what's wrong with a glass door in front of the PC?
Try substituting "PC" with "amplifier", "light switch" or any other device that you don't expect to make a noise, and you'll see how silly that argument is. Of course this is good!
There's no reason you should have to take extra steps to handle noise from a media player. And you don't, if you just go buy one of those boxes that are actually designed to be used in your living room.
CRTs haven't always been cheap. It has now had decades to realise all the economies of scale and writing off research investments, and the price is still falling. A 17 inch hires CRT cost about twice as muach as today 10 years ago.
LCDs have been sliding in price too, and faster since they're at an earlier tim in the curve, and will eventually catch up. Techniques with cheaper production facilities will have a steeper price curve and cross into the lowest section sooner. Provided they get it to work well, of course.
On the serious side, it would be really interesting to see what normal-abled people could accomplish with this stuff. Sensory augmentation rather than replacement.
They talk about simple things like pilots getting scalar instrument values. I'm thinking of adding extra channels to your normal vision or other senses: switch on additional IR, UV, radar, sonar, or polarity info on your visual field. Get eyes in your neck, maybe felt as a direct proximity field rather than imagery. Ultrasonic hearing. The possibilities are huge.
Mod parent down
on
Killer Ozone?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Not very scientific", "Confusing correlation with cause again, I see... how is this for a theory: perhaps the same crowded conditions that create the accumulation of ozone also create stress in people's lives that makes them more prone to violence?"
If you want to be scientific, how about starting with actually reading the article you want to discredit? Your criticism is not only ill-founded, you don't even seem to know what claim it is you are trying to refute. Not exacly a shining example of scientific approach, are you?
The article only claimed that scientists suspect a link (impying it should be investigated), as any scientist would and should when such a correlation is discovered. It also says that the deaths were not violent, and that the correleated variations were on the scale of weeks, which rules out population changes. This would have taken most people less than a minute to read.
Most of those Evangelicals have read where Jesus stopped the stoning of a woman caught in adultery (read your Bible, it's in the Gospels), and would behave likewise.
Right. Just like they obey his commands not to judge others, and to respond to offenders by turning the other cheek.
The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference.
I call bullshit. Bullshit and silly word games.
Maybe I'm being paranoid here, but you sound to me like you are are trying to redefine "truth" to mean something that can not be tested, something that must rather be found by idle speculation or 1000 generations of hearsay. Into meaning the same as "faith" basically. Well, to quote yourself: There is a difference. Big one too.
I have a plan for how to defeat the right wing simply and effectively:
Simply get the Guardian and maybe a few other liberal media outlets to run a story pointing out as fact that US tap water and bottled drinks are generally not lethal, and they will all simply fall over dead!
Brilliant. Now why didn't anyone think about that before? We just identify who's to blame, and suddenly there is no more suffering for the little babies. Problem solved! You're a fuckin genius!
No, of course I don't believe in eradicating the plant, but your reply is even sillier.
Why does there? Some chemicals are so potent that there isn't any resitsance. There isn't, for example, a non-zero probability some small group of humans are resistant to sarin.
But there is probablility of 1 that some individuals would tolerate extremeley low-level exposure better than others. If placed in a situation where that was the case (say, around the fringe of an often exposed area, and nowhere to go) those would have more viable offspring than others in the same situation. That's all it takes to get the ball going if the pressure remains.
They weren't, or at least not exclusively. Farmers gave/sold/traded cuttings from plants that seemed to be resistant. This was selective breeding, not genetic engineering, but not exactly "all natrual".
If you only use cuttings then the genome changes only very rarely, so there's no point in it until you already have a really resistant individual. To get that, you could in theory get lucky with a single mutation, but more likely is that several naturally slightly tolerant individuals crossbred through normal pollination in several rounds, eventually producing (some) offspring where the effects combined and were amplified enough to wothstand a full-on spraying.
This process could very well be assisted by farnmers, or even performed in the greenhouse. But if the pressure is constant, as in the same area of land being repeatedly sprayed, it could occur equally efficiently in nature. Take into account that the farmed landscape is much much bigger than any greenhouse, and as opposed to many other traits one might want to breed for (say, exceptional yield or potency), once it existed the resistant plant would be very easy to discover on a scorched hillside. Doesn't seem so unlikely after all.
