Basically, yeah. If you flush it, it gets diluted... remember, concentration is everything.
If it goes into an incinerator, you end upw ith a relatively high concentration of radioactive dust & gas. If it goes in a landfill, it stays concentrated. If it goes in water, it breaks down and spreads out into harmless concentrations.
That's interesting.. but what does chemotherapy have to do with radiation treatment?
And for the grandparent post... if you really think gamma radiation is not ionizing, and want to go telling the world that, go hang out with some gamma emitters for a while first, THEN come tell us how it passes harmlessly through things.
Alpha & Beta radiation, outside the body, cause radiation damage primarily in the skin. The higher the energy, the further they penetrate, of course. Gamma radiation, however, will pass right through you, causing damage to your internal organs along the way.
Gamma radiation is VERY ionizing. Why do you think it causes cancer? Why do you think it casues radiation poisoning in high doses? What do you think radiation poisoning is?
Energy cannot be created or destroyted, only moved around.
Creation of energy is not a goal; the efficient transfer of energy is what we strive for.
Conversion to electrical energy is less efficient than, say, directly to kinetic,yes, but we are relatively good at storing and using electrical energy, and relatively poor at using kinetic energy.
IT's a differnet isotope of uranium, and it's still radioactive, just not in the right way. IT's relatively safe, you can handle it, etcetera.... but when it gets blown to powder and ends up in the food/water supply, it's not good.
It's probably also highly toxic. One of the major dangers of plutonium other than radioactivity is the fact that it is extremely toxic.;
Okay, first, obviously not everything is a winner. The dollar coin went against something most Americans LOVE, and that's the almighty dollar bill. If they *really* wanted to use coins instead, they'd just do what Canada did, and discontinue the bills.
Second.. I'm not saying everythign public is better than everything private.. but that in THIS case, ti would seem that a government endorsement of this magnitude is necessary to get it off the ground.
Thirdly... you cannot register second level.us domains.. that's my point. We're not talking about.org or.com here.. we're talking about.us
Then Wal-Mart could have it's lawyers dig up the *appropriate* laws regarding publishing stolen trade-secret information, and take them through a cheese grater.
Let's remember.. in this case, the DMCA was not the right tool to use.. but that doesn't mean the prices shouldn't have been taken down.
Well, you don't need the state. Of course. But let me try a few 1) publicity.. it's easy for the state to widely publicize this. 2) it's not a private interest. that will make it more popular. 3) it's kids.us. It's american, and it's for kids. You can't just set up kids.us, this required a rule from on high.
What about IP addresses? Is this that hard to understand?
Virtual servers has nothing to do with it.. this has specifically to do with WEBSITES.
If your site is referenced by a.kids.us domain, and it has links that point outside that domain, you are violating the rules. If all your links ot other URLS are IN.kids.us, you are safe.
That's pretty damn simple.
What do you mean, *MIGHT* make it easier to filter? You take your web proxy at your elementary school library, you say "don't resolve anything besides.kids.us" and be done with it.
It's dead easy to force the proxy to only pass urls ending in kids.us (which means raw IP address urls would be blocked)
1) It does not seek to regulate the whole internet. 2) The domain is.kids.us... in the US cctld.. 3) Those who RUN kids.us set the rules for using that domain. The fact that it's a presidential order does not make it bad.... I could say the same thing about my domain, and set whatever terms I *WANT* for you to hafve a subdomain, and I am the law.
This isn't a matter of some stuff having the gene in question.. his entire crop did.. something that couldn't happen by accident. 98% of his crop was Monsanto variety. That's not accidental cross pollenation... at least, according to the judge.
It *WAS*, in fact, unpublished.. do you actually think they'd care if people were putting their current pricing online? Gimme a break.
It was strategic pricing information NOT AVAILABLE to the PUBLIC or COMPETITORS. That future pricing was secret.
It could have been leaked by store employees, by printing houses, by the newspaper publishers who store the flyers for publishing in a week, etcetera... but all of these are thigns that are confidential until publication.
the court thinks he was lying about that.. that's the whole point here. The court didn't rule against him on some technicality, simply because monsantos genetic material was in his crop...
they ruled against him because they believe he went out of his way to deliberately gain the benefits of their stuff, and then lied in court about it.
Whether he did or not, I have no idea, and I'm making no judgement. If he is indeed not guilty of this, I hope his countersuit goes well and monsanto pays up bigtime.
But the court ruled on the specific facts in this case... it's not some precedent that says monsanto owns those genes no matter what.
Wow. Way to go genius. You sure seem to have proofe that Mr. Shatner can't spell, and is stupid....
Oh, except for the fact that he gave an audio interview, and the results were *transcribed* (that means someone listened to speech and typed it up as text) by slashdot staffers.
So any spelling mistakes are slashdot's, not Shatner's.
And it's not that far fetched that they won; it wasn't an "accident". The guy KNEW it was monsanto's seed. It wasn't forced on him. He knew they had a patent on it as well. He took the gamble.
