Exactly. I lived in NC (a little kid, 5 years old) at the time, so I have only very vague memories of it. But the "one remaining switch" that the Guardian is nattering about is, in fact, the final failsafe, which was put in the bomb for that very reason, and prevented it from exploding -- as designed. It worked.
If they were at war, as soon as they crossed into enemy territory, they would have flipped that switch to arm the bomb.
Doesn't mean it wasn't scary. Nuclear bombs are very scary devices and (of course!) I'm glad it didn't go off. But believe me, there were many other close calls in the nuclear program over the years -- both ours and in other countries. Anyone who doubts that should do a little Googlin' or spend some time at Wikipedia. You can start with Wikipedia's articles on "the demon core" and "criticality accidents."
> On a side note it is interesting to note that japan were already under the process of surrender
You're talking to an amateur student of WWII history here. I have to put in my two cents on that one.:)
Your assertion is disputed, even by Japanese historians. Yes, Hirohito had told his people in mid-summer to begin working toward surrender. But the Potsdam declaration for "unconditional surrender" knocked them back. There were many hardliners in the Japanese military who even considered a coup, followed by a scorched-earth policy. Hirohito didn't demand surrender until after the atomic bombings and after the Soviets declared war. You can decide which was the primary cause. I think it was both.
The US dropped the bombs for several reasons. Yes, part of it was that they wanted to see the effect on a city. But another part is something that you don't hear discussed much, and that certainly didn't appear in the patriotic films from that era. The fact is, after years of war, morale was slipping in the US military. There were desertions. Some in the military made it clear -- respectfully but firmly -- that it was time to wrap up the game and head home. So, that was another pressure to use the bombs: to get it over with quickly.
If the hardliners in Japan had held out (and the Allies had no way to know what Hirohito was thinking for certain), Army estimates are that the Allies would have lost around 1,000,000 men if they'd invaded Japan. You can dispute that nowadays, but that was their best estimate. Truman was horrified, and coupled with what I just said -- the threats of desertion and mutiny in the Pacific -- he elected to use the "doomsday weapon.".
We'll never know for sure. But just as wars rarely start because of one simple reason, the same is true of how they end.
> the more complex the product the more complex the printer will need to be and the less efficient doing it on a small scale will be
There's some truth to that. I don't think you're going to have many individuals building a BMW (or even a Nissan Sentra) at home. A few hobbyists, maybe, not on a large scale.
But what is GOING to happen... count on it... is that small, local "custom shops" are going to spring up. What if I could get a cross between a Sentra and a BMW? Or something that looks like a Ferrari, but with the safety and fuel mileage of a small Audi? Now the IP laws are actually *overlapping* between identified brands.
What if I can go into a custom tailor's shop and have a suit made while I go have lunch? Just the way I want it, at a reasonable price, and without waiting for days.
> So there's really nothing to get upset about here.
Of course there is. A dumb ruling sets a precedent that may not affect *you* in the instant case, but it could certainly set a precedent that another company could use to come after *you* later.
Judge any and all cases on the *merits* and the underlying principles, not on whether you like or identify with the defendant.
> Until a crime has been committed there should be no investigation and no violation of my space.
You've hit the nail on the head. In the US, we used to have a principle: "innocent until proven guilty."
The problem is, the more that the citizenry of the US come to believe in an all-powerful nanny state (forgive me for using the pejorative term, I haven't finished my coffee and can't think of a milder one), the more likely they are to scream, "why didn't the government *PREVENT* this from happening"... whenever something bad occurs.
(Corollary: the people also yell, "why didn't the government *FIX* this faster when it DID happen," but that's arguably off-topic.)
The sad truth is that no politician, Dem or Repub, wants to be seen as having done nothing to prevent another 9/11. They know that their opponents will make hay about it. So, we get to live in a surveillance state.
>> Open Source... is just not a viable business model.
> Agreed... closed source... can't trust...
But then again, one of Bruce's arguments is that WE -- the engineers and geeks who built the Internet -- should fix it. Doesn't that imply an open source approach as well? The existence of third-party, closed-source vendors is just a symptom of the underlying problem. If they go out of business as a result of the Net being "fixed" by the community, then... oh, well. Just my opinion.
> Neil deGrasse Tyson says only the government can do Space.
He may be the current media darling, but that doesn't make him always right.
