That cannot be true. To get a PhD you must make an original contribution to the field (this is actually the primary requirement). So to get an award for your PhD it must've pretty much kicked all kinds of ass. To get an award for a PhD on Star Trek means that either it was the greatest social study ever performed for a PhD, or the panel were all Trekkies:)
Jihad may or may not have different meanings to people. But the words meaning can only be defined by how it was originally intended. There is quite the list of restrictions on a jihad. For one thing a jihad can only be defensive never offensive. So the Palestinians may have a case for jihad against Israel, but they cannot attack Dublin as part of it.
Jihad also specifically forbids targeting non-combatants (take note, Osama), mistreating prisoners of war, and destroying infrastructure (one of the reasons they're so pissed with the Israelis at the moment is the damage done to the infrastructure of South Lebanon). Amazing. It's sad that the word has been so corrupted that it can be misused in the manner it is being used today.
Incidentally, this doesn't reflect my views on the current world situation.
I hate the blink tag too, but don't knock HTML, I just want to go on a rampage and kill the developer and everyone involved in the site. The moral of the story is, blame the developers, not the framework/language. AJAX has some great ideas. It'll take time to mature, though!
Interestingly enough, Einstein himself believed strongly that dark matter existed, but (and this relates to your point) he could never prove it himself, so he left it out of the equation for fear of getting laughed at for such an unproveable notion. We must keep in mind that all the mathematical constructs we have at the moment are approximations. Newton's and Einstein's Laws are approximations that function well locally (in astronomical terms).
It pays to keep an open mind on this subject (and all others) until it can be proved conclusively either way. Otherwise one is as bad as the church when it tried to suppress Galileo.
any more than WWII will cease to be part of history simply because the Germans try to bury it.
Correction: I'm from Europe, and have cousins in Germany (indeed, my uncles father served in WWII, although everyone else of age did, too). I can tell you that the Germans do not try and bury it. In fact they had a policy when I last checked a few years ago that all schoolchlidren are taught, in rather gruesome detail, about WWII, what led to it, why it happened, and how badly the Germans behaved.
It's a good policy, and I hope its still in force. You might have been referring to the German policy of making any sign of Nazism illegal, on the other hand.
On the mention of Political correctness, apparently "Brain storming" is offensive to epeleptics (or could be) and so now the approved phrase is "thought shower". What a load of crap! Political correctness is based on a flawed idea, namely that if you can't express your prejudices then they'll go away. In my opinion that is WRONG! It just makes them fester. Which makes things worse when something does happen...
Argh, sorry about that, I accidentally pressed "Submit". Damn. Here's the whole post.
I've been reading up on this whole issue, and it seems that because of the lines drawn in the scientific fields about this issue, and the general unpredictability of global weather patterns, Doom and Gloom scenarios that keep popping up should be moderated. After all, screaming "We're all gonna DIE! (may take several centuries)" isn't very productive.
And the data is, geologically speaking, insufficient. A century is no more than a sneeze not only to the planet, but to EVERY SPECIES ON IT. It's like looking at an apple with a worm in it and immediately announcing that "All apples are suffering from a worm infestation because of us, and if we do nothing, surely ALL THE APPLES WILL HAVE WORMS IN THEM (eventually)". It's empirical data, not necessarily backed by theory. Certainly the facts are inconclusive. A bold statement, I agree, but:
We KNOW that the temperatures on the globe are variable over (geologically) periods of time
We KNOW that the output of the sun is variable
We KNOW that the orbit of the earth around the sun changes, so at periods over (again geological) periods of time the Earth can be closer or further away from the sun
We KNOW that there was CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution
We KNOW that the planet has suffered massive climate change, from Ice Ages to Ages where the general temprature was warm enough to support massive reptiles.
Interesting. On the facts above, it's sheer hubris to claim that anything that we do now can damage the planet in the short, medium or even long term. I mean, looking at it, was there a hole in the ozone layer before we could measure it? Antartica certainly was not always covered in ice (although that could be location, not climate). Then you look at the other side of the argument, which is mainly common sense
We KNOW that CO2 keeps in heat.
We KNOW that current power generation particularly, but other applications, generate massive amounts of CO2
We KNOW power generation methods that will reduce these emissions
We KNOW that oil reserves are going to run out eventually. We've been using more than we're finding for 20 years now (that's from the Economist, BTW).
