Oh, it's easy to understand. Lying is when you say something you know is untrue. Microsoft's op-ed writers know what they're saying is untrue. "Motive" is a convention, a manner of speaking, that isn't as important as what facts and evidence can demonstrate. Microsoft's op-ed writers were lying. Failing to call it lying isn't "diplomacy", it's permissive cowardice.
"Misleading"? "Factually incorrect"? Why will no one reporting on lies just come out and call them lies? By pulling these punches, the writers/editors/publishers are lying.
There, I said it. And I feel better already for telling the truth.
When Thomas Edison said that "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration", he was one to know, since he had hundreds of other people on staff helping thinking up inventions and doing practically all the sweatwork to make a patentable version.
And even there he left out the bankers and lawyers geniuses require to protect every innovation from further innovation that could threaten some of the profits.
That whole ingenious system took years to hammer out and perfect.
If only he'd patented it, others couldn't have just copied his way of extracting every possible penny from any possible invention. Instead of just getting the biz model in a flash, they'd have had to maintain a stable of pros to come up with it for them.
OK, you've got a deeper problem. You don't understand English.
My reference to a "stupid example that is all to popular among stupid people" is to the Iraq War catastrophe proving that government can't work. You just said that when you used that example, you were being sarcastic. In other words, you were saying that's not a good example. I don't think you're saying the only other possible sarcasm: that the Iraq War worked, and was a good way for the government to spend all that money.
If you're going to take insult when I call that example stupid, even though you used it sarcastically, then you're being sarcastic about yourself. I don't think so. I think that you've just introduced the element of "sarcasm" in order to cover for your inability to understand either what I've written, or how your own writing is impossible to decipher when you say it's being sarcastic.
I guess you had too much Bud. Because your post is exactly the kind of argument that people make now who voted for Bush twice, because they agreed with him that government doesn't work, but now are mad that his government failed in Iraq.
I think your problem is that you constructed a sarcastic post without it seeming sarcastic, just a stupid example that is all too popular among stupid people.
People who don't even live here don't impress me much when you ignore that Paul's idea of government that doesn't even have a marriage registry, but wouldn't stop states from imposing biblical law on people if a majority were "Christians". You can have your say. But I will continue to ignore you. Goodbye.
The money spent by the US public on telecom infrastructure gave us the Internet, universal telephone service, all kinds of essential infrastructure.
You can't point to Bush's Republican heists during his regime's total control of the government, capping his Party's control of Congress for a decade and a half. They swear government can't work, then prove it when they have control. But now they don't.
Democrats aren't the opposite of Republicans, either. But their party has a long history of public works administration that has built America's infrastructure, including the interstate highway system, the power grid, dams and irrigation, and all kinds of other infrastructure, including telecom.
So Iraq is no argument against this kind of public investment. Unless you're talking about letting Republicans have control again, in which case it's the perfect argument. Of course, Republicans control the corporations, so that's even more argument for public investment rather than corporate.
"Friendly advice"? You objectively lied several times in this message, even excluding your promise that you weren't replying anymore, like the very lies I pointed out, which are at the core of your "argument" (mass of assertions, really). You're a liar. "More of a prediction" about your own behavior a few minutes in the future, totally at your discretion, and you shredded that for nothing. You're obviously the worst kind of liar: you're crudely lying to me as a standin to lie to yourself. And I'll call any liar with your kind of "friendly advice" a liar whenever I see you. I'm no coward - I stand behind what I say. But I guess liars have to go around in fear.
My life is great. I've been doing it this way a long time. But I'm not for everyone. Liars and those insisting on blurting their delusions in public, don't care for me. But who cares about that riffraff? You're fun to pop. Especially when you try turning into "concern trolls" when you've got no excuse left to talk, but still have to act like you're worth listening to.
Fuck you. You're such an insane Paulbot that you'll even lie to me about what you just posted to me. Paul's pretty honest, about destroying the government for corporate anarchy wherever theocracy doesn't hold sway.
I remember everything. I've cited Paul's past elections even in this thread, to which you replied inanely, and which you now pretend I didn't say. I've also quoted some of the various kinds of insane laws Paul has proposed to destroy our government, and even pave the way for "god's law". But since you're offering nothing but uncited, logicless assertions, I guess you're interested in that kind of faithy bullshit.
