You must admit that physics is an experimental science. We predict and measure. If we cannot count our measurements and observations as confirmation of our theory, then how are we to know if our model is correct? All we know about quantum mechanics is that it has explained a great many observations of the past, so it is a promising tool for the things we cannot explain.
In giving those common examples, I was trying to convince people that they do not have to step into a physics lab to see that quantum mechanics works. Quantum mechanics provides very precise explanations for each item on my list. People trust that the items on that list work. I am not suggesting that quantum mechanics is a law, I am suggesting that quantum mechanics has been a reliable and useful technique for describing our world. It is so successful that we don't even think twice about using the products of quantum mechanics.
Also, thanks for calling me a dumbass. It made my day. It has been a shitty shitty day.
Mills claims that physicists have calculated energy states of the hydrogen atom incorrectly. This is not an exotic part of quantum theory, this is considered an elementary example. Every introductory quantum textbook discusses the hydrogen atom. Many devote an entire chapter to it. It was the first great success of the quantum theory. When Mills claims that the hydrino exists, he is aiming at the very foundation of quantum mechanics, not some obscure technicality.
I am not sure what you mean by "...they mostly rely upon generaly physics and could easily be worked with a revised quantum theory..."[sic]. Please, show me such a theory. It should not take you very long since it "could easily be worked". I want to see it.
You are absolutely right, you need a theory that can explain all observed effects. My argument was intended to dissuade people from jumping on the Hydrino bandwagon because there is a great deal of evidence supporting quantum mechanics. Most people have not made measurements of quantum phenomena, but we rely daily upon devices that are only explained by quantum phenomena. Some of those devices (FET, MRI, LASER) were predicted by quantum mechanics long before their invention. Quantum mechanics has a remarkable record. I was trying to give people evidence supporting quantum mechanics without requiring that they step into a laboratory.
You make a great point when you say, "If Mills' theory actually predicts that these devices would act differently, then yes, his theory is clearly flawed." Quantum mechanics already explains these things. If Mills wants to replace quantum mechanics, then the burden of proof is on Mills.
If we were to observe something that cannot be explained by quantum mechanics, then I would eagerly study this new thing. I would be thankful to live in such an exciting time. However, I am not convinced that Mills has something new. When he opens his lab to the world, when he allows everybody access to his methods, when he stops making claims that it will be ready in just a few months, when he ships a working product, then I will be convinced.
While we are on this trip down memory lane, I will point you to a very old "What's New" piece. To quote Bob Park, "there is no claim so preposterous that a Ph.D. can't be found to vouch for it." When reading claims that "will turn physics on its head!", I like to think of all of the devices in our modern world that verify basic principles of quantum mechanics with their reliable operation. What follows is a very incomplete list of things whose invention relied upon the very principles of quantum mechanics that Mills claims to disprove with his power generator. These are technologies or devices that are very common.
transistors (FET, BJT, etc.) giant magnetoresistive (GMR) heads (read heads in your hard drive) LEDs LASERs atomic clocks nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
This list is not complete. Please feel free to add to it. If I were keeping score, quantum mechanics is ahead 6-0 (remember, Blacklight has yet to market a product).
I did not claim that natural selection happens only by external manipulation. Parse the grammar more carefully. I said, "observe and manipulate", which is two verbs. Scientists do two things, and you chose to pay attention to only the second verb. Read it again.
Sentences begin with capital letters. Your education is showing.
Wow. There is a lot of pent-up rage there. You are accusing me of a lot of things. I was just trying to explain that science and religion address different quesitons. You have accused me of an atheist who is trying to use science to disprove the existence of God.
I never claimed that religion and science are antithetical. They are not. They address different questions. I never said that science disproves the existence of God, and I never said that science proves the existence of God, either. I said that science cannot address the question, so the question should not be raised in a scientific classroom. Please tell me which "unproven hypotheses" I introduced with my comment. I am not aware of "adding unproven hypotheses into the mix", so please do not accuse me of doing so.
If you are looking for a complete explanation of the natural world, a nice story from beginning to end, do not look to science. It is a work in progress, and it will always be a work in progress. Each generation of scientists will learn new things, and some of those things will contradict old ideas. This is progress. This is not evidence that science is wrong.