We KNOW we're going to have to switch anyway. It's expensive now. Imagine a developed Africa Asia and South America. How expensive is it going to be then?
It seems a little ridiculous to be making such a ruckus about this. The change will have to be made. So stop fiddling and start it. One of the recommendations made by the NASA expert (who's currently out of favour) gave a presentation at the White House where the reduction of soot (which has a similar, if maybe not as long term, effect as CO2) could be started in to. No more name calling, just common sense... man, I wish there was more of it about
I've been reading up on this whole issue, and it seems that because of the lines drawn in the scientific fields about this issue, and the general unpredictability of global weather patterns, Doom and Gloom scenarios that keep popping up should be moderated. After all, screaming "We're all gonna DIE! (may take several centuries)" isn't very productive.
Certainly the facts are inconclusive. A bold statement, I agree, but:
We KNOW that the temperatures on the globe are variable over (geologically) periods of time
We KNOW that the output of the sun is variable
We KNOW that the orbit of the earth around the sun changes, so at periods over (again geological) periods of time the Earth can be closer or further away from the sun
We KNOW that there was CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution
We KNOW that the planet has suffered massive climate change, from Ice Ages to Ages where the general temprature was warm enough to support massive reptiles.
Interesting. On the facts above, it's sheer hubris to claim that anything that we do now can damage the planet in the short, medium or even long term. I mean, looking at it, was there a hole in the ozone layer before we could measure it? Antartica certainly was not always covered in ice (although that could be location, not climate). Then you look at the other side of the argument, which is mainly common sense
Actually, all through the middle ages until the general introduction of clean water.
It was because the fermentation process removed most of the dangerous toxins and diseases found in the water that the general populace used (while replacing them with alcohol:) ). So instead of a drink of water, you would drink some ale or beer, which was generally quite weak compared to what we drink now. I don't have the reference here but I believe that it was 1-2%. Interesting, if useless, information.
On the general debate, everything that I wanted to say has been covered, but briefly:
There is a general societal trend to mask intelligence and technical ability. For instance, in Ireland, people with low test scores and who have no interest in school are usually proud of it (as opposed to me, supposing I'm intelligent, where if I got a low test score all I felt was relief, because I'd passed another exam!). I cannot understand people being wilfully ignorant. I cannot understand people trying to suppress information. It makes no sense.
This decade has depressed me (luckily I'm generally an optimist) because everywhere I look I see ignorance beating common sense. Scientific research is stalling in many important fields because of political pressure bein applied (usually through funding). Some companies and individuals seem to delight in hitting any advances or promising leads with any and every type of roadblock that they can come up with. The patent laws are the most obvious example, but there are others.
And it all comes back to what the article is about, and some of the comments made. Children are encouraged to do what they like. There is no discipline, no limits. It's the nature of a child to test limits. If no limits are set, the child develops with no instinctual knowledge of what is right and wrong in society. And that, as seen when one looks at "chav" culture, is a major problem. Children chucking rocks at cars, safe in the knowledge that they'll get away with it. This is so prevalent that many local authorities now put a CAGE over any walkways crossing the road! That is dealing with the symptom, not the problem. The problem is not confined there. Middle-class and richer children have slightly more exotic ideas of fun, but are not being curtailed.
To the point of this rant. If we intend to have a better future, there is no point in thinking wishfully now. All children should have their academic needs looked after. Teachers who are ineffectual should be replaced. Cirriculums should be reviewed more often than they are, and parents should be severly punished for what their children do. It comes back to responsibility. Parents are responsible for their children, by EU charter (or constitution in America). This is not stated explicitly, I believe. Rather it is implied because a child cannot face major punishment for any actions they commit. While the details of this would need to be worked out, the rights of the victim should supercede the rights of any proven crimial (for lack of a better word). I personally believe that this would encourage parents to BE more responsible and to look into accusations against their children more seriously (If you've had to deal with a parent who insists that _their_ child could _never_ have done this you'd know what I mean).
To finish with a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower, the general who planned and commanded Operation Overlord, founded NATO, and indeed, was the first SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander, Europe), and was also a two term US President with one of the best domestic and foreign records of ANY US President, who was domestically and globally popular and very successful as a person as well as a career; "I have never left my childhood in Abeliene behind me. The virtues of hard work, optimisim and dedication taught to me by my parents have led me to where I am today."
