Actually, no. We don't know enough about that kind of complex trait. Nor intelligence, either. Height we will soon sort of be able to tinker with if you don't mind, say, some Watusi genes.
The thing is, it's a lot easier to pick out genes that are both abnormal and injurious. And even then you need to wonder...there's evidence that some blood types protect against certain diseases, and other blood types protect against others. And you can't really have both. (AB exists, but there are probably good reasons why it's rare...and I'm talking causal reasons rather than arguments from statistics. There's got to be a reason that O is so common. There's been plenty of time for it to be selected away from.)
IOW, this is an area with a whole lot of massive ignorance surrounding a few pieces of knowledge. The benefits often come with a hidden price tag. E.g., shorter people tend to live longer than taller people for many well known reasons. But taller people have other advantages...up to a point.
OK, good. I was imagining it processed enough that termites wouldn't be interested, but perhaps that is. Whoops, I just looked it up. That stuff requires that it be frozen, so that wouldn't do the job. But it's a start towards the idea. Perhaps if they used some emulsified plastic so that all the water would get absorbed into the sawdust, and the whole thing would be sheathed at the granular level with plastic. Or perhaps alcohol would be better than water, but it would make mixing and applying more difficult. Say a mix of isopropanol and decanol for the alcohol, and use as little as you could get away with. This would put some pretty strong fumes on the interior of the construct for a few months, though, unless the plastic really sealed the mix inside. But I think decanol by itself would be too dense to work. Of course, I'm speculating extremely far from any knowledge base. The question that immediately comes to mind is "What would be the reaction to open flame?", but since most of it would be sand, gravel, and pebbles, I think the answer would be it would slowly crumble. So this might need to be rethought. (Still, I don't think it would burn, even under great provocation.)
That makes sense, and it means that if the exterior is in good shape, the building really *should* be reused rather than torn down. (And it means that comparing it against my friends adobe house is less sensible.)
Well, I *do* actually remember all four, no, make that five, times I did that. I was always to cheap to pay to play video games. I did buy several computer games, but when they started requiring an on-line server, I stopped buying. (Well, they *said* buying, but they acted more like it was a lease.)
Yes, but doesn't fresh concrete absorb CO2 over the years while hardening? Some proportion of the CO2 released in the burning of the limestone is recaptured, though I don't know how much.
Sorry, but we *don't* have a fully sustainable harvest cycle. We're getting a lot better, but we still need to improve a lot. During parts of the cycle there's a lot of soil erosion. It's still not clear how many times we can run through the cycle on a particular plot of land before wearing it out. And that's when there aren't any problems, like, say, pine beetles moving into a new area. Or droughts combined with fires.
Sand isn't an infinite element, but if the reaction weren't salt sensitive there'd be a lot more that was suitable. OTOH, I don't think desert sands would ever be suitable, as the grains are reputedly too slick.
Capturing CO2 is almost always a fake solution. The only exceptions are when it's economically viable. I think the people who make liquid nitrogen already do that, but the demand for CO2 isn't that high. Fire extinguishers, carbonated water (seltzer water, not soda water), dry ice, a few chemical processed, dry cleaning. I'm sure that there are some uses that I've missed, but there aren't many, and they aren't high volume. If there were more demand, they wouldn't be pretending to store it safely underground.
That said, with a different matrix than cement, would it still be concrete? I can imagine a matrix made out of processed sawdust that would work. (I don't *know* of one, but I can imagine it.) It would be a lot lighter than concrete, but not THAT much lighter, because it would still contain a lot of sand and stones. It might be thermoplastic, in which case the buildings would likely collapse if they got too hot...so it would need to be heated like asphalt when you wanted to cast it. Or it might be thermosetting, like Bakelite. In which you'd need to heat it in place. Whoops, another problem. That's the way real adobe is hardened. Adobe is essentially a ceramic. There are, of course, other possibilities, e.g. it could be plastic until a solvent had evaporated, like many plastics. This would make it difficult to build anything very thick. Or, like cement, it could react chemically, but slowly, with the solvent (which had better be water!). Each approach has its problems, but it's not as if you get a free choice. For any particular matrix, the features come with the compound. E.g., polystyrene as a matrix.
