As usually, the Slashdot editors have missed trivial fact checking. The summary states that Iran does not have nukes or the missiles to carry them. The first part of this is true (for the next year or two) but the second is not. Even a casual Google search brings up a wealth of links detailing Iran's ballistic missile program.
Given the current progress of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and the recent inspections indicate almost certainly that Iranian is working toward that capability) and their current arsenal of ballistic missile the only question left in your mind would be whether they would actually use them. Well, the recent terrorism incidents in Georgia, India, Thailand as well as historical attacks in Buenos Aires and Iranian-backed attacks in Lebanon and Iraq ought to give you a clue. If Iranians get nukes to go with their missiles they and their proxies will feel safe in escalating such attacks - anywhere in the World (including where *you* live). The time is rapidly running out on the opportunity to stop the Iranians before they reach this point, and they have rebuffed all other opportunities to give the weapons research up for the last decade (choosing to accept sanctions rather than get goodies from the West for giving them up - which shows just how determined they are to complete their nuclear programme). It is also time for the ostriches to get their head out of the sand.
> 3) There's endless rumors and BS about how SM series can be hacked into hitting seaskimming cruise missiles, but fundamentally you're better off with fast acting projectile weapons. You don't get much warning...
This part of your post is inaccurate and I hope to correct your understanding here. The Standard Missile is not usually intended for defending against tactical missiles. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is. The RAM is preferred over the Gatekeeper/CIWS gattling type systems since the RAM has longer range and you can launch many simultaneously - which is better protection against a 'rollback attack' where there are many simultaneous incoming missiles (which CIWS has trouble with). The range of the RAM is also intended to give one or more shots against the supersonic terminal stage of missiles such as 'Yakhont' (SS-N-26) and its successor, 'Brahmos' (PJ-10).
They may be old hat, but an exploit that mentions "Java" suits Microsoft's purposes just fine (since it is trying to kill cross-platform Java and promote Windows-only.NET). Strange it made the news half a year after a patch has been available - what were the editors thinking? Wouldn't the article's title be more accurate if it was "Unpatched systems get malware in RAM"?
The interesting thing about Type 2 diabetes (the type you acquire) is that often simply but getting exercise as as great an effect on control as taking insulin injections. of course dietary changes are significant too (less sugar, in all its guises eg bread etc). Getting off the couch (and out of the basement) a lot more can actually do something for you!
Unfortunately the same doesn't help with Type 1 diabetes (the type you are born with):( Hopefully one day someone will find a fix for that.
> "Impactful" is entirely and fully understandable and a valid word in every sense of the latter.
Personally, I disagree. For a start people will have to think what the word actually means. Second, even if people do think about what it means, two people may arrive at slightly different definitions/interpretations and therefore slightly different conclusions as to what the writer intended to say. This doesn't piss me off in the least, I was just pointing out that there are usually existing words in common use that convey the writer's point in an unambiguous manner. I guess on Slashdot you may be fed up with the so-called Grammar Nazis, but here I was not trying to correct grammar - I was pointing out that it is possible to write much more simply in many cases where these made-up words are used. All I can do is pass on my knowledge as a train and internationally experienced technical writer (in the psychologically-verified Information Mapping methodology). If people like you choose not to listen then that is your choice - I can only try 'lead the horse to water' to try make others better writers (when they discus technical subjects, such as on Slashdot).
What you are missing is that China also jails people who point out corruption, mis-governance, unsafe practices such as the addition of mildly poisonous food additives to food products that result in baby deaths (eg the melamine added to milk by a Chinese dairy producer - and then blame it on the New Zealand company that acquired them), illegal and unreasonable acquisition of citizen land, etc. Yes, this happens elsewhere too, but not on the same scale nor without the same redresses available elsewhere.
With regards to economics. America is slowly getting back to growth. The difference between China and America's economies is not really to do with their political systems, it is to do with whether the government believes in a lassez faire system with weak regulation (America) or strong central control of the economy (China) including product dumping and currency manipulation and other unfair trade practices (at least according to the WTO 'standards'). America also bends the rules in its favour (obvious to outsiders, most US citizens don't know or care), but not to the same extent as China. If America decided to bend the rules too far in its favour it would reap the same short-term (several decades) benefits that China does now, at the expense of getting the same bad reputation China is rapidly acquiring (and will take a much longer time to shake off).