Re:what about freedom to bear arms?
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
First of all, the right to keep and bear arms was specifically discluded from this thread (preciseley because it's controverisal). But this comparison has always annoyed me, so I'll bite
Secondly, in Switzerland, anyone cannot go and just buy a gun. The vast majority of weapons are owned by the state, and issued to conscripts during their national service. The conscripts are required to protect and maintain the weapons (and be prepared to defend their country) but if any of these weapons were used in a crime, there would be hell to pay by the soldier who was issued the weapon, not whoever took it. If one is stolen or goes missing (as can happen) it has to be reported immediately.
[Historical Note] The system is set up like this because Switzerland was prevented by international treaty from having an armed force outside it's borders (with the exception of the Vatican) because their mercenaries were so feared across Europe in the Middle Ages. With the technology of the time, Switzerland's geography made it highly defensible (to be honest, it still is). Funny how things change, really, given that the Swiss are now the country that pops into the head when someone says "Neutral" [/Historical Note]
What the Swiss have ended up with is reponsible soldiers, not punks with firearms. Unfortunately, in the US, it seems there are far too many punks with firearms, and not enough responsible adults. (In Ireland, they're just punks, or knackers to use the local term. Most of them don't carry guns, thankfully).
On the other hand, MS make you pay once for the license, and again for the documentation (MSDN)
Which isn't nice. And on top of that, their documentation can be ummm, spare, to say the least... And on top of that again... in the main, OSS documentation, especially on larger projects, kicks the shit out of most of MS's (and yes, this is experience speaking)
From a technological and military point of view, Germany was more of a threat than it's two allies combined. The Americans got involved in the land war in Europe because without them, the Germans still could have _won_. It was unlikely, but still possible. Certainly, the British could not have opened a new Western front on their own, they simply did not have the manpower or materiel.
It was considered that Germany was directly a threat to America. Consider that Western Europe was more populous than North America, and that if the Germans had won, they would have controlled the Middle-East (and it's oil supplies). Japan, of itself, was of no strategic threat to the US.
On top of that, the US was eager to constrain the communist threat
However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available against violent criminals.
Highly doubtful. Because the RIAA is taking steps to fight for what they think is right, gives no one the right to knock them for it
No, it's not highly doubtful, it's a fact. The subpoena powers the RIAA have been.... errr... granted are much, much more wide-reaching than those normally used. No Judges are involved, so subpoena's are essentially de-valued (which does not make them any less powerful, it just means that "being subpoenaed" is not as indicitave as it used to be of reasonable cause). It also means that the RIAA can issue subpoena's that would have been considered whimsical not so long ago, and it undermines a citizen's right to due process.
As has been mentioned before, there is nothing wrong, intrinsically, with the RIAA representing their members and protecting their members Copyright. It's just the methods are dubious, and I don't think the end's can justify the means
Re:Business should not be allowed...
on
Big Company on Campus
·
· Score: 4, Informative
this is the potential future of computer science in the United States
My aren't WE large headed!! This does not just happen across the pond there, it happens in Europe too. In fact, MS has offered academic institution(s) here in Ireland _really_ cheap setups in the past, and there were 2 reasons.
o To lock them in (obviously)
o To test out NT in a large network enviornment
And boy was NT tested (some of the curses thrown at it were impressive. It caused an awful lot of hassle, never mind that the default setup allowed students to format the harddrive)
Now, the Computer Systems degree I'm doing in the University of Limerick, Ireland use a mix of Red Hat and Windows, and I believe that the Computer and Electrical Engineers use the same mix, but aside from that, the rest of the college use Win2k workstations with Active Directory and Exchange Server, which was a direct upgrade from the previous infrastructure... so I guess the lock-in worked
Don't you need carbon nanotubes to be longer than
4 mm to get to space. I'm no expert, but if we could use 4 mm to get to space now, I'd be forever bumping my head on the moon.
Jesus, that's not funny at all, what was the moderator smoking!
The post above this is exactly right, and I'll explain, using the US as an example. In the US there are 3 "branches of government" as set down in the constitution. There's the Executive Branch (President), the Legislative Branch (Congress) and the Judicial Branch. They each have duties, and the existance of the three brings balance (none of them can go overboard, because it's almost impossible to control all 3).