The movement to teach creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom is ill advised because it presents a non-scientific hypothesis as a scientific theory. Creationism and intelligent design represent a system of religious beliefs founded upon faith. They do not provide an experimentally verifiable or falsifiable set of ideas. They are not scientific theories, and we cannot teach them to our children as science if we hope to compete in an ever more technological world.
Evolution, on the other hand, has resulted in a great number of experimentally verifiable ideas. Through the fossil record, scientists have evidence of natural selection. By examining creatures with very short live cycles, scientists have been able to directly observe and maniuplate natural selection. The structure of our own DNA is the strongest evidence yet that we, too, are subject to natural selection. New ideas are only called theories if they can be verified or falsified. It is a very different definition of theory than exists for the general public, who confuse "theory" with "hypothesis".
Many people believe that to teach evolution is to teach that there is no God. Evolution does not explicitly discuss God because we cannot test for God, and this is evidence for some that evolution teaches atheism. I know religious people who take evolution and natural selection as evidence of God, and have heard them call DNA "God's fingerprints".
What does evolution mean? Is it evidence that miracles do not happen, or is it evidence that God was here? That is an interesting theological question, and one for which there is no experimental test. It is not a scientific question, so it should not be taught in a science classroom.
I like your accounting style. Did you work for Enron?
Even worse, it is going to cost a lot of money to bring those stupid elementary school drawings up there. There is a large cost per kilogram of payload on every ship. Maybe they could save some money by printing it on surplus paper.
What is the scientific merit here? Let's fund some scientific research, such as Voyager or Hubble. This is asinine. Maybe we ought to declare the whole ISS as "surplus" and sell our share to the Chinese. It's surplus, so every penny is profit!
They are probably using a space suit because the radiation shielding and temperature controls will allow them to use electronics that are not space hardened. It's a smaller waste of money that way.
The event lasted 250 milliseconds, so it is unlikely that an astronaut saw a flash and aimed the camera. The title of the article is "Columbia crew saw new atmospheric phenomenon". The crew probably never saw it. It was probably a fixed camera photographing the planet for analysis by a technician at a later date, just like we have on so many unmanned satellites. The presence of people on the shuttle was coincidental, not essential.
It's been over two years and we have had a continuous manned presence in space (aboard the ISS) that whole time. We pour billions of dollars each year into manned space flight, and the best we have is an unexplained flash in the upper atmosphere taken by a camera that could have been mounted on an unmanned satellite and remotely controlled? What a waste of money and human lives.
I agree with you. Why is there debate about Hubble Space Telescope maintenance? Even crippled and gimpy, the HST is providing useful data to scientists. Why is funding being cut to the Voyager program just when it is approaching the heliopause, the boundary to our solar system? It's the farthest reaching manmade object in the universe, and we are still getting data. It costs $4 million per year, but it is being cut to make room for a manned mission to the moon or Mars.
Why do we need manned anything? What can we learn with people that we cannot learn with remote controlled robots? The Mars Rover project has outperformed the designers' wildest dreams. It is the scientific equivalent of a bargain. If that were a manned mission, we would have spent all of the budget trying to keep the people alive. When the Mars Rovers finally stop returning data, we will just turn them off and leave them. That is not a convenience we would have with a manned mission.
Manned space filght is a novelty, not a scientific research subject. How many scientific papers have come out of the International Space Station? When was the last time actual scientific research was carried out on the space shuttle? When was the last time a manned space mission provided a new answer to a scientific question? Go to the library. Do a web search.
There is a guy who likes to rant about this sort of thing. Go here and click on the "What's New" link. Search for things like "manned space flight" or "space station" or "missile defense sheild". It's some good reading.
You want details? The article refers to a study published in science. The citation is presented at the end of the article. Here it is:
Legname G., et al. Science, 305. 673 - 676 (2004).
Look for university libraries in your area. You don't need a library card to go to the current journals and photocopy pages. If you are at a university and your university has subscribed to the electronic journal, go to http://www.sciencemag.org and find the link.
