And here I thought it was to back up Unocal's ultimatum to the Taliban regarding the Caspian oil pipeline, "either accept our carpet of gold, or will cover you with a carpet of bombs".
Hamid Karzai was a Unocal employee, now titular president of Afghanistan, but mockingly called "the mayor of Kabul" by the locals. Amusingly, the supposed 320 billion barrel Caspian basin reserves have proven less than 40 billion barrels.
Do they still call muslims "homicide bombers"? I stopped watching Fox when they started pushing war on Islam.
Bias is a complex issue. All news reports have a point of view, a set of assumptions, and a worfian frame -- an idiolect. There's also the micro- and macro-scale selections of attention set which come strongly into play, on the micro-scale within an article or a story arc, and on the macro-scale as editorial policy.
As a result of this complexity, while certain shocking and brazen examples of bias could be presented (having merely anecdotal force), a meaningful and considered discussion of the peculiar biases of a media outlet would be lengthy and ill-suited to slashdot.
Also, bias is highly multi-dimensional, and the peculiarities of each persons personal map of the boundary between left and right as it divides that space will need to be reconciled, so that semantic quibbling doesn't overwhelm the discussion.
Wikipedia will increase in accuracy and reliability as much due to advanced in technology as due to the peer-review process implemented by an expanding community of experts.
For example, there will be language-neutral formal representations of the content of its articles, from which the various translations are generated, and to which submissions are normalized. These representations will be verified for consistency, and query pages will be designed to seek out issues of disagreement between submitters.
Wikipedia isn't just a website which pretends to be an encyclopedia. It's the seed from which the single unified representation of all human knowledge will eventually spring.
Drug research is pretty awful, all around. Peer review has done precious little to improve it. And yes, it's because of the funding mechanisms. A very different, but related, problem is evidenced by the case of aneutronic catalyzed fusion. There's a passel of professional physicists with a vested interest in keeping MHD plasma research funding flowing, and none with an interest in promoting science which could threaten that funding.
Either I'm at home, or in an airport or a starbucks, or Philadelphia, and I can make free VOIP calls or else I'm on the road, out of range, and I can't. If I'm riding downtown, I don't want my call to be handed off 20 times in order to save 5 minutes on a cell plan, I just want it to work. I just don't care if a call in the theatre lobby or the museum parking lot is VOIP or GSM.
A previous American president enforced a blockade which killed more than 500,000 Iraqis. So what? Human life is cheap. Now threatening the perceived value of little green pieces of paper... that's a serious crime.
Rather than giving the computer the data, or even a delta patch from old data to new data, just tell it what 2k data blocks change to what new values, where the set of data block values is indexed by a hash and registration index. Store a map between
and data blocks in DNS.
When I said 'aneutronic', I meant 'without neutrons', as in excess neutrons. We really are a bit slow out of the gate this morning, eh?
When I said it was, in my mind, a real nuclear effect, since 1989 (for which I made the typographic error of typing 1986), I meant to point out that my mind corresponded much more closely to reality than does your mind, which is still adamantly resistant to the assault of experimental evidence.
It never ceases to amaze me, the myriad ways in which the warped minds of intellectually dishonest and self-decieved can twist every attempt at meaningful communication into some sort of support for egotistical delusion.
> Pons and Fleischmann violated just about every > tenet of the open, peer-reviewed scientific > process. In so doing they abandoned any claim to > legitimacy.
I call bullshit. I also call slander, and sour grapes. Back up that statement or eat it.
You think that you have nothing to hide because you are ignorant of the large number of laws that you violate on a daily basis. When you become politically unpopular, or inconvenient to some powerful person's brother-in-law, you will be removed to prison.
I take exception: Cold fusion has always and obviously been a real nuclear effect, in my mind, as I have publically argued, often on slashdot, since 1986. But its rejection has nothing to do with power-generation and fuel interests and everything to do with
1) mindless, authority-seeking crowd-following 2) facile James Randi/snopes.com style sophomoric skepticism 3) overweening arrogance 4) academic turf-protection 5) funding for hot fusion research
in what I think is an approximation of the increasing order of importance.
No matter how remarkable and even eventually useful aneutronic catalyzed fusion proves to be, it's not going to threaten electrical generation or fuel industries in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of their current investors.
Slashdot Mirror
Bring an AR-15 and a couple of SIGs to work. Wear BDUs, and a BIG knife. Sit down at the desk and just do your job. Smile at the receptionist.
If anybody tries to stop you, just pull the bolt and frown at them.
I'd like to know what's glamourous about being a mindless skank.
Not a troll, honest. I'd just like to know.
And here I thought it was to back up Unocal's ultimatum to the Taliban regarding the Caspian oil pipeline, "either accept our carpet of gold, or will cover you with a carpet of bombs".
Hamid Karzai was a Unocal employee, now titular president of Afghanistan, but mockingly called "the mayor of Kabul" by the locals. Amusingly, the supposed 320 billion barrel Caspian basin reserves have proven less than 40 billion barrels.
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children moronity?
Did you mean to characterize Chomsky as a Marxist?
If so, you are woefully misguided. If not, you
might wish to rephrase.
