Getting the materials for those is very difficult.
If you want an explosive anyone can make in bulk, look at the fertiliser bomb. There's a reason it's long been a favorite of terrorists. It's not the most powerful explosive, but you can compensate for that through sheer quantity - fill a whole truck with it. All you need is common agricultural fertiliser, diesel fuel, and a small quantity of high explosive to act as a detonator - and with some creativity, you can manage without that.
There are standards the court uses. If the mark is widely recognised, how long it has been in use for, if the offender should reasonably be expected to be aware of the mark.
Registering lets you sue for higher damages though.
A registed trademark needs approval. Who does so depends upon country. But not all trademarks are registered. A non-registered trademark is claimed simply by using it, declaring it a trademark and putting the little (tm) symbol after it.
No, they are not biologically identical. They are genetically identical. The development of the brain isn't just influenced by genetics - environmental factors play a part, an there's a strongly chaotic element allowing for miniscule influences to have a dramatic effect.
You could copy a person - but you'd need to get every neuron, every synapse done perfectly. Right down to neurotransmitter generation rates and receptor concentration, and probably a few things we don't even know about yet. Such a thing is far, far beyond current technology, but it doesn't violate any fundamental laws and so there is still a possibility that it may become possible one day in the very distant future. Much as I like the idea of immortality, I do not imagine it will occur within my lifetime.
If you jab things into the brain, consciousness is affected. If you know exactly where to jab, you can induce quite specific effects. You can also alter consciousness via drugs. That's strong evidence that consciousness is simply a result of physical processes within the brain, even if they are poorly understood.
It's plausible in the sense that no fundamental laws are violated. It isn't like time-travel or true perpetual motion - it's just an engineering challenge. An impossibly hard engineering challenge, true. One that may take centuries to solve. But still, it's plausible.
It depends on the specific group, but they generally have a council that decides on the acceptance of new technology and any restrictions on use based on two criteria: Self-sufficiency and the impact on communal lifestyle. They may approve internet use for business purposes if they deem it essential, but they'll also set strict rules to prevent it creeping into non-business use, like requiring the computer be located in an office area and not permitting them in residences.
The ACLU is just starting a new case right now, over a similar thing. A church garden. They are going for the same trick: The state will pay for all of the plants, construction, materials and so fourth, and the church will then pay to have someone carve bible verses in the appropriate bricks and put them in place. It's a rather obvious attempt to work around the constitution, and the ACLU disapproves.
The US tends to have a lot of awkward legal workarounds - with state, local and federal governments often working at cross-purposes, all constrained by the constitution and with the courts trying to make some sense of the mess there is a heavy use of awkward tricks as one part of the government tries to out-manouver another.
It could be done, but there's no reason to - it'd be one of the most expensive projects in all of human history, and for what? It's not economical to mine, there's no national pride to be had now, and the science may be valuable but not that valuable.
We'll probably still be having this debate when someone discovers the mountain-sized rock heading towards Earth.
Hydrogen proponents usually point to electrolysis as the long-term solution, with the hyrogen production facility located adjacent to the power production facility - nuclear or renewable. It'd be good with renewable because the demand can be quickly varied - every time the wind picks up hyrogen production can be boosted, while any lulls in production can be handled by shutting down the hydrogen production and diverting energy to more critical things like domestic power.
Even the proponents admit the technology isn't there yet, though. It's more of an aspiration than a practical solution today. It wouldn't need any revolutionary technology, just improvements (reliability and affordability) of technologies already around. And yes, it would be expensive - but when oil starts to get scarce, that expensive is going to look a lot more attractive.
And I don't want my tax money paying to support state-subsidised religious schools* or some empire-building military operation in Afganistan. If you do not wish to be part of the country, then by all means leave and apply for citizenship elsewhere. Or stay, an put your vote to use.
*I'm in the UK. The government is very keen on public-private partnerships in education.
Politics. There's quite a backlash against the environmental movement on the political right. Combine with their dislike of regulations in general, toss in Obama's name to stir them up, and they will devote some effort to opposing the mandate.
If you read right-wing media, climate change is either a conspiracy of scientists trying to get funding, or a scheme to establish one-world government, or a plot to destroy the American economy, or a pagan religion. Or some combination of the above.
Because if prayer somehow cured brain damage, I'd be reading the story circulating all over the Christian news sites by now. Also, hospitals wouldn't exist.
The PRC has an official, state-endorsed Christian church.
The USSR's relationship with religion was variable. Stalin did try to surpress it prior to the war with Germany, but then suddenly changed position and started heavily promoting and supporting the Russian Orthodox Church as a means to encourage patriotism and resolidify the Russian sense of identity.
Then perhaps I might elaborate on my trolling. Yes, I'm an asshole. Sometimes that is what is needed.
