Frankly, you're not thinking straight in any fashion whatsoever.
Slanted advocacy can never be an excuse to reduce the freedom of information. Just because some people will twist words, that does not mean that LESS information should be available. When someone tries to give you half the story in order to influence you, you'd damn well better be asking for the full story, not enforcement of privacy concerns.
Slanted advocacy is now an excuse to reduce the freedom of information, are you serious? Because some people will twist words, you think LESS information should be open? That's exactly the opposite of what should be done. When someone tries to give you half the story in order to influence you, you'd damn well better be asking for the full story, not enforcement of privacy concerns. That's just about the most asinine thing I've heard on slashdot.
1) You can't make a plastic firing chamber, that's not what he did.
2) I could apply all of the rest of your argument to parenting, but we don't educate and license parents.
3) We're completely off topic.
Wired mentions that it is illegal to manufacture sawed-off shotguns or machine guns. An automatic rifle is not a machine gun according the the law, afaik. They are a separate class of weapon. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
He broke no law AFAIK. He created a portion of the gun that is regulated in commercial export/sale, not manufacture. He didn't even create the full gun with the printer, and his "gun" likely wasn't reliable enough to be considered dangerous to someone it's aiming at.
I see what you might be thinking, but there's a fine but distinct line between gambling and insurance. Insurance is risk management. Good insurance organizations will document the hell out the risk, even going so far as to spend money to buy down risk. Gambling usually entails a totally unknown risk, or if the risk is known you have no way to recoup or mitigate losses.
The government (you can thank Barney Frank in particular) increasingly required Freddie and Fannie to make more risky loans. This process went on for years. The entire market got in on the deal.
This is true, but it hardly accounts for the entire market. Even if just Fanny/Freddie were making shitty loan guarantees, it doesn't explain the collapse in value. That collapse came from a total lack of transparency in loan packaging resulting in over-leveraged institutions (that didn't know they were over-leveraged). It's the same old banking story every 20-30 years. A new type of crap is sold, banks go for it, and they justify their loan-to-asset ratio based on a vaporous understanding of their reality. Eventually it comes crashing down.
They were helpless in the sense that they failed to help themselves peer through the fog of packaging. If the banks dealing with the debt packages had management structures that had done the slightest bit of due diligence, they would have known they were walking on thin ice. In fact this very thing was realized by multiple people in multiple institutions. Red flags were raised but internal audit groups and those people were silenced, promoted out of a position of audit, or outright fired. This is all well documented.
Banking/finance/market regulation doesn't mean that you can't make money lending or selling derivatives. Banks need to be strongly encouraged to do legitimate documentation so that their customers can know how risky the institution is. Ordinarily you could do this by threatening prison to any manager of any company found to be dealing in what amounts to fraud. Unfortunately all those white-collar criminals at that level are so buddy-buddy with politicians, that'll never happen.
You're both wrong. The banks wanted to make money. Since both the property market and the packaged loan markets were going up, any bank that didn't loan out like crazy stood to be less profitable, and hence not do as well on the market themselves. The government opened the door to bad loans through lax regulation and no checks on leveraging. The banks responded to what market pressure and the drive to be the most profitable loan institution would normally do. The lack of transparency just made it all the worse.
Who said anything about opening them in flight? The fact is, you could, in theory, put pressure-rated-window-doors all along the side of every airliner. No need to open them in flight, bailing-out at altitude isn't what anyone was suggesting. What was suggested was being able to simply blow out a side of the aircraft after a crash. In this way you could make any portion of the hull an escape route in the event you survived a crash. This relieves congestion, and makes it much easier for evacuation from a burning plane on the ground.
It is not unusual for emergency exit doors over wings to have windows in them. It is not unusual for normal boarding doors to have windows in them. There is nothing in engineering or science that precludes the idea of an airliner with pressure-rated window-doors that have an arm-able open for passengers. The only thing preventing aircraft designers from doing this is expense and weight. There's no reason it couldn't be done, just like there's no reason airbags couldn't be installed to prevent passenger injuries in crashes. At some point you make engineering tradeoffs. Romney isn't crazy for suggesting this. But an airplane manufacturer might be crazy to build one.
