The State of Utah activated their "Amber Alert" system (here's some information about that: Amber Alert).
Actually it was the Rachael Alert. It is the Utah version of the Amber alert and was named after Rachael Runyan. As for hiring the PR firm, they could have saved their money, local coverage of their "Press Conferences" shows that they suck hard. I know, I work for one of the TV stations and get to see the live feeds that don't make it to air. What really made the difference is their connections to the U.S. Congress. Something conveniently forgotten by the national newsies.
If life can adapt to that, why not to a few gamma rays?
Poking into the realm of science fiction, one would have to presume one of two things for this to happen. Either these life forms would have some sort of natural protection from such radiation or have developed some technology that protects them. Or their life is based on something other than carbon (silicon?). The reason for this is that all carbon based life is easily damaged by high energy light waves. Indeed, most non-metals tend to break down their molecular bonds when exposed to gamma rays. Either way, despite the tenacity of life, it would require a large leap of faith to assume that this is the case.
But many Slashdot geeks just have a P3-600 or something lying basically unused as their l33t firewall anyways.
I actually have a P3-550 with half a gig of RAM sitting next to my main PC so I am a victim of my own argument... I could probably sell it but it wouldn't go for much more than $300...
Actaully you can run the several instances of squid on the same machine. Takes a bit of tweaking, but there you go.
I thought about this and have run two copys at once before. If you have any kind of traffic though, you will need a pretty beefy machine with a good chunk of RAM. By the time you have set all this up with hardware costs and time spent, $400 could look pretty cheap.
All you actually need is Squid. Set up a user-visible cache, and parent it to two non-caching proxies on each line. Then just adjust the weighting based on the relative speeds of the lines.
Sure but then you have three pieces of hardware where this could be done with only the one mentioned. That increases probability of failure, admin overhead, power consumption and heat generation. Not to mention that the hardware costs would be more for the quid based solution depending on existing unused hardware you have available for squiding.
Because everyone has a wireless connection to the net, and those working minimum wage to try and feed their kids should have to pay for one just to keep themselves safe.
Being a working class joe myself, I empathize with this myself. Nowadyas however, you don't even need a permanant connection to the net at home. The library, schools and other public places have free access for us. So this really isn't an issue.
As well as the difficulty of checking everytime you buy something.
That is why I called it a burden. But at least you know for yourself that the product you want to buy checked out (or didn't). If the price for personal accountability is convenience, it seems like a small price to pay.
That's exactly what I want to do; lug around a several thousand page guide to which products kill people whenever I go to buy something
That's what the internet is for. Let watever agency is in charge of 'consumer information' keep the database on their server. Use your wireless PDA/Cellphone/laptop to search the site for what you are looking for and make your decision. Not too hard if you ask me.
Also, where's the user manual for Gator? Lawn mower's don't sneak into my garage and do nasty things without my knowledge.
A totally seperate issue to be sure, but nonetheless a slimy twist to the argument. If you as a computer user do not exercise due dilligence in reading the user agreements for software installed (I am assuming that every way to install gator comes with a written warning that it will be installed) then you are authorizing it's installation by default. If Gator did not notify you that it was being installed (however obscure) then your argument holds water.
The lawnmower company will throw money at you to go away, because they know you can win easily in civil court.
That doesn't make it legal nor does it justify the lawsuit if I am too ignorant to use a lawnmower.
People will screw up, and stuff must not be unreasonably dangerous when they do.
Unfortunately the definition of "unreasonably dangerous" is not the same from state to state so there is a general sense of confusion for those who have tried to hold multi-national companies accountable for defective and dangerous products. In my opinion the system should move back away from government sponsored protection and focus on information. Let the consumers research the products they want to by and if three reports mark brand X as safe and Y as dangerous, then they should buy X if they don't want to risk personal injury. I don't want to get worked up to full rant here, so I will say only this. If the government (of the USA) is supposed to be 'by for and of the people', then so should accountability for actions. Companies should not be the same as people but without responsibility and people should not be allowed to let a small few decide what rights the entire country should enjoy.
