Router's don't drop requests, at least not by default. Firewalls do. Best Buy has never sold a single router, no matter what it says on the box.
Anyway, you can have your firewall drop all incoming traffic by default, opening up specific ports to specific machines as needed. It's still easier than NAT, since you don't also have to fool around with forwarding those ports.
Some applications have hardcoded ports, which makes it almost impossible to have more than one of these running at once behind the same NAT. A simple packet filtering firewall can handle this fine. Admittedly, those applications are poorly-written, but you're still going to have to deal with them in the real world.
Or don't bother with any sort of gateway. I'm personally a fan of perimeterless networking, where each machine is expected to handle its own firewall. Done right, it can make administration easier, give better security, and keeps laptops safe no matter where they're connected.
NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date
Much the same way that up to Aug 28, 2005, the New Orleans leeves were successful in holding back every conceivable rise in water level.
NAT works as long as you have simple networking needs--nothing much more than web and email. As soon as you need to use VPN, or VoIP, or try to get two or more people to play the same game behind the same firewall, it becomes readily apparent what a pain NAT is. In some cases, the application is doing all sorts of trickery to try to keep the user from noticing the issue. In others, the user is left on their own to deal with it. That doesn't even count a bunch of potential applications where the developers realized that they wouldn't be able to get around NAT, and thus never built it at all or simply toiled in obscurity.
Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world?
NAT != Firewall. The only thing NAT provides you with over a packet filter is hiding your network topology. There is some use in that, but it comes at the expense of everything mentioned above. On balance, NAT comes out wanting. If you still really want to hide your topology, you can still use NAT on IPv6, but this should be the exception, not the rule.
Which is an inherent problem with expanding the powers of the executive branch. Even if there's a lot of complaining about it at the time, there's not much incentive for the next guy to back out of those powers once they've been established. There was lots of complaining from some Republicans when Clinton made the FISA court into a rubber-stamping operation after Oklahoma City, but then they ignored FISA entirely after 9/11.
More on topic, I don't see much problem with giving the police broad crime fighting powers, provided there is proper oversight for abuse. A good warrant system can do that, and need not be much of a time burden if the right procedures are in place. But there better be something. Even the rubber-stamping FISA court at least created a paper trail.
Do you seriously think that in over 300 years of violin making that noone has yet beaten what must be by now ancient and squeaky artifacts?
I'm willing to believe it's possible, with a caveat. In many artistic disciplines, the master may die without imparting all his knowledge to a student. When the student becomes the new master, he too later dies without passing on everything he knows. Thus, the knowledge base eventually dwindles. In part, the rigor in scientific fields of writing down everything in detail is an important part of fighting against this tendency.
You're telling me that one guy in the 1600 managed to get his hands on all the fungus infested trees in Europe brought on by the cold and "that's" what's making these things sound so good?
It wasn't the fungus that made Strads good (though I originally read it that way, too), but rather that Little Ice Age produced long winters and short summers that made trees grow slow. Wood grown slow tends to be harder. The fungus is a modern attempt to duplicate this effect.
It's like how in blind tastings no-one can tell the difference between cheap and expensive wines.
Not necessarily cheep and expensive, but double blind tests have made important changes within the wine industry. A well-trained sommelier can, completely blind, tell you the type, vintage, region, rainfall that year, and the type of wood in the barrel used to age the wine. If you're just talking about doing some taste tests in a shopping mall, sure, nobody is going to tell the difference, but the same doesn't apply to people who have worked at wine tasting. Mind you, those same sommeliers won't necessarily choose expensive wines every time, either.
Much the same is true of classical music lovers. There must be some stipulations here, though. Hearing invariably degrades with age, whereas taste buds can be regrown and made better at any point in a person's life, barring some severe accidents or certain life choices (smoking can kill your taste buds for good, in some cases). Also, human hearing isn't all that great to begin with, and is highly susceptible to placebo effects. Audiophiles are particularly stupid. They perpetuate views that have no backing in double blind tests, and are largely people with more money than brains.