You feel bad about being an American because of stand-up comedians? This is tragic, perhaps you are a bit too sensitive (but at least that is much better than being insensitive/oblivious - as many of your countrymen are). As cultures mature they gain the ability to laugh at themselves. As they mature further they then gain the ability to allow others to laugh at them. This is why the 'English' (what you might call 'British') culture around the World appreciates black humour and sarcasm to a degree not seen in the US. Unfortunately these delights seem lost on many Americans who in their earnestness are mostly quite poor in distinguishing a pleasantly sounding mortal insult from invective wrapped comradely banter.
Your desire for your countrymen to do better is laudable. However, I think that America would often look better to outsiders if it learned to kick back, have a beer, and not take things so seriously. Trying to look good usually makes you look worse. This trying hard to look good is something the Russian and Chinese governments miss completely - trying to look strong makes them look 'try-hard' and feeble; showing how much power they have over various things (eg. Russian supply of gas) does not make their neighbours respect them out of fear, it makes them distrust them. Doing these things is counter-productive and most Chinese and Russians just don't grok this yet. My point here is that the ability of America to grow stand-up comedians with their cutting insight shows strength of their culture and is something to be proud of, not ashamed of. The ability to recognise and laugh at your own foibles shows good judgment and character. *All* cultures have flaws, acknowledging them is good (because ignoring them is ridiculous - outsiders can see the flaws even better than you can). America is a great country to be proud of, please also realise that almost everyone else is also proud of their countries too - and it isn't a competition as to who is best at what, it is all a joke.
China has some great aspects. The ones you pointed out are not some of them. I hope the US doesn't slavishly emulate China, because as the US edges towards the concentration of power to centralized elites and draconian laws (both of which China has) against the citizenry it is making it a worse country, not better. That trend is not something to tolerate or aspire to.
We (people in my country) don't use Webster's (we use the Oxford Dictionary instead as our standard - mostly). Just because a word is in Websters doesn't mean the word is accepted by the international English community. While we my countrymen will usually tolerate abominations like 'impactful', they come across as quite dissonant and are avoided by better writers and speakers. For example, the the writer could have substituted the word 'significant' for 'impactful'.
My other favourite poor-word-choice peeve is 'architected' when 'designed' is the better word to use. All these faux-formal words being made up by corporate drones when there are perfectly suitable and well accepted alternatives instead. If you have a good vocabulary you choose the simplest word to fit, not make up words to try sound enlightened or technically adept. Use of such words are jarring for those of us who have moved past the stage of complicating our prose (as you learn to do as an undergraduate in university) to the stage of ruthlessly simplifying it where we can.
Great post. Even worse, if they get the world they wish for then Iran has nukes and using their usual pattern, maintains plausible deniability while their agents (Hezbollah et al) sow terror around the world (just as Iranian agents have been operating recently in Georgia, India and Thailand, and formerly in Argentina). Even worse, because Iran has nukes all the other countries in the region decide they must have them (the Arabs and Persians *really* do not like each other). That would be a clusterfsck on an epic scale.
Fortunately Israel is doing a 'North Korea' and threatening crazy stuff unless the West/US promises to sort Iran out - otherwise the West would only wring its hands as the Iranians built a nuclear weapon stockpile (kicking off the nuclear arms race in the region). The West/US have been pretty limp-wristed in their response so far and Iran has had nearly an entire decade to evade and continue their work (they're up to 20% enrichment now and are not far from breaking out into full nuclear capability; plus their ballistic missile test program is now pretty much ready for 'special' weapons).
If Iran would allow inspectors unfettered access to all of the *dozens* of nuclear research sites they have then the excuse for war would evaporate overnight. It is clear the Iranians don't want/can't allow this (since they actually are working on weapons, despite their public statements) so they are string the International Community out as long as they can. It is currently a race between the Iranian secret weapons programme and the International Community to see who can resolve this first, one way (Iran has nukes and is invulnerable) or another (US destroys the sites [Israel can't get them all by itself]).
Are you arguing that the best way to help a suicidal person is to give them more guns?
Please read the parent post again. Your (sensationalist) statement doesn't match what they were trying to say (unless somehow you intended to be funny).