You're just the kind of Paulbot who thinks just insisting that you're right, despite the facts forced in front of you, makes you right. But really it just makes you run away.
I'm glad you're gone. See you in the Oval Office!
(Now please return to flame me for using bad words on you, after you started it up. Fucking Paulbot's got serious bugs.)
We already have that kind of local protection, as well as Federal protection when local cronies get their way. There's no other competitor, there's monopolies and cartels, cartels which band together to keep new competitors out as their mutual #1 priority. So long as we have national scale operators, we need national scale regulation to protect ourselves from them. Or one state's permissive policies in a right-of-way can hold the entire national right-of-way hostage.
Oh, and Ron Paul would eradicate the IRS, too. And he's all for moving churches into the power vacuum along with corporations. The guy's a disaster. Check out how his ideology would destroy your society before handing him your vote.
"Bullocks"? Baby bulls? Is that anything like the Baby Bells, whose lobbyists could have written your post?
Without the Feds stopping the telcos like AT&T and Verizon, those monopolies will run unchecked over any privacy we've got. The state governments are even more susceptible to lobbyists, with cheaper bribes and cozier crony networks, and less media attention (media which favor their crony telcos, and often own their own networks they'd love to abuse).
Sure Paul hasn't said much about crushing the government in each state, because he's just a Federal official. If he were president, those states would find their own "libertarian" corporate anarchists with the major battle won, and move on to getting state government out of the way on the same basis.
Paul preaches "NO GOVERNMENT" (except what's necessary to protect defense contractors, especially Texan ones). That's what ideology does: it applies universally. A universal power vacuum where government used to stand, and corporate (and church) policy moved into its place.
Any extra cables would also increase Ireland's overall Internet bandwidth. As that country climbs out of the Industrial Age (and really the Farming Age), it'll need more than one cable.
Ireland is a very small country - and a single cable carries a hell of a lot of bandwidth.
Am I ever glad that Ireland didn't waste any money building dozens of cables offisland, as I learned myself today.
Let's see, you're neither a US citizen nor have ever visited, and you want us to get rid practically all of the Federal government.
You are an extreme example of Ron Paul defenders, who live in a purely theoretical world of political ideology. Goodbye, and good luck in your own country, wherever that is. I suspect it's the Vatican City, or maybe Mecca.
AT&T and Verizon operate as monpolies (and don't give me the canard that there's more than one, so there's not a monopoly, which canard disqualifies its arguer from arguing actual economics). There's no "meritocracy". The people need the government to protect us from them, and from other corporations which have "person" rights, but not the liabilities (like arrest, jail, death, etc).
If you think people will have even the current level of protection from these predators without our government that we establish for that protection, you really don't know anything about economics or history.
I'm not the one taking Paul's message to the extreme. Paul is the extremist: he'd get rid of most of the government, including public education, and leave the church to move into the vacuum with "god's law", which Paul believes is infallible as written in "the" bible, and ignored at peril of havoc in society. I'm a reasonable person who knows we're not living in Sim City, but rather a complex society with seriously bad forces that we create a government to protect ourselves from. Paul lives in a fantasyland, and you Paul followers are dreaming it with him.
Typical Republicanism, despite the nonsense that Paul's libertarianism is any different from generations of Republican "Conservatism". It all throws out the government baby with the corruption bathwater. Of course Republican governments aren't the solution, they're the problem. But Americans pioneered creating our government to protect ourselves from domestic gangs (once called kings). We're not going to give it up just because some new labeled bottle of the same old corporate anarchy wine is attracting a generation of people with more money than sense to donate to a presidential campaign.
"Agree to disagree"? No, I insist that you face reality and drop your baseless agreement. That's just a passive aggressive way of saying "na na na I'm not listening na na na", while thinking "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". No wonder you're a Republican. And don't tell me you're not: you're boosting a guy who's been a Republican for decades, and wouldn't even leave when running for president as the nominee of another party. I know Republicans have so little actual integrity that you will say anything, carry any banner, so long as you've got an ad campaign you think will win, but I disagree to agree with anything like that.
