But the knowledge often makes itself valuable in everyday life in unanticipated ways. How do you really know if a particular scientific "discovery" is useful unless you know what that discovery is in advance?
You make a very valid point. One thing that has always burned me up, from my 1-12 grade years was when some mindless mundane would ask "Is this going to be on the test?" and if the answer was no they'd veg out and not learn what was to come.
For example, in and of itself it does no good for the ordinary person wo understand additive/subtractive properties of color when it comes to light/pigments however if you do know a little about them, it can help you to adjust the tint on your TV or adjust the color balance on your computer.
Trying to figure out which genetic traits were dominant/recessive in pea plants may have seemed like wasted research at the time, however that research was the foundation for later research that may (and probably will) lead to cures for diseases ranging from down's syndrom to cancer.
To quote the game company Midway, "There is no knowledge that is not power".
Childish email bombings and obscene calls are just as bad if not worse than the actions of these companies. Its not like the people who have to sift through these countless messages are going to change the lawsuit.
Shit flows uphill in a case like this.
Point 1. If 10 people send a million "fuck you" messages each, this is wrong and childish, but if 10 million people each send 1 "fuck you" email, there is nothing wrong with that. If you take part in an action that is likely to piss off so many people, you have to deal with the consequences.
Point 2. Taking part in a silent boycott will do no good. Software sales are cyclic, adobe will sell more products at the beginning and end of fiscal years than they will in the middle. In case you didn't know, most companies' fiscal years are the same as the calendar year. It's July, sagging sales are the norm. By the end of the fiscal year, unless people tell adobe WHY they are not buying their products, this will be a long forgotten incident.
Point 3. Back to shit flowing uphill. Let's say that low level workers are too busy fielding calls and deleting email messages to do their regular work. The productibity of that unit will go down. Imagine this series of telephone calls.
Lower manager X "Johnson, why has this unit's productivity dropped bu 40% this week?"
Johnson "Well, because we have had 10 million telephone calls on the sales line telling us that they are unhappy with the company's KIllustrator pressure."
Middle manager Y "X, why has the division's productivity fallen by 48% this week?"
X "Because the sales lines have been filled with people who are expressing disapproval of legal's fight with those KIllustrator people."
Upper manager Z "Y, why has productivity across the company dropped by 50% this week?"
Y "Because the sales team has been unable to make money due to a huge volume of customer complaints, regarding legal's fight with a company publishing a product named KIllustrator"
Commitee A "Z, we have noticed a 50% drop in revenue this week. Can you explain this?"
Z "Yes, there has been a grassroots effort by some of our customers to express disapproval of the pressure that legal is putting on some free software developers."
Committe A "Well talk to legal and tell them to stop. Or we'll hire a new firm to represent our interests, one who won't have villagers with torches and pitchforks killing our bottom line."
As the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you want something done, make some noise.
Why is it not reasonable to conclude that life begins when all of the requisite components are present, connected in the appropriate order, and need only nourishment to survive?
I am not sure if the problem is in when life begins, because I'm sure that we all can agree that an ununited sperm and egg are alive on the cellular level. The question is "when is that life protectable by the law?".
I personally am of the opinion that the most reasonable answer that question can be answered by looking at the way that we judge the end of life. We judge the end of life at the cessation of brain activity. If life ends with the end of brain activity, why then does it not start with the beginning of brain activity?
When Roe v Wade was made law, the age of viability was much later in the pregnancy than it is today.
The legal basis of Roe V. Wade is the right to privacy that the supreme court fashioned from the 10th amdendment. What has always baffled me about that is that if it violates a woman's right to privacy to investigate whether or not she has had an abortion, why then is it not a violation of a pedophile's privacy when the police investigate his activities with his daughter?
I suspect you'll be in jail very soon, at least if you actually believe that every threatening person deserves to be killed.
Then I suggest you read up on the laws regarding the use of lethal force in the US. In my particular state, if "a reasonable person believes" that his life is in danger, the use of lethal force is justified. So if a woman threatens to slap me for making a crass remark, no reasonable person would believe that to be a life threatening circumstance and the use of lethal force would not be justified.