The test was with 5 violins, which consisted of one Strad, two made recently by biotech, and two made recently in the traditional way. The audience had 180 members. If you were to guess at random, you'd have a 20% chance of picking the Strad, and a 40% chance of picking out one of the biotech productions.
Some comments on the methodology:
The tested was done blind, but seemingly not double-blind. The player was behind a curtain, but could probably have picked out some visual differences between the instruments (a notch here, certain wood grain pattern there, etc.), which in turn could have affected his playing, consciously or unconsciously. It'd be preferable to get a pair of Strads on loan and have a master violinist play them without seeing them beforehand.
180 seems a small sample size to me, especially when you have a fairly high chance of guessing the Strad.
Was the curtain acoustically transparent?
As it happens, one of the biotech productions got 50% of the vote for the best sounding one, and 63% thought it was the Strad. That beats random guessing by a good margin, but I think this could have been done better.
Apparently, this is a good day for people to take an argument, then twist it to mean something completely different, like they took some martial arts course for the philosophically inclined.
By 1982, cars already had a fair amount of computerization. According to wiki, the Datsun 280Z started computer management in 1975, GM implemented its own proprietary interface in 1980, and the state of California mandated a standard in 1987. The full ODB-II was mandated federally in 1996.
By "reasonable lifetime", I was thinking of the timeframe you can go before most of the models sold for a particular year are in the junkyard, for whatever reason. With modern computer management, it's unlikely that the reason it went to the junkyard was the engine, excepting perhaps gross abuse by the driver (i.e., some teenager pins it to redline all the time).
As far as the environment is concerned, it's almost always better to keep an old car running than to build and buy a new one, no matter the mileage difference.
So, your argument that laws are good is telling me that identifying a market, investing time, effort, and money is illegal? That is a recipe for success. By your argument, anyone fixing anything without an approval (sanctioned training) would be in the wrong. Is that a world you want?
You're twisting my argument. Reverse engineering isn't illegal, specifically, you just have to be very careful how you do it. The broad outline is to have two completely separate teams, one breaking down the system and documenting everything in detail, and the second to make an implementation on those ideas. Should you have to go to court, you need to keep very careful records of the entire process.
This process is actually pretty common in the car industry, but it represents a high barrier to entry to anyone trying it on their own.
The GP was making fun of the open market, I support all of us having a choice. It's closed now, but if one - just one - serious manufacturer opens, they all will have too... eventually.
I'll bet you'll find that the dealers push back by refusing to sell the cars. It's mostly their profits that are at stake here, not the manufacturers.
Now of course, I do not have to do business with a car company that will not allow me to fix my own car. I can, instead choose to support any company that provides such information as necessary.
No, you can't. All the manufacturers keep this info hidden. The only possible exception I can think of are smaller performance car makers, like Ariel or Ascari, but I wouldn't count on it too much. They're also all small trackday cars with face-ripping acceleration and enough room in the trunk for maybe a toothbrush and a small sandwich.
Or I can search for a brilliant mechanic, computer tech, and electrical engineer who will work together to fix my car and we can open our own business.
Good luck. Reverse engineering laws are hard to get around if you're going to commercialize your work.
Or I can buy a car with no computer interfaces at all that I can repair with little more than a hammer. Of course such a car as in the last example would probably fail the state mandated emissions standards - boo state!
Such a shame we don't have widespread smog problems in most major cities.
Those computer interfaces don't just keep emissions down. They're also keeping performance and gas millage up, as well as vastly increasing the durability of engines. In well-built engines, there are almost never any mechanical problems within a car's reasonable lifetime. There's a bunch of sensors helping to keep everything tidy, and a given engine code is almost always the result of one of those sensors going out, not something like a piston connecting rod blowing through your hood.
When people say they used to be able to repair anything on their car with a wrench and a hammer, they're not looking at the full picture.
