The advantage would be storing the necessary energy in solid, chemically useful form and producing only non toxic byproducts. It won't be free or probably even cheap energy. And it's still only hydrogen that has to be reacted again at an additional energy loss to do work.
I think a reasonable approximation of a dinosaur genome could be constructed from the common genes of widely divergent species that have dinosaur ancestors. Or at least a weird kind of bird.
The one thing left out of this analysis however, but Marx (I think unfairly) lumps in with the petit-bourgeoisie, are those who own just enough capital to labor on it themselves, and do so. Self-employed individuals, otherwise known as "small business owners". They are living the life we would all live in a classless society, having a small piece of the world to call their own and making their living from it, neither exploiting nor being exploited, and I consider them the true middle-class and the solution to the class conflict.
They're not a solution to anything. They are economically outflanked by the capitalists and exist only in the niches that the capitalists don't see as worth exploiting. I know a lot of people who wrongly think of themselves as being in that class. We call the contractors, but by and large, they work for the Man.
There are only two classes. There is a Capitalist class and a Working class. Arguably there is also an underclass: people who would be working class if there were jobs.
Have they factored in the loss if jobs in developed countries? In other words,are we really doing a lot more with a lot fewer people or are we employing different people to do our work?
The biggest problem is tht it is based on what other people have searched for rather than what You are searching for now. The next problem is that it is self-reinforcing.
This is the kind of case where you demand a speedy trial. Letting the prosecution drag things out won't help you. You need a lawyer who can explaon to a jury how ridiculous it is to prosecute you for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.
Not describing the experiment correctly will not bother their corporate sponsors, who will either employ them directly or get the full description upon payment. Never doing it at all? No problem if they get more grants to build upon the nonexistent foundation they fabricated - unless they change direction with every grant and never evolve their previous work, which is nice work if you can get it.
Honestly, I think the most probable reason is poor record taking and poor writing.
Depends on what exactly they are designing. If the house is nothing more than a box with a door and a window or two, then 18 months is ridiculously long. If the house is a 400 sq meter completely custom sprawling house and the owner has gone through multiple iterations of different designs, then 18 months doesn't seem all that unreasonable. If everything is being cast in stone before everything is printed, you get one shot to make sure your wiring, plumbing, hvac, etc are all places exactly where you want them.
Sounds like a great reason not to cast everything in stone.
This Mobius strip looks more like a pavilion design for a World's Fair.
If I am reading the renderings correctly, it does not have an unbroken interior. Navigating from one "room" to the next looks to be quite a hike.
I don't see how you organize the interior space that is any way livable.
It's incredibly inefficient in every way. There's no reason for any stairs, but it wastes a huge amount of its space making them. Way too much outer wall, way too much distance between rooms that are too small for the land it occupies. But some sucker will buy it and will be proud to show it off until he decides it's unliveable and moves out to a more normal looking structure.
Maybe if 99% of your data consists of copies of copyrighted CDs and DVDs it might be pretty efficient. And saleable. And going to get him back in jail.
So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.
What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?
I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.
Please tell us. I've got a professional interest in sorting the dumbasses from the rest of the internet, and you seem to be able to tell the difference.
I don't understand why people would think they will have access to their data when the government takes new servers down in a midnight raid.
Of course, horses are often though of as companion animals, (disclaimer: I own and ride a horse) and it's not customary to eat any animal you gave a name to.
I conclude that every gun from which the serial number has been removed is almost certain evidence that gun was sold by its last legal owner to person prohibited from owning one, either in a straw purchase or an unrecorded or falsified sale from a gun shop or show.
Why are you even arguing that point? All guns had a "legal owner" at some point who then sold it to an "illegal owner". Isn't that bloody obvious?
No. Guns can also be stolen. But for guns used in crimes that figure is under 15%. Presumably that's much higher than the general population of guns.
I said, "Criminals who know they're going to commit crimes with guns often take steps to remove serial numbers and thus traceability."