If I give a guy the finger for cutting me off in traffic and he comes running up to my truck, with his hand in his jacket, screaming "I'm gonna F'N KILL YOU!", a reasonable person would believe my life to be in danger and therefore the use of lethal force would be justified.
In the meantime, I do recommend you put more value on human life.
It is not possible to put more value on my life than I do. I suggest you consider rasing the price that you place on your own.
Just because someone is threatening you doesn't mean that they deserve to die.
If someone is threatening to take my life, I will do whatever I must to preserve it.
But the violent crime rate in the U.S. is still the highest.
Why then is it that in the US the over all violent crime rate is dropping, but in gunless utopias like Japan, the UK, and Australia the violent crime rate is rising?
With a musket, you have to load black powder, load in your shot, carefully pack the load down into the barrel, aim (making sure not to let the shot roll out of the barrel), and fire.
Roll out of the barrel? Have you ever seen a black powder rifle in use? With revolutionary war era muskets, people used a wad of paper to hold the bullet in place until the gun was fired. Civil war era and later black powder rifles used a patch to tightly couple the bullet to the barrel. Those didn't roll out of the barrel either.
Compare a colonial-era musket to a semi-automatic, clip-loading Glock 9mm pistol. With a musket, you have to load black powder, load in your shot, carefully pack the load down into the barrel, aim (making sure not to let the shot roll out of the barrel), and fire. With the modern 9mm, you load the clip, turn off the safety, and fire until you run out of rounds.
You have just shown that you know nothing of which you speak. It just so happens that I own a Glock pistol. There is no external safety machanism on the Glock that must be disengaged before the pistol will fire.
Maybe you'd like to ask the audience.
New firearms are designed to be lighter, higher powered, more accurate, and more reliable. What does all this add up to? Weaponry now is easily many times more lethal than the guns of yesteryear.
Let us go back to the US civil war for example, those guns fired big, heavy lead balls. Anyone who knows anything about terminal ballistics knows that the energy deposit and a mount of soft tissue damage caused by a lead ball is much worse than that of a modern bullet.
And FYI, armor piercing bullets are even LESS destructive when they contact soft tissue than other types of bullets. They deform less upon contact than other types of bullets, so therefore they put smaller holes in things.
The only type of firearm that is not designed to would the target, as opposed to kill is the shotgun.
I couldn't use something like this. I am a very fast typist. I need the tactile feel of the keys to know when I have successfully made a keystroke. My keyrate takes a nose dive when I use a keyboard that has a different pressure threshhold than the one that I am currently typing on.
Guns that are designed to fire little pieces of metal can be considered lethal. Little pieces of metal, when they collide with fleshy matter at high speeds, tend to destroy said matter.
If you use definitions 1 or 3 from dictionary.com, I agree. Sure all firearms are designed to perform a function that can cause death. Self defense depends on the ability to do damage to your target. However, modern firearms and ammunition are designed to be less lethal than they were in the past.
But what's a stupid 20mm cannon going to do against the government's F-16:s with sidewinders?
It's not the F-16s that you should be worried, nor the F-18s, nor F-14s, it's the F-117s and the cruise missiles that should be your primary concern.
If Bill Gates or some other rich fart suddenly bought a small army and placed it somewhere, surely the government wouldn't be happy at all.
If Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, or any other billionaire decided to amass a large security force the government might not like it, however the government doesn't like us having access to strong crypto either.
Also, we seem to need huge guns (some people even argue for semi-automatics!) to shoot each other, not just simple.22's, or for that matter, stun guns or other non-fatal weapons.
You can place whatever value on your life that you choose. There is nothing that I have that is more valueable than my life. I will use whatever means available to me to preserve it.
And why is the violent crime rate lower everywhere in Europe (and Japan, and Australia, and basically every other first-world country)
You seem to be ignoring the ethnic riots that have happened in Europe this week. Let us also not forget the Japanese man who killed 8 school children last month.
So far, none of the disposal options we have give us even a moderate assurance that they are going to be safe for more than a few thousand years.
Subduction?
