You can go arbitrarily fast by simply getting closer and closer to the speed of light.
Because people want to get to far away solar systems before they go supernova... not after. While it may seem like very little time has passed for you, the universe continues to age around you, which poses a real problem.
Most people also want to be able to come back to their friends and families, before they've all died.
Near-light-speed travel will work within our solar system, and initially to the next few nearest solar systems, but eventually, we are going to need something much, much faster.
BBC are trialling HD-TV over digital terrestrial signal in the UK. So, exactly what resolution are you guys using that's "far, far higher"?
That leads to the question: Are you really this stupid, or are you just trolling?
They are just trialing HD resolutions right now, the whole UK isn't switching to HD right now, as we are in the US. The set-top-boxes the OP was referring to are for standard-definition digital TV.
The US, however, is switching to HDTV right now, at the same time it is switching to digital. So, just getting a set-top-box won't give you the benefits of HDTV, although what the OP proposed is not only possible, but exactly what is happening.
If you are smart, do your research and invest wisely, such as by diversifying, you can come out pretty darn well.
The stock market is inherently risky. You have absolutely no guarantees that you will turn a profit, or even avoid losing all of your money. It's not all up to knowledge either, you could just be massive unlucky and invest at just the wrong time (before a bubble bursts).
How is downloading streaming video from arbitrary sites like CNN going on Linux?
Quite well, actually. Install MPlayer, win32dlls, and MPlayerplug-in for Mozilla/Firefox, and you're pretty well set. There's always a bug somewhere that makes a video here and there unplayable, but it's still better than the situation on Windows, and far better than what you're stuck with on Macs.
Windows P4 HT 2.8ghz didn't fare much better. Despite that fact that it had double the memory, less crap in the background and fewer active filters and had a cpu 3-4 times faster it could barely keep up. As soon as I tried to deinterlace it it started to get choppy with random freezing as MS could apperantly not supply the data fast enough.
Windows really, really, really blows at video playback. I honestly don't know why that is. Perhaps someone that knows Windows far better than I do can explain why a tiny little VCD clip will take 50% of a 2+GHz CPU for playback.
Linux and BSD however, are absolutely freakin' wonderful at the task. With MPlayer, I can deinterlace 1080i content on the fly, even in CPU-intensive codecs like WMV9 (which has to use the binary win32 DLLs) on my relatively slow and old 1.6GHz AMD CPU. h.264 playback is about half realtime, I'm sorry to say, but that's sure to improve as that codec gets more and more optimized, as well as when I get a faster videocard.
I've been using this old slow system for 4+ years now, and it might still become quite usable as a DVR beyond my transition into HDTV, and into the forseeable future.
Perhaps the move to multicore pc's will solve some of this. My P3 despite being only 800mhz can still keep up aminzgly well considering a p4 2.8 fails as well.
Actually, no. SMP has the advantage of handling more interrupts than a single CPU, and being better at doing multiple things at once, but video decoding is not something that can easily be multithreaded without a performance penalty, so a single CPU that is 2X as fast, is better than 2 CPUs 1/2 as fast.
thermocline, solar, biodiesel, wind, tidal turbine, wave generated, etc.: these are all very cute boutique energy sources. but when all put together and maxed out in terms of realization of potential they won't dent 5% of our energy needs
While I agree that many more nuclear reactors should be built, your numbers are really not fair. Any one of those sources could provide 5% of our energy needs on it's own, if deployed widely. Solar and biodiesel in particular both have the potential to provide for well over 100% of the energy we need now and into the future.
The question is really one of return on investment, as solar takes some time to pay off, and there is some resistance to biodiesel that will have to be overcome.
the poorest pay little direct property tax (they tend to rent or live in low cost housing)
When you rent, you are paying property taxes indirectly, that doesn't mean they aren't paying at all.
while consuming the bulk of the benefits
Which is exactly as it is supposed to be. We don't make programs like social security for the RICH, we make them for the poor.