All it will take is for the first asteroid with significant platinum group deposits to be discovered, close enough to make mining the materials profitable over a 10-20 year time frame, and all of a sudden, space will become quite appealing.:)
NASA likes the big, impressive launches, complete with dramatic countdown. Dozens of smaller launches that then meet in orbit don't make good television.
> Apple have such a lock on the educational system that it's effectively created a duopoly with Microsoft?
(Stephen throws a chair, then dances like a monkey for a bit...) "Marketing... marketing... marketing... marketing...
It's all marketing. Not talking about the smiling guy with the gray blazer knocking on the door, either. *Aggressive* marketing. Make people think yours is the "must have" product and they'll say, "I must have that!"
Think about it: iPhones are nice, and I'm not knocking them, but at the end of the day, it's a freaking PHONE, people. There are plenty of other offerings that arguably as good (or better). But if you're part of the Crowd(tm), you want to be able to wave it at your friends and say, "yasss, I have the new iPhone."
Same with tablets, pads, coffee mugs and clothing.
> he does believe that the planet is warming and it is our fault; he seems to distrust the mathematical models
But that's a critical distinction.
Remember, the issue is not that humans have caused *some* climate change. Of course we have. Move from a rural area into any city and you quickly realize that.:)
What I am addressing -- and this is precisely on topic and the very reason why I spoke up (again: wasting my time, I know) -- is the *panic* over global warming. Freeman Dyson questions the *extent* to which humans are causing it. He's not alone.
But I'm done wasting my time. Believe as you wish.
Apples and oranges. When Origin of Species was published, people communicated by mail. Of course it took many years. If Darwin had access to email and an account here at Slashdot... ?:)
> powerful industry
There are powerful industries and political interests that stand to gain mightily from AGW, too. No one's hands are clean. (Jeffrey Immelt at General Electric, just to name one.) That argument holds no water for me.
Whew. Here I am posting in another Global Warming thread, when I know it will not make a LICK of difference and that no one will change their minds because of what I say. Call me Quixotic.:)
Yes, there is a strong consensus among a specific, limited set of climate researchers. Yes, it's well over 90%. But if you expand that field to include people who may not be Official, Member-Of-The-Club, Card Carryin' Climate Researchers(tm)(r)(c)(sm), but are certainly capable of a less-than-drooling-moron opinion (atmospheric physicists, for example), that number drops dramatically. If you expand it to include other disciplines, that number drops like a stone.
Someone here mentioned comparable support for the theory of evolution. That's an invalid comparison. You can visit with chemists, physicists, mechanical engineers, you name it... and the vast majority strongly accept that theory. BUT... in this case, if you include other disciplines, there is no consensus. I've mentioned Freeman Dyson here before; yes, he's a physicist, but he is very skeptical of claims for man-caused global warming. I respect him tremendously.
(For that matter, not that many years ago -- maybe before my time, but not before my grandfather's -- the most imminent doctors in the world were still insisting that disease was caused by "humors" and other such nonsense. We now know more.
Until we know more and have a lot more data, I will support clean energy because it makes sense, but I am not going to panic and -- take this to the bank! -- I am NOT going to allow the government to use this as an excuse to grab even more power and control.
No, and I'm afraid that endless surveillance is going to become the "New Normal."
If something can be done, it WILL be done, regardless of any laws passed to stop it. People are curious, people want power, people want control. For better or worse, the Digital Age is upon us, and all the laws in the world are not going to stop a determined person from digging into your data if he/she wants to. They'll just find better ways to hide what they're doing.
Think about it. The government's approach to this has been to punish the LEAKERS who've brought attention to the surveillance. Not to make any meaningful changes in the surveillance itself. That, right there, proves my point.
> Where were you racist idiots when these programs were being started by President Bush?
Disagreeing with someone over policy has nothing to do with racism. That's a red herring whose only purpose is to stifle discussion. The truth is, those who keep playing that card are just crying "wolf," and it will eventually lose any meaning whatsoever.
For the record, I DID disagree with Bush on this endless surveillance, even though I'm a conservative.
And there were some of us who were hoping that Obama would do BETTER. And you can't understand their disappointment?