So the US overthrew the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq. Big deal. Who they were really trying to stop is the Tudeh (the communist party of Iran) - who had a growing influense over Mosaddeq. At the height of the Cold War this made sense at the time. Yes, it would be lovely for the US to stick to its stated principles about democracy, but if the Tudeh got in power (backed by the Soviets) then the resulting 'democracy' would be meaningless. Just as the democracy is essentially meaningless under the ayatollahs. This was 'realpolitk' at its ugliest - sh!t like this was done so the West could win against the Soviet empire. If you know anything about the historical reality of the Soviet empire you'll also understand its a damn sight better that the West won (despite its own flaws) than the Soviets did. So, stop living in the utopian dream and come to the real world, you'll get a good perspective on why things were done. The US is bad (and getting worse), but they pale compared to the Soviets or the ayatollahs on the badness scale.
The US backed the 'Northern Alliance' and other Mujahideen to fight the Soviets (just as the Soviets backed the North Vietnamese and North Koreans in those conflicts - even going so far as for Soviet crews to fly and man missile batteries against US forces). The US did not create the Taliban, the Pakistani ISI did (and the Taliban are still supported by the ISI - which pisses the US off no end considering the degree of financial support given by the US to Pakistan).
The guy suing is a dick for sure, but ffs stop being a racist/anti-semite. Such comments are vastly more douchy than the crap that Mr Zaentz is pulling. Thinking that those of the Jewish faith have a monopoly on money-grubbing shows an immature world view - plenty of races and religions are just as avaricious.
Gravitational microlensing surveys have been looking for brown dwarfs and dim stars (sufficiently low luminosity they are not visible from Earth) in the galactic halo, but not enough were found to explain the mass difference (between luminous and non luminous galactic matter) to explain the observed galactic rotation curves. Planets around such low mass stars can also be seen (and have been seen, see the results by Microlensing Observations in Astrophyics [MOA] Project and associated collaborators - disclaimer I'm a former member). Depending on how small the planets are, they also could be detected (if you get very very lucky, due to the optical alignment required between observer, missing mass, and background luminous object). Given the constraints of the proportions of baryonic matter during the primordial nucleosynthesis (Big Bang/early universe) and the observed microlensing rate brown dwarfs are unlikely to account for the dark matter (AFAIK, I've been out of the game for a while). The baryonic constraints eliminated small rocks and gas clouds etc too. (I'm no expert on the nucleosynthesis calculations, however).
It would not be unusual for someone to come up with a theory that didn't take into account the known observations. For example, during the 1990's the early gravitational microlensing surveys 'rediscovered' the fact that our Galaxy is a 'barred spiral' - something the search teams were not aware of at the start of their studies (although astronomers, a different type of scientist, did know this). So it would not be unusual for someone to be missing key observations that invalidate this 'many planet theory'. Fortunately for the microlensing surveys their observations and results lead them to the correct conclusion (barred spiral galaxy), which instilled confidence in their methods and results. It doesn't take away from the fact that what was already known by astronomers was not at the time commonly known amongst the astrophysicists/particle physicists who designed the early microlensing surveys. It wouldn't surprise me if this was also the case in the paper/theory being discussed in this thread.
An Apple user who loves their gilded cage - do you like it when an application you would like to have is refused from the Apple App Store just because Apple doesn't want it in there ? (even if it has no viruses, malware or morality [as defined by Apple] issues). Do you really think Apple is going to get better in this regard? Still think Apple are all about openness?
I'm also an Apple user but at least I go into it with eyes wide open - and understand why Apple make stuff that plays only with their stuff (you only need one proprietary extension, which you admit to, to break compatibility). Yes, I agree with you (as I have said before), Apple does this partly because they are early adopters of new technology, in addition to their own reasons. They still choose formats unilaterally and use their current market dominance (in media) to force others (eg, hardware manufacturers) to change the currently accepted standard in use. In some cases the formats they use are not really superior, certainly not enough to break accepted compatibility for. The fact remains that Apple will 'set the standard' and ensure that you can only use that standard with their gear (as everyone else scrambles to catch up, once they have used the privilege of paying Apple royalties).
So I'm guessing you support uplifting the rest of the 3rd world nations instead of holding them back by 150 years or more? The majority of proponents of your theory support 'green' ideas that ensure that the rest of the world suffer. Including paying off developing nations to develop. Remember. The reason why families have large numbers of children is because of high infant mortality rates and a lack of industrialization.>
Actually, usually improving women's rights and education has the greatest effect on family size. I suggest promoting these.
On the other end, you end up with China. The one child policy has been disastrous. With boys outstripping girls in the totals of babies leading to a serious population imbalance. This is because most of china is not industrialized but males can do more in the typical per-industrial society.
