But you have to admit the other side also has a point. Obviously all candidates have external connections. After all, only a horrible candidate wouldn't.
But they're using this as an excuse to kill protestors. That's also true.
Obviously Iran does as Iran does. That Israel got bombarded by Hezbollah is obviously... Israel's fault, you see they "conspire" (to do what ? anyone know ?). That protestors get killed is "obviously" part of a similar conspiracy.
This isn't designing proteins, it's finding the 3D structures of proteins we know. And designing a protein capable of catalyzing such a complex chain of events is orders of magnitude more complex than what it's doing right now.
Perhaps you should read the article. They're designing proteins.
Heh, if you're truly worried about that, worry about treatments. If any (non-trivial) treatment consisting of specifically folding proteins is found, then there will be exactly one way to produce said drug : genetic manipulation. Only a genetically modified cell will be able to produce those custom proteins.
So it's not "buzzword-compliant" in more than one sence. It burns heaps of co2, it relies on genetic modification, specifically on injecting live humans with substances coming from "mutants" (just like most insulin today, but hey, at least that protein was natural in origin).
And it's also a sign of "skynet" to come, so to speak. Right now humans are telling these computers what to do, but there is no way in hell a human could ever hope to do what these supercomputers do. In 10 lifetimes you wouldn't get 1 nanosecond from the initial chain using paper.
This is basically a computer using a (basic) kind of artificial intelligence to respond to human questions about the real world. I doubt AI of this level would become self-conscious any time soon, but if an intelligence were to directly (or through deception) control a ribosome, like this one does, that would enable it to self-replicate. The question it would need to answer is one that is "but" an exercise in protein folding : "how do I fold a protein so it runs my thinking algorithm ?", even if it's much harder than the current questions being asked.
And if said AI wanted to create new weapons against humans, here's a quote from the article:
Pande explains that this is "as drug design is very hard, itâ(TM)s very easy to do more harm than good, and thatâ(TM)s one thing that we never want to see".
It's perhaps worth mentioning that the DNA code that defines AIDS, for example, is only a couple of thousand basepairs long, well within reach of this program.
Like most research worth pursuing, it's very, very not-buzzword-compliant, and conceivably unbelievably dangerous. Even something "undeniably good" like fusion research produces (tiny amounts of) long-lived high-radioactive waste due to a process called activation.
Presumably because if you don't demand that anyone in a job touching engineering should be able to solve (basic) math problems, it is only a matter of time until nobody is able to do it anymore : the ones who could died of natural causes, and it was so totally unfair to demand anyone else learn it.
Perhaps that's correct. In any case, it cannot be reasonably denied that doing what you say will massively decrease mathematical ability in many people who really should be able to solve basic mathematical equations.
And you're right... it is totally unfair, especially if you can't do it. But who do you want to build your house, an "unfair", but capable architect, or a "fair" one, that "might" be capable, nobody knows for sure ?
This can be, over long distances, percieved to happen at a FTL rate, though nothing is actually moving at that rate. And relatively speaking, that FTL galaxy is unmeasurable, since you will never see it racing away from you.
That's very useful since Einsteins equations do not deal with moving at infinite velocity, that is perfectly possible according to Einstein's relativity. It's just that as you accelerate further time would speed up, and you would still arrive at the point in time you would have arrived when flying at light speed. Relatively deals with how said infinite velocity is perceived by others in other reference frames.
So perhaps I was a bit less than thorough. Nothing can be perceived to be moving faster than light either, according to relativity. A perception of an object moving faster than light is a direct violation of einstein's equations.
FTL movement, if you calculate how it would look, would also look very, very different from how these galaxies look. Suppose a ship were to fly away from you, and accelerate to an FTL velocity. At that point the ship would disappear entirely from your vision, to be replaced with an image of the ship decelerating below lightspeed, at the location it drops below FTL speeds.
Then that image would move towards you, OPPOSITE to the actual movement of the ship. The redshift would also be reversed from it's normal appearance into a blueshift effect. A very strong blueshift effect.
