North Korea has been failing at launching missiles since before he was born. Why would he be upset at it continuing to be exactly the same as it's always been?
Maybe the next missile needs more dead birds, and less Chinese fireworks. I know of no other country that has had such a long succession of utter failures and still continues to declare themselves successful.
North Korea has been doing this (and failing) since at least the 80s. I learned about their many failures over the years initially in 1984, and their current hyperinflated ego in charge was born in 1983, so it's a lot more than just his 'determination'. At this point their continued attempts and failures have become a well entrenched tradition!
I dunno. Their inability to successfully launch missiles has been standard since the 80s. The US and several other countries keep a close eye on this activity, using not only radar, but they also record all the radio data that goes back and forth. Heck, we probably know more about their missiles than they do. So far it looks like it's still SNAFU. (Situation Normal, All F'd Up)
The registry is actually fairly basic, it's just also huge and pretty poorly documented. Yes, you can screw up your computer pretty good if you do the wrong thing, just like messing with stuff in the system directory, or in ancient history, in the dos directory, but that's why you should be careful, have a backup, and don't play around or randomly experiment. Anyone who feels comfortable changing a simple registry entry is almost guaranteed to be able to do this without issue. Anyone who isn't probably doesn't even know what this change even does in the first place.
Getting tissues from non-human sources does run the risk of aiding a cross species jump for an infector, that's true. On the other hand, we do already transplant some pig parts into humans already. Of course, the flu seems to like crossing species boundries, and does it every couple of years. Here's an idea, don't use infected 'donors'. It's not perfect, but it will help. Of course, if you're choice was to wait for a compatible kidney that there's only a 4% chance of occurring before you are too far gone to receive, or maybe have already died, would you continue waiting for that 4%, or would you go for a non-human source of human compatible tissue? I suspect most people would choose the significantly higher probability of living over the other option. Also, what about all the people that are denied being on the list for one reason or another, such as being older, or having had a previous rejection? If there was a much more readily available source of organs, they too could have a shot at living. If you're worried about the pigs, well we eat them all the time, both for nourishment and just for plain enjoyment of the taste. What's so bad about including SAVING HUMAN LIVES in that equation?
We already use pigs for certain organ harvesting already. Where do you think most of those heart valve replacement 'donors' come from? All this would really do is increase the human viability of more tissues and organs. As to the brain, the porcine skull can't hold anything close to a human brain, and 'brain tissue' anywhere else would not be viable as a human brain either due to structural limitations, size, and vulnerability to damage from everyday actions. The human brain is on average 1320g, while a pig brain is only 180g. So the human brain is over 7 times the mass & volume. (I'm making a guess that their densities are relatively similar.) Sounds like more people afraid of more proof that humans are just a different kind of animal with specialization in generalized intelligence.
For some reason that reminds me of a (fictional) quote in one of the Shadowrun books where the reporter is talking to a well known geneticist.
"So what got you into genetics in the first place?" >"I had a dream." "A dream? Of what? Ending hunger and disease, creating world peace?" >"A redhead with legs up to here."
But how are they going by UK law, who's defamation laws are seriously screwed in the first place, if they are using the DMCA which is a total piece of US bullshit! (Yes, that's right, most of the people in the US outside of the media yahoos that pay any attention to copyright find the DMCA extremely F'd up.)
Fuel cells are not perfect, nothing is, but it is in no way a 'scam'. Lets go over a few points here:
*Hydrogen products takes power to make. Absolutely true! On the other hand it doesn't leak away into the non-existence like electricity stored in batteries either. Our batteries don't maintain charge all that well, just ask an electrical engineer, they have the numbers on this stuff and it's not big secret either. You'd think someone from Tesla would know that. The advantages of using Hydrogen are that it can be stored for a long time, be shipped to somewhere else, and can 'refuel' a vehicle a LOT faster than recharging a battery. (Unless you swap out uncharged batteries for charged ones, but that's a different story the electric vehicle manufacturers don't want to go into.) Also, unlike a rechargeable battery, if you maintain the system, you will almost never have to replace your fuel tank. Currently, our common processes of producing hydrogen use electricity for electrolysis, and that has a few points on it's own to cover. First, there are some new versions of electrolysis that are more efficient, there is a new method that functions more like photosynthesis (it's a new development, you'll have to hit the science sites to read about it), and there's a mystery device by a paranoid inventor that I don't think has allowed any proper independent verification so this last one probably is an actual scam. Of course all of those methods do have an important quality, they can all be done with renewable energy sources, even those with limited functionality like wind and solar. (If the sun isn't out or the wind isn't blowing, those methods won't generate power, and that's why they are limited. You have to find a reliable way to store the excess for the non-productive times.) We do all agree that getting away from fossil fuels is good, right?
