"Each would also have the ability to produce its own at least 64-bit random identification number that could not be changed." Unless quantum computing has made some jumps I'm unaware of, no it can't. Since we're assuming malfeasance from the start of the manufacturing of the chip, I can see no possible way for this to be true. The factory can adjust the process. They will control the vertical, the horizontal, and the clock. A single activation for this 'lock' will apply to each key. The means by which this ID is stored is also not clear. If its burned into by the chip itself on generation/activation, the same code can be burned into the chip by the process by which the chip is manufactured. If its encrypted and stored, it is subject to the same man-in-the-middle problems as any DRM type encryption. Assuming these are "inside jobs", the chip manufacturer would even have tens or even hundreds of thousands of examples of this lock-key pairing on which to base a crack.
Also, the idea that this additional gates won't change performance or energy usage is wrong on its face. The change may not be significant, but it exists.
Finally, if the blueprint can be "stolen" (although its probably not stolen but improperly used by overseas manufacturers in most cases), why can't the encryption algorithm? Even if this technique would work, a single employee willing to sell the secret for 6 or even 7 figures, a single back door in the system, or any of a dozen other ways could make the entire process useless.
Remember, this isn't to get someone a free DVD or even to sell one title on the street. V(Pirated Ipod) > V(Pirated Hannah Montana song)
One in Cuba or one outside of Cuba? The whole fleeing-Cuba-in-a-bath-tub thing suggests differently (along with the huge Cuban population in So Florida). I'm not trying to act like a foam at the mouth anti-Commie type (the embargo makes no sense considering how much we trade with China) but lets be real about living conditions. Take the celebrities (and elderly New Yorkers) out of Miami and don't you essentially have Cuba plus "enhanced personal freedoms and a better standard of living"?
I think "Eastern coast" is not the defining area. In the Boston area and in New England in general, basements aren't universal, but its pretty damn close (although around here we commonly call them "cellars". The phrase "down cellar" means in the basement for instance). As this comment's grandparent said, to a native New Englander a house without a basement is unusual. Some are simply storage areas for the heater, washer/dryer and stuff you've got stacked up. Some are full refurbished and might as well be considered another regular story.
And yes flooding can be a pain. When there's snow on the ground and it rains (or to a lesser extent when its melting) or if you live at the bottom of a hill you better have waterproofing and maybe a sump pump.
I wouldn't go holding up FDR as a shining example of liberal success -- his constant fiddling and abysmal monetary policy ended up stretching the great depression out for a decade.
Ridiculous revisionist Republican propaganda (wait... I mean rhetoric for the alliteration!).
FDR became president in 1933. Even if you unfairly said the Depression should have ended immediately thereafter, the facts don't back up your assertions. The definition of an economic depression is a shrinking economy. Some ideological economists try to claim the recession of 1937 was an extension of the Great Depression but its intellectually dishonest. Not only had there been a recovery that rose as quickly as the bottom had fallen out before that, but this "recession" lasted at worst two years, still left the country with a higher GDP than in 1929.
And what caused the Recession of 37? FDR cut back on the New Deal because the economy had recovered. The loss of jobs and development hurt the economy and a minor downturn ensued.
FDR's "constant fiddling and abysmal monetary policy" led to the economic stability that allowed the United States to take advantage of the economic power vacuum in the post-War years and leverage its great resources and mobilized population (newly much more educated since jobless teenagers had stayed in school during the Depression in greater numbers and the GI Bill would allow millions access to higher education/vocational training that would have otherwise been out of reach) to become the economic superpower it still is. People like to forget the Great Depression was not unique. The 1890s had a severe depression. Before the New Deal, there was a panic or depression or crash at least once a decade or so. Afterwards, even major economic events (oil crisis of the 70s, the crash of the 80s) are mild in comparison.
You going to put a large tube above ground in the way of everything? This is the well established technique - subways, sewers, utility tunnels, even catacombs. If this were to be implemented it could even follow the existing networks. The tubes could follow the subways to neighborhood distribution centers or the sewers to individual buildings.
If you put it above ground, you get increased traffic congestion (given that it will reduce available space), lesser security (items could "fall off the truck" any place the system was accessible) and a lesser adaptability. If a river is in the way of a surface road, you have to build a bridge. If a river is in the way of a tunnel, you build more tunnel.