It is full of a lot of details that most of us (certainly not me) don't need. Read the abstract, the introduction, and the conclusion. If your interest is piqued, you might read the body and chase some references.
I doubt that anybody will read this. The comment count has exceeded 400 (thanks to the WMD discussion--really people, they INJECTED IT INTO THE BRAINS OF THE MICE). I also like to shout at airplanes.
People always talk like using a laser would help, but I don't think so. You want it to be: 1. an intense beam; 2. a narrow (almost collimated) beam; 3. but not too narrow; 4. the right color of light; and 5. cheap.
Item 1 can be accomplished with a laser LED, but I think that would be overkill. In fact, it's a little dangerous. It's likely that somebody will get it in the eye eventually, and that might lead to a permanent injury. I would buy a bright LED and replace the bulb with it. Maybe I would use a small resistor to bias it. My set takes 6 AA batteries. This will surely provide enough voltage.
Item 2 is almost accomplished with the lenses onboard. It would be a little hard to move them. You might just add a small lens when you install the LED. I wouldn't bother.
Item 3: Why bother with all the fussing about with lenses? I want a spread. My aim is lousy!
Item 4: The reciever may have a narrow band reciever so you may need to use a special color. I know that for my Laser Tag set the color is green. LEDs are available in red, orange, yellow green, and blue. The spectrum of a laser is extremely narrow. If you buy a red laser LED (say 632 nm), and your reciever is green (500 nm), you won't get anything. The spectrum of the ordinary LED is quite broad, so you will probably hit the right wavelength if you match it by eye.
Item 5: Yeah, you know it's cheap this way. You could even put 3 or 4 of them in there and still not hit the $1 mark (unless you shop at Radio Shack, then they'll be $1.19 each--sucker!).
I would take out the old bulb, remove the glass, and solder an LED onto the contacts (so as not to damage the original gun with my mod). I might add a resistor for biasing (really depends on the voltage of the socket). I might use a potentiometer so that I can dial up the brightness. I might take out the green filter. Maybe not. It shouldn't attenuate the beam that much.
Why do you think boycotts are childish? It is a form of nonviolent protest, a very mature and sophisticated idea. It is the most powerful and persuasive tool at the disposal of the consumer. Your choices as a consumer are to buy or not to buy, patronize or boycott. If consumers not buying, there is something wrong with the product. It is a strong message.
If the publisher finds out that the advertisements are causing readership to slip, they will act fast to prevent loss of revenue. It is not childish to use the tools at your disposal to effect change.
That a stack of $20 bills burns in a microwave is not proof of an RFID conspiracy. If you take a stack of ordinary paper and put it in the microwave long enough, it burns from the middle. This is an old hacker prank. Back in the days of punch cards, if you put a stack of punch cards in a microwave, they burned from the middle. The top and bottom cards were fine, but the middle ones were charred. (It was a mean prank to play on the card feeder.) Notice the photograph of the bills. Some are charred a little, some are charred a lot. I would lay freshly baked $20 on the fact that the amound of charring is dependant on the depth in the stack.
I have one follow-up question for Dave and Denise: do the charred bills set off the scanner? This would not be proof, but it may provide contrary evidence to their claim.
It is hard to win the fair way when the competition is cheating.
A win against MS using govt. thugs rather than free market...
The problem is that capitalism favors monopolies. To keep the market free, a competing power (like "govt. thugs") is necessary to maintain a balance between capitalism and a free market. If you believe otherwise, then you must be a Republican strongly in favor of market deregulation and supply side economics. (That was not an insult, it was an observation.) You are deluded. (There, that was the insult.)
No, I was offered less. It was initially around 30%. What makes you think you know anything about this anyway? It was a private offer, extended to ME only. Something is fishy here...
Have you ever tried to negotiate with him? I found him to be a reasonable man. When I mentioned the I was also in negotiations with the Nigerians, he DOUBLED my percentage. Wow!
I just can't get "girl who runs computer" out of my mind.
I agree with your use of the word "plagerize".[sic] I looked up "plagiarize" in Merriam-Webster (which is the only reason I can spell "plagiarize"). The result is: "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source."