Are you just subtly trying to say we shouldn't have any programs for the poor?
and the highest income individuals tend to pay high direct property taxes (since they tend to live in expensive homes and own businesses)
Actually, the rich tend to find tax shelters to avoid paying the taxes they are otherwise required to.
and reap few if any of the direct benefits
Once again, they reap a lot of the INDIRECT benefits.
The only way to substantially enjoy ones wealth is to spend (i.e., consume) it - if you have $1B USD in corporate bonds and stocks and spend only $20K a year, your lifestyle is not much different from a fairly low paid worker BUT your $1B is helping create and sustain jobs.
You get a tremendous benefit out of having money, period.
The rich would also be a much, much larger boon to the economy if they spent their money, rather than locking it up in stocks or bonds, period.
Your whole argument is based upon a buch of these half-facts, misdirection, a few blatant lies, etc.
While neither extreme is probably healthy, it seems to be ridiculous to tax Frugal more heavily than HighRoller.
It would be ridiculous, but that isn't the situation. Our current tax is based on income and, to a lesser extent, sales, not wealth. You are proposing a flat tax which is very hard on the poor and very, very easy on the rich, on the grounds of some made-up tax code that does not exist in the real world.
A consumption tax on all goods and services, with a "per person" rebate (or voucher/credit) of some baseline amount seems to be the best thing for "progressive fairness" in taxation.
Not even remotely true. The voucher only helps for the poorest of the poor, and those that don't qualify get royally screwed.
The less you make, the higher percentage of your income will be spent. So someone like Bill Gates will be paying barely any tax relative to his income, while someone middle-class will be paying astronomical taxes, relative to his income.
"Rich" people will end up paying a lot of taxes
Bullshit, see above.
there's not much else that can happen.
Bullshit, see above.
I have to say, I'm getting really quite tired of this flat tax astroturfing on/.
Set-top boxes are EXACTLY what is going to be used in the US for those who don't want to buy a new HDTV, so what the hell is the point of your post?
The difference between the US and Europe is that the US is also switching to far, far higher resolutions in the process, so there's no possible way you can get all the benefits of the new digital broadcasts with an old TV.
If you are poor, elderly or uneducated TV should be the last thing you are worrying about.
You are saying that because the only thing you happen to watch is mind-numbing crap on TV. Those who are uneducated and/or poor can benefit greatly from televised educational programs, as well as news, politics, etc.
I am absolutely ASTONISHED just how popular your point of view is, here on/.
You can already pick up HD signals with your crappy rabbit ears
That's not true at all, unless you're in an INCREDIBLY strong signal area. Rabbit ears are for VHF, and ATSC is UHF. Besides requiring a different antenna, that also significantly drops the maximum range of broadcasts from 100+ miles down to approx 60 miles.
In conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about.
That means that, even though the body is NOT receiving an opiate, SOMETHING is binding to the opiate receptor sites (endorphins, maybe?). When the receptor sites are blocked the placebo does not work, when they are not blocked, it does work.
Or the answer could be much simplier... It could just be that the naxolone is having some noticable physical effect, which tips off the patient to the fact that they aren't recieving morphine.
It understands multiple OSes (including Windows XP)
Does it understand women? That feature might be helpful.
Although it might not "understand" Windows, Lilo has no problem booting them.
is very flexible and easy to use and uses a highly ethical license.
Lilo is much easier to use IMO. And yes, it has that "torture" clause in it's license, so, it's license, not being GPL, is unethical.
Oh... and it doesn't require you to reinstall it after you make a change to it's config file like LILO does.
Yes, I know, that takes hours out of your day, and changing the config file is something people do CONSTANTLY. Seriously, if you can't remember to do something that simple, put "/sbin/lilo" it in your rc.shutdown script and never think about it again.
Personally, I prefer Lilo just because it is 1000Xs faster to boot up into single-user mode (no need to switch into line-editing mode, decide which of the 20 lines of the boot config you want to write "single" into, etc.) or add any other simple options to the boot-up command-line I might wish to try.
No need to read any further. I have spoken.
