The liver contains larger amounts of iron (a ferrous metal). I wonder if it hurts the mice to be lifted by their livers. I wonder if the liver warms and cooks while they're still alive.
Good thought. I'll take it a step further. Assuming you're right, one application in my mind would be a way of creating a volume of space despite forces pushing in. For example, lets say you put a bunch of positive monopoles in a balloon. The monopoles would repel each other thus keeping the balloon inflated regardless of pressure exerted on the outside of the balloon.
Now here's the part I'm going to take a thought to the n'th degree. Suppose you had enough of these monopoles in a balloon exerting enough force against the pressure from the outside of the balloon. Say our balloon is analogous to the universe and space/time. Now suppose the exertion outward is so great space/time is warped thus creating a white hole.
Not sure that would work but I'd be interested to hear form someone why that's crazy talk.
>> Also, I know you only brought up the Fairness Doctrine, but I'm curious about how you feel about the defunct Equal Time rule. I know it still has problems like what do you do with third party candidates, or when there are a billion people running for nomination, but on its face... just equal time exclusively to political candidates people are expected to make educated choices between... do you believe this is still a market issue?
This makes no sense on a philosophical level (free markets) and on a practical level. You bring up third party cadidates? Ha! That's the least of our worries. Try religious representation. And who's to say what's "fair"? The powers that be want the fairness doctrine to silence those who oppose them. That's it in a nut shell. This is an act out of the communist/fascist/dictator play book. If implemented, it will be the beginning of the end and maybe that's what they want.
>>...it is ludicrous to declare that it's not the president's job to uphold campaign promises.
I never said anything about Obama upholding his campaign promises. I said what he's doing goes against the first amendment freedom of speech. It's wrong for the government to try and silence anyone. Period. End of story. The free flow of information is the most important thing ever. When we start regulating what people can and can't say, we limit ideas and that can lead to wrong choices in policy, experimentation and happiness.
>> An honest question, though it will surely sound loaded: do you believe that Rupert Murdoch has the right to MORE freedom of speech than I do, simply because he can afford the antennas?
I believe the free markets have a way of balancing out ideas. Let's take your scenario for Rupert Murdoch. If Rubert Murdoch bought an antenna and espoused that white poodles are vicious animals that should all be locked up in a cage, there will be those that disagree because obviously white poodles are nice dogs. Eventually, people will be turned off by this agenda and look elsewhere for more accurate opinions of white poodles.
Now let's flip the scenario. Let's say Rupert Murdoch espoused that crocodiles are vicious creatures that shouldn't be kept as pets for fear they may turn on their owners. This makes sense. If the government intruded on Rupert's message and required equal time on for someone to say
that crocodiles are harmless, lovable creatures that every household should own, we'd have a mixed message of the truth.
In one scenario, the listener can make up their mind, back the appropriate broadcaster thus elevating the truth whether it be continuing to listen to Murdoch or listening to a competitor. The listener has a choice and that choice will set the truth free. However, when the government intervenes, what we have is a sustained disruption of truth. No matter where a listener goes, he/she will receive false information. We should advocate preserving freedom of speech. The government shouldn't be in the business of determining what's truth and lies. The people are much better at this. Eventually, the truth always prevails without government intervention. Our founding fathers knew this and that's the reason they founded the first amendment. Please don't let the government censor information.
If change entails taking a crap on our freedom of speech then I don't want any part of it. The fairness doctrine is the government telling citizens what they can and can't say. If this is implemented, the greatest part of America will die.
Yea, I'm so excited for this guy to implement the fairness doctrine so our free country can be censored. Police state censorship for the win! Can't wait...
I once heard the American government now employs more people than the private industry. Something's got to give. I'm secretly rooting for Obama to continue this absurd increase in the government so that we can finally achieve REAL change, not just the continuation of this non-sustainable system of gimme, gimme that must have the founding fathers rolling in their graves.
b96miata's comment seems like an observation of the Slashdot community's past posts and bares no comment toward ones race. Please put away your race card Sir.
