Plutonium is poisonous as hell. Strontium looks a lot like calcium and has a very bad habit of replacing it in living bone tissue... while beeing radioactive. None are things i'd like within 100 miles of where i live. But damn useful in space...
Detected, proven and... something is still needed. Made public, made official, people getting arrested or at least fired over it. Just proving it unfortunately doesn't mean much. The other side can "prove" you're not to be trusted too.
Nope, not his parent. A parent would have done something / said something at the end. It's easy to think this is a funny ideea, but to stand and tape while the kid is crying you have to be a) a teen b) a jerk c) a stranger or d) all of the above. Definitely not a mature person related to the kid.
32 ram is a bit to little for contemporary software... the sooner you put a (maybe older) linux the better. Maybe an earlier version of firefox would work better?
You don't really want all the bells and whisles of a newer browser... for a couple of years i used konqueror (the KDE browser) just because it was the lightest browser i've seen. After a couple of releases though i didn't notice anything getting remarcably better, but on my machine it became unusable. So i understand you:)
Just out of curiosity I looked at how much memory my Firefox was using with about 3 windows open. To my surprise: 95. "WOW!" I thought. "Way to much!". But then it hit me: I have almost a gig of ram and the main activity on my computer is... browsing. So is it much from a technical point of view? Yes it sure is. But is it that bad? In the real world It's Ok. Not because I have a lot of ram (that's where we technical minds get stuck: on the tehnical details) but because brosing isn't a side effect, it's actualy quite an important activity for a computer user. So the memory is very well used.
I've been reading for 10 minutes, in the answers in yahoo and then here on slashdot, and not a single (modded) answer "Of course it will survive!". You sir are _very_ right. Right now we are at the best of our history with resources unimaginable until 200 years ago. If, and a say _if_, somehow, we'll hit a real crisis (and I really don't think we will) a reduction of 80% in our production capabilities would mean... tadam... no games consoles, no new blockbuster movies, no new cars etc. The basic things necesary for our survival are so cheap it's almost imposible to run out of them, globally. A meal at McDonalds may cost 10$, but the ingridients, bulk, cost about a buck. And the cheapest caloric equivalent would probably be a penny or less. With 100$ one could buy food for a couple of years. So people are trying to tell me there is a chance we won't SURVIVE?!
I'm not going to list every imaginable end-of-the-world scenario and debunk it, but instead i will note that all the answers i've seen so far imply a serious lack of imagination. People are really incapable of picturing the world spinning 100 years from now... after they're dead and buried. Well it will spin and it'll be a whole lot better then now. After all, that's what we are all working for right? At least most of us here in slashdot.
And as a conclusion, when I think about 100 years in the future the image that pops into my head is Kusanagi Motoko. True, it's a personal image, but I'm glad I can picture a future that is at the same time strange and beautiful.
I've read a year ago same article about Great Britain. Makes sense if you think a bit... the more money you have the more opportunities you have to earn more. Be it education, investments or just living near the place of work, upper and middle classes have the advantage. Moral of the story? Try to be above the demarcation line, not below. Oh, and in that article it said the "poor" stayed the same. No sign of getting poorer, just most of the "new money" went to the richer.
I'm way to sleepy to google for it (just woke up) but US is about one-third from the top when it comes to personal freedom & stuff. Nowhere near the top. You do make the most noise about it, though, i'll admit to that.
After a certain sum nobody, not even CEOs, can spend any more. They live their lives in confort, maybe luxury, but the extra 10% percent you're talking of is mostly theirs to manage. What changed is that a bigger part of the companies is owned by the people who run it, and not by anonymous investors. That is not a bad thing. So what if Gates has 200 bilions and not 50? Do you really think after the first 100 milions or so it changes his lifestyle any more? What it means is that a smart guy gets to manage more of the world's wealth. And i personally wish him a long and productive life.
Incidentally, when's the last time YOU won a game of "whack-a-mole" with an infinite number of levels?
Everybody's very hyper about how they shut down one site and a dozen pop-up. It's not as simple. With each site closed they close a whole class of sites. With napster, they closed all us sites operating on the same principle, present or future. With the pirate bay, they'll close all swedesh sites. There is a limited number of countries (150-180), most of which are unsuitable for various reasons. If they eliminate Sweden, they probably also eliminate several european countries with similar legislation in which nobody will dare make such a site again. And so on.