If my curtains are open and I see someone I have the option of closing them or calling the cops. I can expect privacy in my own home. With the Google van driving by unknown to me how do I close my curtains?
In the same manner you would if you don't see someone? If your enacting of 'privacy' is reactive, its your own fault. If I leave my fly down and someone sees my X-men underwear and then I zip up my fly, I don't see how that is more or less a violation of privacy than if I don't notice someone seeing them or if I walk past a security camera.
I don't even putting it on the intertubes makes a difference. If that security camera caught sight of a bank robber that appears on the frame at the same time as you, and the tape goes online and the world can see your fly is down, thats too bad. If you can be seen from public, especially if a depiction of you is secondary and you just happen to be recorded along with the primary information, its tough nuggies. You don't have a right to privacy while in public. The same applies to looking in an open window from public space (in this case, the street).
No it isn't. Reality isn't conspiring against your religious beliefs. Its a shame the world is round and circles the sun and that contradicted a C millennium or two of religious doctrine. That doesn't mean teaching it is part of an agenda. Evolution is science.
They cannot begin to comprehend what is being taught,
So instead you wish to teach them two theories, one scientific and one religious, and tell them both are science. This is supposed to lead to understanding? You believe this is not "brainwashing"? Please.
I wonder if deep down inside, you know your arguments are BS. Is that what you think faith is?
"Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins."
Where does that say anything about a school board? The whole point is that in Florida, the standards now require teaching evolution (if only as a "theory") and the ID crowd is pushing to make it an "affirmative right" to teach ID instead (de facto).
Of course the best scenario would be both a vaccine and a cure.
One would assume that, but medical research is usually geared towards treatment. Even if AIDS was a problem in North America or Europe on the scale it is in Europe, a cure wouldn't be very profitable. A vaccine would be moreso but a treatment.... thats where the money is. If you cure a disease, you've eliminated your entire market.
And no I don't have a good way to make (pharm) corporations act in a way that is counter to their profit imperative.
Its my understanding that in the US starting with 08 models the metric for MPG is changing and for the most part its driving the official mpg down quite a bit. In other words, if your current car gets X mpg by the old standards, a car getting X mpg in 08 is actually significantly more efficient.
Whatever. I thought my post was obvious in it's reference to Hugo Chavez' speech at the UN. Also you shouldn't make absolute statements like "Everyone hates Bush now". All I have to do is say that I don't hate him and your statement is false.
This is an example of a pedantic and arguably self-defeating point, class. If one wished to get similarly technical, the latter statement does not disprove the first, clearly not meant to be literal, statement. A qualifier "now" qualifies the criticized statement in the first place to a greater or equal degree of "like 'Everyone hates Bush now'" in the criticizing statement. Indicating current facts does not alter the truth value of a previous statement if the passage of time may have altered the current facts.
Nevertheless, perhaps the Bush-supporting author of the criticizing comments just really requires proof before making definitive statements or action. Whether that attribute is compatible with a Bush supporter is open to debate. However, simply reading on quick disproves that hypothesis:
However at the time nobody could know for sure because Saddam was bluffing and acting like he had something to hide.
Now that we are in Iraq we must no leave until the country is stable and mostly rid of the terrorists who are now killing everyone indiscriminetely.
Lastly, calling someone a rhesus monkey doesn't prove anything to anybody.
and finally class, one thats a big more subtle.
You just resorted to name calling.
Now assuming we ignore any ambiguity or typing errors, a reasonable conclusion is that the criticizing comment was at its core without merit due to self-contradiction. The latter statements validity can be interpreted at another time, but my personal opinion is that a post written by a rhesus monkey would contain an equal amount of insight, original thought and factually based analysis.
Only if you define "better economy" as "access to spaceships" (and that point isn't actually even accurate in Star Wars...). I mean, Owen Lars was a moisture farmer. Vader started out as a slave. There's a huge criminal underground/slums, etc.
Addendum - Also, obviously Nelson Linder is not the President of the NAACP as the initial comment claimed. He's President of a local chapter of the NAACP and made the statement while on the Alex Jones radioshow. Alex Jones is mentioned in the previous article
What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.
