Let me get this straight. They want me to pay $25 for a cardboard box, some glued in eggcrate foam, and some red velcro straps. Riiiiight. Is getting ripped off on this scam any better than letting your laptop get stolen?
I'd put in for China's plan to expand their energy generation.
But the article is about technilogical advancements that have occured this year. While admirable, China's plan is to IMPLEMENT a technology that has been around for quite a while. If there is any sort of advancement in that plan, I would submit that it is their forward thinking in energy policy that is new to the world. Most of the other governments don't seem to have grasped that concept yet.
Does anybody know of any resources or maps concerning the location and availability of dark fiber? I am sure there is a great deal of it laying out there along the roadside, in the sewers, and under the sidewalks just waiting for an application. Unfortunately, it's a pain in the ass to find out who owns what, and who to contact in your area. Some maps or perhaps a dark fiber market would be nice. Any suggestions?
In Arkansas, your ballot is numbered and the number of your ballot recorded next to your name in the voter registration book. They can look at will to see how you voted. Entirely unamerican if you ask me.
How odd that pathname.com hosts this filesystem hierarchy information and..."Enya - Translations and Lyrics." Perhaps I'm dense, but I missed the connection there.
We use some ancient flat files in production here where I work as well. They reside on an IBM iSeries, which luckily allows you to do DB2 SQL queries on them. If you just use select * from one of them you will get a single column rows that each contain a single record from the flat file. That's not very useful but you can use string functions to parse the file into tabular columns based on what you know about the file layout, and then use whatever sql you come up with to create a view. It's definitely not as fast as parsing each record in the program code, but it's a little more flexible and definitely more reuseable. The good thing about flat files is that their internal structure doesn't change very often because of programs that depend on it being static. Most typically, anything changed just gets appended onto the end of the file, so you rarely have to modify your view.
What kind of system are these files stored on? If not AS400/iSeries, I can think of a few other tricks to pull off similar functionality. If it is an iSeries, I can think of an even better solution.
Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals.
Every species is unique in some respects and different in some respects. That isn't evidence of superiority.
A well placed group of locusts can ravage an ecology at least as effectively as any human.
I never said that it was evidence of superiority. Straw man. What I said was that humans are seemingly different from other animals in their capacity to impact their environment. Humans are apparently the only animals able to liberate sequestered chemicals into the environment WITHOUT eating them first. While locusts may ravage an area, what they do is a natural part of the ecology, and it will recover. When humans enter a forest and slash and burn it to the ground, they not only destory that local ecology but the act of burning dumps all of the carbon sunk their over the last several centuries back into the environment almost instantly. Not to mention what we do with what has been in the ground for millions of years.
how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.
Pretty big stretch to go from "we can cause immediate localised effects" to "we are irreversibly altering the climate of the planet".
I never said that we are causing irreversable alterations to the climate. Straw man. If we are able to observe localized and transient (because we know that reducing emissions in a local area reduces regional instances of acid deposition) environmental changes within a period of decades, do you still maintain that possibility that over a period of centuries we might have at least a transient effect on a global scale?
I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we do and are capable of changing environment at least regionally
Who said anything about writing it off? Straw man.
It was your argument. "Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes." That sounds like you're writing our activity off as benign to me.
I don't think questioning whether or not our actions and accelerating development might jeapordize that balance is pathetic.
Another straw man. Who said that?
Once again, that was your own argument. You said "The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic." It's not an assumption, it's a hypothesis supported by observational evidence. And exploring that is not pathetic, it's just responsible behavior. If we find that climate change is unrelated to our activity, well that's tough for us. But if it is, we still have time to modify our behavior before we do damage that is irreversable in the near term in the geological sense of time. I think we should air on the side of caution, it's only money after all.
Well, HDTV won't be ready until you can get the Adult channels in HDTV. Until then, all that money is just idling. I'm not sure who the cable companies have doing their market research, but I thought everybody knew that porn was the technology pioneer. If porn hasn't gone there yet, nobody else will either.
I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of car can affect anything so massive as a planet. Really, you are not that important.
Let's change that statement a bit to say "I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of candidate can affect anything so massive as a country. Really, you are not that important." That sounds pretty retarded, doesn't it.