So no, there's a very limited number of levels and decreasing every day. The solution will probably come from new generation p2p software, better, faster and more efficient. But then the battle will get a lot dirtier, with countries (US) banning open source software and going for individual users and lots and lots of pollution-oriented attacks. There is a war all right and the party with the more determination and resources will win. The outcome is by no means predetermined.
Maybe the solution will be a p2p software with guarranteed anonimity which is so obviously usefull that nobody will dare go against it, legally or otherwise. But this is the very definition of early internet... and things rarely go back to what they were.
It's not vigilantism. I, the receiver of the email, an entitled to answer it if I choose. I am also entitled to use a piece of software to help decide which mails I'll answer to. If the business model of the sender depends on only 0.1% of his emails beeing answered, that's his problem. My problem is with the one and only email I got from him, to which I can decide to answer or not.
This can be stretched quite broadly from here. I can answer anonymously, I can answer through a proxy. I can answer without any real content other then "I'm not interested". As long as they wrote first, I can do any of those things and a lot more. Again, if the sender gets an answer from too many people to handle, too bad for him. I'm only responsible for my own actions.
The main thing here is that email is directed communication. It's not TV, it's not a billboard. They sent the email, they "touched" me. I'm ethically and legally allowed to do a lot of things based on that.
Things change very quickly if the 1:1 rate of spam:answers changes. At that moment it becomes retaliation and vigilantism and I quit. But until then... bring on the frog!
This would be most useful in a nuclear facility. In real-world aplications reloading the driver and trying again is not as easy as it seems. Considering all the interdepedencies between processes (one of which is considered corrupted) it would likely be equivalent to a warm reboot. So the 6+ milion lines of code would still be reloaded. But Linus is right (if i'm not too presumptious to say that:) because the issue isn't how it would run, but how it would be designed. It's simply too hard to write. For one thing, it would be an effort equivalent to creating the windows/linux kernel from scratch - think 10 years and 100 programmers. And it would be close to a nightmare to make, because now all the modules are completely separated and the comunication between them has to be taken care of in painstaking detail. Like Linus said (i think) it's very close to pretending you're paralelizing the whole kernel. And as we know, paralelism is 1. hard and 2. not aplicable to most algorithms/situations.
Theoretically you are right. But in practice Linux 2.6 is 6 million lines of code and a typical microkernel is less than 10k. It can already take up to a year to check the correctness of a 8k lines of code microkernel and there will be an exponential demand for resources as the code size increases. So in reality it will not be possible to check the linux kernel for correctness.
The tipical microkernel is _not_ just 10k. If you compare it to linux 2.6, then together with all the small programs needed to have the same functionality it'll be anything from 6 milion to 60 milion lines. It's just that most of it runs in user space, so it's not as critical. Doesn't mean the code doesn't have to be written, or that it won't have bugs, or that it'll be easier to deal with in real life. All it means is that a much lower portion of the 6-60 milion lines kernel will actually run as a kernel. A real benefit, obviously, but hardly 600 times reduction in size.
I'm just as an illegal listener as the next guy, but let's be fair: there _is_ a difference between "your tool can be use to pirate music" and "you make most of your income because people use your tool to pirate music". I'm also pretty sure in the latter case you're inclined to make your tool better at pirating then everything else - thus actively helping the "pirates".
The "badest" guy is no doubt still RIAA, for many things >10000$ settlements being amongst the first, but in this particular case the bear is in the wrong. How much... don't know. Unfortunately probably a lot less then 30 milion.
Claiming you didn't receive an e-mail is a get-out to any number of problems in collaborative projects, mostly because it's so common - it's fairly easy for an e-mailto not get to its recipient, be it an over zealous spam-filtering policy, a misconfigured mail server somewhere along the line or a lack of space on a company intranet (combined with badly configured mail servers which are relatively common).
Yeah, that's why i really hate "company" mail servers. I've used yahoo and then gmail for many a year and, with a veeery ocasional email that i _found_ in bulk (as in not miss it) i never had any problems. Almost every person with a work email i talk to has problems. I'll never understand why people are so stubborn when it comes to realising email management is a job for the pros, and no, your _one_ man IT mail department, no matter how genious he is (or you are for that matter) can't even begin to compare with yahoo. And also all email should be web based. No need to store emails locally and let the user delete them from the server - leads to missing Important Emails.