Many of the things you do for conservation have other, non-energy related benefits as well, such as reducing road congestion, improved quality of life, creating job opportunities, making the US more internationally competitive, and spurring innovation and research.
You are living in a world of make believe. If the US is so uncompetitive, why then are people coming here in droves on H1B visas?
The only "ignorance barrier" is the one created by existing energy companies and conservative interests, which mislead people into thinking that their lives would be miserable if they couldn't drive a gas guzzling SUV or live in energy wasting homes.
Of course, we'd all be content to ride 12 speeds everywhere and live in tents. Why is it that environmentalists would only be happy if we were to go back to living in caves?
There Earth has been here for ~4.5 billion years. Mankind has been involved in heavy industry for less than 200 years. Are you honestly trying to tell us that our SUVs are going to destroy this planet?
What Im more worried about is if its say the minimum amount required to double the leukemia rates for the entire south west in the case of an accident.
You raise a valid point. All of the factors will have to be weighed before something like this is green lighted, but my problem comes in with the immediate skepticism of the feasibility of any plan where nuclear energy is involved.
Instead of an attitude of "show us what you've drawn up", the greenies come out of the woodwork screaming "nuclear energy == cancer!, don't do it".
We need to know if a rocket engine that can safely harness that power can even be made first, without assuming no accidents will happen preferrably, jumping to the conclusion that it can is no better than the reverse.
We already know that such an engince CAN be made, the only question is when will we have the technology to do so. If that won't be for 20 years, fine continue the research until we can take the plan off of the drawing board and make it reality.
Just to explain a layman, why the hell should this be more effective than buring the hydrogen itself to very hot water, like it's done with all rockets today?
Effective? I can't say that it would be more "effevtive", the technology that we have now works. It would be more "efficient". Do we have any hydrogen mines? Do we have any oxygen wells?
The most efficient way we have to get large quantities of these two gases is to fracture water molecules with electricity. It takes a LOT of energy to do enough to obtain, say, enough fuel to propel several thousand tons of material into orbit.
To use steam is cheap, in terms of energy loss through conversion. It's easier to store water than hydrogen and oxygen gas. It's also safer. Water does not explode.
As a layman++, I don't see why there would be such a problem with this. The amount of fissionable material needed would be minimal.
Since there are no chemical propellants involved the risk of a Challenger-type accident would be eliminated.
As of right now, the link seems to be slashdotted, but I assume that water vapor would be a source of propulsion. Safe, clean, easy. We just need some R&D to make a rocket engine that can safely harness that power.
You don't see people cleaning the window with "Kwindex" or wiping their noses with "Gnokleenex" do you? NO!, because the base name is owned by a company
Kleenex and Windex are not words that exist outside of their trademarks. Illustrator is an english language word. If this is to be allowed what is to stop a company from bring an operating system to market and trademarking the names "OS" and "Operating System"?
What about any and every other OS that is released, rival or not? The owner of the "OS" trademark could be used as a weapon to crush compeitors or alternatives.
I don't think that it's unreasonable for Adobe to ask them to not call their product something so similar to "Illustrator", but being that this is about lawyers making money and not about protecting the Adobe trademark, I have to say that this is bullshit.
Re:You mean they use real guns with real bullets?!
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 2
Funny, I thought Saddam Hussein was still in power...
It was not our goal to unseat him. What we wanted was for Saddam to withdraw his forces from Kuwait. Funny, last time I checked, he had.
Re:You mean they use real guns with real bullets?!
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 2
Several HUNDRED feet?? Do you have a reference for this?
I saw it on the discovery channel.
I could not tell you the name of the program however.
Re:Biotech may improve soldiers, but who will line
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 2
Are you kidding?
After about a decade or two of this I'll happily line up.
I couldn't imagine how my CS kill/death ratio would improve if I could decrease my reaction time by 20-30 ms.
Where do I sign up?
Re:You mean they use real guns with real bullets?!
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 2
I have to say that your crack dealer must be a chemical genius.
The military of this nation's primary purpose is to protect the borders of this nation and what lies within them, but their secondary purpose is to protect American interests abroad.
Just like every other military force that has existed throughout history, there is more than one use for our military.
