Frappucinos are not made from syrup. They are made from a blend of coffee, sugar and milk that is prepared fresh daily in every store. To be fair, the milk-based part of Frappucinos come pre-made in boxes, but I think this is done to maintain consistency, not to lower product quality. The only syrups used in a Frappucino are the flavor syrups like Caramel or Mint Chocolate Chip. <P> A "Classic Frappucino" is generally called a Coffee Frappucino (hint: if you ask a barista for a "classic Frappucino", they'll ask you if you mean a coffee frappucino because there is no such thing as a classic frappucino). It consists of Frappucino blend and ice. If your local store makes Caramel Frappucinos or Java Chip Frappucinos, it definitely is capable of making Coffee Frappucinos. You might not want to call a classic, or coffee Frappucino a "cafe Frappucino" because the barista might confuse this with the new Cafe Vanilla Frappucino (coffee frappucino with vanilla bean). <P> As another poster pointed out, Starbucks did get the name from a regional shop it bought out, but the idea was pitched by a few store managers in SoCal previous to the purchase. Between their suggestions and tweakings and the Massachussetts's shop's drink's name, you have the present-day Frappucino. The term "frappucino" comes form a combination of the Italian word for ice, "frappe", and cappuccino, to denote that it is a coffe-based drink (then came along the creme frappucinos . . . G-d help us all). <P> BTW, all this information is available through publicly available books or by asking your friendly local barista. The NDA I assume exists was tightly skirted.
Let me preface this by saying that I delight in NASA's findings. The latest reports on Saturn's rings fascinated me, and I felt proud to be part of the nation to successfully land a vehicle on Mars and transmit information that gives us (all humans, not just Americans) new insights into the universe we happen to inhabit. To me, NASA is an important part of what makes the US the country it is today. Having said that . . .
I believe this happened for a few reasons:
1. War
2. Sympathy
3. Elections
Well, yes. War begets violence, violence begets suffering on all sides, and suffering costs a lot of money. The US is caring for civilians hurt in the fighting as well as our own. Soldiers are coming home with radically life-altering injuries, and the govermnment is responsible for taking care of them. Sometimes these injuries are so awful that the family must make financial sacrifices just to properly care for its loved one. While the soldiers are abroad fighting, they need someone to care for their families, including medical attention, financial support, etc., especially since soldiers aren't exactly raking it in.
Secondly, the generation that begat the Baby Boom is aging (and dying rapidly), and geriatric veterans demand a higher level of care in general. Vietnam vets are receiving their AARP membership cards; they need care as well.
One could argue that giving more money to soldiers and the VA would somehow encourage the war machine to churn on. This is quite nonsensical. The government is only (trying to) take care of its own (though not doing a good job of it). It has a responsibility for the men and women who serve it. Even without war, the VA needs more funding to properly care for our aging vets as they, and any other person, should be treated: with respect, dignity, and the best methods out there. Of course, one could debate what exactly is 'best', and for whom it is best, but this country supposedley has very capable men and women elected to make those decisions.
As far as sympathy goes, I'm greatly doubt that this will cause mass public outrage anywhere near the level required to receive the requested budget. Is it that we don't care? Maybe. Perhaps it is also because NASA is only forefront in the minds of most Americans when it is on the front page of the daily news or on the news channel . . . repeatedley. This generation enjoys NASA and what it has brought the US as a nation, but doesn't have the attachment our parents have. We take it for granted. We didn't live through the fervor of the Space Race. On the other hand, young people usually don't hit the polls in droves or contact their representative that often (or at all), so who knows?
As for elections, this is not an issue. It's not a first tier issue or a second tier issue. It comes off more as a special platform issue. Not to say that it is, but that is where it probably rests in the mind of the average American. Even if it was a big ticket issue, I doubt it would noticeably change the outcome of the presidential election. IMHO, I believe that Americans are more concerned about (in no particular order) the war, governmental transparency, the economy, jobs, taxation, education, foreign relations and policy, civil liberties, etc. In light of these topics, NASA is an afterthought, something to be used to one-up somebody else or help someone's interests to better the country in response to foreseen threats (see The Cold War). For this to become a true election year issue, the Baby Boomers need to be outraged. But this has been pointed out by other/.ers, and it holds.
Thank you for the counterpoints and clarifications with real-life scenarios. Removable data storage devices are difficult to avoid these days (as opposed to the days where the computer was the size of a garage), and almost anything is removable if you want it badly enough.
To reply about this not being newsworthy (as judged by a much earlier post, not multiplexo's):
While this is not the first time either Los Alamos or Sandia has reported sensitive data missing, it was more widely reported. I also felt it merited a free discussion, as improving security should be everyone's right and duty (though to some more than others), and open debates are one of the best ways to introduce and test new ideas (and flames and trolls), as well as disseminate information (and disinformation). Thirdly, Slashdot must receive a lot of post suggestions and takes the time to review each of them; therefore, some lag must be expected.
