Just wait until the no-nuke freaks, flat-earthers, Nader kooks and other Luddites get a whiff of how this technology works.
Um, as someone who thinks uranium or plutonium fission power is a highly sub-solution to our power needs, and who voted for Nader twice (though I'm not a flat-earther or a Luddite), I think this is fascinating and way-cool tech. Put the ad hominem down, ok?
As somebody who suffers from acid reflux (which is becoming increasingly common), I take Pepcid/AC.
And why is it becoming increasing common? Has some new mutation entered the genome lately? No. It's because the standard american diet sucks, and our lifestyle is getting more stressful.
But rather than recommending a healthy diet and lifestyle, our first-line treatment is medication. Expensive mediction. Often with powerful side-effects...oh, we'll sell you another drug for that.
"See you doctor and ask if Snakeoilin PDQ is right for you." And check out that snazzy "Snakeoilin PDQ"-logoed stethoscope they gave your doctor. Did he tell you about the conference in Hawaii they're flying him out to attend? None dare call it bribery.
I love drugs as much as the next guy. But never forget that the medical-industrial complex has profit, not patient care, as its primary goal.
if I knew that I was likely to have a heart attack, and there was medication that would prevent it, I'd take that too.
You'd probably be better off making lifestyle changes. But, nobody can make huge profits off that, right?
wouldnt that render the gun useless? all those little fragments would get left in the gun, not to mention that the bullet would have trouble getting some spin before it discharges.
Uh, you'd take the steel wool out after running it through the barrel, and clean the barrel afterwards of course. It might damage the rifling, making the weapon less accurate, but most assults with firearms take place at very close range. (Very fine grit sandpaper wrapped around a piece of rag might be a better choice.)
If we got around to having to produce the weapon for yearly licenses, then the casing could be rescanned
I'll be happy to produce my firearms for a yearly licencing inspection. They can start with a good look down the barrel...from the wrong end.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated...".
The use of military force, which does not require a declaration of war, is assigned by the Constitution to the Commander in Chief of the armed forces -- which is the president.
The U.S. Constitution makes no distinction between "war" and "police action" or "conflict" or any other bullshit evasions. While Congress has historically rolled over like a well-trained dog to allow Presidents to blast the hell out of whoever they pleased - since war has generally been a constituent pleaser - these have all been extra-Constitutional actions.
Being the Commander in Chief means have authority to decide how to conduct a war. It does not mean getting to decide if to conduct a war. Being CiC means nothing more than being a "super-general".
Because I've always thought that the warning on the side of each pack stating "Use of this product may cause cancer, ect, ect" was pretty much self explanatory.
And getting those warnings placed there was a volunatry action of big tobacco? Hell no. It took years, while the tobacco companies hid evidence, lied, and fought tooth and nail against any suggestion that smoking was unhealthy.
On the other hand, it's no mystery that handguns kill people. In fact, that's all they are made for.
Handguns are made to throw lead pellets very fast. Those pellets may be thrown for recreation, for defense, or for assault.
Have you ever wondered why is it that gangs and other thugs seemingly have no problems aquiring handguns?
The same reason crackheads have no problem acquiring rock: prohibition doesn't work.
Pull it back until it just touches your forehead and let go so it swings like a pendulum. It you don't move, it will just touch your forehead on the return swing (or a little short of it).
There's a scene in Contact (the book, at least - still haven't seen the film) involving this with a huge pendulum. Back in high school, my physics teacher and I had both read it, and I don't think anyone else in the class yet had. He recrutied me to participate in our own version, with a bowling ball (duckpin, IIRC) suspended from the ceiling swinging toward my face.
After I stepped away, he also demo'd what would happen if you gave the pendulum a little extra push as you let it go - it went wooshing through the spot where my head had been. So if you go this, be careful when you let it go!
Science in a lot of ways is about harnessing energy to do work. Not cooking class..
Actually, my way-cool HS chem teacher had a lab experiment with a title like "Preparation of protein suspension in a carbohydrate base", which was making peanut brittle.
If tobacco companies can be held (partially) responsible for lung cancer deaths, then using the same logic, gun makers should be (partially) responsible for shootings.
Tobacco companies engaged in a massive campaign of fraud and deceit. Are you claiming that firearms manufacturers have behaved similarly? Has any gun maker ever tried to cover up evidence about the deadly nature of gunshot wounds, for example?
