In general, ability to do a job was not dependent on which way you comb your hair or whether you have a Roman nose or not. The political philosophies sounds better, but people in general don't know what philosophy will get the result they want, they only know the result. (That's why software engineers should never ask a customer how they want the program to work, but should focus on deriving that from what the customer actually wants the program to do.)
I'd have approached this problem from a different direction - ask questions about how they feel about past VPs, whether they achieved the stated and/or desired objectives, and so forth, to build an understanding of how the person thinks. THEN ask them the political questions, but translate them from what the person says they think they want into what the person actually does think and feel. Then compare that to the potential VPs.
Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate because people either lie or simply don't understand their own mind. Very very few people are really that in touch with their own mental processes that they understand them, let alone have a vocabulary to describe them. A training algorithm that analyzes the real requirements of a person based on something measurable would seem a better approach, although fewer people would be interested in taking the time to answer the longer questionaire. Requirements analysis does work, when performed correctly. That, however, is the catch. It has to be performed correctly, which is not trivial.
Drinking too much tea just causes gall stones. And drinking tea at 98.2'C would probably kill you almost immediately from scalding and related internal injuries, so, no, you would not get cancer at that temperature. You have to survive long enough for that to become a problem.
An IBCS-like layer in Windows plus WINE-like shim DLLs would be quite sufficient for the majority of legacy code. In fact, if they used IBCS as a starting point, they could also suppor legacy Solaris, legacy Unixware and legacy Linux applications as well, with very minimal effort. As for retaining Intel support, I'd say that at minimum, there has to be Intel binaries, although the adoption of the Cell processor might not be a bad idea. Sun's T2 is too expensive and they'd never be able to scale production up fast enough, although the benefit to Microsoft of an open-source processor is that they could shift some of the core routines and helper functions into the CPU itself. (They have the money to sway Sun into applying the patches at the fab plants.)
Want proof? The parent examples should be proof enough, but think about the following:
Your DSL maximum speed is independent of hardware, it's a configuration setting at the teleco office. It's no use saying they charge more for more actal usage, since they throttle ADSL bandwidth if a user uses more than the average amount.
The unauthorized switching of long-distance carriers is still a common practice.
A number of States (such as Virginia) have such poor phone service that the message "all circuits are busy now" is commonplace.
Cell-phone companies like Cricket tie themselves to a single handset, whereas other handsets (like the iPhone) are designed to be tied to a single network.
Text messages and SMS can take hours, sometimes days, to cross the US. I can travel faster than a text message.
Although technology has made hardware cheaper, you don't see that reflected anywhere.
The tea industry was so big at one point that it was profitable to build an entire class of ship specifically for tea and nothing else. Lyons deals with all kinds of commodities, many perishable, so high-power optimization was viable. As for "glacially slow", Colossus may have been slow per calculation but performed thousands of calculations in parallel and in benchtests compared favourably with a Pentium doing the same work. Early computers could, if built well, be damn fast and there are still problems where an analogue computer will outperform a digital computer at the same task.
The water must also be poured onto the leaves at 98.2'c, and preferably still be above 95' when it hits the stomach lining. This helps in the leather-making process. (You don't want it too much colder, say in the 60' temperature range, or you'll get cancer. (pubmed report))
It's not the Bork, errr, Borg. It's structured by patient observers, which means it's based around the Gallifreyan Houses. There are even the right number of columns. Microsoft are more like the Daleks - stealing what they can use, exterminating the rest.
Microsoft don't seem to treat scurity vulnerabilities. Mind you, they don't seem to treat defects, either, so I guess they are still treated as the same.