The usual excuse is that companies can't have yahoo.com addresses. Well buy a business solution from yahoo! Or some other company (big and old preferably) who offers this kind of thing. Managing your own email just cause you have a server is a BIG mistake.
One definite advantage over human-driven vehicles is that it could hibernate indefinitely. If they get the price down enough you could parachute 1-200 of these in a troubled spot and have them hide as best as they can (not too much, the point is to know they're there after all). And then wait for somebody to make a wrong move. If they get low on fuel they'll simply drive to the nearest base (preferably without freaking out civilians). If they're driven remotely they can probably safely use normal roads, especialy at night. This could really change the ideea of peacekeeping. And of course they'll be armed eventually, look at Predator.
Heh... throw in some solar panels and let them make hidrogen from air humidity and they'll give some trouble to future archeologists:p
If you think MySQL/PostgreSQL just don't have what it takes on a fundamental level, I humbly suggest you rethink your competence in the field.
You're probably right, but when you find a way to explain to people they'd be better profesionals if they didn't use all the fancy stuff, call me and tell me how you did it.
I remember in the mysql 3.23 documentation, about foreign keys. they pretty much said there's no need to use them, ever, so they're ignored. I didn't really start to appreciate that kind of thinking (and courage) until these last few years when if you don't use the best and the latest, weather you need it or not, you're just not that good.
I'm awfully annoyed when I even see intelligent design all over this kind of news. This is great news in iself, although a bit geeker then slashdot is lately. Also potentially very usefull, since evolution is, as far as we know, the greatest design method ever (we're living proof). And everything we find out about how it really works may lead to very very interesting stuff. But instead all i read is how this disproves ID. I already know ID is bullshit And i've had my "oh my god! there is no god!" stage in my adolescence, thank you. I'm over it. But sadly I don't seem to find people who think that way any more. All the comments I found (at a glance) that don't involve religion or ID are Funny. Anybody knows where are all the insightful people who left slashdot? I'd really like to go there...
The real pieces are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, pensions, the military and debt servicing;
The first three are pretty much unavoidable. No matter how you juggle things, there's a lot of resources that has to go in health and taking care of the old. Just has to... no matter if you're capitalist or comunist.
As for the military... it's mostly a long term/very long term investment. It may pay off, or not. Sometimes it does: Germany/Europe, Japan.
I was thinking about that. If a software (and not one on a supercomputer too) is able to distinguish between moods in real time, then a brain should do much better. It's about pattern recognition... if people can learn japanese kanji, or how to drive... Just have to find ways to train it, ne?. Or is there anything that stops autistic poeple from doing that?
If you integrate the nth power of the absolute value of the Riemann zeta function on the the critical line between heights -T and T and divide by 2T, you will get a sort of nth moment on average. Random matrix theory predicts the growth of this function to be asymptotic to a "geometric factor" (coming from an integral over the unitary group) times the n^2 power of the logarithm of T. It turned out that the random matrix theory prediction is off by an "arithmetic" factor, so that the correct asymptotics is
a(n)g(n) (log T)^(n^2)
I wonder how many of the people who modded you Informative understood anything:)
Of come on people, there is such a thing as beeing too picky. I can't believe when i hear you bitching about how hidroelectric power harms the fish or nuclear power plants give "heat pollution". That means they heat the water in a nearby stream. So what?!?!?! US gets most of its power BURNING OIL OR COAL. When i first learned it i couldn't believe it - that there is a country non-ecological enough to do this (actually I thought stupid and rich:). And a big country at that. And you say hidro is bad because it hurts the birdies... I was born near two bid dams on the Danube (about ten kilometers upstream and maybe a hundred downstream), and I used to eat a lot of fish. They don't seem to mind the dams. Actually the river slowed down to almost a lake, and got a great deal wider and deeper so the wildlife probably had a boost. Oh, and navigation is a dream compared to what it used to be: rapinds and cliffs and shallow waters. Now it's all deep lake.