*Hydrogen hydrogen hydrogen... Yes, fuel cells that we have use hydrogen, but not all of them use the gas. Some of them are fueled by hydrogen from another source. Usually a liquid like methanol. (It would be great to use water directly, but that's a pretty tight molecule, and despite some unsubstantiated claims, it's unlikely to happen.) Again, if someone knew anything worth mentioning about fuel cells, they should bloody well know about this!
*Storage. Storing pressurized hydrogen gas is a bit of a pain, but it was solved years ago. In fact, they've designed those types of tanks for cars that are rated as safer than the gas tank your vehicle already has. (If you have an internal combustion vehicle.) And yes, it has a system similar to the traditional fuel station you're used to. Of course, it's totally non-compatible with the gas stations we currently have as it needs completely different tanks & pumps. If you didn't know, it's so expensive to replace those big storage tanks, it's cheaper to build a new station, which isn't something that any fuel company wants to do. They haven't been proponents of hydrogen in any form, they've consistently been opponents, except for a few one shot concept vehicles they've thrown out to mollify certain environmentalists and government types, and to catch a bit of 'environmentally friendly' press out of it. There's a huge history of their obstructionism on this field, go look it up.
*Oh the humanity! How many people that were on the Hindenburg were burned by the hydrogen? Zero. Yep, all those burns were from the diesel that fueled the engines. Ok, some might have been from the burning cabins and junk inside, but it still wasn't the hydrogen. By the way, for the hydrogen to ignite, it was exposed to flames or sparks outside of the gasbags. All in all, the biggest fear people apparently spout over hydrogen is the Hindenburg disaster, which is rather messed up. Even if they'd have had helium instead, the results would have been very similar. Unless the helium outflow smothered the flames on the outer covering, in which case it's descent speed would have been a lot slower, and might have avoided the rupture that spewed
I believe most of the BBC is in English, the French government wants them in French. It's just mentioning European Union and all that to bolster the image of influence and control they want to go with their demands.
Hmmm.... If they must reserve 20% for this country, and then more jump on that bandwagon, how long until they are 'required' to reserve percentages that equal or exceed 100% leaving nothing of their previous catalog? Yes, that's right, 5 countries. Even before it reaches that point it becomes obvious this is really stupid on an international front.
Does the law say it has to be new or expensive french content? Of course we are talking about France, the country that even wants it's scientists to stop using scientific terms/words that were not made up by French nationals.
Depends on which of the 3 "first computer" you want to count. Two of which were by people in the UK. On the other hand, making personal computers available to the masses, that was definitely from the US.
Of course, getting into a dick waving contest over who made what has pretty much nothing to do with the topic, which in case you've forgotten in your excitement to pull your dick out and start waving it around, is non-european media providers being forced provide and even pay for specific language programming.
Actually, there is no known medical use for it anymore, and I do believe they've completely sequenced it and could recreate it if that were ever necessary for some reason. As to minimal damage in the wild? That's B.S.. Have you been vaccinated against smallpox in the last decade? Probably not as routine vaccinations were stopped in 1972, and unfortunately the high level of resistance it gives only lasts 4-7 years. Nobody really knows what the resistance level, if any, is after 20 years, much less than 45+ years.
We currently don't have stockpiles of the vaccine, and as such, if there was an outbreak, it would run rampant long before enough vaccine to matter had been made. There would be a lot of dead people. Ok, you say, let's just stock up on it ahead of time. Well, there's a couple of issues with that. First, it might expire, so you'd have to keep making it constantly. I don't know what it's actual shelf life is, but vaccines of any kind aren't exactly canned peas and some of them are positively short time get it while it's fresh only. Then there's your second big problem. Cost. You'd have an expensive production facility, and storage, and security, and you'd have to keep replacing the stock once you'd built it up enough, and probably some other things you'd have to pay for. Now mind you that this is all for a virus that is dead in the wild, and has very limited lab samples remaining. That's like making 14k gold Tasmanian Tiger repellents for everyone in Australia! It's a very expensive exercise for something that's about as likely as a meteor strike at this point.