I did not say China's One Child policy ought to be adopted, which has problems (as you point) that are due to Chinese cultural factors. In fact I took pains to write that this policy was not ideal. However, some growth-rate policy ought to be adopted. Unconstrained human population growth is fscking the World up.
How about we stop the global populating increasing at the current exponential rate? Then we can look at the minor efficiencies of all the other stuff.
While the Chinese One Child Policy may not be ideal at least it recognizes reality - too many humans creates too many problems. Note, I'm not saying the human population should be decreased (except perhaps, by natural population decline - which is exhibited in advanced countries).
Much of the catastrophic predictions of Malthusian correction are based on the current uncontrolled human population growth. If that growth can be slowed considerably, stopped, or even (naturally) reversed then there is a chance that our technologies might catch up with our consumption (eg. improved recycling, synthetic generation of some resources from our waste, etc).
> How is this "building an empire"? They are the underdog! All eBooks (from major publishers) have DRM before Apple started selling them. Cause and effect.
No, *you* have this wrong. The Apple eBook format has proprietary extensions. Yes, it may be because they want to add extra stuff but it still makes it incompatible. This is the same excuse used by Microsoft in it's "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics. Microsoft even cited the same cause you did, "the freedom to innovate" when it was clear that the only "standards" they were really interested in where the standards (and extensions) they created. It is you who are taking Apple's statements at surface value without understanding what is really being done in a subtle way. Yes, Apple is innovating, but that is not the only, or I would argue, the main reason why they choose to use (and add proprietary extensions to) the formats they do. This is not getting causality backwards, but understanding how the corporate thinks and deducing cause and effect from that (without listening to the fanboi PR, which masquerades the corporate aims).
You would be surprised at how many places Solaris is used for real-time apps. Most modern devs don't get exposed to systems that need such things though - which is why they scoff derisively at it - being too fresh and ignorant to realise in all the places Solaris is/was used.
Slashdot Mirror
As usually, the Slashdot editors have missed trivial fact checking. The summary states that Iran does not have nukes or the missiles to carry them. The first part of this is true (for the next year or two) but the second is not. Even a casual Google search brings up a wealth of links detailing Iran's ballistic missile program.
For example:
Given the current progress of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and the recent inspections indicate almost certainly that Iranian is working toward that capability) and their current arsenal of ballistic missile the only question left in your mind would be whether they would actually use them. Well, the recent terrorism incidents in Georgia, India, Thailand as well as historical attacks in Buenos Aires and Iranian-backed attacks in Lebanon and Iraq ought to give you a clue. If Iranians get nukes to go with their missiles they and their proxies will feel safe in escalating such attacks - anywhere in the World (including where *you* live). The time is rapidly running out on the opportunity to stop the Iranians before they reach this point, and they have rebuffed all other opportunities to give the weapons research up for the last decade (choosing to accept sanctions rather than get goodies from the West for giving them up - which shows just how determined they are to complete their nuclear programme). It is also time for the ostriches to get their head out of the sand.
> 3) There's endless rumors and BS about how SM series can be hacked into hitting seaskimming cruise missiles, but fundamentally you're better off with fast acting projectile weapons. You don't get much warning...
This part of your post is inaccurate and I hope to correct your understanding here. The Standard Missile is not usually intended for defending against tactical missiles. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is. The RAM is preferred over the Gatekeeper/CIWS gattling type systems since the RAM has longer range and you can launch many simultaneously - which is better protection against a 'rollback attack' where there are many simultaneous incoming missiles (which CIWS has trouble with). The range of the RAM is also intended to give one or more shots against the supersonic terminal stage of missiles such as 'Yakhont' (SS-N-26) and its successor, 'Brahmos' (PJ-10).
They may be old hat, but an exploit that mentions "Java" suits Microsoft's purposes just fine (since it is trying to kill cross-platform Java and promote Windows-only .NET). Strange it made the news half a year after a patch has been available - what were the editors thinking? Wouldn't the article's title be more accurate if it was "Unpatched systems get malware in RAM"?
Lol. Java is not Javascript.
lol. Love your example sentence. Sounds like what a 'lolcat' would come out with when in business.
The interesting thing about Type 2 diabetes (the type you acquire) is that often simply but getting exercise as as great an effect on control as taking insulin injections. of course dietary changes are significant too (less sugar, in all its guises eg bread etc). Getting off the couch (and out of the basement) a lot more can actually do something for you!