Preach on brother! It all falls back on individual accountability. If you don't read the owners manual for the new lawnmower you just bought, fire it up and the blade flies through the wall of your house; guess what? It's your fault plain and simple. If you use your computer without knowing how and get screwed by Gator or get H4X0RED, then guess what, it's your fault.
Now the only problem with this is that a computer is a bit more complex than a lawnmower. Common sense doesn't apply and the learning curve is steeper. So what do we do? Do we pass laws that "protect" consumers who can't or won't get it? How does that affect those of us who do and don't need protection?
And if I remember right (10 years ago...) That gigaton weapon required expensive monthly maintenance, was designed to be assembled in space and to be used as a "Doomsday" device. It weighed about 15 tons fully assembled and was never put in space. I don't think it could ever be put back together from original parts so the likelihood of it being used is close to zero.
By comparison, the largest thermonuclear device ever exploded in the atmosphere by the United States was the Castle Bravo test in 1954, at 15 megatons.
And the largest thermonuclear device ever exploded in the atmosphere period was done by the Soviets in 1961 and was ~50MT.
The Milky Way has something on the order of 100-200 billion stars in it, and M31 has even more.
Granted, but if you buy the theory that the article presents, then you automatically throw out the stars that inhabit the core of the galaxy. For any given spiral, that is about 80% of the stars.
There are so many stars that even if you toss out half or more, there's still a lot of territory to look at.
Agreed. Now take from the 20% the non-main sequence stars and you have less than 500,000 stars. (Calculations from my own head that are known to be flawed.) This is still a relatively small number and if you go into all of variables in the Drake equation (which I won't) as was pointed out by RovingSlug, you whittle that down to a precious few. While I don't disagree with you, I also don't necessarily agree with alll the rare-earth theories. I do think that life if sufficiently rare that it would be a great leap to assume we will find intelligent life in the near or distant future. Just to put all questions at rest, I believe in a creation, and not every one the tenets of the currently accepted scientific notions regarding the formation of the universe. But I certainly do not dismiss them wholesale either.
Regardless, lets say that a exact Earth analogs occur around one out of a billion stars. That still leaves 100 Earth analogs in the Milky Way alone.
I believe the point of the article is that most of those billion stars in the Milky Way are not hospitable to carbon based life. Therefore, you would need to only count the stars on the arms of the galaxy (like earth) and then apply your hypothesis.
and limited their pilots' cardiovascular exercise.
Being a former Air Force pilot, I can tell you for sure that this is FUD. Every six months they have you run 2.5 miles and if you don't come across the line under 8:30, you get put on probation. Don't do it again in 6 months, you are out.
Cardiovascular fitness is essential to being able to withstand high gees. Training to be a pilot, they instruct you to 'grunt' like you are on the pot. You are also supposed to take deep breaths in between grunting. This keeps blood in the brain through interstitial pressure and rapid oxygenation of the blood. Let me tell you, this can be quite exhausting after only five minutes. If you aren't in shape, you are SOL.
I don't find the story of Nadine all that unique or interesting. I get piles of spam everyday and I haven't opted-in to anything. My most spammed address gets over 100 messages a day.
Perhaps the story itself is not so unique, but I find his analysis very important to understand.
"Subject only to the agreements and contracts that an Internet entity has with its providers and customers, that entity is absolutely sovereign within its own domain. Service providers and system administrators are completely free to decide to accept or reject any network traffic they choose; they simply must accept whatever reactions such decisions may evoke from those with whom they have agreements.
An individual consumer's service providers have absolutely no economic incentive to provide transit and storage for advertising, especially advertising delivered by email. On the contrary, many providers have discovered that swift remedial reaction to consumer complaints about unwanted communications can both increase customer loyalty and decrease operating costs. As a result, the unwritten "I will carry your traffic if you will carry mine" agreement is subject to re-evaluation, with the possible conclusion "I don't care whether you carry my traffic or not, so I won't carry yours." And there are many ways to say "I Won't".
