They don't say how much it costs unless you ask (yes I can afford it anyway:).
The specs
* Up to 1 Terabyte of non-volatile DDRRAM in 24U.
* Unlimited overall capacity
* Over 3.2 million random I/O requests per second.
* Over 24 GB/second of random sustainable data bandwidth.
* Up to 512 physical LUNs.
* Requires 2,500 watts of power.
* Up to 8 independent non-volatile solid state disks (SSD) modules. Each SSD module is a RamSan-400, including 128 GB of DDRRAM and up to eight 4-Gbit Fibre Channel connections or four 4x InfiniBand ports.
suggest that it's really s modules of 128GB of DDR each, connected by 8x4Gbps or 4x4xInfiniband. The i-RAM can take 4GB on 1.5Gbps SATA for about $125 each, so about $2500 would give approximately that module performance (including multi SATA PCI-ecards). A 6Gbps SATA version and a larger bank (maybe 8x8GB-DDR2) version could compete for probably under $10K.
I also think that one very big factor is how many people used to come visit here just to see a people who were widely respected and admired for our attitude. Now, with the Iraq War, the Terror War as a whole, all the rhetoric about "immigrants" (legal or otherwise), and our many other irresponsible treatments of the rest of the world (unsupportable debt, arrogance...), the Statue of Liberty isn't as compelling a vacation any more. And of course that's reflected in business travel, both because those trips are often excuses for vacations, and because our foreign competition for that is rising as we're falling.
Since RAM is so cheap, why aren't there more "external RAM" systems like Gigabyte's I-RAM? That seems to be the only product offering RAM structured as a drive.
And it's got limitations. What about more products, that draw power from USB instead of PCI (that's all the I-RAM uses the PCI for anyway)? Maybe a 6Gbps SATA connection, to compete with PC-2700 RAM's 21Gbps access rate. If the memory manager could access several PCI-e SATA cards, how about 8 SATA connections to a single bank of RAM, for 24-48Gbps rates, usable as actual RAM (not a RAM drive)? And how about a few 10Gb ethernet ports, for Network Attached RAM, shared memory among distributed apps? Sure, the latency and coherence are problems for parallelizing these serial buses, but with devices to work on, the SW to control and harness them could get underway.
There's enough cheap RAM now. How about some 400GB RAMdrives, or just 400GB RAM for preloading at OS boot every app you'll launch in a desktop session? How about launching separate fresh images in RAM as backup for apps with memory leaks, the OS switching among them to keep them fresh (and killing/relaunching to keep the pool fresh)? There are all kinds of RAM-limited scenarios that lots of RAM could solve. We can afford it now. Let's have it. The increased demand will keep the prices higher, but for a good reason instead of these inaccessible notebooks.
Why would notebook makers want to keep memory prices propped up, when those prices increase their costs, and the price of their notebooks they have to sell?
The much more obvious reason is that Vista needs more RAM, as does XP and everything else that inevitably bloats (including Linux).
And even though 32b Vista can't use all the 4GB of RAM, people will want it anyway, because they won't know/understand that the extra RAM isn't helping. And with all the other problems Vista has, the old solution to just throw more RAM at a buggy platform will still be popular.
Do you really think foreigners haven't been traveling to the US for the past 6 years because they're afraid their planes will get hijacked into planebombs?
It's not like the tourist infrastructure capacity was reduced after 2001 (except the WTC itself, which itself now probably accommodates more tourists than before as a gawking park).
Maybe no one is wondering, but that was a figure of speech. Tourism is down in no small part because traveling to the US now has all kinds of unwarranted indignities and hassles, some of which cost money (discarding fluids, etc). Other countries competing with us do not have those competitive disadvantages.
a law that forbids banks from handling money to and from online casinos. [...] If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?"
What does this WTO decision have to do with the Antigua case for immunity from US copyright laws? I don't see where Antigua's copyright case is affected by this ruling.
However, since the US is reacting to losing the gambling case by revising the US rules for compliance with the WTO rules governing gambling, to get out of being governed by them, it does seem possible that the gambling victory is Pyhrric, because it moved the US to gut the rules that underlay the copyright case's chances.
You voted for years for a Republican Party which was nothing but partisan. If you voted for Republicans on the basis of individual candidates, that's even more partisan, because they distinguished themselves with nothing but partisanship. Now that your party is out of the majority (but not out of power - it's the most partisan minority ever, doing nothing but disrupt the government), you're "not the biggest fan".