Do they still call muslims "homicide bombers"? I stopped watching Fox when they started pushing war on Islam.
Bias is a complex issue. All news reports have a point of view, a set of assumptions, and a worfian frame -- an idiolect. There's also the micro- and
macro-scale selections of attention set which come strongly into play, on the micro-scale within an article or a story arc, and on the macro-scale as editorial policy.
As a result of this complexity, while certain shocking and brazen examples of bias could be presented (having merely anecdotal force), a meaningful and considered discussion of the peculiar biases of a media outlet would be lengthy and ill-suited to slashdot.
Also, bias is highly multi-dimensional, and the peculiarities of each persons personal map of the boundary between left and right as it divides that space will need to be reconciled, so that semantic quibbling doesn't overwhelm the discussion.
Wikipedia will increase in accuracy and reliability as much due to advanced in technology as due to the peer-review process implemented by an expanding community of experts.
For example, there will be language-neutral formal representations of the content of its articles, from which the various translations are generated, and to which submissions are normalized. These representations will be verified for consistency, and query pages will be designed to seek out issues of disagreement between submitters.
Wikipedia isn't just a website which pretends to be an encyclopedia. It's the seed from which the single unified representation of all human knowledge will eventually spring.
Drug research is pretty awful, all around. Peer review has done precious little to improve it. And yes, it's because of the funding mechanisms. A very different, but related, problem is evidenced by the case of aneutronic catalyzed fusion. There's a passel of professional physicists with a vested interest in keeping MHD plasma research funding flowing, and none with an interest in promoting science which could threaten that funding.
Ah, this explains the why the seamless handoff issue
is hyped far beyond its vanishingly small practical
importance.
What I really want is a cell that operates as a VOIP portable in WiFi areas, and as a cell elsewhere, no handoffs.
I think he meant 3. It only takes 3 colors to fill
a map of hexagonal cells.
Who really cares about this feature?
Either I'm at home, or in an airport or a starbucks, or Philadelphia, and I can make free VOIP calls or else I'm on the road, out of range,
and I can't. If I'm riding downtown, I don't
want my call to be handed off 20 times in order to save 5 minutes on a cell plan, I just want it to work. I just don't care if a call in the theatre lobby or the museum parking lot is VOIP or GSM.
> you won't take the white guy's b/c he doesn't have a leg to stand on?
I think that would violate the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA).
A previous American president enforced a blockade
which killed more than 500,000 Iraqis. So what?
Human life is cheap. Now threatening the perceived
value of little green pieces of paper... that's a
serious crime.
Not at all. In a future life you will be reincarnated as a VAX emulator.
Rather than giving the computer the data, or even
a delta patch from old data to new data, just tell
it what 2k data blocks change to what new values,
where the set of data block values is indexed by a
hash and registration index. Store a map between
and data blocks in
DNS.
OK, so I'm only half-joking.
> If you read /. a bit, you know it is slanted. Don't complain.
Yeah, if you don't want to read a right-leaning
site, go read |. -- or for a left-leaning slant,
go check \.
Same reason 6'4" farangs want to live in ChangMai
with 4'10" Thai girls -- only more so.
I think the point was that the VW wasn't on steroids, and hence no larger than a typical VW.
I think any sensible hacker would prefer to chemically separate the plutonium which will
derive from u238 neutron capture and subsequent
beta-decay.
Wow, cool. I know now how I'm going to fund my
retirement.
When I said 'aneutronic', I meant 'without neutrons', as in excess neutrons. We really are a bit slow out of the gate this morning, eh?
When I said it was, in my mind, a real nuclear effect, since 1989 (for which I made the
typographic error of typing 1986), I meant to
point out that my mind corresponded much more
closely to reality than does your mind, which is
still adamantly resistant to the assault of
experimental evidence.
It never ceases to amaze me, the myriad ways in
which the warped minds of intellectually dishonest
and self-decieved can twist every attempt at
meaningful communication into some sort of
support for egotistical delusion.
Fallacy of false dilemma. In fact, I hit a 6 when I should have hit a 9.
Really, it's not hard to tell who are the trolls here. Generally it's the ones who call others trolls early in the dialogue.
> Pons and Fleischmann violated just about every
> tenet of the open, peer-reviewed scientific
> process. In so doing they abandoned any claim to
> legitimacy.
I call bullshit. I also call slander, and sour grapes. Back up that statement or eat it.
You think that you have nothing to hide because
you are ignorant of the large number of laws that
you violate on a daily basis. When you become
politically unpopular, or inconvenient to some
powerful person's brother-in-law, you will be
removed to prison.
I take exception: Cold fusion has always and
obviously been a real nuclear effect, in my mind,
as I have publically argued, often on slashdot,
since 1986. But its rejection has nothing to do
with power-generation and fuel interests and
everything to do with
1) mindless, authority-seeking crowd-following
2) facile James Randi/snopes.com style sophomoric skepticism
3) overweening arrogance
4) academic turf-protection
5) funding for hot fusion research
in what I think is an approximation of the
increasing order of importance.
No matter how remarkable and even eventually useful
aneutronic catalyzed fusion proves to be,
it's not going to threaten electrical generation
or fuel industries in our lifetimes, or the
lifetimes of their current investors.