IPv6 supports the following, which are either non-standard extensions to IPv4, not available or not provided by ISPs:
Anycasting
Mobile IP (IPv4 implementations only support home base relay)
Mobile Networks
Autoconfiguration
IPSec
Source-Specific Multicasting
Simplified group membership protocol for multicasting
Extended information retrievable from multicast routers
Extensible packet headers
Distinct Class-base and Flow-based QoS mechanisms
Source-Specified Routing
In addition to the extensions, the following benefits are also present:
Smaller router tables
Superior alignment of header entries, so faster header processing
Directly interchangeable addresses with Infiniband, so local-area and (when wide-area IB is released) wide-area networks can be transparently hybrid IP/IB
Only a few of these points mention addressing at all, and none refer to the specific length of IPv6 addresses.
Given there are multiple solutions to the DNA unwinding problem (but on Earth only one was used) and given that life on Earth has tended to convert symbiotic organisms into organelles with minimal DNA (or nothing) and migrate the rest into the nucleus (ie: a monolithic design, which isn't necessarly the only design nature could have opted for), and given there are other factors that probably became selected because of the specific prevailing conditions on Earth, if the contamination was far enough back, we'd be able to tell by the divergence. Earth had very specific conditions, and there are multiple solutions to many microbiological problems. Organisms on Earth may have tried several and adopted the one that suited Earth conditions best, or Earth conditions may have made multiple experiments impossible.
(The cell itself probably post-dates the first 'true' life by a few hundred million years - long enough for any Earth fragments to be blasted onto nearby worlds - and the cell is only one way of building structured life. Assuming you have structured life. Pre-cellular life might be fine for some worlds, and mono-cellular life could potentially do much better than multi-cellular life in the atmosphere of a gas giant. You don't want complexity under harsh conditions.)
However, this leads to a major problem. Given that the bases that exist on Earth probably are the bases that would be used elsewhere, anything that is too simple cannot be distinguished from a parallel line of evolution. Given the level of sophistication you can pack onto a tiny space probe, the level of sophistication you can distinguish at in practical terms is far greater than the level that you could distinguish at in textbook theory.
Well, that kinda depends on how you define "health". Sure, we know that certain genes are linked to certain illnesses, and in some cases it's as simple as that. In other cases, strength in one thing is a weakness in another. (Tetrachromatic vision in females is linked to colour blindness in males. You can't select out the males, because the gene has to be present in both parents. Increased resistance to bubonic plague has been linked to decreased resistance to AIDS.) There are also certain defects that are only defects under certain conditions (Asperger's Syndrome is a defect except in creative or inventive societies).
I am not against embryo selection in principle, but I am against ignorant selection, and at the moment, most people rich enough to afford this technology are amazing only in their lack of understanding.
All you need to do is write a shim driver that will take the output from the existing driver (or the port the existing driver is reading from) and deliver to the software portion of OpenEEG. Well, in principle. In practice, it depends on what the headband outputs.
However, assuming that there was strong evidence of an acid environment at some point in Mars' history, then the presence of alkaline soil now means the acid has been neutralized, which would indeed create a salty environment, as acid + alkaline = salt + water.
All it takes is enough isolated incidents. Remember, 50% of America is Democrat, 50% Republican, the division is pretty much the same between socialists and conservatives, and again pretty much the same between the intellectuals and the theologans. However, they aren't distributed uniformly or in completely self-contained blocs, but are scattered in clumps covering a range of sizes. If group A wanted to take out group B, you just need eough isolated incidents to swing the ratio enough. Even just a little in key places, and you've total control over all State and Federal Governments, including lawmakers, courts and executive. That can even be - and often is - achieved by moving voting boundaries.
Only a little bit more of a swing, and you control the money, the media, key points on the Internet backbone and the transit systems. After that, America is too big for Town Criers to be terribly effective and Ham will only go so far.
The fact that boundary shifts to control State governments and political appointments within departments (such as the DoJ only hiring conservative republicans under Bush II) have taken place with zero protest shows how far you can go before the public lifts a damn finger. I don't recall massive outbreaks of strike action or multi-million participant protest marches in any of these cases, do you?
