I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of watermarking showed up in DVD's soon.
This is actually pretty unlikely for the near future. Commercial DVDs are generally stamped on a die rather than burned like a CD-R; I'm not quite sure, but I assume burning a DVD would take at least ten minutes on home equpment and this could probably be cut down a little, but one minute or even thirty seconds would probably be too much time on industrial presses. And the machinery required for burning high volumes would be much more complex and error prone than stamping. Stamping greatly reduces the cost and increases the durability of high volume runs, but pretty much ensures that every copy is identical, so watermarking would not be realistic, AFAIK. As for the small volumes sent out for promo copies and advance screeners, those could realistically be burned, and so watermarking those makes some sense and that is where you hear about this being done.
From the article, and the post. Delays in communication because of the distance to space would mean surgeons on earth would have tell astronauts what commands to give the robots
Also, this device is also expected to be used in the battlefield, and I assume rescue operations and other remote circumstances. At $200 a robot, these are indeed sort of expensive (single use, often multiple robots per procedure) but not outrageous for certain uses.
Oops, I forgot to clarify that one of the three consoles may be forced out of the market by a new player. Although I realistically don't know who that would be. It seems the "new player" has historically been a company already entrenched in different aspects of media. Atari being displaced by Sony and Sega being displaced by Microsoft. I don't foresee Microsoft or Sony being pushed out of the market, but someone could possibly come in and push Nintendo out if the Revolution ends up not doing too well. (I realize that the timelines I presented are not perfectly accurate, and it might be more accurate to say "Sony filled the void left by Atari and MS filled the void left by Sega" and I am omitting some smaller players, Like the Neo-Geo, commodore 64 and Amiga (arguably computers, but primarilly used as video game machines, Coleco, etc.)
So basically I wasn't saying that the market can not support three players, I was trying to say that some of the major players may change (Like if EA, Mitsubishi or Dell decides to come out with their own console. Or if the Phantom actually manages to somehow succeed.)
The mouse also supports a mode where the mouse basically sits on your left hand, and you can use the trackball with your right thumb without lifting your fingers from the keyboard. Although this doesn't seem like it would work that well with a split keyboard, as anyone who buys an ergonomic mouse would most probably be using. I think the ergonomic benefit of this mouse is primarilly that it can be used in so many different ways that you just switch up when one way is bothering you. Although this means you'll have to learn a couple new ways to use it, I usually get pretty used to a new pointing device in a couple hours. Except trackpads... I can never seem to get used to them.
Re:"ergonomic" devices are not ergonomic at all
on
Ergonomic Mice Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Have you ever heard of carpal tunnel syndrome? What you are describing is the worst possible thing to do to your wrists. The large muscles and ligaments in your shoulder and elbow can take some repetitive use. The delicate tendons in your wrist will swell from mousing all day using the method you described, pinching off the carpal tunnel nerve. Extremely painfull and debilitating. That's why ergonomic mice require macro-movements with the whole arm rather than the delicate micro movements used in fingertip mousing.
There are other conditions the position you mentioned can cause or aggravate, such as bursitis and tendonitis.
The best defense is to take a break every now and then and stretch out the wrist. General body stretching can also help back pain which can result from sitting in a chair all day.
And we will fail to realize that most of those "downs" just mean that particular gaming medium isn't actually losing sales, it's simply not growing at the speed that the other is. Same thing with Microsoft vs Sony vs Nintendo, although it is possible that one of those three will be forced out of the market, such as how Sega and Atari transformed into software shops rather than selling consoles.
Out of curiosity, I've heard about "special relationship" a few times but haven't seen it defined. Is a special relationship something to the effect of protecting a witness so they can testify?
I have a problem with this statistic. Every time I've seen the numbers presented, it always compares total accidental injuries in the home with a firearm vs. the number of intruders killed by a firearm. I have never seem intruders injured in the statistics, or more importantly the number of crimes stopped simply because the victim had a firearm, but did not have to use it.
