My buddy is a commercial real estate agent in the Palo Alto/Menlo Park/Sunnyvale (so, Silicon Valley) area, and let me tell you, there's ALOT more than 6 million square feet of office space available to rent. The number may sound impressive, but it's nothing compared to what they have in Northern California alone. I mean, the Oracle campus in Redwood City is over 4 million square feet all by itself.
Of course, it's not about the space, but what you do with it...
Writing is simply a means to communicate with others. If the reader understands what the writer was attempting to convey, then the text has completely fulfilled its purpose.
Languages, especially English, are constantly evolving. Sure, you can put up resistance to the changes... but is that fight really worth wasting your time on? I assume you can see the parallels in technology, so I won't bother to point them out.
Personally, I'm a phd student in Germany working with a Russian, Lithuanian, Turk, Scot, Frenchman, and of course Germans. We speak a bastardized version of English, but who really cares? We manage to communicate just fine! After all, English is really a creole. If you want to be a grammar Nazi, do it in a "static" language like French, which has a governing body which controls the evolution of the language (L'academie francaise).
I just don't see how people can possibly doubt that burning up millions of years of stored atmosphere in a couple centuries will produce a massive shock to the planet. Don't they realize that the vast majority of a plant's mass comes from the atmosphere? And that the vast majority of the planet's fossil fuels comes from dead plant matter that has accumulated over the eons?
So the planet spent millions of years storing all this atmosphere underground, and here we come in one fell swoop and burn it in a couple hundred. How could that NOT have a significant effect on the atmosphere?
IANAL, but I don't think this is illegal in the United States for salaried employees. Everyone I know who works for a salary exceeds a 40 hour week on a regular basis.
In France, its probably illegal, but afaik not in the US
There's enough fossil fuels left in the ground to power us for a good, long time (i.e. coal). Not to mention, we still have the ugly sister of fusion, fission, to help us out.
Your points about physics innovation stagnating are interesting, but I think you're forgetting two important events; the two World Wars. The massive achievements which applied the theoretical physics you spoke of were almost all a direct result of the wars.
We still have massive defense budgets today, but I would argue that the best and brightest minds don't go into Defense research. So while defense research is still well funded, it doesn't pull in the intellectual capital it did in the forties and fifties. And as you say, funding does not equal progress.
What's my point? Well, clearly we need another big war... Unfortunately, I don't think the world can survive another round of progress-through-warfare. For as my buddy Albert said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
If credit ratings in the UK are anything like those in the US, they won't sue you for not paying.
They'll just report that you have an arrears balance, which will destroy your credit rating and prevent you from ever buying a house, getting a subsidized phone, buying a car using a loan, getting a credit card etc etc etc.
Force the enemy's hand
Um, really? I don't see what you're saying... Should we have our troops not try to protect themselves with technology? You seem to be implying it's better to blown up by v1.0 than later versions... And shaped charges weren't a result of "escalation" unless you think armor is "escalating" the war. What would you have our troops do? Walk around in tshirts and shorts?
Right, but is the act illegal? The brick and mortar examples only further my argument; I don't see why a store couldn't hire hundreds of people to swamp a rival's shop. Of course, the people hired would have to leave the competitor's store when asked to do so, but I don't see anything illegal in the initial act of putting employees in a rivals store.
Regardless, I'm not asking if denial of service attacks are malicious; clearly they are... their intent is to deny service. My question is whether or not they are, in fact, illegal, and in what jurisdictions. After all, there are plenty of business practices which directly harm a competitor, but are not illegal.
Are denial of service "attacks" even a crime? If I get a few thousand of my friends to drive down a road at a particular time to create a traffic jam, is that a crime?
Oh get over yourself. Movies have always been an excuse for visual effects. If all that mattered was plot, storylines would be the end-all of story-telling. That has never, nor will it ever, be the case. Humans have sensory input. We like to use them.
Unfortunately historical recounts often reflect far more about the author than the events in question.
In this case though, because the historian is in no way an author of the events, but merely a means through which they are transmitted, I feel that neglecting the contents of the message for ad hominem reasons says more about the reader than the author.
Why is it better for the US Government to pay a corporation to build spacecraft?
People always give the line that corporations are more efficient, but I don't really see why. Not only are they likely to shell out big bucks to their execs, but they also have to get enough money selling products/services to the government to make a profit. NASA doesn't have to make a profit, so they're providing the service to the government at cost.