Someone with sufficient subtlety could easily gain sufficient domination of America to do what they liked - and even make it Constitutional to do so. Americans don't give a damn about someone else's misfortunes, so long as it doesn't affect them personally, so all a wannabe-dictator has to do is make sure it is always someone else's misfortune.
The Iraqis (mostly former Iraqi soldiers, so they're trained, unlike any American militia) are getting supplies of arms from multiple nations and from pre-2003 stockpiles, including bombs that lob molten copper, and RDX. You think any American militia is likely to be able to acquire either of those? America is also a few thousand miles away, limiting supply lines. The entire Middle East is tiny by comparison.
Secondly, let's take a look at the casualty figures. The estimates vary wildly, but place the deaths of Iraqis at roughly between 100 to 200 for every American killed in action. Even assuming that the American government suddenly decided to resupply all bases via Greenland, and the South American nations opted to train the North American militias, just how long would American citizens last at losses of 100:1 before rolling over?
Thirdly, Kent State was one of several incidents of students getting killed by the National Guard. You don't hear as much about those other incidents, do you? The first round of shootings didn't stop the later ones. In fact, not a single National Guardsman was convicted in the shootings, and very very few were even arrested. The students may have been upset, but the general reaction seems to have been one of "well, they're only students, what do they matter?" Far more people were concerned with the students being potentially communist subversives than they were with unjustifiable homicide.
If the French hadn't been at war with England at that time, along with the English being on the edge of bankrupcy from over-expansion, the Americans would have lost the War of Independence. The supplying of arms and training by the French, the tying up of huge numbers of troops and ships in Europe, and the inability to fund a protracted campaign in the US, was what led to the British losing.
However, the case isn't entirely comparable with, say, the Zulu wars. The American forces in the War of Independence had weapons every bit as sophisticated as the British, and had comparable weapons and training, compliments of the French (who the Americans have reviled ever since).
It's not altogether obvious. The guns would be as ineffective against the US military as the Zulu's spears and antique rifles were against the British. (About a dozen British were able to repell an attack by a few tens of thousands of Zulus, in one of the most famous battles in modern African history. There was a lot of heroism by the British, sure, and the survivors who were decorated deserved their honours for the most part - massacring the wounded Zulus was a bit off, though.) But an armed citizenry in the US is no better off than those Zulus were. The Zulus DID have firearms, but it didn't stop the British attacking in the first place, and it wasn't the least bit useful when it came to conflict.
How about protecting oneself against an attack? Uhh, attackers usually get to strike first, and in the case of guns and unarmoured citizens, that means you're not going to be in any shape to protect yourself. Deterrence? Nice theory, totally ineffective. You can't deter fanatics, you can't deter the insane and you can't deter the righteous. You can only deter people who want to be deterred, and generally any rules of decency will be deterrence enough for them. Anyone willing to break rules enough to break heads is unlikely to be squeemish when it comes to how, why or when.
And that's going to stop them from disagreeing with you? Or stop them from attacking you? If they disagree with you enough, they will attack regardless, and if they're incompetent enough to be stoppable by force of arms, they're incompetent enough to be stoppable by other methods. You're unlikely to achieve parity - an arms race is more likely - and parity is only effective if the defender gets to shoot first, which no sane attacker is likely to allow.
If the army decides to move in, it will do so with howitzers, mobile rocket launchers and bomb-proof APCs. After the USAF has carpet-bombed the place. If armed and trained gunmen couldn't hold Tora Bora, where they had solid rock and deep caves, I really don't see what the local neighbourhood militia is going to be able to do from an appartment complex.
An exageration? Not really. I seem to recall the US DoJ deciding the best way of dealing with a pack of armed bank robbers was to blast the top few floors of a tower block into oblivion. Notice I said armed bank robbers. Those are the sorts of weapons you have access to. Didn't do a damn thing for the robbers, when the bombs started dropping.