...if they had been shown that the material in question was copyright.
Unless explicitly released into the public domain, all work is copyrighted. However, that doesn't mean that the copyright holder (and the only person with a genuine claim to hold a copyright is the original creator, but that's another topic...) doesn't allow others to copy.
Over the years I've written a few songs. I'm trying to get my shit together and record them. When I do, I will have copyright on the recordings. (I had copyright on the songs themselves the moment I wrote them down.)
My belief is that sharing is perfectly fine, but if you're selling you owe the creator of the work royalties. I think "copyright" should be entirely eliminated and replaced with a right to royalties and to limited control of derivative works (e.g., preventing someone from using my music in a car commercial).
So I will place a notice on any copies of my music I distribute, that will allow anyone who wants to copy them to do so freely - but not to sell recordings without giving me my cut, nor to perform them for profit without giving me my cut. They will still be copyrighted; yet sharing will be explictly permitted.
the idea that DRM code will "somehow" find its way into every IC / processor, even when such application is utterly useless and contrary to the design constraints (and adds substantial costs) is simply unfettered paranoia.
We are talking about something that could be manadated by Congress. These are the people who passed a law that (if the courts hadn't struck it down) would have made it a federal crime to say "fuck" on the net. So the question is not "should I be paranoid", it's "am I paranoid enough".
Assuming you're talking about the Americans of the era, this "greatest generation" propaganda is the worst sort of nationalism.
The Nazis made the great mistake of fighting on two fronts. They bashed themselves against the Russians and broke. The Reich would still have lost if we'd stayed out of it.
Which, for several years, we were quite willing to do. Hitler had many friends and admirers here in the U.S., including famous names like Charles Lindbergh and Mary Pickford and Henry Ford. A 1939 American Bund (Nazi supporters) rally in Madison Square Garden drew 22,000 followers. And American corporations were quite willing to keep doing business with the Nazis right up until we entered the war.
The U.S.'s entry may have shortened the war, but didn't win it.
(no, computers don't think, they just execute instructions, they can emulate thinking but it's not really that)
That's like saying "human brains can't think, they just fire neurons". If thinking can take place in 1500cc of electrically active fatty meat, I don't think we can rule out other substrates very easily.
I'm sick of people acting like "Software Freedom" is a life-and-death issue.
As software comes to take a greater role in our society, software freedom is going to becomre just as much a life-and-death issue as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
The key point here is, USE WHAT WORKS.
In determining what "works", a wise person takes into account the total range of effects of a choice (or as broad as he or she can see, anyway).
Say company X makes a better hammer than company Y; maybe X's has a more comfortable handle. But company X engages in all sorts of unsavory business practices. I am willing - obligated, even - to put up with an occasional blister generated by my Brand Y hammer, rather than buy a Brand X and put my money in company X's slimy little pocket.
I bet you think it's cool that you still write all your code in vi too
I'm mostly an emacs man, these days, though I know several outstanding coders who prefer vi. I've also worked with joe and nedit guys...so long as we're all editing good ol' ASCII text, who cares?
Just because you can get by with yesterday's tools doesn't mean that they are still the best ones for the job.
And just because someone creates a new tool that's got bells and whistles and shiny chrome attached doesn't mean it's better.
My preference is for simplicity - and thus robustness, and a certain beauty - of solutions, not age.
My question is a a sincere one: what did the questioner find deficient about the old-school method?
I have used your basic Word docs and Excel spreadsheets in the past for this but it
just simply wasn't up to snuff as far as I'm concerned.
Why not?
Seriously. I've worked on a few projects of some magnitude and we never used any "requirements management system" more special than standard document files. (Of course, you shouldn't be putting any data at all in proprietary and virus-ridden Word or Excel formats, but there are safe and open alternatives.) Heck, they managed to put a man on the moon with a "requirements management system" that probably consisted of three-ring binders.
Ask yourself: is using an fancy-pants automated system going to simplify or complicate the process?
Re:GORP -- Greatest Video Game of All Time
on
High Score
·
· Score: 1
My favorite standup games were GORP (rare), Sinistar and Discs of Tron.
Sure you don't mean Gorf? "Gorfian robots, attack, attack! Too bad, space cadet." (Or was there a video game based on the camper's staple, "Good Old Rasins and Peanuts"?)