One of the oldest rules of all is that you can't sue someone with no pockets. The RIAA engaged in some exceptions solely to send a message.. . . but that's actually a perfect illustration of MY point. If they sued me and won, I'd just laugh at them and say, "I have no assets, kids! Have fun!" But if they sue me and I win, I can recover my legal costs.
If the RIAA had known that, if they lost a case, they'd have to pay tons of legal fees, they'd be FAR less likely to pursue the case. Flipside: if I know I'm innocent and have a good case, I am MUCH more likely to retain a decent lawyer, if he/she knows that they'll get a fair fee at the end of the trial.
Look: no system is perfect. There are no perfect answers. But loser pay is by far the most fair compromise. Large corporations aren't going to spend millions of dollars going after someone with no assets, unless they're trying to send a message... and in that case, let them have their Pyrrhic victory.
If anything good is coming out of all this NSA-spying, DMCA-takedown, RIAA-"Yo Momma" madness, it's that ordinary geeks in the United States are finally realizing just how desperately -- DESPERATELY -- this country needs loser-pay legislation. (Or maybe even a Constitutional Amendment, just to keep the courts from watering it down.)
The entire legal landscape in this country would be completely and totally different. Totally. Completely. Many of the most (in)famous court cases that have been covered here on Slashdot probably wouldn't have ever happened, if the plaintiffs knew they could get stuck with the legal fees if they lost.
The makers of HFCS say that it's the "same as sugar" (i.e., table sugar, i.e., sucrose), but that's not strictly accurate. It really should be compared to *invert* sugar, in which the glucose and fructose molecules have been separated. Bakers have been using that for centuries: take sucrose and heat it with a mild acidic solution (such as lemon juice), and there you go.
The problem is it's hard to know whom to believe about HFCS. My wife and I have essentially cut out added sugar. We don't even have sugar in our house. And yet, we still both struggle to keep our A1C under 6-7. In our case, walking and mild exercise have made the biggest difference. (Ah, the joys of getting older.):)
Now for the fine print: "we don't have sugar in our house..." yeah, I know. Actually, we do. Someone did a comparison between cereals, cookies and breads from a couple of decades ago, and the manufacturers are adding considerably more sugar now, because that's what consumers want.
As for lab animals becoming fatter, I think that's simple: they're being fed processed foods as well. Think about it: do you throw your cat a slab of meat every evening, or do you open a can or pour some dry food? The latter are LOADED with added carbohydrates. Loaded. Cats are CARNIVORES.
My biggest complaint about HFCS isn't the syrup, per se, it's that Monsanto and ADM have ruined my corn. They've modified the corn to be sweeter, so that they can get more HFCS and ethanol from it. I used to love corn on the cob, but given that Sandy and I have tried to stop eating so much sugar, it's sickeningly sweet to us now. We buy locally-grown, unmodified corn whenever possible. Rarely from a supermarket.
> Slightly off-topic, but there are some studies that appear to suggest that watching excessive amounts of television can detrimentally effect the development of children’s brains
nOnSEnse eye watcHED lotS Of tV aS a KId and It didn"T buTHeR mE nun eYE tuRnEd oWt fyn
> Simple. It's because of how things run in public services.
Yes and no. Some of it is just that old Demon Money(tm) and the fact that we were in a protracted recession.
We were using a certain company for ad insertion on our Web streams. (Three radio stations total.) We were having trouble getting the software to work, so we contacted their help/support team. They used VNC to look at our system and said, "we only support Windows XP."
I sent them a rather nastily-worded letter. They claimed to be cutting edge, with the ability to sort and insert commercial content intelligently, and all other sorts of bells and whistles. And yet, I said, "you will only support a 10-year old operating system?"
They replied and allowed (as someone granting a great concession) that they would work with us, but could make no guarantees. We canceled the contract and went with another company.
In this case, it's simple: they hired someone to write the package several years ago, and wanted to re-sell the same package again and again. They didn't want to pay to update the software. So, they lost a lot of business. Assuming they're not bankrupt now, I hope they learned an important lesson.:)
I assume you're speaking of the book by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee? I'll have to look at that one. As I've posted here previously in other threads, I recently finished Alone In The Universe by John Gribbin, which reaches the same conclusion. I don't know about Rare Earth, but Gribbin's book is based on tons of new computer simulations.
Gribbin points out that *simple* single-celled life may indeed be common within the Galactical Habitable Zone. That's an extremely important distinction. Making intelligent life is the trick. A number of very unlikely things have to work out for that.