I might as well come out with my stance on gun control: I believe that people should be required to have a licence to purchase or own a gun. There would be mandatory safety training similar to driver's education before getting a driver's licence. Different types of firearms would require different classes of licence, similar to how driving a Semi requires a C-class, and there being different requirements for hauling liquids, biohazards, explosives, radioactive waste, etc. A hunting rifle or shotgun would be a very basic licence while handguns would at least require being 18, and owning semi or fully automatic weapons would require passing more stringent education, and rocket launchers, grenades, bazookas, mortars and the like would be fairly difficult to get and likely require special profficiency testing, but not impossible. Military or police training would probably ensure access to most of these weapons, although that shouldn't be the only route to getting access. Concealed carry would be permissable with proper licensing. Violent crimes which involve the use of a firearm (And the weapon has to be actually used, not simply on the person) would revoke a licence, whether that is permanent or temporary I don't know.
Training for a hunting weapon would be pretty basic, maybe something like an afternoon course. Children would be able to use their parents firearms with permission without a licence, as long as they are accompanied by the parent or another legal guardian, or someone appointed temporary guardianship by the parent such as an uncle taking his nephew out hunting. People also would not be legally required to have a licence to operate firearms at gun ranges, although the range would of course have the option of requiring a licence.
I fell that anybody who would raise arms in revolt against their country really would have more to worry about than not having a firearm permit, so I don't think the regulations I have outlawed would significantly harm their ability to revolt against a despotic or otherwise "evil" government. And I highly doubt that it would be possible for any private militia currently concievable to forcibly overtake the United States armed forces in the U.S. proper considering the immense size and funding; The United States military budget is about that of the rest of the world combined. Guerilla tactics or political tactics (I.E. convincing a good portion of the soldiers to join your cause) would be the only way to overthrow the United States army.
The gun control plan I outlined was meant mostly for the U.S., as that is the country I, as well as a significant portion of other people on slashdot reading this, reside. Some things may not be feasible in other countries due to cultural, economic differences. Also, I personally do have a logical objection to armed insurrection. Most objections to a form of government is that the power that government wields is being used to harm people in some way (physically, strip people of their rights, not fairly providing access to certain material necessities, whatever.) Using force to overthrow the government in a way proves that might does make right. Using the logic that the right of the revolutionaries to gain control by use of force means that the previous government's claim to control based purely on might was true, but only removable by use of force. This seems to be a slippery slope (yes, a logical fallacy, but just the way it seems) which means that any new government which comes about by use of force will eventually be perverted to use this force to subjugate the very people it was supposed to serve. I understand this argument
Yes, the average IQ is 100. But the scale has been moved up several times. What would have scored you a 100 20 years back would probably only get you a 90-95 now. This means one of three things: Children are smarter now than they were back then, IQ tests do not actually test IQ, or that the basic premise behind IQ itself is false, and that some component of intelligence is environmentally based and it would therefore be impossible to create a test that objectively tests intelligence. Or some combination of the three.
So Britain cannot disallow the sale of Hashish from Holland? The United States cannot disallow the sale of VWs produced in Mexico which do not meet current emissions standards?
This is no longer 1950. Pretty soon whom will be followed by (archaic) in the dictionary. Or we can see if it already has: Whom is obsolescent in colloquial English. That's right, for the most part whom is no longer used in spoken or informal english. Rules of language change as time goes on, and that only makes sense because priorities and even ways of thinking change as time goes on. Unless you are writing an english paper.
You should have asked about those features. If the salesperson didn't give you a straightforward answer, walk. It's people caving in to the pressure of these annoying salespeople that keeps annoying salespeople employed and annoying you. And as a slashdotter, you probably should have done some basic research online prior to making a purchase. I bought two phones without reading reviews and got lemons or phones I really didn't like. After doing about half an hour of research, I found a phone I was comfortable with (a basic Nokia) and have had it for the last two years (well, 23 months, I got it thanksgiving weekend 2003) I plan on getting a similar one (after some more research of course) in a month when my contract is up. I'm starting to get some memory on the battery, which is pretty much expected after two years.
I've already seen this product at Target. Okay, it has a couple more features than that, but basically there you have it. Only includes 30 minutes of prepaid airtime, but this phone seems like it is supposed to be primarilly for emergencies anyways. Caveat, from the user reviews it seems that more minutes are fairly expensive, at 25 cents a minute. But if it is used as an emergency device rather than a "mom, I'm ready to be picked up from soccer" this shouldn't be a problem. Of course, if it's for emergencies only, the batteries might be dead by the time it's needed.