In Britain, the Iranian Embassy hostage crisis was resolved by sending in the SAS. These are NOT guys you want to mess with, no matter HOW good you think you are on the shooting range. Concussion grenades and SMGs by some of the most highly trained commandos versus whatever.45's or shotguns you might have... I'm sorry, but it's going to be one-sided.
Slashdot Mirror
It does, for the attacker.
I'd have approached this problem from a different direction - ask questions about how they feel about past VPs, whether they achieved the stated and/or desired objectives, and so forth, to build an understanding of how the person thinks. THEN ask them the political questions, but translate them from what the person says they think they want into what the person actually does think and feel. Then compare that to the potential VPs.
Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate because people either lie or simply don't understand their own mind. Very very few people are really that in touch with their own mental processes that they understand them, let alone have a vocabulary to describe them. A training algorithm that analyzes the real requirements of a person based on something measurable would seem a better approach, although fewer people would be interested in taking the time to answer the longer questionaire. Requirements analysis does work, when performed correctly. That, however, is the catch. It has to be performed correctly, which is not trivial.
Drinking too much tea just causes gall stones. And drinking tea at 98.2'C would probably kill you almost immediately from scalding and related internal injuries, so, no, you would not get cancer at that temperature. You have to survive long enough for that to become a problem.
An IBCS-like layer in Windows plus WINE-like shim DLLs would be quite sufficient for the majority of legacy code. In fact, if they used IBCS as a starting point, they could also suppor legacy Solaris, legacy Unixware and legacy Linux applications as well, with very minimal effort. As for retaining Intel support, I'd say that at minimum, there has to be Intel binaries, although the adoption of the Cell processor might not be a bad idea. Sun's T2 is too expensive and they'd never be able to scale production up fast enough, although the benefit to Microsoft of an open-source processor is that they could shift some of the core routines and helper functions into the CPU itself. (They have the money to sway Sun into applying the patches at the fab plants.)
The tea industry was so big at one point that it was profitable to build an entire class of ship specifically for tea and nothing else. Lyons deals with all kinds of commodities, many perishable, so high-power optimization was viable. As for "glacially slow", Colossus may have been slow per calculation but performed thousands of calculations in parallel and in benchtests compared favourably with a Pentium doing the same work. Early computers could, if built well, be damn fast and there are still problems where an analogue computer will outperform a digital computer at the same task.
The water must also be poured onto the leaves at 98.2'c, and preferably still be above 95' when it hits the stomach lining. This helps in the leather-making process. (You don't want it too much colder, say in the 60' temperature range, or you'll get cancer. (pubmed report))
It's not the Bork, errr, Borg. It's structured by patient observers, which means it's based around the Gallifreyan Houses. There are even the right number of columns. Microsoft are more like the Daleks - stealing what they can use, exterminating the rest.
Microsoft don't seem to treat scurity vulnerabilities. Mind you, they don't seem to treat defects, either, so I guess they are still treated as the same.
OpenWRT might be a better choice, as that's designed to run on existing off-the-shelf ADSL routers.
In addition to the extensions, the following benefits are also present:
Only a few of these points mention addressing at all, and none refer to the specific length of IPv6 addresses.
(The cell itself probably post-dates the first 'true' life by a few hundred million years - long enough for any Earth fragments to be blasted onto nearby worlds - and the cell is only one way of building structured life. Assuming you have structured life. Pre-cellular life might be fine for some worlds, and mono-cellular life could potentially do much better than multi-cellular life in the atmosphere of a gas giant. You don't want complexity under harsh conditions.)
However, this leads to a major problem. Given that the bases that exist on Earth probably are the bases that would be used elsewhere, anything that is too simple cannot be distinguished from a parallel line of evolution. Given the level of sophistication you can pack onto a tiny space probe, the level of sophistication you can distinguish at in practical terms is far greater than the level that you could distinguish at in textbook theory.
Because they had to do something with the Borg ship they confiscated from the trekkie undergrad.
I am not against embryo selection in principle, but I am against ignorant selection, and at the moment, most people rich enough to afford this technology are amazing only in their lack of understanding.