Perhaps singly, you or I may not make much of a difference to the world. Between 1996 and 2001, there were an average of ~8.5 million new cars sold each year. And that is just in the US and only includes passenger cars! That means people made that inconsequential decision on low emission car or high consumption SUV about 42.5 million times over those five years, and once again that's just the US.
Assuming that because *I* am a single person I have no responsibility to the environment whatsoever because my choices couldn't possibly make a difference is selfish, delusional and part of the reason we have the problem we have now. Would you tell someone that their vote doesn't matter (carping about parties and electoral colleges aside), and therefore they might as well just skip it all together? It's about more than you, it's about everybody making responsible choices.
Despite a great deal of outlandish claims from many people, there's no particular evidence to suggest that humanity is having a significant impact on the planet. Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes. At most, we could wipe *ourselves* out, but the planet wouldn't care; extinction of a species is quite normal for it.
Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals. If you don't want to listen to the "outlandish claims" of the majority of environmental scientists that the environment is changing due to our actions, let's reflect on some of the things we know we do. The fact is that we DO have signifigant impressions on the world. When it is a positive certainty that our SO2 and NOx emissions cause acid rain locally and regionally that can disrupt ecosystems and destroy forests, how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.
Changing the environment, that's what we do, it's how we live. Since 1600, there have been 584 species presummed extinct just in the US, suggesting a 7,000 fold increasein the rate of extinctions since the industrial revolution. It's pretty hard to deny a connection to human activity with numbers like that, and I'd say that's a pretty signifigant impression on the world. I, for one, don't particularly care to join the other animals we have already pushed out of existence.
At present, only really careful archaeology would be able to find any trace of us in a few million years time; that's barely noticable on geological timescales. The dinosaurs were more obvious. The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic.
I'm not really concerned with a few million years down the road right now. I'm more concerned with the immediate (next 100-1000 years) well being of our species. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, at some point you have to begin to wonder. I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we
reminds me of the arguement some people use about satellite signal "theft".
if they don't want me watching it, then why do they send the signal into my yard?
that arguement didn't work in court too well unfortunatly.
Well the difference in this analogy would be that the satellite companies do employ some form of signal security that is being cracked by the "signal theifs." The grandparent poster was talking about these people just having open wireless networks. I'm pretty sure that if the sat. companies were broadcasting unencrypted mpeg2 video they would have a hard time getting you prosecuted for piping it into your computer.
Now they can mess around all they want, au natural, and not worry about dying!
Indeed! Now all they have to worry about is... Gohnorrea Herpes Chlamydia Syphillis Ge nital Warts HPV Hepatitus Trichomoniasis and more! Lucky bitches...
Your danger of getting cancer is many, many times greater due to chemical carcinogens than from the kinds and amounts of radiation most people are exposed to during their lifetimes. If you want to focus and worry about something causing cancer, I suggest you look closer at what we are eating than what is beaming in from the heavens and your surroundings.
As an aside, your comment that the poster in this thread should be more critical of papers demonstrates your unwillingness to look at view points other than your own. The paper the poster referenced was from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That is hardly a flaky source of information, and it does indeed conclude that irradiated study group did in fact have a much much lower cancer mortality rate than the general population. It suggests that some radiation can actually be beneficial, and that current standards should be revaluated for their appropriateness. You suggested that the poster be more critical of papers he reads, but I suggest that you be more open minded of opposing view points.
I think I get the magnitude of this election. Your president will either be wearing red (rebpulican) or blue (democrat) while he fucks you in the ass. Either way, we all lose in this election. The Republican and Democratic parties have converged to such a degree that it is frightening to contemplate its signifigance for the future of our democracy. When you really think about it, we already lack a real choice in leadership because neither candidate is independent enough to resist the will of his party, so basically you are voting for a party, not a man. So, you either take your governmental screw with red or blue. People are perceiving this lack of choice, whether conciously or not, and it is reflected in wide-scale voter apathy.
It's not true what they tell, your vote does not matter! Especially if you do not live in one of the "contested states" and you are not one of the "target constituencies."