He states that this goes against the very flow of information that transpires in other forms of media. I find it fascinating that people expect to have a captive audience on the Internet because they did on TV, radio and magazines. Frankly, this is a new world and it isn't governed by the same rules.
"Why should science be concerned with religion's opinon on anything?".
Because both religion and science involve humans searching for something. Furthermore, scientists seek a common definition and that requires consensus. Religion requires consensus but in a different form. The believers all believe in the same thing. Which incidentally is why we see so many different religions.
It says that if god exists, then he is a petty trickster.
How exactly is this the case? More pointedly, why do you feel that God is a petty trickster? Obviously there is some motivation for you to feel this way outside of the scriptural passge quoted.
If God were all powerful, he could communicate everything in a single word that would be immune to misinterpretation or change no matter how much time went by...or are you saying that God, the all-powerful, couldn't do this?
I'll answer that one.
Is God capable, yes. But the God I believe in doesn't arbitrarily override our freedom to choose and grow. Besides, whose to say that the right thing to do is to create a text that is impervious to misinterpretation?
Is actually up to each of us to discover. There is probably an actual 'true' definition, but it has likely been drowned by the millions of man-made definitions that have surfaced since.
Why is it that so many people think I'm insane for not believing in God, yet don't mind that they believe in a God that they can't seem to tell me anything about?
I don't think you are insane, but I do think that you have a very positive outlook on things, contrary to many 'religous' people I know.
But liberal religions don't seem to mind jettisoning things like a literal seven day creation, a literal Noah's Ark, and even a literal Resurrection. I understand why someone would give up on such apparent absurdities, but why continue to worship the vacuous concepts that remain?
I hear you on this one. Why indeed do so many 'religous' people throw the concepts of their belief system so freely out the window? Most likely to gain public acceptance. Personally, I feel that if you are going to believe in a God, then task number one is figuring out who exactly it is that you are believing in. Then you don't have to worry about those things. Furthermore, if you are really deeply rooted in your religion, then what scientists say shouldn't sway your views even a little bit.
At least scientists are working to prove or disprove their theories, religious people seem to be afraid to question their own beliefs
On the contrary, I regularly question my beliefs. It is the only way to find truth...
My problem with religion is it is never-changing, people dont bother improving upon their theories, their just frozen with their beliefs and never question them.
Well, I am sorry your view of religion is so frozen, but I think you will find many religious people who don't ascribe to this view. I am quite happy with my religion, but realize there will always be more truth to discover regardless of my relative intelligence (or lack thereof). Something you might want to consider is that religionists often feel that their knowledge is absolute; meaning that it came from God who is unchangeable and perfect. Therefore, how can it be wrong? Obviously this is not necessarily safe since the vast majority of us do not receive direct teaching from Him. Which brings us to the linchpin of all religion: Faith. Without this, religion is meaningless. You have to believe in something or it becomes moot to have a set of beliefs! So because of faith, the playing feild becomes level for everyone because everyone has to find out what they want to believe in. If that means you don't believe in anything, then you have made your choice. Lastly, I want to make one comment. There is only one truth and one right way. It is just a matter of finding out what that way is and that is up to you.
If god created the universe is it not possible that this universe as a whole could surpass god in every way? In essence usurping god from his position of power and control?
This is the old 'can God make a rock big enough to crush Himself' question. Here's a thought for you in reply. If God is omnipotent (all powerful) then the answer to your question is both yes and no. He could create something that could surpass/kill/etc Him. But there would never be a reason for Him to. Being both all powerful and perfect, He just would not. If your particular religion believes that God is all powerful and all knowing and perfect, then this kind of paradox should not even remotely pose a problem.
If God created us, and by our very nature we are evolutionary creatures (we grow, we learn, we become more powerful as time goes on), wouldn't it seem that this would be the case by default?