This flies in the face of intuition. (And besides, Geeks have gotten so used to seeing Klingons and Drazi and Wookies in movies and on TV, it's just taken for granted now.) We just *assume* that the natural end course of evolution is some form of intelligence: give evolution a good, robust single cell to work with and a few billion years of time, and you will inevitably end up with some form of intelligence. But that's not necessarily so.
As someone else points out here, those who actually study this stuff are reaching a consensus that intelligent life (again, don't miss that!) may indeed be extremely rare in our universe. Yes, even though the universe is huge and large and unfathomable.
> How in the hell is income tax unconstitutional when Amendment XVI of the constitution specifically authorizes Congress to levy it?
Good heavens, don't feed the trolls. You'll get a dozen answers and the net result is that you'll be late for dinner.:)
I strongly recommend Dan Evans Tax Protester FAQ. He covers all of the arguments (and why they've failed in court) in more detail than you probably want.
Sure. One of our radio stations here runs Dave Ramsey, who of course believes that all debt is evil. I respect him and understand his logic, but on the other hand, sometimes it DOES make sense. We bought a car on credit, but the mileage is so much better than our old vehicle, I can show you hard figures: we are definitely saving money every month.
As for this article, this study completely misses the point. Just like my wife and I with that new car, government borrowing can make sense... depending on what it's used for. That's what this whole debate is missing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, you can argue that this could pay for itself (even if indirectly) down the road. But borrowing just so that a politician won't have to tell his/her voters that no, the government CAN'T afford to give you everything you want (who wants to hear that???), is just insanity.
> There's a grocery store in my area that's definitely using a jammer of some kind...
Here's what I'd do. Go inside and talk to the manager. Just ask him or her if they are jamming cell phones. It *may* just be that they have some equipment in there that's generating a spurious signal. (Happens ALL the time, sigh, I speak from experience, *whimper*.)
But if they are jamming, hand them a copy of that NAL and say, "you might want to stop." If they continue to do it, you should notify the FCC. I don't like being a tattletale either (that's why I'd talk with them first), but sometimes, you have to.
I have personal interest in this kind of thing. I have enough trouble ensuring that my *licensed* signals don't bother you (and vice-versa). The last thing I need is an *unlicensed* signal messing with some of my critical studio to transmitter links, which run just above one of the "cell" bands at 940-960 MHz. These foreign-made jammers ain't exactly the best-made and most carefully-tuned devices on the planet.:)
>unless it's a coincidence that I lose service right after stepping inside
A typical mobile phone might still show a signal if there is interference; you just wouldn't be able to make a call. (That's basically what "jamming" is: interference done on purpose.) If you're showing *no* signal, that's probably just the building blocking the RF.
Here in Birmingham, AL, there's a spot on I-65 where my phone shows tons of signal, but I invariably lose a call there, because of interference.
Having dealt with the FCC a time or two (I'm a radio engineer, AM/FM), I read the NAL. These yahoos weren't just jamming cell signals inside their facility. That's illegal enough, but the NAL makes it clear that they WERE spilling signal all over the place. The FCC's field engineer was able to triangulate the building's location, getting a positive ID. They should have been shut down.
Look: you can discourage cell use with a faraday cage or other shielding, as some here have mentioned. If you're using a jammer, f'crying out loud, you DEFINITELY need shielding, anyway, or you're going to be interfering with people well outside of your facility.
> life might be quite rare... and... > life is much more resilient...
I'm going to split the difference between you two. I just finished reading John Gribbin's "Alone In The Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique." Yes, it's another rehash of the "Rare Earth" hypothesis, but he bases it on some of the latest computer simulations.
Gribbin says that *simple single-celled life* might be very common throughout our Galaxy. But Gribbin makes the argument that *sentient* life is probably quite rare.
You may not agree with his conclusion, but he presents the latest evidence and theories for solar system formation. Well worth the read.
Slashdot Mirror
> the triple fail-safe worked.
Exactly. I lived in NC (a little kid, 5 years old) at the time, so I have only very vague memories of it. But the "one remaining switch" that the Guardian is nattering about is, in fact, the final failsafe, which was put in the bomb for that very reason, and prevented it from exploding -- as designed. It worked.