Saying that private entities are cheaper for the government to use because private entities need to make a profit seems backwards to me. Yes, the Shuttle was a bloated, expensive undertaking... but last time I checked Lockheed Martin wasn't giving us any sweet deals on the F-22 or F-35.
The quest for profit may spur innovation I suppose, but I think that's a stretch. Science isn't really pushed forward by individuals looking to make money. It's just like the argument you hear about medicine; that high health care costs leads to better doctors. I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I like for my MDs to be motivated by the desire to help people.
For a similar reason, I'd want the builders of a spacecraft I was riding in to be in it for reasons other than profit... I don't want them cutting corners to increase margins when my life is on the line.
You don't need a different SIM. Those of us living in Europe simply buy a new one because it's cheaper.
When I moved here from the USA, I had to wait a month before I could manage to jailbreak and unlock my AT&T iPhone. During that month, I used up 300 minutes and 200 text messages, with many of the minutes coming from random "blocked" calls I received on my phone that only lasted one minute, and many texts from text spam advertisers. The result? A 600 dollar phone bill.
The U.S. enters open conflicts, sure, but with the exception of the Iraq war I'd say that it was only in response to aggression, i.e. acting as the world's policeman.
Clandestine operations are another story of course, but Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and (arguably) Afghanistan were all wars that somebody else started.
That is an example of the naturalist fallacy. Defined as stating that "the way something is, is the way it ought to be/ the only way it could be".
My point wasn't that world peace can't be achieved; quite the opposite actually. I was saying that by acting as the "global policeman", and promoting global trade, the USA has reduced the amount of war. The scale of wars has certainly gone down.
Globalization, combined with a strong armed "policeman" is, in my mind, the only true way to stop war. When every nation has some form of path to prosperity, and a vested interest in not fighting wars (due to loss of wealth and punishment), then they won't. It has to be absolutely clear that war cannot be rewarding before countries stop fighting them.
That being said, it seems to me the U.S. is reaching the end of their time as the world's police force. You can criticize American policy all you want, but I find it unlikely that the Chinese will be very kind officers of the peace.
Seriously? You think it's bad that there have only been 22 days of world peace since WW2? How many days of world peace do you think there have been since the dawn of history? I'd be surprised if it was more than 40...
I'd say look at how many people have been killed in international conflicts per capita (and say, per year) since WW2. I'd be very much surprised if that figure wasn't the lowest in history. For as mean as the big bad USA is, their general policy since WW2 has been to conquer the world through capitalism, puppet regimes, and big stick diplomacy. They haven't really entered into (open) conflicts that willingly, since their general populace tends to disapprove of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, it's not about the space, but what you do with it...
This never happened under the Bush administration.
So you're saying no website ever had their domain name seized under the Bush administration?
Seriously?
Nevermind that something like this pales in comparison to the Patriot act...
NONE!
Brilliant. Simply Brilliant. +5
Languages, especially English, are constantly evolving. Sure, you can put up resistance to the changes... but is that fight really worth wasting your time on? I assume you can see the parallels in technology, so I won't bother to point them out.
Personally, I'm a phd student in Germany working with a Russian, Lithuanian, Turk, Scot, Frenchman, and of course Germans. We speak a bastardized version of English, but who really cares? We manage to communicate just fine! After all, English is really a creole. If you want to be a grammar Nazi, do it in a "static" language like French, which has a governing body which controls the evolution of the language (L'academie francaise).
Given the current fiscal situation in the US, I hardly think relocating all coastal cities is a project they're looking forward to.
Well it would certainly "Get America Back to Work". Sounds like the perfect Keynesian project to me!
I just don't see how people can possibly doubt that burning up millions of years of stored atmosphere in a couple centuries will produce a massive shock to the planet. Don't they realize that the vast majority of a plant's mass comes from the atmosphere? And that the vast majority of the planet's fossil fuels comes from dead plant matter that has accumulated over the eons?
So the planet spent millions of years storing all this atmosphere underground, and here we come in one fell swoop and burn it in a couple hundred. How could that NOT have a significant effect on the atmosphere?
In France, its probably illegal, but afaik not in the US
Your points about physics innovation stagnating are interesting, but I think you're forgetting two important events; the two World Wars. The massive achievements which applied the theoretical physics you spoke of were almost all a direct result of the wars.