Now you are on to something. Personally, I believe that we (humans) are literally children of God. That means we can 'grow-up' to be exactly as He is and all that implies. However, it also means that there is somewhat of a limit but only in power, knowledge and perfection (all powerful/knowledgable is as good as it gets). The part where we will never be like God is in glory. Again, this is personal belief, and it would take quite a bit to explain here. Suffice it to say that we are God's children and He wants up to be like Him and have all His power and knowledge.
The only way out of this I see, is if god put in a "safety valve" of sorts that puts a ceiling on how high we can go. So far I keep learning every day... No ceiling yet
And you won't reach that ceiling in this life I can guarantee. It may take many thousands of years to know 'all there is to know'. So don't get disappointed if you aren't all powerful before you turn 50.
One version of the agreement it suggests that they sount all the staff (even the ones not using computers at all) working over 200 hours a year to get a license purchased. So when do we have to include a license for buildings and cars?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it was the Rachael Alert. It is the Utah version of the Amber alert and was named after Rachael Runyan. As for hiring the PR firm, they could have saved their money, local coverage of their "Press Conferences" shows that they suck hard. I know, I work for one of the TV stations and get to see the live feeds that don't make it to air. What really made the difference is their connections to the U.S. Congress. Something conveniently forgotten by the national newsies.
Poking into the realm of science fiction, one would have to presume one of two things for this to happen. Either these life forms would have some sort of natural protection from such radiation or have developed some technology that protects them. Or their life is based on something other than carbon (silicon?). The reason for this is that all carbon based life is easily damaged by high energy light waves. Indeed, most non-metals tend to break down their molecular bonds when exposed to gamma rays. Either way, despite the tenacity of life, it would require a large leap of faith to assume that this is the case.
I actually have a P3-550 with half a gig of RAM sitting next to my main PC so I am a victim of my own argument... I could probably sell it but it wouldn't go for much more than $300...
I thought about this and have run two copys at once before. If you have any kind of traffic though, you will need a pretty beefy machine with a good chunk of RAM. By the time you have set all this up with hardware costs and time spent, $400 could look pretty cheap.
YHBT YHL HAND
Sure but then you have three pieces of hardware where this could be done with only the one mentioned. That increases probability of failure, admin overhead, power consumption and heat generation. Not to mention that the hardware costs would be more for the quid based solution depending on existing unused hardware you have available for squiding.
Being a working class joe myself, I empathize with this myself. Nowadyas however, you don't even need a permanant connection to the net at home. The library, schools and other public places have free access for us. So this really isn't an issue.
As well as the difficulty of checking everytime you buy something.That is why I called it a burden. But at least you know for yourself that the product you want to buy checked out (or didn't). If the price for personal accountability is convenience, it seems like a small price to pay.
That's what the internet is for. Let watever agency is in charge of 'consumer information' keep the database on their server. Use your wireless PDA/Cellphone/laptop to search the site for what you are looking for and make your decision. Not too hard if you ask me.
A totally seperate issue to be sure, but nonetheless a slimy twist to the argument. If you as a computer user do not exercise due dilligence in reading the user agreements for software installed (I am assuming that every way to install gator comes with a written warning that it will be installed) then you are authorizing it's installation by default. If Gator did not notify you that it was being installed (however obscure) then your argument holds water.
The lawnmower company will throw money at you to go away, because they know you can win easily in civil court.That doesn't make it legal nor does it justify the lawsuit if I am too ignorant to use a lawnmower.
People will screw up, and stuff must not be unreasonably dangerous when they do.Unfortunately the definition of "unreasonably dangerous" is not the same from state to state so there is a general sense of confusion for those who have tried to hold multi-national companies accountable for defective and dangerous products. In my opinion the system should move back away from government sponsored protection and focus on information. Let the consumers research the products they want to by and if three reports mark brand X as safe and Y as dangerous, then they should buy X if they don't want to risk personal injury. I don't want to get worked up to full rant here, so I will say only this. If the government (of the USA) is supposed to be 'by for and of the people', then so should accountability for actions. Companies should not be the same as people but without responsibility and people should not be allowed to let a small few decide what rights the entire country should enjoy.