If these galaxies were to have a velocity faster than light, even if it's merely appearance, their redshift would reverse, and would their movement vector appear to turn around. Our telescopes should be telling us they're flying toward us at very large speeds.
Obviously that's not happening. They are not flying at FTL speeds, and they are not appearing to fly at FTL speeds either.
ing back. Looking forward in time, everything is getting more separated, and, for far regions of space, the rate of separation is higher than light can catch up to.
This can only be if there are (massive) regions of space moving faster than light, relative to us.
That an entire galaxy would get accelerated to even a small percentage of light speed is hard enough to believe, but even something like 50% light speed cannot be the speed of a galaxy. Just think of the energy required to accelerate it. FTL is supposed to be impossible, and no respectable scientist can seriously believe that there are so many galaxies moving faster than light, right ?
Also if the hubble constant is universal (the same in other galaxies) you would pretty much require a fourth dimension (other than time, so I guess a fifth), to explain such an effect.
Wouldn't it be a (lot) more simple to explain if there was some sort of cosmic mirror somewhere, that, due to the finite speed of light does not show us a perfect reflection, but rather an ancient reflection ?
Also I was more thinking about the astonishing coincidence. Surely the age of the universe is not calculated using the hubble constant ? That would make it, at best, a wildly inaccurate guess.
Doesn't this constant place an additional limit on the size of the universe (or at least the part of the universe we're ever going to see) ?
c / 74.2 km/s * Mpc = 300000 / 74.2 * 3 261 636.26 lightyear (1 Mpc = 3 261 636.26) or about 1.31872075 Ã-- 10^10 lightyear, about 13 billion lightyear.
Because at that distance, the stars would be moving away from us at light speed, so in reality there's an event horizon between us and stars at that distance. Light from stars further away would never reach us, due to it having unlimited redshift.
As you can see, if the hubble constant becomes bigger, the universe shrinks. If it lowers, the universe becomes bigger.
That's not exactly true. The tower was not informed, and there was lots of confusion, including unsafe airspace in front of the plane. Also the fuel level might have been a problem, and there are airfields where landing passes are simply not possible.
Btw, can you explain why a plane would allow "half" overriding of the autopilot ? That's beyond stupid. Clearly if the autopilot could not be overridden there would have been no way for the second pilot to fight the autopilot. Surely that's counted as a design flaw.
That the autopilot fights the commander of the plane is a design flaw. If a gun started firing until the police officer removed the bullets, you would not hesitate to call that a heinous design flaw no matter what the orders of the police officer were. Commanders on the ground are -short term- the highest authority. If the president says one thing and the field commander says another, you go with the field commander without hesitation. Such should be true in ANY dangerous situation.
And in my opinion all of those networks are pants. BBC is the best of the bunch, but overall produces almost nothing I enjoy; PBS was okay as a kid but as an adult I'm sick of their pro-big-government propaganda. Ditto NPR. And I don't know CBC radio but CBC television sucks; the only good shows they've ever produced were Red Green and Avonlea. I prefer networks that look at their viewership numbers, and try to tailor their entertainment to what the general population wants. I've found they produce more good entertainment than any of the government-run systems.
You mean "basically fox", right ? (I kid, I kid)
But the gist of the argument is this : if piracy/"intellectual property theft" is not stopped there will be no such stations left, because why would anyone subject themselves to their ads when the same content + free tivo features is available pirated ?
Furthermore, it will no longer be possible to produce movies targeted at an audience. If piracy is not contained there will be only "government run" movie productions.
You will only have the "european cultural" type propaganda films (you have to like those nice not-white-colored criminals, they're the victims of crime. The fact that your wife was raped by them is, obviously, the fault of white racism. you have to recycle. oh no co2 it is YET EVEN MORE SPECTACULARLY BAD AND DISASTROUS unless we submit to UN world government. You have to like those nice european politicians, even if they voted themselves above the law,... that sort of crap) that get awards on cannes aplenty, due to self-masturbatory tendencies of the movie makers, but noone ever watches because... well they suck badly.
But if piracy is not culled, that's all that will be left (well obviously there will be the movies that exist today...)
