Red herring. Under the parents scenario, there is no reason there couldn't be an entry on the ulcer page for contrary research if it had some merit, but it would have been deleted by admins in the U.S. and the Australians banned.
I was confused, what with the sane solution you offer being what usually happens. Being evil is far more work in this case.
So what would happen if Wikipedia were available back then and the powers that be basically chose the wrong side and banned Warren and Marshall from editing articles on stomach ulcers, because another group had a vested interest in keeping the status quo?
Wikipedia would have contained the mainstream but wrong information? And would have corrected it later when it was shown that they weren't just nuts? Or are you trying to assert that wrong information inserted into Wikipedia will be protected against correction forever?
There have been plenty of people over time that have come out saying the mainstream is wrong. Some of them have been right, and famously so. Most of them have been wrong and are forgotten. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide that the bulk of medical knowledge is wrong and that a couple of iconoclasts are right.
What exactly did the Encyclopaedia Britannica do when confronted with this? Did they change their article on peptic ulcers to say that mainstream medicine was wrong and these two guys were right? I doubt it.
Which is where the real ruckus lies and why I am now backing Citizendium instead of Wikipedia.
Citizendium, the open content encyclopedia that can't even decide what license it's going to use.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I think the use of terms like "consumer" is, to some degree, a symptom of the same problem. Corporations and governments have ceased even pretending to treat people as actual people.
I try to remember to use the word "citizen", but sadly, I usually fail.
If NASA was based in Ron Paul's home district, I'd bet my dollar to your donut he'd be extolling the virtues of pork--errr... I mean--Martian exploration.
More than a few NASA employees live in Ron Paul's district. Johnson Space Center (which manned spaceflight spending will benefit one way or another) is only a mile from the district boundary. One of the contenders in the Republican primary for Ron Paul's seat is Andy Mann, who does IT work for a NASA contractor.
Some sites have blanket licenses to everything posted on them that implicitly assigns copyrights of all contributions-- Wikipedia, for example.
Wikipedia contributors do not assign their copyrights to the Wikimedia Foundation. The site requires contributions to be licensed under the GFDL (or more freely licensed or PD). Not the same thing.
I'm pretty sure that the termination shock wave is considered the edge of the solar system. After all, Pluto is merely the closest of dozens (estimated) of similar bodies.
At the time the probes went past its orbit, Pluto was considered the outermost of a handful of planets.
There's several different possible meanings for "edge of the solar system". The least-distant definition is the orbit of the outermost planet in the system (30 AU). Then we've got the outer edge of the Kuiper belt (~55 AU), the termination shock (75-95 AU), the heliopause (distance depends on direction, maximum probably 200 AU), and the outer bound of the Oort cloud (distance unknown, but possibly as much as several light-years).
The heliopause, which marks the boundary between the heliosphere and the interstellar medium, makes for a better "edge of the solar system" than the termination shock, which is just a velocity transition within the heliosphere. No probe has passed the heliopause.
The last contact with Pioneer 10 was at 80.22 AU. Voyager 1 data suggests the termination shock was at 94 AU. Voyager 2 data suggests it was at 76 AU.
Whether the Pioneer probes were dead before reaching the edge of the solar system depends on the definition chosen. By some definitions, it's not even a meaningful statement, as they haven't gotten to those boundaries yet. They may not have even reached the termination shock in their neck of the woods.
The Pioneers were dead when the left the solar system.
That depends on how one defines "left the solar system". Both Pioneer 10 and 11 were still transmitting (and having said transmissions recieved) well past the orbit of Pluto.
Unlike US car inspections, they check more than just emissions: brakes, suspension, tires, transmission, all the lights, seat belts, and steering are among the things tested.
In Texas, the standard inspection is (almost) entirely concerned with roadworthiness. The inspection is likely not as in-depth and omits the suspension and transmission checks from above, but does include a short driving/steering/braking component. Emissions tests are required only in certain counties.