I'm viscerally against large mega-corporations just as much as the next slashdotter, but protests of this form will not help out the situation. When people Boycott a huge industry for a single day, it does nothing to harm the mega-corps bottom line. As for sending a message, the difference in profits is negligable, so the message sent is that people don't care. Why is the difference negligable? Because people don't change their lifestyle, they just avoid shopping for that one day. They still need the stuff, so they just buy on different days. The only type of business that will be hurt by a "buy nothing day" is... guess what... the small mom and pop type store which most mega-corp fighters claim to support.
Boycotts gnerally only work if you are boycotting a single product which you can replace with something else or do without for an extended period of time. The classic example of a boycott that actually does something is the grape boycott of the early 80's which people help on to long enough to actually bring negotiations between the farmers and the workers. The only reason people were willing to boycott to this extreme is that A)this was a single product being protested B)The product was replacable and C)There was just cause to protest. The grape laborers had been figting for equal treatment for 20 years, working in dangerous conditions for extremely little pay. And it was done in America where the problems were actually visible. A boycott will simply not be large enough to make a difference if the majority of people don't agree with your cause. And most people feel that they are benefitted by our capitolistic society, so a feel good day of not shopping may at the most be a minor annoyance to the maga-global-corporations of the world, but it won't change their ways.
People doing Darwin's job today would probably be research professors working at a University. Or more realistically, it would be the grad students under the professors doing most of the work, while the professor does the letter writing and other correspondance. Ahd then goes on sabattical every now and then to collect some data ala voyaging on the Beagle (with grad students in tow to do the dirty work.)
Most people in that era probably didn't live the sort of life that a Darwin did, Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) was a doctor who made quite a bit of money in his practice, and a good lot of money writing books on biology. Of Particulkar interest is Erasmus' book Zoönomia, in which he wrote:
Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament...
This right here is the beginning of evolutionary thought, not Charles Darwin's work. But what Charles did was to propose the mechanism by which traits are sustained or suppressed, that is natural selection. Without a mechanism to explain HOW that original organism (filament, in Erasmus' words) came to have descendants which represent the entire range of living organisms, evolution is just an idea. With a mechanism to describe how it actually works (natural selection,) evolution becomes elevated to the realm of theory. While I personally do believe that evolution is not a law in and of itself, it is supported by many laws within nature. Calling evolution a scientific law would be the same as calling the existing theory on celestial mechanics a law. Actually, I believe scientific model would be a better term than theory for such complex subjects as evolution, celestial mechanics, plate techtonics, weather systems forecasting, etc etc etc.
The record of things he sent would remain with the people he sent them to who hadn't deleted the emails, I would imagine. I'm sure they didn't look in his home office to see which letters he had written, it would have been through talking to the people that wrote him latters in the first place. Unless Einstein kept records of all the letters that he got, and which ones he responded too. Which might actually make sense once your inbox starts piling up.
I suppose life insurance companies would be all over this too. Given the choice between investing your money for, let's say an average of 30 years (75 year life span - 18 years)/2 to almost 500 years (1000/2) you'd better bet that they'd like you to have access to this sort of tech.
What you just did is nowhere near what this man has done. He identified the major physical reasons behind aging and is working on proposing and coordinating new ideas to fight the causes of aging.
Is he crazy? Probably. Is he wrong? Probably. At least he's got a goal and is formulating a plan to achieve it. If he is wrong, science will probably learn a lot about how the human body works, and other scientific achievements will be made in the process.
By the way... these treatments will only really be available to the extremely wealthy. Considering how difficult it is for many Americans to get basic health insurance as it is, and the fact that most medical treatments are financially out of reach for those who are not covered, this will probably only exaccerbate the situation unless some great social or technological discovery is made which allows anyone who desires it access to this longevity. Is this evil? Not really. Denying something to a priveleged few people simply because the masses (of which I consider myself to be a member) can not achieve it isn't right. Denying this longevity because it causes an undue burden on the rest of society, however, is not morally outrageous.
Unfortunately, no. It's not satire. He is what's being satired on godhatesfigs and other sites. I fear that this guy is being 100% sincere. It's just that he's also a 100% nutjob, and doesn't actually check what he writes to see if it is easy to read, or at the very least not incoherent insane rants. That in and of itself isn't that bad, freedom of speech and all. The travesty are that his ramblings have actually influenced people into thinking like him.