Unfortunately technology advancements work both ways. Technology innovations will indeed make it cheaper to produce movies, BUT they will also eventually enable "live piracy", which would devastate sports events' income.
Live shows are nice for accomplished singers. But relying on live shows will mean that no kid, no matter how promising a musician he or she may be, will get what every girl that can just barely hold her boobs in while holding a note gets today. 99,9% of musicians will need a day job, until live performances bring in enough money.
Fame is not edible, sorry for stating the obvious but do you seriously think stars will still be admired if they have to have a "you want fries with that ?" job on the side ?
Movies in a piracy world will be one of three things : -> ideological advertisement (like the Sistine chapel, but in movie form. What you call "art") -> commercial ads -> political advocacy
They will not contain ads, they will BE ads, and nothing more. Every single aspect of the movie will only serve to advance the commercial(/political/ideological) interests.
And, perhaps more serious, if those companies were to be protected and forced to do things by government production would become increasingly inefficient, since the incentive for efficiency would have been taken away. Inefficiency means that less money is available for the state/country/world as a whole.
The problem with that is what it leads to. Keeping a human alive is not free. Less efficiency means less money available as a whole, and as every developing country illustrates, politicians still steal enough money for 5 mercedesses and a private jet (you see sacrifices and policies only apply to others, don't they Nancy "less co2 ! everyone save ! where's my jet ?" Pelosi ?)
The end result of not letting companies move, not allowing for free trade, and "protecting" those poor (but eating) unemployed, is a whole lot more people starving to death.
He said 'If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked
You may be right. However, if you are indeed right, big productions are done for. Authors will be thrown back 500 years and be dependant on external sources of income. They will be dependant not on their skill but on their patronage.
I'm sure some will survive. But artists will become progressively more dependant on government handouts, ads, or other such indirect sources of income.
As technology kills the last real differences between "home-tv" quality and cinema quality, it will become progressively harder to sell entertainment (since you're fighting against the economic force that free represents), until it can barely be done at all.
It will be, at best, like TV is today. Music fans will go from being the customers to being the product, sold to advertisers, or ideological causes, and you will hardly see any singers, actors or... without a pepsi or cola light in hand.
Actually if the step can not disprove string theory, it isn't even a positive step. Apparently there is some property of some object in string theory that matches some readings seen in reality.
But the association cannot be made. There are objects in string theory that behave very similarly to that plasma, but we can't be sure if they really are that plasma.
So it's just a noted similarity between 2 formulas. Not an actual prediction that's come true, and as such does not pass the standard for getting closer to acceptance as a valid scientific theory, as opposed to a "cool calculation trick". This sadly has been the fate of many physics theories, who end up yielding nothing more than a few tricks to solve tricky equations having little or nothing to do with what they intended to predict in the first place.
Actually how about eliminating the problem itself ? If the paperwork is overwhelming, with a reasonable minimum workforce present in the hospital, the government (the recipient of said paperwork), needs to accept the fact that there isn't any paperwork, and foot the bill anyway.
Obviously this will present docters with patients without medical records. But better to be treated a bit worse than not at all.
Obviously any sort of national healthcare system will preclude having this common-sense approach, as any system that does not make it the responsibility of the patient to ensure medical bills are paid will ration health care ("total health care resources" are limited. Either you let people pay for them, or you ration them). Rationed health care means "no government approval, no healthcare" both in theory and in practice. Unless congress likes unmarked expense reports ala "Something -> $500.000". And I fear that when they're not coming from congress critters (you know the "oops I forgot to pay my taxes" people) they really dislike them.
Let's not forget the house speaker is a woman that screams (literally) about the need to conserve co2 emissions, but refuses to fly on anything other than a private jet. National healthcare is another way of saying that she's the one deciding whether your cancer gets treated.
The Law of the European Union is the unique legal system which operates alongside the laws of Member States of the European Union (EU). EU law has direct effect within the legal systems of its Member States, and overrides national law in many areas, especially in areas covered by the Single Market. The EU is not a federal government; as established by the European Court of Justice, the Community constitutes "a new legal order" in international law.[1] It is sometimes classified as supranational law. Currently there are around 500 million EU citizens in 27 Member States subject to EU law, making it one of the most encompassing modern legal systems in the world.