All you need to do is write a shim driver that will take the output from the existing driver (or the port the existing driver is reading from) and deliver to the software portion of OpenEEG. Well, in principle. In practice, it depends on what the headband outputs.
Massive doses of DDT also kill all the humans, which also reduces the level of malaria. At least, in humans.
...until someone points out to those same papers that asparagus contains hydrocarbons, the same stuff oil is made from.
However, assuming that there was strong evidence of an acid environment at some point in Mars' history, then the presence of alkaline soil now means the acid has been neutralized, which would indeed create a salty environment, as acid + alkaline = salt + water.
...is that you have Asparagus that is bleeched and covered in cancer growths. Besides, if we ship up LA, there won't be a lack of ozone for long.
Only a little bit more of a swing, and you control the money, the media, key points on the Internet backbone and the transit systems. After that, America is too big for Town Criers to be terribly effective and Ham will only go so far.
The fact that boundary shifts to control State governments and political appointments within departments (such as the DoJ only hiring conservative republicans under Bush II) have taken place with zero protest shows how far you can go before the public lifts a damn finger. I don't recall massive outbreaks of strike action or multi-million participant protest marches in any of these cases, do you?
Someone with sufficient subtlety could easily gain sufficient domination of America to do what they liked - and even make it Constitutional to do so. Americans don't give a damn about someone else's misfortunes, so long as it doesn't affect them personally, so all a wannabe-dictator has to do is make sure it is always someone else's misfortune.
Secondly, let's take a look at the casualty figures. The estimates vary wildly, but place the deaths of Iraqis at roughly between 100 to 200 for every American killed in action. Even assuming that the American government suddenly decided to resupply all bases via Greenland, and the South American nations opted to train the North American militias, just how long would American citizens last at losses of 100:1 before rolling over?
Thirdly, Kent State was one of several incidents of students getting killed by the National Guard. You don't hear as much about those other incidents, do you? The first round of shootings didn't stop the later ones. In fact, not a single National Guardsman was convicted in the shootings, and very very few were even arrested. The students may have been upset, but the general reaction seems to have been one of "well, they're only students, what do they matter?" Far more people were concerned with the students being potentially communist subversives than they were with unjustifiable homicide.
However, the case isn't entirely comparable with, say, the Zulu wars. The American forces in the War of Independence had weapons every bit as sophisticated as the British, and had comparable weapons and training, compliments of the French (who the Americans have reviled ever since).
How about protecting oneself against an attack? Uhh, attackers usually get to strike first, and in the case of guns and unarmoured citizens, that means you're not going to be in any shape to protect yourself. Deterrence? Nice theory, totally ineffective. You can't deter fanatics, you can't deter the insane and you can't deter the righteous. You can only deter people who want to be deterred, and generally any rules of decency will be deterrence enough for them. Anyone willing to break rules enough to break heads is unlikely to be squeemish when it comes to how, why or when.
And that's going to stop them from disagreeing with you? Or stop them from attacking you? If they disagree with you enough, they will attack regardless, and if they're incompetent enough to be stoppable by force of arms, they're incompetent enough to be stoppable by other methods. You're unlikely to achieve parity - an arms race is more likely - and parity is only effective if the defender gets to shoot first, which no sane attacker is likely to allow.
An exageration? Not really. I seem to recall the US DoJ deciding the best way of dealing with a pack of armed bank robbers was to blast the top few floors of a tower block into oblivion. Notice I said armed bank robbers. Those are the sorts of weapons you have access to. Didn't do a damn thing for the robbers, when the bombs started dropping.
In Britain, the Iranian Embassy hostage crisis was resolved by sending in the SAS. These are NOT guys you want to mess with, no matter HOW good you think you are on the shooting range. Concussion grenades and SMGs by some of the most highly trained commandos versus whatever .45's or shotguns you might have... I'm sorry, but it's going to be one-sided.