If you've spoken, I wouldn't be reading this, and you wouldn't need to tell me not to read any further. Or do you speak while typing? And in that case, do you ever actually laugh, or do you just say l-o-l?
Think about it, tv used to be free, now virtually evenyone has cable/satellite subscriptions.
TV never had 100+ channels for free. You chose between getting 7 channels for free, or getting 100+ for very little (Dish is about $25/month). And it's not "virtually everyone". It may be a large majority, but that still leaves tens of millions of households excluded.
As a matter of fact, I believe the transition to DTV/HDTV will result in many people switching back to free TV. There's only a handful of cable/satellite channels worth watching (IMHO) and they're not worth $40+ per month.
Radio used to be free, still is, but now everyone is jumping to satellite radio and their attached subscriptions.
Actually, very few people are subscribing to satellite radio. I must admit that free radio has gotten rather crappy, with increasing ammounts of time dedicated to commercials, and companies like Clear Channel taking over, and playing the same crap songs over and over again.
Taping shows on your vcr is still free, however now everyone and their dog runs Tivo, sending a monthly check to them for the priviledge.
Operating VCRs aren't free, unless your VHS tapes last absolutely forever. Also, Tivos will work just fine if you chose not to pay the monthly fee... You just get fewer days of listings in advance, and a few other limitations which still make it better than a VCR.
Personally, I converted a PC running Linux to a DVR about 4 years ago, and couldn't be happier. For less than the cost of a Tivo, I can not only record, and time-shift, but I can also compress programs to MPEG-4 or any other codec I like, and edit out commercials to save space, record videos from TV/Internet/DVDs to CD/VCD/DVD, etc. More expensive than a VCR initially, but so much less hassle than manually programming the timer and switching tapes, I would have paid many many times more for it...
Personally when you're raising a family and making a budget I don't see how all of these subscriptions are neccessary.
Air, food, and shelter are the only things that are strictly necessary. People, however, chose to put their money into things that aren't strictly necessary because they enjoy it, feel it makes their life easier, etc. Having something to watch on your 100+ channels, rather than going through 6 staticy channels with nothing you can stand, is simply worth $25+ to most people.
Of course we have to have our monthy cell phone bills...
I certainly don't. Very rarely are cellphones necessary in even the broadest sense of the term. I'm very happy with a landline and answering machine.
An interesting idea, but the devil is in the details.
People have differing opinions of what is clean. The fee for an unclean room is MUCH too high. Requiring people to clean the rooms after they've used them is just a bad idea.
I think you could just improve the automated cleaning system somewhat, and eliminate the need for manual cleaning entirely. Air filtering systems would be quite expensive, and pure outside air (possibly heated/cooled) would be fine. HEAVY noise insulation is a must. Some sort of simple, built-in alarm clock with radio and nature sounds could make things much more plesant. I wouldn't stack 2, I'd stack 10! A simple walkway and stairs for each 2-high row, of course.
The 1.7 and 2.1 GHz frequencies that are the subject of this article don't bounce off the ionosphere worth a shit either.
No they don't skip, but they propogate via groundwave just fine, hence, you don't need direct line-of-sight everywhere.
Imagine a cellphone that drops the call if a bird goes between you and the top of the 90GHz radio tower. Imagine a cellphone that can't recieve calls while clipped on your belt.
Infrared is the PERFECT model for what happens at 30GHz+... It's like communicating by invisible light. Absolutely anything will block the signal.
Those frequencies will simply not work worth a crap on the ground. They will, however, work wonderfully with satellites, as you always have line-of-sight, and can mount an antenna (dish) where practically nothing will block the line-of-sight between you and the satellite.
Why does our government feel the need to auction off the spectrum?
Without that money as an incentive, they wouldn't be spending millions upon millions of dollars switching frequency in the first place.
Why can't they just increase the amount of availble spectrum ear marked for general purpose use?
Maybe because the currently available public-use bands are just stagnating? The CB frequencies are really wide-open, and still practically nobody is using them. With newer radio technologies, those frequencies could be used for quite fast networks, that could span many miles (through building, around mountains, etc). They can even be skipped off the ionosphere for ranges in the hendreds of miles.
