...or I can make $10000 per month selling crack. No you can't. A low wage CC jackass is going to have to start at the bottom of the drug trade, and that means standing on the corner hawking $5 rocks. $10,000 per month is about 66 five dollar rocks a day, Even working 12 hours a day, there's no way you're gonna move 5-6 rocks an hour without a) attracting the attention of the police, or (more likely) b) attracting the attention of the guy who USED TO sell to the crackheads in your area. Either way, you're fucked.
Seriously, anyone who thinks the drug trade is a good place to make money is an idiot. There's room for a few score "distributors" who'll pull in $10K a month, but I guarantee you former salesmen from CC don't have the connections necessary to make that kind of money.
I work for the government. I'm a "civil servant". I make high 5 figures, and I'm not management. I'm a member of a union. I will not be fired / layed off / downsized / whatever.
You know what would be really awesome? Glasses that are "smartly" polarized. That is, they just remove all highly polarized light while still letting the generally unpolarized stuff thorough. There's no such thing as "unpolarized" light. What you're describing as "generally unpolarized" is actually "mixed polarization". The reason polarized lenses work is because glare off flat surfaces tends to be polarized in one direction. You can safely block one general polarity because you'll still get plenty of light through from light polarized ~90 degrees off. As another poster noted, you should see what happens when you try to look through two polarized lenses set such that their polarity is 90 degrees off from one another. You might as well have sunglass lenses made of chocolate*.
* if you can't see through 'em, you might as well eat 'em
It is far less confusing to define morality as "survival decisionmaking" Far less confusing, but misleadingly overgeneralized. There is a huge set of things that fall under "survival decision making" that have fuck-all to do with morality. Morality and ethics are classically about "right and wrong", the duties and responsibilities of humans as sentient, self aware beings. Trying to shoehorn not eating fucking sand into the category of "morality" is utterly asinine. You've clearly read so many philosph texts that you can convince yourself of anything. Out here in the real world, however, we differentiate between ethics and biological drives.
...thus they can be sued for (c) violation.
He's already said he doesn't really care, so now he likely can't sue... For the million-and-oneth time, failure to defend only affects trademarks. In the absence of definitive written license (i.e. more than a blog entry saying "I don't really care..."), copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.
Not just hot coffee. Undrinkably hot coffee capable of causing 3rd degree burns.
Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) You cannot put 180 degree coffee in your mouth without getting burned. The NCAUSA is at best an authority on flavor. Their opinion has no bearing on safety.
Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? They put the quality of their coffee over the safety of their patrons. If they wanted to serve dangerously hot coffee, they needed to take appropriate steps to keep it off their customers. You can't serve 180 degree coffee by throwing it ina customers face either.
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"? No. You can fire a rifle a thousand times out your car window as you drive down the street and not hit anyone. If on the 1001st shot you plug someone between the eyes, you just try arguing that it wasn't unreasonably dangerous because those first 1000 rounds didn't hit anyone.
So you can eat sand then? Snakes and scorpions are harmless now? Cold and exposure have no power over you any longer, since morality has been demoted to the social realm? You're such an idiot. None of those are issues of morality. It's not ethics that keep us from eating sand, it's basic biology. Animals avoid eating sand, and they have no sense of morality.
Fusion reactor output has been increasing exponentially since its inception, and it should not be terribly long before it will be a viable alternative to fission power. Don't hold your breath. Fusion power has been "right around the corner" for fifty years.
I don't like nuclear power either (it's unsafe, unsustainable and expensive) Unsafe? Yeah, look at all the nuclear accidents we've had.... oh wait, there's only TMI (completely contained) and Chernobyl (a reactor design no sane person would build, operated by bloody fools). What exactly do you think is unsafe?
Unsustainable? Despite the FUD of TFA, current known reserves hold enough uranium for at least the next century. If we reprocess the "spent" fuel instead of acting like idiots trying to find a "safe" place to store it for 10,000 years, we would have enough fuel for a millennium (and fix the waste problem to boot).
Expensive? Not if we do what the French did: come up with a standard reactor design and build many of them. Currently, just about every reactor in the world is a hand-crafted unique design (and most are more than 30 years old on top of it). They are expensive to build and maintain, just like an early 20th century Rolls Royce. A modern, commoditized design would reduce the cost of building and maintenance immensely.
