Slashdot Mirror


User: meme

meme's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
52
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 52

  1. slow and enjoyable on Review: "Unbreakable" · · Score: 1

    "Unbreakable" takes it's time. If you want "smash" "bOoM" "Bang", I'd suggest the Batman TV series.

  2. New Nader TV message on More Candidate Answers - Bush and Hagelin · · Score: 1

    Ralph Nader has a new TV message. http://www.msnbc.com/news/483645.asp

  3. Re:The "P" word on Cheap, Paper RF ID Tags To Replace Barcodes? · · Score: 1

    Everything takes place in small steps. First it's a paper tag, tomorrow it's another not too big of a deal tagging system. If you don't believe in privacy, take the shades off your windows, leave your door unlocked and email me your social security number, credit card number and oh, wear this tag up your ass, it's small, nothing really. Try to think for yourself... If it's no big deal, then why are they doing it? have fun~play well

  4. Re:The postman on A Minor Political Screed · · Score: 1

    Go John Go! I think David Brin has dreams of being a corporation himself. What's good for David Brin Inc is good for you and me America. Is this the David Brin Decade? VoteNader.org

  5. Yeah Right!! on Why Does The Universe Exist? · · Score: 1

    The difference between science and religion? Give me a break!! The difference is you have a God Concept with no feature for discussion. You God concept done it the way you say and that's the final answer. Science is theory. There is discussion. The big bang theory is open to such discussion. You won't be burned at the stake for not believing in it. The big bang theory doesn't state that one day a man whose been dead for one thousand years is gonna rise up from the grave and take over the world. And the big bang theory doesn't advocate that you stone your rebellious son in the middle of the town square because he refuses to believe what you believe. Just to rant a few points on the difference between science and religion.

  6. If we didn't exist on Why Does The Universe Exist? · · Score: 1

    If we didn't exist, wouldn't we all be sitting around wondering about the probability of not existing? Shouldn't we be worrying about big rocks in space that could destroy our planet?

  7. Napster right to be wrong on Napster Usage Quadruples · · Score: 1

    Oh my me! When corporations are run over by new technology, everyone crys. What about the tens of thousands of workers who lost their jobs in the 80's due to technology. When technology advances and hurts us, we are told to buckle down, work harder, get re-trained, it's our fault for being so stupid. But when the same technological advancement hurts corporations, we told, technology bad, technology evil! Hey CorpGovLLC, get re-trained, work harder, buckle down, technology good, technology the engine that could, we have a booming economy due to these technology advancements, don't be such a luddite.

  8. tell me who i am on Your Tivo Is Watching You · · Score: 1

    The whole point of digital is it's control. While our elected represetatives act like the world is decentralizing, digital is making it possible to track everyone, everywhere, everytime. Like Supertramp's Logical Song...soon we all will be told who we are. Soon, the nanochip inside your head will read your thoughts before you do. And if approved, you will be allowed to think the thought. Welcome to the 21century. Everything is under control. Aren't you the least bit curious about whose? They'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, crimminal, unacceptible... ...please tell me who i am, who i am...

  9. Kary Mullis is right on Apocalypse Missed: Asteroid Near Miss · · Score: 1

    Kary Mullis, winner of the nobel prize in chemistry, in his book "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" states, we as a planet should be working on the astroid problem What good is technological advancement if we can be wiped out tomorrow by a big rock. Our survival in the universe should be job 1. All our other differences and bickering seems kinda petty in comparison to the threat of gigantic rocks in space. Let's use Star Wars technology to combat an asteroid, or there won't be a planet to live on, let alone dominate. Good idea, don't you think?

  10. Re:Oh, grow up, guys! on Slashback: Suffrage, Product, Broadcasting · · Score: 1

    Since when is talking about committing a crime, a crime? Sounds like the "police state" has finally arrived. Of course...there may be a flip side to this...let's see...i could talk about sex...oh yeah, it's actually happenin', let's talk some more!!!!!

  11. Re:Life is mostly sugar, water, salt, and amino ac on Scientists Discover Interstellar ... Sugar? · · Score: 1

    It is soooo nice to know that we finally have 'scientific' evidence that we exists, ie, that there is life in the universe. One would wonder why our very presents does not confirm it, but i guess there are those who must be 'scientifically' convinced. After all, i wouldn't want to have a theorm about there being life in the universe based merely on the fact that there is (us)life in the universe, that would be utterly preverse. Is there life on the moon, sillyboy, of course there is life on the moon. The moon is alive. Just because it has better sense than to join in your conversation pondering is there life in the universe when you know darn well that there is. Now maybe with this 'scientific' fact, we can start asking why other life forms do not talk to us. Then again, if you're still asking "is there life in the universe" maybe it's that they are ignoring us. Oh thank goodness once again that we have 'proof' that we exists. Not only do we exist, but now we have 'proof' that is is possible to exists!!! Is there somewhere i can apply to get some money paid to me to prove that the sun is hot? Or better still, that there might be other suns out there. Is this truely a great time to be alive...indeed it is...for now we know it is possible to be alive!!! What a breakthrough.