But seriously, has does anyone have access to the paper and can post what sort of voltage, signal, electrodes and placements you need to replicate this?
I think he really set a very bad precedent by not claiming executive privilege.
I agree, but it was still a question about an insignificant thing, and lying about it is nowhere near the same ballpark as lying to your people about why one should go to war.
So, really, you just Hate Bush because somebody is telling you that you should
No, I hate him becaue of what he stands for, the descisions he has made, and behaving in a way no person in power should be allowed to. And I did so long before I ever saw a Michael Moore film.
you like Clinton because somebody told you that you should
I don't particularly like Clinton. I just cringe when people defend Bush's lying with "Clinton lied too", when the two situations are a about as close as picking up a dime you find on the street without looking for its owner, and armed bank robbery.
haven't laid out any reason why anyone should vote for Kerry
I don't have to: as long as he is not an obvious crackpot, getting monkeyboy out is simply more important. It's called damage control.
Yes they all suck and they all lie, but I still feel Bush jr. has taken it to a level not seen for a long time, and unlike the opthers actuallys stands a chance for relection afterwards, and I just can't get it into my head what sort of person would even consider voting for him again.
Clinton first of all did not get awa; he had no chance of winning again after the ordeal. Secondly, he was in a question noone had any business asking him in the first place, and whjich had no relevance to his ability to do his job well.
As for the reagan stuff: yes that was almost as bad.
Slashdot Mirror
what's wrong with a glass door in front of the PC?
Try substituting "PC" with "amplifier", "light switch" or any other device that you don't expect to make a noise, and you'll see how silly that argument is. Of course this is good!
There's no reason you should have to take extra steps to handle noise from a media player. And you don't, if you just go buy one of those boxes that are actually designed to be used in your living room.
Let's stone him.
CRTs haven't always been cheap. It has now had decades to realise all the economies of scale and writing off research investments, and the price is still falling. A 17 inch hires CRT cost about twice as muach as today 10 years ago.
LCDs have been sliding in price too, and faster since they're at an earlier tim in the curve, and will eventually catch up. Techniques with cheaper production facilities will have a steeper price curve and cross into the lowest section sooner. Provided they get it to work well, of course.
On the serious side, it would be really interesting to see what normal-abled people could accomplish with this stuff. Sensory augmentation rather than replacement.
They talk about simple things like pilots getting scalar instrument values. I'm thinking of adding extra channels to your normal vision or other senses: switch on additional IR, UV, radar, sonar, or polarity info on your visual field. Get eyes in your neck, maybe felt as a direct proximity field rather than imagery. Ultrasonic hearing. The possibilities are huge.
"Not very scientific", "Confusing correlation with cause again, I see... how is this for a theory: perhaps the same crowded conditions that create the accumulation of ozone also create stress in people's lives that makes them more prone to violence?"
If you want to be scientific, how about starting with actually reading the article you want to discredit? Your criticism is not only ill-founded, you don't even seem to know what claim it is you are trying to refute. Not exacly a shining example of scientific approach, are you?
The article only claimed that scientists suspect a link (impying it should be investigated), as any scientist would and should when such a correlation is discovered. It also says that the deaths were not violent, and that the correleated variations were on the scale of weeks, which rules out population changes. This would have taken most people less than a minute to read.
"Insightful" my ass.
Never mind the jury, what was the verdict like?
Until there is evidence against the existance of such a creature, you cannot say they do not (or did not) exist.
If you cannot say they do not exist, you have to acquit!
Most of those Evangelicals have read where Jesus stopped the stoning of a woman caught in adultery (read your Bible, it's in the Gospels), and would behave likewise.
Right. Just like they obey his commands not to judge others, and to respond to offenders by turning the other cheek.
The scientist's job is to discover *FACTS* about the natural world, not truth. There's a difference.
I call bullshit. Bullshit and silly word games.
Maybe I'm being paranoid here, but you sound to me like you are are trying to redefine "truth" to mean something that can not be tested, something that must rather be found by idle speculation or 1000 generations of hearsay. Into meaning the same as "faith" basically. Well, to quote yourself: There is a difference. Big one too.
No, you see there is a difference between being a christian and being a Jesus freak.
That half the country are bigots is clear simply from looking at what they voted. No explanation is necessary; the facts are there for anyone to see.
