The interesting part is that the treatment model that accompanied the behavioral theory - i.e. "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" - would have had a BETTER societal outcome than the current treatment model.
It's not necessary to "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" to stop the spread of HIV. It's necessary to "stop fucking people whose HIV status you don't know" and "stop fucking without a condom".
Some of us just aren't wired for monogamy, and telling people "don't be what you are!" is always a piss-poor recommendation. Especially when it comes to basic drives like sex.
Get tested, ask your partners to get tested, and just wear it.
Now consider this case, where excessive network traffic lead to a nuke plant losing its recirculation pumps and being manually scrammed. In this case it doesn't seem that the local net was directly connected to the Internet; however excessive traffic is exactly what can be caused by this TCP attack.
Now, put the two together: create a worm that spreads, lies dormant, then wakes up one day and throws this TCP attack at everything it can...could be a bad day.
the nature of e-mail is that it has to exist somewhere and for most people it's not practical to run their own mail server.
You don't have to run a mail server on you home box to store your e-mail there. Have somebody else run your mail server, collect your mail via POP and store it on your own machine. If your mail service provider suddenly goes belly-up, you've still got your mail.
Saying your a "real" republican is like saying you are a real "hacker" and the other guys should be called "cracker".
Assuming you mean "Republican" as in a member of that party, and not a "republican" as in "one who favors a representative form of government" - it's not the same at all. The Republican Party is an organization that one chooses to join; hacking and cracking are activities one engages in. If an organization changes its policies and you don't like it, you leave; if people mislabel the activities you're doing, you correct them.
Start billing employees for leaving their computers on overnight when there is no business reason.
Many people argue that turning computers on and off shortens their life. Others say this is a bunch of malarkey. I've never seen either side produce actual data.
The pressure from the fission bomb is used to fuse together the hydrogen atoms. That's what creates the megaton booms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design: "Such high-yield bombs are actually two-stage thermonuclears, scaled up to the desired yield, with uranium fission, as usual, providing most of their destructive energy." [emphasis added]
Doesn't matter.
Of course it matters. A reactor that stops the reaction when things break can be safe; a reactor that runs the reaction out of control when things break, can't be. That's also the advantage of accelerator-driven designs.
It's the incredible heat and pressure needed to create the fusion which are uneconomical to control
Fusion (though, obviously, not enough to produce power) can be done on a tabletop device. The best experimental reactor have put out about 65% of their input energy; doubling that certainly seems a practical, if long-term, goal. Controlling the necessary heat and pressure is no more uneconomical or dangerous than for other industrial processes.
See, what we ARE beholden to is food and water and shelter, and without getting paid it is damned difficult to have food and water and shelter. Unless of course you think everyone doing good things works for free and they live in magical happy trees that provide food and shelter and everything.
That's kind of a funny thing to say, when you think about it, since food actually literally grows on trees! But, the "owner" of the land, backed by government force, won't let you pick the fruit.
Unless you're living in a desert or drought-striken area, water settles into big pools all over the place, but the "owner" won't let you have any.
And anybody with some basic skills and tools and a bit of material can build a shelter - probably using wood, from trees, in some fashion. You ought to see some of the shacks the homeless set up in parks in Japan. Heck, a fancy comfy yurt can be had for less than the price of a new car - but where can you put it? Again, you've got that problem of land ownership to deal with.
It's a curious way we've chosen to organize the planet's resources, isn't it?
Why are you calling shareholders evil? I think a better term is "short-sighted".
The two are synonymous. "Evil" behavior is caused by a perspective that is limited, that values only the short term benefit of a few (or one) person. "Good" behavior comes from a perspective that consider that long-term well-being of all sentient beings.
use obscure variable names like xspatyc05 or funct123, always use static buffer sizes for any IO operations and under no circumstances should you add comments, it's a waste of time and no one besides you is ever going to have to understand it anyway.
You used to work for my current employer, didn't you? And a couple (though, thank Goddess, not all) of my previous employers, too...
OTOH, mercury doesn't cause acid rain, and is less responsible for lung and heart disease. Different dangers.
Congress said, "Oxygenate your fuel", so the oil companies oxygenated their fuel. Now they're mad at the oil companies for obeying the law.
Can't speak for Congress, but I'm mad at the oil companies for choosing the cheap and toxic way to obey the law. Sadly, it's probably the cheapest for them, since they'll wiggle out of paying for the damage caused by using MBTE instead of ethanol or other alternatives.
Things that make REALLY BIG BOMBS tend to be difficult to control.