Most Americans at the very least don't care enough about whether a company is green or not. But there are probably more people who will purchase a product or service simply because it can claim to be green than there are people who will refuse to buy from green companies. There are also subsidies which may help a company which checks out as green or attempting to go green. If a company is purely interested in their own bottom line, it would still be worth looking and seeing if becoming more efficient would make them more money, whether it is from lowered overall costs or from subsidies and increased demand due to public opinion offsetting the costs of implementing a green plan.
And "going green" always looks good on a glossy press release or quarterly report, even if the paper is non-recyclable and the dies are toxic and can only be produced by the clubbing of baby seals. As long as noone finds out how the press release is made...
All GP was saying is that this is the same sort of hooplah that hydrogen is. Meaning: a dead end. It's more efficient to simply burn the hydrocarbons in an internal combustion engine than it is to jump through all the hoops required here. Magneisum is found naturally in an oxidized state. Reducing the metal to a "fuel" form would take energy... just as much much energy as you would get out of it in the car, plus any inefficiencies in the process. The magnesium oxide wastes being reusable is sort of a red herring, as magnesium is naturally in the oxidized form, we would be diverting from that stream in the first place.
This is not an energy source. It is the same concept as a battery, only far more complicated and likely no more efficient.
it is unfair to expect a car to be run on water or air or dirt. and solar technology is not good enough yet for a solar car
Why is it unfair? I can think of a self replicating transportation device which is powered by the result of proper application of water, air, dirt and solar energy. Technically, an initial seeding device uses solar power to combine water and air into the fuel used, and generally creates more copies of the special seeding device in the process, sometimes the copies are imperfect though leading to changes in the fuel delivery system. This fuel creation device does needs adequate application of other chemicals, such as nitrates, phosphates and trace metals, but these can be extracted directly from the soil by a fuel production plant. Additionally, byproducts from the transportion device itself can be used to replenish the chemicals used. Although improper disposal of the byproducts may be noxious and pose a potential health risk.
There has been discussion of adapting this technology for flight, however most experts find the idea is not feasible to implement. Repair of malfunctioning units does require specially trained technicians and it takes delicate care to reassemble any broken parts, although there is a limited repair system built in to the device.
Oh, and a lot of girls find men who get around using this method to be far more attractive than a guy who drive a Prius.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of watermarking showed up in DVD's soon.
This is actually pretty unlikely for the near future. Commercial DVDs are generally stamped on a die rather than burned like a CD-R; I'm not quite sure, but I assume burning a DVD would take at least ten minutes on home equpment and this could probably be cut down a little, but one minute or even thirty seconds would probably be too much time on industrial presses. And the machinery required for burning high volumes would be much more complex and error prone than stamping. Stamping greatly reduces the cost and increases the durability of high volume runs, but pretty much ensures that every copy is identical, so watermarking would not be realistic, AFAIK. As for the small volumes sent out for promo copies and advance screeners, those could realistically be burned, and so watermarking those makes some sense and that is where you hear about this being done.
From the article, and the post. Delays in communication because of the distance to space would mean surgeons on earth would have tell astronauts what commands to give the robots
Also, this device is also expected to be used in the battlefield, and I assume rescue operations and other remote circumstances. At $200 a robot, these are indeed sort of expensive (single use, often multiple robots per procedure) but not outrageous for certain uses.
Oops, I forgot to clarify that one of the three consoles may be forced out of the market by a new player. Although I realistically don't know who that would be. It seems the "new player" has historically been a company already entrenched in different aspects of media. Atari being displaced by Sony and Sega being displaced by Microsoft. I don't foresee Microsoft or Sony being pushed out of the market, but someone could possibly come in and push Nintendo out if the Revolution ends up not doing too well. (I realize that the timelines I presented are not perfectly accurate, and it might be more accurate to say "Sony filled the void left by Atari and MS filled the void left by Sega" and I am omitting some smaller players, Like the Neo-Geo, commodore 64 and Amiga (arguably computers, but primarilly used as video game machines, Coleco, etc.)
So basically I wasn't saying that the market can not support three players, I was trying to say that some of the major players may change (Like if EA, Mitsubishi or Dell decides to come out with their own console. Or if the Phantom actually manages to somehow succeed.)
The mouse also supports a mode where the mouse basically sits on your left hand, and you can use the trackball with your right thumb without lifting your fingers from the keyboard. Although this doesn't seem like it would work that well with a split keyboard, as anyone who buys an ergonomic mouse would most probably be using. I think the ergonomic benefit of this mouse is primarilly that it can be used in so many different ways that you just switch up when one way is bothering you. Although this means you'll have to learn a couple new ways to use it, I usually get pretty used to a new pointing device in a couple hours. Except trackpads... I can never seem to get used to them.