A stable Iraq will be very helpful in the long run in the Middle East
Not compared to how much the anger the whole thing has incited will hurt you in the long run.
What if we had just left Germany and France all alone after WWII like we did after WWI
A better analogy to world war 2 is how the situation in the US resembles the one in Germany leading up to war.
I'm sure they're not biased at all.
I have a plan for how to defeat the right wing simply and effectively:
Simply get the Guardian and maybe a few other liberal media outlets to run a story pointing out as fact that US tap water and bottled drinks are generally not lethal, and they will all simply fall over dead!
Brilliant. Now why didn't anyone think about that before? We just identify who's to blame, and suddenly there is no more suffering for the little babies. Problem solved! You're a fuckin genius!
No, of course I don't believe in eradicating the plant, but your reply is even sillier.
Why does there? Some chemicals are so potent that there isn't any resitsance. There isn't, for example, a non-zero probability some small group of humans are resistant to sarin.
But there is probablility of 1 that some individuals would tolerate extremeley low-level exposure better than others. If placed in a situation where that was the case (say, around the fringe of an often exposed area, and nowhere to go) those would have more viable offspring than others in the same situation. That's all it takes to get the ball going if the pressure remains.
They weren't, or at least not exclusively. Farmers gave/sold/traded cuttings from plants that seemed to be resistant. This was selective breeding, not genetic engineering, but not exactly "all natrual".
If you only use cuttings then the genome changes only very rarely, so there's no point in it until you already have a really resistant individual. To get that, you could in theory get lucky with a single mutation, but more likely is that several naturally slightly tolerant individuals crossbred through normal pollination in several rounds, eventually producing (some) offspring where the effects combined and were amplified enough to wothstand a full-on spraying.
This process could very well be assisted by farnmers, or even performed in the greenhouse. But if the pressure is constant, as in the same area of land being repeatedly sprayed, it could occur equally efficiently in nature. Take into account that the farmed landscape is much much bigger than any greenhouse, and as opposed to many other traits one might want to breed for (say, exceptional yield or potency), once it existed the resistant plant would be very easy to discover on a scorched hillside. Doesn't seem so unlikely after all.
If even DE Technologies can publicly admit their scheme is "creepy", you know something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
Your real name isn't by any chance George W, is it?
The fears may well be overblown, but putting quotes around "disaster" when describibg Chernobyl doesn't exacatly do wonders for your credibility...
Yeah, what he said.
But seriously, has does anyone have access to the paper and can post what sort of voltage, signal, electrodes and placements you need to replicate this?
USA will continue to be a somewhat decent country to live in compared to many other countries
Some of us would have liked it to be a somewhet decent country do live with as well.
I say re-introduce real gladiator fights.
Are you sure it's not more a case of giving them a proper funeral lest they come back and haunt us...
Could we please have some more posts about how the title can be misread? I find that really interesting, and would like to read it again.
I think he really set a very bad precedent by not claiming executive privilege.
I agree, but it was still a question about an insignificant thing, and lying about it is nowhere near the same ballpark as lying to your people about why one should go to war.
So, really, you just Hate Bush because somebody is telling you that you should
No, I hate him becaue of what he stands for, the descisions he has made, and behaving in a way no person in power should be allowed to. And I did so long before I ever saw a Michael Moore film.
you like Clinton because somebody told you that you should
I don't particularly like Clinton. I just cringe when people defend Bush's lying with "Clinton lied too", when the two situations are a about as close as picking up a dime you find on the street without looking for its owner, and armed bank robbery.
haven't laid out any reason why anyone should vote for Kerry
I don't have to: as long as he is not an obvious crackpot, getting monkeyboy out is simply more important. It's called damage control.
the original language
as if such a thing exists...
I defer to logic itself to decide the greater dialect.
In that case, English in general is right out.
Yes they all suck and they all lie, but I still feel Bush jr. has taken it to a level not seen for a long time, and unlike the opthers actuallys stands a chance for relection afterwards, and I just can't get it into my head what sort of person would even consider voting for him again.
Clinton first of all did not get awa; he had no chance of winning again after the ordeal. Secondly, he was in a question noone had any business asking him in the first place, and whjich had no relevance to his ability to do his job well.
As for the reagan stuff: yes that was almost as bad.