You are completely Republican. When I point out that "gun control" is completely offtopic to PM, you defend it with "it's a free country", as if I'm against free press, a strawman of the worst kind, when I'm just criticizing PM for printing something they're of course free to do, but did wrong. You feel free to invent the most baseless speculations, but when I point out what your partisan Party (backed by your own partisanship) has done, directly contradicting what it said to get its power, you can't understand how those points are related. Hell, you can't even understand how the flying cars example demonstrates that there are plenty of ontopic issues PM could have reported well before inserting the offtopic gun control. But that's another favorite Republican "debate" posture: act like you can't understand simple logic and connections, call pointers to simple manipulation "conspiracy theory" when no conspiracy was mentioned, anything to eliminate logic from the basis of value of a debate, instead just making repetitive noises like some kind of drone.
I didn't say anything about any party except perfectly relevant and documented criticism of the Republican Party. That doesn't make me a partisan. It shows just how deeply you are embedded in partisanship, like a fish who doesn't know it's in "water". (Now you'll complain that fish have nothing to do with this debate.)
You are hurting the country. Atop the unprecedented damage your Party has done to the country, most especially when it got unopposable power, you heap the insults of calling people criticizing you the very names that most describe you. It's an entirely and exclusively political personality you've got. The kind that is a creature of the "anything for power / nothing in return" culture that was the Republican Era.
And you didn't even stop gun control with it. But it's still alive in the country enough to offer both an audience for its manipulations even in random publications like PM, and the hope in corporations like the one publishing PM that it will pay off again, soon.
I just hope that refusing to forget the merciless partisanship that got us so screwed up, so we can resist its continuing reach from the minority, will keep us safer from it that when it last wrenched power for over a decade of waste and bloody misrule.
You're just the kind of Republican who wants to be a "libertarian" because you don't want the government stopping you from shooting people.
The fact is that you've remained a Republican while your Party has attacked and betrayed everything it ever said it stood for. Paul is just the latest beard. You conveniently ignore that Paul's "limited government" wouldn't limit how religion has a grip on it, but then that's the Republican Party all over for the past quarter century. And you conveniently ignore that just those few important, unambiguous policies I cited show that Paul is completely out of his mind.
But that kind of demented candidate didn't stop you from voting for Bush/Cheney twice, while they had the entire Republican Party and all the branches of government under their lockstep control for almost decade, with several wars for absolute dictatorial power rooted some places, from which they could import it back home.
I'm not "very, very upset" over the PM troll "gun control" category that - again - has nothing to do with Science/Tech policy, though many other PM subjects that were left out (like eg. "flying cars - should the skies be filled with them?") certainly are. I am pretty "upset" with what you Republicans have turned the US into. With your purely theoretical "limited government" antics that explode the government as a corporate welfare machine to "starve the beast" by denying to actual government the misspent money, while convincing Americans that "government cannot work" just by governing extremely badly. Oh, and that Republican paradise over in Iraq (even eclipsing the Republican paradise you paid for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay to set up in Saipan, with the sex/labor slavery and Chinese gangsters implanted inside the US' commercial borders).
I think you're putting your money where your brain is. Though I'm not going to spend any more effort talking you out of spending money on Paul instead of on a Republican candidate who might trick enough Americans into winning again. Enjoy your flight!
Geek the Vote Methodology Popular Mechanics compiled these links to make it easier to compare leading presidential candidates on several issues of interest to our readers, primarily in areas of science and technology.
[...]
Here was the methodology: We thoroughly reviewed the campaign Web sites of leading candidates from each party for position papers and press releases that spelled out policy proposals. (This involved judgment calls; campaigns don't all group their proposals using the same language. In particular, automotive, environmental and energy policies tend to cross category boundaries.)
"Gun control" is as relevant to PM's readers as is, say, baseball, (because PM's readers are mostly men), but they didn't even ask about steroids, though that's actually a "science and technology" issue. It's not at all relevant.
But Republicans like you would never admit something like that, because it serves your privileged place in the corporate media.
I never said any of "my" issues, or any other, that I'd like them to talk about. I never said that "Slashdot's issues" should be analyzed. I just took them at their word that they were asking about "science and technology policies", and saw immediately they'd stuck in their irrelevant issue. How many strawman arguments will you try before you deal with the blatantly simple problem with their selection? I don't really want to know.