Just because I can't walk into a hardware store and buy a brown paper bag full of carbon nanotubes and a fistful of buckyballs doesn't make them any less relevant or significant.
Nanosolar is specifically touting their cost-effectiveness. Thus the price to actually buy the product is extremely relevant. Anyone can claim that their product will be a better deal, but until it ships, such claims are hot air.
A tv crew from a Microsoft NBC, tried to lure a DA in USA, into meeting with a person pretending to be a minor child, in a chatroom
Bullshit.
The suicide of Louis Conradt was the result of Dateline NBC's To Catch a Predator. The resulting lawsuit is against NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric (80%) and Vivendia SA (20%). Microsoft does not own even part of NBC.
The MSNBC network was a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC Universal, but NBC Universal has been buying out Microsoft's share. The buyout will likely be completed in a few months, leaving NBC Universal the sole owner. Microsoft has had nothing to do with the operation of the television channel for nearly two years.
Microsoft had nothing to do with the man's suicide. They don't own the company, they don't control the show, they don't even own a piece of the network the show airs on (which was ordinary NBC not MSNBC). By calling it "Microsoft NBC", you are engaging in exactly the same kind of poorly-researched and blatantly false accusations you so hate. You are associating Microsoft with terrible media acts for which they are obviously not at fault.
Food? Well, assuming you biochemistry is compatible (a HUGE assumption), why would you expend insane amounts of energy traversing the stars to get here for food? Expend that on growing it closer to you.
Europeans travelled around the world in slow wooden ships pushed around by the wind because the food at the other end tasted better than what they had at home.
It's orders of magnitude more difficult to cross interstellar space, but just imagine a whole planet where there's nothing to eat but (space) cabbage. It's not worth crossing the vast distances just to pick up metals you could mine at home. But completely unique organisms? Many of which are tasty? It's worth at least one trip to collect a breeding population.
I would personally avoid purchasing such a house. I hate using lamps for room lighting.
Just out of curiosity, how do you light your rooms?
Um, lights mounted on the ceiling, often as part of a ceiling fan assembly. I thought that was clear. I like my lighting when it illuminates things in the room, not when it's going straight into my eyes.
You'll feel that way until your mom/sister/gf/wife gets breast cancer, loses her hair to chemo and then loses part or all of her breast(s) to surgery. After that happens, you'll wonder why we don't have better chemo treatments (ones that don't make you go bald) or why we need to hack off big lumps of flesh to make sure the cancer doesn't come back. I guarantee that you'll think that cancer research needs more funding and that searching for aliens suddenly doesn't seem so important.
On the other hand, you will feel that way until your city/country/continent gets attacked by aliens and then loses part or all of its population to death rays. After that happens, you'll wonder why nobody saw them coming and why we can't stop them from hacking off big lumps of flesh to make sure their pets are fed. I guarantee that you'll think that searching for aliens needed more funding, and that cancer research suddenly doesn't seem so important.
Hindsight is always 20/20 (until the aliens eat your eyeballs). The SETI budget is $3 million of private funds. The US National Cancer Institute wants to spend $5.8 billion of taxpayer money in 2008. And that's just the government of one nation. The SETI budget wouldn't even pay for cancer research's inkjet paper.
Re:Oh, come on, you're missing the big one.
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 1
Similar information could be obtained by airplanes or buoys with scientific instruments.
Aircraft and buoys cannot provide the same density of information without being so numerous that they would endanger air and ocean traffic. The cost of the millions of planes and buoys necessary would dwarf the cost of one geosynchronous satellite.
When it comes to looking at a really big area all day and all night, a good orbital camera is the right tool for the job.
What would be the environmental impact of such a device used on a wide-spread scale? I know caps have some nasty stuff in them (not sure what exactly) but it seems to me that the compounds in capacitors might be more landfill friendly than Ni-Cd and Lithium.
I know that Maxwell Technologies says their ultracapacitors are free of the really nasty stuff like cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium. They sell some products containing lead (don't know which, or even if it's the capacitors), but claim to be working to eliminate that as well.