I only played Sinistar and Discs of Tron a few times but they were definitely cool. Probably the most quarters I pumped into a game, though, was a few years latter with "Space Harrier". That, and the videodisk game "Mad Dog McCree", were the only ones I ever got really good at, where other people would gather around to watch me play.
Back in the 80's somebody wrote a program to act like a rosiarian psychologist. Someone else wrote a program to act like a paranoid patient.
The programs are Eliza and Parry. I have to doubt that people couldn't tell the difference between a Eliza/Parry "conversation" and the real thing, though. Here's an example:
Folks, our job is to follow the law and let the police focus on nabbing the real criminals out there.
I will start respecting the law just as soon as the law becomes respectable. Until that far-off day, however, the legality of an action will have no impact on my decion to perform it or not. (Of course, the possibility of being caught will have an impact...but the possibility of being caught at my various crimes is usually pretty low.)
Slashdot Mirror
Um, as someone who thinks uranium or plutonium fission power is a highly sub-solution to our power needs, and who voted for Nader twice (though I'm not a flat-earther or a Luddite), I think this is fascinating and way-cool tech. Put the ad hominem down, ok?
And why is it becoming increasing common? Has some new mutation entered the genome lately? No. It's because the standard american diet sucks, and our lifestyle is getting more stressful.
But rather than recommending a healthy diet and lifestyle, our first-line treatment is medication. Expensive mediction. Often with powerful side-effects...oh, we'll sell you another drug for that.
"See you doctor and ask if Snakeoilin PDQ is right for you." And check out that snazzy "Snakeoilin PDQ"-logoed stethoscope they gave your doctor. Did he tell you about the conference in Hawaii they're flying him out to attend? None dare call it bribery.
I love drugs as much as the next guy. But never forget that the medical-industrial complex has profit, not patient care, as its primary goal.
You'd probably be better off making lifestyle changes. But, nobody can make huge profits off that, right?
Fifty years ago, no one would have belived that any employer would be allowed to request a urine sample before offering you a job or benefits.
Uh, you'd take the steel wool out after running it through the barrel, and clean the barrel afterwards of course. It might damage the rifling, making the weapon less accurate, but most assults with firearms take place at very close range. (Very fine grit sandpaper wrapped around a piece of rag might be a better choice.)
I'll be happy to produce my firearms for a yearly licencing inspection. They can start with a good look down the barrel...from the wrong end.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...".
The U.S. Constitution makes no distinction between "war" and "police action" or "conflict" or any other bullshit evasions. While Congress has historically rolled over like a well-trained dog to allow Presidents to blast the hell out of whoever they pleased - since war has generally been a constituent pleaser - these have all been extra-Constitutional actions.
Being the Commander in Chief means have authority to decide how to conduct a war. It does not mean getting to decide if to conduct a war. Being CiC means nothing more than being a "super-general".
And getting those warnings placed there was a volunatry action of big tobacco? Hell no. It took years, while the tobacco companies hid evidence, lied, and fought tooth and nail against any suggestion that smoking was unhealthy.
Handguns are made to throw lead pellets very fast. Those pellets may be thrown for recreation, for defense, or for assault.
The same reason crackheads have no problem acquiring rock: prohibition doesn't work.
There's a scene in Contact (the book, at least - still haven't seen the film) involving this with a huge pendulum. Back in high school, my physics teacher and I had both read it, and I don't think anyone else in the class yet had. He recrutied me to participate in our own version, with a bowling ball (duckpin, IIRC) suspended from the ceiling swinging toward my face.
After I stepped away, he also demo'd what would happen if you gave the pendulum a little extra push as you let it go - it went wooshing through the spot where my head had been. So if you go this, be careful when you let it go!
Actually, my way-cool HS chem teacher had a lab experiment with a title like "Preparation of protein suspension in a carbohydrate base", which was making peanut brittle.
He also showed us how to build a simple still.
Yes, and it's also hard to find real lead penicls.
The usage of "tinfoil" is well-established.
Yes, you pretty much can. It's found under the name muriatic acid. Google before you speak.
Tobacco companies engaged in a massive campaign of fraud and deceit. Are you claiming that firearms manufacturers have behaved similarly? Has any gun maker ever tried to cover up evidence about the deadly nature of gunshot wounds, for example?
Unless explicitly released into the public domain, all work is copyrighted. However, that doesn't mean that the copyright holder (and the only person with a genuine claim to hold a copyright is the original creator, but that's another topic...) doesn't allow others to copy.