Have you ever heard of carpal tunnel syndrome? What you are describing is the worst possible thing to do to your wrists. The large muscles and ligaments in your shoulder and elbow can take some repetitive use. The delicate tendons in your wrist will swell from mousing all day using the method you described, pinching off the carpal tunnel nerve. Extremely painfull and debilitating. That's why ergonomic mice require macro-movements with the whole arm rather than the delicate micro movements used in fingertip mousing.
There are other conditions the position you mentioned can cause or aggravate, such as bursitis and tendonitis.
The best defense is to take a break every now and then and stretch out the wrist. General body stretching can also help back pain which can result from sitting in a chair all day.
And we will fail to realize that most of those "downs" just mean that particular gaming medium isn't actually losing sales, it's simply not growing at the speed that the other is. Same thing with Microsoft vs Sony vs Nintendo, although it is possible that one of those three will be forced out of the market, such as how Sega and Atari transformed into software shops rather than selling consoles.
Out of curiosity, I've heard about "special relationship" a few times but haven't seen it defined. Is a special relationship something to the effect of protecting a witness so they can testify?
I have a problem with this statistic. Every time I've seen the numbers presented, it always compares total accidental injuries in the home with a firearm vs. the number of intruders killed by a firearm. I have never seem intruders injured in the statistics, or more importantly the number of crimes stopped simply because the victim had a firearm, but did not have to use it.
I might as well come out with my stance on gun control: I believe that people should be required to have a licence to purchase or own a gun. There would be mandatory safety training similar to driver's education before getting a driver's licence. Different types of firearms would require different classes of licence, similar to how driving a Semi requires a C-class, and there being different requirements for hauling liquids, biohazards, explosives, radioactive waste, etc. A hunting rifle or shotgun would be a very basic licence while handguns would at least require being 18, and owning semi or fully automatic weapons would require passing more stringent education, and rocket launchers, grenades, bazookas, mortars and the like would be fairly difficult to get and likely require special profficiency testing, but not impossible. Military or police training would probably ensure access to most of these weapons, although that shouldn't be the only route to getting access. Concealed carry would be permissable with proper licensing. Violent crimes which involve the use of a firearm (And the weapon has to be actually used, not simply on the person) would revoke a licence, whether that is permanent or temporary I don't know.
Training for a hunting weapon would be pretty basic, maybe something like an afternoon course. Children would be able to use their parents firearms with permission without a licence, as long as they are accompanied by the parent or another legal guardian, or someone appointed temporary guardianship by the parent such as an uncle taking his nephew out hunting. People also would not be legally required to have a licence to operate firearms at gun ranges, although the range would of course have the option of requiring a licence.
I fell that anybody who would raise arms in revolt against their country really would have more to worry about than not having a firearm permit, so I don't think the regulations I have outlawed would significantly harm their ability to revolt against a despotic or otherwise "evil" government. And I highly doubt that it would be possible for any private militia currently concievable to forcibly overtake the United States armed forces in the U.S. proper considering the immense size and funding; The United States military budget is about that of the rest of the world combined. Guerilla tactics or political tactics (I.E. convincing a good portion of the soldiers to join your cause) would be the only way to overthrow the United States army.
The gun control plan I outlined was meant mostly for the U.S., as that is the country I, as well as a significant portion of other people on slashdot reading this, reside. Some things may not be feasible in other countries due to cultural, economic differences. Also, I personally do have a logical objection to armed insurrection. Most objections to a form of government is that the power that government wields is being used to harm people in some way (physically, strip people of their rights, not fairly providing access to certain material necessities, whatever.) Using force to overthrow the government in a way proves that might does make right. Using the logic that the right of the revolutionaries to gain control by use of force means that the previous government's claim to control based purely on might was true, but only removable by use of force. This seems to be a slippery slope (yes, a logical fallacy, but just the way it seems) which means that any new government which comes about by use of force will eventually be perverted to use this force to subjugate the very people it was supposed to serve. I understand this argument
Yes, the average IQ is 100. But the scale has been moved up several times. What would have scored you a 100 20 years back would probably only get you a 90-95 now. This means one of three things: Children are smarter now than they were back then, IQ tests do not actually test IQ, or that the basic premise behind IQ itself is false, and that some component of intelligence is environmentally based and it would therefore be impossible to create a test that objectively tests intelligence. Or some combination of the three.