Selling the spectrum will only accomplish two things: 1) Make some rich companies richer. 2) reduce innovation because only said companies can use the newly availble spectrum.
Spectrum isn't infinitely valuable. These rich companies may pay more for the spectrum than they ever make back on their investment. Otherwise, everyone would be buying.
I also can't see how this will reduce innovation at all. There's nothing entirely unique about this spectrum, so others will just have to "innovate" with frequencies that are higher/lower than this, and will have the same end effect.
In the article they talk about pain relief by a placebo, so pain is not a totally real bullet either: pain is quite influenced by the mind even without placebo.
Pain can be ignored by the mind, but I really wouldn't say pain is influenced by the mind (in any other way that that).
Maybe I'm just an exception, and not susceptible to suggestion, but I know I've had many times that something hurt a lot more than I expected, or a lot less than I expected. Obviously, if the mind had any influence on pain, that wouldn't have been the case.
Once I shielded me for the pain of a dying nerve in a tooth by reading a book, and a dying nerve in a tooth is *quite* painful,
Again, that's just ignoring pain, not at all convincing yourself that there isn't any pain there.
Placebo is interesting specifically because the suggestion changes everything. People don't feel better after getting a placebo instead of morphine if they KNOW that they are getting a placebo.
Of course some people say that there would be no innovation without patents... I contend that such an assertion is not true, and that the lack of artificial government granted monopolies (patents) would result in a constant "arms race" situation where companies would be forced to innovate constantly or die.
It is much, MUCH, MUCH cheaper to copy the work of someone else, than to fund the research necessary to discover/develop the concept in the first place. So, if it costs only $10 million to develop (a tiny ammount) something like practical hydrogen extraction & storage methods, and it only costs your competitors $1 million to appropriate your newly developed methods for themselves, you'll be out of business. Period. Trade-secrets only work so far, and keeping new developments secret is necessarily bad for the advancement of science.
Look at how military technology advances... the US is forced to constantly work on developing better battle technology exactly because there is no way to prevent our competitors from using what has already been invented. I mean, it's not like we could patent the nuclear bomb and keep Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc. from using it...
That works precisely because this is not an entirely free-market system. It works because we won't buy Chinese imitations of American-designed weapons. They would be a lot cheaper! Defense is not a profit-making industry, so it doesn't follow the same rules. Each country IS going to develop their own technologies, even if they can BUY them cheaper elsewhere.
I think we can agree on extensive reforms of the patent system, but doing away with it entirely is a horiffic idea.
TETRA operates in the 380-383 MHz or 390-393 MHz range, yet these are still high enough frequencies to neccesitate a dense network of repeaters, and still it doesn't penetrate too far into buildings, which is of great concern to e.g. firefighters. Of course, since it's already cost billions to partially implement (so far), they can hardly call the whole thing off.
What? You can't possibly convince me they didn't already KNOW the limitations of those frequencies long before they even designed the system. The propogation of different frequencies of radio signals has been extremely well-known for a very, very long time, so acting like they were surprised at how poorly ~400MHz penetrates buildings (only after spending billions on the system) is completely crazy.
Still wonder if it could be a glitch in your burning software? as you're the only such case I've heard of, and not only myself but also all my clients use LiteOn drives, w/o any problems.
I'm certainly not the only one with the issue. It's well-known that Lite-on drives don't write subchannel data, causing problems particularly with older audio CD players which expect that info. You can just try to set your drive to a slightly lower speed and watch it still record at maximum (4X was the only expection in my experience).
Anyhow, these are usually the kinds of problems that you won't even notice if you only use the discs on a computer. Audio CD players, VCD players, DVD players etc., are when you start seeing symptoms of Lite-on's dedication to broken-ness.
Slashdot Mirror
Because people want to get to far away solar systems before they go supernova... not after. While it may seem like very little time has passed for you, the universe continues to age around you, which poses a real problem.