Unfortunately there are so many misinformed Europeans that it's not even funny. Anyone in Brussels you ask if this is a good idea will immediately tell you it is not.
One might wonder how this ever got voted in, so many people are against it. They certainly did not have the 2/3rd majority that was needed to override the constitutions of the member states.
Sorry, but you're flat out wrong. Your local law means zilch. Europe is a state, and European law superseeds whatever your state has in place.
Actually they're trying to join in to the victimhood party. These days it's literally come to the point where firing on people who are shooting rockets to kill is considered a crime, especially if they're shooting at you. Stating that an ideology that pushes childrape should probably be opposed is a crime in Europe. Religions get elevated, protected by law from criticism positions (well all religions except Christianity get such a position, although it's quickly coming to the point that even the right people fought for for 500 years, the right to criticize God, is being outlawed. You see by criticizing God you "hurt other people's feelings", and they may riot and such).
So why not let him do it ? Scientology is right... this probably qualifies as racism under most anti-racism laws. The main thing this will do is get some sanity in those thought crime laws, or it makes the situation clear once and for all : there can't be any criticism of religion anymore. Not when a religion is pushing child rape, female mutilation, beheadings, burning people at the stake... whatever.
Let's get some clarity. If the prophet and Krishna can be protected from criticism, why not mr. Hubbard ? He's certainly the same kind of crook, and a much, much better person than those two examples (the "prophet" is a child-rapist and massacrer, responsible for a 1000 years of slavery in africa, krishna's writings are responsible for most institutional slavery in southern asia for some 2000 years at least, in addition to being misogynistic).
I hope the laws that let him complain about this are repealed all over the world, for all religions. And even if they aren't, at least some clarity will come of this.
Unfortunately that's not a phone. The only open phone (openmoko) has 2 buttons : power and aux. Not quite enough for a good game experience.
I keep wondering why this is so hard. Nokia's 5500 and 6820 have such useful and quick keyboards. Nokia Ngage is a freaking game console (didn't sell all that well though), and has lots of phones supporting it.
Nothing open source though. An ngage-style-controls phone with a few emulators, and a large screen ebook reader (perhaps simply by combining a pico projector and a screen flipping up or something*). Something that can run nes, snes, sega megadrive, and n64 would certainly cover all I want (psp games and the necessary controls for those would be a great bonus). And, of course, a pdf reader and some storage slot that isn't limited to 2 gigabyte.
* yes it wouldn't work well in direct sunlight. You don't get much of that up here though, besides you won't find me outside all that much either.
Well let's just say what I would consider NPOV, my sense of correctness, or of justice if you like is not satisfied by these sideways mentions.
The fate of a large massively discriminated against population of India is never mentioned in the article about it's root cause : hinduism.
The cause of many things that are wrong in the muslim world, all of paedophilic "marriages" (obviously without any permission from the woman involved, which is bound for life by that. muslim marriage would satisfy many definitions of slavery, much more so than marriage in other cultures), religious killings and slavery, is never mentioned in the article either about islam, which at the very least sanctions these practices, if it can't be said to sanctify them. The role model of islam kidnapped people into slavery, raped at least 1 minor girl against her will, raped at least a dozen slaves, and massacred over 12000 people on religious grounds. These are facts, plain and simple, and all to be found in the article about him is a minor mention of the age of the minor girl he "married", but the lack of permission and the fact that she was bought and paid for, and later kidnapped and imprisoned is never mentioned.
These are things that would not happen in a truly NPOV work.
Slashdot Mirror
But you have to admit the other side also has a point. Obviously all candidates have external connections. After all, only a horrible candidate wouldn't.
But they're using this as an excuse to kill protestors. That's also true.
Obviously Iran does as Iran does. That Israel got bombarded by Hezbollah is obviously ... Israel's fault, you see they "conspire" (to do what ? anyone know ?). That protestors get killed is "obviously" part of a similar conspiracy.