Clearly you aren't interested in the truth, just in backing your guy. I linked several times to news sources. You then criticize my sources and link Judicial Watch of all places as a source when the first adjective it uses to describe itself is by political ideology ("conservative"). Even your second mentioned site identifies judicialwatch as "a conservative legal group that dogged the Clintons through the 1990s with a stream of document demands and related lawsuits" not a reliable source of facts.
Thanks for bringing the level of discourse up to a higher level. However, when using the word "Period" as a sentence in an of itself, its is primarily done as the termination of an argument. I understand that you had just delivered your most intelligent point but it wasn't the best choice.
Nothing in his congressional record, personal life, nor his medical practice leads one iota of credence to the newsletters. In fact, it's just the opposite.
Other than publishing the newsletters, and writing the newsletters? How about his association with the von Mises Institution and Lew Rockwell (his former staffer)?
Would the president of the NAACP back someone like you just described? Of course not.
He hasn't.
Would someone that you just described deliver babies for free to African American and Hispanic families that were too poor to afford it? No.
If he wanted to keep his medical license, yes.
He was running a full time medical practice and left the newsletters in care of people he thought he could trust. That was a mistake, as there were those who had a different agenda. At least he admitted he had been careless, unlike MOST of our elected officials (Iraq War).
His actions speak a lot louder than the words written by some assholes who had a vendetta. Here's a challenge for you. I want you to find one, just one instance where an action in his personal, medical, or political life shows paranoid racism. You won't find one.
Oh well if thats what he said, then nevermind. I could never imagine someone lying to cover up a racist past.
But I'll bite. Ron Paul has extensive ties to the League of the South, a neo-Confederate group that advocates secession, a "return" to Christian law and racial violence.
Or his association with the John Birch Society, a far right wing society with both racist and conspiracy theory views.
He's not a libertarian. He's a constitutionalist. There is a difference.
"Sporadic unpopular views on racially charged subjects" is a description that only one willfully ignoring the facts would apply to the Ron Paul newsletters. Ron Paul started two organizations and authorized those organizations to put together two publications that bore his name. In both of them, articles that warned of a coming "race war", called blacks animals and was full of many kinds of bigotry featured prominently for twenty years. Paul admits that he wrote articles for the newsletters and that the newsletters were put together in such a way to present Paul as the author. Paul refuses to produce any evidence that he didn't write the articles let alone that he was uninvolved in the newsletters.
For two decades, two organizations Paul ran/owned published two newsletters that bore his name in the title that contained reprehensible material. Even the kindest interpretation of Paul's story - that while he was at times involved with the newsletter he didn't know what was going on under his authority - indicates he is unfit to serve as President. If he couldn't lead his non-profit organization and his small company without discovering that this was happening under his nose for twenty years, he can't lead the country.
So in what way does an answer that "appears confusing" and requires a "translation" not qualify as failing the criteria of clear concise and direct?
Paul's appeal - which is minimal if votes are the metric - is primarily among libertarians, most of whom choose to overlook his von Mises neo-confederate militia crazy because he calls himself a "libertarian" while running as a Republican, those who are pissed at the current system of politics and see him as a de facto third party candidate and those who haven't done much research on him and like that he flat out states that Iraq was dumb and that pot should be legal.
You get that from the answer? Wow.
OK. Lets say thats the case. "Horrible shorthand" would not be clear and concise would it? And lets put them together.
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Playing cop and peacemaker and bully across different parts of the world is expensive and contrary to our national interests. If you reverse course on those policies, you allow of lower taxes by cutting the actual need for the money. That in turn allows the country to focus on 'true national interests' which includes private research of all sorts.
Yep even with your obviously pro-Paul stance, its not an answer, and its certainly not direct. If competitor Company X is making inroads in your market, your Company Y cutting unnecessary costs and selling off non-core divisions is not a response to this - at least not a direct response. At best, its secondary and thats only given the assumption that the benefits of the actions (smaller government) will somehow fix the problem in question (the so-called flattening world). In this case, not to get into whether the answer was correct or not, the lack of new engineers in this country and the increasingly lower cost of research abroad (another symptom of the problem in question) makes that very questionable.
Of course the question of whether this was a threat or opportunity was never addressed in the first place and this in and of itself means that a clear and concise answer wasn't provided.