Preach on brother! It all falls back on individual accountability. If you don't read the owners manual for the new lawnmower you just bought, fire it up and the blade flies through the wall of your house; guess what? It's your fault plain and simple. If you use your computer without knowing how and get screwed by Gator or get H4X0RED, then guess what, it's your fault.
Now the only problem with this is that a computer is a bit more complex than a lawnmower. Common sense doesn't apply and the learning curve is steeper. So what do we do? Do we pass laws that "protect" consumers who can't or won't get it? How does that affect those of us who do and don't need protection?
And if I remember right (10 years ago...) That gigaton weapon required expensive monthly maintenance, was designed to be assembled in space and to be used as a "Doomsday" device. It weighed about 15 tons fully assembled and was never put in space. I don't think it could ever be put back together from original parts so the likelihood of it being used is close to zero.
And the largest thermonuclear device ever exploded in the atmosphere period was done by the Soviets in 1961 and was ~50MT.
The Milky Way has something on the order of 100-200 billion stars in it, and M31 has even more.
Granted, but if you buy the theory that the article presents, then you automatically throw out the stars that inhabit the core of the galaxy. For any given spiral, that is about 80% of the stars.
There are so many stars that even if you toss out half or more, there's still a lot of territory to look at.
Agreed. Now take from the 20% the non-main sequence stars and you have less than 500,000 stars. (Calculations from my own head that are known to be flawed.) This is still a relatively small number and if you go into all of variables in the Drake equation (which I won't) as was pointed out by RovingSlug, you whittle that down to a precious few. While I don't disagree with you, I also don't necessarily agree with alll the rare-earth theories. I do think that life if sufficiently rare that it would be a great leap to assume we will find intelligent life in the near or distant future. Just to put all questions at rest, I believe in a creation, and not every one the tenets of the currently accepted scientific notions regarding the formation of the universe. But I certainly do not dismiss them wholesale either.
Regardless, lets say that a exact Earth analogs occur around one out of a billion stars. That still leaves 100 Earth analogs in the Milky Way alone.
I believe the point of the article is that most of those billion stars in the Milky Way are not hospitable to carbon based life. Therefore, you would need to only count the stars on the arms of the galaxy (like earth) and then apply your hypothesis.
In celebration of the new album being released, he will be playing "Vapor Trails".
Please excuse my mis-type. It was 10:30.
Being a former Air Force pilot, I can tell you for sure that this is FUD. Every six months they have you run 2.5 miles and if you don't come across the line under 8:30, you get put on probation. Don't do it again in 6 months, you are out.
Cardiovascular fitness is essential to being able to withstand high gees. Training to be a pilot, they instruct you to 'grunt' like you are on the pot. You are also supposed to take deep breaths in between grunting. This keeps blood in the brain through interstitial pressure and rapid oxygenation of the blood. Let me tell you, this can be quite exhausting after only five minutes. If you aren't in shape, you are SOL.
Perhaps the story itself is not so unique, but I find his analysis very important to understand.
From the essay:"Subject only to the agreements and contracts that an Internet entity has with its providers and customers, that entity is absolutely sovereign within its own domain. Service providers and system administrators are completely free to decide to accept or reject any network traffic they choose; they simply must accept whatever reactions such decisions may evoke from those with whom they have agreements.
An individual consumer's service providers have absolutely no economic incentive to provide transit and storage for advertising, especially advertising delivered by email. On the contrary, many providers have discovered that swift remedial reaction to consumer complaints about unwanted communications can both increase customer loyalty and decrease operating costs. As a result, the unwritten "I will carry your traffic if you will carry mine" agreement is subject to re-evaluation, with the possible conclusion "I don't care whether you carry my traffic or not, so I won't carry yours." And there are many ways to say "I Won't".
He states that this goes against the very flow of information that transpires in other forms of media. I find it fascinating that people expect to have a captive audience on the Internet because they did on TV, radio and magazines. Frankly, this is a new world and it isn't governed by the same rules.