Clearly, if I were to copy a work of yours and sign my name to it without giving you credit, I would be guilty of plagiarism. Even if I had your permission (or blessing, as is the case here), it would be plagiarism. Plagiarism at work can get you reprimanded or even fired. Plagiarism in school can get you a failing grade or an expulsion. It is a big deal to writers, and I am not surprised to see the newspaper editors work so hard to avoid publishing such works. I am surprised that this word did not make it into the the New York Times article. Spineless.
They quote two numbers for record sales, showing a decline in sales by 13% from 2000 to 2002, and claim that it is all because of illegal file sharing. Why do people believe this? There is a simpler explanation: it's the economy, stupid. People have less money to spend. I do not participate in file sharing, but I have also not bought a new CD in over a year because I don't have the damn cash! Perhaps some people buy fewer CDs because of file swapping, perhaps some people buy more, but nobody knows the general trend. There have been no unbiased studies.
The sad fact is that the New York Times parroted the alleged reason for sales loss without some kind of disclaimer, such as "Music companies claim that a proliferation of file-swapping...". They are a reputable news organization, they should know better than to parrot facts given by a trade organization. I heard this same thing on CBS news yesterday, but I wasn't surprised. It was typical of CBS quality journalism. However, this was most certainly sub-par for the Times.
Yes, that is their business model. It makes sense, but it's annoying. If you read the README, they at least come out and say it. You can always pool resources with a few friends.
You can download a trial CD, which is a live bootable CD. I've never done it. You can download CDs of prior versions of SuSE (perhaps the 8.0 images are out now?). You can install the current version via FTP, but their FTP site is several months behind the CDs, so it is probably beyond everybody (not just newbies) to make the CD 1.
The point is that the licensing demands a fundamental shift from traditional book usage. We are not complaining about the practice of putting licenses on things, we are complaining that these licenses are trying to strip us of rights we have enjoyed for generations. This book license is absurd, and it is hard for me to accept a world in which a company thinks they can get away with such a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to run an interpreted language on a supercomputer? Why not hitch a pony up to a Porsche?
Great example. Thanks!
You must admit that physics is an experimental science. We predict and measure. If we cannot count our measurements and observations as confirmation of our theory, then how are we to know if our model is correct? All we know about quantum mechanics is that it has explained a great many observations of the past, so it is a promising tool for the things we cannot explain.
In giving those common examples, I was trying to convince people that they do not have to step into a physics lab to see that quantum mechanics works. Quantum mechanics provides very precise explanations for each item on my list. People trust that the items on that list work. I am not suggesting that quantum mechanics is a law, I am suggesting that quantum mechanics has been a reliable and useful technique for describing our world. It is so successful that we don't even think twice about using the products of quantum mechanics.
Also, thanks for calling me a dumbass. It made my day. It has been a shitty shitty day.
Mills claims that physicists have calculated energy states of the hydrogen atom incorrectly. This is not an exotic part of quantum theory, this is considered an elementary example. Every introductory quantum textbook discusses the hydrogen atom. Many devote an entire chapter to it. It was the first great success of the quantum theory. When Mills claims that the hydrino exists, he is aiming at the very foundation of quantum mechanics, not some obscure technicality.
I am not sure what you mean by "...they mostly rely upon generaly physics and could easily be worked with a revised quantum theory..."[sic]. Please, show me such a theory. It should not take you very long since it "could easily be worked". I want to see it.
You are absolutely right, you need a theory that can explain all observed effects. My argument was intended to dissuade people from jumping on the Hydrino bandwagon because there is a great deal of evidence supporting quantum mechanics. Most people have not made measurements of quantum phenomena, but we rely daily upon devices that are only explained by quantum phenomena. Some of those devices (FET, MRI, LASER) were predicted by quantum mechanics long before their invention. Quantum mechanics has a remarkable record. I was trying to give people evidence supporting quantum mechanics without requiring that they step into a laboratory.
You make a great point when you say, "If Mills' theory actually predicts that these devices would act differently, then yes, his theory is clearly flawed." Quantum mechanics already explains these things. If Mills wants to replace quantum mechanics, then the burden of proof is on Mills.