P.S. & IIUC: Fresh cement absorbs CO2 from the air while hardening for a number of years. It would absorb more is air could more easily penetrate it. So not all the CO2 released in the creation of it stays released. I don't know the fractions.
Well, that knocks down the building, and now you have a pile of rubble that is either left to be an eyesore or carted off to be landfill.
It would be much better if the building could be reused, but often that isn't really possible. OTOH, I had a friend who lived in an authentic adobe house...which was a real nuisance, because electrical wiring an plumbing had to be on th exterior of the walls unless you wanted to put in false flooring or some such, and even then to get them from one room to another required professional assistance, as in someone whose profession was making holes in that kind of material...not just a plumber or an electrician. I suspect concrete would be something similar, though a factory should have rooms that are large enough that false flooring wouldn't be as much of a problem. IOW, sometimes when a building is designed for one use it can be quite difficult to remodel it for another use if it's made out of something difficult to work with.
You are correct in asserting that it's only a costly problem to deal with, not one that's impossible to deal with. But costly has its own problems.
I wanted to be a programmer, but they told me I was a systems analyst. I still thought I was a programmer, but I didn't argue because systems analyst paid more.
Actually, for a design patent I think that's a valid point. Whether it's an accurate one is a separate question.
Also there should be a question as to whether the patent is valid. There has been the question raised above this in the list as to whether the trucks in 1960's comic books count as prior art, and there could well be other examples.
So I think they should lose the case, even though "confusion in commerce" is probably a valid argument.
I see your analogy, but I doubt that a court would. The prior responder has a better argument....but it's still not good enough to stop the government until afterwards, and maybe not then.
Just being illegal won't stop the government. It often hasn't in the past. (I'd like to claim it never has, but that's quite difficult to prove.)
It's worse than you claim. None of the four major parties had a candidate who was trustworthy. Not a single one. For a while I thought the Green candidate was trustworthy, even though hopeless, but this was proven incorrect.
I didn't examine most of the V.P. candidates, so I can't comment as definitely on them, but I sure wouldn't trust the one that got elected.
I think you support the official story of what happened, despite the evidence that it's incorrect. The evidence is far to weak to say in what particular way it's incorrect, but there are multiple uncontested lines of evidence that show it didn't happen the way we were told.
E.g., (and to pick just one line of evidence) within a day or two of the event special legislation was pushed through Congress. This is a clear sign that someone knew something, even though it's not clear just what they knew.
Being actually followed doesn't mean you aren't paranoid. The question to consider is "What does it take for you to believe you are being followed?". Even paranoids require some evidence, and even non-paranoids can be convinced by certain levels of evidence.
A friend of a friend demonstrated that there can be interesting levels of complexity. He became convinced that there was a powerful conspiracy out to kill him. Then he noticed that they hadn't been successful, and became convinced that there was an even more powerful conspiracy protecting him. And apparently he really was convinced of both conspiracies. This allowed him to live quite placidly in the mental institution that he ended up in, feeling securely protected.
Well, for the inner layer...usually. But that means someone's got to be able to get to the machine to throw a switch or turn a dial. So it's not always going to be possible.
Additionally, you generally want to protect the inner layer from even being read by someone unauthorized. So you need multiple layers of security with different restrictions.
OTOH, that's just how it should be done this year. As interfaces and machines get smaller, it will be less practical to have human sized switches on the machines, which means it's going to be necessary to not depend on "read only" electronic access. So it's time to start getting electronically controllable machinery properly secured. Whatever that means. But that won't happen as long as the incentives remain perverse.
Not so. Automated communication happens all the time. Nothing about it requires the intervention of a person. In fact, the presence of a person in the link inevitably degrades the process. You can't transmit information without communicating over a channel.
And this is far from the first step of the automation of middle management. Many middle managers have already been replaced.
All that said, what's being talked about seems to definitely count as spam. As in: "We've got more spam than anyone else" the Facebook manager cried proudly.
IIUC, what happened is that the passwords that were revealed were of those who were resetting their account passwords. So this would mean that they needed to be send the new password in clear text to the site, at which point it was logged before being hashed.
This is still a problem, but I'm not sure that there is any reasonable way around it. It just shouldn't have been logged.