Do you think that a layer of electrodes in a grid of say 0.1mm cells could raise the dots 0.1mm (or higher) under a sheet, and still permit light to pass when flat, and inductance to change with the fingertip (light doesn't have to pass when raised, but that would be nice). Or maybe some lower resolution? Can the electrodes cycle the raised/flat state fairly quickly (eg. 10Hz or faster)? Is this stuff cheap to mass produce with relatively few defects?
I see this stuff working a lot like LCDs, which have all those other requirements, too. The main problem would seem to be the dot electrode interfering with the touchscreen inductance detection. But there's also ultrasonic detection, which could possibly be calibrated to account for the changing refractions across a medium of raised dots. Sound possible?
In addition to the evidence others already showed you in answer to your assurance that you'd stop supporting Paul when you saw his own words denying US government separates itself from church rule, there's even more showing precisely how Paul's opposition to church/state separation really goes even further, to merely hand churches state power.
Paul says the US government does not separate itself from church rule, he also believes that the bible is god's law, absolute and infallible, and disobeying it will destroy society:
L:How in your judgment,at all,do you believe the word of God limits civil government?...It is not the role of civil government at any level,to house,clothe,feed or educate anybody.What do you think are the limits,if any,by God's word on any level,civil government ?
P:No,I think that would violate the whole principle,of you know, self-reliance,and our whole notion of individualism,which I think is solidly found in the New Testament,and therefore that responsibility, whether it is for ourselves,or for our families,it really falls upon the role of the parent...
L: May I assume you believe scripture is God's word,that it's inerrant and infallible ?
P:That is correct.
L:...Well I'm also assuming you also believe that disobedience to God's word can bring,or does bring judgment upon nations and people?
P:(Hesitates)That is true,and,uh,sometimes the judgments aren't directly correlated,people have trouble figuring that out,but I think defiance of God's law will eventually bring havoc to a society.
Also featuring a Ron Paul America that doesn't even permit public education, and I'd also expect no public hospitals. Because god says so, or we'll be destroyed.
Why not? Paul also wants the government to stop all marriages, not just between gay people - between any people. Handing the governance of marriage entirely over to the church. I guess sometimes church and state can be separated in Paul Country, as long as the church gets the whole franchise.
Yeah, he's got that separation exactly backwards. Instead of following the Constitution's protection of the people from making a religious argument or action some kind of privileged category immune to American law or regulation, Paul says whatever superstition you imagine puts your actions beyond the reach of law. "We the People Act" he wrote for the House to send into American law:
Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
In Paul Country, when the priest decides, the judge shuts up.
Especially anywhere Paul's power is in effect, but is out of sight of the American media (but sets a working precedent across the entire country), Paul's USA sets religious acts above the law, as in his Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
Amends the Federal judicial code to deny the district courts of the United States, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear or determine any case in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedo
I have no doubt that Bill Gates has had himself cloned, or at least all his organs and tissues, for when his own parts wear out. Stashed around the world, as insurance against laws banning cloning.
And if it's not viable yet, they'll just keep cloning him until they get it right.
I know that if I had $100B, that's how I'd spend it.
TrollMods must be that single broadband user in their zipcode. Bush might be down, but he's still got a zombie army which will shout down any facts that show he's the worst president ever, and his fans the worst Americans ever.
No, they didn't all vote. Their reps were installed, and controlled by their priests. Afghanistan hasn't had a popular election of its government. It's all been installed by the US, and the factions the US patronizes.
I'm a "neocon"? That's the craziest wrong accusation I've ever gotten here on Slashdot, and that's saying quite a lot. They're nearly always calling me a "commie" or "hippie" or something. I must be spending quite a lot of time making up all those libertarian-socialist posts over the years, just to finally see my chance to attack Ron Paul.
Oh yeah, "Dr" Paul - when was the last time he used a stethoscope on someone? Right - he's authored several books, so he must be right about everything. Just like L. Ron Hubbard. Coincidence? Of course not.
I'd also like to see some of these "trolls" you're talking about. Or are you just talking about some of the few Paul posts I've made that have some facts in them that your fried little paranoid conspiracy brain can't handle just disagreeing with?