If they were at war, as soon as they crossed into enemy territory, they would have flipped that switch to arm the bomb.
Doesn't mean it wasn't scary. Nuclear bombs are very scary devices and (of course!) I'm glad it didn't go off. But believe me, there were many other close calls in the nuclear program over the years -- both ours and in other countries. Anyone who doubts that should do a little Googlin' or spend some time at Wikipedia. You can start with Wikipedia's articles on "the demon core" and "criticality accidents."
> On a side note it is interesting to note that japan were already under the process of surrender
You're talking to an amateur student of WWII history here. I have to put in my two cents on that one. :)
Your assertion is disputed, even by Japanese historians. Yes, Hirohito had told his people in mid-summer to begin working toward surrender. But the Potsdam declaration for "unconditional surrender" knocked them back. There were many hardliners in the Japanese military who even considered a coup, followed by a scorched-earth policy. Hirohito didn't demand surrender until after the atomic bombings and after the Soviets declared war. You can decide which was the primary cause. I think it was both.
The US dropped the bombs for several reasons. Yes, part of it was that they wanted to see the effect on a city. But another part is something that you don't hear discussed much, and that certainly didn't appear in the patriotic films from that era. The fact is, after years of war, morale was slipping in the US military. There were desertions. Some in the military made it clear -- respectfully but firmly -- that it was time to wrap up the game and head home. So, that was another pressure to use the bombs: to get it over with quickly.
If the hardliners in Japan had held out (and the Allies had no way to know what Hirohito was thinking for certain), Army estimates are that the Allies would have lost around 1,000,000 men if they'd invaded Japan. You can dispute that nowadays, but that was their best estimate. Truman was horrified, and coupled with what I just said -- the threats of desertion and mutiny in the Pacific -- he elected to use the "doomsday weapon.".
We'll never know for sure. But just as wars rarely start because of one simple reason, the same is true of how they end.
> the more complex the product the more complex the printer will need to be and the less efficient doing it on a small scale will be
There's some truth to that. I don't think you're going to have many individuals building a BMW (or even a Nissan Sentra) at home. A few hobbyists, maybe, not on a large scale.
But what is GOING to happen ... count on it ... is that small, local "custom shops" are going to spring up. What if I could get a cross between a Sentra and a BMW? Or something that looks like a Ferrari, but with the safety and fuel mileage of a small Audi? Now the IP laws are actually *overlapping* between identified brands.
What if I can go into a custom tailor's shop and have a suit made while I go have lunch? Just the way I want it, at a reasonable price, and without waiting for days.
THIS is the future. We live in exciting times.
> So there's really nothing to get upset about here.
Of course there is. A dumb ruling sets a precedent that may not affect *you* in the instant case, but it could certainly set a precedent that another company could use to come after *you* later.
Judge any and all cases on the *merits* and the underlying principles, not on whether you like or identify with the defendant.
> Until a crime has been committed there should be no investigation and no violation of my space.
You've hit the nail on the head. In the US, we used to have a principle: "innocent until proven guilty."
The problem is, the more that the citizenry of the US come to believe in an all-powerful nanny state (forgive me for using the pejorative term, I haven't finished my coffee and can't think of a milder one), the more likely they are to scream, "why didn't the government *PREVENT* this from happening" ... whenever something bad occurs.
(Corollary: the people also yell, "why didn't the government *FIX* this faster when it DID happen," but that's arguably off-topic.)
The sad truth is that no politician, Dem or Repub, wants to be seen as having done nothing to prevent another 9/11. They know that their opponents will make hay about it. So, we get to live in a surveillance state.
>> Open Source ... is just not a viable business model.
> Agreed ... closed source ... can't trust ...
But then again, one of Bruce's arguments is that WE -- the engineers and geeks who built the Internet -- should fix it. Doesn't that imply an open source approach as well? The existence of third-party, closed-source vendors is just a symptom of the underlying problem. If they go out of business as a result of the Net being "fixed" by the community, then ... oh, well. Just my opinion.
Interesting discussion, by the way.
> Neil deGrasse Tyson says only the government can do Space.
He may be the current media darling, but that doesn't make him always right.
All it will take is for the first asteroid with significant platinum group deposits to be discovered, close enough to make mining the materials profitable over a 10-20 year time frame, and all of a sudden, space will become quite appealing. :)
NASA likes the big, impressive launches, complete with dramatic countdown. Dozens of smaller launches that then meet in orbit don't make good television.