...does this mean Iran does have a legitimate reason to have a nuclear program after all? Depends on your definition of "nuclear program" (and "legitimate"). A "nuclear program" can be anything from straight fission power generators to weapons grade plutonium production. No one really cares about the former, while the latter some find worrisome.
Breeder reactors reuse spent nuclear fuel. They only need small amounts of fuel to keep the reaction going. However, what about the waste? Compared to a conventional reactor, how much radioactive waste do they produce?
Since breeder reactors turn "spent" fuel into more usable fuel, they actually produce very little waste, and that waste has a very short half life. Breeder reactors are, in fact, both the answer to the fuel problem and the waste problem.
Considering the US uses uranium for ammunition I suspect you might not end up with a net gain.
Yes, it's depleted, but it's prefectly servicable fuel in a breeder reactor. A potential which rather makes me wonder how smart it is to spread it around in enemy territory. Gee, you wonder how smart that is? It's a pity the DOD didn't think to consult you before using DU as a projetile--- they probably never even thought about its potential as breeder reactor fuel!
Look, a breeder reactor isn't something two mujahideen can slap together out of adobe bricks in a weekend. It's safe to assume that anyone with the resources to build a breeder reactor can probably find something to put in it locally, they don't need to comb the Iraqi desert looking for 2lb bits of DU embedded 20' in the ground.
I mean, the GPL has no requirement for binary distribution... It does have a requirement that the source code to those binary distributions be made available, so yes, in that sense they should be freely available. Simply put, you shouldn't have to depend on them sending you a USB key with the binary, as you should be able to obtain the source to compile those binaries at no cost.
Using your logic, why don't Linux hippies stop reverse engineering closed software when they see the "Do not disassemble" clause?
Or is it another case of double standards? "Do what we want, not what they want!". Because "do not disassemble" clauses are an unenforceable crock of shit. Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under. Venture capitalists are free to hire a bunch of programmers to reverse engineer all that GPL software and create their own proprietary version of it, just as "Linux hippies" do with proprietary stuff. You obviously don't understand how any of this works. Maybe you should talk less and read more.
There is always live performances, piracy will never kill that for the artists. I wonder if record labels get a cut of that. Not directly. Generally they snap up most of the cash from selling recordings of the live performances. Note what the 'R' in RIAA stands for. They have cartel control of the record industry. Concerts, T-shirts, etc..... that all generally belongs to the band.
For reference, see COINTELPRO and the Iran Contra Affair. HAHAHAHA! Come join us in the 21st century! You have to go back 20-40 years to find examples of government malfeasance? Where have you BEEN, man? On a hippy commune somewhere with no TV or newspapers?
"The truth is subversive and anti-American." -Noam Chomsky Noam Chomsky? You quote THAT old doddering dope? You are from another century!
It doesn't matter how much I dislike the RIAA. Stealing stuff is wrong... At the risk of sounding like a broken record,
copyright infringement is not "stealing".
If you'd actually take a moment to educate yourself on the long history of artistry and creativity and the comparatively short history of copyright, you'd understand how the recording industry has twisted the law to its own evil purposes. Using bribes to have legislation passed which fences off huge swathes of our common culture from us, so they can charge admission. Copyright is supposed to be a limited time monopoly of copying, not a perpetual right of complete control.
It's kind of annoying that extremists can't seperate themselves from peaceful protesters. I mean, if you want to throw stones at cops, do it when they are beating up on civilians, or taking bribes, or driving through red lights without the siren on. Don't go fuck up a peaceful protest.
Part of the problem is that you will still be classified as an "extremist" if you do something they don't like. FOr example, if you try to stage a peaceful public protest where the leaders in question can actually see you, rather than staying in your "free speech zone" box in the corner of a parking lot, like they told you (cough)DNC '04(cough). They consider anyone who doesn't sit quietly at home watching TV to be an extremist.
The GP poster is a classic example of how people aren't actually listening when the other person is talking, they are merely waiting for them to stop so they can talk some more. Strangely, this somehow seems to carry over to text message boards, where by all rights it shouldn't.