If the military were cut back to 1% of its current size, it would have trouble defending a playground.
Our military's best tactic is intimidation. People who are inclined to cause trouble with us have to think twice because of what our military is capable of. On the whim of the president, any building, any place on the planet can be reduced to rubble within 24 hours.
Even Saddam Hussein's underground bunkers couldn't protect him from our airforce. Having more spare parts than we currently need lead to the development of a bomb built with spare howitzer barrels. Those barrels were heavy and strong enough to penetrate several hundred feet into the ground (through reinforced concrete) to destroy a bunker.
Without that extra inventory some weapons might have been on the drawing board for several years, and some of the conflicts that we've had would have been drawn out, costing many more lives.
Remember you don't have to kill them all if they know that you're capable of doing it.
What pisses me off is when women who are YOUNGER than me do that. I'm only 25 for pete's sake. When 18 year olds have a shit fit about not drinking caffeinated drinks really pisses me off. Don't ask me about the arguements I had with my Mormon friends while I was in high school.
The study was flawed because the the laboratory animals in question consumed far more saccharin than any human could. A case per day. 28 cans per day. 28 x 12 Oz. per day. That's how the study was flawed. If humans were to come into contact with 1 oz. of fireplace smoot per day I'm sure that the cancer rate would become astronomical as well. But studies must take into account the amounts of contact with a substance that are to be expected.
Oh, and aspartame isn't harmless either. Neither is the coloring, preservatives, and other shit they put in diet soda.
No substance that we come into contact with is "harmless". Saliva has been linked to stomache cancer if swallowed for 70 or more years.
Slashdot Mirror
But the knowledge often makes itself valuable in everyday life in unanticipated ways. How do you really know if a particular scientific "discovery" is useful unless you know what that discovery is in advance?
You make a very valid point. One thing that has always burned me up, from my 1-12 grade years was when some mindless mundane would ask "Is this going to be on the test?" and if the answer was no they'd veg out and not learn what was to come.
For example, in and of itself it does no good for the ordinary person wo understand additive/subtractive properties of color when it comes to light/pigments however if you do know a little about them, it can help you to adjust the tint on your TV or adjust the color balance on your computer.
Trying to figure out which genetic traits were dominant/recessive in pea plants may have seemed like wasted research at the time, however that research was the foundation for later research that may (and probably will) lead to cures for diseases ranging from down's syndrom to cancer.
To quote the game company Midway, "There is no knowledge that is not power".
Childish email bombings and obscene calls are just as bad if not worse than the actions of these companies. Its not like the people who have to sift through these countless messages are going to change the lawsuit.
Shit flows uphill in a case like this.
Point 1. If 10 people send a million "fuck you" messages each, this is wrong and childish, but if 10 million people each send 1 "fuck you" email, there is nothing wrong with that. If you take part in an action that is likely to piss off so many people, you have to deal with the consequences.
Point 2. Taking part in a silent boycott will do no good. Software sales are cyclic, adobe will sell more products at the beginning and end of fiscal years than they will in the middle. In case you didn't know, most companies' fiscal years are the same as the calendar year. It's July, sagging sales are the norm. By the end of the fiscal year, unless people tell adobe WHY they are not buying their products, this will be a long forgotten incident.
Point 3. Back to shit flowing uphill. Let's say that low level workers are too busy fielding calls and deleting email messages to do their regular work. The productibity of that unit will go down. Imagine this series of telephone calls.
Lower manager X "Johnson, why has this unit's productivity dropped bu 40% this week?"
Johnson "Well, because we have had 10 million telephone calls on the sales line telling us that they are unhappy with the company's KIllustrator pressure."
Middle manager Y "X, why has the division's productivity fallen by 48% this week?"
X "Because the sales lines have been filled with people who are expressing disapproval of legal's fight with those KIllustrator people."
Upper manager Z "Y, why has productivity across the company dropped by 50% this week?"
Y "Because the sales team has been unable to make money due to a huge volume of customer complaints, regarding legal's fight with a company publishing a product named KIllustrator"
Commitee A "Z, we have noticed a 50% drop in revenue this week. Can you explain this?"