> Apple have such a lock on the educational system that it's effectively created a duopoly with Microsoft?
(Stephen throws a chair, then dances like a monkey for a bit ...) "Marketing ... marketing ... marketing ... marketing ...
It's all marketing. Not talking about the smiling guy with the gray blazer knocking on the door, either. *Aggressive* marketing. Make people think yours is the "must have" product and they'll say, "I must have that!"
Think about it: iPhones are nice, and I'm not knocking them, but at the end of the day, it's a freaking PHONE, people. There are plenty of other offerings that arguably as good (or better). But if you're part of the Crowd(tm), you want to be able to wave it at your friends and say, "yasss, I have the new iPhone."
Same with tablets, pads, coffee mugs and clothing.
> he does believe that the planet is warming and it is our fault; he seems to distrust the mathematical models
But that's a critical distinction.
Remember, the issue is not that humans have caused *some* climate change. Of course we have. Move from a rural area into any city and you quickly realize that. :)
What I am addressing -- and this is precisely on topic and the very reason why I spoke up (again: wasting my time, I know) -- is the *panic* over global warming. Freeman Dyson questions the *extent* to which humans are causing it. He's not alone.
But I'm done wasting my time. Believe as you wish.
> Evolution has had >100 years
Apples and oranges. When Origin of Species was published, people communicated by mail. Of course it took many years. If Darwin had access to email and an account here at Slashdot ... ? :)
> powerful industry
There are powerful industries and political interests that stand to gain mightily from AGW, too. No one's hands are clean. (Jeffrey Immelt at General Electric, just to name one.) That argument holds no water for me.
> I guess 97% of experts could be wrong ...
Whew. Here I am posting in another Global Warming thread, when I know it will not make a LICK of difference and that no one will change their minds because of what I say. Call me Quixotic. :)
Yes, there is a strong consensus among a specific, limited set of climate researchers. Yes, it's well over 90%. But if you expand that field to include people who may not be Official, Member-Of-The-Club, Card Carryin' Climate Researchers(tm)(r)(c)(sm), but are certainly capable of a less-than-drooling-moron opinion (atmospheric physicists, for example), that number drops dramatically. If you expand it to include other disciplines, that number drops like a stone.
Someone here mentioned comparable support for the theory of evolution. That's an invalid comparison. You can visit with chemists, physicists, mechanical engineers, you name it ... and the vast majority strongly accept that theory. BUT ... in this case, if you include other disciplines, there is no consensus. I've mentioned Freeman Dyson here before; yes, he's a physicist, but he is very skeptical of claims for man-caused global warming. I respect him tremendously.
(For that matter, not that many years ago -- maybe before my time, but not before my grandfather's -- the most imminent doctors in the world were still insisting that disease was caused by "humors" and other such nonsense. We now know more.
Until we know more and have a lot more data, I will support clean energy because it makes sense, but I am not going to panic and -- take this to the bank! -- I am NOT going to allow the government to use this as an excuse to grab even more power and control.
> Really is anyone surprised?
No, and I'm afraid that endless surveillance is going to become the "New Normal."
If something can be done, it WILL be done, regardless of any laws passed to stop it. People are curious, people want power, people want control. For better or worse, the Digital Age is upon us, and all the laws in the world are not going to stop a determined person from digging into your data if he/she wants to. They'll just find better ways to hide what they're doing.
Think about it. The government's approach to this has been to punish the LEAKERS who've brought attention to the surveillance. Not to make any meaningful changes in the surveillance itself. That, right there, proves my point.
> Where were you racist idiots when these programs were being started by President Bush?
Disagreeing with someone over policy has nothing to do with racism. That's a red herring whose only purpose is to stifle discussion. The truth is, those who keep playing that card are just crying "wolf," and it will eventually lose any meaning whatsoever.
For the record, I DID disagree with Bush on this endless surveillance, even though I'm a conservative.
And there were some of us who were hoping that Obama would do BETTER. And you can't understand their disappointment?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Theoretically, you're right. In practice, NO.
One of the oldest rules of all is that you can't sue someone with no pockets. The RIAA engaged in some exceptions solely to send a message .. . . but that's actually a perfect illustration of MY point. If they sued me and won, I'd just laugh at them and say, "I have no assets, kids! Have fun!" But if they sue me and I win, I can recover my legal costs.