What if 3D modelling software was involved? First, complete a diagram of what you wanted and then have it cut into strips (horizontal might be easier) to show how the organ (or whatnot) should be pieced together. One could print out sheets of the necessary cells and layer them appropriately. Aren't there machines and softwarethat print or produce 3D models directly from the computer for making patents, etc.?
This is more feasible in making, say, skin, which has easily defined cell layers, than constructing a kidney, wherein you'd have to print out sheets with multiple types of cells, etc.(besides other obvious problems)
I agree with the above that more immediate practical uses might include skin grafts for burn victims, healing agents for skin conditions, putting a cell printout over a surgical scar, replacing/healing scar tissue, or grafting organisms onto each other (studying symbiosis, perhaps?).
It's not that minimum wage workers are easy to exploit. Rather, they are more willing to give you info you desire because they don't feel they have much to lose.
Another problem to consider is that of prosthetic eyes. Even if one was using this product on the other eye, manuevering in general would be difficult.
What would be interesting was if they were able to grow an eye that would be optimized for use with lasers.
I pose four questions for the kind anonymous PR being at the NSA:
How do you see nanotechnology being of assistance to the NSA? What type of coding/intercepting possibilities does it hold?
What effect, if any, does opensource software and shareware have on the NSA's objectives?
What do wireless communications contribute to coding and the NSA's other projects? Does the high volume of 'traffic' due to cellphones and new gadgetry make transmission and/or interception easier/ more dificult?
How has the Human Genome Project and the concepts of DNA matrices in theoretical computer science aided the NSA? Can the code of life help the NSA's coding and intercepting efforts?
FYI: If there is no outside intervention (i.e. from the government) eventually the RIAA as it currently exists cannot continue enforcing it's cartel like behavior which include illogical pricing of CDs and cassettes, raping of musicians financially (TLC sell millions of albums and are bankrupt???) and the bribing of radio station executives to play only member chosen material.
TLC managed to sell millions of albums and is bankrupt because they had poor financial planning. They were also young, naive, and taken in by the lure of the recording industry. Take it from an Atlantan who knows.
What we are witnessing is the bloody birth and growing pains of the new revolution. A better question is who is pushing the baby forward and who is pulling back its heel, trying to keep it inside the womb, or perhaps trying to make it out before his brother.
Taking sides on arguments like this one is difficult due to many reasons: politics, fashionable interests, personal interests, etc. When you post, who are you trying to please? Your parents? Your teachers? Your peers? The group of which you want to be a part? It might look so obvious now, but before you answer, sit back, take a breath, and begin a train of rational thought that you will not regret posting. And in retrospect, almost every action we take looks either incredibly fortuitous or incredibly stupid.
"Music takes you from the place you are to the place where you want to be" --Hasidic saying
Slashdot Mirror
Frappucinos are not made from syrup. They are made from a blend of coffee, sugar and milk that is prepared fresh daily in every store. To be fair, the milk-based part of Frappucinos come pre-made in boxes, but I think this is done to maintain consistency, not to lower product quality. The only syrups used in a Frappucino are the flavor syrups like Caramel or Mint Chocolate Chip.
<P>
A "Classic Frappucino" is generally called a Coffee Frappucino (hint: if you ask a barista for a "classic Frappucino", they'll ask you if you mean a coffee frappucino because there is no such thing as a classic frappucino). It consists of Frappucino blend and ice. If your local store makes Caramel Frappucinos or Java Chip Frappucinos, it definitely is capable of making Coffee Frappucinos. You might not want to call a classic, or coffee Frappucino a "cafe Frappucino" because the barista might confuse this with the new Cafe Vanilla Frappucino (coffee frappucino with vanilla bean).
<P>
As another poster pointed out, Starbucks did get the name from a regional shop it bought out, but the idea was pitched by a few store managers in SoCal previous to the purchase. Between their suggestions and tweakings and the Massachussetts's shop's drink's name, you have the present-day Frappucino. The term "frappucino" comes form a combination of the Italian word for ice, "frappe", and cappuccino, to denote that it is a coffe-based drink (then came along the creme frappucinos . . . G-d help us all).
<P>
BTW, all this information is available through publicly available books or by asking your friendly local barista. The NDA I assume exists was tightly skirted.