This might sound unfair, but it's really very simple. If a reporter comes to ask you about your research, and comes away printing something totally inaccurate or just completely wrong then that is your fault.
Shortly after 9/11, Phil Zimmermann was interviewed about the possibility that PGP was used in planning the attacks. He carefully stated that he had no regrets, but that's not what the Washington Post ran.
He was already very experienced with handling the press by that point. He even had the journalist read the entire article over the phone before sending it to the editor. So apparently, there is no defense against a bad editor misrepresenting something, unless you ignore the press altogether.
Yup, doesn't change radioactivity at all. Despite heavy metal toxicity being a far bigger problem in terms of actual, real-world pollution, it just doesn't have the attention-grabbing aspects that radiation does.
Another big new feature: iTunes LPs. These LPs will be a digital album with cover art, lyrics, videos, and other customized content created by the artists themselves
I read that as "we're giving into the RIAA, who wants people to buy 12 songs at a time, only 2 of which are worth a listen, and which you will be sick of already from being played endlessly on Top 40 radio in between 10 minute commercial breaks and 5 minutes of the DJ talking about their dog."
Did you consider the fact that they probably planned a close quarters battle because they had AK-47s? Who is to say what they would have done if they had access to a couple.50 cals?
What use would that be? Sniping takes an awful lot of training, and these yahoos entire experience was shooting off some guns in a field and playing paintball. In all likelihood, their first shot would miss, they lose the element of surprise, and the trained soldiers in the base would quickly swarm their position.
That is, if a.50 cal rifle was even a good choice for shooting people. A slightly smaller round stays supersonic longer, and people are squishy. If you have your choice of weapons and targets, then the big.50 cal is for hitting infrastructure (storage tanks, trains, etc.), not people.
Their other option is to go to the.50 cal Desert Eagle handgun, which is expensive, bulky, more powerful than any police or military unit needs, not particularly accurate, and doesn't shoot particularly fast. As far as I can tell, its primary use is for keeping the world safe from rabid watermelons, and looking cool in games and movies. In other words, exactly the sort of gun a Counterstrike player who wants to try the real thing would pick, only to get shot down a run-of-the-mill Glock after his first few shots go wide. And his dieing words will probably be "wall hacker!"
You certainly wouldn't have thought the statement was silly if he had said "Nuclear Weapon" instead.
Sure I would, just for different reasons. Getting enough material for a functional nuclear weapon together is difficult, and comes with a lot of little design problems that have to done just right.
Non-issue. The main concern is the total heat capacity of the entire ecosystem, not a localized heating of a river. All energy production methods lose energy to heat. Since nuclear can reach well over a thousand degrees, it's Carnot Limit is quite a bit higher than almost anything else.
The 1 degree of change being a problem comes as an average. Since some places are known to be cooler, and other stay roughly the same, a 1 degree increase can correspond to 10 or more degrees increase in certain locations, particularly the poles.
A majority of Americans thinks nuclear power, which emits virtually no carbon dioxide . . .
Nuclear plants require a large containment building, which takes a lot of concrete. Lots. That concrete puts out gigantic amounts of CO2 when it's initially made.
However, it does reabsorb CO2 as it cures over the building's lifetime. It takes decades, but it's eventually carbon neutral. It also doesn't come with all the other junk being dumped into the atmosphere that comes from coal like heavy metals, sulfur, NOx, and radioactive isotopes (yes, quite a bit more than the dirtiest nuclear plant would).
You shouldn't have to distort things to promote Nuclear.
Basically, almost all the people who actually know a thing or two about guns are on the anti-control side of the debate. When the people for gun control write laws, their experience is largely drawn from movies rather than any personal experience, so their laws end up being silly and ineffectual. They also tend to say things like this:
"As unnerving as the Fort Dix terrorism plot was, it could have been all the more worse if the weapons of choice for alleged assailants had been.50 caliber assault guns instead of AK-47s," said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer.