You should vote repub... , no wait demo...
Say, which was the small government party again ?
This isn't designing proteins, it's finding the 3D structures of proteins we know. And designing a protein capable of catalyzing such a complex chain of events is orders of magnitude more complex than what it's doing right now.
Perhaps you should read the article. They're designing proteins.
Heh, if you're truly worried about that, worry about treatments. If any (non-trivial) treatment consisting of specifically folding proteins is found, then there will be exactly one way to produce said drug : genetic manipulation. Only a genetically modified cell will be able to produce those custom proteins.
So it's not "buzzword-compliant" in more than one sence. It burns heaps of co2, it relies on genetic modification, specifically on injecting live humans with substances coming from "mutants" (just like most insulin today, but hey, at least that protein was natural in origin).
And it's also a sign of "skynet" to come, so to speak. Right now humans are telling these computers what to do, but there is no way in hell a human could ever hope to do what these supercomputers do. In 10 lifetimes you wouldn't get 1 nanosecond from the initial chain using paper.
This is basically a computer using a (basic) kind of artificial intelligence to respond to human questions about the real world. I doubt AI of this level would become self-conscious any time soon, but if an intelligence were to directly (or through deception) control a ribosome, like this one does, that would enable it to self-replicate. The question it would need to answer is one that is "but" an exercise in protein folding : "how do I fold a protein so it runs my thinking algorithm ?", even if it's much harder than the current questions being asked.
And if said AI wanted to create new weapons against humans, here's a quote from the article :
Pande explains that this is "as drug design is very hard, itâ(TM)s very easy to do more harm than good, and thatâ(TM)s one thing that we never want to see".
It's perhaps worth mentioning that the DNA code that defines AIDS, for example, is only a couple of thousand basepairs long, well within reach of this program.
Like most research worth pursuing, it's very, very not-buzzword-compliant, and conceivably unbelievably dangerous. Even something "undeniably good" like fusion research produces (tiny amounts of) long-lived high-radioactive waste due to a process called activation.
Presumably because if you don't demand that anyone in a job touching engineering should be able to solve (basic) math problems, it is only a matter of time until nobody is able to do it anymore : the ones who could died of natural causes, and it was so totally unfair to demand anyone else learn it.
Perhaps that's correct. In any case, it cannot be reasonably denied that doing what you say will massively decrease mathematical ability in many people who really should be able to solve basic mathematical equations.
And you're right ... it is totally unfair, especially if you can't do it. But who do you want to build your house, an "unfair", but capable architect, or a "fair" one, that "might" be capable, nobody knows for sure ?
This can be, over long distances, percieved to happen at a FTL rate, though nothing is actually moving at that rate. And relatively speaking, that FTL galaxy is unmeasurable, since you will never see it racing away from you.
That's very useful since Einsteins equations do not deal with moving at infinite velocity, that is perfectly possible according to Einstein's relativity. It's just that as you accelerate further time would speed up, and you would still arrive at the point in time you would have arrived when flying at light speed. Relatively deals with how said infinite velocity is perceived by others in other reference frames.
So perhaps I was a bit less than thorough. Nothing can be perceived to be moving faster than light either, according to relativity. A perception of an object moving faster than light is a direct violation of einstein's equations.
FTL movement, if you calculate how it would look, would also look very, very different from how these galaxies look. Suppose a ship were to fly away from you, and accelerate to an FTL velocity. At that point the ship would disappear entirely from your vision, to be replaced with an image of the ship decelerating below lightspeed, at the location it drops below FTL speeds.
Then that image would move towards you, OPPOSITE to the actual movement of the ship. The redshift would also be reversed from it's normal appearance into a blueshift effect. A very strong blueshift effect.
If these galaxies were to have a velocity faster than light, even if it's merely appearance, their redshift would reverse, and would their movement vector appear to turn around. Our telescopes should be telling us they're flying toward us at very large speeds.
Obviously that's not happening. They are not flying at FTL speeds, and they are not appearing to fly at FTL speeds either.
Except this lab is not making batteries. It's producing tax increases. Those things have to be manufactured too, you know.