I guess that shows my ignorance of politics. I hereby retract my previous statement.
So Britain cannot disallow the sale of Hashish from Holland? The United States cannot disallow the sale of VWs produced in Mexico which do not meet current emissions standards?
The Berne convention only applies to those countries that have signed on to it. Take a look at that article you posted and try to find South Korea.
This is no longer 1950. Pretty soon whom will be followed by (archaic) in the dictionary. Or we can see if it already has: Whom is obsolescent in colloquial English. That's right, for the most part whom is no longer used in spoken or informal english. Rules of language change as time goes on, and that only makes sense because priorities and even ways of thinking change as time goes on. Unless you are writing an english paper.
You should have asked about those features. If the salesperson didn't give you a straightforward answer, walk. It's people caving in to the pressure of these annoying salespeople that keeps annoying salespeople employed and annoying you. And as a slashdotter, you probably should have done some basic research online prior to making a purchase. I bought two phones without reading reviews and got lemons or phones I really didn't like. After doing about half an hour of research, I found a phone I was comfortable with (a basic Nokia) and have had it for the last two years (well, 23 months, I got it thanksgiving weekend 2003) I plan on getting a similar one (after some more research of course) in a month when my contract is up. I'm starting to get some memory on the battery, which is pretty much expected after two years.
I've already seen this product at Target. Okay, it has a couple more features than that, but basically there you have it. Only includes 30 minutes of prepaid airtime, but this phone seems like it is supposed to be primarilly for emergencies anyways. Caveat, from the user reviews it seems that more minutes are fairly expensive, at 25 cents a minute. But if it is used as an emergency device rather than a "mom, I'm ready to be picked up from soccer" this shouldn't be a problem. Of course, if it's for emergencies only, the batteries might be dead by the time it's needed.
I'm viscerally against large mega-corporations just as much as the next slashdotter, but protests of this form will not help out the situation. When people Boycott a huge industry for a single day, it does nothing to harm the mega-corps bottom line. As for sending a message, the difference in profits is negligable, so the message sent is that people don't care. Why is the difference negligable? Because people don't change their lifestyle, they just avoid shopping for that one day. They still need the stuff, so they just buy on different days. The only type of business that will be hurt by a "buy nothing day" is... guess what... the small mom and pop type store which most mega-corp fighters claim to support.
Boycotts gnerally only work if you are boycotting a single product which you can replace with something else or do without for an extended period of time. The classic example of a boycott that actually does something is the grape boycott of the early 80's which people help on to long enough to actually bring negotiations between the farmers and the workers. The only reason people were willing to boycott to this extreme is that A)this was a single product being protested B)The product was replacable and C)There was just cause to protest. The grape laborers had been figting for equal treatment for 20 years, working in dangerous conditions for extremely little pay. And it was done in America where the problems were actually visible. A boycott will simply not be large enough to make a difference if the majority of people don't agree with your cause. And most people feel that they are benefitted by our capitolistic society, so a feel good day of not shopping may at the most be a minor annoyance to the maga-global-corporations of the world, but it won't change their ways.
Most people in that era probably didn't live the sort of life that a Darwin did, Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) was a doctor who made quite a bit of money in his practice, and a good lot of money writing books on biology. Of Particulkar interest is Erasmus' book Zoönomia, in which he wrote:
This right here is the beginning of evolutionary thought, not Charles Darwin's work. But what Charles did was to propose the mechanism by which traits are sustained or suppressed, that is natural selection. Without a mechanism to explain HOW that original organism (filament, in Erasmus' words) came to have descendants which represent the entire range of living organisms, evolution is just an idea. With a mechanism to describe how it actually works (natural selection,) evolution becomes elevated to the realm of theory. While I personally do believe that evolution is not a law in and of itself, it is supported by many laws within nature. Calling evolution a scientific law would be the same as calling the existing theory on celestial mechanics a law. Actually, I believe scientific model would be a better term than theory for such complex subjects as evolution, celestial mechanics, plate techtonics, weather systems forecasting, etc etc etc.