Let me blow your mind: you are my handler. At night, after your Ambien kicks in, you email me with whispered secrets about Ron Paul's dark past. About holes in his illusory hermetic shield of ideology. Right now, the programming is just cracking a little, as Paul gets ready to surprise the world with his miraculous victory in the primaries and the general election. Don't worry that you're freaking out, posting nothing but trolls accusing me of being a troll. The next TV commercial you see for an oil corp will have your new coded instructions. Follow them carefully, and remember you've got to go to the highest bridge with the package, not just the nearest one. We shall overcome...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it's easy to understand. Lying is when you say something you know is untrue. Microsoft's op-ed writers know what they're saying is untrue. "Motive" is a convention, a manner of speaking, that isn't as important as what facts and evidence can demonstrate. Microsoft's op-ed writers were lying. Failing to call it lying isn't "diplomacy", it's permissive cowardice.
"Misleading"? "Factually incorrect"? Why will no one reporting on lies just come out and call them lies? By pulling these punches, the writers/editors/publishers are lying.
There, I said it. And I feel better already for telling the truth.
When Thomas Edison said that "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration", he was one to know, since he had hundreds of other people on staff helping thinking up inventions and doing practically all the sweatwork to make a patentable version.
And even there he left out the bankers and lawyers geniuses require to protect every innovation from further innovation that could threaten some of the profits.
That whole ingenious system took years to hammer out and perfect.
If only he'd patented it, others couldn't have just copied his way of extracting every possible penny from any possible invention. Instead of just getting the biz model in a flash, they'd have had to maintain a stable of pros to come up with it for them.
Try challenging some of my ample logic, and we'll see you you fail.
And try challenging any of my facts, which are easily cited.
I challenged both of theirs, and all I got was flames - neither logic nor citations.
But what else would I expect from you Paulbots, especially the anonymous ones?
OK, you've got a deeper problem. You don't understand English.
My reference to a "stupid example that is all to popular among stupid people" is to the Iraq War catastrophe proving that government can't work. You just said that when you used that example, you were being sarcastic. In other words, you were saying that's not a good example. I don't think you're saying the only other possible sarcasm: that the Iraq War worked, and was a good way for the government to spend all that money.
If you're going to take insult when I call that example stupid, even though you used it sarcastically, then you're being sarcastic about yourself. I don't think so. I think that you've just introduced the element of "sarcasm" in order to cover for your inability to understand either what I've written, or how your own writing is impossible to decipher when you say it's being sarcastic.
I guess you had too much Bud. Because your post is exactly the kind of argument that people make now who voted for Bush twice, because they agreed with him that government doesn't work, but now are mad that his government failed in Iraq.
I think your problem is that you constructed a sarcastic post without it seeming sarcastic, just a stupid example that is all too popular among stupid people.
Can't you see how cloning and self-organ grafting figure perfectly into your scheme?
People who don't even live here don't impress me much when you ignore that Paul's idea of government that doesn't even have a marriage registry, but wouldn't stop states from imposing biblical law on people if a majority were "Christians". You can have your say. But I will continue to ignore you. Goodbye.
The money spent by the US public on telecom infrastructure gave us the Internet, universal telephone service, all kinds of essential infrastructure.
You can't point to Bush's Republican heists during his regime's total control of the government, capping his Party's control of Congress for a decade and a half. They swear government can't work, then prove it when they have control. But now they don't.
Democrats aren't the opposite of Republicans, either. But their party has a long history of public works administration that has built America's infrastructure, including the interstate highway system, the power grid, dams and irrigation, and all kinds of other infrastructure, including telecom.
So Iraq is no argument against this kind of public investment. Unless you're talking about letting Republicans have control again, in which case it's the perfect argument. Of course, Republicans control the corporations, so that's even more argument for public investment rather than corporate.
"Friendly advice"? You objectively lied several times in this message, even excluding your promise that you weren't replying anymore, like the very lies I pointed out, which are at the core of your "argument" (mass of assertions, really). You're a liar. "More of a prediction" about your own behavior a few minutes in the future, totally at your discretion, and you shredded that for nothing. You're obviously the worst kind of liar: you're crudely lying to me as a standin to lie to yourself. And I'll call any liar with your kind of "friendly advice" a liar whenever I see you. I'm no coward - I stand behind what I say. But I guess liars have to go around in fear.
My life is great. I've been doing it this way a long time. But I'm not for everyone. Liars and those insisting on blurting their delusions in public, don't care for me. But who cares about that riffraff? You're fun to pop. Especially when you try turning into "concern trolls" when you've got no excuse left to talk, but still have to act like you're worth listening to.