While I can't prove that your paranoid speculations are incorrect, neither can you prove that they are correct. I believe that you are honestly reporting the way you perceive your experiences, but to claim that this is happening at a site that you don't know personally is, as I said, paranoid. And, frankly, usually personal issues are more important than technical competence at getting promoted, so if that's important to you, you might want to work on personality. I don't think "just slap the word 'secure' on everything" would suffice.
OTOH, I acknowledge that it's quite hard for an adult to change their basic personality. Not knowing who you are, it's difficult to make a recommendation, but you might benefit from a few years of Tai Chi dance. The meditative aspect would be of the greatest help. Or perhaps some pranayama yoga. Or Reichian or Primal Scream therapy. (I don't really know about those, but some report good results.) If you're wealthy you could try Cognitive-Emotional therapy.
My best guess, based on my best guess of who you are, is Tai Chi dance from an instructor who stresses the meditative aspects. That's slow, but not necessarily expensive. And many find it worthwhile just on its own terms, rather that because of any result they are after. It can also lead to a better social life...but it *is* slow.
No. He feels strongly about *not* using Gnome. And he also doesn't like systemd. I can agree with both of those points, and still not have any desire to get Gnome to work without systemd. Gnome3 is not Gnome2, or even as good as Gnome1.
Well, actually I use the Dolphin (KDE) file manager. I occasionally use PCManFM, and it's OK, but not as useful for my purposes. (I never remember why I don't like it until after using it for awhile.) But I do think it's comparatively ugly. That, however, isn't why I don't use it.
Gnome has been Red Hat's main desktop for over a decade now. Just because you always use a spin doesn't change that. (Actually, I don't like Red Hat because it makes it difficult to access one partition when booted from another partition, which some people find an advantage. But even if I did, I'd prefer to use a spin. I find Gnome3 unusable. But spins are easy.)
You're presuming he feels strongly about using Gnome. Sorry, strongly in favor of using Gnome.
FWIW, I used Gnome2 as my preferred desktop, but I found Gnome3 unusable. I don't use a tablet, I'm not running on a phone, and I don't have just one application active at a time. Fortunately there are several alternatives, and for me Gnome isn't one of them. It didn't satisfy my minimum requirements. I'd rather use xfwm.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no. We don't know enough about that kind of complex trait. Nor intelligence, either. Height we will soon sort of be able to tinker with if you don't mind, say, some Watusi genes.
The thing is, it's a lot easier to pick out genes that are both abnormal and injurious. And even then you need to wonder...there's evidence that some blood types protect against certain diseases, and other blood types protect against others. And you can't really have both. (AB exists, but there are probably good reasons why it's rare...and I'm talking causal reasons rather than arguments from statistics. There's got to be a reason that O is so common. There's been plenty of time for it to be selected away from.)
IOW, this is an area with a whole lot of massive ignorance surrounding a few pieces of knowledge. The benefits often come with a hidden price tag. E.g., shorter people tend to live longer than taller people for many well known reasons. But taller people have other advantages...up to a point.
OK, good. I was imagining it processed enough that termites wouldn't be interested, but perhaps that is. Whoops, I just looked it up. That stuff requires that it be frozen, so that wouldn't do the job. But it's a start towards the idea. Perhaps if they used some emulsified plastic so that all the water would get absorbed into the sawdust, and the whole thing would be sheathed at the granular level with plastic. Or perhaps alcohol would be better than water, but it would make mixing and applying more difficult. Say a mix of isopropanol and decanol for the alcohol, and use as little as you could get away with. This would put some pretty strong fumes on the interior of the construct for a few months, though, unless the plastic really sealed the mix inside. But I think decanol by itself would be too dense to work. Of course, I'm speculating extremely far from any knowledge base. The question that immediately comes to mind is "What would be the reaction to open flame?", but since most of it would be sand, gravel, and pebbles, I think the answer would be it would slowly crumble. So this might need to be rethought. (Still, I don't think it would burn, even under great provocation.)
That makes sense, and it means that if the exterior is in good shape, the building really *should* be reused rather than torn down. (And it means that comparing it against my friends adobe house is less sensible.)
Well, I *do* actually remember all four, no, make that five, times I did that. I was always to cheap to pay to play video games. I did buy several computer games, but when they started requiring an on-line server, I stopped buying. (Well, they *said* buying, but they acted more like it was a lease.)
Yes, but doesn't fresh concrete absorb CO2 over the years while hardening? Some proportion of the CO2 released in the burning of the limestone is recaptured, though I don't know how much.
