Ebola is a bacteria. But AFAIK that's the basic idea, merge genes of different viruses to create better forms of smallpox. That's what the samples are for to be able to create vaccines.
I agree that GP's point is silly. Btt we probably would need smallpox and and smallpox research to construct a vaccine against a weaponized smallpox. I remember after 9/11 how scared everyone was about weaponized anthrax, but at least we understood most everything about how anthrax operates.
Of course we should be reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. I fully support large investments in green technology. That's different than a 0 harm policy enforced imprisonment.
I agree with you. But that's the sort of balanced measure where we do a cost benefit analysis and see a decent improvement to the environment without having to inflict great harm (and arguably a benefit) on humans. Very different than the rhetoric of our needs don't matter.
Of course it wouldn't. But not "harming" the oceans or land i.e. not utilizing resources would be an extinction level event. All animals, humans included need to pull resources from those sources to live.
America's energy consumption per day per capita is over 3 barrels of oil. That's about 3.3b calories worth of energy per dy. What difference to that consumption does adding or subtracting human manual effort make?
There is no reason we need to cost future generations. There are reasons we need to manage the land and water on this planet in a way advantageous to humanity to maintain our population and anything remotely approaching our standard of living.
10^5.5 = 316,227 So I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. I'm not sure what the falloff is in air pressure as you increase the size of an explosive. I'd expect a square root function (?) if someone knows they can solve that part.
210 dB 2.0 earthquake (sound force is the equivalent of holding a stick of dynamite). 235 dB 5.0 earthquake 248 dB atom bomb 310 dB loudest volcano that we know of (happened in 1883)
Some systems operate at more than 235 decibels, producing sound waves that can travel across tens or even hundreds of miles of ocean
BS. 235 decibels is louder than almost all volcanos. That's essentially a 31megaton explosion. The navy has tested ship based sonar of that power but only experimentally. No submarine has every carried anything remotely like that. Sonar in use on subs maxes out at around 180 dB, which is still about the equivalent of a 1lb explosion but nowhere near 235.
You are the reason environmentalism gets discredited. Of course our needs are a consideration. The oceans must exist for future generations to do what for them? Fulfill their needs. The first imperative of every species is survival, that is nature. We can talk about balance or relative cost, but there is no way that humans are going to agree to extinct themselves.
As a guy with two masters in math who knows 15 languages... I also disagree. There are some languages that are mathematical (like Haskell) but most programming has more in common with cooking (sequencing the application of resources) than math.
1) State organized hate campaigns designed to encourage private discrimination. This lead to multiple incidents of bomb threats, broken windows and violent harassment at events.
2) Attempts to apply anti drug-addict rules to Scientologists i.e. not consider them of sound mind and thus denied many of the normative protections under law.
3) Work with state sponsored employment unions to work to deny Scientologists employment 3') Often making them ineligible for government jobs.
4) Incidents of refusing to educate the children of Scientologists in public schools for fear of them spread Scientology to other students.
5) Denial of commercial permits that would normally be granted because of associations with Scientology etc..
It at least isn't obvious that Scientology is definitely a religion.
Scientology promotes the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power through rituals of faith and worship. How is that not a religion?
Ownership has legal authority under international treaty. The Irish government recognizes that. MIOL is responsible under law to do what Round Island tells them to do. Now of course they can't be ordered to do something illegal. Which is slightly different.
MIOL exists as part of a global system. They do not run their own services. They aren't a fully independent entity in their operations structures and the services they do offer are run by the USA entity. Your side keeps ignoring this and pretending that MIOL is more than a shadow company. The setup on Azure services is a question of fact not a question of law. And a fact you keep ignoring. Today: July 17, 2014, MIOL is selling services in Europe structurally incapable of fulfilling European privacy laws. The reasons for those structural deficiencies are fully public to the extent they are part of the very agreements their customers sign. They are shown clearly on the website. Yet Azure in Europe is operating freely. So evidently the European privacy laws aren't as aggressive as you believe them them to be.
Because of ownership were MIOL to take steps to enforce European privacy laws they would institutionally fail because the employees involved would be fired. MIOL doesn't have to fulfill USA law directly. But they can't prevent the law from being obeyed. They just participate in a global system and allow others to fulfill the law.
Moreover, there can't be a divestment for MIOL, If Europe were to force the issue MIOL simply shuts down and Europeans don't have access to the global system, same as people in North Korea or Iran. Which won't happen because Europe participates in the global internet. In the same way the United States government can't fully regulate Airbus, even though Airbus does some business in America; Europeans cannot fully regulate Azure. They can choose to allow the service to exist or not. They can shutdown MIOL but all that's going to do is force higher latencies and higher network costs for European companies using products deployed on Azure.