The record of things he sent would remain with the people he sent them to who hadn't deleted the emails, I would imagine. I'm sure they didn't look in his home office to see which letters he had written, it would have been through talking to the people that wrote him latters in the first place. Unless Einstein kept records of all the letters that he got, and which ones he responded too. Which might actually make sense once your inbox starts piling up.
I suppose life insurance companies would be all over this too. Given the choice between investing your money for, let's say an average of 30 years (75 year life span - 18 years)/2 to almost 500 years (1000/2) you'd better bet that they'd like you to have access to this sort of tech.
What you just did is nowhere near what this man has done. He identified the major physical reasons behind aging and is working on proposing and coordinating new ideas to fight the causes of aging.
Is he crazy? Probably. Is he wrong? Probably. At least he's got a goal and is formulating a plan to achieve it. If he is wrong, science will probably learn a lot about how the human body works, and other scientific achievements will be made in the process.
By the way... these treatments will only really be available to the extremely wealthy. Considering how difficult it is for many Americans to get basic health insurance as it is, and the fact that most medical treatments are financially out of reach for those who are not covered, this will probably only exaccerbate the situation unless some great social or technological discovery is made which allows anyone who desires it access to this longevity. Is this evil? Not really. Denying something to a priveleged few people simply because the masses (of which I consider myself to be a member) can not achieve it isn't right. Denying this longevity because it causes an undue burden on the rest of society, however, is not morally outrageous.
Unfortunately, no. It's not satire. He is what's being satired on godhatesfigs and other sites. I fear that this guy is being 100% sincere. It's just that he's also a 100% nutjob, and doesn't actually check what he writes to see if it is easy to read, or at the very least not incoherent insane rants. That in and of itself isn't that bad, freedom of speech and all. The travesty are that his ramblings have actually influenced people into thinking like him.
Some people do hide behind satire as a way of expressing their political opinions.
That's the whole reason that satire is such a protected medium. It allows you to express your political opinions without fear of legal repercussions.
Most Americans at the very least don't care enough about whether a company is green or not. But there are probably more people who will purchase a product or service simply because it can claim to be green than there are people who will refuse to buy from green companies. There are also subsidies which may help a company which checks out as green or attempting to go green. If a company is purely interested in their own bottom line, it would still be worth looking and seeing if becoming more efficient would make them more money, whether it is from lowered overall costs or from subsidies and increased demand due to public opinion offsetting the costs of implementing a green plan.
And "going green" always looks good on a glossy press release or quarterly report, even if the paper is non-recyclable and the dies are toxic and can only be produced by the clubbing of baby seals. As long as noone finds out how the press release is made...
All GP was saying is that this is the same sort of hooplah that hydrogen is. Meaning: a dead end. It's more efficient to simply burn the hydrocarbons in an internal combustion engine than it is to jump through all the hoops required here. Magneisum is found naturally in an oxidized state. Reducing the metal to a "fuel" form would take energy... just as much much energy as you would get out of it in the car, plus any inefficiencies in the process. The magnesium oxide wastes being reusable is sort of a red herring, as magnesium is naturally in the oxidized form, we would be diverting from that stream in the first place.
This is not an energy source. It is the same concept as a battery, only far more complicated and likely no more efficient.
it is unfair to expect a car to be run on water or air or dirt. and solar technology is not good enough yet for a solar car
Why is it unfair? I can think of a self replicating transportation device which is powered by the result of proper application of water, air, dirt and solar energy. Technically, an initial seeding device uses solar power to combine water and air into the fuel used, and generally creates more copies of the special seeding device in the process, sometimes the copies are imperfect though leading to changes in the fuel delivery system. This fuel creation device does needs adequate application of other chemicals, such as nitrates, phosphates and trace metals, but these can be extracted directly from the soil by a fuel production plant. Additionally, byproducts from the transportion device itself can be used to replenish the chemicals used. Although improper disposal of the byproducts may be noxious and pose a potential health risk.
These devices are often matched up in speed competitions, similar to automobile races. This remarkable system has been used to great effect in law enforcement and military operations for quite some time now. This device has also seen great success in farming and ranching operations.
There has been discussion of adapting this technology for flight, however most experts find the idea is not feasible to implement. Repair of malfunctioning units does require specially trained technicians and it takes delicate care to reassemble any broken parts, although there is a limited repair system built in to the device.
Oh, and a lot of girls find men who get around using this method to be far more attractive than a guy who drive a Prius.