Are you sure that hydrated magma has a lower viscosity? I seem to remember being told that the volcanoes in the Andes are more explosive because of the sea-water from the Pacific being drawn down in the cenvection zone. But that was probably in one of those horrible volcano shows on TV.
" yet where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?" implies there is none. That was flat out wrong when he said is, and even more wrong today.
Just be glad yours is male. Imagine driving a female car in the mating season. Kind of like living on a world carried by a female turtle must be a constant stress.
Oh, that's your own fault... You should have put it in neutral. If only more people would neuter their cars, we wouldn't have the problems we have today with feral cars! Why don't people THINK!
Crystals, fire, and car batteries all seek lower-energy, higher-entropy states, and so are not life, though they might fuel life (like fire) or be instrumental in the construction of living things (like crystals).
All processes go towards higher-entropy states, that is second law of thermodynamics. Crystal-growth, coin sorting and living all lowers the local entropy at the expense of the total entropy of the universe.
You also run into the problem of defining the system. If we define me and the rock I hold in my hand as a system, is that system living? Does it count as living if I hit myself with the rock? If it doesn't because me and the rock are separate, how is that different from the DNA and the proteins of a cell being separate? Mostly, they act on each other, not on themselves, so it is only the aggregate that acts upon itself.
income != wealth. Of course, you can still use the distribution of one as a reason to be OK with taxation of the other, but I feel it is quite the non sequitor. By the way, those 2,5%, does that include the debt of the people in the bottom of that distribuiton? That would make the number somewhat meaningles.
No, you wouldn't, not if you prosecute the policemen if they have indeed crossed the line. It can work fine, but will probably have problems in the US, where the DA's seem to be more interested in pandering to the electorate or the police than about doing their job, and thus will not prosecute the police.
But then, that has been the case since shorty after the invention of fire and the wheel. Seriously, what physical phenomenon are we directly observing? We can't see atoms, we can't even see the circuits making up computers anymore. All we ever did was meassuring the effects of stuff, and conclude that stuff (probably) exists and have certain characteristics.
"There is talk about the failure of socialism, yet where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?"
He was correct, if you didn't count Japan, Singapore, Mexico, Argentina, Hong Kong or South Korea, which is a round-about way of saying that he was wrong. True, Africa south of Sahara isn't doing great, but that doesn't seem to correlate with economic model, and has more to do with the lack of infrastructure and protection of property rights. But then, quoting a communist despot on the success of capitalism is like quoting a catholic priest on the succes of the gay right movement: Unless you are doing it to ridicule the quotee, you are not doing your argument or your credibilty any favors.
Civil rights doesn't exist in socialist countries, so I guess they can't be violated. The state (or the people, same thing really) will take care of everybody and doesn't need rules.
Of course, it is tempting to declare a group of people "enemies of the people". The best thing for such people is really to be reeducated. The state will then make camps for this reeducation. When all such people is detained, the state need a new enemy to keep people tied together, so the next group will be declared "enemies of the people".
Ireland is a special case, they spent a lot of money protecting foreign investors from loses, which is the cause of much of their misery. Other than that, you comment is good.
Bits and bites in a particular combination are recognized by law as an object worthy of legal protection in the form of copyright and/or patent. Taking[...]
Do you mean taking, or copying? Nobody would disagree that deleting you copy in the proces of obtaining mine is stealing.
Nobody is saying they deserve the software. They are merely saying that the original producer does not have a right to decide what his legitimate buyers do with it. I haven't seen anybody argue that the original producer should not be allowed to keep the only copy. However, once he has sold it to someone, the situation becomes markedly murkier, as copyright gives the original producer the right to decide what two other parties can agree upon which, in the end, reduces their freedom of speech.
No, that is not what the study says (from my very cursory reading). It looks at how big a part of the final selling price goes to the physical manufactorers, not if the make a profit. Yes, I know, an errornous headline on slashdot is really shocking, but it seems to be the case here.
I might have been mistaken. I know that golf courses uses "earth improvement mixtures" which is basically pesticides that kill earth worms (you don't want their mounds on the green), but as they aren't classified as such, organic golf courses use them (non-organic gold courses can of course use approved pesticides). These compounds wash out to a much higher degree than approved pesticides. However, I can't find any mention of such things being used in agriculture.
As for the overproduction, that is at least as wrong as growing organic (depending on what happens with the food, but I assume it ends up destroyed or converted to ethanol for fuel). If that land was converted to nature, so many species could thrive. But that is a problem with farm subsidies, and with French farmers blocking freeways if anybody as much as thinks of reducing their support.
So, the choice is between agribusiness which poisons the ground water and creates dead oceans through fertilizer and pesticide runoff and organic which destroys habitat faster.
No, organic really is better: It uses more land AND it produces runoff. In the best case, the manure is processed so it only causes as much runoff as artificial fertilizer, in the worst case, it isn't processed much, and causes more. And the natural pesticides have the added bonus of not being tested, so we don't know how much of it runs of, and how poisonous the runoff is. But, you know, it's natural, so it can't be bad.