Unfortunately the same doesn't help with Type 1 diabetes (the type you are born with) :( Hopefully one day someone will find a fix for that.
And can be hard for 'English-as-second-language' folks to follow what these new words are supposed to mean.
Clearly I'm a dodgy typist though :) s/train/trained/.
> "Impactful" is entirely and fully understandable and a valid word in every sense of the latter.
Personally, I disagree. For a start people will have to think what the word actually means. Second, even if people do think about what it means, two people may arrive at slightly different definitions/interpretations and therefore slightly different conclusions as to what the writer intended to say. This doesn't piss me off in the least, I was just pointing out that there are usually existing words in common use that convey the writer's point in an unambiguous manner. I guess on Slashdot you may be fed up with the so-called Grammar Nazis, but here I was not trying to correct grammar - I was pointing out that it is possible to write much more simply in many cases where these made-up words are used. All I can do is pass on my knowledge as a train and internationally experienced technical writer (in the psychologically-verified Information Mapping methodology). If people like you choose not to listen then that is your choice - I can only try 'lead the horse to water' to try make others better writers (when they discus technical subjects, such as on Slashdot).
What you are missing is that China also jails people who point out corruption, mis-governance, unsafe practices such as the addition of mildly poisonous food additives to food products that result in baby deaths (eg the melamine added to milk by a Chinese dairy producer - and then blame it on the New Zealand company that acquired them), illegal and unreasonable acquisition of citizen land, etc. Yes, this happens elsewhere too, but not on the same scale nor without the same redresses available elsewhere.
With regards to economics. America is slowly getting back to growth. The difference between China and America's economies is not really to do with their political systems, it is to do with whether the government believes in a lassez faire system with weak regulation (America) or strong central control of the economy (China) including product dumping and currency manipulation and other unfair trade practices (at least according to the WTO 'standards'). America also bends the rules in its favour (obvious to outsiders, most US citizens don't know or care), but not to the same extent as China. If America decided to bend the rules too far in its favour it would reap the same short-term (several decades) benefits that China does now, at the expense of getting the same bad reputation China is rapidly acquiring (and will take a much longer time to shake off).
You feel bad about being an American because of stand-up comedians? This is tragic, perhaps you are a bit too sensitive (but at least that is much better than being insensitive/oblivious - as many of your countrymen are). As cultures mature they gain the ability to laugh at themselves. As they mature further they then gain the ability to allow others to laugh at them. This is why the 'English' (what you might call 'British') culture around the World appreciates black humour and sarcasm to a degree not seen in the US. Unfortunately these delights seem lost on many Americans who in their earnestness are mostly quite poor in distinguishing a pleasantly sounding mortal insult from invective wrapped comradely banter.
Your desire for your countrymen to do better is laudable. However, I think that America would often look better to outsiders if it learned to kick back, have a beer, and not take things so seriously. Trying to look good usually makes you look worse. This trying hard to look good is something the Russian and Chinese governments miss completely - trying to look strong makes them look 'try-hard' and feeble; showing how much power they have over various things (eg. Russian supply of gas) does not make their neighbours respect them out of fear, it makes them distrust them. Doing these things is counter-productive and most Chinese and Russians just don't grok this yet. My point here is that the ability of America to grow stand-up comedians with their cutting insight shows strength of their culture and is something to be proud of, not ashamed of. The ability to recognise and laugh at your own foibles shows good judgment and character. *All* cultures have flaws, acknowledging them is good (because ignoring them is ridiculous - outsiders can see the flaws even better than you can). America is a great country to be proud of, please also realise that almost everyone else is also proud of their countries too - and it isn't a competition as to who is best at what, it is all a joke.
China has some great aspects. The ones you pointed out are not some of them. I hope the US doesn't slavishly emulate China, because as the US edges towards the concentration of power to centralized elites and draconian laws (both of which China has) against the citizenry it is making it a worse country, not better. That trend is not something to tolerate or aspire to.
We (people in my country) don't use Webster's (we use the Oxford Dictionary instead as our standard - mostly). Just because a word is in Websters doesn't mean the word is accepted by the international English community. While we my countrymen will usually tolerate abominations like 'impactful', they come across as quite dissonant and are avoided by better writers and speakers. For example, the the writer could have substituted the word 'significant' for 'impactful'.