Fusion makes REALLY BIG BOMBS only in that it's used to kick-start a fission reaction. A fusion reactor operates very differently than a thermonuclear bomb. You have to work hard to keep a fusion reactor (or an accelerator-driven energy amplifier) going at all; with a fission reactor, you have to work hard to keep it from going out of control.
well, that's why it's important to switch to plug-in electrics. plug-in hybrids would be a good compromise to help us phase into the new all-electric infrastructure.
Agreed. Plug-in hybrids are the immediate win; pure electrics (plus better public transportation and a reduction in car-centric public planning) are the long-term win.
I guess you thought that Titan, Atlas, Delta, Saturn and STS were designed and built by gov't employees
They were built by government contractors, and paid for by the government. They're as publicly owned as a school building built by a local construction company.
Would we get more bang for our taxpayer buck if we'd just hired engineers and designers directly? Maybe, maybe not. You lose some of the efficiency that competition can bring out, but on the other hand you don't have the stockholders and top management of Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, et. al., taking a percentage off the top.
The bottom line is that the US has NEVER had a "publicly owned space launch capability".
Who owned the rockets that sent the Apollo missions to the moon? Who owns the shuttles? The United States. Boeing might have made 'em, but we bought 'em. A bunch of moon rockets, or a shuttle fleet, is most definitely a "publicly owned space launch capability".
As opposed to using sulfur-spewing gasoline with toxic MTBE? Tough call, but it's a lot easier to clean up a few coal smokestacks than thousands of tailpipes.
You? nothing. Which is precisely why it's so significant. This is private enterprise, vs. a mandatory government space program. You get to choose whether to be a part of this, or not.
It's "private enterprise" whose main potential customer is the federal government. The payload for the first Falcon 1 test launch in 2006 was from DARPA; the third attempt carried USAF and NASA payloads. SpaceX has ongoing contracts with the USAF and with NASA. (All info from the wik.)
So, no. You don't get to choose, and instead of funding a publicly owned space launch capability, we give Elon Musk and other SpaceX investors a cut off the top.
And science is hardly limited to secular humanists. If your religious dogmas contradict scientific findings, your religion is broken and you need to trade up to one based less on metaphysical dogma and more on personal religious experience.
Diet creationism being taught alongside evolution, despite being unscientific, doesn't abridge any privileges or immunities of citizens, though it may annoy or misguide them. If we were talking about a state law that attempted to restrict or impose religion, then yes, the Fourteenth would apply.
Teaching creationism in a school is an attempt to impose religion. School cirricula are set by state law. Ergo, what we have here is exactly "a state law that attempted to restrict or impose religion".
So it's better for them to be vulnerable to cancer plus ineffective, expensive treatments, often with nasty side effects, that substitute for more effective ones?
I'm sure a lot more of these failed trials would be published if there was a financial incentive.
These failed trials would be published if the researchers were actually doing science. If they're not, let's call it what it is: product development. And let's remove the fiction that what they are doing is promoting the progress of science and thus deserves patent protection.
Now I'm REALLY confused. Because before it sounded like you DIDN'T support the war in Iraq, and now here you are supporting doing battle against Saddam Hussein.
I see that your reading comprehension skills need work. Let me see if I can resolve your confusion:
I supported Operation Desert Shield. It was a legitimate defensive use of force.
I did not support Operation Desert Storm. While conducted with legal authorization, it was an aggressive intervention in a border dispute in an unstable region, and American support for it was whipped up via outright fabrication. It was an attempt to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, and caused much more trouble than it solved. We would have been wise to hold the defensive cordon and keep the sanctions on, while working toward a comprehensive peace plan to undo the damage done by decades of British, American, and Russian meddling in the region (and working toward renewable energy for the whole world so no one had such a strong motivation to meddle).
And I certainly don't support the current illegal, immoral, and stupid invasion of Iraq, which can in no way pretend to be a defensive use of force. In 2003, Iraq was not a threat to any other nation. If you want to claim that the invasion was undertaken to defend the people of Iraq, you have to explain away that 1) this was never the motivation discussed at the time, and 2) over 600,000 of them have killed due to the invasion. This is sort of like going in with guns blazing with the excuse of "saving" your neighbor from her abusive husband and shooting the whole family in the process. (And it looks kind of funny when you stand to directly benefit from the husband's death...)
Have you any idea of the Chinese prison system, and how it operates?
Funny you should use prisons as a point of comparions, since China imprisons far, far fewer people than we do - we have 2.3 million people behind bars, they have 1.6 million. (That doesn't count their "re-education" labor camps, but that doesn't come close to making up the difference - especially when you consider the per capita numbers.)
I wasn't able to turn up stats on whether one is more likely to be raped in an American or in a Chinese prison.
Right there, you are kinda saying you're willing to use force to stop name-calling.
No, I'm not "kinda" saying anything of the kind. And I think you even know that, with your sudden disclaimer of "kinda".