I've learned more about you already than I can suffer this quickly. Goodbye.
_Popular Mechanics routinely reports on the state of the flying cars dream. Flying cars are "science & tech", a relevant, if marginal, subject for _Popular Mechanics_ to report to its readers on.
"Gun control" has nothing to do with _Popular Mechanics'_ subject matter. That's not a nonsequitur.
And this is the exact kind of blind spot that Republicans who are now so deeply in denial that they'll insist "no, I'm really a libertarian" will immediately run to. So I called them out. That's what politics is like: people often display their bad judgement and its baggage with a brand name attached.
So you donated to Ron Paul. That makes you a sucker:
Ron Paul is Nuts... "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
[...]
Ron Paul is Still Nuts * Ron Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN or at least from UNESCO. * Ron Paul has authored legislation saying that life begins at conception, to prevent federal money from being spent on family planning (that would include contraception), and has tried to amend the Constitution to "guarantee the right to life." * Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Occupational Health and Safety Act, to abolish the minimum wage, and to eviscerate Social Security. * Ron Paul wants guns in schools. * Ron Paul has tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act to guarantee employees of federal contractors the prevailing wage and wants to make it easier to decertify a union. * Ron Paul wants to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. * Ron Paul wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and prepare for a return to the Gold Standard, which would destroy the economy.
And you just paid to make all that happen. You're "pro-choice", but you just paid for life to begin at conception. And to destroy the separation between church & state. You're paying to prove me right. What else should I expect from someone who can't tell a sequitur from a strawman?
Just don't do it in a way that's as sensible as your turning my saying "'gun control' isn't relevant to science / tech policy" into "guns aren't mechanical". Try some way that doesn't demonstrate that your political blurtings are purely theoretical, without meaning, ungrounded in reality.
Otherwise, my well-based inferences outgun your mystical speculations. Certainly no useful lesson about propaganda, except perhaps as a specimen of its effect, will come from what you're offering in this thread.
No, your speculation is baseless, so it stands only in your mind. Unless you want to agree that it's all an alien plot to disarm us, which is also baseless.
The only meaningful reason for "gun control" to be a topic is if guns are science or tech for the purpose of policy. Except the specious argument that anything manufactured or moving is "mechanics", there is no reason.
You don't need to be an "expert" on gun policy debates to know that calling it "gun control" frames it to scare gun fetishists. Just some familiarity with propaganda, gun fetishists, and actual efforts to control guns. Growing up and living in NYC, I've got enough to count.
So what have you got? Reassurances that your baseless speculation justifies including an irrelevant, but politically charged, issue in the article, and baseless declarations that regular people can't understand what's going on here. To rationalize inserting gun politics into an unrelated population segment.
I know how you're voting. You're voting "libertarian". Predictable for people who decide on immaterial possibilities rather than realities.
"Right wing conspiracy"? No, I'm looking right at a coincidence theorist. You don't even know whether PM has regular gun content, but you're speculating about how guns are "science" over there, when there's no evidence that it is.
But if you want to understand how gun fetishists work their propaganda, just remember that this presidential election is defined by them (as always) as "the Democrats who will take away your guns" vs "the Republicans who won't". The fetishists live on fear, so of course they put the scare words "gun control" as the frame. That's their version of "get out the vote", regardless of whether people even click on the candidates and their policies. Once it's "gun control", the group from which they'll vote is decided for them, and then the Republican Party delivers the specific candidate they'll vote for. That's how authoritarianism works, and why Republicans look so "organized". Like the infantry.
What kind of jibberjabber is that? The question is "what kind of science is "gun control""? Not some strawman about a Rove conspiracy - he's busy with the real ones.
You faithy Republicans really can't tell science from propaganda anymore.
The Uber Special Olympics: we should clone the medalists in each event in the normal Olympics, and make them compete against each other with whatever drugs/enhancements/cheating they can muster. Just like "stock car racing".
Finally those medals will mean something more than just aftershave commercials contracts.
Goddamn it. The entire point of buying a Dell rather than building it myself is to pay for their support, especially when specifying the machine features.
Well, at least my cousin still believes that's true, so she won't be calling me for help, even if Dell jerks her around some more.
No, these athletes may be fast and strong, but they're not that smart. We don't need Big Brother stopping every athlete from doing drugs, or anything else unscheduled. What we need is an Extra Special Olympics, with mandatory drug tests to qualify for admission. To pass, the tests must come up positive.