My other favourite poor-word-choice peeve is 'architected' when 'designed' is the better word to use. All these faux-formal words being made up by corporate drones when there are perfectly suitable and well accepted alternatives instead. If you have a good vocabulary you choose the simplest word to fit, not make up words to try sound enlightened or technically adept. Use of such words are jarring for those of us who have moved past the stage of complicating our prose (as you learn to do as an undergraduate in university) to the stage of ruthlessly simplifying it where we can.
Great post. Even worse, if they get the world they wish for then Iran has nukes and using their usual pattern, maintains plausible deniability while their agents (Hezbollah et al) sow terror around the world (just as Iranian agents have been operating recently in Georgia, India and Thailand, and formerly in Argentina). Even worse, because Iran has nukes all the other countries in the region decide they must have them (the Arabs and Persians *really* do not like each other). That would be a clusterfsck on an epic scale.
Fortunately Israel is doing a 'North Korea' and threatening crazy stuff unless the West/US promises to sort Iran out - otherwise the West would only wring its hands as the Iranians built a nuclear weapon stockpile (kicking off the nuclear arms race in the region). The West/US have been pretty limp-wristed in their response so far and Iran has had nearly an entire decade to evade and continue their work (they're up to 20% enrichment now and are not far from breaking out into full nuclear capability; plus their ballistic missile test program is now pretty much ready for 'special' weapons).
If Iran would allow inspectors unfettered access to all of the *dozens* of nuclear research sites they have then the excuse for war would evaporate overnight. It is clear the Iranians don't want/can't allow this (since they actually are working on weapons, despite their public statements) so they are string the International Community out as long as they can. It is currently a race between the Iranian secret weapons programme and the International Community to see who can resolve this first, one way (Iran has nukes and is invulnerable) or another (US destroys the sites [Israel can't get them all by itself]).
Are you arguing that the best way to help a suicidal person is to give them more guns?
Please read the parent post again. Your (sensationalist) statement doesn't match what they were trying to say (unless somehow you intended to be funny).
So the US overthrew the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq. Big deal. Who they were really trying to stop is the Tudeh (the communist party of Iran) - who had a growing influense over Mosaddeq. At the height of the Cold War this made sense at the time. Yes, it would be lovely for the US to stick to its stated principles about democracy, but if the Tudeh got in power (backed by the Soviets) then the resulting 'democracy' would be meaningless. Just as the democracy is essentially meaningless under the ayatollahs. This was 'realpolitk' at its ugliest - sh!t like this was done so the West could win against the Soviet empire. If you know anything about the historical reality of the Soviet empire you'll also understand its a damn sight better that the West won (despite its own flaws) than the Soviets did. So, stop living in the utopian dream and come to the real world, you'll get a good perspective on why things were done. The US is bad (and getting worse), but they pale compared to the Soviets or the ayatollahs on the badness scale.
The US backed the 'Northern Alliance' and other Mujahideen to fight the Soviets (just as the Soviets backed the North Vietnamese and North Koreans in those conflicts - even going so far as for Soviet crews to fly and man missile batteries against US forces). The US did not create the Taliban, the Pakistani ISI did (and the Taliban are still supported by the ISI - which pisses the US off no end considering the degree of financial support given by the US to Pakistan).
Fortunately things have changed with regard to acquisition.
And the baryonic composition of the dark matter?
lol :) sorry, no mod points today to give you - but nicely done.
The guy suing is a dick for sure, but ffs stop being a racist/anti-semite. Such comments are vastly more douchy than the crap that Mr Zaentz is pulling. Thinking that those of the Jewish faith have a monopoly on money-grubbing shows an immature world view - plenty of races and religions are just as avaricious.
Gravitational microlensing surveys have been looking for brown dwarfs and dim stars (sufficiently low luminosity they are not visible from Earth) in the galactic halo, but not enough were found to explain the mass difference (between luminous and non luminous galactic matter) to explain the observed galactic rotation curves. Planets around such low mass stars can also be seen (and have been seen, see the results by Microlensing Observations in Astrophyics [MOA] Project and associated collaborators - disclaimer I'm a former member). Depending on how small the planets are, they also could be detected (if you get very very lucky, due to the optical alignment required between observer, missing mass, and background luminous object). Given the constraints of the proportions of baryonic matter during the primordial nucleosynthesis (Big Bang/early universe) and the observed microlensing rate brown dwarfs are unlikely to account for the dark matter (AFAIK, I've been out of the game for a while). The baryonic constraints eliminated small rocks and gas clouds etc too. (I'm no expert on the nucleosynthesis calculations, however).