I want to amend that statement. It is not the criminals who intend to commit crimes with the guns who are removing the serial numbers to prevent traceability. There are two possible motives for doing that:
(1) preventing police from being able to trace the gun back to you, the last legal owner who sold it to a prohibited person.
(2) to prevent police from tracing it back to the last legal owner from whom you stole it and thus connecting you with that crime.
However the incentive for #2 is not usually that strong. If you feared that a gun would be used to connect you to some heinous crime, you'd dispose of the gun or trade it to some sap. And even if you were later caught with it you'd later be able to raise reasonable doubt that you bought the gun on the black market (for self-protection) which is a lesser offense than burglary.
I conclude that every gun from which the serial number has been removed is almost certain evidence that gun was sold by its last legal owner to person prohibited from owning one, either in a straw purchase or an unrecorded or falsified sale from a gun shop or show.
It is in the public interest to have such records public in order to control expenditures and expose fraud. If these records were made public, tens of thousands of people would dig through them and find fraud and unnecessary expenditures. They would also be invaluable in shaping public policy and enabling voters to make informed decisions at the ballot box.
For example, perhaps those convicted of meth use (that list available from other public records) have substantially higher incidents of government reimbursed health care for liver failure. This information would be invaluable to voters considering drug policy and public health care issues.
Fraud could be detected by crowd sourcing the task. People who know individuals in their town might well be able to identify fraud patterns that elude government investigators in Washington who have no knowledge of who the deadbeats and liars in the town are so can't detect that they all go to one doctor who bills Medicaid for conditions that these people seem unlikely to have.
Such information would likely also be useful (even though incomplete as it only covers publicly provided health care) to medical researchers who could use statistical analysis in fruitful ways thereby improving health care for all (obviously helping to "promote the general Welfare").
The US Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, a right to medical care, or a right to government provided medical care so there's no Constitutional problem with my proposal. On the other hand, requiring citizens to get a "permit" to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights enumerated in the Second Amendment and to expose this publicly is treading on the Constitution (and not just on its penumbras) just as the government requiring a permit to post on/. and publishing a list of the real names and addresses of each poster would tread on the right to exercise free speech that is enshrined in the First Amendment.
The public health benefits could all be gathered without including names or personally identifiable informaition.
And the Constitution does guarantee a right to privacy. It's right here:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like the wrong response. Instead of killing search, why not just erase the keys files and lock out the accounts of the offending devs?
The water you use is safe. The nanoparticles are high reactivity and give off hydrogen when exposed to water, so they are not so safe.
The advantage would be storing the necessary energy in solid, chemically useful form and producing only non toxic byproducts. It won't be free or probably even cheap energy. And it's still only hydrogen that has to be reacted again at an additional energy loss to do work.
I think a reasonable approximation of a dinosaur genome could be constructed from the common genes of widely divergent species that have dinosaur ancestors. Or at least a weird kind of bird.
FTFA, the attack on Paypal was said to have cost them 3.6 m pounds, I doubt that.
I'm sure Paypal is very much interested in proving that in civil court. The pain is just beginning for those idiot boys.
Sadly, you are quite possibly correct.
So much for the scientific method. Even the experts suck at it.
Nobody said science was easy.
The one thing left out of this analysis however, but Marx (I think unfairly) lumps in with the petit-bourgeoisie, are those who own just enough capital to labor on it themselves, and do so. Self-employed individuals, otherwise known as "small business owners". They are living the life we would all live in a classless society, having a small piece of the world to call their own and making their living from it, neither exploiting nor being exploited, and I consider them the true middle-class and the solution to the class conflict.
They're not a solution to anything. They are economically outflanked by the capitalists and exist only in the niches that the capitalists don't see as worth exploiting. I know a lot of people who wrongly think of themselves as being in that class. We call the contractors, but by and large, they work for the Man.
There are only two classes. There is a Capitalist class and a Working class. Arguably there is also an underclass: people who would be working class if there were jobs.
Have they factored in the loss if jobs in developed countries? In other words,are we really doing a lot more with a lot fewer people or are we employing different people to do our work?