Drugs, hormones, electroshock, implants/transplants/bionics. Death row inmates offered freedom for victory, so long as they've got artificial enhancements.
That league will have the highest scores, the most exciting competitions, the most blood and ripped off limbs left on the playing fields. And so the most viewers, and therefore the most advertising revenue.
All the athletes willing at all to take drugs (or maybe just cheat) will be drawn off into the Extra Special Olympics.
And the straight ones, who are in a different game entirely - measuring the raw power of homo sapiens talent pushed by the will to win into training within a hair of their lives - will have the traditional leagues all to themselves. It will be totally fair. And a lot more entertaining.
Auto Digital/Tech Energy/Climate Environment Gun Control Infrastructure Science/Education Space
"Gun Control"? Which Republican picked those categories? What does gun control have to do with science policy? Does _Popular Mechanics_ have a firearms classifieds section or something?
I tried to buy my cousin an Ubuntu Dell PC last week. The only desktop model with Linux preinstalled that they "sell" is the Inspiron Desktop 530N, with no support ("No OS" model, but you can choose them to preinstall either Ubuntu or FreeDOS) - though you can buy support from Canonical, like anyone else, for $275:year.
I tried to buy it. First I found that the $500 price depended on an "instant rebate". Sure, buying the Ubuntu version offered a rebate of $100, but the otherwise identical Windows version rebated $150. And the Windows version included Dell OS support. I would be nearly crazy to buy the Ubuntu version instead of the Windows version, when Windows would give me an additional 10% off, I could download and burn an Ubuntu installer for $free, install dual-boot in 30 minutes, and have both - plus Windows support.
Then I tried to actually do that. And found that though that page is up, there are all kinds of order numbers attached (with even a few slightly variant models offering either Ubuntu or Windows preinstalled), "that offer is no longer available". In fact there are versions of that PC HW sold for as little as $369 starting (minus the monitor), but that HW starts at something like $800, against which Dell starts discounting. But none of them are Ubuntu preinstalled. And though the phone guy was friendly, sympathetic, experienced and working to help solve my problems, he hadn't even heard there was an Ubuntu version, and it turned out there wasn't.
So Dell doesn't really "sell" Linux desktops. But when they pretend to, it's a way to sell more Windows desktops, even to people who want Ubuntu instead.
Fire itself doesn't locally reduce entropy - it increases entropy. Not alive. Though it looks like it's increasing order internally, along the luminous gas flows, so it's sometimes treated as a living thing. Especially by people even more impressed by its invisible action.
"Life" is a system that transduces energy to maintain local entropy reductions that perpetuate its operation: homeostasis. Recognizable life replicates itself, or is replicated, from identical or nearly identical instances: reproduction.
FWIW, "intelligence" is an information model of the physical world at least minimally accurate and at least minimally inclusive (perhaps solely at initialization) of new information that it adds to itself, and that includes representation of itself in its model.
Slashdot Mirror
How many times since you've installed it (when was that?) has a Flash applet failed to work at all, or been obviously buggy?
The specs
suggest that it's really s modules of 128GB of DDR each, connected by 8x4Gbps or 4x4xInfiniband. The i-RAM can take 4GB on 1.5Gbps SATA for about $125 each, so about $2500 would give approximately that module performance (including multi SATA PCI-ecards). A 6Gbps SATA version and a larger bank (maybe 8x8GB-DDR2) version could compete for probably under $10K.
I also think that one very big factor is how many people used to come visit here just to see a people who were widely respected and admired for our attitude. Now, with the Iraq War, the Terror War as a whole, all the rhetoric about "immigrants" (legal or otherwise), and our many other irresponsible treatments of the rest of the world (unsupportable debt, arrogance...), the Statue of Liberty isn't as compelling a vacation any more. And of course that's reflected in business travel, both because those trips are often excuses for vacations, and because our foreign competition for that is rising as we're falling.
Since RAM is so cheap, why aren't there more "external RAM" systems like Gigabyte's I-RAM? That seems to be the only product offering RAM structured as a drive.