If we were to observe something that cannot be explained by quantum mechanics, then I would eagerly study this new thing. I would be thankful to live in such an exciting time. However, I am not convinced that Mills has something new. When he opens his lab to the world, when he allows everybody access to his methods, when he stops making claims that it will be ready in just a few months, when he ships a working product, then I will be convinced.
While we are on this trip down memory lane, I will point you to a very old "What's New" piece. To quote Bob Park, "there is no claim so preposterous that a Ph.D. can't be found to vouch for it." When reading claims that "will turn physics on its head!", I like to think of all of the devices in our modern world that verify basic principles of quantum mechanics with their reliable operation. What follows is a very incomplete list of things whose invention relied upon the very principles of quantum mechanics that Mills claims to disprove with his power generator. These are technologies or devices that are very common.
transistors (FET, BJT, etc.)
giant magnetoresistive (GMR) heads (read heads in your hard drive)
LEDs
LASERs
atomic clocks
nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
This list is not complete. Please feel free to add to it. If I were keeping score, quantum mechanics is ahead 6-0 (remember, Blacklight has yet to market a product).
I did not claim that natural selection happens only by external manipulation. Parse the grammar more carefully. I said, "observe and manipulate", which is two verbs. Scientists do two things, and you chose to pay attention to only the second verb. Read it again.
Sentences begin with capital letters. Your education is showing.
Wow. There is a lot of pent-up rage there. You are accusing me of a lot of things. I was just trying to explain that science and religion address different quesitons. You have accused me of an atheist who is trying to use science to disprove the existence of God.
I never claimed that religion and science are antithetical. They are not. They address different questions. I never said that science disproves the existence of God, and I never said that science proves the existence of God, either. I said that science cannot address the question, so the question should not be raised in a scientific classroom. Please tell me which "unproven hypotheses" I introduced with my comment. I am not aware of "adding unproven hypotheses into the mix", so please do not accuse me of doing so.
If you are looking for a complete explanation of the natural world, a nice story from beginning to end, do not look to science. It is a work in progress, and it will always be a work in progress. Each generation of scientists will learn new things, and some of those things will contradict old ideas. This is progress. This is not evidence that science is wrong.
The movement to teach creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom is ill advised because it presents a non-scientific hypothesis as a scientific theory. Creationism and intelligent design represent a system of religious beliefs founded upon faith. They do not provide an experimentally verifiable or falsifiable set of ideas. They are not scientific theories, and we cannot teach them to our children as science if we hope to compete in an ever more technological world.
Evolution, on the other hand, has resulted in a great number of experimentally verifiable ideas. Through the fossil record, scientists have evidence of natural selection. By examining creatures with very short live cycles, scientists have been able to directly observe and maniuplate natural selection. The structure of our own DNA is the strongest evidence yet that we, too, are subject to natural selection. New ideas are only called theories if they can be verified or falsified. It is a very different definition of theory than exists for the general public, who confuse "theory" with "hypothesis".
Many people believe that to teach evolution is to teach that there is no God. Evolution does not explicitly discuss God because we cannot test for God, and this is evidence for some that evolution teaches atheism. I know religious people who take evolution and natural selection as evidence of God, and have heard them call DNA "God's fingerprints".
What does evolution mean? Is it evidence that miracles do not happen, or is it evidence that God was here? That is an interesting theological question, and one for which there is no experimental test. It is not a scientific question, so it should not be taught in a science classroom.
I like your accounting style. Did you work for Enron?
Even worse, it is going to cost a lot of money to bring those stupid elementary school drawings up there. There is a large cost per kilogram of payload on every ship. Maybe they could save some money by printing it on surplus paper.
What is the scientific merit here? Let's fund some scientific research, such as Voyager or Hubble. This is asinine. Maybe we ought to declare the whole ISS as "surplus" and sell our share to the Chinese. It's surplus, so every penny is profit!
They are probably using a space suit because the radiation shielding and temperature controls will allow them to use electronics that are not space hardened. It's a smaller waste of money that way.