Well cars lost them money. Their campaign contributions, on the other hand, talk about return on investment !
If I give Obama a dollar, do I get 6000 back from the government too ?
ing back. Looking forward in time, everything is getting more separated, and, for far regions of space, the rate of separation is higher than light can catch up to.
This can only be if there are (massive) regions of space moving faster than light, relative to us.
That an entire galaxy would get accelerated to even a small percentage of light speed is hard enough to believe, but even something like 50% light speed cannot be the speed of a galaxy. Just think of the energy required to accelerate it. FTL is supposed to be impossible, and no respectable scientist can seriously believe that there are so many galaxies moving faster than light, right ?
Also if the hubble constant is universal (the same in other galaxies) you would pretty much require a fourth dimension (other than time, so I guess a fifth), to explain such an effect.
Wouldn't it be a (lot) more simple to explain if there was some sort of cosmic mirror somewhere, that, due to the finite speed of light does not show us a perfect reflection, but rather an ancient reflection ?
Also I was more thinking about the astonishing coincidence. Surely the age of the universe is not calculated using the hubble constant ? That would make it, at best, a wildly inaccurate guess.
Doesn't this constant place an additional limit on the size of the universe (or at least the part of the universe we're ever going to see) ?
c / 74.2 km/s * Mpc = 300000 / 74.2 * 3 261 636.26 lightyear (1 Mpc = 3 261 636.26) or about 1.31872075 Ã-- 10^10 lightyear, about 13 billion lightyear.
Because at that distance, the stars would be moving away from us at light speed, so in reality there's an event horizon between us and stars at that distance. Light from stars further away would never reach us, due to it having unlimited redshift.
As you can see, if the hubble constant becomes bigger, the universe shrinks. If it lowers, the universe becomes bigger.
You have to admit though, that an interface with a few pictures would be a nice feature.
That's not exactly true. The tower was not informed, and there was lots of confusion, including unsafe airspace in front of the plane. Also the fuel level might have been a problem, and there are airfields where landing passes are simply not possible.
Btw, can you explain why a plane would allow "half" overriding of the autopilot ? That's beyond stupid. Clearly if the autopilot could not be overridden there would have been no way for the second pilot to fight the autopilot. Surely that's counted as a design flaw.
That the autopilot fights the commander of the plane is a design flaw. If a gun started firing until the police officer removed the bullets, you would not hesitate to call that a heinous design flaw no matter what the orders of the police officer were. Commanders on the ground are -short term- the highest authority. If the president says one thing and the field commander says another, you go with the field commander without hesitation. Such should be true in ANY dangerous situation.
1 bug, 1 vote !
fight for you rights !
And in my opinion all of those networks are pants. BBC is the best of the bunch, but overall produces almost nothing I enjoy; PBS was okay as a kid but as an adult I'm sick of their pro-big-government propaganda. Ditto NPR. And I don't know CBC radio but CBC television sucks; the only good shows they've ever produced were Red Green and Avonlea. I prefer networks that look at their viewership numbers, and try to tailor their entertainment to what the general population wants. I've found they produce more good entertainment than any of the government-run systems.
You mean "basically fox", right ? (I kid, I kid)
But the gist of the argument is this : if piracy/"intellectual property theft" is not stopped there will be no such stations left, because why would anyone subject themselves to their ads when the same content + free tivo features is available pirated ?
Furthermore, it will no longer be possible to produce movies targeted at an audience. If piracy is not contained there will be only "government run" movie productions.
You will only have the "european cultural" type propaganda films (you have to like those nice not-white-colored criminals, they're the victims of crime. The fact that your wife was raped by them is, obviously, the fault of white racism. you have to recycle. oh no co2 it is YET EVEN MORE SPECTACULARLY BAD AND DISASTROUS unless we submit to UN world government. You have to like those nice european politicians, even if they voted themselves above the law, ... that sort of crap) that get awards on cannes aplenty, due to self-masturbatory tendencies of the movie makers, but noone ever watches because ... well they suck badly.