Z "Yes, there has been a grassroots effort by some of our customers to express disapproval of the pressure that legal is putting on some free software developers."
Committe A "Well talk to legal and tell them to stop. Or we'll hire a new firm to represent our interests, one who won't have villagers with torches and pitchforks killing our bottom line."
As the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you want something done, make some noise.
Why is it not reasonable to conclude that life begins when all of the requisite components are present, connected in the appropriate order, and need only nourishment to survive?
I am not sure if the problem is in when life begins, because I'm sure that we all can agree that an ununited sperm and egg are alive on the cellular level. The question is "when is that life protectable by the law?".
I personally am of the opinion that the most reasonable answer that question can be answered by looking at the way that we judge the end of life. We judge the end of life at the cessation of brain activity. If life ends with the end of brain activity, why then does it not start with the beginning of brain activity?
When Roe v Wade was made law, the age of viability was much later in the pregnancy than it is today.
The legal basis of Roe V. Wade is the right to privacy that the supreme court fashioned from the 10th amdendment. What has always baffled me about that is that if it violates a woman's right to privacy to investigate whether or not she has had an abortion, why then is it not a violation of a pedophile's privacy when the police investigate his activities with his daughter?
I suspect you'll be in jail very soon, at least if you actually believe that every threatening person deserves to be killed.
Then I suggest you read up on the laws regarding the use of lethal force in the US. In my particular state, if "a reasonable person believes" that his life is in danger, the use of lethal force is justified. So if a woman threatens to slap me for making a crass remark, no reasonable person would believe that to be a life threatening circumstance and the use of lethal force would not be justified.
If I give a guy the finger for cutting me off in traffic and he comes running up to my truck, with his hand in his jacket, screaming "I'm gonna F'N KILL YOU!", a reasonable person would believe my life to be in danger and therefore the use of lethal force would be justified.
In the meantime, I do recommend you put more value on human life.
It is not possible to put more value on my life than I do. I suggest you consider rasing the price that you place on your own.
Just because someone is threatening you doesn't mean that they deserve to die.
If someone is threatening to take my life, I will do whatever I must to preserve it.
But the violent crime rate in the U.S. is still the highest.
Why then is it that in the US the over all violent crime rate is dropping, but in gunless utopias like Japan, the UK, and Australia the violent crime rate is rising?
NO, it won't be the planet itself that will be destroyed by the SUVs... just the particular conditions that maintain life as we know it.
Based upon what proof?
With a musket, you have to load black powder, load in your shot, carefully pack the load down into the barrel, aim (making sure not to let the shot roll out of the barrel), and fire.
Roll out of the barrel? Have you ever seen a black powder rifle in use? With revolutionary war era muskets, people used a wad of paper to hold the bullet in place until the gun was fired. Civil war era and later black powder rifles used a patch to tightly couple the bullet to the barrel. Those didn't roll out of the barrel either.
Compare a colonial-era musket to a semi-automatic, clip-loading Glock 9mm pistol. With a musket, you have to load black powder, load in your shot, carefully pack the load down into the barrel, aim (making sure not to let the shot roll out of the barrel), and fire. With the modern 9mm, you load the clip, turn off the safety, and fire until you run out of rounds.
You have just shown that you know nothing of which you speak. It just so happens that I own a Glock pistol. There is no external safety machanism on the Glock that must be disengaged before the pistol will fire.
Maybe you'd like to ask the audience.
New firearms are designed to be lighter, higher powered, more accurate, and more reliable. What does all this add up to? Weaponry now is easily many times more lethal than the guns of yesteryear.
Let us go back to the US civil war for example, those guns fired big, heavy lead balls. Anyone who knows anything about terminal ballistics knows that the energy deposit and a mount of soft tissue damage caused by a lead ball is much worse than that of a modern bullet.
And FYI, armor piercing bullets are even LESS destructive when they contact soft tissue than other types of bullets. They deform less upon contact than other types of bullets, so therefore they put smaller holes in things.
The only type of firearm that is not designed to would the target, as opposed to kill is the shotgun.