The event lasted 250 milliseconds, so it is unlikely that an astronaut saw a flash and aimed the camera. The title of the article is "Columbia crew saw new atmospheric phenomenon". The crew probably never saw it. It was probably a fixed camera photographing the planet for analysis by a technician at a later date, just like we have on so many unmanned satellites. The presence of people on the shuttle was coincidental, not essential.
It's been over two years and we have had a continuous manned presence in space (aboard the ISS) that whole time. We pour billions of dollars each year into manned space flight, and the best we have is an unexplained flash in the upper atmosphere taken by a camera that could have been mounted on an unmanned satellite and remotely controlled? What a waste of money and human lives.
I agree with you. Why is there debate about Hubble Space Telescope maintenance? Even crippled and gimpy, the HST is providing useful data to scientists. Why is funding being cut to the Voyager program just when it is approaching the heliopause, the boundary to our solar system? It's the farthest reaching manmade object in the universe, and we are still getting data. It costs $4 million per year, but it is being cut to make room for a manned mission to the moon or Mars.
Why do we need manned anything? What can we learn with people that we cannot learn with remote controlled robots? The Mars Rover project has outperformed the designers' wildest dreams. It is the scientific equivalent of a bargain. If that were a manned mission, we would have spent all of the budget trying to keep the people alive. When the Mars Rovers finally stop returning data, we will just turn them off and leave them. That is not a convenience we would have with a manned mission.
Manned space filght is a novelty, not a scientific research subject. How many scientific papers have come out of the International Space Station? When was the last time actual scientific research was carried out on the space shuttle? When was the last time a manned space mission provided a new answer to a scientific question? Go to the library. Do a web search.
There is a guy who likes to rant about this sort of thing. Go here and click on the "What's New" link. Search for things like "manned space flight" or "space station" or "missile defense sheild". It's some good reading.
You want details? The article refers to a study published in science. The citation is presented at the end of the article. Here it is:
Legname G., et al. Science, 305. 673 - 676 (2004).
Look for university libraries in your area. You don't need a library card to go to the current journals and photocopy pages. If you are at a university and your university has subscribed to the electronic journal, go to http://www.sciencemag.org and find the link.
It is full of a lot of details that most of us (certainly not me) don't need. Read the abstract, the introduction, and the conclusion. If your interest is piqued, you might read the body and chase some references.
I doubt that anybody will read this. The comment count has exceeded 400 (thanks to the WMD discussion--really people, they INJECTED IT INTO THE BRAINS OF THE MICE). I also like to shout at airplanes.
People always talk like using a laser would help, but I don't think so. You want it to be:
1. an intense beam;
2. a narrow (almost collimated) beam;
3. but not too narrow;
4. the right color of light; and
5. cheap.
Item 1 can be accomplished with a laser LED, but I think that would be overkill. In fact, it's a little dangerous. It's likely that somebody will get it in the eye eventually, and that might lead to a permanent injury. I would buy a bright LED and replace the bulb with it. Maybe I would use a small resistor to bias it. My set takes 6 AA batteries. This will surely provide enough voltage.
Item 2 is almost accomplished with the lenses onboard. It would be a little hard to move them. You might just add a small lens when you install the LED. I wouldn't bother.
Item 3: Why bother with all the fussing about with lenses? I want a spread. My aim is lousy!
Item 4: The reciever may have a narrow band reciever so you may need to use a special color. I know that for my Laser Tag set the color is green. LEDs are available in red, orange, yellow green, and blue. The spectrum of a laser is extremely narrow. If you buy a red laser LED (say 632 nm), and your reciever is green (500 nm), you won't get anything. The spectrum of the ordinary LED is quite broad, so you will probably hit the right wavelength if you match it by eye.
Item 5: Yeah, you know it's cheap this way. You could even put 3 or 4 of them in there and still not hit the $1 mark (unless you shop at Radio Shack, then they'll be $1.19 each--sucker!).
I would take out the old bulb, remove the glass, and solder an LED onto the contacts (so as not to damage the original gun with my mod). I might add a resistor for biasing (really depends on the voltage of the socket). I might use a potentiometer so that I can dial up the brightness. I might take out the green filter. Maybe not. It shouldn't attenuate the beam that much.