Yes, that's true. Given the alternatives people do freely choose Fox News. I'm ok with that. The cost of freedom is the freedom to say things I don't like, and that includes Fox News.
No. When I grew up we used to have something very much like the BBC, PBS. They pay for the BBC which is why it exists. If we paid for PBS we would have an excellent system. I'm happy to defend our freedoms, but their spending priorities are far better.
That's one of the huge advantages of Apple's model. Applications can't demand access to too much or they don't get pass the app store. They have to work well with privacy setting or they don't pass....
Edward Snowden is so lucky to live in such a country!
Edward Snowden is not in trouble for his political opinions. Lots of people share his opinions and write about them freely. Snowden is in trouble for leaking intelligence information to foreign governments. I don't agree with Snowden but that has nothing to do with censorship of opinion.
I thought the French court specifically argued that the information was knowingly false,
The court argued that "the place to avoid" (the title) was too prominent. That's not knowingly false that's just the judge disagreeing with her assessment. Something that in America they would be prohibited from doing.
this was a court of first instance, so there's no reason to assume the thing is settled.
Don't care. The case never should have been heard at all. The court shouldn't care whether a review is or is not damaging to a business. And the court shouldn't be ruling on what opinions of the author's aren't fair enough. The specifics of what opinions the state does or does not allow its people to hold aren't relevant to whether France has free speech. That's just a question of what state approved speech is permitted.
Have you read the original court proceedings? Because I haven't, so I don't feel qualified to state anything regarding how that matter was handled.
I don't need to read the proceedings. The ruling itself is prima facie evidence. The judge disagreed with an opinion so he fined the author.
You also originally mentioned calumny but then silently dropped it when I pointed out that this wasn't the case.
That was the crime they were charged with. I'm not dropping it at all. That crime shouldn't exist. The existence of that crime implies that people do not have have freedom to express their disagreements with government officials.
how do we decide if it was or wasn't anything of the kind?
Because in America which has free speech such crimes don't exist. It doesn't matter whether the Italian police did or did not strike Amanda on the back of the head. Amanda Knox made a sworn in court statement that she was struck on the back of the head under oath. Thus anyone not present has reason to believe the it occurred and hence in countries that do have free speech slander or libel would be impossible. Period. There is no complex issue here. Your definition of free speech is no different than when Iranian government considers free speech, or what the Nazis considered free speech. Germans under Nazism were always free to come up with interesting ways to praise Hitler. What they weren't free to do was to disagree with his policy or mention the bad stuff he was doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Then we need a better vaccine.
OK I stand corrected. Thank you.
Ebola is a bacteria. But AFAIK that's the basic idea, merge genes of different viruses to create better forms of smallpox. That's what the samples are for to be able to create vaccines.
I'm saying use it for vaccines against weapons not MAD.
I agree that GP's point is silly. Btt we probably would need smallpox and and smallpox research to construct a vaccine against a weaponized smallpox. I remember after 9/11 how scared everyone was about weaponized anthrax, but at least we understood most everything about how anthrax operates.
Good point about the 61.5. Absolutely changes things if there are different scales.
That's why I used an exponent.
Of course we should be reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. I fully support large investments in green technology. That's different than a 0 harm policy enforced imprisonment.
I agree with you. But that's the sort of balanced measure where we do a cost benefit analysis and see a decent improvement to the environment without having to inflict great harm (and arguably a benefit) on humans. Very different than the rhetoric of our needs don't matter.
Of course it wouldn't. But not "harming" the oceans or land i.e. not utilizing resources would be an extinction level event. All animals, humans included need to pull resources from those sources to live.
America's energy consumption per day per capita is over 3 barrels of oil. That's about 3.3b calories worth of energy per dy. What difference to that consumption does adding or subtracting human manual effort make?
All over the web. Those particular data: http://www.decibelcar.com/menu...
There is no reason we need to cost future generations. There are reasons we need to manage the land and water on this planet in a way advantageous to humanity to maintain our population and anything remotely approaching our standard of living.
Or howabout you attempt to make a realistic estimate rather than either 0 or infinity?
10^5.5 = 316,227
So I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. I'm not sure what the falloff is in air pressure as you increase the size of an explosive. I'd expect a square root function (?) if someone knows they can solve that part.
210 dB 2.0 earthquake (sound force is the equivalent of holding a stick of dynamite).
235 dB 5.0 earthquake
248 dB atom bomb
310 dB loudest volcano that we know of (happened in 1883)
The article is full of crap:
BS. 235 decibels is louder than almost all volcanos. That's essentially a 31megaton explosion. The navy has tested ship based sonar of that power but only experimentally. No submarine has every carried anything remotely like that. Sonar in use on subs maxes out at around 180 dB, which is still about the equivalent of a 1lb explosion but nowhere near 235.