I believe the parent comment was referring to the fact that a racist newsletter was published under Ron Paul's name for almost twenty years (78-95) that were filled with hardcore racist views. The newsletters not only were published using his name but by two organizations that Paul owned or ran. Paul isn't a true libertarian, he's a von Mises "libertarian". Anyone who would publish a newsletter that implies he wrote it saying things like "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began" will never get my vote. And it was the MO of the newsletter (from above link)
This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted.... Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.... Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one
I'm no fan of ID as having "scientific" merit. But it does have philosophical merit. And some of the thought experiments make my head hurt.
You have to be careful with what "Intelligent Design" means. Science does not say whether or not God (let's not kid ourselves about the "designer" euphemism) shaped evolution. Science can not speak to the existence of "God" because by nearly every definition of "God" this entity exists everywhere (and you can't detect something without some kind of differential, so anything that exists everywhere is effectively invisible) and/or outside the closed system of the universe. If I grew a civilization of artificially intelligent agents in my computer with no way for them to detect outside the closed system of the computer they could not scientifically prove my existence or the existence of something universal in their universe (if you'll excuse the pun) such as say the OS, unless they could somehow find something outside the OS.
Intelligent Design proponents say something very different. They don't say some Creator may have done this or that its consistent with science. They say a Creator must have done this, and that science alone can not explain the changing of species. They rarely try to prove this negative (their theory fails to be science if only because its not falsifiable) and when each example is shot down (as they have routinely been) they skitter from example to example.
This ignores the false choice of the idea in the first place. The set of possible origins of biological life are not "Evolution brought about by nature" and "Evolution brought about by God". The number of alternate theories even if our current understanding of science was insufficient are large (from quantum effects of DNA causing beneficial mutations to occur to little green men to a lack of understanding on our part) that "disproving" evolution through natural means would not be evidence in favor of ID.
Its a stalking horse intended to attack evolution now that Creationism is discredited to all but those who feel the need to cling to it for purely religious reasons.
With the additional technical ability to rewire the power supply within the computer you can make it harder. You're still not secure. Even if you assume that the lamp timer is tamper proof- a huge assumption - it could be removed and replaced with one you had. Even simpler, you could buy your own version of the same lamp timer and use the key included in that one. Or you could get a copy of your father's tubular key made.
And thats only including access on that machine. Open wireless networks are common. He could unplug the primary box from the cable modem and plug in a cheap laptop even if he couldn't find an open network. Thats ignoring simply going to a friend's house or the library or an internet cafe.
The best one can do is make it harder and if you do that you run the risk of making the challenge alluring (forbidden fruit and all that) and ensuring that no one is going to ask permission for what one seems to have clearly forbidden already. I mean, I've never heard of someone pulling the battery out of a car at curfew. Locking your kid in their room at bedtime is not normal behavior. While you obviously don't want to make the temptation too strong... eventually you just have to trust your kid. Does that mean allow a 5 year old free reign on the intertubes? No, but long before most parents feel that their offspring are responsible enough to do whatever they wish they lose the ability to control all their actions.
Clearly Hans Reiser has major issues. Even beyond his geek issues, his attitude towards his son are IMO unhealthy. He's a f'ed up individual even if he is brilliant. "There's a thin line between brilliance and insanity" as they say.
That doesn't mean he's a murderer. The evidence we've seen so far does not either. There are at least two other reasonable theories of the crime (Nina is alive in Russia with her kids, Nina was killed by seemingly equally disturbed Sturgeon) and no truly compelling evidence. The car is suspicious at the very least, but its not enough.
Slashdot Mirror
This proposal just doesn't make any sense.
"Each would also have the ability to produce its own at least 64-bit random identification number that could not be changed." Unless quantum computing has made some jumps I'm unaware of, no it can't. Since we're assuming malfeasance from the start of the manufacturing of the chip, I can see no possible way for this to be true. The factory can adjust the process. They will control the vertical, the horizontal, and the clock. A single activation for this 'lock' will apply to each key. The means by which this ID is stored is also not clear. If its burned into by the chip itself on generation/activation, the same code can be burned into the chip by the process by which the chip is manufactured. If its encrypted and stored, it is subject to the same man-in-the-middle problems as any DRM type encryption. Assuming these are "inside jobs", the chip manufacturer would even have tens or even hundreds of thousands of examples of this lock-key pairing on which to base a crack.