On top of that, you've got the increased lifetime of an ultracapacitor over batteries. NiCd and Lithium batteries drop to 80% capacity after a few hundred to a thousand cycles. Maxwell, for one, is claiming one million cycles to 80%.
(I have no connection to Maxwell, they just have a web site and seem to actually be shipping product)
To the person writing this filter, the amount is small enough to be irrelevant... In many countries you cannot renounce some or all of your copyright. Even the US does not have a statutory mechanism for doing so. And even if you can, how is the filter going to know? The default stance of copyright law is "everything is copyrighted".
Even if something is copyrighted, it doesn't mean that Viacom holds the copyright, or it isn't allowed to be distributed online via sites like Youtube. It's perfectly possible for something to be copyrighted and distributed on the web or by P2P. When it comes down to it, Viacom owns a small minority of the world's copyrighted material - so the content that doesn't fall under its scope is hardly "small enough to be irrelevant". It's very relevant, and in fact comprises the majority of content.
You're changing the question mid-stream. The question is not "does Viacom hold copyright on the majority of data transferred over the internet?" The original question was:
Hold on a minute. Isn't *all* content copyright protected?. I mean everything that gets written down, recorded, or whatever, is instantly protected. Why should content belonging to one set of businesses have any sort of special protection above and beyond anyone else's content? Your curt "No." is essentially wrong. One is forced to assume material is copyrighted until shown otherwise. Of course, this is only the case if one actually wants to try to recognize everyone's copyrights, rather than protect the financial interests of a handful of megacorporations.
What if we screw up, and send a Category 5 Hurricane on a collision course with Havana or Mexico City? That would have disastrous consequences.
Mexico City isn't on the coast. If you've got a hurricane that can maintain Category 5 strength during a 150 mile trek into the mountains of Mexico, you've got bigger problems.
The anon is mostly correct. It's not all, but it's so close as to make no difference.
Nonsense. There's truckoads of stuff in the public domain.
To the person writing this filter, the amount is small enough to be irrelevant. Every time someone posts a comment on Slashdot, that's another bit of copyrighted material. Every image uploaded to Flickr, more copyrighted material. Every software project released under the GPL, more copyrighted material.
If this filter was really for protecting copyrights, it would have to detect all these things.
This comment is copyrighted to me the instant I hit "submit" and "publish" it.
But you can always renounce your copyright.
In many countries you cannot renounce some or all of your copyright. Even the US does not have a statutory mechanism for doing so. And even if you can, how is the filter going to know? The default stance of copyright law is "everything is copyrighted".
Hold on a minute. Isn't *all* content copyright protected?
No.
The anon is mostly correct. It's not all, but it's so close as to make no difference.
I mean everything that gets written down, recorded, or whatever, is instantly protected.
Under current copyright law, just about everything is instantly under copyright. This comment is copyrighted to me the instant I hit "submit" and "publish" it.
Slashdot Mirror
That the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory.
I was confused, what with the sane solution you offer being what usually happens. Being evil is far more work in this case.
Wikipedia would have contained the mainstream but wrong information? And would have corrected it later when it was shown that they weren't just nuts? Or are you trying to assert that wrong information inserted into Wikipedia will be protected against correction forever?
There have been plenty of people over time that have come out saying the mainstream is wrong. Some of them have been right, and famously so. Most of them have been wrong and are forgotten. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide that the bulk of medical knowledge is wrong and that a couple of iconoclasts are right.
What exactly did the Encyclopaedia Britannica do when confronted with this? Did they change their article on peptic ulcers to say that mainstream medicine was wrong and these two guys were right? I doubt it.
Which is where the real ruckus lies and why I am now backing Citizendium instead of Wikipedia.Citizendium, the open content encyclopedia that can't even decide what license it's going to use.
Just have
At the very least, thier servers will get a good workout.