But it gets worse. One of the big issues with all vaccines is they work best before you get exposed. (Many only help if you've had them before you've been exposed.) I've seen some stuff saying that the smallpox vaccine takes close to a week before it's protecting you. So that means you're going to have to be vaccinating the population, and revaccinating them about every 7 years to keep the immunity levels high. DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA HOW EXPENSIVE AND FREAKING DIFFICULT THAT IS THESE DAYS, ESPECIALLY WITH ANTI-VAXXERS? Yeah, we can't get them to vaccinate for Polio and Whooping Cough, two other diseases that were on the fast track to oblivion before those morons made a whole new generation of potential victims and cut down the herd immunity system.
The scientists that had the samples had a death date set. There was going to be a celebration afterwards. Then some fools pushed through an injunction to prevent the total and final extinction of smallpox.
By the way, if you don't know, the longer something is around, and the more it's fooled with, the more likely there will be an accident. Smallpox is currently sitting in locked freezers and they don't even like to move the samples around. What do you think will happen when they have to start culturing large quantities of it to start making vaccines? Yep, it's probably going to get loose. (I don't know their current setup, my info on their storage was before they started making limited quantities of the vaccine for certain 'key personnel' in 200X (two thousand something).
If you want to find out more, there are plenty of science articles, even some real video journalism and the like on it, but please avoid the flaky sites out there, especially the conspiracy nut dumps.
Funny how they keep doing that, except for the times they've claimed to have 'misplaced' it, or have redacted it to black pages, or just said "no". Of course, it isn't like they've been caught lying to the public and the government before...
Slashdot Mirror
North Korea has been failing at launching missiles since before he was born.
Why would he be upset at it continuing to be exactly the same as it's always been?
Maybe the next missile needs more dead birds, and less Chinese fireworks.
I know of no other country that has had such a long succession of utter failures and still continues to declare themselves successful.
North Korea has been doing this (and failing) since at least the 80s.
I learned about their many failures over the years initially in 1984, and their current hyperinflated ego in charge was born in 1983, so it's a lot more than just his 'determination'. At this point their continued attempts and failures have become a well entrenched tradition!
I dunno. Their inability to successfully launch missiles has been standard since the 80s.
The US and several other countries keep a close eye on this activity, using not only radar, but they also record all the radio data that goes back and forth.
Heck, we probably know more about their missiles than they do.
So far it looks like it's still SNAFU. (Situation Normal, All F'd Up)
Correct, it's South Korea that has the major Starcraft Players.
Do you mean he was LYING ?? TO CONGRESS ?! AGAIN !!!?
How many times does he get to do this before he wins a prize?
Far too direct a reply for it to be MS. :P
The registry is actually fairly basic, it's just also huge and pretty poorly documented. Yes, you can screw up your computer pretty good if you do the wrong thing, just like messing with stuff in the system directory, or in ancient history, in the dos directory, but that's why you should be careful, have a backup, and don't play around or randomly experiment.
Anyone who feels comfortable changing a simple registry entry is almost guaranteed to be able to do this without issue. Anyone who isn't probably doesn't even know what this change even does in the first place.
Other than hollywood fantasy, I'm unaware of any jammers being used by law enforcement in the US.
(The FCC really hates that kind of stuff.)
Getting tissues from non-human sources does run the risk of aiding a cross species jump for an infector, that's true.
On the other hand, we do already transplant some pig parts into humans already.
Of course, the flu seems to like crossing species boundries, and does it every couple of years. Here's an idea, don't use infected 'donors'. It's not perfect, but it will help. Of course, if you're choice was to wait for a compatible kidney that there's only a 4% chance of occurring before you are too far gone to receive, or maybe have already died, would you continue waiting for that 4%, or would you go for a non-human source of human compatible tissue?
I suspect most people would choose the significantly higher probability of living over the other option. Also, what about all the people that are denied being on the list for one reason or another, such as being older, or having had a previous rejection? If there was a much more readily available source of organs, they too could have a shot at living.
If you're worried about the pigs, well we eat them all the time, both for nourishment and just for plain enjoyment of the taste. What's so bad about including SAVING HUMAN LIVES in that equation?