We have met the enemy, and he is us! I personally will prefer the blue this year.
I don't believe there are only two options in this scenario. You don't have to ignore it, and you don't have to immediately attempt to fix it. Another option is strongly directed research at developing solutions to the problem. If we had 500 hundred years, we could devote 3 or 4 hundred years just to researching solutions. I'm sure that even if we did not rush to fix the problem immediately, the looming, yet distant, certainty of a global destruction would have accelerating impact on all research. It's not something you can ignore.
Would said union be for multiple people, or just a pair? If multiple-unions are okay, then how do you plan to keep the tax relief from being abused?
I think the simple answer to that question is that married people should not be eligible for tax relief at all simply because they are married. It is descriminatory toward single people, and a great many people are single or live together as unmarried couples. I realize that the marriage tax relief is to encourage marriage, but I think that's the wrong approach. If they want to reward you for being a family, perhaps it should be on the basis of children. That's something that even polygamous families could share without abuse. Tax relief is an abomination anyway because its impossible to distribute it without descrimination. Better still would be a sane tax code that didn't need tax credits/cuts/relief to be fair.
Can any aged person get married? Many cultures and religions have people married at 12 years old and younger.
This is not really a fair argument because there are many levels of privledge restriction based on age in our society. We as a people recognize that (MOST!) children don't make the kind of rational decisions that (MOST!) adults do, and therefore we restrict their activites. Whether this is fair is a wholly different topic of debate, and one that is played out individually in each state.
Do both parties of the union have to consent?
I'm thinking arranged marriages here, which is a big thing in many cultures. At least in our society, I think that is a given. Our individual freedoms are extensive except where they intersect with the freedoms of other individuals. You may not impose your feelings on another person against their will. You can no more force someone to join you in a union than you can force them to sleep with you.
How about brothers and sisters getting married? Dads and daughters? And where do the rights of the theoretical (and potentially genetically crippled) baby come into play?
This is perhaps one of the stickiest issues along the slippery slope of marriage deregulation. And perhaps the answer lies in humanity itself. People are, for the most part, smart enough to avoid this. The existence of incest taboos in most world cultures suggests that this is more than culturation, but it is perhaps something innate to our existence. So its likely that this will just not be much a problem. Of course there may be incidents, but there is no rule without exception.
You might argue that homosexual relationships invalidate this "taboo barrier", because they too were once taboo, but I believe that incest is an entirely different case. Incestual relationships can introduce weakening (though occaisionally beneficial) genetic anomalies into a population, and therefore I feel that it is more strongly selected out by whatever genetic basis there is for our behavior. Homosexuality, on the other hand does not damage the genetics of a population, it just diminishes the pool of viable mates.
If you think the government should take a stance on any of the issues I listed, then how is it getting out of the marriage business?
I think the government has absolutely no place in the lives of the citizens it governs, except in the matters of taxation and the protection of its citizens. And I feel that the government could completely exit the business of ordaining marriages without the collapse of our civilization. Civil unions for anyone that wants one, should be a right that we all have. You should be able to join anyone you choose in a civilly recognized relationship for the purposes of interfacing with the government as a single unit. These relationships should have no other connotation other than for that interface purpose. If you and your signifigant other(s) feel like you need a religious recognition of your mutual relationship, well that is between you, your god(s), and your religious doctrine.
Access uses a stripped down version of MS SQL Server now instead of its own Jet DB engine.
I'm sorry but that is just totally false. MS Access still uses the jet engine (as does Exchange server). Microsoft DOES have a scaled down version of SQL Server called MSDE, but it is totally unrelated to Microsoft Access. It would be exceedingly awesome, however, if access would replace JET with MSDE, if only for the joint use of T-SQL instead of Jet's bastardized implemntation.
I was thinking this morning on my way to work about those spinning roof vent turbines like this. I don't know about in the north, but here in the south, just about every house has at least two of these things. They spin almost all the time, either from the wind or heat rising out of your attic space. If one were to attach small generators to these things, how much power could be produced? Maybe not a great deal individually, but what about multiplied millions of times. Perhaps they could be engineered specifically for energy generation.
Any thoughts?
Re:Those links to the PDF don't work...