Recent benchmarks? Oh wait, did you forget that you're comparing against a bazaar of active innovation (funny how actual innovation moves fast, isn't it?) that comes out with a new phone once a week? So just wait a few days and Apple will again be lower on the bar in terms of performance again. Of course, it'll take Apple another 2 years to again get themselves back on top, but it will have been worth it to have the best specs for such a short time frame.
Most nations? What metric is that? I look at that map and the 3 most populated nations on earth all allow it. Sure if you include all the tiny underpopulated nations in Europe and elsewhere as part of your counting of viewpoint on the subject, you can get any number you want. In the places where a seriously large population exists, the death penalty is allowed. I think my metric is much better. Humans are not civilized, they treat each other like shit and that's not changing anytime soon. The nations that have to deal with the most human-on-human violent crime all allow it.
I'm really out of the loop w.r.t. unity. I haven't used Ubuntu in a while. It's been so easy to get other versions of linux up and running the way I want that Ubuntu has lost it's luster with me. Frankly it feels restrictive. The last few installs I did were arch-linux, which is as basic as basic can get when you initially install. But if you ever need to customize it, there's lots and lots and lots of wiki pages to tell you exactly how.
The only problem with this is when you get greeted by customs of another country, and the people who visit your boat are suspicious freaks who want to look for contraband. If they find your hidden gun, you can essentially be thrown in prison for being a smuggler. Now, I'm as big an advocate of having deadly force available to you when you're out of reach of law enforcement as anyone, but I have no solution for this potential problem. Basically, the only thing I can possibly consider is customizing specific boat parts out of gun parts so the parts are available to assemble a pistol/AR, but never obvious as to what they are until assembled. Kind of like that one episode of *insert-TV-Show-Here*
...over federal power. If you give the federal government too much power, they do things like this. They are simply not equipped (due mostly to incompetence) to deal with the concerns of it's citizens like local government is, and they should only exist to settle disputes between states and provide for the common defense and law. But when you put them in charge of things like this, you are guaranteed to get problems. The DHS is literally the poster child for why you should never ever ever give your executive branch in a representative republic more power than you would give your local mayor.
How do you induce superconductivity with a proximity effect? My understanding of the phenomenon is that it is basically a specific quantum state allowed to electrons that directly depends on crystal structure (hence the temperature dependence). This is not unlike semiconductors where we rely on a manipulated band-gap to effect alterations in the conductive properties. More interestingly, superconductivity generally doesn't exist where magnetic fields do (there are macroscopic exceptions, but physically when you get to the quantum-level that is the case). So if you put a superconductor next to any old material that can contain a magnetic field, you're essentially expelling all magnetic field into that other material. That presence should negate the ability to generate superconductivity in the other material, right?
So yeah, I'm really curious how you can induce superconductivity in another directly adjacent material that is not normally a superconductor. Or am I just reading something wrong?
So the really interesting part of this story - that superconductivity can be induced in high-temperature materials that haven't been grown in proximity - is completely overshadowed by the tape that held the experiment together?
Fuck journalism.
I think you mean... that superconductivity can be induced at high-temperatures in materials that haven't been grown in proximity... And yes I find that far more interesting than using tape to accomplish it. Generally superconductivity dislikes material boundaries. This is why crystal grain boundaries (paradoxically) help control superconductivity in thin-film YBCO and similar high-temp materials by preventing eddy vorticies from interfering with flow. I had no idea you could induce superconductivity in a different crystal through proximity. in fact all of the knowledge I have on the subject (I did my graduate thesis on YBCO thin films) tells me it shouldn't be possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Private companies are not subject to freedom of information acts. Governments that enact them ARE. I think your statement is poorly informed.
Frankly, you're not thinking straight in any fashion whatsoever.
Slanted advocacy can never be an excuse to reduce the freedom of information. Just because some people will twist words, that does not mean that LESS information should be available. When someone tries to give you half the story in order to influence you, you'd damn well better be asking for the full story, not enforcement of privacy concerns.
Get your head on straight.
Also, you're completely wrong about climategate.
