Legislating against spam has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever. It has everything to do with poisoning the commons. If we, as a society, can enact laws saying it is illegal for a mining company to dump 10,000 litres of cyanide into a river, then we can also enact laws saying it is illegal for Alan Ralsky to dump ten billion rolex spams into the world's routing hardware.
I wonder if "I'm quitting this shithole organization" counts as a threatening phone call. Because in that case at least one of those 8139 calls came from Paul Haggis.
First, it's not like I'm ceding control of my heart muscle to an external device, just some sensation in my fingertips.
Second, I assume this would enforce some kind of secure pairing protocol akin to Bluetooth that would eliminate 99.9% of hacking attampts.
Finally, if it enables touch-based feedback, then by definition this is a technology that works at a scale of centimetres or less. If somebody is being a jackass, they are certainly within arms-reach where I can deliver a realtime smack upside the head.
What if instead of implanting these kinds of tactile feedback mechanisms in every single device I touch, I were to get programmable implants under the skin of each fingertip? That way the implant could respond to signals being sent from external devices and generate sensations to "fool" my nerves into perceiving depth or some other kind of feedback. If the implants had sufficient resolution, you could even encode other kinds of information in the feedback like the outlines of letters of other symbols. Could be a real productivity enhancer, and it eliminates the need to add complex, energy-consuming parts to hundreds or thousands of smart devices.
Then you start to see netbooks in those big centre aisle bins at WalMart under a sign that says "Price Drop! $24.87", and consumers react accordingly when they see service providers offering a similar netbook for free.
I can generally tell when I'm on a long-distance voice call that uses sat relay rather than a terrestrial link. More episodes when both parties unintentionally talk over one another, followed by an awkward silence as each politely waits for the other to resume.
I thought I read somewhere that lead is exactly the wrong thing to use if you're shielding against cosmic rays. While cosmic rays themselves are most likely to pass right through human bodies or sensitive electronics without "hitting" anything important. If you shield with lead, the cosmic rays do an excellent job busting alpha (or was it beta) radiation loose from the lead itself, which then wreaks havoc when those particles collide with humans or electronics in the surrounding environment.
Particle physicists, please chime in here and correct my (I am sure numerous) errors.
Your neighbor actually won't be ticked off when he finds out. Quite the contrary, he's gonna be highly aroused and in the mood for a wet & messy threesome. He's also extremely well endowed and has been eyeing you for some time already.
So in summary, you're still hoping the LHC destroys the planet before he gets home.
The definitions I learned are broadly similar to yours, but make no mention whatsoever of "Nato" and "Warsaw Pact." Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume your paradigm is the one and only correct one.
... and many, many more. This stuff really isn't difficult to find unless you're covering your ears with your hands and singing 'I can't hear you. LA LA LA LA. I can't hear you.'
The idea that Anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of any warming is where the debate is
No serious climate scientist is even claiming the above. Along with CO2, methane and HCFC's are known to be GHG and are accounted for in the models... along with variations in solar output, atmospheric water vapour, and other factors.
Some of the above are anthropogenic (e.g. methane from livestock production), some are feedback loops (e.g. melting permafrost releasing trapped CO2 and methane), and some are beyond our control (e.g. solar output). None of this changes the fact CO2 emissions have played a part in changing climate, and will continue to do so. The fact the climate is a hideously complex system that we can't adequately model shouldn't comfort you, it should scare the bejeezus out of you; we are messing with something we can't even begin to understand let alone control.
Yup, Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so. What Earth hasn't been doing for billions of years is supporting a single species who's civilization utterly depends on stable crop yields, stable weather patterns, and a stable climate. If humans go ahead and alter atmospheric chemistry enough to reduce rainfall and crop yields by 20% across several major agricultural regions, the Earth will be just fine with that. The atmosphere and climate have been changing for millenia. You know who won't be fine with it though?
Us.
As a species humans already appropriate well over half the productive ecological capacity on this planet (estimates I've seen range to as high as 90%), so anything we do to appreciably diminish that ecological capacity will hit one species particularly hard.
Us.
Earth, however, will soldier on, whether with a human population of around 10 billion, a dramatically reduced human population, or no human population at all.
When loggers measure in board feet, they call them board feet not yards. When drive makers (or whoever else) measure in kibibytes, they call them kilobytes not kibibytes.
Slashdot Mirror
Legislating against spam has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever. It has everything to do with poisoning the commons. If we, as a society, can enact laws saying it is illegal for a mining company to dump 10,000 litres of cyanide into a river, then we can also enact laws saying it is illegal for Alan Ralsky to dump ten billion rolex spams into the world's routing hardware.
I wonder if "I'm quitting this shithole organization" counts as a threatening phone call. Because in that case at least one of those 8139 calls came from Paul Haggis.
First, it's not like I'm ceding control of my heart muscle to an external device, just some sensation in my fingertips.
