I think a better model is presented here. Basically, each time a patent is granted, an auction is held (more specifically, a third-bid auction). 90% of the time, the state buys the patent for the price found at the auction and puts it in the public domain. 10% of the time, the entity who won the auction buys it. Either way, the inventor is given what the market thinks the patent is worth (he can of course bid at the auction, so if the market values the patent at less than the inventor, he will get it 10% of the time). That way, we get 90% less patent monopolies, but inventors get rewarded non-arbitrarily.
We have used myxomatosis to control the rabbit population of Australia, I guess that counts as a biochemical weapon, but not the same as we would use for humans, so the tool is different. Nuclear bombs have given us the most peaceful 60 years in humanities history (the years leading up to WW1 rivals that, but I don't think 60 years of them do), and is currently our best bet for accelerating a spaceship to any useful fraction of the speed of light. Nerve gasses can be used as insecticides, and have given us a lot of knowledge about nerves. They could be useful as medicine, but I don't think they have been used in that respect. Agent orange is a herbicide (but it should be produced with better process control, to avoid dioxin formation).
I guess biochemical weapons for use against humans are the only one of your examples that I can find no good use for, though I am sure there are more out there.
There is a lot to be learned from OS design in regards to the BIOS. The BIOS also runs next to the OS and it has to reserve some memory. The OS can be made so that, even if the rootkit lies about the free memory footprint for the OS, the OS can do a lot of tricks to outsmart the rootkit and decide to completely crash.
How would the OS outsmart the rootkit? Wouldn't the rootkit always have the upper hand, being booted first? And wouldn't it be a problem for the OS that it is more static than the rootkits?
IIRC, exactly that rule made some libraries ditch their records about books returned. The librarians seem to be some of the staunchest protectors of civil liberties. They didn't want to turn over anything to the authorities, so they minimised the amount of information they had.
Perhaps we should just rename the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to the "no true Marxist system" fallacy. Actually, with the way Marxists see each other, "no true Marxist" would be just as good.
Doesn't most families qualify as communist? And to a certain degree, European villages in earlier times (I don't know much about the organisation of villages in other parts of the world, but I would imagine they would also partly qualify)? Is seems to work fine in smaller groups where there is social pressure to not be a dick, but once you get to a certain size, being a dick is worthwhile, making the system collapse (This would make super-colonies of ants a good model. AFAIK, they haven't started to see the negative effects yet.).
Anyway, the real question isn't "is it possible?", but "how many times must we try before deciding yet another experiment is not worth the millions of deaths that invariably result?".
Oh, and don't get me started on what Marx never suggested. The system Marx imagined was miles away from anything anyone calling themselves Marxists have tried to implement. He was much more of a liberalist than a collectivist (but don't tell the Marxists, they will just say it is your false consciousness that makes you think that).
The rare earths usually go together, to the degree that separating them is a major hassle in their production. A deposit of one will contain smaller amounts of the others.
And hundreds that start with "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis is false" (or, at least, so my math professor told me), so both proving it and disproving it would be very interesting.
No, no, he thinks we should google china from orbit. The ISS has an internet connection, doesn't it? Though I don't know what the astronauts should do with fine ceramic dinner plates.
Not anymore (in Denmark, at least). They use some kind of membrane technique, I hear. Some of my fellow chemistry students analysed the absolute ethanol with GC-MS to make sure, no benzene present. And this was 10 years ago. However, absolute is more expensive, and there really is no reason to use it.
If we had talked about helping kids, sure. However, we are accepting that these teenagers are responsible enough that it makes sense to charge them, while they are irresponsible enough that they need protection. I don't see how those ideas can coexist (well, I do, but I really don't like the state that coexistence necessitates).
Yes, but the magnetic patterns on the platters are incredibly resilient. I wouldn't be too sure that the magnets are strong enough to corrupt it. They might be, but I would like to see it tested before I rely on it.
I'm not sure the magnets are strong enough to wipe the plates. The harder it is to change the magnetic orientation, the smaller the domains can become, and the higher the disk capacity. IIRC, if you try to apply that amount of magnetic field as a uniform magnetic field, the platters bend before they are wiped.