Sorry, but we *don't* have a fully sustainable harvest cycle. We're getting a lot better, but we still need to improve a lot. During parts of the cycle there's a lot of soil erosion. It's still not clear how many times we can run through the cycle on a particular plot of land before wearing it out. And that's when there aren't any problems, like, say, pine beetles moving into a new area. Or droughts combined with fires.
Sand isn't an infinite element, but if the reaction weren't salt sensitive there'd be a lot more that was suitable. OTOH, I don't think desert sands would ever be suitable, as the grains are reputedly too slick.
Capturing CO2 is almost always a fake solution. The only exceptions are when it's economically viable. I think the people who make liquid nitrogen already do that, but the demand for CO2 isn't that high. Fire extinguishers, carbonated water (seltzer water, not soda water), dry ice, a few chemical processed, dry cleaning. I'm sure that there are some uses that I've missed, but there aren't many, and they aren't high volume. If there were more demand, they wouldn't be pretending to store it safely underground.
That said, with a different matrix than cement, would it still be concrete? I can imagine a matrix made out of processed sawdust that would work. (I don't *know* of one, but I can imagine it.) It would be a lot lighter than concrete, but not THAT much lighter, because it would still contain a lot of sand and stones. It might be thermoplastic, in which case the buildings would likely collapse if they got too hot...so it would need to be heated like asphalt when you wanted to cast it. Or it might be thermosetting, like Bakelite. In which you'd need to heat it in place. Whoops, another problem. That's the way real adobe is hardened. Adobe is essentially a ceramic. There are, of course, other possibilities, e.g. it could be plastic until a solvent had evaporated, like many plastics. This would make it difficult to build anything very thick. Or, like cement, it could react chemically, but slowly, with the solvent (which had better be water!). Each approach has its problems, but it's not as if you get a free choice. For any particular matrix, the features come with the compound. E.g., polystyrene as a matrix.
P.S. & IIUC: Fresh cement absorbs CO2 from the air while hardening for a number of years. It would absorb more is air could more easily penetrate it. So not all the CO2 released in the creation of it stays released. I don't know the fractions.
Well, that knocks down the building, and now you have a pile of rubble that is either left to be an eyesore or carted off to be landfill.
It would be much better if the building could be reused, but often that isn't really possible. OTOH, I had a friend who lived in an authentic adobe house...which was a real nuisance, because electrical wiring an plumbing had to be on th exterior of the walls unless you wanted to put in false flooring or some such, and even then to get them from one room to another required professional assistance, as in someone whose profession was making holes in that kind of material...not just a plumber or an electrician. I suspect concrete would be something similar, though a factory should have rooms that are large enough that false flooring wouldn't be as much of a problem.
IOW, sometimes when a building is designed for one use it can be quite difficult to remodel it for another use if it's made out of something difficult to work with.
You are correct in asserting that it's only a costly problem to deal with, not one that's impossible to deal with. But costly has its own problems.
I wanted to be a programmer, but they told me I was a systems analyst. I still thought I was a programmer, but I didn't argue because systems analyst paid more.
Actually, for a design patent I think that's a valid point. Whether it's an accurate one is a separate question.
Also there should be a question as to whether the patent is valid. There has been the question raised above this in the list as to whether the trucks in 1960's comic books count as prior art, and there could well be other examples.
So I think they should lose the case, even though "confusion in commerce" is probably a valid argument.
I see your analogy, but I doubt that a court would. The prior responder has a better argument....but it's still not good enough to stop the government until afterwards, and maybe not then.
Just being illegal won't stop the government. It often hasn't in the past. (I'd like to claim it never has, but that's quite difficult to prove.)
It's worse than you claim. None of the four major parties had a candidate who was trustworthy. Not a single one. For a while I thought the Green candidate was trustworthy, even though hopeless, but this was proven incorrect.
I didn't examine most of the V.P. candidates, so I can't comment as definitely on them, but I sure wouldn't trust the one that got elected.
I think you support the official story of what happened, despite the evidence that it's incorrect. The evidence is far to weak to say in what particular way it's incorrect, but there are multiple uncontested lines of evidence that show it didn't happen the way we were told.