The farmes earn more and have in many cases less work, so why not?
Because it is morally wrong to use the land inefficient? The extra land that is needed to grow the same amount of organic crop* could have been used to grow crops for other people, or could left as nature Now, if you had said sustainable, I don't think anyone would have objected (I wouldn't have, at least). The problem with organic is the worship of "natural", to the point where large amounts of untested pesticide is prefered to small amount of thoroughly tested pesticide, simply because the first is produced by a plant, and thus cannot be bad in any way.
* Or, more correct, the larger area of soil needed to feed a person eating organic in stead of conventionally grown food.
No, not like that at all. If we were talking about a monopoly in the smartphone market, that could be an example of using that monopoly as leverage in another market, but we aren't, we are talking about having a monopoly in the search market. It would be kind of like if competitors to Google products didn't show up in google searches, but i appears Google isn't quite as evil as Apple (whether Apple has a monopoly is left as an exercise to the reader). It could also be like if Googles Maps showed up higher in the search ranking than other map services.
You only infringe upon copyright if you actually copy. If you come up with the same melody by chance, it is not a violation of copyright. I am sure the MAFIAAs lawyers can argue that their song is not derived from your database.
No, no there isn't. Weapons aren't normally very dangerous, at most you can kill tens of people before the authorities get to you. That is a sacrifice I am willing to make in order to live in a free society. More dangerous weapons will either get yourself killed (nerve gas), or demands quite some investments (nuclear bombs). And such censorship isn't going to be succesful anyway, if there were an easy way to kill thousands of people, that knowledge would seep out no matter what. By far the best ways to avoid terrorism is a) Have an effective inteligence service (you do not need to give up rights to have this) and b)stop pissing people off (that in and of itself will not be 100% effective, as some people will always have an irrational reason to do terrorism, but it can minimize the job of the intelligence service).
the editor of Science, Bruce Alberts, said the journal was taking the recommendations seriously and would probably withhold some information — but only if the government creates a system to provide the missing information to legitimate scientists worldwide who need it.
(emphasis mine). How that would be accomplished is left as a problem for the reader, though.
This is, of course, from the same man who later says
“I wouldn’t call this censorship,” Dr. Alberts said. “This is trying to avoid inappropriate censorship.”
So it isn't censorship, because they do it to avoid repercussions. That man is in serious need of a dictionary.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure that hydrated magma has a lower viscosity? I seem to remember being told that the volcanoes in the Andes are more explosive because of the sea-water from the Pacific being drawn down in the cenvection zone. But that was probably in one of those horrible volcano shows on TV.
" yet where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?" implies there is none. That was flat out wrong when he said is, and even more wrong today.
Just be glad yours is male. Imagine driving a female car in the mating season. Kind of like living on a world carried by a female turtle must be a constant stress.
Oh, that's your own fault... You should have put it in neutral. If only more people would neuter their cars, we wouldn't have the problems we have today with feral cars! Why don't people THINK!
Crystals, fire, and car batteries all seek lower-energy, higher-entropy states, and so are not life, though they might fuel life (like fire) or be instrumental in the construction of living things (like crystals).
All processes go towards higher-entropy states, that is second law of thermodynamics. Crystal-growth, coin sorting and living all lowers the local entropy at the expense of the total entropy of the universe.
You also run into the problem of defining the system. If we define me and the rock I hold in my hand as a system, is that system living? Does it count as living if I hit myself with the rock? If it doesn't because me and the rock are separate, how is that different from the DNA and the proteins of a cell being separate? Mostly, they act on each other, not on themselves, so it is only the aggregate that acts upon itself.
Could a car be construed as having a metabolism? It takes up gasoline and oxygen, and converts it to mechanical energy.
Your car reproduce??? Take it to the mechanic immediately!!!
income != wealth. Of course, you can still use the distribution of one as a reason to be OK with taxation of the other, but I feel it is quite the non sequitor. By the way, those 2,5%, does that include the debt of the people in the bottom of that distribuiton? That would make the number somewhat meaningles.
No, you wouldn't, not if you prosecute the policemen if they have indeed crossed the line. It can work fine, but will probably have problems in the US, where the DA's seem to be more interested in pandering to the electorate or the police than about doing their job, and thus will not prosecute the police.
Are you sure that isn't wealth? Wealth tends to be more skewed than income.
But then, that has been the case since shorty after the invention of fire and the wheel. Seriously, what physical phenomenon are we directly observing? We can't see atoms, we can't even see the circuits making up computers anymore. All we ever did was meassuring the effects of stuff, and conclude that stuff (probably) exists and have certain characteristics.
"There is talk about the failure of socialism, yet where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?"
He was correct, if you didn't count Japan, Singapore, Mexico, Argentina, Hong Kong or South Korea, which is a round-about way of saying that he was wrong. True, Africa south of Sahara isn't doing great, but that doesn't seem to correlate with economic model, and has more to do with the lack of infrastructure and protection of property rights. But then, quoting a communist despot on the success of capitalism is like quoting a catholic priest on the succes of the gay right movement: Unless you are doing it to ridicule the quotee, you are not doing your argument or your credibilty any favors.