First, I said "those threatened" - those suffering only name calling are not being threatened. Second, I offered "aid and defense, with force if necessary" - the use of defensive force is necessary only - indeed, can only exit - if aggressive force is present.
You seriously hadn't heard of the repeated attacks on US planes between 1990 and 2003?
If the planes had legal and ethical justification for being there, then it would have been legally and ethically appropriate to respond to attacks on them. But when you're an armed trespasser, you give up a lot of your self-defense rights - even if you're trespassing with vigilantism in mind rather than garden-variety crime.
Slashdot Mirror
4 + 7 + 5 + 9 = 25, which of course is the square of 5. It's just the Law of Fives in action.
Remember, the harder you look, the more you will see the Law of Fives!
It's not necessary to "stop fucking people you aren't married/monogamous with" to stop the spread of HIV. It's necessary to "stop fucking people whose HIV status you don't know" and "stop fucking without a condom".
Some of us just aren't wired for monogamy, and telling people "don't be what you are!" is always a piss-poor recommendation. Especially when it comes to basic drives like sex.
Get tested, ask your partners to get tested, and just wear it.
Because people are sometimes very, very dumb.
Read this comp.risks item about a monitoring PC at a nuke plant getting infected by the Slammer worm. Fortunately, the plant was off-line, and had analog backups.
Now consider this case, where excessive network traffic lead to a nuke plant losing its recirculation pumps and being manually scrammed. In this case it doesn't seem that the local net was directly connected to the Internet; however excessive traffic is exactly what can be caused by this TCP attack.
Now, put the two together: create a worm that spreads, lies dormant, then wakes up one day and throws this TCP attack at everything it can...could be a bad day.
"The market" also says that Windows is the best OS, and that "Dancing With the Stars" is the best TV show.
Popularity has fsck-all to do with whether a thing is any damn good or not.
You don't have to run a mail server on you home box to store your e-mail there. Have somebody else run your mail server, collect your mail via POP and store it on your own machine. If your mail service provider suddenly goes belly-up, you've still got your mail.
Assuming you mean "Republican" as in a member of that party, and not a "republican" as in "one who favors a representative form of government" - it's not the same at all. The Republican Party is an organization that one chooses to join; hacking and cracking are activities one engages in. If an organization changes its policies and you don't like it, you leave; if people mislabel the activities you're doing, you correct them.
Many people argue that turning computers on and off shortens their life. Others say this is a bunch of malarkey. I've never seen either side produce actual data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design: "Such high-yield bombs are actually two-stage thermonuclears, scaled up to the desired yield, with uranium fission, as usual, providing most of their destructive energy." [emphasis added]
Of course it matters. A reactor that stops the reaction when things break can be safe; a reactor that runs the reaction out of control when things break, can't be. That's also the advantage of accelerator-driven designs.
Fusion (though, obviously, not enough to produce power) can be done on a tabletop device. The best experimental reactor have put out about 65% of their input energy; doubling that certainly seems a practical, if long-term, goal. Controlling the necessary heat and pressure is no more uneconomical or dangerous than for other industrial processes.
That's kind of a funny thing to say, when you think about it, since food actually literally grows on trees! But, the "owner" of the land, backed by government force, won't let you pick the fruit.
Unless you're living in a desert or drought-striken area, water settles into big pools all over the place, but the "owner" won't let you have any.
And anybody with some basic skills and tools and a bit of material can build a shelter - probably using wood, from trees, in some fashion. You ought to see some of the shacks the homeless set up in parks in Japan. Heck, a fancy comfy yurt can be had for less than the price of a new car - but where can you put it? Again, you've got that problem of land ownership to deal with.
It's a curious way we've chosen to organize the planet's resources, isn't it?
The two are synonymous. "Evil" behavior is caused by a perspective that is limited, that values only the short term benefit of a few (or one) person. "Good" behavior comes from a perspective that consider that long-term well-being of all sentient beings.
Why would you trust the proof any more than the code? People make mistakes in proofs just like they make mistakes in coding.
You used to work for my current employer, didn't you? And a couple (though, thank Goddess, not all) of my previous employers, too...
Did I say that it did?
OTOH, mercury doesn't cause acid rain, and is less responsible for lung and heart disease. Different dangers.
Can't speak for Congress, but I'm mad at the oil companies for choosing the cheap and toxic way to obey the law. Sadly, it's probably the cheapest for them, since they'll wiggle out of paying for the damage caused by using MBTE instead of ethanol or other alternatives.
Fusion makes REALLY BIG BOMBS only in that it's used to kick-start a fission reaction. A fusion reactor operates very differently than a thermonuclear bomb. You have to work hard to keep a fusion reactor (or an accelerator-driven energy amplifier) going at all; with a fission reactor, you have to work hard to keep it from going out of control.