You have a good point though about forcing people to relocate. A rather beautiful town was covered with water 25 km upstream, the old town of Orsova. It all happened before I was born. It was rebuilt of course at the expense of the state. As far as I know, they were all moved to small "villas" (slightly bigger suburban houses) and even now it is made mostly of houses. It's still a touristic atraction.
Everything ended well, and i doubt many people really regreted moving, but this happened because the (then communist) governament handled things well. It's the kind of thing communists used to be good at. If things would be done by private companies... likely they'd save a lot of money from not compensating people properly.
But overall the only reason not to have hidros is that you ran out of rivers. They're incredibly cheap, reliable and they actually tend to "civilise" the landscape.
We live in a world ruled by money. Trust me, if they're building it, it's worth it. They'll get their money back somehow.
Re:You're being deliberately stupid, then
on
Al-Qaeda Hacker Caught
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
dumbass.....chuckles..... Sorry, i had a long night and that was funny:)
Back to the subject. Yes, of course there is a big difference and I don't deny it. Your post however was far too short to see where you were going, so I just gave a counter-example and waited for clarification.
Anyways, since you seem to expect a debate I'll try to oblige. The bulk of the difference comes from the state of the civilisation in the respective countries. There were times in our (christian) history when you would have been killed painfully for droping a cruxifix in a bucket of piss, if you did it in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just as well as there are muslim countries today where the reply to "i've become christian" may well be "ah, so now you'll get us presents on 25 december?" or something equally benign.
As a pharantheses, my best friend went a few years ago in the largest muslim country in the world (indonesia - you would't think, i know. i was surprised too) and they treated him quite well.
Anyways my point is the difference is not religion. Or if it is, it's indirect at best. Yes people are tried in religious courts, but they don't do this because they are religious, they do this because they're...stupid?... uncivilised.
It's dangereus to call people names and apply labels such as muslim or hindu or even american. The reason for that is actually the subject of the link I posted. In a nutshell, it's a lot easyer to hurt people when you apply labels to them. You don't say: Muhammad, known as slim_muhy on slashdot, with great sense of humour and programming skills, was killed in an incident yesterday in Bagdad along with his family. You say: three irqis killed in an incident yesterday in Bagdad. Big difference, isn't it? Just by calling them iraqis. Anyways, the article goes to explain that apparently this is't just common wisdom, but has real basis in psychology, and also bigger longer term effects.
It's written btw by the guy who did the stanford experiment in the '70. Took a bunch of students and asked them to roleplay a prison. Inside a week they started doing it so well that the experiment had to be stopped. Goes to show..well, many things.
Slashdot Mirror
Plutonium is poisonous as hell. Strontium looks a lot like calcium and has a very bad habit of replacing it in living bone tissue... while beeing radioactive. None are things i'd like within 100 miles of where i live. But damn useful in space...
Detected, proven and ... something is still needed. Made public, made official, people getting arrested or at least fired over it. Just proving it unfortunately doesn't mean much. The other side can "prove" you're not to be trusted too.
Nope, not his parent. A parent would have done something / said something at the end. It's easy to think this is a funny ideea, but to stand and tape while the kid is crying you have to be a) a teen b) a jerk c) a stranger or d) all of the above. Definitely not a mature person related to the kid.
32 ram is a bit to little for contemporary software... the sooner you put a (maybe older) linux the better. Maybe an earlier version of firefox would work better?
You don't really want all the bells and whisles of a newer browser... for a couple of years i used konqueror (the KDE browser) just because it was the lightest browser i've seen. After a couple of releases though i didn't notice anything getting remarcably better, but on my machine it became unusable. So i understand you
Just out of curiosity I looked at how much memory my Firefox was using with about 3 windows open. To my surprise: 95. "WOW!" I thought. "Way to much!". But then it hit me: I have almost a gig of ram and the main activity on my computer is... browsing. So is it much from a technical point of view? Yes it sure is. But is it that bad? In the real world It's Ok. Not because I have a lot of ram (that's where we technical minds get stuck: on the tehnical details) but because brosing isn't a side effect, it's actualy quite an important activity for a computer user. So the memory is very well used.