Over the years I've written a few songs. I'm trying to get my shit together and record them. When I do, I will have copyright on the recordings. (I had copyright on the songs themselves the moment I wrote them down.)
My belief is that sharing is perfectly fine, but if you're selling you owe the creator of the work royalties. I think "copyright" should be entirely eliminated and replaced with a right to royalties and to limited control of derivative works (e.g., preventing someone from using my music in a car commercial).
So I will place a notice on any copies of my music I distribute, that will allow anyone who wants to copy them to do so freely - but not to sell recordings without giving me my cut, nor to perform them for profit without giving me my cut. They will still be copyrighted; yet sharing will be explictly permitted.
We are talking about something that could be manadated by Congress. These are the people who passed a law that (if the courts hadn't struck it down) would have made it a federal crime to say "fuck" on the net. So the question is not "should I be paranoid", it's "am I paranoid enough".
Welcome to capitalism. Exploitation of the workers is inherent in the system.
Assuming you're talking about the Americans of the era, this "greatest generation" propaganda is the worst sort of nationalism.
The Nazis made the great mistake of fighting on two fronts. They bashed themselves against the Russians and broke. The Reich would still have lost if we'd stayed out of it.
Which, for several years, we were quite willing to do. Hitler had many friends and admirers here in the U.S., including famous names like Charles Lindbergh and Mary Pickford and Henry Ford. A 1939 American Bund (Nazi supporters) rally in Madison Square Garden drew 22,000 followers. And American corporations were quite willing to keep doing business with the Nazis right up until we entered the war.
The U.S.'s entry may have shortened the war, but didn't win it.
That's like saying "human brains can't think, they just fire neurons". If thinking can take place in 1500cc of electrically active fatty meat, I don't think we can rule out other substrates very easily.
As software comes to take a greater role in our society, software freedom is going to becomre just as much a life-and-death issue as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
In determining what "works", a wise person takes into account the total range of effects of a choice (or as broad as he or she can see, anyway).Say company X makes a better hammer than company Y; maybe X's has a more comfortable handle. But company X engages in all sorts of unsavory business practices. I am willing - obligated, even - to put up with an occasional blister generated by my Brand Y hammer, rather than buy a Brand X and put my money in company X's slimy little pocket.
I'm mostly an emacs man, these days, though I know several outstanding coders who prefer vi. I've also worked with joe and nedit guys...so long as we're all editing good ol' ASCII text, who cares?
And just because someone creates a new tool that's got bells and whistles and shiny chrome attached doesn't mean it's better.
My preference is for simplicity - and thus robustness, and a certain beauty - of solutions, not age.
My question is a a sincere one: what did the questioner find deficient about the old-school method?
Why not?
Seriously. I've worked on a few projects of some magnitude and we never used any "requirements management system" more special than standard document files. (Of course, you shouldn't be putting any data at all in proprietary and virus-ridden Word or Excel formats, but there are safe and open alternatives.) Heck, they managed to put a man on the moon with a "requirements management system" that probably consisted of three-ring binders.
Ask yourself: is using an fancy-pants automated system going to simplify or complicate the process?
Sure you don't mean Gorf? "Gorfian robots, attack, attack! Too bad, space cadet." (Or was there a video game based on the camper's staple, "Good Old Rasins and Peanuts"?)
I only played Sinistar and Discs of Tron a few times but they were definitely cool. Probably the most quarters I pumped into a game, though, was a few years latter with "Space Harrier". That, and the videodisk game "Mad Dog McCree", were the only ones I ever got really good at, where other people would gather around to watch me play.
In any civilized nation, police powers are strictly limited.
"You there! Take take off your shirt and show me your breats! This is a police order!"
"Police! I'm commandeering this donut!"
I don't understand your motives.
WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND MY MOTIVES?
Shouldn't I be?
WHY DID YOU SAY THAT JUST NOW?
That's just the way it is.
SUPPOSE THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT WERE NOT.
So?
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU FULLY.
You harp on the same questions too much.
WHAT DOES THAT SIMILARITY SUGGEST TO YOU?
I don't get you.
DO YOU WISH THAT YOU DID GET I?
I will start respecting the law just as soon as the law becomes respectable. Until that far-off day, however, the legality of an action will have no impact on my decion to perform it or not. (Of course, the possibility of being caught will have an impact...but the possibility of being caught at my various crimes is usually pretty low.)