We have build our civilisation on the assumption that the climate is a certain way. We have agriculture where the climate favours it, we have harbours and cities near the sea shore for easy access, we have road that have just enough foundation that they want get rained away, we have sewers which is just big enough that they can take the normal amount of rain. If the climate changes, we will need to change the infrastructure of our civilisation, which is going to be very costly, no matter which way it needs to be adjusted. It is not just a speculated harm, but how much of a harm it is remains to be seen.
Finished products simply contain much more air than raw materials, one container of raw materials can easily become five containers of finished product.
Plus, many raw materials are transported in the bulk, not needing containers.
The backlight is often modulated by the scene brightness to save power. However, this is a much slower effect then on CRT, so the amount of information is going to be orders of magnitude lower. I don't know how much of a capacitance is in a standard CRT setup, if it is low enough, you should be able to exctract the brightness of each sub-pixel, recreating the picture entirely. The backlight of an LCD TV is modulated on the order of tens of seconds, so even if the you can only read the brightness of each frame on a CRT, we are still talking two orders of magnitude (plus much more device-specifics, such as the time of modulation).
I think the way they see it is something along the lines of:
Economically, they are to the social side, trying to take care of the people at the bottom of society.
As for values, they are rather conservative, wanting to keep Denmark they way it has always been (or the way they imagine it always was).
Peoples Parties aren't. Democratic Parties aren't. Democratic Peoples Parties are neither (it fits better with countries, but it holds up quite well for parties as well).
Names change meanings, especially the names of political parties. Who actually thinks about democracy and republics when hearing the names of the US parties? In Denmark, we have The Left, which is a right wing party, the Radical Left, a center/left party and the Danish Peoples Party, a socialist/conservative party. When I think about the names, they are hilarious, but nobody thinks about what they mean in normal conversation. If the pirate party survives 10 years in the main stream, it will be the same thing: Nobody will notice what the name actually means in normal conversation.
. Jupiter does, presumably (unless the material is very much denser), have a smaller circumference than a super-jupiter, so that might slow the loss by a bit.
The circumferences will be about the same. Around the mass of Jupiter, the extra gravity from more material balances out the volume of the extra material. Gliese 229B has 20 to 50 times the mass of Jupiter, but around the same size.
Are we so sure we don't? Or did we just decide that since we hadn't measured any such channel in 1905, then there isn't?
Basically, from the set {faster than light communication, relativity, causality}, you can pick two. Relativity has done remarkably well in predicting what we would observe, and continues to do so. Causality seems to hold up, so the natural assumption is that no communication faster than light is possible. But it could be wrong, we could live in a non-causal universe, or the true theory behind relativity could be compatible with both.
isn't much of an explanation because it then leaves us with not only no answer to "so what is the physical mechanism which causes space and time between events to appear to dilate as relative motion approaches C", but also makes it impossible to find an answer because it disallows asking the question - it shoves "why" under the carpet of kinematics, not dynamics.
Isn't that what any physical hypothesis does? Explain some observation to a certain degree? You can always ask "but how?", even if a further hypothesis was made.
And assuming C is the maximum speed of signal propagation causes no end of trouble when you attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics.
It does? How? I always thought the problem was elsewhere, in quantification of space and time, which, when combined with the uncertainty principle, gives nonsensical result for any model made so far.
The mass fraction of elements heavier than helium in this star is less than 1ppm. The sun is 99.9% H and He and only 0.1% heavier stuff, this star has some 50.000 times less than that. Compared to this star, Jupiter is solid iron, so no, not like Jupiter at all.
We are actually becoming quite good at treating some cancers, so no, they are not all going to die of cancer. But if you really want to argue that way, we are all going to die of something, somehow, so why bother doing anything? Why are you typing these posts? Everybody who reads them are going to die. Why forego vaccination? We are going to die anyway.
It is probably going to be said a million times but, here goes:
Firstly, no vaccination is a 100% guarantee. The best give some high 90's percent chance of immunity, many much lower. However, even when you are not fully immunized from a vaccine, it can still mean you get a much milder case of the disease.
Secondly, not all people can be immunized. Children too young to have a fully working immune system, people with cancer or some immunodeficiency. They, in stead, rely on herd immunity: If enough of the surrounding people are immunized, they won't get the disease. So, by choosing to not get immunised when you can, you basically make life much worse for children with cancer. I would say that that is a group who could use any break they can get, and does not deserve to be made more miserable.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a better model is presented here. Basically, each time a patent is granted, an auction is held (more specifically, a third-bid auction). 90% of the time, the state buys the patent for the price found at the auction and puts it in the public domain. 10% of the time, the entity who won the auction buys it. Either way, the inventor is given what the market thinks the patent is worth (he can of course bid at the auction, so if the market values the patent at less than the inventor, he will get it 10% of the time). That way, we get 90% less patent monopolies, but inventors get rewarded non-arbitrarily.