What you have to realize is that the legal system is not as convoluted in Canada. Though this time, the guy might have been found to be doing something wrong, under slightly different circumstances, monsanto would lose (say, if the guy really had no idea it had happened).
You can't just compare one ruling and declare the Canadian justice system to be as screwed up as the US. Remember, we have 10x less population, over a larger area, and a system that is *FAR* more flexible and less complex than the US system. Not everything is Black & White in the Canadian legal system, nor do we pretend it is.
This "Crap" is because, in ages past, a bunch of smaller drives were WAY cheaper than one large drive.
IT was a way to get large storage space out of small drives, originally. The redundancy issues are there to reduce the failure rate of the array to something matching a single drive (as opposed to say, 20 times as likely if you add 20 drives)
Do you mean it woudn't boot the linux cds at all, or it would boot the kernel and then not mount the root, because the kernel didn't recognize the device.
If the latter, that's hardly Promises fault.. if it will recognize a bootable cd and start booting, then their claim that you can boot form it is entirely true.
Re:IDE RAID: interesting, but not interested
on
IDE RAID Examined
·
· Score: 1
Uhh.. what makes you say IDE is trying to do that? Both acronyms have been thrown around for more than a decade.
Oh yeah, you caught me. I meant to say that nowhere on earth but Guatemala has crime. Get real. I never said there was no crime in the US, or that central america was a bad place to go.
I was only concerned that the original post seemed to be saying your stuff would be safe.
I live in central america, and I can *definately* say that of all the places I've lived in (including Spain), i've seen more robbery here than anywhere else, by a longshot. I'm not knocking it, I love it here, the people are nice, I generally feel safe.. but there is far more petty crime here than many places in the world.
And I live in the most wealthy and peaceful nation in the area.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, yeah. If you flush it, it gets diluted... remember, concentration is everything.
If it goes into an incinerator, you end upw ith a relatively high concentration of radioactive dust & gas. If it goes in a landfill, it stays concentrated.
If it goes in water, it breaks down and spreads out into harmless concentrations.
That's interesting.. but what does chemotherapy have to do with radiation treatment?
And for the grandparent post... if you really think gamma radiation is not ionizing, and want to go telling the world that, go hang out with some gamma emitters for a while first, THEN come tell us how it passes harmlessly through things.
Alpha & Beta radiation, outside the body, cause radiation damage primarily in the skin. The higher the energy, the further they penetrate, of course. Gamma radiation, however, will pass right through you, causing damage to your internal organs along the way.
What is ionizing radiation?
Gamma radiation is VERY ionizing. Why do you think it causes cancer? Why do you think it casues radiation poisoning in high doses? What do you think radiation poisoning is?
Energy cannot be created or destroyted, only moved around.
Creation of energy is not a goal; the efficient transfer of energy is what we strive for.
Conversion to electrical energy is less efficient than, say, directly to kinetic,yes, but we are relatively good at storing and using electrical energy, and relatively poor at using kinetic energy.
Oh.. so if someone gets ahold of something secret, it obviously wasn't secret?
That's an intresting theory. I think you should become a lawyer.
I can see it now.. someone will break into a series of vaults, then publish the formula for Coca-Cola.
The defence will be "Well, if someone got ahold of it, it obviously wasn't secret, was it?"
IT's a differnet isotope of uranium, and it's still radioactive, just not in the right way. IT's relatively safe, you can handle it, etcetera....
but when it gets blown to powder and ends up in the food/water supply, it's not good.
It's probably also highly toxic.
One of the major dangers of plutonium other than radioactivity is the fact that it is extremely toxic.;
Okay, first, obviously not everything is a winner. The dollar coin went against something most Americans LOVE, and that's the almighty dollar bill.
.us domains.. that's my point. We're not talking about .org or .com here.. we're talking about .us
If they *really* wanted to use coins instead, they'd just do what Canada did, and discontinue the bills.
Second.. I'm not saying everythign public is better than everything private.. but that in THIS case, ti would seem that a government endorsement of this magnitude is necessary to get it off the ground.
Thirdly... you cannot register second level
Then Wal-Mart could have it's lawyers dig up the *appropriate* laws regarding publishing stolen trade-secret information, and take them through a cheese grater.
Let's remember.. in this case, the DMCA was not the right tool to use.. but that doesn't mean the prices shouldn't have been taken down.
Well, you don't need the state. Of course.
But let me try a few
1) publicity.. it's easy for the state to widely publicize this.
2) it's not a private interest. that will make it more popular.
3) it's kids.us. It's american, and it's for kids. You can't just set up kids.us, this required a rule from on high.
If you really don't like it, don't use it.
What about IP addresses? Is this that hard to understand?
.kids.us domain, and it has links that point outside that domain, you are violating the rules. If all your links ot other URLS are IN .kids.us, you are safe.
.kids.us" and be done with it.
Virtual servers has nothing to do with it.. this has specifically to do with WEBSITES.
If your site is referenced by a
That's pretty damn simple.