It would not be unusual for someone to come up with a theory that didn't take into account the known observations. For example, during the 1990's the early gravitational microlensing surveys 'rediscovered' the fact that our Galaxy is a 'barred spiral' - something the search teams were not aware of at the start of their studies (although astronomers, a different type of scientist, did know this). So it would not be unusual for someone to be missing key observations that invalidate this 'many planet theory'. Fortunately for the microlensing surveys their observations and results lead them to the correct conclusion (barred spiral galaxy), which instilled confidence in their methods and results. It doesn't take away from the fact that what was already known by astronomers was not at the time commonly known amongst the astrophysicists/particle physicists who designed the early microlensing surveys. It wouldn't surprise me if this was also the case in the paper /theory being discussed in this thread.
An Apple user who loves their gilded cage - do you like it when an application you would like to have is refused from the Apple App Store just because Apple doesn't want it in there ? (even if it has no viruses, malware or morality [as defined by Apple] issues). Do you really think Apple is going to get better in this regard? Still think Apple are all about openness?
I'm also an Apple user but at least I go into it with eyes wide open - and understand why Apple make stuff that plays only with their stuff (you only need one proprietary extension, which you admit to, to break compatibility). Yes, I agree with you (as I have said before), Apple does this partly because they are early adopters of new technology, in addition to their own reasons. They still choose formats unilaterally and use their current market dominance (in media) to force others (eg, hardware manufacturers) to change the currently accepted standard in use. In some cases the formats they use are not really superior, certainly not enough to break accepted compatibility for. The fact remains that Apple will 'set the standard' and ensure that you can only use that standard with their gear (as everyone else scrambles to catch up, once they have used the privilege of paying Apple royalties).
So I'm guessing you support uplifting the rest of the 3rd world nations instead of holding them back by 150 years or more? The majority of proponents of your theory support 'green' ideas that ensure that the rest of the world suffer. Including paying off developing nations to develop. Remember. The reason why families have large numbers of children is because of high infant mortality rates and a lack of industrialization.>
Actually, usually improving women's rights and education has the greatest effect on family size. I suggest promoting these.
On the other end, you end up with China. The one child policy has been disastrous. With boys outstripping girls in the totals of babies leading to a serious population imbalance. This is because most of china is not industrialized but males can do more in the typical per-industrial society.
I did not say China's One Child policy ought to be adopted, which has problems (as you point) that are due to Chinese cultural factors. In fact I took pains to write that this policy was not ideal. However, some growth-rate policy ought to be adopted. Unconstrained human population growth is fscking the World up.
How about we stop the global populating increasing at the current exponential rate? Then we can look at the minor efficiencies of all the other stuff.
While the Chinese One Child Policy may not be ideal at least it recognizes reality - too many humans creates too many problems. Note, I'm not saying the human population should be decreased (except perhaps, by natural population decline - which is exhibited in advanced countries).
Much of the catastrophic predictions of Malthusian correction are based on the current uncontrolled human population growth. If that growth can be slowed considerably, stopped, or even (naturally) reversed then there is a chance that our technologies might catch up with our consumption (eg. improved recycling, synthetic generation of some resources from our waste, etc).
> How is this "building an empire"? They are the underdog! All eBooks (from major publishers) have DRM before Apple started selling them. Cause and effect.
No, *you* have this wrong. The Apple eBook format has proprietary extensions. Yes, it may be because they want to add extra stuff but it still makes it incompatible. This is the same excuse used by Microsoft in it's "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics. Microsoft even cited the same cause you did, "the freedom to innovate" when it was clear that the only "standards" they were really interested in where the standards (and extensions) they created. It is you who are taking Apple's statements at surface value without understanding what is really being done in a subtle way. Yes, Apple is innovating, but that is not the only, or I would argue, the main reason why they choose to use (and add proprietary extensions to) the formats they do. This is not getting causality backwards, but understanding how the corporate thinks and deducing cause and effect from that (without listening to the fanboi PR, which masquerades the corporate aims).
You would be surprised at how many places Solaris is used for real-time apps. Most modern devs don't get exposed to systems that need such things though - which is why they scoff derisively at it - being too fresh and ignorant to realise in all the places Solaris is/was used.
This functionality is not unique to Visual Studio. Try to get out more.