I believe this happened for a few reasons:
1. War
2. Sympathy
3. Elections
Well, yes. War begets violence, violence begets suffering on all sides, and suffering costs a lot of money. The US is caring for civilians hurt in the fighting as well as our own. Soldiers are coming home with radically life-altering injuries, and the govermnment is responsible for taking care of them. Sometimes these injuries are so awful that the family must make financial sacrifices just to properly care for its loved one. While the soldiers are abroad fighting, they need someone to care for their families, including medical attention, financial support, etc., especially since soldiers aren't exactly raking it in.
Secondly, the generation that begat the Baby Boom is aging (and dying rapidly), and geriatric veterans demand a higher level of care in general. Vietnam vets are receiving their AARP membership cards; they need care as well.
One could argue that giving more money to soldiers and the VA would somehow encourage the war machine to churn on. This is quite nonsensical. The government is only (trying to) take care of its own (though not doing a good job of it). It has a responsibility for the men and women who serve it. Even without war, the VA needs more funding to properly care for our aging vets as they, and any other person, should be treated: with respect, dignity, and the best methods out there. Of course, one could debate what exactly is 'best', and for whom it is best, but this country supposedley has very capable men and women elected to make those decisions.
As far as sympathy goes, I'm greatly doubt that this will cause mass public outrage anywhere near the level required to receive the requested budget. Is it that we don't care? Maybe. Perhaps it is also because NASA is only forefront in the minds of most Americans when it is on the front page of the daily news or on the news channel . . . repeatedley. This generation enjoys NASA and what it has brought the US as a nation, but doesn't have the attachment our parents have. We take it for granted. We didn't live through the fervor of the Space Race. On the other hand, young people usually don't hit the polls in droves or contact their representative that often (or at all), so who knows?
As for elections, this is not an issue. It's not a first tier issue or a second tier issue. It comes off more as a special platform issue. Not to say that it is, but that is where it probably rests in the mind of the average American. Even if it was a big ticket issue, I doubt it would noticeably change the outcome of the presidential election. IMHO, I believe that Americans are more concerned about (in no particular order) the war, governmental transparency, the economy, jobs, taxation, education, foreign relations and policy, civil liberties, etc. In light of these topics, NASA is an afterthought, something to be used to one-up somebody else or help someone's interests to better the country in response to foreseen threats (see The Cold War). For this to become a true election year issue, the Baby Boomers need to be outraged. But this has been pointed out by other /.ers, and it holds.
Thank you for the counterpoints and clarifications with real-life scenarios. Removable data storage devices are difficult to avoid these days (as opposed to the days where the computer was the size of a garage), and almost anything is removable if you want it badly enough.
To reply about this not being newsworthy (as judged by a much earlier post, not multiplexo's):
While this is not the first time either Los Alamos or Sandia has reported sensitive data missing, it was more widely reported. I also felt it merited a free discussion, as improving security should be everyone's right and duty (though to some more than others), and open debates are one of the best ways to introduce and test new ideas (and flames and trolls), as well as disseminate information (and disinformation). Thirdly, Slashdot must receive a lot of post suggestions and takes the time to review each of them; therefore, some lag must be expected.
This is more feasible in making, say, skin, which has easily defined cell layers, than constructing a kidney, wherein you'd have to print out sheets with multiple types of cells, etc.(besides other obvious problems)
I agree with the above that more immediate practical uses might include skin grafts for burn victims, healing agents for skin conditions, putting a cell printout over a surgical scar, replacing/healing scar tissue, or grafting organisms onto each other (studying symbiosis, perhaps?).
It's not that minimum wage workers are easy to exploit. Rather, they are more willing to give you info you desire because they don't feel they have much to lose.
What would be interesting was if they were able to grow an eye that would be optimized for use with lasers.
Sincerely,
a kind and curious spookette
FYI:
If there is no outside intervention (i.e. from the government) eventually the RIAA as it currently exists cannot continue enforcing it's cartel like behavior which include illogical pricing of CDs and cassettes, raping of musicians financially (TLC sell millions of albums and are bankrupt???) and the bribing of radio station executives to play only member chosen material.
TLC managed to sell millions of albums and is bankrupt because they had poor financial planning. They were also young, naive, and taken in by the lure of the recording industry. Take it from an Atlantan who knows.
What we are witnessing is the bloody birth and growing pains of the new revolution. A better question is who is pushing the baby forward and who is pulling back its heel, trying to keep it inside the womb, or perhaps trying to make it out before his brother.
Taking sides on arguments like this one is difficult due to many reasons: politics, fashionable interests, personal interests, etc. When you post, who are you trying to please? Your parents? Your teachers? Your peers? The group of which you want to be a part? It might look so obvious now, but before you answer, sit back, take a breath, and begin a train of rational thought that you will not regret posting. And in retrospect, almost every action we take looks either incredibly fortuitous or incredibly stupid.
"Music takes you from the place you are to the place where you want to be"
--Hasidic saying