Also, the idea that this additional gates won't change performance or energy usage is wrong on its face. The change may not be significant, but it exists.
Finally, if the blueprint can be "stolen" (although its probably not stolen but improperly used by overseas manufacturers in most cases), why can't the encryption algorithm? Even if this technique would work, a single employee willing to sell the secret for 6 or even 7 figures, a single back door in the system, or any of a dozen other ways could make the entire process useless.
Remember, this isn't to get someone a free DVD or even to sell one title on the street. V(Pirated Ipod) > V(Pirated Hannah Montana song)
One in Cuba or one outside of Cuba? The whole fleeing-Cuba-in-a-bath-tub thing suggests differently (along with the huge Cuban population in So Florida). I'm not trying to act like a foam at the mouth anti-Commie type (the embargo makes no sense considering how much we trade with China) but lets be real about living conditions. Take the celebrities (and elderly New Yorkers) out of Miami and don't you essentially have Cuba plus "enhanced personal freedoms and a better standard of living"?
I think "Eastern coast" is not the defining area. In the Boston area and in New England in general, basements aren't universal, but its pretty damn close (although around here we commonly call them "cellars". The phrase "down cellar" means in the basement for instance). As this comment's grandparent said, to a native New Englander a house without a basement is unusual. Some are simply storage areas for the heater, washer/dryer and stuff you've got stacked up. Some are full refurbished and might as well be considered another regular story.
And yes flooding can be a pain. When there's snow on the ground and it rains (or to a lesser extent when its melting) or if you live at the bottom of a hill you better have waterproofing and maybe a sump pump.
Ridiculous revisionist Republican propaganda (wait... I mean rhetoric for the alliteration!).
FDR became president in 1933. Even if you unfairly said the Depression should have ended immediately thereafter, the facts don't back up your assertions. The definition of an economic depression is a shrinking economy. Some ideological economists try to claim the recession of 1937 was an extension of the Great Depression but its intellectually dishonest. Not only had there been a recovery that rose as quickly as the bottom had fallen out before that, but this "recession" lasted at worst two years, still left the country with a higher GDP than in 1929.
And what caused the Recession of 37? FDR cut back on the New Deal because the economy had recovered. The loss of jobs and development hurt the economy and a minor downturn ensued.
FDR's "constant fiddling and abysmal monetary policy" led to the economic stability that allowed the United States to take advantage of the economic power vacuum in the post-War years and leverage its great resources and mobilized population (newly much more educated since jobless teenagers had stayed in school during the Depression in greater numbers and the GI Bill would allow millions access to higher education/vocational training that would have otherwise been out of reach) to become the economic superpower it still is. People like to forget the Great Depression was not unique. The 1890s had a severe depression. Before the New Deal, there was a panic or depression or crash at least once a decade or so. Afterwards, even major economic events (oil crisis of the 70s, the crash of the 80s) are mild in comparison.
Because its the only thing that makes sense?
You going to put a large tube above ground in the way of everything? This is the well established technique - subways, sewers, utility tunnels, even catacombs. If this were to be implemented it could even follow the existing networks. The tubes could follow the subways to neighborhood distribution centers or the sewers to individual buildings.
If you put it above ground, you get increased traffic congestion (given that it will reduce available space), lesser security (items could "fall off the truck" any place the system was accessible) and a lesser adaptability. If a river is in the way of a surface road, you have to build a bridge. If a river is in the way of a tunnel, you build more tunnel.
Who said anything about free?
In the same manner you would if you don't see someone? If your enacting of 'privacy' is reactive, its your own fault. If I leave my fly down and someone sees my X-men underwear and then I zip up my fly, I don't see how that is more or less a violation of privacy than if I don't notice someone seeing them or if I walk past a security camera.
I don't even putting it on the intertubes makes a difference. If that security camera caught sight of a bank robber that appears on the frame at the same time as you, and the tape goes online and the world can see your fly is down, thats too bad. If you can be seen from public, especially if a depiction of you is secondary and you just happen to be recorded along with the primary information, its tough nuggies. You don't have a right to privacy while in public. The same applies to looking in an open window from public space (in this case, the street).