Because both religion and science involve humans searching for something. Furthermore, scientists seek a common definition and that requires consensus. Religion requires consensus but in a different form. The believers all believe in the same thing. Which incidentally is why we see so many different religions.
How exactly is this the case? More pointedly, why do you feel that God is a petty trickster? Obviously there is some motivation for you to feel this way outside of the scriptural passge quoted.
I'll answer that one.
Is God capable, yes. But the God I believe in doesn't arbitrarily override our freedom to choose and grow. Besides, whose to say that the right thing to do is to create a text that is impervious to misinterpretation?
Is actually up to each of us to discover. There is probably an actual 'true' definition, but it has likely been drowned by the millions of man-made definitions that have surfaced since.
Why is it that so many people think I'm insane for not believing in God, yet don't mind that they believe in a God that they can't seem to tell me anything about?I don't think you are insane, but I do think that you have a very positive outlook on things, contrary to many 'religous' people I know.
But liberal religions don't seem to mind jettisoning things like a literal seven day creation, a literal Noah's Ark, and even a literal Resurrection. I understand why someone would give up on such apparent absurdities, but why continue to worship the vacuous concepts that remain?I hear you on this one. Why indeed do so many 'religous' people throw the concepts of their belief system so freely out the window? Most likely to gain public acceptance. Personally, I feel that if you are going to believe in a God, then task number one is figuring out who exactly it is that you are believing in. Then you don't have to worry about those things. Furthermore, if you are really deeply rooted in your religion, then what scientists say shouldn't sway your views even a little bit.
On the contrary, I regularly question my beliefs. It is the only way to find truth...
My problem with religion is it is never-changing, people dont bother improving upon their theories, their just frozen with their beliefs and never question them.
Well, I am sorry your view of religion is so frozen, but I think you will find many religious people who don't ascribe to this view. I am quite happy with my religion, but realize there will always be more truth to discover regardless of my relative intelligence (or lack thereof). Something you might want to consider is that religionists often feel that their knowledge is absolute; meaning that it came from God who is unchangeable and perfect. Therefore, how can it be wrong? Obviously this is not necessarily safe since the vast majority of us do not receive direct teaching from Him. Which brings us to the linchpin of all religion: Faith. Without this, religion is meaningless. You have to believe in something or it becomes moot to have a set of beliefs! So because of faith, the playing feild becomes level for everyone because everyone has to find out what they want to believe in. If that means you don't believe in anything, then you have made your choice. Lastly, I want to make one comment. There is only one truth and one right way. It is just a matter of finding out what that way is and that is up to you.
This is the old 'can God make a rock big enough to crush Himself' question. Here's a thought for you in reply. If God is omnipotent (all powerful) then the answer to your question is both yes and no. He could create something that could surpass/kill/etc Him. But there would never be a reason for Him to. Being both all powerful and perfect, He just would not. If your particular religion believes that God is all powerful and all knowing and perfect, then this kind of paradox should not even remotely pose a problem.
If God created us, and by our very nature we are evolutionary creatures (we grow, we learn, we become more powerful as time goes on), wouldn't it seem that this would be the case by default?Now you are on to something. Personally, I believe that we (humans) are literally children of God. That means we can 'grow-up' to be exactly as He is and all that implies. However, it also means that there is somewhat of a limit but only in power, knowledge and perfection (all powerful/knowledgable is as good as it gets). The part where we will never be like God is in glory. Again, this is personal belief, and it would take quite a bit to explain here. Suffice it to say that we are God's children and He wants up to be like Him and have all His power and knowledge.
The only way out of this I see, is if god put in a "safety valve" of sorts that puts a ceiling on how high we can go. So far I keep learning every day... No ceiling yet
And you won't reach that ceiling in this life I can guarantee. It may take many thousands of years to know 'all there is to know'. So don't get disappointed if you aren't all powerful before you turn 50.
One version of the agreement it suggests that they sount all the staff (even the ones not using computers at all) working over 200 hours a year to get a license purchased. So when do we have to include a license for buildings and cars?