The biggest problem is tht it is based on what other people have searched for rather than what You are searching for now. The next problem is that it is self-reinforcing.
This is the kind of case where you demand a speedy trial. Letting the prosecution drag things out won't help you. You need a lawyer who can explaon to a jury how ridiculous it is to prosecute you for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.
Hamburgers mass-produced by a robot are "gourmet" hamburgers?
Not describing the experiment correctly will not bother their corporate sponsors, who will either employ them directly or get the full description upon payment. Never doing it at all? No problem if they get more grants to build upon the nonexistent foundation they fabricated - unless they change direction with every grant and never evolve their previous work, which is nice work if you can get it.
Honestly, I think the most probable reason is poor record taking and poor writing.
No, it means that the original experimenters didn't describe their experiment correctly. Or worse, may have never done it at all...
There are protocols which are published and then there are protocols that remains unpublished
How about those protocols which have remained unpublished?
Any way to test those?
That's not science. That's grandma's secret recipe.
Depends on what exactly they are designing. If the house is nothing more than a box with a door and a window or two, then 18 months is ridiculously long. If the house is a 400 sq meter completely custom sprawling house and the owner has gone through multiple iterations of different designs, then 18 months doesn't seem all that unreasonable. If everything is being cast in stone before everything is printed, you get one shot to make sure your wiring, plumbing, hvac, etc are all places exactly where you want them.
Sounds like a great reason not to cast everything in stone.
This Mobius strip looks more like a pavilion design for a World's Fair.
If I am reading the renderings correctly, it does not have an unbroken interior. Navigating from one "room" to the next looks to be quite a hike.
I don't see how you organize the interior space that is any way livable.
It's incredibly inefficient in every way. There's no reason for any stairs, but it wastes a huge amount of its space making them. Way too much outer wall, way too much distance between rooms that are too small for the land it occupies. But some sucker will buy it and will be proud to show it off until he decides it's unliveable and moves out to a more normal looking structure.
Yep. That's also becoming conventional, at least with respect to wall sections and roof trusses.
Maybe if 99% of your data consists of copies of copyrighted CDs and DVDs it might be pretty efficient. And saleable. And going to get him back in jail.
So nice to see that so many dumbasses are out there willing to trust people like that with their data. What could possibly go wrong.
What part of "data is encrypted at the client using javascript" don't you understand?
I'll be happy to explain it to you. Was it the "javascript" part? Or maybe "encryption"? I can go over the difference between "client side" processing and "server side" if you like.
Please tell us. I've got a professional interest in sorting the dumbasses from the rest of the internet, and you seem to be able to tell the difference.
I don't understand why people would think they will have access to their data when the government takes new servers down in a midnight raid.
Look what happened to data of the last people who trusted him for cloud storage.
Of course, horses are often though of as companion animals, (disclaimer: I own and ride a horse) and it's not customary to eat any animal you gave a name to.
Tell that to the 4-H.
Why are you even arguing that point? All guns had a "legal owner" at some point who then sold it to an "illegal owner". Isn't that bloody obvious?
No. Guns can also be stolen. But for guns used in crimes that figure is under 15%. Presumably that's much higher than the general population of guns.
(1) preventing police from being able to trace the gun back to you, the last legal owner who sold it to a prohibited person.
(2) to prevent police from tracing it back to the last legal owner from whom you stole it and thus connecting you with that crime. However the incentive for #2 is not usually that strong. If you feared that a gun would be used to connect you to some heinous crime, you'd dispose of the gun or trade it to some sap. And even if you were later caught with it you'd later be able to raise reasonable doubt that you bought the gun on the black market (for self-protection) which is a lesser offense than burglary. I conclude that every gun from which the serial number has been removed is almost certain evidence that gun was sold by its last legal owner to person prohibited from owning one, either in a straw purchase or an unrecorded or falsified sale from a gun shop or show.
The public health benefits could all be gathered without including names or personally identifiable informaition. And the Constitution does guarantee a right to privacy. It's right here: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"