I've been reading for 10 minutes, in the answers in yahoo and then here on slashdot, and not a single (modded) answer "Of course it will survive!". You sir are _very_ right. Right now we are at the best of our history with resources unimaginable until 200 years ago. If, and a say _if_, somehow, we'll hit a real crisis (and I really don't think we will) a reduction of 80% in our production capabilities would mean... tadam... no games consoles, no new blockbuster movies, no new cars etc. The basic things necesary for our survival are so cheap it's almost imposible to run out of them, globally. A meal at McDonalds may cost 10$, but the ingridients, bulk, cost about a buck. And the cheapest caloric equivalent would probably be a penny or less. With 100$ one could buy food for a couple of years. So people are trying to tell me there is a chance we won't SURVIVE?!
I'm not going to list every imaginable end-of-the-world scenario and debunk it, but instead i will note that all the answers i've seen so far imply a serious lack of imagination. People are really incapable of picturing the world spinning 100 years from now... after they're dead and buried. Well it will spin and it'll be a whole lot better then now. After all, that's what we are all working for right? At least most of us here in slashdot.
And as a conclusion, when I think about 100 years in the future the image that pops into my head is Kusanagi Motoko. True, it's a personal image, but I'm glad I can picture a future that is at the same time strange and beautiful.
I've read a year ago same article about Great Britain. Makes sense if you think a bit... the more money you have the more opportunities you have to earn more. Be it education, investments or just living near the place of work, upper and middle classes have the advantage. Moral of the story? Try to be above the demarcation line, not below.
Oh, and in that article it said the "poor" stayed the same. No sign of getting poorer, just most of the "new money" went to the richer.
I'm way to sleepy to google for it (just woke up) but US is about one-third from the top when it comes to personal freedom & stuff. Nowhere near the top. You do make the most noise about it, though, i'll admit to that.
Moral of the story? Just "pop the cap in Mr X's ass", don't brag about it before or after. It's a lot safer.
After a certain sum nobody, not even CEOs, can spend any more. They live their lives in confort, maybe luxury, but the extra 10% percent you're talking of is mostly theirs to manage. What changed is that a bigger part of the companies is owned by the people who run it, and not by anonymous investors. That is not a bad thing. So what if Gates has 200 bilions and not 50? Do you really think after the first 100 milions or so it changes his lifestyle any more? What it means is that a smart guy gets to manage more of the world's wealth. And i personally wish him a long and productive life.
Incidentally, when's the last time YOU won a game of "whack-a-mole" with an infinite number of levels?
Everybody's very hyper about how they shut down one site and a dozen pop-up. It's not as simple. With each site closed they close a whole class of sites. With napster, they closed all us sites operating on the same principle, present or future. With the pirate bay, they'll close all swedesh sites. There is a limited number of countries (150-180), most of which are unsuitable for various reasons. If they eliminate Sweden, they probably also eliminate several european countries with similar legislation in which nobody will dare make such a site again. And so on.
So no, there's a very limited number of levels and decreasing every day. The solution will probably come from new generation p2p software, better, faster and more efficient. But then the battle will get a lot dirtier, with countries (US) banning open source software and going for individual users and lots and lots of pollution-oriented attacks. There is a war all right and the party with the more determination and resources will win. The outcome is by no means predetermined.
Maybe the solution will be a p2p software with guarranteed anonimity which is so obviously usefull that nobody will dare go against it, legally or otherwise. But this is the very definition of early internet... and things rarely go back to what they were.
It's not vigilantism. I, the receiver of the email, an entitled to answer it if I choose. I am also entitled to use a piece of software to help decide which mails I'll answer to. If the business model of the sender depends on only 0.1% of his emails beeing answered, that's his problem. My problem is with the one and only email I got from him, to which I can decide to answer or not.
This can be stretched quite broadly from here. I can answer anonymously, I can answer through a proxy. I can answer without any real content other then "I'm not interested". As long as they wrote first, I can do any of those things and a lot more. Again, if the sender gets an answer from too many people to handle, too bad for him. I'm only responsible for my own actions.
The main thing here is that email is directed communication. It's not TV, it's not a billboard. They sent the email, they "touched" me. I'm ethically and legally allowed to do a lot of things based on that.
Things change very quickly if the 1:1 rate of spam:answers changes. At that moment it becomes retaliation and vigilantism and I quit. But until then... bring on the frog!