And it's got limitations. What about more products, that draw power from USB instead of PCI (that's all the I-RAM uses the PCI for anyway)? Maybe a 6Gbps SATA connection, to compete with PC-2700 RAM's 21Gbps access rate. If the memory manager could access several PCI-e SATA cards, how about 8 SATA connections to a single bank of RAM, for 24-48Gbps rates, usable as actual RAM (not a RAM drive)? And how about a few 10Gb ethernet ports, for Network Attached RAM, shared memory among distributed apps? Sure, the latency and coherence are problems for parallelizing these serial buses, but with devices to work on, the SW to control and harness them could get underway.
There's enough cheap RAM now. How about some 400GB RAMdrives, or just 400GB RAM for preloading at OS boot every app you'll launch in a desktop session? How about launching separate fresh images in RAM as backup for apps with memory leaks, the OS switching among them to keep them fresh (and killing/relaunching to keep the pool fresh)? There are all kinds of RAM-limited scenarios that lots of RAM could solve. We can afford it now. Let's have it. The increased demand will keep the prices higher, but for a good reason instead of these inaccessible notebooks.
Why would notebook makers want to keep memory prices propped up, when those prices increase their costs, and the price of their notebooks they have to sell?
The much more obvious reason is that Vista needs more RAM, as does XP and everything else that inevitably bloats (including Linux).
And even though 32b Vista can't use all the 4GB of RAM, people will want it anyway, because they won't know/understand that the extra RAM isn't helping. And with all the other problems Vista has, the old solution to just throw more RAM at a buggy platform will still be popular.
Do you really think foreigners haven't been traveling to the US for the past 6 years because they're afraid their planes will get hijacked into planebombs?
It's not like the tourist infrastructure capacity was reduced after 2001 (except the WTC itself, which itself now probably accommodates more tourists than before as a gawking park).
Maybe no one is wondering, but that was a figure of speech. Tourism is down in no small part because traveling to the US now has all kinds of unwarranted indignities and hassles, some of which cost money (discarding fluids, etc). Other countries competing with us do not have those competitive disadvantages.
What does this WTO decision have to do with the Antigua case for immunity from US copyright laws? I don't see where Antigua's copyright case is affected by this ruling.
However, since the US is reacting to losing the gambling case by revising the US rules for compliance with the WTO rules governing gambling, to get out of being governed by them, it does seem possible that the gambling victory is Pyhrric, because it moved the US to gut the rules that underlay the copyright case's chances.
You voted for years for a Republican Party which was nothing but partisan. If you voted for Republicans on the basis of individual candidates, that's even more partisan, because they distinguished themselves with nothing but partisanship. Now that your party is out of the majority (but not out of power - it's the most partisan minority ever, doing nothing but disrupt the government), you're "not the biggest fan".
You are completely Republican. When I point out that "gun control" is completely offtopic to PM, you defend it with "it's a free country", as if I'm against free press, a strawman of the worst kind, when I'm just criticizing PM for printing something they're of course free to do, but did wrong. You feel free to invent the most baseless speculations, but when I point out what your partisan Party (backed by your own partisanship) has done, directly contradicting what it said to get its power, you can't understand how those points are related. Hell, you can't even understand how the flying cars example demonstrates that there are plenty of ontopic issues PM could have reported well before inserting the offtopic gun control. But that's another favorite Republican "debate" posture: act like you can't understand simple logic and connections, call pointers to simple manipulation "conspiracy theory" when no conspiracy was mentioned, anything to eliminate logic from the basis of value of a debate, instead just making repetitive noises like some kind of drone.
I didn't say anything about any party except perfectly relevant and documented criticism of the Republican Party. That doesn't make me a partisan. It shows just how deeply you are embedded in partisanship, like a fish who doesn't know it's in "water". (Now you'll complain that fish have nothing to do with this debate.)
You are hurting the country. Atop the unprecedented damage your Party has done to the country, most especially when it got unopposable power, you heap the insults of calling people criticizing you the very names that most describe you. It's an entirely and exclusively political personality you've got. The kind that is a creature of the "anything for power / nothing in return" culture that was the Republican Era.
And you didn't even stop gun control with it. But it's still alive in the country enough to offer both an audience for its manipulations even in random publications like PM, and the hope in corporations like the one publishing PM that it will pay off again, soon.
I just hope that refusing to forget the merciless partisanship that got us so screwed up, so we can resist its continuing reach from the minority, will keep us safer from it that when it last wrenched power for over a decade of waste and bloody misrule.
You're just the kind of Republican who wants to be a "libertarian" because you don't want the government stopping you from shooting people.
