great Game is well underway.
The oil companies have thousands of miles of land that they have already leased from the government and have full permission to drill. They aren't doing it. Having access to more land isn't the problem. This is all a spin campaign. Why is it so hard to see that?
Not all land is equal.
Not all offshore territory is equal.
Some is economic to produce, some is not.
Your stupid "spin campaign" conspiracy theory falls by these simple, obvious facts.
Why do people fall for conspiracy theories? Conspiracy theories are so damn stupid.
Furthermore, leases are for acres, square miles, or other area measures, not linear miles. I point this out because you are a moron who can't even parrot your chosen bullshit correctly - it's unlikely you committed a typo.
Average electricity consumption is right around 1 kilowatt
That depends on how much somebody likes the source of the energy.
For instance, a house powered by "renewable" energy only needs 500 watts.
The same house, powered by renewable nuclear energy, requires 5000 watts.
Even a rough estimate using 2001 numbers shows that 1kW/house is too low by about 50%. DIY,D.
But reporters are imbeciles, and all their editors died a long time ago.
we are already 10 trillion dollars in debt destroying things, perhaps that money would be better spent on a plan to grow some crops to eat.
That is a weird sentence fragment.
The first part, before the comma, complains about the debt. The debt is three-quarters unconstitutional socialist programs. The first part of the fragment correctly says that such spending destroys things - lives, businesses, subcultures, and even farms. Economists know this as The Invisible Foot.
Then, in the second part, the fragment contradicts itself by saying that unconstitutional socialist spending should be used destroying farms, families, and markets.
If we ditch the unconstitutional autogratuity programs there would be no debt whatsoever. And we would have plenty of money to spend on constitutional requirements of common defense and general welfare.
Since the military space programs are larger than NASA, shouldn't they get more money?
I am not so sure a civilian space program is a worthwhile goal. Most astronauts come from the military. The military was the Space Shuttle's best customer. The military has legitimate uses for the high frontier.
And as demonstrated earlier this year, the U.S. military can clean up its own space messes.
Fold NASA back in to the military.
Commission astronauts so they can make territorial claims. Make planting the flag a national goal. Pulp all the America-limiting treaties and recycle them into flight manuals.
The civilian space agency is a relic of the Cold War, like the "under God" of the revised Pledge of Allegiance, and both should be got rid of.
The truth of the matter is conversations originating overseas from known or suspected terrorist organizations to their contacts in the U.S. may be monitored.
Exactly correct.
It's pathetic
Not really, as that would mean others should have pathos for these lying sacks of shit. "Disgusting" might be a better choice.
George Bush, for example, claims to be a Christian. Hasn't he heard "thou shalt not kill?" Yet when he was Governor of the state that executes more men than any other state, he executed more men than any other Governor of that state. How could anyone who believed the Bible act like that?
Because he put his duty above his faith?
Naw, couldn't be, that does not fit the template!
enforce the usage of braces everywhere (e.g. disallow if (something) action; ): no misformatting will hide a trivial but dangerous bug
Another benefit: it lowers the "cost of modification" if you brace even one-liners. They may not always be one-liners.
Obama's junket must be funded by the United States taxpayers because Saddam Hussein is dead and can no longer buy Democrats.
similar to how in English you would say "this building" but "that bug" even if both of them are right next to you
Then there is the case where the building was the bug.
Yes, I am trying to be a smart ass.