No, it wouldn't have. In a close quarters battle (which is what the Dix guys were planning), a 50 cal is far too bulky to be usable; we should wish the terrorist were that dumb. An assault rifle, like the AK-47, is ideal for this sort of thing.
I took a quick look at that book on a store shelf once, and it smells of a gigantic "get off my lawn" diatribe.
First off, the cover comes off as silly. While I get the ironic imagery of Japaneese robots reenacting the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, it also lacks appreciation for the details for the themes explored in Gundam.
More to the point, there was never some intellectual golden age, during the author's lifetime or otherwise, where people had a broad appreciation for literature, art, and history. A review of the book on Amazon gives many specific examples of this generation being quite a bit smarter than Bauerlein's own generation.
As was discussed recently here, some people do physically feel the effect of cell phones on their body. I'm one of those people, so I'm certain there is an effect. Exactly what that effect is, I don't know, other than it makes me nauseous if I hold it next to my head for more than a minute or so. I just use a Bluetooth headset and don't have any problems, as long as I don't put the cell phone itself next to my head.
I realize your pain is real. However, the human brain is very susceptible to the placebo effect, or there may be other effects. Whatever is actually happening, we can be sure that electrosensitivty is not actually caused by EM fields. There have been too many studies showing no link.
Frankly, whatever is causing this pain, it isn't EM. It may well be something else casually linked to cellphones (just to throw something out there, perhaps pinched nerves due to a complicated set of body mechanics caused by holding the cellphone a certain way), but the mystery isn't going to be solved by continuing to perpetuate the idea of it being radio transmissions.
Cell reproduction is pretty complicated. How do you exclude the possibility that EMF may cause a mutation by an unknown mechanism?
I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Science doesn't work on absolutes like that. Given the weight of evidence, it is very likely EMF does not cause cancer. I can't exclude that it does, but I can't exclude the fact that I might get hit by a meteorite, either. In both cases, it's rational to go on without believing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Router's don't drop requests, at least not by default. Firewalls do. Best Buy has never sold a single router, no matter what it says on the box.
Anyway, you can have your firewall drop all incoming traffic by default, opening up specific ports to specific machines as needed. It's still easier than NAT, since you don't also have to fool around with forwarding those ports.
Some applications have hardcoded ports, which makes it almost impossible to have more than one of these running at once behind the same NAT. A simple packet filtering firewall can handle this fine. Admittedly, those applications are poorly-written, but you're still going to have to deal with them in the real world.
Or don't bother with any sort of gateway. I'm personally a fan of perimeterless networking, where each machine is expected to handle its own firewall. Done right, it can make administration easier, give better security, and keeps laptops safe no matter where they're connected.
The clue-by-four meme died sometime in the late '90s. Methinks it's time to dust it off and start applying it to some heads.
NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date
Much the same way that up to Aug 28, 2005, the New Orleans leeves were successful in holding back every conceivable rise in water level.
NAT works as long as you have simple networking needs--nothing much more than web and email. As soon as you need to use VPN, or VoIP, or try to get two or more people to play the same game behind the same firewall, it becomes readily apparent what a pain NAT is. In some cases, the application is doing all sorts of trickery to try to keep the user from noticing the issue. In others, the user is left on their own to deal with it. That doesn't even count a bunch of potential applications where the developers realized that they wouldn't be able to get around NAT, and thus never built it at all or simply toiled in obscurity.
Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world?
NAT != Firewall. The only thing NAT provides you with over a packet filter is hiding your network topology. There is some use in that, but it comes at the expense of everything mentioned above. On balance, NAT comes out wanting. If you still really want to hide your topology, you can still use NAT on IPv6, but this should be the exception, not the rule.
Which is an inherent problem with expanding the powers of the executive branch. Even if there's a lot of complaining about it at the time, there's not much incentive for the next guy to back out of those powers once they've been established. There was lots of complaining from some Republicans when Clinton made the FISA court into a rubber-stamping operation after Oklahoma City, but then they ignored FISA entirely after 9/11.