  12. Re:Coherent....ramble..[ot] kinda on At The Crossroads · · Score: 1

    It amazes me as an atheist that those who claim all things come from a god are the first to protect someones copyright over god's gifts. You people are not only insane, your greedy and selfish too. Shame on you!

  13. Re:Look at this as a marketing dilemma on Open Source Leaders Speak About Napster · · Score: 1

    Why is it that everytime the consumer (working poor) gets the edge it's wrong, but Microsoft Billionaire Bill Gates can complain he's losing money from priracy. When he gets to be the first Trillionaire he'll still be complaining. Why is that Microsoft became this giant company because the government was threating to break up IBM so they dared not created an operating system of their own and ran to Bill Gates because of government interference and Bill Gates was all right with that, but now he's crying. As the King of England once said of the people in america during 1776, the people are revolting.

  14. Re:a brief history of work... on How many hours did you work this week? · · Score: 1

    A CEO of a company put up a sign in the hall, "Think" it read. After about a month of nothing getting down, the CEO took down the old sign and replaced it with a new one, "Work" it read.

  15. god concepts suck on Quantum Evolution Poses Challenge to Darwinism · · Score: 1

    If life can't just happen in some manner, then how the hell could a god just happen? If life was created by a god concept, then where did that first cause come from. A god concept ain't no answer, if anything it is at all, it be a question. why does your god concept need 10% of my money, aint it got its own money? why was your god concept so weak, he rested. on and on it can go...

  16. what are we... on "Please Die": Freedom From Speech · · Score: 1

    >>Online mirrors the outside world. What are we, in prison?

  17. Re:Movie/book about killer common cold? (slightly on New Antiviral May Cure Common Cold · · Score: 1

    Yeah,War of the worlds ended like that, yeah. It was the infectious air we breath everyday and are immune to that got them. We didn't attack them with it, it just got into their ships and into them when they foolishly stepped outside without any protection. ...Maybe scientist should invent a giant condom that fits over our entire body...

  18. Re:The Microbe's Banquet on New Antiviral May Cure Common Cold · · Score: 1

    Hey, What a great insightful post. Thanks. Does mankind want to take on regulating and controling the planet? Are we comfortable cutting down rain forests? The rain has to fall somewhere don't it? Won't that rain begin falling massively onto our land? Do we really want to start allowing children to be born who can't handle something like the common cold because medication has allowed them to escape the common cold experience? Will the day come when any infection will kill us if we get it? Are we that afraid of being at dis ease? Are we really that afraid of simply slowing down and taking a day or two to rest? What's next, a cure for sleep? Catching a common cold is a warning sign...you are worn out people, slow down, rest. A common cold is a warning sign...your community is being neglected. People who have a general sense of well being and experience less stress, are healthier. Scientists are hoping to allow overworked stressed out individuals to keep on creating consumer goods so CorpGovLLC can squeeze out yet another point toward the bottom line. Personally, sleep is the last excuse i'm allowed to leave the factory floor to do. Please don't find a cure for it. Or at least before you do, eliminate work. The only thing a body oughta do 24/7 is party.

  19. Re:keep the common cold around? on New Antiviral May Cure Common Cold · · Score: 1

    >>okay, i feel stupid posting this Fear not! For you have hit the nail on the head! It is natural selection that will allow the common cold to grow stronger with this attack on its purpose in life and will come back as a viral King Kong disease! The common cold allows our bodies to keep in shape to fight other more powerful viral infections. Sort of like a workout which if we ignore, we'll fall suseptible to more deadly diseases and strains of viral patterns. Not to mention eliminating excuses for missing work for a day or two (what are we thinking playing into the hands of CorpGovLLC). Take a day off darn it! Enjoy that viral cold!

  20. Re:Nano-technology on Science in 1999 · · Score: 1

    Ranton, This isn't a real science list. It's a propaganda list of newspeak. Nano-technology is real science and doesn't qualify for this list. Try to find N. Tesla on any scientist list, it's Westinghouse man.

  21. Re:This is stupid! Kiddie Porn? on Science in 1999 · · Score: 1

    I have a broad definition of Kiddie Porn, maybe it should be broader and include "Science News". Is this really a list or is it merely a list of the things you better think of for SAT questions and Santa's "Who's been good or bad" list. Guran is right, "Some bacteria is actually good for you". What a radical concept! oh and as long as CorpGovLLC has you focused on your countertop at home, you're not looking at what CorpGovLLC is doing to your air and water. So keep that counter top clean and bacteria free. We'll fix everything with GMO and stuff at the corporate level.