The fact is that you've remained a Republican while your Party has attacked and betrayed everything it ever said it stood for. Paul is just the latest beard. You conveniently ignore that Paul's "limited government" wouldn't limit how religion has a grip on it, but then that's the Republican Party all over for the past quarter century. And you conveniently ignore that just those few important, unambiguous policies I cited show that Paul is completely out of his mind.
But that kind of demented candidate didn't stop you from voting for Bush/Cheney twice, while they had the entire Republican Party and all the branches of government under their lockstep control for almost decade, with several wars for absolute dictatorial power rooted some places, from which they could import it back home.
I'm not "very, very upset" over the PM troll "gun control" category that - again - has nothing to do with Science/Tech policy, though many other PM subjects that were left out (like eg. "flying cars - should the skies be filled with them?") certainly are. I am pretty "upset" with what you Republicans have turned the US into. With your purely theoretical "limited government" antics that explode the government as a corporate welfare machine to "starve the beast" by denying to actual government the misspent money, while convincing Americans that "government cannot work" just by governing extremely badly. Oh, and that Republican paradise over in Iraq (even eclipsing the Republican paradise you paid for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay to set up in Saipan, with the sex/labor slavery and Chinese gangsters implanted inside the US' commercial borders).
I think you're putting your money where your brain is. Though I'm not going to spend any more effort talking you out of spending money on Paul instead of on a Republican candidate who might trick enough Americans into winning again. Enjoy your flight!
"Gun control" is as relevant to PM's readers as is, say, baseball, (because PM's readers are mostly men), but they didn't even ask about steroids, though that's actually a "science and technology" issue. It's not at all relevant.
But Republicans like you would never admit something like that, because it serves your privileged place in the corporate media.
I never said any of "my" issues, or any other, that I'd like them to talk about. I never said that "Slashdot's issues" should be analyzed. I just took them at their word that they were asking about "science and technology policies", and saw immediately they'd stuck in their irrelevant issue. How many strawman arguments will you try before you deal with the blatantly simple problem with their selection? I don't really want to know.
I've learned more about you already than I can suffer this quickly. Goodbye.
"Gun control" has nothing to do with _Popular Mechanics'_ subject matter. That's not a nonsequitur.
And this is the exact kind of blind spot that Republicans who are now so deeply in denial that they'll insist "no, I'm really a libertarian" will immediately run to. So I called them out. That's what politics is like: people often display their bad judgement and its baggage with a brand name attached.
So you donated to Ron Paul. That makes you a sucker:
And you just paid to make all that happen. You're "pro-choice", but you just paid for life to begin at conception. And to destroy the separation between church & state. You're paying to prove me right. What else should I expect from someone who can't tell a sequitur from a strawman?
OK, tell me you're not a "libertarian".
Just don't do it in a way that's as sensible as your turning my saying "'gun control' isn't relevant to science / tech policy" into "guns aren't mechanical". Try some way that doesn't demonstrate that your political blurtings are purely theoretical, without meaning, ungrounded in reality.
Otherwise, my well-based inferences outgun your mystical speculations. Certainly no useful lesson about propaganda, except perhaps as a specimen of its effect, will come from what you're offering in this thread.
No, your speculation is baseless, so it stands only in your mind. Unless you want to agree that it's all an alien plot to disarm us, which is also baseless.
The only meaningful reason for "gun control" to be a topic is if guns are science or tech for the purpose of policy. Except the specious argument that anything manufactured or moving is "mechanics", there is no reason.
You don't need to be an "expert" on gun policy debates to know that calling it "gun control" frames it to scare gun fetishists. Just some familiarity with propaganda, gun fetishists, and actual efforts to control guns. Growing up and living in NYC, I've got enough to count.
So what have you got? Reassurances that your baseless speculation justifies including an irrelevant, but politically charged, issue in the article, and baseless declarations that regular people can't understand what's going on here. To rationalize inserting gun politics into an unrelated population segment.
I know how you're voting. You're voting "libertarian". Predictable for people who decide on immaterial possibilities rather than realities.
OK, then where's the "Flying Cars" column?
"Gun control" is not science. You're just contriving an argument because you're a Republican. Now tell me that you're really a "Libertarian".
"Right wing conspiracy"? No, I'm looking right at a coincidence theorist. You don't even know whether PM has regular gun content, but you're speculating about how guns are "science" over there, when there's no evidence that it is.