The Slashdot Effect barely causes a blip in the Wikimedia server cluster's traffic nowadays.
I think the use of terms like "consumer" is, to some degree, a symptom of the same problem. Corporations and governments have ceased even pretending to treat people as actual people.
I try to remember to use the word "citizen", but sadly, I usually fail.
If NASA was based in Ron Paul's home district, I'd bet my dollar to your donut he'd be extolling the virtues of pork--errr... I mean--Martian exploration.
More than a few NASA employees live in Ron Paul's district. Johnson Space Center (which manned spaceflight spending will benefit one way or another) is only a mile from the district boundary. One of the contenders in the Republican primary for Ron Paul's seat is Andy Mann, who does IT work for a NASA contractor.
Wikipedia contributors do not assign their copyrights to the Wikimedia Foundation. The site requires contributions to be licensed under the GFDL (or more freely licensed or PD). Not the same thing.
At the time the probes went past its orbit, Pluto was considered the outermost of a handful of planets.
There's several different possible meanings for "edge of the solar system". The least-distant definition is the orbit of the outermost planet in the system (30 AU). Then we've got the outer edge of the Kuiper belt (~55 AU), the termination shock (75-95 AU), the heliopause (distance depends on direction, maximum probably 200 AU), and the outer bound of the Oort cloud (distance unknown, but possibly as much as several light-years).
The heliopause, which marks the boundary between the heliosphere and the interstellar medium, makes for a better "edge of the solar system" than the termination shock, which is just a velocity transition within the heliosphere. No probe has passed the heliopause.
The last contact with Pioneer 10 was at 80.22 AU. Voyager 1 data suggests the termination shock was at 94 AU. Voyager 2 data suggests it was at 76 AU.
Whether the Pioneer probes were dead before reaching the edge of the solar system depends on the definition chosen. By some definitions, it's not even a meaningful statement, as they haven't gotten to those boundaries yet. They may not have even reached the termination shock in their neck of the woods.
That depends on how one defines "left the solar system". Both Pioneer 10 and 11 were still transmitting (and having said transmissions recieved) well past the orbit of Pluto.
In Texas, the standard inspection is (almost) entirely concerned with roadworthiness. The inspection is likely not as in-depth and omits the suspension and transmission checks from above, but does include a short driving/steering/braking component. Emissions tests are required only in certain counties.
Nanosolar is specifically touting their cost-effectiveness. Thus the price to actually buy the product is extremely relevant. Anyone can claim that their product will be a better deal, but until it ships, such claims are hot air.
Bullshit.
The suicide of Louis Conradt was the result of Dateline NBC's To Catch a Predator. The resulting lawsuit is against NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric (80%) and Vivendia SA (20%). Microsoft does not own even part of NBC.
The MSNBC network was a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC Universal, but NBC Universal has been buying out Microsoft's share. The buyout will likely be completed in a few months, leaving NBC Universal the sole owner. Microsoft has had nothing to do with the operation of the television channel for nearly two years.
Microsoft had nothing to do with the man's suicide. They don't own the company, they don't control the show, they don't even own a piece of the network the show airs on (which was ordinary NBC not MSNBC). By calling it "Microsoft NBC", you are engaging in exactly the same kind of poorly-researched and blatantly false accusations you so hate. You are associating Microsoft with terrible media acts for which they are obviously not at fault.
Europeans travelled around the world in slow wooden ships pushed around by the wind because the food at the other end tasted better than what they had at home.
It's orders of magnitude more difficult to cross interstellar space, but just imagine a whole planet where there's nothing to eat but (space) cabbage. It's not worth crossing the vast distances just to pick up metals you could mine at home. But completely unique organisms? Many of which are tasty? It's worth at least one trip to collect a breeding population.
Um, lights mounted on the ceiling, often as part of a ceiling fan assembly. I thought that was clear. I like my lighting when it illuminates things in the room, not when it's going straight into my eyes.