This would be most useful in a nuclear facility. In real-world aplications reloading the driver and trying again is not as easy as it seems. Considering all the interdepedencies between processes (one of which is considered corrupted) it would likely be equivalent to a warm reboot. So the 6+ milion lines of code would still be reloaded. But Linus is right (if i'm not too presumptious to say that
Theoretically you are right. But in practice Linux 2.6 is 6 million lines of code and a typical microkernel is less than 10k. It can already take up to a year to check the correctness of a 8k lines of code microkernel and there will be an exponential demand for resources as the code size increases. So in reality it will not be possible to check the linux kernel for correctness.
The tipical microkernel is _not_ just 10k. If you compare it to linux 2.6, then together with all the small programs needed to have the same functionality it'll be anything from 6 milion to 60 milion lines. It's just that most of it runs in user space, so it's not as critical. Doesn't mean the code doesn't have to be written, or that it won't have bugs, or that it'll be easier to deal with in real life. All it means is that a much lower portion of the 6-60 milion lines kernel will actually run as a kernel. A real benefit, obviously, but hardly 600 times reduction in size.
I'm just as an illegal listener as the next guy, but let's be fair: there _is_ a difference between "your tool can be use to pirate music" and "you make most of your income because people use your tool to pirate music". I'm also pretty sure in the latter case you're inclined to make your tool better at pirating then everything else - thus actively helping the "pirates".
The "badest" guy is no doubt still RIAA, for many things >10000$ settlements being amongst the first, but in this particular case the bear is in the wrong. How much... don't know. Unfortunately probably a lot less then 30 milion.
Claiming you didn't receive an e-mail is a get-out to any number of problems in collaborative projects, mostly because it's so common - it's fairly easy for an e-mailto not get to its recipient, be it an over zealous spam-filtering policy, a misconfigured mail server somewhere along the line or a lack of space on a company intranet (combined with badly configured mail servers which are relatively common).
Yeah, that's why i really hate "company" mail servers. I've used yahoo and then gmail for many a year and, with a veeery ocasional email that i _found_ in bulk (as in not miss it) i never had any problems. Almost every person with a work email i talk to has problems. I'll never understand why people are so stubborn when it comes to realising email management is a job for the pros, and no, your _one_ man IT mail department, no matter how genious he is (or you are for that matter) can't even begin to compare with yahoo. And also all email should be web based. No need to store emails locally and let the user delete them from the server - leads to missing Important Emails.
The usual excuse is that companies can't have yahoo.com addresses. Well buy a business solution from yahoo! Or some other company (big and old preferably) who offers this kind of thing. Managing your own email just cause you have a server is a BIG mistake.
One definite advantage over human-driven vehicles is that it could hibernate indefinitely. If they get the price down enough you could parachute 1-200 of these in a troubled spot and have them hide as best as they can (not too much, the point is to know they're there after all). And then wait for somebody to make a wrong move. If they get low on fuel they'll simply drive to the nearest base (preferably without freaking out civilians). If they're driven remotely they can probably safely use normal roads, especialy at night.
This could really change the ideea of peacekeeping. And of course they'll be armed eventually, look at Predator.
Heh... throw in some solar panels and let them make hidrogen from air humidity and they'll give some trouble to future archeologists
If you think MySQL/PostgreSQL just don't have what it takes on a fundamental level, I humbly suggest you rethink your competence in the field.
You're probably right, but when you find a way to explain to people they'd be better profesionals if they didn't use all the fancy stuff, call me and tell me how you did it.
I remember in the mysql 3.23 documentation, about foreign keys. they pretty much said there's no need to use them, ever, so they're ignored. I didn't really start to appreciate that kind of thinking (and courage) until these last few years when if you don't use the best and the latest, weather you need it or not, you're just not that good.
I'm awfully annoyed when I even see intelligent design all over this kind of news. This is great news in iself, although a bit geeker then slashdot is lately. Also potentially very usefull, since evolution is, as far as we know, the greatest design method ever (we're living proof). And everything we find out about how it really works may lead to very very interesting stuff. But instead all i read is how this disproves ID. I already know ID is bullshit And i've had my "oh my god! there is no god!" stage in my adolescence, thank you. I'm over it. But sadly I don't seem to find people who think that way any more. All the comments I found (at a glance) that don't involve religion or ID are Funny. Anybody knows where are all the insightful people who left slashdot? I'd really like to go there...