But if you want to understand how gun fetishists work their propaganda, just remember that this presidential election is defined by them (as always) as "the Democrats who will take away your guns" vs "the Republicans who won't". The fetishists live on fear, so of course they put the scare words "gun control" as the frame. That's their version of "get out the vote", regardless of whether people even click on the candidates and their policies. Once it's "gun control", the group from which they'll vote is decided for them, and then the Republican Party delivers the specific candidate they'll vote for. That's how authoritarianism works, and why Republicans look so "organized". Like the infantry.
What kind of jibberjabber is that? The question is "what kind of science is "gun control""? Not some strawman about a Rove conspiracy - he's busy with the real ones.
You faithy Republicans really can't tell science from propaganda anymore.
The Uber Special Olympics: we should clone the medalists in each event in the normal Olympics, and make them compete against each other with whatever drugs/enhancements/cheating they can muster. Just like "stock car racing".
Finally those medals will mean something more than just aftershave commercials contracts.
Goddamn it. The entire point of buying a Dell rather than building it myself is to pay for their support, especially when specifying the machine features.
Well, at least my cousin still believes that's true, so she won't be calling me for help, even if Dell jerks her around some more.
No, these athletes may be fast and strong, but they're not that smart. We don't need Big Brother stopping every athlete from doing drugs, or anything else unscheduled. What we need is an Extra Special Olympics, with mandatory drug tests to qualify for admission. To pass, the tests must come up positive.
Drugs, hormones, electroshock, implants/transplants/bionics. Death row inmates offered freedom for victory, so long as they've got artificial enhancements.
That league will have the highest scores, the most exciting competitions, the most blood and ripped off limbs left on the playing fields. And so the most viewers, and therefore the most advertising revenue.
All the athletes willing at all to take drugs (or maybe just cheat) will be drawn off into the Extra Special Olympics.
And the straight ones, who are in a different game entirely - measuring the raw power of homo sapiens talent pushed by the will to win into training within a hair of their lives - will have the traditional leagues all to themselves. It will be totally fair. And a lot more entertaining.
Let the games begin!
Too late. The "Romney" model already has a Secret Service detail.
It's written in the stars...
Maybe "slippery when wet"?
"Gun Control"? Which Republican picked those categories? What does gun control have to do with science policy? Does _Popular Mechanics_ have a firearms classifieds section or something?
I tried to buy my cousin an Ubuntu Dell PC last week. The only desktop model with Linux preinstalled that they "sell" is the Inspiron Desktop 530N, with no support ("No OS" model, but you can choose them to preinstall either Ubuntu or FreeDOS) - though you can buy support from Canonical, like anyone else, for $275:year.
I tried to buy it. First I found that the $500 price depended on an "instant rebate". Sure, buying the Ubuntu version offered a rebate of $100, but the otherwise identical Windows version rebated $150 . And the Windows version included Dell OS support. I would be nearly crazy to buy the Ubuntu version instead of the Windows version, when Windows would give me an additional 10% off, I could download and burn an Ubuntu installer for $free, install dual-boot in 30 minutes, and have both - plus Windows support.
Then I tried to actually do that. And found that though that page is up, there are all kinds of order numbers attached (with even a few slightly variant models offering either Ubuntu or Windows preinstalled), "that offer is no longer available". In fact there are versions of that PC HW sold for as little as $369 starting (minus the monitor), but that HW starts at something like $800, against which Dell starts discounting. But none of them are Ubuntu preinstalled. And though the phone guy was friendly, sympathetic, experienced and working to help solve my problems, he hadn't even heard there was an Ubuntu version, and it turned out there wasn't.
So Dell doesn't really "sell" Linux desktops. But when they pretend to, it's a way to sell more Windows desktops, even to people who want Ubuntu instead.
Fire itself doesn't locally reduce entropy - it increases entropy. Not alive. Though it looks like it's increasing order internally, along the luminous gas flows, so it's sometimes treated as a living thing. Especially by people even more impressed by its invisible action.
"Life" is a system that transduces energy to maintain local entropy reductions that perpetuate its operation: homeostasis. Recognizable life replicates itself, or is replicated, from identical or nearly identical instances: reproduction.
FWIW, "intelligence" is an information model of the physical world at least minimally accurate and at least minimally inclusive (perhaps solely at initialization) of new information that it adds to itself, and that includes representation of itself in its model.