Slanted advocacy is now an excuse to reduce the freedom of information, are you serious? Because some people will twist words, you think LESS information should be open? That's exactly the opposite of what should be done. When someone tries to give you half the story in order to influence you, you'd damn well better be asking for the full story, not enforcement of privacy concerns. That's just about the most asinine thing I've heard on slashdot.
Then any e-mail that pertains to the research that the public paid for is public information.
Why any scientist would request privacy protections is beyond me. Science is, by definition, supposed to be an open process of record.
1) You can't make a plastic firing chamber, that's not what he did.
2) I could apply all of the rest of your argument to parenting, but we don't educate and license parents.
3) We're completely off topic.
Wired mentions that it is illegal to manufacture sawed-off shotguns or machine guns. An automatic rifle is not a machine gun according the the law, afaik. They are a separate class of weapon. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Banks were required to make certain numbers of subprime and risky loans in order to avoid sanctions.
Citation please?
He broke no law AFAIK. He created a portion of the gun that is regulated in commercial export/sale, not manufacture. He didn't even create the full gun with the printer, and his "gun" likely wasn't reliable enough to be considered dangerous to someone it's aiming at.
I see what you might be thinking, but there's a fine but distinct line between gambling and insurance. Insurance is risk management. Good insurance organizations will document the hell out the risk, even going so far as to spend money to buy down risk. Gambling usually entails a totally unknown risk, or if the risk is known you have no way to recoup or mitigate losses.
The government (you can thank Barney Frank in particular) increasingly required Freddie and Fannie to make more risky loans. This process went on for years. The entire market got in on the deal.
This is true, but it hardly accounts for the entire market. Even if just Fanny/Freddie were making shitty loan guarantees, it doesn't explain the collapse in value. That collapse came from a total lack of transparency in loan packaging resulting in over-leveraged institutions (that didn't know they were over-leveraged). It's the same old banking story every 20-30 years. A new type of crap is sold, banks go for it, and they justify their loan-to-asset ratio based on a vaporous understanding of their reality. Eventually it comes crashing down.
They were helpless in the sense that they failed to help themselves peer through the fog of packaging. If the banks dealing with the debt packages had management structures that had done the slightest bit of due diligence, they would have known they were walking on thin ice. In fact this very thing was realized by multiple people in multiple institutions. Red flags were raised but internal audit groups and those people were silenced, promoted out of a position of audit, or outright fired. This is all well documented.
Banking/finance/market regulation doesn't mean that you can't make money lending or selling derivatives. Banks need to be strongly encouraged to do legitimate documentation so that their customers can know how risky the institution is. Ordinarily you could do this by threatening prison to any manager of any company found to be dealing in what amounts to fraud. Unfortunately all those white-collar criminals at that level are so buddy-buddy with politicians, that'll never happen.
You're both wrong. The banks wanted to make money. Since both the property market and the packaged loan markets were going up, any bank that didn't loan out like crazy stood to be less profitable, and hence not do as well on the market themselves. The government opened the door to bad loans through lax regulation and no checks on leveraging. The banks responded to what market pressure and the drive to be the most profitable loan institution would normally do. The lack of transparency just made it all the worse.
Who said anything about opening them in flight? The fact is, you could, in theory, put pressure-rated-window-doors all along the side of every airliner. No need to open them in flight, bailing-out at altitude isn't what anyone was suggesting. What was suggested was being able to simply blow out a side of the aircraft after a crash. In this way you could make any portion of the hull an escape route in the event you survived a crash. This relieves congestion, and makes it much easier for evacuation from a burning plane on the ground.
It is not unusual for emergency exit doors over wings to have windows in them. It is not unusual for normal boarding doors to have windows in them. There is nothing in engineering or science that precludes the idea of an airliner with pressure-rated window-doors that have an arm-able open for passengers. The only thing preventing aircraft designers from doing this is expense and weight. There's no reason it couldn't be done, just like there's no reason airbags couldn't be installed to prevent passenger injuries in crashes. At some point you make engineering tradeoffs. Romney isn't crazy for suggesting this. But an airplane manufacturer might be crazy to build one.