More on topic, I don't see much problem with giving the police broad crime fighting powers, provided there is proper oversight for abuse. A good warrant system can do that, and need not be much of a time burden if the right procedures are in place. But there better be something. Even the rubber-stamping FISA court at least created a paper trail.
Do you seriously think that in over 300 years of violin making that noone has yet beaten what must be by now ancient and squeaky artifacts?
I'm willing to believe it's possible, with a caveat. In many artistic disciplines, the master may die without imparting all his knowledge to a student. When the student becomes the new master, he too later dies without passing on everything he knows. Thus, the knowledge base eventually dwindles. In part, the rigor in scientific fields of writing down everything in detail is an important part of fighting against this tendency.
You're telling me that one guy in the 1600 managed to get his hands on all the fungus infested trees in Europe brought on by the cold and "that's" what's making these things sound so good?
It wasn't the fungus that made Strads good (though I originally read it that way, too), but rather that Little Ice Age produced long winters and short summers that made trees grow slow. Wood grown slow tends to be harder. The fungus is a modern attempt to duplicate this effect.
It's like how in blind tastings no-one can tell the difference between cheap and expensive wines.
Not necessarily cheep and expensive, but double blind tests have made important changes within the wine industry. A well-trained sommelier can, completely blind, tell you the type, vintage, region, rainfall that year, and the type of wood in the barrel used to age the wine. If you're just talking about doing some taste tests in a shopping mall, sure, nobody is going to tell the difference, but the same doesn't apply to people who have worked at wine tasting. Mind you, those same sommeliers won't necessarily choose expensive wines every time, either.
Much the same is true of classical music lovers. There must be some stipulations here, though. Hearing invariably degrades with age, whereas taste buds can be regrown and made better at any point in a person's life, barring some severe accidents or certain life choices (smoking can kill your taste buds for good, in some cases). Also, human hearing isn't all that great to begin with, and is highly susceptible to placebo effects. Audiophiles are particularly stupid. They perpetuate views that have no backing in double blind tests, and are largely people with more money than brains.
The test was with 5 violins, which consisted of one Strad, two made recently by biotech, and two made recently in the traditional way. The audience had 180 members. If you were to guess at random, you'd have a 20% chance of picking the Strad, and a 40% chance of picking out one of the biotech productions.
Some comments on the methodology:
As it happens, one of the biotech productions got 50% of the vote for the best sounding one, and 63% thought it was the Strad. That beats random guessing by a good margin, but I think this could have been done better.
Apparently, this is a good day for people to take an argument, then twist it to mean something completely different, like they took some martial arts course for the philosophically inclined.
By 1982, cars already had a fair amount of computerization. According to wiki, the Datsun 280Z started computer management in 1975, GM implemented its own proprietary interface in 1980, and the state of California mandated a standard in 1987. The full ODB-II was mandated federally in 1996.
By "reasonable lifetime", I was thinking of the timeframe you can go before most of the models sold for a particular year are in the junkyard, for whatever reason. With modern computer management, it's unlikely that the reason it went to the junkyard was the engine, excepting perhaps gross abuse by the driver (i.e., some teenager pins it to redline all the time).
As far as the environment is concerned, it's almost always better to keep an old car running than to build and buy a new one, no matter the mileage difference.
So, your argument that laws are good is telling me that identifying a market, investing time, effort, and money is illegal? That is a recipe for success. By your argument, anyone fixing anything without an approval (sanctioned training) would be in the wrong. Is that a world you want?
You're twisting my argument. Reverse engineering isn't illegal, specifically, you just have to be very careful how you do it. The broad outline is to have two completely separate teams, one breaking down the system and documenting everything in detail, and the second to make an implementation on those ideas. Should you have to go to court, you need to keep very careful records of the entire process.
This process is actually pretty common in the car industry, but it represents a high barrier to entry to anyone trying it on their own.
The GP was making fun of the open market, I support all of us having a choice. It's closed now, but if one - just one - serious manufacturer opens, they all will have too... eventually.