If the RIAA had known that, if they lost a case, they'd have to pay tons of legal fees, they'd be FAR less likely to pursue the case. Flipside: if I know I'm innocent and have a good case, I am MUCH more likely to retain a decent lawyer, if he/she knows that they'll get a fair fee at the end of the trial.
Look: no system is perfect. There are no perfect answers. But loser pay is by far the most fair compromise. Large corporations aren't going to spend millions of dollars going after someone with no assets, unless they're trying to send a message ... and in that case, let them have their Pyrrhic victory.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. STRONGLY.
> Sadly it depends on jurisdiction.
Thanks. You beat me to it. :)
If anything good is coming out of all this NSA-spying, DMCA-takedown, RIAA-"Yo Momma" madness, it's that ordinary geeks in the United States are finally realizing just how desperately -- DESPERATELY -- this country needs loser-pay legislation. (Or maybe even a Constitutional Amendment, just to keep the courts from watering it down.)
The entire legal landscape in this country would be completely and totally different. Totally. Completely. Many of the most (in)famous court cases that have been covered here on Slashdot probably wouldn't have ever happened, if the plaintiffs knew they could get stuck with the legal fees if they lost.
>And what prevents silicon transistors from operating at frequencies over 400 GHz in theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
Simply put, electrons (and holes, if you're looking at the other way) can only move so quickly through a given material.
> AFAIK HFCS is just as bad a sucrose
The makers of HFCS say that it's the "same as sugar" (i.e., table sugar, i.e., sucrose), but that's not strictly accurate. It really should be compared to *invert* sugar, in which the glucose and fructose molecules have been separated. Bakers have been using that for centuries: take sucrose and heat it with a mild acidic solution (such as lemon juice), and there you go.
The problem is it's hard to know whom to believe about HFCS. My wife and I have essentially cut out added sugar. We don't even have sugar in our house. And yet, we still both struggle to keep our A1C under 6-7. In our case, walking and mild exercise have made the biggest difference. (Ah, the joys of getting older.) :)
Now for the fine print: "we don't have sugar in our house ..." yeah, I know. Actually, we do. Someone did a comparison between cereals, cookies and breads from a couple of decades ago, and the manufacturers are adding considerably more sugar now, because that's what consumers want.
As for lab animals becoming fatter, I think that's simple: they're being fed processed foods as well. Think about it: do you throw your cat a slab of meat every evening, or do you open a can or pour some dry food? The latter are LOADED with added carbohydrates. Loaded. Cats are CARNIVORES.
My biggest complaint about HFCS isn't the syrup, per se, it's that Monsanto and ADM have ruined my corn. They've modified the corn to be sweeter, so that they can get more HFCS and ethanol from it. I used to love corn on the cob, but given that Sandy and I have tried to stop eating so much sugar, it's sickeningly sweet to us now. We buy locally-grown, unmodified corn whenever possible. Rarely from a supermarket.
> Slightly off-topic, but there are some studies that appear to suggest that watching excessive amounts of television can detrimentally effect the development of children’s brains
nOnSEnse eye watcHED lotS Of tV aS a KId and It didn"T buTHeR mE nun eYE tuRnEd oWt fyn
> Simple. It's because of how things run in public services.
Yes and no. Some of it is just that old Demon Money(tm) and the fact that we were in a protracted recession.
We were using a certain company for ad insertion on our Web streams. (Three radio stations total.) We were having trouble getting the software to work, so we contacted their help/support team. They used VNC to look at our system and said, "we only support Windows XP."
I sent them a rather nastily-worded letter. They claimed to be cutting edge, with the ability to sort and insert commercial content intelligently, and all other sorts of bells and whistles. And yet, I said, "you will only support a 10-year old operating system?"
They replied and allowed (as someone granting a great concession) that they would work with us, but could make no guarantees. We canceled the contract and went with another company.
In this case, it's simple: they hired someone to write the package several years ago, and wanted to re-sell the same package again and again. They didn't want to pay to update the software. So, they lost a lot of business. Assuming they're not bankrupt now, I hope they learned an important lesson. :)
> Rare Earth
I assume you're speaking of the book by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee? I'll have to look at that one. As I've posted here previously in other threads, I recently finished Alone In The Universe by John Gribbin, which reaches the same conclusion. I don't know about Rare Earth, but Gribbin's book is based on tons of new computer simulations.