Civil rights doesn't exist in socialist countries, so I guess they can't be violated. The state (or the people, same thing really) will take care of everybody and doesn't need rules.
Of course, it is tempting to declare a group of people "enemies of the people". The best thing for such people is really to be reeducated. The state will then make camps for this reeducation. When all such people is detained, the state need a new enemy to keep people tied together, so the next group will be declared "enemies of the people".
Ireland is a special case, they spent a lot of money protecting foreign investors from loses, which is the cause of much of their misery. Other than that, you comment is good.
Bits and bites in a particular combination are recognized by law as an object worthy of legal protection in the form of copyright and/or patent. Taking[...]
Do you mean taking, or copying? Nobody would disagree that deleting you copy in the proces of obtaining mine is stealing.
Nobody is saying they deserve the software. They are merely saying that the original producer does not have a right to decide what his legitimate buyers do with it. I haven't seen anybody argue that the original producer should not be allowed to keep the only copy. However, once he has sold it to someone, the situation becomes markedly murkier, as copyright gives the original producer the right to decide what two other parties can agree upon which, in the end, reduces their freedom of speech.
I prefer incandescent bulbs because CFLs and LEDs have noticeable flicker.
If you aren't claiming to be able to see a flicker of 20.000 Hz, try a CFL produced this decade. Or last decade. Or the one before that.
No, that is not what the study says (from my very cursory reading). It looks at how big a part of the final selling price goes to the physical manufactorers, not if the make a profit. Yes, I know, an errornous headline on slashdot is really shocking, but it seems to be the case here.
I might have been mistaken. I know that golf courses uses "earth improvement mixtures" which is basically pesticides that kill earth worms (you don't want their mounds on the green), but as they aren't classified as such, organic golf courses use them (non-organic gold courses can of course use approved pesticides). These compounds wash out to a much higher degree than approved pesticides. However, I can't find any mention of such things being used in agriculture.
As for the overproduction, that is at least as wrong as growing organic (depending on what happens with the food, but I assume it ends up destroyed or converted to ethanol for fuel). If that land was converted to nature, so many species could thrive. But that is a problem with farm subsidies, and with French farmers blocking freeways if anybody as much as thinks of reducing their support.
So, the choice is between agribusiness which poisons the ground water and creates dead oceans through fertilizer and pesticide runoff and organic which destroys habitat faster.
No, organic really is better: It uses more land AND it produces runoff. In the best case, the manure is processed so it only causes as much runoff as artificial fertilizer, in the worst case, it isn't processed much, and causes more. And the natural pesticides have the added bonus of not being tested, so we don't know how much of it runs of, and how poisonous the runoff is. But, you know, it's natural, so it can't be bad.
The farmes earn more and have in many cases less work, so why not?
Because it is morally wrong to use the land inefficient? The extra land that is needed to grow the same amount of organic crop* could have been used to grow crops for other people, or could left as nature
Now, if you had said sustainable, I don't think anyone would have objected (I wouldn't have, at least). The problem with organic is the worship of "natural", to the point where large amounts of untested pesticide is prefered to small amount of thoroughly tested pesticide, simply because the first is produced by a plant, and thus cannot be bad in any way.
* Or, more correct, the larger area of soil needed to feed a person eating organic in stead of conventionally grown food.
No, not like that at all. If we were talking about a monopoly in the smartphone market, that could be an example of using that monopoly as leverage in another market, but we aren't, we are talking about having a monopoly in the search market. It would be kind of like if competitors to Google products didn't show up in google searches, but i appears Google isn't quite as evil as Apple (whether Apple has a monopoly is left as an exercise to the reader). It could also be like if Googles Maps showed up higher in the search ranking than other map services.
You only infringe upon copyright if you actually copy. If you come up with the same melody by chance, it is not a violation of copyright. I am sure the MAFIAAs lawyers can argue that their song is not derived from your database.
No, no there isn't. Weapons aren't normally very dangerous, at most you can kill tens of people before the authorities get to you. That is a sacrifice I am willing to make in order to live in a free society. More dangerous weapons will either get yourself killed (nerve gas), or demands quite some investments (nuclear bombs). And such censorship isn't going to be succesful anyway, if there were an easy way to kill thousands of people, that knowledge would seep out no matter what. By far the best ways to avoid terrorism is a) Have an effective inteligence service (you do not need to give up rights to have this) and b)stop pissing people off (that in and of itself will not be 100% effective, as some people will always have an irrational reason to do terrorism, but it can minimize the job of the intelligence service).
the editor of Science, Bruce Alberts, said the journal was taking the recommendations seriously and would probably withhold some information — but only if the government creates a system to provide the missing information to legitimate scientists worldwide who need it.
(emphasis mine). How that would be accomplished is left as a problem for the reader, though.
This is, of course, from the same man who later says
“I wouldn’t call this censorship,” Dr. Alberts said. “This is trying to avoid inappropriate censorship.”
So it isn't censorship, because they do it to avoid repercussions. That man is in serious need of a dictionary.