Most people also want to be able to come back to their friends and families, before they've all died.
Near-light-speed travel will work within our solar system, and initially to the next few nearest solar systems, but eventually, we are going to need something much, much faster.
That leads to the question: Are you really this stupid, or are you just trolling?
They are just trialing HD resolutions right now, the whole UK isn't switching to HD right now, as we are in the US. The set-top-boxes the OP was referring to are for standard-definition digital TV.
The US, however, is switching to HDTV right now, at the same time it is switching to digital. So, just getting a set-top-box won't give you the benefits of HDTV, although what the OP proposed is not only possible, but exactly what is happening.
See first question.
The stock market is inherently risky. You have absolutely no guarantees that you will turn a profit, or even avoid losing all of your money. It's not all up to knowledge either, you could just be massive unlucky and invest at just the wrong time (before a bubble bursts).
Anyone saying otherwise is a fool.
Quite well, actually. Install MPlayer, win32dlls, and MPlayerplug-in for Mozilla/Firefox, and you're pretty well set. There's always a bug somewhere that makes a video here and there unplayable, but it's still better than the situation on Windows, and far better than what you're stuck with on Macs.
Windows really, really, really blows at video playback. I honestly don't know why that is. Perhaps someone that knows Windows far better than I do can explain why a tiny little VCD clip will take 50% of a 2+GHz CPU for playback.
Linux and BSD however, are absolutely freakin' wonderful at the task. With MPlayer, I can deinterlace 1080i content on the fly, even in CPU-intensive codecs like WMV9 (which has to use the binary win32 DLLs) on my relatively slow and old 1.6GHz AMD CPU. h.264 playback is about half realtime, I'm sorry to say, but that's sure to improve as that codec gets more and more optimized, as well as when I get a faster videocard.
I've been using this old slow system for 4+ years now, and it might still become quite usable as a DVR beyond my transition into HDTV, and into the forseeable future.
Actually, no. SMP has the advantage of handling more interrupts than a single CPU, and being better at doing multiple things at once, but video decoding is not something that can easily be multithreaded without a performance penalty, so a single CPU that is 2X as fast, is better than 2 CPUs 1/2 as fast.
While I agree that many more nuclear reactors should be built, your numbers are really not fair. Any one of those sources could provide 5% of our energy needs on it's own, if deployed widely. Solar and biodiesel in particular both have the potential to provide for well over 100% of the energy we need now and into the future.
The question is really one of return on investment, as solar takes some time to pay off, and there is some resistance to biodiesel that will have to be overcome.
When you rent, you are paying property taxes indirectly, that doesn't mean they aren't paying at all.
Which is exactly as it is supposed to be. We don't make programs like social security for the RICH, we make them for the poor.
Are you just subtly trying to say we shouldn't have any programs for the poor?
Actually, the rich tend to find tax shelters to avoid paying the taxes they are otherwise required to.
Once again, they reap a lot of the INDIRECT benefits.
You get a tremendous benefit out of having money, period.
The rich would also be a much, much larger boon to the economy if they spent their money, rather than locking it up in stocks or bonds, period.
Your whole argument is based upon a buch of these half-facts, misdirection, a few blatant lies, etc.
It would be ridiculous, but that isn't the situation. Our current tax is based on income and, to a lesser extent, sales, not wealth. You are proposing a flat tax which is very hard on the poor and very, very easy on the rich, on the grounds of some made-up tax code that does not exist in the real world.
Not even remotely true. The voucher only helps for the poorest of the poor, and those that don't qualify get royally screwed.
The less you make, the higher percentage of your income will be spent. So someone like Bill Gates will be paying barely any tax relative to his income, while someone middle-class will be paying astronomical taxes, relative to his income.
Bullshit, see above.
Bullshit, see above.
I have to say, I'm getting really quite tired of this flat tax astroturfing on
The question should really be why Europe decided to use a different standard than the US (as usual).
Set-top boxes are EXACTLY what is going to be used in the US for those who don't want to buy a new HDTV, so what the hell is the point of your post?