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 1
They both worked fine for me. Did you remove the spaces inserted by the evil slashcode?
Never underestimate the potential of misfortune to create unforseen circumstances to cause failure. Imagine what would happen if something was introduced into PBR environment that did caused the pebbles to reach their melting point, like a flammable gas or liquid. If the pebbles melt, the high density of the radioactive material within would likely cause it to pool together. And with that, you have your critical mass for runaway meltdown.
I'm definitely not saying we should avoid nuclear power because its dangerous. I'm just saying that blanketing a technology like PBR with a magic shield of "It's FoolProof!" is most likely more dangerous than the technology itself. Such attitudes can lead to complacency in the minds of the operators and owners and result in irresponsible behaviors.
We should go ahead with PBR, but as with any technology that involves hazardous materials we need to be extremely cautious.
At least for typing, smooth surfaces suck because of the lack of tactile feedback. Now, once we master artificial gravity like on Star Trek, perhaps we could have touch screens with tiny gravity generators underneath to push on your fingers as you manipulate the smooth surfaced controls.
September 11th is a Saturday. Less visibility, less economic disruption.
And Cher will be at the DeSoto center in Mississippi on Sept. 11th! And as we all know, all islamic terrorists love Cher! They wouldn't dare miss one of her farewell tour shows for some weak 'cyber-attack'. Her ageless, plastic face and fiber optic hair draws them in everytime! Their only regret about the Sept. 11th show is that it will not also feature Cyndi Lauper as other tour dates did. What a pity.
If I may interject into your conversation with Mr. Dvorkin, I would just like to submit that perhaps part of the problem is the concept that education must be dispensed in discrete catagories of Math, Science, English, logic, philosophy, etc. when in the realities of life, all of these disciplines must be used together for reasoning. Why must everything be taught as distinct subjects when the subjects themselves form a continuum of knowledge. It seems to me that education would be more successful if it were taught in a manner that reflects that continuum. A single class in which our history is shown to be reflected in our present and future, that represents logic in philosophy and philosophy in ethics. All wrapped in lessons on how reading and writing proper English. What we know as our collective human intellect did not arrive in bulk packages of Science, English, Mathematics, History, Logic, and Philosophy mastered individually and serially, but rather each area of our knowledge is built on and is an extension of the others. If that is how we have learned as a species, why should the instruction of an individual child from birth to adulthood be any different?
Such instruction requires truly gifted teachers, the kind that can't typically be had for today's teacher salaries. It also may not conform well the quantitative measures of progress upon which our current crop of leaders fixate. But it just might produce more well rounded students, students who think critically rather than memorize and regurgitate. But a critical thinking public, I think that scares modern politicians more than anything else.
Ah yes, are you suggesting that the post use that pinnacle of journalistic integrity, FOX NEWS? Besides, most of the things he listed were not a matter of news sourcing or opinion, but a matter of public record. Are you saying that the existence of the patriot act is actually some democrat fabrication?
After sending away a dead Snap Server that had a raidframe based software raid5 array on an embedded bsd derivative to a Data Recovery firm and having it returned saying the data could not be recovered, I figured out that you can manually destripe a raid array without the help of the raid engine that built the array. You can do it with dd and a bash script in fact, you just need to know the parity rotation, starting block, and block size. All of which you can figure out by examining the individual disk images with a hex editor and by applying some math. Parity blocks are just a XOR of normal blocks for a given stripe. If you have a full set of working disks for an array its even easier because you don't have to rebuild missing data from the parity blocks, just dd an amount of bytes equal to the block size in sequence based on the parity rotation (and block size again) to a new file and you will end up with a destriped image that contains whatever filesystem was on the array.
Not sure if this would apply to your situation with the LVM and ReiserFS since I'm not sure where the problem occured, but maybe somebody will find the info useful
Slashdot Mirror
Let me get this straight. They want me to pay $25 for a cardboard box, some glued in eggcrate foam, and some red velcro straps. Riiiiight. Is getting ripped off on this scam any better than letting your laptop get stolen?
I'd put in for China's plan to expand their energy generation.