The real pieces are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, pensions, the military and debt servicing;
The first three are pretty much unavoidable. No matter how you juggle things, there's a lot of resources that has to go in health and taking care of the old. Just has to... no matter if you're capitalist or comunist.
As for the military... it's mostly a long term/very long term investment. It may pay off, or not. Sometimes it does: Germany/Europe, Japan.
I was thinking about that. If a software (and not one on a supercomputer too) is able to distinguish between moods in real time, then a brain should do much better. It's about pattern recognition... if people can learn japanese kanji, or how to drive... Just have to find ways to train it, ne?. Or is there anything that stops autistic poeple from doing that?
If you integrate the nth power of the absolute value of the Riemann zeta function on the the critical line between heights -T and T and divide by 2T, you will get a sort of nth moment on average. Random matrix theory predicts the growth of this function to be asymptotic to a "geometric factor" (coming from an integral over the unitary group) times the n^2 power of the logarithm of T. It turned out that the random matrix theory prediction is off by an "arithmetic" factor, so that the correct asymptotics is
:)
a(n)g(n) (log T)^(n^2)
I wonder how many of the people who modded you Informative understood anything
Of come on people, there is such a thing as beeing too picky. I can't believe when i hear you bitching about how hidroelectric power harms the fish or nuclear power plants give "heat pollution". That means they heat the water in a nearby stream. So what?!?!?! US gets most of its power BURNING OIL OR COAL. When i first learned it i couldn't believe it - that there is a country non-ecological enough to do this (actually I thought stupid and rich
You have a good point though about forcing people to relocate. A rather beautiful town was covered with water 25 km upstream, the old town of Orsova. It all happened before I was born. It was rebuilt of course at the expense of the state. As far as I know, they were all moved to small "villas" (slightly bigger suburban houses) and even now it is made mostly of houses. It's still a touristic atraction.
Everything ended well, and i doubt many people really regreted moving, but this happened because the (then communist) governament handled things well. It's the kind of thing communists used to be good at. If things would be done by private companies... likely they'd save a lot of money from not compensating people properly.
But overall the only reason not to have hidros is that you ran out of rivers. They're incredibly cheap, reliable and they actually tend to "civilise" the landscape.
We live in a world ruled by money. Trust me, if they're building it, it's worth it. They'll get their money back somehow.
dumbass .....chuckles..... Sorry, i had a long night and that was funny :)
...stupid?... uncivilised.
Back to the subject. Yes, of course there is a big difference and I don't deny it. Your post however was far too short to see where you were going, so I just gave a counter-example and waited for clarification.
Anyways, since you seem to expect a debate I'll try to oblige. The bulk of the difference comes from the state of the civilisation in the respective countries. There were times in our (christian) history when you would have been killed painfully for droping a cruxifix in a bucket of piss, if you did it in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just as well as there are muslim countries today where the reply to "i've become christian" may well be "ah, so now you'll get us presents on 25 december?" or something equally benign.
As a pharantheses, my best friend went a few years ago in the largest muslim country in the world (indonesia - you would't think, i know. i was surprised too) and they treated him quite well.
Anyways my point is the difference is not religion. Or if it is, it's indirect at best. Yes people are tried in religious courts, but they don't do this because they are religious, they do this because they're
It's dangereus to call people names and apply labels such as muslim or hindu or even american. The reason for that is actually the subject of the link I posted. In a nutshell, it's a lot easyer to hurt people when you apply labels to them. You don't say: Muhammad, known as slim_muhy on slashdot, with great sense of humour and programming skills, was killed in an incident yesterday in Bagdad along with his family. You say: three irqis killed in an incident yesterday in Bagdad. Big difference, isn't it? Just by calling them iraqis. Anyways, the article goes to explain that apparently this is't just common wisdom, but has real basis in psychology, and also bigger longer term effects.
It's written btw by the guy who did the stanford experiment in the '70. Took a bunch of students and asked them to roleplay a prison. Inside a week they started doing it so well that the experiment had to be stopped. Goes to show..well, many things.