Gribbin points out that *simple* single-celled life may indeed be common within the Galactical Habitable Zone. That's an extremely important distinction. Making intelligent life is the trick. A number of very unlikely things have to work out for that.
This flies in the face of intuition. (And besides, Geeks have gotten so used to seeing Klingons and Drazi and Wookies in movies and on TV, it's just taken for granted now.) We just *assume* that the natural end course of evolution is some form of intelligence: give evolution a good, robust single cell to work with and a few billion years of time, and you will inevitably end up with some form of intelligence. But that's not necessarily so.
As someone else points out here, those who actually study this stuff are reaching a consensus that intelligent life (again, don't miss that!) may indeed be extremely rare in our universe. Yes, even though the universe is huge and large and unfathomable.
> How in the hell is income tax unconstitutional when Amendment XVI of the constitution specifically authorizes Congress to levy it?
Good heavens, don't feed the trolls. You'll get a dozen answers and the net result is that you'll be late for dinner. :)
I strongly recommend Dan Evans Tax Protester FAQ. He covers all of the arguments (and why they've failed in court) in more detail than you probably want.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
> Sometimes debt can be good.
Sure. One of our radio stations here runs Dave Ramsey, who of course believes that all debt is evil. I respect him and understand his logic, but on the other hand, sometimes it DOES make sense. We bought a car on credit, but the mileage is so much better than our old vehicle, I can show you hard figures: we are definitely saving money every month.
As for this article, this study completely misses the point. Just like my wife and I with that new car, government borrowing can make sense ... depending on what it's used for. That's what this whole debate is missing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, you can argue that this could pay for itself (even if indirectly) down the road. But borrowing just so that a politician won't have to tell his/her voters that no, the government CAN'T afford to give you everything you want (who wants to hear that???), is just insanity.
> There's a grocery store in my area that's definitely using a jammer of some kind ...
Here's what I'd do. Go inside and talk to the manager. Just ask him or her if they are jamming cell phones. It *may* just be that they have some equipment in there that's generating a spurious signal. (Happens ALL the time, sigh, I speak from experience, *whimper*.)
But if they are jamming, hand them a copy of that NAL and say, "you might want to stop." If they continue to do it, you should notify the FCC. I don't like being a tattletale either (that's why I'd talk with them first), but sometimes, you have to.
I have personal interest in this kind of thing. I have enough trouble ensuring that my *licensed* signals don't bother you (and vice-versa). The last thing I need is an *unlicensed* signal messing with some of my critical studio to transmitter links, which run just above one of the "cell" bands at 940-960 MHz. These foreign-made jammers ain't exactly the best-made and most carefully-tuned devices on the planet. :)
>unless it's a coincidence that I lose service right after stepping inside
A typical mobile phone might still show a signal if there is interference; you just wouldn't be able to make a call. (That's basically what "jamming" is: interference done on purpose.) If you're showing *no* signal, that's probably just the building blocking the RF.
Here in Birmingham, AL, there's a spot on I-65 where my phone shows tons of signal, but I invariably lose a call there, because of interference.
Having dealt with the FCC a time or two (I'm a radio engineer, AM/FM), I read the NAL. These yahoos weren't just jamming cell signals inside their facility. That's illegal enough, but the NAL makes it clear that they WERE spilling signal all over the place. The FCC's field engineer was able to triangulate the building's location, getting a positive ID. They should have been shut down.
Look: you can discourage cell use with a faraday cage or other shielding, as some here have mentioned. If you're using a jammer, f'crying out loud, you DEFINITELY need shielding, anyway, or you're going to be interfering with people well outside of your facility.
> life might be quite rare ... ... ...
and
> life is much more resilient
I'm going to split the difference between you two. I just finished reading John Gribbin's "Alone In The Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique." Yes, it's another rehash of the "Rare Earth" hypothesis, but he bases it on some of the latest computer simulations.
Gribbin says that *simple single-celled life* might be very common throughout our Galaxy. But Gribbin makes the argument that *sentient* life is probably quite rare.
You may not agree with his conclusion, but he presents the latest evidence and theories for solar system formation. Well worth the read.