We already use pigs for certain organ harvesting already.
Where do you think most of those heart valve replacement 'donors' come from?
All this would really do is increase the human viability of more tissues and organs.
As to the brain, the porcine skull can't hold anything close to a human brain, and 'brain tissue' anywhere else would not be viable as a human brain either due to structural limitations, size, and vulnerability to damage from everyday actions. The human brain is on average 1320g, while a pig brain is only 180g. So the human brain is over 7 times the mass & volume. (I'm making a guess that their densities are relatively similar.)
Sounds like more people afraid of more proof that humans are just a different kind of animal with specialization in generalized intelligence.
For some reason that reminds me of a (fictional) quote in one of the Shadowrun books where the reporter is talking to a well known geneticist.
"So what got you into genetics in the first place?"
>"I had a dream."
"A dream? Of what? Ending hunger and disease, creating world peace?"
>"A redhead with legs up to here."
I've seen plenty of humans that still need to be trained how to use a toilet. :(
And I'm not talking about the adolescent variety either...
I do believe that violates Microsoft Certification of Software. Which is Hilarious!
But how are they going by UK law, who's defamation laws are seriously screwed in the first place, if they are using the DMCA which is a total piece of US bullshit!
(Yes, that's right, most of the people in the US outside of the media yahoos that pay any attention to copyright find the DMCA extremely F'd up.)
Fuel cells are not perfect, nothing is, but it is in no way a 'scam'. Lets go over a few points here:
*Hydrogen products takes power to make.
Absolutely true! On the other hand it doesn't leak away into the non-existence like electricity stored in batteries either. Our batteries don't maintain charge all that well, just ask an electrical engineer, they have the numbers on this stuff and it's not big secret either. You'd think someone from Tesla would know that.
The advantages of using Hydrogen are that it can be stored for a long time, be shipped to somewhere else, and can 'refuel' a vehicle a LOT faster than recharging a battery. (Unless you swap out uncharged batteries for charged ones, but that's a different story the electric vehicle manufacturers don't want to go into.) Also, unlike a rechargeable battery, if you maintain the system, you will almost never have to replace your fuel tank.
Currently, our common processes of producing hydrogen use electricity for electrolysis, and that has a few points on it's own to cover. First, there are some new versions of electrolysis that are more efficient, there is a new method that functions more like photosynthesis (it's a new development, you'll have to hit the science sites to read about it), and there's a mystery device by a paranoid inventor that I don't think has allowed any proper independent verification so this last one probably is an actual scam. Of course all of those methods do have an important quality, they can all be done with renewable energy sources, even those with limited functionality like wind and solar. (If the sun isn't out or the wind isn't blowing, those methods won't generate power, and that's why they are limited. You have to find a reliable way to store the excess for the non-productive times.) We do all agree that getting away from fossil fuels is good, right?
*Hydrogen hydrogen hydrogen... Yes, fuel cells that we have use hydrogen, but not all of them use the gas. Some of them are fueled by hydrogen from another source. Usually a liquid like methanol. (It would be great to use water directly, but that's a pretty tight molecule, and despite some unsubstantiated claims, it's unlikely to happen.) Again, if someone knew anything worth mentioning about fuel cells, they should bloody well know about this!
*Storage. Storing pressurized hydrogen gas is a bit of a pain, but it was solved years ago. In fact, they've designed those types of tanks for cars that are rated as safer than the gas tank your vehicle already has. (If you have an internal combustion vehicle.) And yes, it has a system similar to the traditional fuel station you're used to. Of course, it's totally non-compatible with the gas stations we currently have as it needs completely different tanks & pumps. If you didn't know, it's so expensive to replace those big storage tanks, it's cheaper to build a new station, which isn't something that any fuel company wants to do. They haven't been proponents of hydrogen in any form, they've consistently been opponents, except for a few one shot concept vehicles they've thrown out to mollify certain environmentalists and government types, and to catch a bit of 'environmentally friendly' press out of it. There's a huge history of their obstructionism on this field, go look it up.
*Oh the humanity! How many people that were on the Hindenburg were burned by the hydrogen? Zero. Yep, all those burns were from the diesel that fueled the engines. Ok, some might have been from the burning cabins and junk inside, but it still wasn't the hydrogen. By the way, for the hydrogen to ignite, it was exposed to flames or sparks outside of the gasbags. All in all, the biggest fear people apparently spout over hydrogen is the Hindenburg disaster, which is rather messed up. Even if they'd have had helium instead, the results would have been very similar. Unless the helium outflow smothered the flames on the outer covering, in which case it's descent speed would have been a lot slower, and might have avoided the rupture that spewed
Off topic much?