  22. Re:creating blackholes. on Science in 1999 · · Score: 1

    Ivor Catt, 121 Westfleds, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England 9aug97 This is an incomplete synopsis, written up hurriedly for Nigel Cook, who has run away. Catt's electromagnetic theory. Catt's theories should be partitioned into segments. Some are firmly held, others are conjecture. Even among the firmly held, the survival of one segment does not depend on the survival of another. For instance, the contrapuntal model for a charged capacitor can exist within Theory N, Theory H or Theory C. After 35 years of research, far longer than that normally taken for a researcher to arrive at a revolutionary theory, the product is not just one theoretical system which either succeeds or fails. Similarly, the assertion that a capacitor is a transmission line has no linkage with Theory C. In some cases, different segments of Catt theories first appeared at times 20 years apart. For instance, the Catt Anomaly arose nearly a third of a century later than the discovery that a capacitor is a transmission line. The implications of the latter for classical e-m theory took a gestation period of 20 years. The present situation has arisen because every one of Catt's theories, including those discovered 30 years ago and even those published 20 years ago, are unknown to 99% of electronic engineers and University Readers in Electromagnetism. Further, these people do not know that Catt and his co-authors have made any claims. Few university lecturers have heard of Theory C. Less than one electronic engineer in a thousand has heard the claim that a capacitor is a transmission line, so that the concept of self-resonant frequency is nonsense. Theory C. This is Catt's great contribution. It takes its place in a series of theories. Theory N. Electric current/charge causes field. Thhis is the traditional, reigning theory. Theory H. "We reverse this" - Oliver Heaviside, circa 1875. The travelling e-m field causes the electric current. Theory C. There is no electric current. - Catt, circa 1975. When a battery is connected via two wires to a lamp which glows, there is no electric current. Catt's contrapuntal model for the charged capacitor. Energy current travelling at the speed of light is delivered to a capacitor guided by two conductors. It enters the capacitor, and reciprocates (vacillates) in the space between the plates at the speed of light for the dielectric. There is no mechanism for this reciprocating energy current to slow down. A steady charged capacitor contains energy current, all travelling at the speed of light. When energy current travels towards a capacitor guided by two conductors, entry into the capacitor is exactly the same as entry into a transmission line of different characteristic impedance Zo. Classical theory treats the capacitor differently from the transmission line. In the former, displacement current must generate magnetic field. In the transmission line, displacement current (the front face of e TEM wave) must not generate magnetic field. This is the dislocation in classical theory, which destroys it. Modelling a crystal out of TEM waves. This is highly conjectural, and obviously inadequate because two-dimensional, whereas crystals are 3D. The vortex. Catt's earliest attempts to write a text book exploited the vortex. However, Catt's later Wireless World july79 article juxtaposes the vortex against the slab. The vortex is now dead. The ruling model for Catt at all levels is the e-m wave or vacillating e-m wave. One might appear to restore the vortex by constructing a crystal out of interacting TEM waves, or an electron out of 'vortexing' TEM waves, but this is not the revival of the vortex. It is the exploitation of the slab/TEM wave, using what little we know about how TEM waves interact, which is very little indeed. The single velocity universe. The concept of Maxwell, if he says anything at all, which is doubtful, actually asserting c as minimum as well as maximum velocity for anything, is a major contribution. More seriously, Catt has seen energy current travelling at the single velocity, and reasoned that all sorts of problems arise if other (slower) velocities are suggested. i'm looking for the url on this...using the name of Raeto West in a search engine may give you more. How Much of Modern Physics is a Fraud? © Phil Holland and Raeto West 1998, 1999 -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ "Casting false pearls before real swine" - anonymous lecturer -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 1. Atomic Bomb: proof of the correctness of modern physics? 2. 'Superfluid Helium': a Lucrative Fraud? [2.1 Outline | 2.2 Open University Dissected] 3. Is the Speed of Light a Limit? 4. Is quantum theory credible? 5. Heisenberg's absurd probability error 6. How much trust can be put in particle detection techniques? 7. Do particle accelerators give useful results? 8. What is wrong with relativity? [8.1 Introduction | 8.2 G B Brown's paper]

  23. Re:cookies? are you insane? on Cookies, Ad Banners, and Privacy · · Score: 1

    >>Now that makes me uneasy. Are you insane!? It makes you uneasy that people can know what medical condition you've been looking up on the web!? It makes you uneasy that people can know you visit religious sites AND porn sites. I'm not religious, i'm an atheist, but this is crazy. No one has a right to hire a detective and follow you around just to find out how they can target ads at you. Is there nothing you wouldn't allow someone to do to you in the name of profit? ...just wondering

  24. Hitchhikers guide to: on Quantum Computing for Dummies · · Score: 1

    According to the Hitchhikers guide to the Universe, i believe the answer to life's question is 42. Hopefully someday in the future, we'll be able to check this answer.

  25. discovered about.com on World Wide Web "Shrinking" · · Score: 1

    About.com is a search engine. About also has what they call guides. Actual people who use the net. Enter a search and the first few list pages are sites reccommeded by the guides. There's other features also. Where we visit on the web makes a difference on how the web interacts with us. About.com is a step in the right direction.