Now, the US constitution implies a fourth branch - the people. As a citizen of the US, you have a responsibility to ensure that the system is working, that the balance is preserved. The simplest method of discharging that responsibility is voting. If the citizen doesn't vote, then they are not discharging their responsibility, and thus the system starts to get unbalanced, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment.
This idea is at the root of the idea of "Democracy"
Incidentally, IANACOTUS (I Am Not A Citizen Of The US)
As much as i would love to support the search for life in the galaxy sometimes its not a good idea. Although i do think that as humans we should try to search any money we put into a project like this is as good as gone and in finacial hard times like this we cant afford to throw around much.
At the risk of starting a flamewar (I'm in an asbestos suit:P) attitudes like this piss me off enormously. All this stupid "we shouldn't put money into this, that and the other because of hard times/the poor/the children" is spurious.
Fact: Agencies like NASA can stimulate the economy, by virtue of their sheer size. The same, but more so goes for the defense establishment
Fact: many items which we take for granted today would not be a reality if it wasn't for the research money the governments provided
I believe the single greatest hope for the eventual equality of all (which is somewhere in the american constitution, right?) is technology. You may or may not agree with this, you might say education, for instance, but more effiecient and cost effective ways of teaching and learning will come out of research.
The "I don't want to pay so my descendants will benefit" attitude is an attitude that would have wiped out the human race, or any species, for that matter, if it was rife. If you are bemoaning your contribution, there is nothing stopping you disappearing into the hills and living as a hermit (except that wouldn't fit in your comfort zone, would it), while the rest of us go and make progress for the benefit of the species as a whole.
This is also the reason that 20 new types of disposable wipe a year piss me off so badly.
There's soooo many holes in that that I wasn't sure where to start. Incidentally IANAC (I am not a creationist)
If there is no evolution, then there is no chance that life would exist anywhere else in the universe because it would have had to have been Created only here
That makes no sense. The basis of most religions is that their god is omnipotent and ominescent, so why can't they have created multiple intelligent lifeforms. For that matter, the power of the god can explain evolution, too (how could such a finely balanced lattice have occured without something guiding it's creation)
The New Testament of the Bible (in which most Creationists readily and eagerly believe) repeatedly claims that there is only one Son of God and that only through Him is salvation possible.
He was human incarnate, not human. Why couldn't he have been "Ugly bug-eyed monster from Proxima Centauri incarnate" or "Betazed incarnate"?
You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.
And to bring this back on topic, it's good to see the funding, but I wonder is it because SETI is starting to get data that interests NASA for some reason (like the readings from Proxima Centauri mentioned in another post).
Slashdot Mirror
That cannot be true. To get a PhD you must make an original contribution to the field (this is actually the primary requirement). So to get an award for your PhD it must've pretty much kicked all kinds of ass. To get an award for a PhD on Star Trek means that either it was the greatest social study ever performed for a PhD, or the panel were all Trekkies :)
Jihad may or may not have different meanings to people. But the words meaning can only be defined by how it was originally intended. There is quite the list of restrictions on a jihad. For one thing a jihad can only be defensive never offensive. So the Palestinians may have a case for jihad against Israel, but they cannot attack Dublin as part of it.
Jihad also specifically forbids targeting non-combatants (take note, Osama), mistreating prisoners of war, and destroying infrastructure (one of the reasons they're so pissed with the Israelis at the moment is the damage done to the infrastructure of South Lebanon). Amazing. It's sad that the word has been so corrupted that it can be misused in the manner it is being used today.
Incidentally, this doesn't reflect my views on the current world situation.
I hate the blink tag too, but don't knock HTML, I just want to go on a rampage and kill the developer and everyone involved in the site. The moral of the story is, blame the developers, not the framework/language. AJAX has some great ideas. It'll take time to mature, though!
Interestingly enough, Einstein himself believed strongly that dark matter existed, but (and this relates to your point) he could never prove it himself, so he left it out of the equation for fear of getting laughed at for such an unproveable notion.
We must keep in mind that all the mathematical constructs we have at the moment are approximations. Newton's and Einstein's Laws are approximations that function well locally (in astronomical terms).
It pays to keep an open mind on this subject (and all others) until it can be proved conclusively either way. Otherwise one is as bad as the church when it tried to suppress Galileo.
any more than WWII will cease to be part of history simply because the Germans try to bury it.