But the article is about technilogical advancements that have occured this year. While admirable, China's plan is to IMPLEMENT a technology that has been around for quite a while. If there is any sort of advancement in that plan, I would submit that it is their forward thinking in energy policy that is new to the world. Most of the other governments don't seem to have grasped that concept yet.
Does anybody know of any resources or maps concerning the location and availability of dark fiber? I am sure there is a great deal of it laying out there along the roadside, in the sewers, and under the sidewalks just waiting for an application. Unfortunately, it's a pain in the ass to find out who owns what, and who to contact in your area. Some maps or perhaps a dark fiber market would be nice. Any suggestions?
In Arkansas, your ballot is numbered and the number of your ballot recorded next to your name in the voter registration book. They can look at will to see how you voted. Entirely unamerican if you ask me.
How odd that pathname.com hosts this filesystem hierarchy information and..."Enya - Translations and Lyrics." Perhaps I'm dense, but I missed the connection there.
We use some ancient flat files in production here where I work as well. They reside on an IBM iSeries, which luckily allows you to do DB2 SQL queries on them. If you just use select * from one of them you will get a single column rows that each contain a single record from the flat file. That's not very useful but you can use string functions to parse the file into tabular columns based on what you know about the file layout, and then use whatever sql you come up with to create a view. It's definitely not as fast as parsing each record in the program code, but it's a little more flexible and definitely more reuseable. The good thing about flat files is that their internal structure doesn't change very often because of programs that depend on it being static. Most typically, anything changed just gets appended onto the end of the file, so you rarely have to modify your view.
What kind of system are these files stored on? If not AS400/iSeries, I can think of a few other tricks to pull off similar functionality. If it is an iSeries, I can think of an even better solution.
Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals.
Every species is unique in some respects and different in some respects. That isn't evidence of superiority.
A well placed group of locusts can ravage an ecology at least as effectively as any human.
I never said that it was evidence of superiority. Straw man. What I said was that humans are seemingly different from other animals in their capacity to impact their environment. Humans are apparently the only animals able to liberate sequestered chemicals into the environment WITHOUT eating them first. While locusts may ravage an area, what they do is a natural part of the ecology, and it will recover. When humans enter a forest and slash and burn it to the ground, they not only destory that local ecology but the act of burning dumps all of the carbon sunk their over the last several centuries back into the environment almost instantly. Not to mention what we do with what has been in the ground for millions of years.
how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.
Pretty big stretch to go from "we can cause immediate localised effects" to "we are irreversibly altering the climate of the planet".
I never said that we are causing irreversable alterations to the climate. Straw man. If we are able to observe localized and transient (because we know that reducing emissions in a local area reduces regional instances of acid deposition) environmental changes within a period of decades, do you still maintain that possibility that over a period of centuries we might have at least a transient effect on a global scale?
I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we do and are capable of changing environment at least regionally
Who said anything about writing it off? Straw man.
It was your argument. "Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes." That sounds like you're writing our activity off as benign to me.
I don't think questioning whether or not our actions and accelerating development might jeapordize that balance is pathetic.
Another straw man. Who said that?
Once again, that was your own argument. You said "The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic." It's not an assumption, it's a hypothesis supported by observational evidence. And exploring that is not pathetic, it's just responsible behavior. If we find that climate change is unrelated to our activity, well that's tough for us. But if it is, we still have time to modify our behavior before we do damage that is irreversable in the near term in the geological sense of time. I think we should air on the side of caution, it's only money after all.
Well, HDTV won't be ready until you can get the Adult channels in HDTV. Until then, all that money is just idling. I'm not sure who the cable companies have doing their market research, but I thought everybody knew that porn was the technology pioneer. If porn hasn't gone there yet, nobody else will either.
Surely this is a troll, but I'll go anyway.
I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of car can affect anything so massive as a planet. Really, you are not that important.
Let's change that statement a bit to say "I'm always amazed by the sheer hubris that people display in assuming that their choice of candidate can affect anything so massive as a country. Really, you are not that important." That sounds pretty retarded, doesn't it.