Someone who is 65 today would have been in their late 20s when videogames started hitting the market. eh.... you're stretching a bit there. Someone 65 now would have been 29 in 1971. The earliest thing that could be called a successful video game is PONG in 1972, but it saw limited circulation for those first 5 years. Video arcade games didn't fully enter the mainstream until about 1978-1980 (Space Invaders, Galaxian, Pac Man).
No, I'd say we have at least a solid decade before those who actually played video games while they were young are officially elderly.
Re:Did anyone search there for the missing Apollo
on
A Space Junkyard
·
· Score: 1
What, you think someone might have accidentally stored a batch of video tapes or film reels inside an old rocket expansion chamber? None of those records were ever anywhere near any of NASA's mechanical operations. NASA isn't just a little office all in one warehouse where they build rockets, review data, and plan missions at the same workbench in the corner.
No, you need to be looking for a place that sells NASA surplus office furniture if you're looking for old mislaid records.
Is this some sort of lead-based paint?? Yeah, that's a safe alternative...don't eat the paint chips guys! Lead paint is no longer legal, genius. And what makes you think lead is particularly good for blocking EM radiation? Oh, that's right! Superman's X-ray vision is blocked by lead! Same thing, of course!
Do you think it is 'cool' when you have a problem and your doctor is notified via SMS while they're watching a movie in a cinema or having dinner in a restaurant that uses this uber-paint? You know, if the tired old "what if your doctor blah blah blah" is the only thing anyone can ever come up with against cell blocking, then I say who the fuck cares? There's generally nothing one doctor can do in an emergency that another can't, and in those very rare cases where there is, then those doctors need to stay out of EM blocked places, 'kay? The "doctor getting an SMS" case is already such an extreme outlier that it really has no business dictating policy that affects everyone. Go ahead, tell me you hope my mother has a terrible cheese-grater accident and needs the services of the one and only "grated face restoration" expert, but that he's watching the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy in a theater covered with this EM paint. I'm willing to take that billion to one chance.
Slashdot Mirror
...or I can make $10000 per month selling crack. No you can't. A low wage CC jackass is going to have to start at the bottom of the drug trade, and that means standing on the corner hawking $5 rocks. $10,000 per month is about 66 five dollar rocks a day, Even working 12 hours a day, there's no way you're gonna move 5-6 rocks an hour without a) attracting the attention of the police, or (more likely) b) attracting the attention of the guy who USED TO sell to the crackheads in your area. Either way, you're fucked.Seriously, anyone who thinks the drug trade is a good place to make money is an idiot. There's room for a few score "distributors" who'll pull in $10K a month, but I guarantee you former salesmen from CC don't have the connections necessary to make that kind of money.
Sorry, no.
I work for the government. I'm a "civil servant". I make high 5 figures, and I'm not management. I'm a member of a union. I will not be fired / layed off / downsized / whatever.
Incorrect. The risk may be lower, but a government job doesn't make you immune to layoffs.* if you can't see through 'em, you might as well eat 'em
...thus they can be sued for (c) violation.He's already said he doesn't really care, so now he likely can't sue... For the million-and-oneth time, failure to defend only affects trademarks. In the absence of definitive written license (i.e. more than a blog entry saying "I don't really care..."), copyright infringement is still copyright infringement.
Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) You cannot put 180 degree coffee in your mouth without getting burned. The NCAUSA is at best an authority on flavor. Their opinion has no bearing on safety.
Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? They put the quality of their coffee over the safety of their patrons. If they wanted to serve dangerously hot coffee, they needed to take appropriate steps to keep it off their customers. You can't serve 180 degree coffee by throwing it ina customers face either.
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?
No. You can fire a rifle a thousand times out your car window as you drive down the street and not hit anyone. If on the 1001st shot you plug someone between the eyes, you just try arguing that it wasn't unreasonably dangerous because those first 1000 rounds didn't hit anyone.
Unsustainable? Despite the FUD of TFA, current known reserves hold enough uranium for at least the next century. If we reprocess the "spent" fuel instead of acting like idiots trying to find a "safe" place to store it for 10,000 years, we would have enough fuel for a millennium (and fix the waste problem to boot).