Agreed. Plug-in hybrids are the immediate win; pure electrics (plus better public transportation and a reduction in car-centric public planning) are the long-term win.
They were built by government contractors, and paid for by the government. They're as publicly owned as a school building built by a local construction company.
Would we get more bang for our taxpayer buck if we'd just hired engineers and designers directly? Maybe, maybe not. You lose some of the efficiency that competition can bring out, but on the other hand you don't have the stockholders and top management of Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, et. al., taking a percentage off the top.
Who owned the rockets that sent the Apollo missions to the moon? Who owns the shuttles? The United States. Boeing might have made 'em, but we bought 'em. A bunch of moon rockets, or a shuttle fleet, is most definitely a "publicly owned space launch capability".
As opposed to using sulfur-spewing gasoline with toxic MTBE? Tough call, but it's a lot easier to clean up a few coal smokestacks than thousands of tailpipes.
(Of course, the long-term electricity solution is a combination of distributed renewables, orbital photovoltaic, "energy amplifier" nuclear reactors based on thorium fuel, and, eventually, fusion.)
Less than is lost in the hideously inefficient and dirty operation of an internal combustion engine.
Nope. Its only advantage is the existing infrastructure. Plug-in hybrids FTW.
It's "private enterprise" whose main potential customer is the federal government. The payload for the first Falcon 1 test launch in 2006 was from DARPA; the third attempt carried USAF and NASA payloads. SpaceX has ongoing contracts with the USAF and with NASA. (All info from the wik.)
So, no. You don't get to choose, and instead of funding a publicly owned space launch capability, we give Elon Musk and other SpaceX investors a cut off the top.
A wizard did it. I mean, an almight god[dess] did it.
Who gets to define a "true Christian" as one who believes in the literal truth of the Bible?
The religion is called "Christianity", not "Bible-anity".
The religion of non-religious humanism?
And science is hardly limited to secular humanists. If your religious dogmas contradict scientific findings, your religion is broken and you need to trade up to one based less on metaphysical dogma and more on personal religious experience.
Teaching creationism in a school is an attempt to impose religion. School cirricula are set by state law. Ergo, what we have here is exactly "a state law that attempted to restrict or impose religion".
So it's better for them to be vulnerable to cancer plus ineffective, expensive treatments, often with nasty side effects, that substitute for more effective ones?
These failed trials would be published if the researchers were actually doing science. If they're not, let's call it what it is: product development. And let's remove the fiction that what they are doing is promoting the progress of science and thus deserves patent protection.
I see that your reading comprehension skills need work. Let me see if I can resolve your confusion:
I supported Operation Desert Shield. It was a legitimate defensive use of force.
I did not support Operation Desert Storm. While conducted with legal authorization, it was an aggressive intervention in a border dispute in an unstable region, and American support for it was whipped up via outright fabrication. It was an attempt to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, and caused much more trouble than it solved. We would have been wise to hold the defensive cordon and keep the sanctions on, while working toward a comprehensive peace plan to undo the damage done by decades of British, American, and Russian meddling in the region (and working toward renewable energy for the whole world so no one had such a strong motivation to meddle).
And I certainly don't support the current illegal, immoral, and stupid invasion of Iraq, which can in no way pretend to be a defensive use of force. In 2003, Iraq was not a threat to any other nation. If you want to claim that the invasion was undertaken to defend the people of Iraq, you have to explain away that 1) this was never the motivation discussed at the time, and 2) over 600,000 of them have killed due to the invasion. This is sort of like going in with guns blazing with the excuse of "saving" your neighbor from her abusive husband and shooting the whole family in the process. (And it looks kind of funny when you stand to directly benefit from the husband's death...)
Funny you should use prisons as a point of comparions, since China imprisons far, far fewer people than we do - we have 2.3 million people behind bars, they have 1.6 million. (That doesn't count their "re-education" labor camps, but that doesn't come close to making up the difference - especially when you consider the per capita numbers.)
I wasn't able to turn up stats on whether one is more likely to be raped in an American or in a Chinese prison.
No, I'm not "kinda" saying anything of the kind. And I think you even know that, with your sudden disclaimer of "kinda".
First, I said "those threatened" - those suffering only name calling are not being threatened. Second, I offered "aid and defense, with force if necessary" - the use of defensive force is necessary only - indeed, can only exit - if aggressive force is present.
Do you mean the planes imposing the illegal "no fly" zones in Iraq?
If the planes had legal and ethical justification for being there, then it would have been legally and ethically appropriate to respond to attacks on them. But when you're an armed trespasser, you give up a lot of your self-defense rights - even if you're trespassing with vigilantism in mind rather than garden-variety crime.