Perhaps singly, you or I may not make much of a difference to the world. Between 1996 and 2001, there were an average of ~8.5 million new cars sold each year. And that is just in the US and only includes passenger cars! That means people made that inconsequential decision on low emission car or high consumption SUV about 42.5 million times over those five years, and once again that's just the US.
Assuming that because *I* am a single person I have no responsibility to the environment whatsoever because my choices couldn't possibly make a difference is selfish, delusional and part of the reason we have the problem we have now. Would you tell someone that their vote doesn't matter (carping about parties and electoral colleges aside), and therefore they might as well just skip it all together? It's about more than you, it's about everybody making responsible choices.
Despite a great deal of outlandish claims from many people, there's no particular evidence to suggest that humanity is having a significant impact on the planet. Claiming that we have the capability to make any kind of significant impression on something so huge and ancient is self-delusion in extremes. At most, we could wipe *ourselves* out, but the planet wouldn't care; extinction of a species is quite normal for it.
Well, to that I might remind you that homo sapiens are the only species that sets things on fire, on purpose. That fact alone should demonstrate that people have a slightly different impact in their environment than most other animals. If you don't want to listen to the "outlandish claims" of the majority of environmental scientists that the environment is changing due to our actions, let's reflect on some of the things we know we do. The fact is that we DO have signifigant impressions on the world. When it is a positive certainty that our SO2 and NOx emissions cause acid rain locally and regionally that can disrupt ecosystems and destroy forests, how much of a stretch is it to be concerned with the effects of other human sourced gas emissions.
Changing the environment, that's what we do, it's how we live. Since 1600, there have been 584 species presummed extinct just in the US, suggesting a 7,000 fold increasein the rate of extinctions since the industrial revolution. It's pretty hard to deny a connection to human activity with numbers like that, and I'd say that's a pretty signifigant impression on the world. I, for one, don't particularly care to join the other animals we have already pushed out of existence.
At present, only really careful archaeology would be able to find any trace of us in a few million years time; that's barely noticable on geological timescales. The dinosaurs were more obvious. The assumption in the past few years that humanity is responsible for any changes it doesn't understand is quite pathetic.
I'm not really concerned with a few million years down the road right now. I'm more concerned with the immediate (next 100-1000 years) well being of our species. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, at some point you have to begin to wonder. I think it's pretty irresponsbile to write off our activity here on the planet as benign when we already have evidence that we
reminds me of the arguement some people use about satellite signal "theft".
if they don't want me watching it, then why do they send the signal into my yard?
that arguement didn't work in court too well unfortunatly.
Well the difference in this analogy would be that the satellite companies do employ some form of signal security that is being cracked by the "signal theifs." The grandparent poster was talking about these people just having open wireless networks. I'm pretty sure that if the sat. companies were broadcasting unencrypted mpeg2 video they would have a hard time getting you prosecuted for piping it into your computer.
Now they can mess around all they want, au natural, and not worry about dying!
e nital Warts
Indeed! Now all they have to worry about is...
Gohnorrea
Herpes
Chlamydia
Syphillis
G
HPV
Hepatitus
Trichomoniasis
and more! Lucky bitches...
Your danger of getting cancer is many, many times greater due to chemical carcinogens than from the kinds and amounts of radiation most people are exposed to during their lifetimes. If you want to focus and worry about something causing cancer, I suggest you look closer at what we are eating than what is beaming in from the heavens and your surroundings.
As an aside, your comment that the poster in this thread should be more critical of papers demonstrates your unwillingness to look at view points other than your own. The paper the poster referenced was from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That is hardly a flaky source of information, and it does indeed conclude that irradiated study group did in fact have a much much lower cancer mortality rate than the general population. It suggests that some radiation can actually be beneficial, and that current standards should be revaluated for their appropriateness. You suggested that the poster be more critical of papers he reads, but I suggest that you be more open minded of opposing view points.
I think I get the magnitude of this election. Your president will either be wearing red (rebpulican) or blue (democrat) while he fucks you in the ass. Either way, we all lose in this election. The Republican and Democratic parties have converged to such a degree that it is frightening to contemplate its signifigance for the future of our democracy. When you really think about it, we already lack a real choice in leadership because neither candidate is independent enough to resist the will of his party, so basically you are voting for a party, not a man. So, you either take your governmental screw with red or blue. People are perceiving this lack of choice, whether conciously or not, and it is reflected in wide-scale voter apathy.