You are the reason environmentalism gets discredited. Of course our needs are a consideration. The oceans must exist for future generations to do what for them? Fulfill their needs. The first imperative of every species is survival, that is nature. We can talk about balance or relative cost, but there is no way that humans are going to agree to extinct themselves.
As a guy with two masters in math who knows 15 languages... I also disagree. There are some languages that are mathematical (like Haskell) but most programming has more in common with cooking (sequencing the application of resources) than math.
1) State organized hate campaigns designed to encourage private discrimination. This lead to multiple incidents of bomb threats, broken windows and violent harassment at events.
2) Attempts to apply anti drug-addict rules to Scientologists i.e. not consider them of sound mind and thus denied many of the normative protections under law.
3) Work with state sponsored employment unions to work to deny Scientologists employment
3') Often making them ineligible for government jobs.
4) Incidents of refusing to educate the children of Scientologists in public schools for fear of them spread Scientology to other students.
5) Denial of commercial permits that would normally be granted because of associations with Scientology
etc..
Scientology promotes the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power through rituals of faith and worship. How is that not a religion?
Ownership has legal authority under international treaty. The Irish government recognizes that. MIOL is responsible under law to do what Round Island tells them to do. Now of course they can't be ordered to do something illegal. Which is slightly different.
MIOL exists as part of a global system. They do not run their own services. They aren't a fully independent entity in their operations structures and the services they do offer are run by the USA entity. Your side keeps ignoring this and pretending that MIOL is more than a shadow company. The setup on Azure services is a question of fact not a question of law. And a fact you keep ignoring. Today: July 17, 2014, MIOL is selling services in Europe structurally incapable of fulfilling European privacy laws. The reasons for those structural deficiencies are fully public to the extent they are part of the very agreements their customers sign. They are shown clearly on the website. Yet Azure in Europe is operating freely. So evidently the European privacy laws aren't as aggressive as you believe them them to be.
Because of ownership were MIOL to take steps to enforce European privacy laws they would institutionally fail because the employees involved would be fired. MIOL doesn't have to fulfill USA law directly. But they can't prevent the law from being obeyed. They just participate in a global system and allow others to fulfill the law.
Moreover, there can't be a divestment for MIOL, If Europe were to force the issue MIOL simply shuts down and Europeans don't have access to the global system, same as people in North Korea or Iran. Which won't happen because Europe participates in the global internet. In the same way the United States government can't fully regulate Airbus, even though Airbus does some business in America; Europeans cannot fully regulate Azure. They can choose to allow the service to exist or not. They can shutdown MIOL but all that's going to do is force higher latencies and higher network costs for European companies using products deployed on Azure.
Yes, that's true. Given the alternatives people do freely choose Fox News. I'm ok with that. The cost of freedom is the freedom to say things I don't like, and that includes Fox News.
No. When I grew up we used to have something very much like the BBC, PBS. They pay for the BBC which is why it exists. If we paid for PBS we would have an excellent system. I'm happy to defend our freedoms, but their spending priorities are far better.
That's one of the huge advantages of Apple's model. Applications can't demand access to too much or they don't get pass the app store. They have to work well with privacy setting or they don't pass....
Edward Snowden is not in trouble for his political opinions. Lots of people share his opinions and write about them freely. Snowden is in trouble for leaking intelligence information to foreign governments. I don't agree with Snowden but that has nothing to do with censorship of opinion.
The court argued that "the place to avoid" (the title) was too prominent. That's not knowingly false that's just the judge disagreeing with her assessment. Something that in America they would be prohibited from doing.
Don't care. The case never should have been heard at all. The court shouldn't care whether a review is or is not damaging to a business. And the court shouldn't be ruling on what opinions of the author's aren't fair enough. The specifics of what opinions the state does or does not allow its people to hold aren't relevant to whether France has free speech. That's just a question of what state approved speech is permitted.
I don't need to read the proceedings. The ruling itself is prima facie evidence. The judge disagreed with an opinion so he fined the author.
That was the crime they were charged with. I'm not dropping it at all. That crime shouldn't exist. The existence of that crime implies that people do not have have freedom to express their disagreements with government officials.
Because in America which has free speech such crimes don't exist. It doesn't matter whether the Italian police did or did not strike Amanda on the back of the head. Amanda Knox made a sworn in court statement that she was struck on the back of the head under oath. Thus anyone not present has reason to believe the it occurred and hence in countries that do have free speech slander or libel would be impossible. Period. There is no complex issue here. Your definition of free speech is no different than when Iranian government considers free speech, or what the Nazis considered free speech. Germans under Nazism were always free to come up with interesting ways to praise Hitler. What they weren't free to do was to disagree with his policy or mention the bad stuff he was doing.