Fuck you. You're such an insane Paulbot that you'll even lie to me about what you just posted to me. Paul's pretty honest, about destroying the government for corporate anarchy wherever theocracy doesn't hold sway.
I remember everything. I've cited Paul's past elections even in this thread, to which you replied inanely, and which you now pretend I didn't say. I've also quoted some of the various kinds of insane laws Paul has proposed to destroy our government, and even pave the way for "god's law". But since you're offering nothing but uncited, logicless assertions, I guess you're interested in that kind of faithy bullshit.
You're just the kind of Paulbot who thinks just insisting that you're right, despite the facts forced in front of you, makes you right. But really it just makes you run away.
I'm glad you're gone. See you in the Oval Office!
(Now please return to flame me for using bad words on you, after you started it up. Fucking Paulbot's got serious bugs.)
We already have that kind of local protection, as well as Federal protection when local cronies get their way. There's no other competitor, there's monopolies and cartels, cartels which band together to keep new competitors out as their mutual #1 priority. So long as we have national scale operators, we need national scale regulation to protect ourselves from them. Or one state's permissive policies in a right-of-way can hold the entire national right-of-way hostage.
Oh, and Ron Paul would eradicate the IRS, too. And he's all for moving churches into the power vacuum along with corporations. The guy's a disaster. Check out how his ideology would destroy your society before handing him your vote.
"Bullocks"? Baby bulls? Is that anything like the Baby Bells, whose lobbyists could have written your post?
Without the Feds stopping the telcos like AT&T and Verizon, those monopolies will run unchecked over any privacy we've got. The state governments are even more susceptible to lobbyists, with cheaper bribes and cozier crony networks, and less media attention (media which favor their crony telcos, and often own their own networks they'd love to abuse).
Sure Paul hasn't said much about crushing the government in each state, because he's just a Federal official. If he were president, those states would find their own "libertarian" corporate anarchists with the major battle won, and move on to getting state government out of the way on the same basis.
Paul preaches "NO GOVERNMENT" (except what's necessary to protect defense contractors, especially Texan ones). That's what ideology does: it applies universally. A universal power vacuum where government used to stand, and corporate (and church) policy moved into its place.
A little bull, indeed. A little papal bull.
Am I ever glad that Ireland didn't waste any money building dozens of cables offisland, as I learned myself today.
Let's see, you're neither a US citizen nor have ever visited, and you want us to get rid practically all of the Federal government.
You are an extreme example of Ron Paul defenders, who live in a purely theoretical world of political ideology. Goodbye, and good luck in your own country, wherever that is. I suspect it's the Vatican City, or maybe Mecca.
AT&T and Verizon operate as monpolies (and don't give me the canard that there's more than one, so there's not a monopoly, which canard disqualifies its arguer from arguing actual economics). There's no "meritocracy". The people need the government to protect us from them, and from other corporations which have "person" rights, but not the liabilities (like arrest, jail, death, etc).
If you think people will have even the current level of protection from these predators without our government that we establish for that protection, you really don't know anything about economics or history.
I'm not the one taking Paul's message to the extreme. Paul is the extremist: he'd get rid of most of the government, including public education, and leave the church to move into the vacuum with "god's law", which Paul believes is infallible as written in "the" bible, and ignored at peril of havoc in society. I'm a reasonable person who knows we're not living in Sim City, but rather a complex society with seriously bad forces that we create a government to protect ourselves from. Paul lives in a fantasyland, and you Paul followers are dreaming it with him.
Typical Republicanism, despite the nonsense that Paul's libertarianism is any different from generations of Republican "Conservatism". It all throws out the government baby with the corruption bathwater. Of course Republican governments aren't the solution, they're the problem. But Americans pioneered creating our government to protect ourselves from domestic gangs (once called kings). We're not going to give it up just because some new labeled bottle of the same old corporate anarchy wine is attracting a generation of people with more money than sense to donate to a presidential campaign.
"Agree to disagree"? No, I insist that you face reality and drop your baseless agreement. That's just a passive aggressive way of saying "na na na I'm not listening na na na", while thinking "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". No wonder you're a Republican. And don't tell me you're not: you're boosting a guy who's been a Republican for decades, and wouldn't even leave when running for president as the nominee of another party. I know Republicans have so little actual integrity that you will say anything, carry any banner, so long as you've got an ad campaign you think will win, but I disagree to agree with anything like that.