The difference between the US and Europe is that the US is also switching to far, far higher resolutions in the process, so there's no possible way you can get all the benefits of the new digital broadcasts with an old TV.
You are saying that because the only thing you happen to watch is mind-numbing crap on TV. Those who are uneducated and/or poor can benefit greatly from televised educational programs, as well as news, politics, etc.
I am absolutely ASTONISHED just how popular your point of view is, here on
That's not true at all, unless you're in an INCREDIBLY strong signal area. Rabbit ears are for VHF, and ATSC is UHF. Besides requiring a different antenna, that also significantly drops the maximum range of broadcasts from 100+ miles down to approx 60 miles.
In conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about.
I sincerely doubt $40 will help much with your tuition.
Or the answer could be much simplier... It could just be that the naxolone is having some noticable physical effect, which tips off the patient to the fact that they aren't recieving morphine.
I just can't imagine how anyone can consider that easier than Lilo:
Select kernel (With Arrow Keys)
Type "1" or "single" or whatever you like
Hit Enter
Call me crazy, but that's a shitload fewer steps, far, far, far less typing, and no special knowledge required (which config line for grub again?).
Does it understand women? That feature might be helpful.
Although it might not "understand" Windows, Lilo has no problem booting them.
Lilo is much easier to use IMO. And yes, it has that "torture" clause in it's license, so, it's license, not being GPL, is unethical.
Yes, I know, that takes hours out of your day, and changing the config file is something people do CONSTANTLY. Seriously, if you can't remember to do something that simple, put "/sbin/lilo" it in your rc.shutdown script and never think about it again.
Personally, I prefer Lilo just because it is 1000Xs faster to boot up into single-user mode (no need to switch into line-editing mode, decide which of the 20 lines of the boot config you want to write "single" into, etc.) or add any other simple options to the boot-up command-line I might wish to try.
If you've spoken, I wouldn't be reading this, and you wouldn't need to tell me not to read any further. Or do you speak while typing? And in that case, do you ever actually laugh, or do you just say l-o-l?
TV never had 100+ channels for free. You chose between getting 7 channels for free, or getting 100+ for very little (Dish is about $25/month). And it's not "virtually everyone". It may be a large majority, but that still leaves tens of millions of households excluded.
As a matter of fact, I believe the transition to DTV/HDTV will result in many people switching back to free TV. There's only a handful of cable/satellite channels worth watching (IMHO) and they're not worth $40+ per month.
Actually, very few people are subscribing to satellite radio. I must admit that free radio has gotten rather crappy, with increasing ammounts of time dedicated to commercials, and companies like Clear Channel taking over, and playing the same crap songs over and over again.
Operating VCRs aren't free, unless your VHS tapes last absolutely forever. Also, Tivos will work just fine if you chose not to pay the monthly fee... You just get fewer days of listings in advance, and a few other limitations which still make it better than a VCR.
Personally, I converted a PC running Linux to a DVR about 4 years ago, and couldn't be happier. For less than the cost of a Tivo, I can not only record, and time-shift, but I can also compress programs to MPEG-4 or any other codec I like, and edit out commercials to save space, record videos from TV/Internet/DVDs to CD/VCD/DVD, etc. More expensive than a VCR initially, but so much less hassle than manually programming the timer and switching tapes, I would have paid many many times more for it...
Air, food, and shelter are the only things that are strictly necessary. People, however, chose to put their money into things that aren't strictly necessary because they enjoy it, feel it makes their life easier, etc. Having something to watch on your 100+ channels, rather than going through 6 staticy channels with nothing you can stand, is simply worth $25+ to most people.
I certainly don't. Very rarely are cellphones necessary in even the broadest sense of the term. I'm very happy with a landline and answering machine.
An interesting idea, but the devil is in the details.
People have differing opinions of what is clean.
The fee for an unclean room is MUCH too high.
Requiring people to clean the rooms after they've used them is just a bad idea.