But if piracy is not culled, that's all that will be left (well obviously there will be the movies that exist today ...)
Unfortunately technology advancements work both ways. Technology innovations will indeed make it cheaper to produce movies, BUT they will also eventually enable "live piracy", which would devastate sports events' income.
Live shows are nice for accomplished singers. But relying on live shows will mean that no kid, no matter how promising a musician he or she may be, will get what every girl that can just barely hold her boobs in while holding a note gets today. 99,9% of musicians will need a day job, until live performances bring in enough money.
Fame is not edible, sorry for stating the obvious but do you seriously think stars will still be admired if they have to have a "you want fries with that ?" job on the side ?
Movies in a piracy world will be one of three things :
-> ideological advertisement (like the Sistine chapel, but in movie form. What you call "art")
-> commercial ads
-> political advocacy
They will not contain ads, they will BE ads, and nothing more. Every single aspect of the movie will only serve to advance the commercial(/political/ideological) interests.
And, perhaps more serious, if those companies were to be protected and forced to do things by government production would become increasingly inefficient, since the incentive for efficiency would have been taken away. Inefficiency means that less money is available for the state/country/world as a whole.
The problem with that is what it leads to. Keeping a human alive is not free. Less efficiency means less money available as a whole, and as every developing country illustrates, politicians still steal enough money for 5 mercedesses and a private jet (you see sacrifices and policies only apply to others, don't they Nancy "less co2 ! everyone save ! where's my jet ?" Pelosi ?)
The end result of not letting companies move, not allowing for free trade, and "protecting" those poor (but eating) unemployed, is a whole lot more people starving to death.
He said 'If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked
You may be right. However, if you are indeed right, big productions are done for. Authors will be thrown back 500 years and be dependant on external sources of income. They will be dependant not on their skill but on their patronage.
I'm sure some will survive. But artists will become progressively more dependant on government handouts, ads, or other such indirect sources of income.
As technology kills the last real differences between "home-tv" quality and cinema quality, it will become progressively harder to sell entertainment (since you're fighting against the economic force that free represents), until it can barely be done at all.
It will be, at best, like TV is today. Music fans will go from being the customers to being the product, sold to advertisers, or ideological causes, and you will hardly see any singers, actors or ... without a pepsi or cola light in hand.
Actually if the step can not disprove string theory, it isn't even a positive step. Apparently there is some property of some object in string theory that matches some readings seen in reality.
But the association cannot be made. There are objects in string theory that behave very similarly to that plasma, but we can't be sure if they really are that plasma.
So it's just a noted similarity between 2 formulas. Not an actual prediction that's come true, and as such does not pass the standard for getting closer to acceptance as a valid scientific theory, as opposed to a "cool calculation trick". This sadly has been the fate of many physics theories, who end up yielding nothing more than a few tricks to solve tricky equations having little or nothing to do with what they intended to predict in the first place.
Actually how about eliminating the problem itself ? If the paperwork is overwhelming, with a reasonable minimum workforce present in the hospital, the government (the recipient of said paperwork), needs to accept the fact that there isn't any paperwork, and foot the bill anyway.
Obviously this will present docters with patients without medical records. But better to be treated a bit worse than not at all.
Obviously any sort of national healthcare system will preclude having this common-sense approach, as any system that does not make it the responsibility of the patient to ensure medical bills are paid will ration health care ("total health care resources" are limited. Either you let people pay for them, or you ration them). Rationed health care means "no government approval, no healthcare" both in theory and in practice. Unless congress likes unmarked expense reports ala "Something -> $500.000". And I fear that when they're not coming from congress critters (you know the "oops I forgot to pay my taxes" people) they really dislike them.
Let's not forget the house speaker is a woman that screams (literally) about the need to conserve co2 emissions, but refuses to fly on anything other than a private jet. National healthcare is another way of saying that she's the one deciding whether your cancer gets treated.
European law superceeds local law (and even the "local constitution") all over Europe.