We have used myxomatosis to control the rabbit population of Australia, I guess that counts as a biochemical weapon, but not the same as we would use for humans, so the tool is different.
Nuclear bombs have given us the most peaceful 60 years in humanities history (the years leading up to WW1 rivals that, but I don't think 60 years of them do), and is currently our best bet for accelerating a spaceship to any useful fraction of the speed of light.
Nerve gasses can be used as insecticides, and have given us a lot of knowledge about nerves. They could be useful as medicine, but I don't think they have been used in that respect.
Agent orange is a herbicide (but it should be produced with better process control, to avoid dioxin formation).
I guess biochemical weapons for use against humans are the only one of your examples that I can find no good use for, though I am sure there are more out there.
There is a lot to be learned from OS design in regards to the BIOS. The BIOS also runs next to the OS and it has to reserve some memory. The OS can be made so that, even if the rootkit lies about the free memory footprint for the OS, the OS can do a lot of tricks to outsmart the rootkit and decide to completely crash.
How would the OS outsmart the rootkit? Wouldn't the rootkit always have the upper hand, being booted first? And wouldn't it be a problem for the OS that it is more static than the rootkits?
IIRC, exactly that rule made some libraries ditch their records about books returned. The librarians seem to be some of the staunchest protectors of civil liberties. They didn't want to turn over anything to the authorities, so they minimised the amount of information they had.
Perhaps we should just rename the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to the "no true Marxist system" fallacy. Actually, with the way Marxists see each other, "no true Marxist" would be just as good.
Doesn't most families qualify as communist? And to a certain degree, European villages in earlier times (I don't know much about the organisation of villages in other parts of the world, but I would imagine they would also partly qualify)? Is seems to work fine in smaller groups where there is social pressure to not be a dick, but once you get to a certain size, being a dick is worthwhile, making the system collapse (This would make super-colonies of ants a good model. AFAIK, they haven't started to see the negative effects yet.).
Anyway, the real question isn't "is it possible?", but "how many times must we try before deciding yet another experiment is not worth the millions of deaths that invariably result?".
Oh, and don't get me started on what Marx never suggested. The system Marx imagined was miles away from anything anyone calling themselves Marxists have tried to implement. He was much more of a liberalist than a collectivist (but don't tell the Marxists, they will just say it is your false consciousness that makes you think that).
The rare earths usually go together, to the degree that separating them is a major hassle in their production. A deposit of one will contain smaller amounts of the others.
And hundreds that start with "Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis is false" (or, at least, so my math professor told me), so both proving it and disproving it would be very interesting.
No, no, he thinks we should google china from orbit. The ISS has an internet connection, doesn't it? Though I don't know what the astronauts should do with fine ceramic dinner plates.
Not anymore (in Denmark, at least). They use some kind of membrane technique, I hear. Some of my fellow chemistry students analysed the absolute ethanol with GC-MS to make sure, no benzene present. And this was 10 years ago. However, absolute is more expensive, and there really is no reason to use it.
If we had talked about helping kids, sure. However, we are accepting that these teenagers are responsible enough that it makes sense to charge them, while they are irresponsible enough that they need protection. I don't see how those ideas can coexist (well, I do, but I really don't like the state that coexistence necessitates).
How on earth is it the job of the state to protect teenagers against themselves? The job of their parents, sure, but the state?
Yes, but the magnetic patterns on the platters are incredibly resilient. I wouldn't be too sure that the magnets are strong enough to corrupt it. They might be, but I would like to see it tested before I rely on it.
I'm not sure the magnets are strong enough to wipe the plates. The harder it is to change the magnetic orientation, the smaller the domains can become, and the higher the disk capacity. IIRC, if you try to apply that amount of magnetic field as a uniform magnetic field, the platters bend before they are wiped.