What do you mean, *MIGHT* make it easier to filter? You take your web proxy at your elementary school library, you say "don't resolve anything besides
It's dead easy to force the proxy to only pass urls ending in kids.us (which means raw IP address urls would be blocked)
Why? Several reasons.
.kids.us... in the US cctld..
1) It does not seek to regulate the whole internet.
2) The domain is
3) Those who RUN kids.us set the rules for using that domain. The fact that it's a presidential order does not make it bad.... I could say the same thing about my domain, and set whatever terms I *WANT* for you to hafve a subdomain, and I am the law.
THis is the RIGHT approach to the problem.
This isn't a matter of some stuff having the gene in question.. his entire crop did.. something that couldn't happen by accident. 98% of his crop was Monsanto variety. That's not accidental cross pollenation... at least, according to the judge.
It *WAS*, in fact, unpublished.. do you actually think they'd care if people were putting their current pricing online? Gimme a break.
It was strategic pricing information NOT AVAILABLE to the PUBLIC or COMPETITORS. That future pricing was secret.
It could have been leaked by store employees, by printing houses, by the newspaper publishers who store the flyers for publishing in a week, etcetera... but all of these are thigns that are confidential until publication.
the court thinks he was lying about that.. that's the whole point here.
The court didn't rule against him on some technicality, simply because monsantos genetic material was in his crop...
they ruled against him because they believe he went out of his way to deliberately gain the benefits of their stuff, and then lied in court about it.
Whether he did or not, I have no idea, and I'm making no judgement. If he is indeed not guilty of this, I hope his countersuit goes well and monsanto pays up bigtime.
But the court ruled on the specific facts in this case... it's not some precedent that says monsanto owns those genes no matter what.
Well, you seem to have all the answers. what more can I say?
Yeah okay, so after reading a bit, it's some new DNS pollution exploit.
Yes. My sidekick types, I just stand around and talk.
I don't understand why everyone spends money on voice activated computer stuff.. all you need is a sidekick to type for you.
I go to this site, and I get some dumb web portal, with a link on it that says "If this is wrong site, click here".
Then it says "The reason you run into a wrong site is your name server sometimes make wrong and provide wrong ip address to you."
So.. not that I have any idea why my nameservers would be resolving nasa's domains to some guy's dumb portal.....
anyone else get this?
Wow. Way to go genius. You sure seem to have proofe that Mr. Shatner can't spell, and is stupid....
Oh, except for the fact that he gave an audio interview, and the results were *transcribed* (that means someone listened to speech and typed it up as text) by slashdot staffers.
So any spelling mistakes are slashdot's, not Shatner's.
It was a patent issue.
And it's not that far fetched that they won; it wasn't an "accident". The guy KNEW it was monsanto's seed. It wasn't forced on him. He knew they had a patent on it as well. He took the gamble.
What you have to realize is that the legal system is not as convoluted in Canada. Though this time, the guy might have been found to be doing something wrong, under slightly different circumstances, monsanto would lose (say, if the guy really had no idea it had happened).
You can't just compare one ruling and declare the Canadian justice system to be as screwed up as the US. Remember, we have 10x less population, over a larger area, and a system that is *FAR* more flexible and less complex than the US system. Not everything is Black & White in the Canadian legal system, nor do we pretend it is.
This "Crap" is because, in ages past, a bunch of smaller drives were WAY cheaper than one large drive.
IT was a way to get large storage space out of small drives, originally. The redundancy issues are there to reduce the failure rate of the array to something matching a single drive (as opposed to say, 20 times as likely if you add 20 drives)
Do you mean it woudn't boot the linux cds at all, or it would boot the kernel and then not mount the root, because the kernel didn't recognize the device.
If the latter, that's hardly Promises fault.. if it will recognize a bootable cd and start booting, then their claim that you can boot form it is entirely true.
Uhh.. what makes you say IDE is trying to do that? Both acronyms have been thrown around for more than a decade.
Oh yeah, you caught me. I meant to say that nowhere on earth but Guatemala has crime. Get real.
I never said there was no crime in the US, or that central america was a bad place to go.
I was only concerned that the original post seemed to be saying your stuff would be safe.
I live in central america, and I can *definately* say that of all the places I've lived in (including Spain), i've seen more robbery here than anywhere else, by a longshot.
I'm not knocking it, I love it here, the people are nice, I generally feel safe.. but there is far more petty crime here than many places in the world.
And I live in the most wealthy and peaceful nation in the area.
That's great.
I'm sure if you look, you will find hundreds or thousands of people who have had their stuff stolen.
I don't mean like in the movies, where they grab your stuff the second you turn around...
but if you leave something out it WILL get stolen in many places, don't kid yourself. These countries are poor by comparison, and petty crime is HUGE.
Umm.. they may be right in that the DMCA is not the tool to be used here...
But they are NOT right in publishing stolen, unpublished trade secret information.
This is not a matter of simply reproducing advertised prices, this is stolen FUTURE pricing strategy... not advertised prices.