Second, I assume this would enforce some kind of secure pairing protocol akin to Bluetooth that would eliminate 99.9% of hacking attampts.
Finally, if it enables touch-based feedback, then by definition this is a technology that works at a scale of centimetres or less. If somebody is being a jackass, they are certainly within arms-reach where I can deliver a realtime smack upside the head.
If you're that excited by the idea of simulated nipples, there are already numerous options out there to satisfy you.
What if instead of implanting these kinds of tactile feedback mechanisms in every single device I touch, I were to get programmable implants under the skin of each fingertip? That way the implant could respond to signals being sent from external devices and generate sensations to "fool" my nerves into perceiving depth or some other kind of feedback. If the implants had sufficient resolution, you could even encode other kinds of information in the feedback like the outlines of letters of other symbols. Could be a real productivity enhancer, and it eliminates the need to add complex, energy-consuming parts to hundreds or thousands of smart devices.
How much will it cost to get you to respond to this thread again? I'll take up a collection.
Then you start to see netbooks in those big centre aisle bins at WalMart under a sign that says "Price Drop! $24.87", and consumers react accordingly when they see service providers offering a similar netbook for free.
I can generally tell when I'm on a long-distance voice call that uses sat relay rather than a terrestrial link. More episodes when both parties unintentionally talk over one another, followed by an awkward silence as each politely waits for the other to resume.
I thought I read somewhere that lead is exactly the wrong thing to use if you're shielding against cosmic rays. While cosmic rays themselves are most likely to pass right through human bodies or sensitive electronics without "hitting" anything important. If you shield with lead, the cosmic rays do an excellent job busting alpha (or was it beta) radiation loose from the lead itself, which then wreaks havoc when those particles collide with humans or electronics in the surrounding environment.
Particle physicists, please chime in here and correct my (I am sure numerous) errors.
... does it run dd-wrt?
A few small points of information for you:
Your neighbor actually won't be ticked off when he finds out. Quite the contrary, he's gonna be highly aroused and in the mood for a wet & messy threesome. He's also extremely well endowed and has been eyeing you for some time already.
So in summary, you're still hoping the LHC destroys the planet before he gets home.
Find a way to turn it into a positive. Just think of it as the ultimate Buddhist training.
The definitions I learned are broadly similar to yours, but make no mention whatsoever of "Nato" and "Warsaw Pact." Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to assume your paradigm is the one and only correct one.
Bacon remnants are fairly easy to wipe (or indeed, lick) off a smooth surface like a touch pad.
mentalimage.erase(slashdotposterwholicksbacon);
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JAMC1880.1&ct=1
http://jae.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ejp002
... and many, many more. This stuff really isn't difficult to find unless you're covering your ears with your hands and singing 'I can't hear you. LA LA LA LA. I can't hear you.'
The idea that Anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of any warming is where the debate is
No serious climate scientist is even claiming the above. Along with CO2, methane and HCFC's are known to be GHG and are accounted for in the models ... along with variations in solar output, atmospheric water vapour, and other factors.
Some of the above are anthropogenic (e.g. methane from livestock production), some are feedback loops (e.g. melting permafrost releasing trapped CO2 and methane), and some are beyond our control (e.g. solar output). None of this changes the fact CO2 emissions have played a part in changing climate, and will continue to do so. The fact the climate is a hideously complex system that we can't adequately model shouldn't comfort you, it should scare the bejeezus out of you; we are messing with something we can't even begin to understand let alone control.
Please elaborate on "modern climate theory says it never happened."
You must be one of those green socialist ecoterrorist freedom haters ... with your fancy logic and elitist education.
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming
they charged me a $5,000 "dispute penalty"
I have a hunch this would be something a state AG would be interested in hearing about.
Yup, Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so. What Earth hasn't been doing for billions of years is supporting a single species who's civilization utterly depends on stable crop yields, stable weather patterns, and a stable climate. If humans go ahead and alter atmospheric chemistry enough to reduce rainfall and crop yields by 20% across several major agricultural regions, the Earth will be just fine with that. The atmosphere and climate have been changing for millenia. You know who won't be fine with it though?
Us.
As a species humans already appropriate well over half the productive ecological capacity on this planet (estimates I've seen range to as high as 90%), so anything we do to appreciably diminish that ecological capacity will hit one species particularly hard.
Us.
Earth, however, will soldier on, whether with a human population of around 10 billion, a dramatically reduced human population, or no human population at all.
Nobody is a disinterested party.
Whatever your views on AGW, if you live on this planet you are not disinterested in this issue.
Unless she's actively smashing into people as she runs, this doesn't strike me as particularly rough treatment for a netbook.
I've taken it apart and put it together about 12 times now
I think we can all stop wondering why netbooks have high failure rates.
When loggers measure in board feet, they call them board feet not yards. When drive makers (or whoever else) measure in kibibytes, they call them kilobytes not kibibytes.