On the other hand, you will feel that way until your city/country/continent gets attacked by aliens and then loses part or all of its population to death rays. After that happens, you'll wonder why nobody saw them coming and why we can't stop them from hacking off big lumps of flesh to make sure their pets are fed. I guarantee that you'll think that searching for aliens needed more funding, and that cancer research suddenly doesn't seem so important.
Hindsight is always 20/20 (until the aliens eat your eyeballs). The SETI budget is $3 million of private funds. The US National Cancer Institute wants to spend $5.8 billion of taxpayer money in 2008. And that's just the government of one nation. The SETI budget wouldn't even pay for cancer research's inkjet paper.
Aircraft and buoys cannot provide the same density of information without being so numerous that they would endanger air and ocean traffic. The cost of the millions of planes and buoys necessary would dwarf the cost of one geosynchronous satellite.
When it comes to looking at a really big area all day and all night, a good orbital camera is the right tool for the job.
It's not my experience in my area. But then, I live where ceiling fans are so ubiquitous you'd think they were mandatory.
I would personally avoid purchasing such a house. I hate using lamps for room lighting.
I know that Maxwell Technologies says their ultracapacitors are free of the really nasty stuff like cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium. They sell some products containing lead (don't know which, or even if it's the capacitors), but claim to be working to eliminate that as well.
On top of that, you've got the increased lifetime of an ultracapacitor over batteries. NiCd and Lithium batteries drop to 80% capacity after a few hundred to a thousand cycles. Maxwell, for one, is claiming one million cycles to 80%.
(I have no connection to Maxwell, they just have a web site and seem to actually be shipping product)
Your chemistry is way off. NaClO + H2O2 does not produce anything containing sulfur. It produces table salt, water, and oxygen.
Even if something is copyrighted, it doesn't mean that Viacom holds the copyright, or it isn't allowed to be distributed online via sites like Youtube. It's perfectly possible for something to be copyrighted and distributed on the web or by P2P. When it comes down to it, Viacom owns a small minority of the world's copyrighted material - so the content that doesn't fall under its scope is hardly "small enough to be irrelevant". It's very relevant, and in fact comprises the majority of content.
You're changing the question mid-stream. The question is not "does Viacom hold copyright on the majority of data transferred over the internet?" The original question was:
Hold on a minute. Isn't *all* content copyright protected?. I mean everything that gets written down, recorded, or whatever, is instantly protected. Why should content belonging to one set of businesses have any sort of special protection above and beyond anyone else's content? Your curt "No." is essentially wrong. One is forced to assume material is copyrighted until shown otherwise. Of course, this is only the case if one actually wants to try to recognize everyone's copyrights, rather than protect the financial interests of a handful of megacorporations.Mexico City isn't on the coast. If you've got a hurricane that can maintain Category 5 strength during a 150 mile trek into the mountains of Mexico, you've got bigger problems.
Nonsense. There's truckoads of stuff in the public domain.
To the person writing this filter, the amount is small enough to be irrelevant. Every time someone posts a comment on Slashdot, that's another bit of copyrighted material. Every image uploaded to Flickr, more copyrighted material. Every software project released under the GPL, more copyrighted material.
If this filter was really for protecting copyrights, it would have to detect all these things.
This comment is copyrighted to me the instant I hit "submit" and "publish" it.But you can always renounce your copyright.
In many countries you cannot renounce some or all of your copyright. Even the US does not have a statutory mechanism for doing so. And even if you can, how is the filter going to know? The default stance of copyright law is "everything is copyrighted".
No.
The anon is mostly correct. It's not all, but it's so close as to make no difference.
I mean everything that gets written down, recorded, or whatever, is instantly protected.Under current copyright law, just about everything is instantly under copyright. This comment is copyrighted to me the instant I hit "submit" and "publish" it.
In the real world, I charge money for my Time and Services. There's more to an economy that just raw resource availability.
Sounds like you're reaching toward Pratchett's Dayscrip.
Because being considered "common sense" does not make something true or factual. It makes it widely-believed.