I think you could just improve the automated cleaning system somewhat, and eliminate the need for manual cleaning entirely.
Air filtering systems would be quite expensive, and pure outside air (possibly heated/cooled) would be fine.
HEAVY noise insulation is a must.
Some sort of simple, built-in alarm clock with radio and nature sounds could make things much more plesant.
I wouldn't stack 2, I'd stack 10! A simple walkway and stairs for each 2-high row, of course.
No they don't skip, but they propogate via groundwave just fine, hence, you don't need direct line-of-sight everywhere.
Imagine a cellphone that drops the call if a bird goes between you and the top of the 90GHz radio tower. Imagine a cellphone that can't recieve calls while clipped on your belt.
Infrared is the PERFECT model for what happens at 30GHz+... It's like communicating by invisible light. Absolutely anything will block the signal.
Those frequencies will simply not work worth a crap on the ground. They will, however, work wonderfully with satellites, as you always have line-of-sight, and can mount an antenna (dish) where practically nothing will block the line-of-sight between you and the satellite.
Without that money as an incentive, they wouldn't be spending millions upon millions of dollars switching frequency in the first place.
Maybe because the currently available public-use bands are just stagnating? The CB frequencies are really wide-open, and still practically nobody is using them. With newer radio technologies, those frequencies could be used for quite fast networks, that could span many miles (through building, around mountains, etc). They can even be skipped off the ionosphere for ranges in the hendreds of miles.
Spectrum isn't infinitely valuable. These rich companies may pay more for the spectrum than they ever make back on their investment. Otherwise, everyone would be buying.
I also can't see how this will reduce innovation at all. There's nothing entirely unique about this spectrum, so others will just have to "innovate" with frequencies that are higher/lower than this, and will have the same end effect.
Where can I adopt one of these mean, arm wrestling, large-bat weilding, pyromanical, 800 lb gorillas?
Pain can be ignored by the mind, but I really wouldn't say pain is influenced by the mind (in any other way that that).
Maybe I'm just an exception, and not susceptible to suggestion, but I know I've had many times that something hurt a lot more than I expected, or a lot less than I expected. Obviously, if the mind had any influence on pain, that wouldn't have been the case.
Again, that's just ignoring pain, not at all convincing yourself that there isn't any pain there.
Placebo is interesting specifically because the suggestion changes everything. People don't feel better after getting a placebo instead of morphine if they KNOW that they are getting a placebo.
It is much, MUCH, MUCH cheaper to copy the work of someone else, than to fund the research necessary to discover/develop the concept in the first place. So, if it costs only $10 million to develop (a tiny ammount) something like practical hydrogen extraction & storage methods, and it only costs your competitors $1 million to appropriate your newly developed methods for themselves, you'll be out of business. Period. Trade-secrets only work so far, and keeping new developments secret is necessarily bad for the advancement of science.
That works precisely because this is not an entirely free-market system. It works because we won't buy Chinese imitations of American-designed weapons. They would be a lot cheaper! Defense is not a profit-making industry, so it doesn't follow the same rules. Each country IS going to develop their own technologies, even if they can BUY them cheaper elsewhere.
I think we can agree on extensive reforms of the patent system, but doing away with it entirely is a horiffic idea.
What? You can't possibly convince me they didn't already KNOW the limitations of those frequencies long before they even designed the system. The propogation of different frequencies of radio signals has been extremely well-known for a very, very long time, so acting like they were surprised at how poorly ~400MHz penetrates buildings (only after spending billions on the system) is completely crazy.
I'm certainly not the only one with the issue. It's well-known that Lite-on drives don't write subchannel data, causing problems particularly with older audio CD players which expect that info. You can just try to set your drive to a slightly lower speed and watch it still record at maximum (4X was the only expection in my experience).
Anyhow, these are usually the kinds of problems that you won't even notice if you only use the discs on a computer. Audio CD players, VCD players, DVD players etc., are when you start seeing symptoms of Lite-on's dedication to broken-ness.
Double "the" in article:
...
In order to ensure that the the atomic time