I couldn't use something like this. I am a very fast typist. I need the tactile feel of the keys to know when I have successfully made a keystroke. My keyrate takes a nose dive when I use a keyboard that has a different pressure threshhold than the one that I am currently typing on.
How about the rest of you?
Guns that are designed to fire little pieces of metal can be considered lethal. Little pieces of metal, when they collide with fleshy matter at high speeds, tend to destroy said matter.
If you use definitions 1 or 3 from dictionary.com, I agree. Sure all firearms are designed to perform a function that can cause death. Self defense depends on the ability to do damage to your target. However, modern firearms and ammunition are designed to be less lethal than they were in the past.
But what's a stupid 20mm cannon going to do against the government's F-16:s with sidewinders?
It's not the F-16s that you should be worried, nor the F-18s, nor F-14s, it's the F-117s and the cruise missiles that should be your primary concern.
If Bill Gates or some other rich fart suddenly bought a small army and placed it somewhere, surely the government wouldn't be happy at all.
If Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, or any other billionaire decided to amass a large security force the government might not like it, however the government doesn't like us having access to strong crypto either.
Why does it matter?
Guns are clearly designed to be a lethal weapon; however, there are many non-lethal and justifiable uses for guns, so regulation is contraversial.
Guns are designed as lethal weapons? All guns? Some guns? Which guns?
Can I buy a tank or a fully armed squadron of F-16:s in the US and put them in my garage?
Yes, you can own a tank. If you can afford it you can own an F-16. If you can afford the licenses you can have the 20mm vulcan cannon on it as well.
The biggest difficulty would come from the FAA.
Also, we seem to need huge guns (some people even argue for semi-automatics!) to shoot each other, not just simple .22's, or for that matter, stun guns or other non-fatal weapons.
You can place whatever value on your life that you choose. There is nothing that I have that is more valueable than my life. I will use whatever means available to me to preserve it.
And why is the violent crime rate lower everywhere in Europe (and Japan, and Australia, and basically every other first-world country)
You seem to be ignoring the ethnic riots that have happened in Europe this week. Let us also not forget the Japanese man who killed 8 school children last month.
Humans are a violent species, not just Americans.
So far, none of the disposal options we have give us even a moderate assurance that they are going to be safe for more than a few thousand years.
Subduction?
Many of the things you do for conservation have other, non-energy related benefits as well, such as reducing road congestion, improved quality of life, creating job opportunities, making the US more internationally competitive, and spurring innovation and research.
You are living in a world of make believe. If the US is so uncompetitive, why then are people coming here in droves on H1B visas?
The only "ignorance barrier" is the one created by existing energy companies and conservative interests, which mislead people into thinking that their lives would be miserable if they couldn't drive a gas guzzling SUV or live in energy wasting homes.
Of course, we'd all be content to ride 12 speeds everywhere and live in tents. Why is it that environmentalists would only be happy if we were to go back to living in caves?
There Earth has been here for ~4.5 billion years. Mankind has been involved in heavy industry for less than 200 years. Are you honestly trying to tell us that our SUVs are going to destroy this planet?
What Im more worried about is if its say the minimum amount required to double the leukemia rates for the entire south west in the case of an accident.
You raise a valid point. All of the factors will have to be weighed before something like this is green lighted, but my problem comes in with the immediate skepticism of the feasibility of any plan where nuclear energy is involved.
Instead of an attitude of "show us what you've drawn up", the greenies come out of the woodwork screaming "nuclear energy == cancer!, don't do it".
We need to know if a rocket engine that can safely harness that power can even be made first, without assuming no accidents will happen preferrably, jumping to the conclusion that it can is no better than the reverse.
We already know that such an engince CAN be made, the only question is when will we have the technology to do so. If that won't be for 20 years, fine continue the research until we can take the plan off of the drawing board and make it reality.
Just to explain a layman, why the hell should this be more effective than buring the hydrogen itself to very hot water, like it's done with all rockets today?
Effective? I can't say that it would be more "effevtive", the technology that we have now works. It would be more "efficient". Do we have any hydrogen mines? Do we have any oxygen wells?