Correction: I'm from Europe, and have cousins in Germany (indeed, my uncles father served in WWII, although everyone else of age did, too). I can tell you that the Germans do not try and bury it. In fact they had a policy when I last checked a few years ago that all schoolchlidren are taught, in rather gruesome detail, about WWII, what led to it, why it happened, and how badly the Germans behaved.
It's a good policy, and I hope its still in force. You might have been referring to the German policy of making any sign of Nazism illegal, on the other hand.
On the mention of Political correctness, apparently "Brain storming" is offensive to epeleptics (or could be) and so now the approved phrase is "thought shower". What a load of crap! Political correctness is based on a flawed idea, namely that if you can't express your prejudices then they'll go away.
In my opinion that is WRONG! It just makes them fester. Which makes things worse when something does happen...
I've been reading up on this whole issue, and it seems that because of the lines drawn in the scientific fields about this issue, and the general unpredictability of global weather patterns, Doom and Gloom scenarios that keep popping up should be moderated. After all, screaming "We're all gonna DIE! (may take several centuries)" isn't very productive.
And the data is, geologically speaking, insufficient. A century is no more than a sneeze not only to the planet, but to EVERY SPECIES ON IT. It's like looking at an apple with a worm in it and immediately announcing that "All apples are suffering from a worm infestation because of us, and if we do nothing, surely ALL THE APPLES WILL HAVE WORMS IN THEM (eventually)". It's empirical data, not necessarily backed by theory.
Certainly the facts are inconclusive. A bold statement, I agree, but:
Interesting. On the facts above, it's sheer hubris to claim that anything that we do now can damage the planet in the short, medium or even long term. I mean, looking at it, was there a hole in the ozone layer before we could measure it? Antartica certainly was not always covered in ice (although that could be location, not climate).
Then you look at the other side of the argument, which is mainly common sense
It seems a little ridiculous to be making such a ruckus about this. The change will have to be made. So stop fiddling and start it. One of the recommendations made by the NASA expert (who's currently out of favour) gave a presentation at the White House where the reduction of soot (which has a similar, if maybe not as long term, effect as CO2) could be started in to. No more name calling, just common sense... man, I wish there was more of it about
Certainly the facts are inconclusive. A bold statement, I agree, but:
Interesting. On the facts above, it's sheer hubris to claim that anything that we do now can damage the planet in the short, medium or even long term. I mean, looking at it, was there a hole in the ozone layer before we could measure it? Antartica certainly was not always covered in ice (although that could be location, not climate).
Then you look at the other side of the argument, which is mainly common sense
Actually, all through the middle ages until the general introduction of clean water.
:) ). So instead of a drink of water, you would drink some ale or beer, which was generally quite weak compared to what we drink now. I don't have the reference here but I believe that it was 1-2%. Interesting, if useless, information.
It was because the fermentation process removed most of the dangerous toxins and diseases found in the water that the general populace used (while replacing them with alcohol
On the general debate, everything that I wanted to say has been covered, but briefly:
There is a general societal trend to mask intelligence and technical ability. For instance, in Ireland, people with low test scores and who have no interest in school are usually proud of it (as opposed to me, supposing I'm intelligent, where if I got a low test score all I felt was relief, because I'd passed another exam!). I cannot understand people being wilfully ignorant. I cannot understand people trying to suppress information. It makes no sense.
This decade has depressed me (luckily I'm generally an optimist) because everywhere I look I see ignorance beating common sense. Scientific research is stalling in many important fields because of political pressure bein applied (usually through funding). Some companies and individuals seem to delight in hitting any advances or promising leads with any and every type of roadblock that they can come up with. The patent laws are the most obvious example, but there are others.
And it all comes back to what the article is about, and some of the comments made. Children are encouraged to do what they like. There is no discipline, no limits. It's the nature of a child to test limits. If no limits are set, the child develops with no instinctual knowledge of what is right and wrong in society. And that, as seen when one looks at "chav" culture, is a major problem. Children chucking rocks at cars, safe in the knowledge that they'll get away with it. This is so prevalent that many local authorities now put a CAGE over any walkways crossing the road! That is dealing with the symptom, not the problem. The problem is not confined there. Middle-class and richer children have slightly more exotic ideas of fun, but are not being curtailed.