E.g., (and to pick just one line of evidence) within a day or two of the event special legislation was pushed through Congress. This is a clear sign that someone knew something, even though it's not clear just what they knew.
Being actually followed doesn't mean you aren't paranoid. The question to consider is "What does it take for you to believe you are being followed?". Even paranoids require some evidence, and even non-paranoids can be convinced by certain levels of evidence.
A friend of a friend demonstrated that there can be interesting levels of complexity. He became convinced that there was a powerful conspiracy out to kill him. Then he noticed that they hadn't been successful, and became convinced that there was an even more powerful conspiracy protecting him. And apparently he really was convinced of both conspiracies. This allowed him to live quite placidly in the mental institution that he ended up in, feeling securely protected.
Well, for the inner layer...usually. But that means someone's got to be able to get to the machine to throw a switch or turn a dial. So it's not always going to be possible.
Additionally, you generally want to protect the inner layer from even being read by someone unauthorized. So you need multiple layers of security with different restrictions.
OTOH, that's just how it should be done this year. As interfaces and machines get smaller, it will be less practical to have human sized switches on the machines, which means it's going to be necessary to not depend on "read only" electronic access. So it's time to start getting electronically controllable machinery properly secured. Whatever that means. But that won't happen as long as the incentives remain perverse.
Not so. Automated communication happens all the time. Nothing about it requires the intervention of a person. In fact, the presence of a person in the link inevitably degrades the process. You can't transmit information without communicating over a channel.
And this is far from the first step of the automation of middle management. Many middle managers have already been replaced.
All that said, what's being talked about seems to definitely count as spam. As in:
"We've got more spam than anyone else" the Facebook manager cried proudly.
Silly, look at the word. Recursive bots curse themselves.
OTOH, I don't think by curse I mean "swear at".
Sorry, but no. You need to be able to trust the company that builds your agent.
IIUC, what happened is that the passwords that were revealed were of those who were resetting their account passwords. So this would mean that they needed to be send the new password in clear text to the site, at which point it was logged before being hashed.
This is still a problem, but I'm not sure that there is any reasonable way around it. It just shouldn't have been logged.
While I can't prove that your paranoid speculations are incorrect, neither can you prove that they are correct. I believe that you are honestly reporting the way you perceive your experiences, but to claim that this is happening at a site that you don't know personally is, as I said, paranoid. And, frankly, usually personal issues are more important than technical competence at getting promoted, so if that's important to you, you might want to work on personality. I don't think "just slap the word 'secure' on everything" would suffice.
OTOH, I acknowledge that it's quite hard for an adult to change their basic personality. Not knowing who you are, it's difficult to make a recommendation, but you might benefit from a few years of Tai Chi dance. The meditative aspect would be of the greatest help. Or perhaps some pranayama yoga. Or Reichian or Primal Scream therapy. (I don't really know about those, but some report good results.) If you're wealthy you could try Cognitive-Emotional therapy.
My best guess, based on my best guess of who you are, is Tai Chi dance from an instructor who stresses the meditative aspects. That's slow, but not necessarily expensive. And many find it worthwhile just on its own terms, rather that because of any result they are after. It can also lead to a better social life...but it *is* slow.
No. He feels strongly about *not* using Gnome. And he also doesn't like systemd. I can agree with both of those points, and still not have any desire to get Gnome to work without systemd. Gnome3 is not Gnome2, or even as good as Gnome1.
Well, actually I use the Dolphin (KDE) file manager. I occasionally use PCManFM, and it's OK, but not as useful for my purposes. (I never remember why I don't like it until after using it for awhile.) But I do think it's comparatively ugly. That, however, isn't why I don't use it.
Gnome has been Red Hat's main desktop for over a decade now. Just because you always use a spin doesn't change that. (Actually, I don't like Red Hat because it makes it difficult to access one partition when booted from another partition, which some people find an advantage. But even if I did, I'd prefer to use a spin. I find Gnome3 unusable. But spins are easy.)
You're presuming he feels strongly about using Gnome. Sorry, strongly in favor of using Gnome.
FWIW, I used Gnome2 as my preferred desktop, but I found Gnome3 unusable. I don't use a tablet, I'm not running on a phone, and I don't have just one application active at a time. Fortunately there are several alternatives, and for me Gnome isn't one of them. It didn't satisfy my minimum requirements. I'd rather use xfwm.