Do you think that a layer of electrodes in a grid of say 0.1mm cells could raise the dots 0.1mm (or higher) under a sheet, and still permit light to pass when flat, and inductance to change with the fingertip (light doesn't have to pass when raised, but that would be nice). Or maybe some lower resolution? Can the electrodes cycle the raised/flat state fairly quickly (eg. 10Hz or faster)? Is this stuff cheap to mass produce with relatively few defects?
I see this stuff working a lot like LCDs, which have all those other requirements, too. The main problem would seem to be the dot electrode interfering with the touchscreen inductance detection. But there's also ultrasonic detection, which could possibly be calibrated to account for the changing refractions across a medium of raised dots. Sound possible?
Paul says the US government does not separate itself from church rule, he also believes that the bible is god's law, absolute and infallible, and disobeying it will destroy society:
Also featuring a Ron Paul America that doesn't even permit public education, and I'd also expect no public hospitals. Because god says so, or we'll be destroyed.
Why not? Paul also wants the government to stop all marriages, not just between gay people - between any people. Handing the governance of marriage entirely over to the church. I guess sometimes church and state can be separated in Paul Country, as long as the church gets the whole franchise.
Yeah, he's got that separation exactly backwards. Instead of following the Constitution's protection of the people from making a religious argument or action some kind of privileged category immune to American law or regulation, Paul says whatever superstition you imagine puts your actions beyond the reach of law. "We the People Act" he wrote for the House to send into American law:
In Paul Country, when the priest decides, the judge shuts up.
Especially anywhere Paul's power is in effect, but is out of sight of the American media (but sets a working precedent across the entire country), Paul's USA sets religious acts above the law, as in his Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
I have no doubt that Bill Gates has had himself cloned, or at least all his organs and tissues, for when his own parts wear out. Stashed around the world, as insurance against laws banning cloning.
And if it's not viable yet, they'll just keep cloning him until they get it right.
I know that if I had $100B, that's how I'd spend it.
Moderation 0
50% Insightful
50% Troll
TrollMods must be that single broadband user in their zipcode. Bush might be down, but he's still got a zombie army which will shout down any facts that show he's the worst president ever, and his fans the worst Americans ever.
No, they didn't all vote. Their reps were installed, and controlled by their priests. Afghanistan hasn't had a popular election of its government. It's all been installed by the US, and the factions the US patronizes.
I'm a "neocon"? That's the craziest wrong accusation I've ever gotten here on Slashdot, and that's saying quite a lot. They're nearly always calling me a "commie" or "hippie" or something. I must be spending quite a lot of time making up all those libertarian-socialist posts over the years, just to finally see my chance to attack Ron Paul.
Oh yeah, "Dr" Paul - when was the last time he used a stethoscope on someone? Right - he's authored several books, so he must be right about everything. Just like L. Ron Hubbard. Coincidence? Of course not.
I'd also like to see some of these "trolls" you're talking about. Or are you just talking about some of the few Paul posts I've made that have some facts in them that your fried little paranoid conspiracy brain can't handle just disagreeing with?
Let me blow your mind: you are my handler. At night, after your Ambien kicks in, you email me with whispered secrets about Ron Paul's dark past. About holes in his illusory hermetic shield of ideology. Right now, the programming is just cracking a little, as Paul gets ready to surprise the world with his miraculous victory in the primaries and the general election. Don't worry that you're freaking out, posting nothing but trolls accusing me of being a troll. The next TV commercial you see for an oil corp will have your new coded instructions. Follow them carefully, and remember you've got to go to the highest bridge with the package, not just the nearest one. We shall overcome...
Thanks. I can sleep better tonight knowing Ireland is not in peril, due to manifold redundancy :).
Did you notice if those maps show there's more redundancy to the Mideast and South Asia than reported and indicated in that initial map?
Well, that looks like it takes a lot of energy. And I'm not sure what effect the ultrasonics would have on the rest of the device.
But it is cool. There's just got to be a bistable state achievable with it to be practical for this application.
OK, as long as you tell me that when you see those facts, you'll stop supporting Paul.