Expensive? Not if we do what the French did: come up with a standard reactor design and build many of them. Currently, just about every reactor in the world is a hand-crafted unique design (and most are more than 30 years old on top of it). They are expensive to build and maintain, just like an early 20th century Rolls Royce. A modern, commoditized design would reduce the cost of building and maintenance immensely.
...does this mean Iran does have a legitimate reason to have a nuclear program after all? Depends on your definition of "nuclear program" (and "legitimate"). A "nuclear program" can be anything from straight fission power generators to weapons grade plutonium production. No one really cares about the former, while the latter some find worrisome.Breeder reactors reuse spent nuclear fuel. They only need small amounts of fuel to keep the reaction going. However, what about the waste? Compared to a conventional reactor, how much radioactive waste do they produce?
Since breeder reactors turn "spent" fuel into more usable fuel, they actually produce very little waste, and that waste has a very short half life. Breeder reactors are, in fact, both the answer to the fuel problem and the waste problem.Yes, it's depleted, but it's prefectly servicable fuel in a breeder reactor. A potential which rather makes me wonder how smart it is to spread it around in enemy territory. Gee, you wonder how smart that is? It's a pity the DOD didn't think to consult you before using DU as a projetile--- they probably never even thought about its potential as breeder reactor fuel!
Look, a breeder reactor isn't something two mujahideen can slap together out of adobe bricks in a weekend. It's safe to assume that anyone with the resources to build a breeder reactor can probably find something to put in it locally, they don't need to comb the Iraqi desert looking for 2lb bits of DU embedded 20' in the ground.
Or is it another case of double standards? "Do what we want, not what they want!". Because "do not disassemble" clauses are an unenforceable crock of shit. Doctrine of First Sale says that you can do whatever you like with a product you've purchased, including open it up and look inside. On the other hand, using GPL'd software in a product you're selling carries a definite contractual burden, as you need to comply with the license the author(s) provide the GPL'd code to you under. Venture capitalists are free to hire a bunch of programmers to reverse engineer all that GPL software and create their own proprietary version of it, just as "Linux hippies" do with proprietary stuff. You obviously don't understand how any of this works. Maybe you should talk less and read more.
HAHAHAHA! Come join us in the 21st century! You have to go back 20-40 years to find examples of government malfeasance? Where have you BEEN, man? On a hippy commune somewhere with no TV or newspapers?
"The truth is subversive and anti-American." -Noam Chomsky Noam Chomsky? You quote THAT old doddering dope? You are from another century!
copyright infringement is not "stealing".
If you'd actually take a moment to educate yourself on the long history of artistry and creativity and the comparatively short history of copyright, you'd understand how the recording industry has twisted the law to its own evil purposes. Using bribes to have legislation passed which fences off huge swathes of our common culture from us, so they can charge admission. Copyright is supposed to be a limited time monopoly of copying, not a perpetual right of complete control.
Part of the problem is that you will still be classified as an "extremist" if you do something they don't like. FOr example, if you try to stage a peaceful public protest where the leaders in question can actually see you, rather than staying in your "free speech zone" box in the corner of a parking lot, like they told you (cough)DNC '04(cough). They consider anyone who doesn't sit quietly at home watching TV to be an extremist.
The GP poster is a classic example of how people aren't actually listening when the other person is talking, they are merely waiting for them to stop so they can talk some more. Strangely, this somehow seems to carry over to text message boards, where by all rights it shouldn't.
Someday they may fire the slashdot janitors, who obviously do the work approving submissions, and hire some real editors.
No, I'd say we have at least a solid decade before those who actually played video games while they were young are officially elderly.
What, you think someone might have accidentally stored a batch of video tapes or film reels inside an old rocket expansion chamber? None of those records were ever anywhere near any of NASA's mechanical operations. NASA isn't just a little office all in one warehouse where they build rockets, review data, and plan missions at the same workbench in the corner.
No, you need to be looking for a place that sells NASA surplus office furniture if you're looking for old mislaid records.
Airborne, as opposed to the RF that infects by sticking to door knobs and toilet seats...