Prayer is not just some harmless little habbit. It's woo. One of a large number of similar superstitions. While many may have conviction in the power of prayer, every scientific investigation and even just basic common sense says it does squat. Nor is is simply a harmless little ritual that brings some people comfort: It offers a false solution. People *die* because they trust in the power of prayer rather than medicine, just as they die because they get suckered into homeopathy or crystal healing or a hundred other piece of nonsense. Worse, children die because their parents are convinced of the power of prayer.
This scientifically-nonsensical rubbish needs to be pointed out. It's followers need to be challenged into providing verifiable, repeatable, non-cherry-picked evidence in support of their superstition - and, if no such evidence can be provided, then the followers need to be convinced of their error. And if they remain convicted in spite of all evidence to the contary then it is the duty of all right-thinking people to make a mockery of them, so that others may see the error before they too fall prey.
Prayer is something of an odd case, in that even those who claim to believe in the power usually act as if they do not. They will pray for their loved one's to be healed, but take them to the hospital regardless. There are a few exceptions who die for their superstition, but these are the exception. That does not excuse prayer: It only makes the error more apparent.
One of the first things they actually did was pass a law narrowing the definition of rape to not include within a marriage: If a man in Afganistan wants sex and his wife says no, he has every legal right to rape her. She legally cannot say no, as in their culture sex-on-demand is a wife's duty and a husband's right.
The wing-wing in the US is fairly good at not being overtly racist. They'e be more likely to target their efforts religiously: Trawl the archives to make a list of everyone who ever insulted God and get them on an employment blacklist. Much as happened during the red scare, when suspected communists faced similar semi-official sanctions, but made possible on a much larger scale by automation.
For example, a good part of A-level maths is learning to apply trignometric identities and calculus. Please, try to make an exciting game about the cosine rule.
Read more carefully. They aren't talking about computers in school, but about broader effects relating to how extensive computer use (In the manner children use them - games, facebook and such) is affecting them in a more general way. Constant exposure to the high-stimulation environment of games and instant-gratification is (according to the teachers) impairing childrens' ability to maintain focus on less interesting tasks.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting the materials for those is very difficult.
If you want an explosive anyone can make in bulk, look at the fertiliser bomb. There's a reason it's long been a favorite of terrorists. It's not the most powerful explosive, but you can compensate for that through sheer quantity - fill a whole truck with it. All you need is common agricultural fertiliser, diesel fuel, and a small quantity of high explosive to act as a detonator - and with some creativity, you can manage without that.
There are standards the court uses. If the mark is widely recognised, how long it has been in use for, if the offender should reasonably be expected to be aware of the mark.
Registering lets you sue for higher damages though.
You can patent it in the US, but not Europe.
There's no required approval for a trademark.
A registed trademark needs approval. Who does so depends upon country. But not all trademarks are registered. A non-registered trademark is claimed simply by using it, declaring it a trademark and putting the little (tm) symbol after it.
No, they are not biologically identical. They are genetically identical. The development of the brain isn't just influenced by genetics - environmental factors play a part, an there's a strongly chaotic element allowing for miniscule influences to have a dramatic effect.
You could copy a person - but you'd need to get every neuron, every synapse done perfectly. Right down to neurotransmitter generation rates and receptor concentration, and probably a few things we don't even know about yet. Such a thing is far, far beyond current technology, but it doesn't violate any fundamental laws and so there is still a possibility that it may become possible one day in the very distant future. Much as I like the idea of immortality, I do not imagine it will occur within my lifetime.
If you jab things into the brain, consciousness is affected. If you know exactly where to jab, you can induce quite specific effects. You can also alter consciousness via drugs. That's strong evidence that consciousness is simply a result of physical processes within the brain, even if they are poorly understood.
It's plausible in the sense that no fundamental laws are violated. It isn't like time-travel or true perpetual motion - it's just an engineering challenge. An impossibly hard engineering challenge, true. One that may take centuries to solve. But still, it's plausible.
It depends on the specific group, but they generally have a council that decides on the acceptance of new technology and any restrictions on use based on two criteria: Self-sufficiency and the impact on communal lifestyle. They may approve internet use for business purposes if they deem it essential, but they'll also set strict rules to prevent it creeping into non-business use, like requiring the computer be located in an office area and not permitting them in residences.
Because the short pause it signifies, used verbally, implies "I'm just stating the bloody obvious, but..."
That would just result in political prosecutions.
The ACLU is just starting a new case right now, over a similar thing. A church garden. They are going for the same trick: The state will pay for all of the plants, construction, materials and so fourth, and the church will then pay to have someone carve bible verses in the appropriate bricks and put them in place. It's a rather obvious attempt to work around the constitution, and the ACLU disapproves.