It's not true what they tell, your vote does not matter! Especially if you do not live in one of the "contested states" and you are not one of the "target constituencies."
We have met the enemy, and he is us! I personally will prefer the blue this year.
I don't believe there are only two options in this scenario. You don't have to ignore it, and you don't have to immediately attempt to fix it. Another option is strongly directed research at developing solutions to the problem. If we had 500 hundred years, we could devote 3 or 4 hundred years just to researching solutions. I'm sure that even if we did not rush to fix the problem immediately, the looming, yet distant, certainty of a global destruction would have accelerating impact on all research. It's not something you can ignore.
Would said union be for multiple people, or just a pair? If multiple-unions are okay, then how do you plan to keep the tax relief from being abused?
I think the simple answer to that question is that married people should not be eligible for tax relief at all simply because they are married. It is descriminatory toward single people, and a great many people are single or live together as unmarried couples. I realize that the marriage tax relief is to encourage marriage, but I think that's the wrong approach. If they want to reward you for being a family, perhaps it should be on the basis of children. That's something that even polygamous families could share without abuse. Tax relief is an abomination anyway because its impossible to distribute it without descrimination. Better still would be a sane tax code that didn't need tax credits/cuts/relief to be fair.
Can any aged person get married? Many cultures and religions have people married at 12 years old and younger.
This is not really a fair argument because there are many levels of privledge restriction based on age in our society. We as a people recognize that (MOST!) children don't make the kind of rational decisions that (MOST!) adults do, and therefore we restrict their activites. Whether this is fair is a wholly different topic of debate, and one that is played out individually in each state.
Do both parties of the union have to consent?
I'm thinking arranged marriages here, which is a big thing in many cultures.
At least in our society, I think that is a given. Our individual freedoms are extensive except where they intersect with the freedoms of other individuals. You may not impose your feelings on another person against their will. You can no more force someone to join you in a union than you can force them to sleep with you.
How about brothers and sisters getting married? Dads and daughters? And where do the rights of the theoretical (and potentially genetically crippled) baby come into play?
This is perhaps one of the stickiest issues along the slippery slope of marriage deregulation. And perhaps the answer lies in humanity itself. People are, for the most part, smart enough to avoid this. The existence of incest taboos in most world cultures suggests that this is more than culturation, but it is perhaps something innate to our existence. So its likely that this will just not be much a problem. Of course there may be incidents, but there is no rule without exception.
You might argue that homosexual relationships invalidate this "taboo barrier", because they too were once taboo, but I believe that incest is an entirely different case. Incestual relationships can introduce weakening (though occaisionally beneficial) genetic anomalies into a population, and therefore I feel that it is more strongly selected out by whatever genetic basis there is for our behavior. Homosexuality, on the other hand does not damage the genetics of a population, it just diminishes the pool of viable mates.
If you think the government should take a stance on any of the issues I listed, then how is it getting out of the marriage business?
I think the government has absolutely no place in the lives of the citizens it governs, except in the matters of taxation and the protection of its citizens. And I feel that the government could completely exit the business of ordaining marriages without the collapse of our civilization. Civil unions for anyone that wants one, should be a right that we all have. You should be able to join anyone you choose in a civilly recognized relationship for the purposes of interfacing with the government as a single unit. These relationships should have no other connotation other than for that interface purpose. If you and your signifigant other(s) feel like you need a religious recognition of your mutual relationship, well that is between you, your god(s), and your religious doctrine.
Access uses a stripped down version of MS SQL Server now instead of its own Jet DB engine.
I'm sorry but that is just totally false. MS Access still uses the jet engine (as does Exchange server). Microsoft DOES have a scaled down version of SQL Server called MSDE, but it is totally unrelated to Microsoft Access. It would be exceedingly awesome, however, if access would replace JET with MSDE, if only for the joint use of T-SQL instead of Jet's bastardized implemntation.