I'll bet you'll find that the dealers push back by refusing to sell the cars. It's mostly their profits that are at stake here, not the manufacturers.
Now of course, I do not have to do business with a car company that will not allow me to fix my own car. I can, instead choose to support any company that provides such information as necessary.
No, you can't. All the manufacturers keep this info hidden. The only possible exception I can think of are smaller performance car makers, like Ariel or Ascari, but I wouldn't count on it too much. They're also all small trackday cars with face-ripping acceleration and enough room in the trunk for maybe a toothbrush and a small sandwich.
Or I can search for a brilliant mechanic, computer tech, and electrical engineer who will work together to fix my car and we can open our own business.
Good luck. Reverse engineering laws are hard to get around if you're going to commercialize your work.
Or I can buy a car with no computer interfaces at all that I can repair with little more than a hammer. Of course such a car as in the last example would probably fail the state mandated emissions standards - boo state!
Such a shame we don't have widespread smog problems in most major cities.
Those computer interfaces don't just keep emissions down. They're also keeping performance and gas millage up, as well as vastly increasing the durability of engines. In well-built engines, there are almost never any mechanical problems within a car's reasonable lifetime. There's a bunch of sensors helping to keep everything tidy, and a given engine code is almost always the result of one of those sensors going out, not something like a piston connecting rod blowing through your hood.
When people say they used to be able to repair anything on their car with a wrench and a hammer, they're not looking at the full picture.
This might sound unfair, but it's really very simple. If a reporter comes to ask you about your research, and comes away printing something totally inaccurate or just completely wrong then that is your fault.
Shortly after 9/11, Phil Zimmermann was interviewed about the possibility that PGP was used in planning the attacks. He carefully stated that he had no regrets, but that's not what the Washington Post ran.
He was already very experienced with handling the press by that point. He even had the journalist read the entire article over the phone before sending it to the editor. So apparently, there is no defense against a bad editor misrepresenting something, unless you ignore the press altogether.
Yup, doesn't change radioactivity at all. Despite heavy metal toxicity being a far bigger problem in terms of actual, real-world pollution, it just doesn't have the attention-grabbing aspects that radiation does.
And why are you listening to top 40 radio?
I don't, for exactly the reasons cited above.
You don't always have to be contrarian, you know.
Do too!
Another big new feature: iTunes LPs. These LPs will be a digital album with cover art, lyrics, videos, and other customized content created by the artists themselves
I read that as "we're giving into the RIAA, who wants people to buy 12 songs at a time, only 2 of which are worth a listen, and which you will be sick of already from being played endlessly on Top 40 radio in between 10 minute commercial breaks and 5 minutes of the DJ talking about their dog."
Did you consider the fact that they probably planned a close quarters battle because they had AK-47s? Who is to say what they would have done if they had access to a couple .50 cals?
What use would that be? Sniping takes an awful lot of training, and these yahoos entire experience was shooting off some guns in a field and playing paintball. In all likelihood, their first shot would miss, they lose the element of surprise, and the trained soldiers in the base would quickly swarm their position.
That is, if a .50 cal rifle was even a good choice for shooting people. A slightly smaller round stays supersonic longer, and people are squishy. If you have your choice of weapons and targets, then the big .50 cal is for hitting infrastructure (storage tanks, trains, etc.), not people.
Their other option is to go to the .50 cal Desert Eagle handgun, which is expensive, bulky, more powerful than any police or military unit needs, not particularly accurate, and doesn't shoot particularly fast. As far as I can tell, its primary use is for keeping the world safe from rabid watermelons, and looking cool in games and movies. In other words, exactly the sort of gun a Counterstrike player who wants to try the real thing would pick, only to get shot down a run-of-the-mill Glock after his first few shots go wide. And his dieing words will probably be "wall hacker!"
You certainly wouldn't have thought the statement was silly if he had said "Nuclear Weapon" instead.