The Law of the European Union is the unique legal system which operates alongside the laws of Member States of the European Union (EU). EU law has direct effect within the legal systems of its Member States, and overrides national law in many areas, especially in areas covered by the Single Market. The EU is not a federal government; as established by the European Court of Justice, the Community constitutes "a new legal order" in international law.[1] It is sometimes classified as supranational law. Currently there are around 500 million EU citizens in 27 Member States subject to EU law, making it one of the most encompassing modern legal systems in the world.
Unfortunately there are so many misinformed Europeans that it's not even funny. Anyone in Brussels you ask if this is a good idea will immediately tell you it is not.
One might wonder how this ever got voted in, so many people are against it. They certainly did not have the 2/3rd majority that was needed to override the constitutions of the member states.
Sorry, but you're flat out wrong. Your local law means zilch. Europe is a state, and European law superseeds whatever your state has in place.
Actually they're trying to join in to the victimhood party. These days it's literally come to the point where firing on people who are shooting rockets to kill is considered a crime, especially if they're shooting at you. Stating that an ideology that pushes childrape should probably be opposed is a crime in Europe. Religions get elevated, protected by law from criticism positions (well all religions except Christianity get such a position, although it's quickly coming to the point that even the right people fought for for 500 years, the right to criticize God, is being outlawed. You see by criticizing God you "hurt other people's feelings", and they may riot and such).
So why not let him do it ? Scientology is right ... this probably qualifies as racism under most anti-racism laws. The main thing this will do is get some sanity in those thought crime laws, or it makes the situation clear once and for all : there can't be any criticism of religion anymore. Not when a religion is pushing child rape, female mutilation, beheadings, burning people at the stake ... whatever.
Let's get some clarity. If the prophet and Krishna can be protected from criticism, why not mr. Hubbard ? He's certainly the same kind of crook, and a much, much better person than those two examples (the "prophet" is a child-rapist and massacrer, responsible for a 1000 years of slavery in africa, krishna's writings are responsible for most institutional slavery in southern asia for some 2000 years at least, in addition to being misogynistic).
I hope the laws that let him complain about this are repealed all over the world, for all religions. And even if they aren't, at least some clarity will come of this.
Opencodes ? You mean http://opencores.org ?
But how would you get the publishers of games for "nes, snes, sega megadrive, and n64" to cooperate?
Don't know. Don't care. Say how does openpandora accomplish that ? Or GP2X or the PSP homebrew scene ?
Oh right ...
Unfortunately that's not a phone. The only open phone (openmoko) has 2 buttons : power and aux. Not quite enough for a good game experience.
I keep wondering why this is so hard. Nokia's 5500 and 6820 have such useful and quick keyboards. Nokia Ngage is a freaking game console (didn't sell all that well though), and has lots of phones supporting it.
Nothing open source though. An ngage-style-controls phone with a few emulators, and a large screen ebook reader (perhaps simply by combining a pico projector and a screen flipping up or something*). Something that can run nes, snes, sega megadrive, and n64 would certainly cover all I want (psp games and the necessary controls for those would be a great bonus). And, of course, a pdf reader and some storage slot that isn't limited to 2 gigabyte.
* yes it wouldn't work well in direct sunlight. You don't get much of that up here though, besides you won't find me outside all that much either.
Well let's just say what I would consider NPOV, my sense of correctness, or of justice if you like is not satisfied by these sideways mentions.
The fate of a large massively discriminated against population of India is never mentioned in the article about it's root cause : hinduism.
The cause of many things that are wrong in the muslim world, all of paedophilic "marriages" (obviously without any permission from the woman involved, which is bound for life by that. muslim marriage would satisfy many definitions of slavery, much more so than marriage in other cultures), religious killings and slavery, is never mentioned in the article either about islam, which at the very least sanctions these practices, if it can't be said to sanctify them. The role model of islam kidnapped people into slavery, raped at least 1 minor girl against her will, raped at least a dozen slaves, and massacred over 12000 people on religious grounds. These are facts, plain and simple, and all to be found in the article about him is a minor mention of the age of the minor girl he "married", but the lack of permission and the fact that she was bought and paid for, and later kidnapped and imprisoned is never mentioned.
These are things that would not happen in a truly NPOV work.