We have build our civilisation on the assumption that the climate is a certain way. We have agriculture where the climate favours it, we have harbours and cities near the sea shore for easy access, we have road that have just enough foundation that they want get rained away, we have sewers which is just big enough that they can take the normal amount of rain. If the climate changes, we will need to change the infrastructure of our civilisation, which is going to be very costly, no matter which way it needs to be adjusted. It is not just a speculated harm, but how much of a harm it is remains to be seen.
Finished products simply contain much more air than raw materials, one container of raw materials can easily become five containers of finished product.
Plus, many raw materials are transported in the bulk, not needing containers.
The backlight is often modulated by the scene brightness to save power. However, this is a much slower effect then on CRT, so the amount of information is going to be orders of magnitude lower. I don't know how much of a capacitance is in a standard CRT setup, if it is low enough, you should be able to exctract the brightness of each sub-pixel, recreating the picture entirely. The backlight of an LCD TV is modulated on the order of tens of seconds, so even if the you can only read the brightness of each frame on a CRT, we are still talking two orders of magnitude (plus much more device-specifics, such as the time of modulation).
I think the way they see it is something along the lines of:
Economically, they are to the social side, trying to take care of the people at the bottom of society.
As for values, they are rather conservative, wanting to keep Denmark they way it has always been (or the way they imagine it always was).
So I suppose your general idea was correct.
Peoples Parties aren't. Democratic Parties aren't. Democratic Peoples Parties are neither (it fits better with countries, but it holds up quite well for parties as well).
Names change meanings, especially the names of political parties. Who actually thinks about democracy and republics when hearing the names of the US parties?
In Denmark, we have The Left, which is a right wing party, the Radical Left, a center/left party and the Danish Peoples Party, a socialist/conservative party. When I think about the names, they are hilarious, but nobody thinks about what they mean in normal conversation. If the pirate party survives 10 years in the main stream, it will be the same thing: Nobody will notice what the name actually means in normal conversation.
. Jupiter does, presumably (unless the material is very much denser), have a smaller circumference than a super-jupiter, so that might slow the loss by a bit.
The circumferences will be about the same. Around the mass of Jupiter, the extra gravity from more material balances out the volume of the extra material. Gliese 229B has 20 to 50 times the mass of Jupiter, but around the same size.
Are we so sure we don't? Or did we just decide that since we hadn't measured any such channel in 1905, then there isn't?
Basically, from the set {faster than light communication, relativity, causality}, you can pick two. Relativity has done remarkably well in predicting what we would observe, and continues to do so. Causality seems to hold up, so the natural assumption is that no communication faster than light is possible. But it could be wrong, we could live in a non-causal universe, or the true theory behind relativity could be compatible with both.
isn't much of an explanation because it then leaves us with not only no answer to "so what is the physical mechanism which causes space and time between events to appear to dilate as relative motion approaches C", but also makes it impossible to find an answer because it disallows asking the question - it shoves "why" under the carpet of kinematics, not dynamics.
Isn't that what any physical hypothesis does? Explain some observation to a certain degree? You can always ask "but how?", even if a further hypothesis was made.
And assuming C is the maximum speed of signal propagation causes no end of trouble when you attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics.
It does? How? I always thought the problem was elsewhere, in quantification of space and time, which, when combined with the uncertainty principle, gives nonsensical result for any model made so far.
The mass fraction of elements heavier than helium in this star is less than 1ppm. The sun is 99.9% H and He and only 0.1% heavier stuff, this star has some 50.000 times less than that. Compared to this star, Jupiter is solid iron, so no, not like Jupiter at all.
We are actually becoming quite good at treating some cancers, so no, they are not all going to die of cancer.
But if you really want to argue that way, we are all going to die of something, somehow, so why bother doing anything? Why are you typing these posts? Everybody who reads them are going to die. Why forego vaccination? We are going to die anyway.
It is probably going to be said a million times but, here goes:
Firstly, no vaccination is a 100% guarantee. The best give some high 90's percent chance of immunity, many much lower. However, even when you are not fully immunized from a vaccine, it can still mean you get a much milder case of the disease.
Secondly, not all people can be immunized. Children too young to have a fully working immune system, people with cancer or some immunodeficiency. They, in stead, rely on herd immunity: If enough of the surrounding people are immunized, they won't get the disease. So, by choosing to not get immunised when you can, you basically make life much worse for children with cancer. I would say that that is a group who could use any break they can get, and does not deserve to be made more miserable.