Sure I would, just for different reasons. Getting enough material for a functional nuclear weapon together is difficult, and comes with a lot of little design problems that have to done just right.
Non-issue. The main concern is the total heat capacity of the entire ecosystem, not a localized heating of a river. All energy production methods lose energy to heat. Since nuclear can reach well over a thousand degrees, it's Carnot Limit is quite a bit higher than almost anything else.
The 1 degree of change being a problem comes as an average. Since some places are known to be cooler, and other stay roughly the same, a 1 degree increase can correspond to 10 or more degrees increase in certain locations, particularly the poles.
A majority of Americans thinks nuclear power, which emits virtually no carbon dioxide . . .
Nuclear plants require a large containment building, which takes a lot of concrete. Lots. That concrete puts out gigantic amounts of CO2 when it's initially made.
However, it does reabsorb CO2 as it cures over the building's lifetime. It takes decades, but it's eventually carbon neutral. It also doesn't come with all the other junk being dumped into the atmosphere that comes from coal like heavy metals, sulfur, NOx, and radioactive isotopes (yes, quite a bit more than the dirtiest nuclear plant would).
You shouldn't have to distort things to promote Nuclear.
Basically, almost all the people who actually know a thing or two about guns are on the anti-control side of the debate. When the people for gun control write laws, their experience is largely drawn from movies rather than any personal experience, so their laws end up being silly and ineffectual. They also tend to say things like this:
"As unnerving as the Fort Dix terrorism plot was, it could have been all the more worse if the weapons of choice for alleged assailants had been .50 caliber assault guns instead of AK-47s," said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer.
No, it wouldn't have. In a close quarters battle (which is what the Dix guys were planning), a 50 cal is far too bulky to be usable; we should wish the terrorist were that dumb. An assault rifle, like the AK-47, is ideal for this sort of thing.
I took a quick look at that book on a store shelf once, and it smells of a gigantic "get off my lawn" diatribe.
First off, the cover comes off as silly. While I get the ironic imagery of Japaneese robots reenacting the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, it also lacks appreciation for the details for the themes explored in Gundam.
More to the point, there was never some intellectual golden age, during the author's lifetime or otherwise, where people had a broad appreciation for literature, art, and history. A review of the book on Amazon gives many specific examples of this generation being quite a bit smarter than Bauerlein's own generation.
As was discussed recently here, some people do physically feel the effect of cell phones on their body. I'm one of those people, so I'm certain there is an effect. Exactly what that effect is, I don't know, other than it makes me nauseous if I hold it next to my head for more than a minute or so. I just use a Bluetooth headset and don't have any problems, as long as I don't put the cell phone itself next to my head.
I realize your pain is real. However, the human brain is very susceptible to the placebo effect, or there may be other effects. Whatever is actually happening, we can be sure that electrosensitivty is not actually caused by EM fields. There have been too many studies showing no link.
Frankly, whatever is causing this pain, it isn't EM. It may well be something else casually linked to cellphones (just to throw something out there, perhaps pinched nerves due to a complicated set of body mechanics caused by holding the cellphone a certain way), but the mystery isn't going to be solved by continuing to perpetuate the idea of it being radio transmissions.
Cell reproduction is pretty complicated. How do you exclude the possibility that EMF may cause a mutation by an unknown mechanism?
I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Science doesn't work on absolutes like that. Given the weight of evidence, it is very likely EMF does not cause cancer. I can't exclude that it does, but I can't exclude the fact that I might get hit by a meteorite, either. In both cases, it's rational to go on without believing it.
Bad things. The Penny-farthing design died for a reason.
If you have a regular old magnet, it has North and South sides. The net force, or charge, between those two sides is zero.
A monopole would be North or South, but not both. It would have a positive net force, much like an electron.
Yeah, I know, it is a bit obscure. But it was an important part of early Internet journalism, so I was hoping someone on Slashdot would catch it.
Whoosh
Just offer them a Miata, X-Men number 1, and a subscription to Playboy.