We still have massive defense budgets today, but I would argue that the best and brightest minds don't go into Defense research. So while defense research is still well funded, it doesn't pull in the intellectual capital it did in the forties and fifties. And as you say, funding does not equal progress.
What's my point? Well, clearly we need another big war... Unfortunately, I don't think the world can survive another round of progress-through-warfare. For as my buddy Albert said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
They'll just report that you have an arrears balance, which will destroy your credit rating and prevent you from ever buying a house, getting a subsidized phone, buying a car using a loan, getting a credit card etc etc etc.
People were using them for GPGPU computing, so GPU access exists.
I c wut u did there
Force the enemy's hand Um, really? I don't see what you're saying... Should we have our troops not try to protect themselves with technology? You seem to be implying it's better to blown up by v1.0 than later versions... And shaped charges weren't a result of "escalation" unless you think armor is "escalating" the war. What would you have our troops do? Walk around in tshirts and shorts?
a conspiracy to deny others the right to travel without interference and delay
I don't believe this is a right.
the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act
Exactly. Is the act illegal? Obviously you can be charged with conspiracy to commit an illegal act...
Regardless, I'm not asking if denial of service attacks are malicious; clearly they are... their intent is to deny service. My question is whether or not they are, in fact, illegal, and in what jurisdictions. After all, there are plenty of business practices which directly harm a competitor, but are not illegal.
I'm really asking...
Oh get over yourself. Movies have always been an excuse for visual effects. If all that mattered was plot, storylines would be the end-all of story-telling. That has never, nor will it ever, be the case. Humans have sensory input. We like to use them.
dont you have a warranty and a cloud for that?
Unfortunately historical recounts often reflect far more about the author than the events in question. In this case though, because the historian is in no way an author of the events, but merely a means through which they are transmitted, I feel that neglecting the contents of the message for ad hominem reasons says more about the reader than the author.
Wait, what? You think we have fascism? I hope that was just a typo.
People always give the line that corporations are more efficient, but I don't really see why. Not only are they likely to shell out big bucks to their execs, but they also have to get enough money selling products/services to the government to make a profit. NASA doesn't have to make a profit, so they're providing the service to the government at cost.
Saying that private entities are cheaper for the government to use because private entities need to make a profit seems backwards to me. Yes, the Shuttle was a bloated, expensive undertaking... but last time I checked Lockheed Martin wasn't giving us any sweet deals on the F-22 or F-35.
The quest for profit may spur innovation I suppose, but I think that's a stretch. Science isn't really pushed forward by individuals looking to make money. It's just like the argument you hear about medicine; that high health care costs leads to better doctors. I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I like for my MDs to be motivated by the desire to help people.
For a similar reason, I'd want the builders of a spacecraft I was riding in to be in it for reasons other than profit... I don't want them cutting corners to increase margins when my life is on the line.
When I moved here from the USA, I had to wait a month before I could manage to jailbreak and unlock my AT&T iPhone. During that month, I used up 300 minutes and 200 text messages, with many of the minutes coming from random "blocked" calls I received on my phone that only lasted one minute, and many texts from text spam advertisers. The result? A 600 dollar phone bill.
Clandestine operations are another story of course, but Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and (arguably) Afghanistan were all wars that somebody else started.
That is an example of the naturalist fallacy. Defined as stating that "the way something is, is the way it ought to be/ the only way it could be".
My point wasn't that world peace can't be achieved; quite the opposite actually. I was saying that by acting as the "global policeman", and promoting global trade, the USA has reduced the amount of war. The scale of wars has certainly gone down.
Globalization, combined with a strong armed "policeman" is, in my mind, the only true way to stop war. When every nation has some form of path to prosperity, and a vested interest in not fighting wars (due to loss of wealth and punishment), then they won't. It has to be absolutely clear that war cannot be rewarding before countries stop fighting them.
That being said, it seems to me the U.S. is reaching the end of their time as the world's police force. You can criticize American policy all you want, but I find it unlikely that the Chinese will be very kind officers of the peace.
I'd say look at how many people have been killed in international conflicts per capita (and say, per year) since WW2. I'd be very much surprised if that figure wasn't the lowest in history. For as mean as the big bad USA is, their general policy since WW2 has been to conquer the world through capitalism, puppet regimes, and big stick diplomacy. They haven't really entered into (open) conflicts that willingly, since their general populace tends to disapprove of them.
I can make enough money to buy a sailboat and a lifetime Iridium data connection, bid the world fuckin adieu and set off to spend the rest of my l