The most efficient way we have to get large quantities of these two gases is to fracture water molecules with electricity. It takes a LOT of energy to do enough to obtain, say, enough fuel to propel several thousand tons of material into orbit.
To use steam is cheap, in terms of energy loss through conversion. It's easier to store water than hydrogen and oxygen gas. It's also safer. Water does not explode.
As a layman++, I don't see why there would be such a problem with this. The amount of fissionable material needed would be minimal.
Since there are no chemical propellants involved the risk of a Challenger-type accident would be eliminated.
As of right now, the link seems to be slashdotted, but I assume that water vapor would be a source of propulsion. Safe, clean, easy. We just need some R&D to make a rocket engine that can safely harness that power.
You don't see people cleaning the window with "Kwindex" or wiping their noses with "Gnokleenex" do you? NO!, because the base name is owned by a company
Kleenex and Windex are not words that exist outside of their trademarks. Illustrator is an english language word. If this is to be allowed what is to stop a company from bring an operating system to market and trademarking the names "OS" and "Operating System"?
What about any and every other OS that is released, rival or not? The owner of the "OS" trademark could be used as a weapon to crush compeitors or alternatives.
I don't think that it's unreasonable for Adobe to ask them to not call their product something so similar to "Illustrator", but being that this is about lawyers making money and not about protecting the Adobe trademark, I have to say that this is bullshit.
Funny, I thought Saddam Hussein was still in power...
It was not our goal to unseat him. What we wanted was for Saddam to withdraw his forces from Kuwait. Funny, last time I checked, he had.
Several HUNDRED feet?? Do you have a reference for this?
I saw it on the discovery channel.
I could not tell you the name of the program however.
Are you kidding?
After about a decade or two of this I'll happily line up.
I couldn't imagine how my CS kill/death ratio would improve if I could decrease my reaction time by 20-30 ms.
Where do I sign up?
I have to say that your crack dealer must be a chemical genius.
The military of this nation's primary purpose is to protect the borders of this nation and what lies within them, but their secondary purpose is to protect American interests abroad.
Just like every other military force that has existed throughout history, there is more than one use for our military.
If the military were cut back to 1% of its current size, it would have trouble defending a playground.
Our military's best tactic is intimidation. People who are inclined to cause trouble with us have to think twice because of what our military is capable of. On the whim of the president, any building, any place on the planet can be reduced to rubble within 24 hours.
Even Saddam Hussein's underground bunkers couldn't protect him from our airforce. Having more spare parts than we currently need lead to the development of a bomb built with spare howitzer barrels. Those barrels were heavy and strong enough to penetrate several hundred feet into the ground (through reinforced concrete) to destroy a bunker.
Without that extra inventory some weapons might have been on the drawing board for several years, and some of the conflicts that we've had would have been drawn out, costing many more lives.
Remember you don't have to kill them all if they know that you're capable of doing it.
is that Microsoft, in their desire to be number 1 in all things, will try to make it on this list.
What pisses me off is when women who are YOUNGER than me do that. I'm only 25 for pete's sake. When 18 year olds have a shit fit about not drinking caffeinated drinks really pisses me off. Don't ask me about the arguements I had with my Mormon friends while I was in high school.
How was it flawed? The rats actually got cancer.
The study was flawed because the the laboratory animals in question consumed far more saccharin than any human could. A case per day. 28 cans per day. 28 x 12 Oz. per day. That's how the study was flawed. If humans were to come into contact with 1 oz. of fireplace smoot per day I'm sure that the cancer rate would become astronomical as well. But studies must take into account the amounts of contact with a substance that are to be expected.
Oh, and aspartame isn't harmless either. Neither is the coloring, preservatives, and other shit they put in diet soda.
No substance that we come into contact with is "harmless". Saliva has been linked to stomache cancer if swallowed for 70 or more years.
This despite their consistent claims that cell phone radiation is harmless.
Many soft drink makers switched to nutrasweet (aspartame) because of a flawed study that claimed that saccharin caused cancer.
Even though the laboratory animals were given doses equivalent to a human drinking over a case of diet soda per day.
Public opinion drives these types of things far more than cold hard science.