No it isn't. Reality isn't conspiring against your religious beliefs. Its a shame the world is round and circles the sun and that contradicted a C millennium or two of religious doctrine. That doesn't mean teaching it is part of an agenda. Evolution is science.
So instead you wish to teach them two theories, one scientific and one religious, and tell them both are science. This is supposed to lead to understanding? You believe this is not "brainwashing"? Please.
I wonder if deep down inside, you know your arguments are BS. Is that what you think faith is?
nt
Where does that say anything about a school board? The whole point is that in Florida, the standards now require teaching evolution (if only as a "theory") and the ID crowd is pushing to make it an "affirmative right" to teach ID instead (de facto).
One would assume that, but medical research is usually geared towards treatment. Even if AIDS was a problem in North America or Europe on the scale it is in Europe, a cure wouldn't be very profitable. A vaccine would be moreso but a treatment.... thats where the money is. If you cure a disease, you've eliminated your entire market.
And no I don't have a good way to make (pharm) corporations act in a way that is counter to their profit imperative.
Its my understanding that in the US starting with 08 models the metric for MPG is changing and for the most part its driving the official mpg down quite a bit. In other words, if your current car gets X mpg by the old standards, a car getting X mpg in 08 is actually significantly more efficient.
So which metric is being used?
This is an example of a pedantic and arguably self-defeating point, class. If one wished to get similarly technical, the latter statement does not disprove the first, clearly not meant to be literal, statement. A qualifier "now" qualifies the criticized statement in the first place to a greater or equal degree of "like 'Everyone hates Bush now'" in the criticizing statement. Indicating current facts does not alter the truth value of a previous statement if the passage of time may have altered the current facts.
Nevertheless, perhaps the Bush-supporting author of the criticizing comments just really requires proof before making definitive statements or action. Whether that attribute is compatible with a Bush supporter is open to debate. However, simply reading on quick disproves that hypothesis:
and finally class, one thats a big more subtle.
Now assuming we ignore any ambiguity or typing errors, a reasonable conclusion is that the criticizing comment was at its core without merit due to self-contradiction. The latter statements validity can be interpreted at another time, but my personal opinion is that a post written by a rhesus monkey would contain an equal amount of insight, original thought and factually based analysis.
Only if you define "better economy" as "access to spaceships" (and that point isn't actually even accurate in Star Wars...). I mean, Owen Lars was a moisture farmer. Vader started out as a slave. There's a huge criminal underground/slums, etc.
The initial sibling comment has shown your claims regarding Lew Rockwell are obviously false.
Ron Paul is the "Distinguished Counselor" of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. They publish his latest book - forward by Lew Rockwell.
Ron Paul also openly associates himself with their of the John Birch Society and thinks its ridiculous that someone would think its bad that he would.
Clearly you aren't interested in the truth, just in backing your guy. I linked several times to news sources. You then criticize my sources and link Judicial Watch of all places as a source when the first adjective it uses to describe itself is by political ideology ("conservative"). Even your second mentioned site identifies judicialwatch as "a conservative legal group that dogged the Clintons through the 1990s with a stream of document demands and related lawsuits" not a reliable source of facts.
Thanks for bringing the level of discourse up to a higher level. However, when using the word "Period" as a sentence in an of itself, its is primarily done as the termination of an argument. I understand that you had just delivered your most intelligent point but it wasn't the best choice.
Other than publishing the newsletters, and writing the newsletters? How about his association with the von Mises Institution and Lew Rockwell (his former staffer)?He hasn't.If he wanted to keep his medical license, yes.
Oh well if thats what he said, then nevermind. I could never imagine someone lying to cover up a racist past.
But I'll bite. Ron Paul has extensive ties to the League of the South, a neo-Confederate group that advocates secession, a "return" to Christian law and racial violence.
Someone should tell Ron Paul that.Or his association with the John Birch Society, a far right wing society with both racist and conspiracy theory views.
"Sporadic unpopular views on racially charged subjects" is a description that only one willfully ignoring the facts would apply to the Ron Paul newsletters. Ron Paul started two organizations and authorized those organizations to put together two publications that bore his name. In both of them, articles that warned of a coming "race war", called blacks animals and was full of many kinds of bigotry featured prominently for twenty years. Paul admits that he wrote articles for the newsletters and that the newsletters were put together in such a way to present Paul as the author. Paul refuses to produce any evidence that he didn't write the articles let alone that he was uninvolved in the newsletters.