To the point of this rant. If we intend to have a better future, there is no point in thinking wishfully now. All children should have their academic needs looked after. Teachers who are ineffectual should be replaced. Cirriculums should be reviewed more often than they are, and parents should be severly punished for what their children do. It comes back to responsibility. Parents are responsible for their children, by EU charter (or constitution in America). This is not stated explicitly, I believe. Rather it is implied because a child cannot face major punishment for any actions they commit. While the details of this would need to be worked out, the rights of the victim should supercede the rights of any proven crimial (for lack of a better word). I personally believe that this would encourage parents to BE more responsible and to look into accusations against their children more seriously (If you've had to deal with a parent who insists that _their_ child could _never_ have done this you'd know what I mean).
To finish with a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower, the general who planned and commanded Operation Overlord, founded NATO, and indeed, was the first SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander, Europe), and was also a two term US President with one of the best domestic and foreign records of ANY US President, who was domestically and globally popular and very successful as a person as well as a career;
"I have never left my childhood in Abeliene behind me. The virtues of hard work, optimisim and dedication taught to me by my parents have led me to where I am today."
First of all, the right to keep and bear arms was specifically discluded from this thread (preciseley because it's controverisal). But this comparison has always annoyed me, so I'll bite
Secondly, in Switzerland, anyone cannot go and just buy a gun. The vast majority of weapons are owned by the state, and issued to conscripts during their national service. The conscripts are required to protect and maintain the weapons (and be prepared to defend their country) but if any of these weapons were used in a crime, there would be hell to pay by the soldier who was issued the weapon, not whoever took it. If one is stolen or goes missing (as can happen) it has to be reported immediately.
[Historical Note] The system is set up like this because Switzerland was prevented by international treaty from having an armed force outside it's borders (with the exception of the Vatican) because their mercenaries were so feared across Europe in the Middle Ages. With the technology of the time, Switzerland's geography made it highly defensible (to be honest, it still is). Funny how things change, really, given that the Swiss are now the country that pops into the head when someone says "Neutral" [/Historical Note]
What the Swiss have ended up with is reponsible soldiers, not punks with firearms. Unfortunately, in the US, it seems there are far too many punks with firearms, and not enough responsible adults. (In Ireland, they're just punks, or knackers to use the local term. Most of them don't carry guns, thankfully).
We care?
Whoa, thanks for letting me know!
On the other hand, MS make you pay once for the license, and again for the documentation (MSDN)
Which isn't nice. And on top of that, their documentation can be ummm, spare, to say the least... And on top of that again... in the main, OSS documentation, especially on larger projects, kicks the shit out of most of MS's (and yes, this is experience speaking)
From a technological and military point of view, Germany was more of a threat than it's two allies combined. The Americans got involved in the land war in Europe because without them, the Germans still could have _won_. It was unlikely, but still possible. Certainly, the British could not have opened a new Western front on their own, they simply did not have the manpower or materiel.
It was considered that Germany was directly a threat to America. Consider that Western Europe was more populous than North America, and that if the Germans had won, they would have controlled the Middle-East (and it's oil supplies).
Japan, of itself, was of no strategic threat to the US.
On top of that, the US was eager to constrain the communist threat
is railgun.org
They have a detailed overview of the physics involved, too.
Aim it at the sun == bye, now!
:)
The only problem now is convincing everyone that
a) This isn't _really_ incineration
b) The sun is not in their back yard
and we should be sorted
It's 65535... now where have I seen that number before :)
32000 seems like an odd limit...
The question is:
Do you need a quantum supercomputer to run the frickin' thing?
In my experience, you need a LOT of power to run office (mind you that goes for OOo as well)
(I own a PIII 500 w/320M of ram, and Office 2000 can be remarkably slow, especially that auto-save feature)
You're sure they were a Liberian?
Could've been one of those nasty Nigerian spammers, if you ask me
However, the music industry is pursuing music piracy with strong arm tactics and subpoena powers that far exceed those available against violent criminals.
.... errr... granted are much, much more wide-reaching than those normally used. No Judges are involved, so subpoena's are essentially de-valued (which does not make them any less powerful, it just means that "being subpoenaed" is not as indicitave as it used to be of reasonable cause). It also means that the RIAA can issue subpoena's that would have been considered whimsical not so long ago, and it undermines a citizen's right to due process.