Recent benchmarks? Oh wait, did you forget that you're comparing against a bazaar of active innovation (funny how actual innovation moves fast, isn't it?) that comes out with a new phone once a week? So just wait a few days and Apple will again be lower on the bar in terms of performance again. Of course, it'll take Apple another 2 years to again get themselves back on top, but it will have been worth it to have the best specs for such a short time frame.
Most nations? What metric is that? I look at that map and the 3 most populated nations on earth all allow it. Sure if you include all the tiny underpopulated nations in Europe and elsewhere as part of your counting of viewpoint on the subject, you can get any number you want. In the places where a seriously large population exists, the death penalty is allowed. I think my metric is much better. Humans are not civilized, they treat each other like shit and that's not changing anytime soon. The nations that have to deal with the most human-on-human violent crime all allow it.
A civilized people wouldn't need a death penalty. What a shame humans are less than civilized.
against random hackers while having my cell phone in my pocket at the geek-overloaded dance clubs on a regular basis... I guess I'm safe for now.
Key phrase from the report: by holding two Galaxy S 3s next to each other .
... we'll generate enough cash to... oh wait ... so many people in power don't want to fix the patent system... nevermind.
I'm really out of the loop w.r.t. unity. I haven't used Ubuntu in a while. It's been so easy to get other versions of linux up and running the way I want that Ubuntu has lost it's luster with me. Frankly it feels restrictive. The last few installs I did were arch-linux, which is as basic as basic can get when you initially install. But if you ever need to customize it, there's lots and lots and lots of wiki pages to tell you exactly how.
The only problem with this is when you get greeted by customs of another country, and the people who visit your boat are suspicious freaks who want to look for contraband. If they find your hidden gun, you can essentially be thrown in prison for being a smuggler. Now, I'm as big an advocate of having deadly force available to you when you're out of reach of law enforcement as anyone, but I have no solution for this potential problem. Basically, the only thing I can possibly consider is customizing specific boat parts out of gun parts so the parts are available to assemble a pistol/AR, but never obvious as to what they are until assembled. Kind of like that one episode of *insert-TV-Show-Here*
...over federal power. If you give the federal government too much power, they do things like this. They are simply not equipped (due mostly to incompetence) to deal with the concerns of it's citizens like local government is, and they should only exist to settle disputes between states and provide for the common defense and law. But when you put them in charge of things like this, you are guaranteed to get problems. The DHS is literally the poster child for why you should never ever ever give your executive branch in a representative republic more power than you would give your local mayor.
The average desktop user is disappointed when they only get 347 FPS instead of 422 FPS on their 1080P 3D-accelerated desktop? This is news to me.
How do you induce superconductivity with a proximity effect? My understanding of the phenomenon is that it is basically a specific quantum state allowed to electrons that directly depends on crystal structure (hence the temperature dependence). This is not unlike semiconductors where we rely on a manipulated band-gap to effect alterations in the conductive properties. More interestingly, superconductivity generally doesn't exist where magnetic fields do (there are macroscopic exceptions, but physically when you get to the quantum-level that is the case). So if you put a superconductor next to any old material that can contain a magnetic field, you're essentially expelling all magnetic field into that other material. That presence should negate the ability to generate superconductivity in the other material, right?
So yeah, I'm really curious how you can induce superconductivity in another directly adjacent material that is not normally a superconductor. Or am I just reading something wrong?
So the really interesting part of this story - that superconductivity can be induced in high-temperature materials that haven't been grown in proximity - is completely overshadowed by the tape that held the experiment together?
Fuck journalism.
I think you mean... that superconductivity can be induced at high-temperatures in materials that haven't been grown in proximity... And yes I find that far more interesting than using tape to accomplish it. Generally superconductivity dislikes material boundaries. This is why crystal grain boundaries (paradoxically) help control superconductivity in thin-film YBCO and similar high-temp materials by preventing eddy vorticies from interfering with flow. I had no idea you could induce superconductivity in a different crystal through proximity. in fact all of the knowledge I have on the subject (I did my graduate thesis on YBCO thin films) tells me it shouldn't be possible.