I believe most of the BBC is in English, the French government wants them in French. It's just mentioning European Union and all that to bolster the image of influence and control they want to go with their demands.
Except that sheep weevil would probably try to punch out anyone that complains and calls it for what it is.
Hmmm.... If they must reserve 20% for this country, and then more jump on that bandwagon, how long until they are 'required' to reserve percentages that equal or exceed 100% leaving nothing of their previous catalog? Yes, that's right, 5 countries. Even before it reaches that point it becomes obvious this is really stupid on an international front.
Does the law say it has to be new or expensive french content?
Of course we are talking about France, the country that even wants it's scientists to stop using scientific terms/words that were not made up by French nationals.
Depends on which of the 3 "first computer" you want to count. Two of which were by people in the UK.
On the other hand, making personal computers available to the masses, that was definitely from the US.
Of course, getting into a dick waving contest over who made what has pretty much nothing to do with the topic, which in case you've forgotten in your excitement to pull your dick out and start waving it around, is non-european media providers being forced provide and even pay for specific language programming.
Except of course, how much did defending themselves for something they'd already gotten permission for eat into their budget to make Axenar?
Actually, there is no known medical use for it anymore, and I do believe they've completely sequenced it and could recreate it if that were ever necessary for some reason.
As to minimal damage in the wild? That's B.S.. Have you been vaccinated against smallpox in the last decade? Probably not as routine vaccinations were stopped in 1972, and unfortunately the high level of resistance it gives only lasts 4-7 years. Nobody really knows what the resistance level, if any, is after 20 years, much less than 45+ years.
We currently don't have stockpiles of the vaccine, and as such, if there was an outbreak, it would run rampant long before enough vaccine to matter had been made. There would be a lot of dead people. Ok, you say, let's just stock up on it ahead of time. Well, there's a couple of issues with that. First, it might expire, so you'd have to keep making it constantly. I don't know what it's actual shelf life is, but vaccines of any kind aren't exactly canned peas and some of them are positively short time get it while it's fresh only.
Then there's your second big problem. Cost. You'd have an expensive production facility, and storage, and security, and you'd have to keep replacing the stock once you'd built it up enough, and probably some other things you'd have to pay for. Now mind you that this is all for a virus that is dead in the wild, and has very limited lab samples remaining. That's like making 14k gold Tasmanian Tiger repellents for everyone in Australia! It's a very expensive exercise for something that's about as likely as a meteor strike at this point.
But it gets worse. One of the big issues with all vaccines is they work best before you get exposed. (Many only help if you've had them before you've been exposed.) I've seen some stuff saying that the smallpox vaccine takes close to a week before it's protecting you. So that means you're going to have to be vaccinating the population, and revaccinating them about every 7 years to keep the immunity levels high. DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA HOW EXPENSIVE AND FREAKING DIFFICULT THAT IS THESE DAYS, ESPECIALLY WITH ANTI-VAXXERS?
Yeah, we can't get them to vaccinate for Polio and Whooping Cough, two other diseases that were on the fast track to oblivion before those morons made a whole new generation of potential victims and cut down the herd immunity system.
The scientists that had the samples had a death date set. There was going to be a celebration afterwards. Then some fools pushed through an injunction to prevent the total and final extinction of smallpox.
By the way, if you don't know, the longer something is around, and the more it's fooled with, the more likely there will be an accident. Smallpox is currently sitting in locked freezers and they don't even like to move the samples around. What do you think will happen when they have to start culturing large quantities of it to start making vaccines? Yep, it's probably going to get loose. (I don't know their current setup, my info on their storage was before they started making limited quantities of the vaccine for certain 'key personnel' in 200X (two thousand something).
If you want to find out more, there are plenty of science articles, even some real video journalism and the like on it, but please avoid the flaky sites out there, especially the conspiracy nut dumps.
Funny how they keep doing that, except for the times they've claimed to have 'misplaced' it, or have redacted it to black pages, or just said "no".
Of course, it isn't like they've been caught lying to the public and the government before...