P.S. Get a cup.
Why do you think boycotts are childish? It is a form of nonviolent protest, a very mature and sophisticated idea. It is the most powerful and persuasive tool at the disposal of the consumer. Your choices as a consumer are to buy or not to buy, patronize or boycott. If consumers not buying, there is something wrong with the product. It is a strong message.
If the publisher finds out that the advertisements are causing readership to slip, they will act fast to prevent loss of revenue. It is not childish to use the tools at your disposal to effect change.
That a stack of $20 bills burns in a microwave is not proof of an RFID conspiracy. If you take a stack of ordinary paper and put it in the microwave long enough, it burns from the middle. This is an old hacker prank. Back in the days of punch cards, if you put a stack of punch cards in a microwave, they burned from the middle. The top and bottom cards were fine, but the middle ones were charred. (It was a mean prank to play on the card feeder.) Notice the photograph of the bills. Some are charred a little, some are charred a lot. I would lay freshly baked $20 on the fact that the amound of charring is dependant on the depth in the stack.
I have one follow-up question for Dave and Denise: do the charred bills set off the scanner? This would not be proof, but it may provide contrary evidence to their claim.
Win the fair way.
It is hard to win the fair way when the competition is cheating.
A win against MS using govt. thugs rather than free market...
The problem is that capitalism favors monopolies. To keep the market free, a competing power (like "govt. thugs") is necessary to maintain a balance between capitalism and a free market. If you believe otherwise, then you must be a Republican strongly in favor of market deregulation and supply side economics. (That was not an insult, it was an observation.) You are deluded. (There, that was the insult.)
I am anxious to see more of these private space startups. After all, it's how the Fantastic Four got their super powers. It's just a matter of time...
No, I was offered less. It was initially around 30%. What makes you think you know anything about this anyway? It was a private offer, extended to ME only. Something is fishy here...
Have you ever tried to negotiate with him? I found him to be a reasonable man. When I mentioned the I was also in negotiations with the Nigerians, he DOUBLED my percentage. Wow!
I just can't get "girl who runs computer" out of my mind.
Clearly, if I were to copy a work of yours and sign my name to it without giving you credit, I would be guilty of plagiarism. Even if I had your permission (or blessing, as is the case here), it would be plagiarism. Plagiarism at work can get you reprimanded or even fired. Plagiarism in school can get you a failing grade or an expulsion. It is a big deal to writers, and I am not surprised to see the newspaper editors work so hard to avoid publishing such works. I am surprised that this word did not make it into the the New York Times article. Spineless.
They quote two numbers for record sales, showing a decline in sales by 13% from 2000 to 2002, and claim that it is all because of illegal file sharing. Why do people believe this? There is a simpler explanation: it's the economy, stupid. People have less money to spend. I do not participate in file sharing, but I have also not bought a new CD in over a year because I don't have the damn cash! Perhaps some people buy fewer CDs because of file swapping, perhaps some people buy more, but nobody knows the general trend. There have been no unbiased studies.
The sad fact is that the New York Times parroted the alleged reason for sales loss without some kind of disclaimer, such as "Music companies claim that a proliferation of file-swapping...". They are a reputable news organization, they should know better than to parrot facts given by a trade organization. I heard this same thing on CBS news yesterday, but I wasn't surprised. It was typical of CBS quality journalism. However, this was most certainly sub-par for the Times.
Yes, that is their business model. It makes sense, but it's annoying. If you read the README, they at least come out and say it. You can always pool resources with a few friends.
You can download a trial CD, which is a live bootable CD. I've never done it. You can download CDs of prior versions of SuSE (perhaps the 8.0 images are out now?). You can install the current version via FTP, but their FTP site is several months behind the CDs, so it is probably beyond everybody (not just newbies) to make the CD 1.
The point is that the licensing demands a fundamental shift from traditional book usage. We are not complaining about the practice of putting licenses on things, we are complaining that these licenses are trying to strip us of rights we have enjoyed for generations. This book license is absurd, and it is hard for me to accept a world in which a company thinks they can get away with such a thing.