I was thinking this morning on my way to work about those spinning roof vent turbines like this. I don't know about in the north, but here in the south, just about every house has at least two of these things. They spin almost all the time, either from the wind or heat rising out of your attic space. If one were to attach small generators to these things, how much power could be produced? Maybe not a great deal individually, but what about multiplied millions of times. Perhaps they could be engineered specifically for energy generation.
Any thoughts?
They both worked fine for me. Did you remove the spaces inserted by the evil slashcode?
Never underestimate the potential of misfortune to create unforseen circumstances to cause failure. Imagine what would happen if something was introduced into PBR environment that did caused the pebbles to reach their melting point, like a flammable gas or liquid. If the pebbles melt, the high density of the radioactive material within would likely cause it to pool together. And with that, you have your critical mass for runaway meltdown.
I'm definitely not saying we should avoid nuclear power because its dangerous. I'm just saying that blanketing a technology like PBR with a magic shield of "It's FoolProof!" is most likely more dangerous than the technology itself. Such attitudes can lead to complacency in the minds of the operators and owners and result in irresponsible behaviors.
We should go ahead with PBR, but as with any technology that involves hazardous materials we need to be extremely cautious.
At least for typing, smooth surfaces suck because of the lack of tactile feedback. Now, once we master artificial gravity like on Star Trek, perhaps we could have touch screens with tiny gravity generators underneath to push on your fingers as you manipulate the smooth surfaced controls.
September 11th is a Saturday. Less visibility, less economic disruption.
And Cher will be at the DeSoto center in Mississippi on Sept. 11th! And as we all know, all islamic terrorists love Cher! They wouldn't dare miss one of her farewell tour shows for some weak 'cyber-attack'. Her ageless, plastic face and fiber optic hair draws them in everytime! Their only regret about the Sept. 11th show is that it will not also feature Cyndi Lauper as other tour dates did. What a pity.
If I may interject into your conversation with Mr. Dvorkin, I would just like to submit that perhaps part of the problem is the concept that education must be dispensed in discrete catagories of Math, Science, English, logic, philosophy, etc. when in the realities of life, all of these disciplines must be used together for reasoning. Why must everything be taught as distinct subjects when the subjects themselves form a continuum of knowledge. It seems to me that education would be more successful if it were taught in a manner that reflects that continuum. A single class in which our history is shown to be reflected in our present and future, that represents logic in philosophy and philosophy in ethics. All wrapped in lessons on how reading and writing proper English. What we know as our collective human intellect did not arrive in bulk packages of Science, English, Mathematics, History, Logic, and Philosophy mastered individually and serially, but rather each area of our knowledge is built on and is an extension of the others. If that is how we have learned as a species, why should the instruction of an individual child from birth to adulthood be any different?
Such instruction requires truly gifted teachers, the kind that can't typically be had for today's teacher salaries. It also may not conform well the quantitative measures of progress upon which our current crop of leaders fixate. But it just might produce more well rounded students, students who think critically rather than memorize and regurgitate. But a critical thinking public, I think that scares modern politicians more than anything else.
the question in this case being was this measured pushed by employers or unions. both stand to gain from this, only the employee loses out.
Ah yes, are you suggesting that the post use that pinnacle of journalistic integrity, FOX NEWS? Besides, most of the things he listed were not a matter of news sourcing or opinion, but a matter of public record. Are you saying that the existence of the patriot act is actually some democrat fabrication?
After sending away a dead Snap Server that had a raidframe based software raid5 array on an embedded bsd derivative to a Data Recovery firm and having it returned saying the data could not be recovered, I figured out that you can manually destripe a raid array without the help of the raid engine that built the array. You can do it with dd and a bash script in fact, you just need to know the parity rotation, starting block, and block size. All of which you can figure out by examining the individual disk images with a hex editor and by applying some math. Parity blocks are just a XOR of normal blocks for a given stripe. If you have a full set of working disks for an array its even easier because you don't have to rebuild missing data from the parity blocks, just dd an amount of bytes equal to the block size in sequence based on the parity rotation (and block size again) to a new file and you will end up with a destriped image that contains whatever filesystem was on the array.
Not sure if this would apply to your situation with the LVM and ReiserFS since I'm not sure where the problem occured, but maybe somebody will find the info useful