For two decades, two organizations Paul ran/owned published two newsletters that bore his name in the title that contained reprehensible material. Even the kindest interpretation of Paul's story - that while he was at times involved with the newsletter he didn't know what was going on under his authority - indicates he is unfit to serve as President. If he couldn't lead his non-profit organization and his small company without discovering that this was happening under his nose for twenty years, he can't lead the country.
So in what way does an answer that "appears confusing" and requires a "translation" not qualify as failing the criteria of clear concise and direct?
Paul's appeal - which is minimal if votes are the metric - is primarily among libertarians, most of whom choose to overlook his von Mises neo-confederate militia crazy because he calls himself a "libertarian" while running as a Republican, those who are pissed at the current system of politics and see him as a de facto third party candidate and those who haven't done much research on him and like that he flat out states that Iraq was dumb and that pot should be legal.
Of course the question of whether this was a threat or opportunity was never addressed in the first place and this in and of itself means that a clear and concise answer wasn't provided.
You have to be careful with what "Intelligent Design" means. Science does not say whether or not God (let's not kid ourselves about the "designer" euphemism) shaped evolution. Science can not speak to the existence of "God" because by nearly every definition of "God" this entity exists everywhere (and you can't detect something without some kind of differential, so anything that exists everywhere is effectively invisible) and/or outside the closed system of the universe. If I grew a civilization of artificially intelligent agents in my computer with no way for them to detect outside the closed system of the computer they could not scientifically prove my existence or the existence of something universal in their universe (if you'll excuse the pun) such as say the OS, unless they could somehow find something outside the OS.
Intelligent Design proponents say something very different. They don't say some Creator may have done this or that its consistent with science. They say a Creator must have done this, and that science alone can not explain the changing of species. They rarely try to prove this negative (their theory fails to be science if only because its not falsifiable) and when each example is shot down (as they have routinely been) they skitter from example to example.
This ignores the false choice of the idea in the first place. The set of possible origins of biological life are not "Evolution brought about by nature" and "Evolution brought about by God". The number of alternate theories even if our current understanding of science was insufficient are large (from quantum effects of DNA causing beneficial mutations to occur to little green men to a lack of understanding on our part) that "disproving" evolution through natural means would not be evidence in favor of ID.
Its a stalking horse intended to attack evolution now that Creationism is discredited to all but those who feel the need to cling to it for purely religious reasons.
With the additional technical ability to rewire the power supply within the computer you can make it harder. You're still not secure. Even if you assume that the lamp timer is tamper proof- a huge assumption - it could be removed and replaced with one you had. Even simpler, you could buy your own version of the same lamp timer and use the key included in that one. Or you could get a copy of your father's tubular key made.
... eventually you just have to trust your kid. Does that mean allow a 5 year old free reign on the intertubes? No, but long before most parents feel that their offspring are responsible enough to do whatever they wish they lose the ability to control all their actions.
And thats only including access on that machine. Open wireless networks are common. He could unplug the primary box from the cable modem and plug in a cheap laptop even if he couldn't find an open network. Thats ignoring simply going to a friend's house or the library or an internet cafe.
The best one can do is make it harder and if you do that you run the risk of making the challenge alluring (forbidden fruit and all that) and ensuring that no one is going to ask permission for what one seems to have clearly forbidden already. I mean, I've never heard of someone pulling the battery out of a car at curfew. Locking your kid in their room at bedtime is not normal behavior. While you obviously don't want to make the temptation too strong
No it is not!
Its a series of tubes.
Clearly Hans Reiser has major issues. Even beyond his geek issues, his attitude towards his son are IMO unhealthy. He's a f'ed up individual even if he is brilliant. "There's a thin line between brilliance and insanity" as they say.
That doesn't mean he's a murderer. The evidence we've seen so far does not either. There are at least two other reasonable theories of the crime (Nina is alive in Russia with her kids, Nina was killed by seemingly equally disturbed Sturgeon) and no truly compelling evidence. The car is suspicious at the very least, but its not enough.