Highly doubtful. Because the RIAA is taking steps to fight for what they think is right, gives no one the right to knock them for it
No, it's not highly doubtful, it's a fact. The subpoena powers the RIAA have been
As has been mentioned before, there is nothing wrong, intrinsically, with the RIAA representing their members and protecting their members Copyright. It's just the methods are dubious, and I don't think the end's can justify the means
this is the potential future of computer science in the United States
My aren't WE large headed!! This does not just happen across the pond there, it happens in Europe too. In fact, MS has offered academic institution(s) here in Ireland _really_ cheap setups in the past, and there were 2 reasons.
o To lock them in (obviously)
o To test out NT in a large network enviornment
And boy was NT tested (some of the curses thrown at it were impressive. It caused an awful lot of hassle, never mind that the default setup allowed students to format the harddrive)
Now, the Computer Systems degree I'm doing in the University of Limerick, Ireland use a mix of Red Hat and Windows, and I believe that the Computer and Electrical Engineers use the same mix, but aside from that, the rest of the college use Win2k workstations with Active Directory and Exchange Server, which was a direct upgrade from the previous infrastructure... so I guess the lock-in worked
Don't you need carbon nanotubes to be longer than 4 mm to get to space. I'm no expert, but if we could use 4 mm to get to space now, I'd be forever bumping my head on the moon.
Nah, that's a load of crap. What you really need are Pirates
Coz pirates kick ass
I think (in Galeon, and perhaps Mozilla, I'm in work, so I can't check) that Meta+1, Meta+2 etc. works (on my system, Alt is the meta key)
Jesus, that's not funny at all, what was the moderator smoking!
The post above this is exactly right, and I'll explain, using the US as an example. In the US there are 3 "branches of government" as set down in the constitution. There's the Executive Branch (President), the Legislative Branch (Congress) and the Judicial Branch. They each have duties, and the existance of the three brings balance (none of them can go overboard, because it's almost impossible to control all 3).
Now, the US constitution implies a fourth branch - the people. As a citizen of the US, you have a responsibility to ensure that the system is working, that the balance is preserved. The simplest method of discharging that responsibility is voting. If the citizen doesn't vote, then they are not discharging their responsibility, and thus the system starts to get unbalanced, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment.
This idea is at the root of the idea of "Democracy"
Incidentally, IANACOTUS (I Am Not A Citizen Of The US)
As much as i would love to support the search for life in the galaxy sometimes its not a good idea. Although i do think that as humans we should try to search any money we put into a project like this is as good as gone and in finacial hard times like this we cant afford to throw around much.
:P) attitudes like this piss me off enormously. All this stupid "we shouldn't put money into this, that and the other because of hard times/the poor/the children" is spurious.
At the risk of starting a flamewar (I'm in an asbestos suit
Fact: Agencies like NASA can stimulate the economy, by virtue of their sheer size. The same, but more so goes for the defense establishment
Fact: many items which we take for granted today would not be a reality if it wasn't for the research money the governments provided
I believe the single greatest hope for the eventual equality of all (which is somewhere in the american constitution, right?) is technology. You may or may not agree with this, you might say education, for instance, but more effiecient and cost effective ways of teaching and learning will come out of research.
The "I don't want to pay so my descendants will benefit" attitude is an attitude that would have wiped out the human race, or any species, for that matter, if it was rife. If you are bemoaning your contribution, there is nothing stopping you disappearing into the hills and living as a hermit (except that wouldn't fit in your comfort zone, would it), while the rest of us go and make progress for the benefit of the species as a whole.
This is also the reason that 20 new types of disposable wipe a year piss me off so badly.
If there is no evolution, then there is no chance that life would exist anywhere else in the universe because it would have had to have been Created only here
That makes no sense. The basis of most religions is that their god is omnipotent and ominescent, so why can't they have created multiple intelligent lifeforms. For that matter, the power of the god can explain evolution, too (how could such a finely balanced lattice have occured without something guiding it's creation)
The New Testament of the Bible (in which most Creationists readily and eagerly believe) repeatedly claims that there is only one Son of God and that only through Him is salvation possible.
He was human incarnate, not human. Why couldn't he have been "Ugly bug-eyed monster from Proxima Centauri incarnate" or "Betazed incarnate"?
You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.
And to bring this back on topic, it's good to see the funding, but I wonder is it because SETI is starting to get data that interests NASA for some reason (like the readings from Proxima Centauri mentioned in another post).