The US tends to have a lot of awkward legal workarounds - with state, local and federal governments often working at cross-purposes, all constrained by the constitution and with the courts trying to make some sense of the mess there is a heavy use of awkward tricks as one part of the government tries to out-manouver another.
It could be done, but there's no reason to - it'd be one of the most expensive projects in all of human history, and for what? It's not economical to mine, there's no national pride to be had now, and the science may be valuable but not that valuable.
We'll probably still be having this debate when someone discovers the mountain-sized rock heading towards Earth.
He3 is fuel for a type of reactor no-one has yet managed to make, and that can be operated on less-exotic hydrogen isotopes anyway.
Hydrogen proponents usually point to electrolysis as the long-term solution, with the hyrogen production facility located adjacent to the power production facility - nuclear or renewable. It'd be good with renewable because the demand can be quickly varied - every time the wind picks up hyrogen production can be boosted, while any lulls in production can be handled by shutting down the hydrogen production and diverting energy to more critical things like domestic power.
Even the proponents admit the technology isn't there yet, though. It's more of an aspiration than a practical solution today. It wouldn't need any revolutionary technology, just improvements (reliability and affordability) of technologies already around. And yes, it would be expensive - but when oil starts to get scarce, that expensive is going to look a lot more attractive.
And I don't want my tax money paying to support state-subsidised religious schools* or some empire-building military operation in Afganistan. If you do not wish to be part of the country, then by all means leave and apply for citizenship elsewhere. Or stay, an put your vote to use.
*I'm in the UK. The government is very keen on public-private partnerships in education.
Politics. There's quite a backlash against the environmental movement on the political right. Combine with their dislike of regulations in general, toss in Obama's name to stir them up, and they will devote some effort to opposing the mandate.
If you read right-wing media, climate change is either a conspiracy of scientists trying to get funding, or a scheme to establish one-world government, or a plot to destroy the American economy, or a pagan religion. Or some combination of the above.
Because if prayer somehow cured brain damage, I'd be reading the story circulating all over the Christian news sites by now. Also, hospitals wouldn't exist.
The PRC has an official, state-endorsed Christian church.
The USSR's relationship with religion was variable. Stalin did try to surpress it prior to the war with Germany, but then suddenly changed position and started heavily promoting and supporting the Russian Orthodox Church as a means to encourage patriotism and resolidify the Russian sense of identity.
Then perhaps I might elaborate on my trolling. Yes, I'm an asshole. Sometimes that is what is needed.
Prayer is not just some harmless little habbit. It's woo. One of a large number of similar superstitions. While many may have conviction in the power of prayer, every scientific investigation and even just basic common sense says it does squat. Nor is is simply a harmless little ritual that brings some people comfort: It offers a false solution. People *die* because they trust in the power of prayer rather than medicine, just as they die because they get suckered into homeopathy or crystal healing or a hundred other piece of nonsense. Worse, children die because their parents are convinced of the power of prayer.
This scientifically-nonsensical rubbish needs to be pointed out. It's followers need to be challenged into providing verifiable, repeatable, non-cherry-picked evidence in support of their superstition - and, if no such evidence can be provided, then the followers need to be convinced of their error. And if they remain convicted in spite of all evidence to the contary then it is the duty of all right-thinking people to make a mockery of them, so that others may see the error before they too fall prey.
Prayer is something of an odd case, in that even those who claim to believe in the power usually act as if they do not. They will pray for their loved one's to be healed, but take them to the hospital regardless. There are a few exceptions who die for their superstition, but these are the exception. That does not excuse prayer: It only makes the error more apparent.
Is she healed yet? Nope.
One of the first things they actually did was pass a law narrowing the definition of rape to not include within a marriage: If a man in Afganistan wants sex and his wife says no, he has every legal right to rape her. She legally cannot say no, as in their culture sex-on-demand is a wife's duty and a husband's right.
The wing-wing in the US is fairly good at not being overtly racist. They'e be more likely to target their efforts religiously: Trawl the archives to make a list of everyone who ever insulted God and get them on an employment blacklist. Much as happened during the red scare, when suspected communists faced similar semi-official sanctions, but made possible on a much larger scale by automation.
Some things are inherently boring.
For example, a good part of A-level maths is learning to apply trignometric identities and calculus. Please, try to make an exciting game about the cosine rule.
Read more carefully. They aren't talking about computers in school, but about broader effects relating to how extensive computer use (In the manner children use them - games, facebook and such) is affecting them in a more general way. Constant exposure to the high-stimulation environment of games and instant-gratification is (according to the teachers) impairing childrens' ability to maintain focus on less interesting tasks.
Maybe boring is a good thing. A lot of life does consist of important but very dull tasks - it's important for people to learn how to handle that.