For those who are good a solving problems, this is a means to discredit their potential. I'm fairly certain specific tests weren't given to the scientists who invented the A-Bomb. There are those who have a diversity of skills which enable them to solve a variety of problems. Those types of people are ousted from the typical "IT" employment test, regardless of their brilliant mind. Finding robots for a specific job is one things but when the medium means black balling a person who has invested their life in obtaining general understanding in many areas, it either means they're ill-prepared for the market or they're a genious.
Some of the tests I've submitted to during the interview process are ridiculous. As an engineer, I rely on tables and references to do my work. To be expected to have memorized arbitrary, inconsequential tidbits has no bearing on problem solving and algorithmic writing skills.
I watched a great documentary recently (maybe one of my top 3) called Bigger, Stronger, Faster. It takes an unbiased look at doping, sheds light on this debate as well as provide some common misnomers about performance enhancing drugs.
One point from the movie worth mentioning was that athletes who withdraw blood months before and inject it back into their body prior to a competition is illegal. However, the same effect can be obtained by training at high altitude which is legal. There are grey areas in this debate.
Allowing this type of precedent into private homes will only get worse with time. This is an invasion of privacy on the n'th degree. This sounds like the beginning of the Orwellian state
I think what the above poster meant was that their attempts to control their population is similar to many extremist muslim countries. I think it's safe to say, based on China's past, the Chinese government tends to try and control what the average Chinese citizen sees and hears. If their philosophy is correct, why wouldn't they let the chips fall where they may and let truth prevail? To me, their attempts to silence information is testament to their fear their ideals won't hold water.
All I'm asking is why won't the Chinese government engage in intellectual debates instead of pretending differences don't exist?
Right. Practically speaking, China's hands are tied. If China were to react over anything said by an athlete, they would have an International public relations disaster on their hands. They know this, feel cornered and is why they have attempted to make athletes sign contracts to shut them up.
Slashdot Mirror
"So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely..."
I love how Britain tries to represent free people.
The liver contains larger amounts of iron (a ferrous metal). I wonder if it hurts the mice to be lifted by their livers. I wonder if the liver warms and cooks while they're still alive.
Good thought. I'll take it a step further. Assuming you're right, one application in my mind would be a way of creating a volume of space despite forces pushing in. For example, lets say you put a bunch of positive monopoles in a balloon. The monopoles would repel each other thus keeping the balloon inflated regardless of pressure exerted on the outside of the balloon.
Now here's the part I'm going to take a thought to the n'th degree. Suppose you had enough of these monopoles in a balloon exerting enough force against the pressure from the outside of the balloon. Say our balloon is analogous to the universe and space/time. Now suppose the exertion outward is so great space/time is warped thus creating a white hole.
Not sure that would work but I'd be interested to hear form someone why that's crazy talk.
I believe you may be a racist for wanting less white people in Europe. See how it goes both ways?
>> Also, I know you only brought up the Fairness Doctrine, but I'm curious about how you feel about the defunct Equal Time rule. I know it still has problems like what do you do with third party candidates, or when there are a billion people running for nomination, but on its face... just equal time exclusively to political candidates people are expected to make educated choices between... do you believe this is still a market issue?
This makes no sense on a philosophical level (free markets) and on a practical level. You bring up third party cadidates? Ha! That's the least of our worries. Try religious representation. And who's to say what's "fair"? The powers that be want the fairness doctrine to silence those who oppose them. That's it in a nut shell. This is an act out of the communist/fascist/dictator play book. If implemented, it will be the beginning of the end and maybe that's what they want.
>> ...it is ludicrous to declare that it's not the president's job to uphold campaign promises.
I never said anything about Obama upholding his campaign promises. I said what he's doing goes against the first amendment freedom of speech. It's wrong for the government to try and silence anyone. Period. End of story. The free flow of information is the most important thing ever. When we start regulating what people can and can't say, we limit ideas and that can lead to wrong choices in policy, experimentation and happiness.
>> An honest question, though it will surely sound loaded: do you believe that Rupert Murdoch has the right to MORE freedom of speech than I do, simply because he can afford the antennas?
I believe the free markets have a way of balancing out ideas. Let's take your scenario for Rupert Murdoch. If Rubert Murdoch bought an antenna and espoused that white poodles are vicious animals that should all be locked up in a cage, there will be those that disagree because obviously white poodles are nice dogs. Eventually, people will be turned off by this agenda and look elsewhere for more accurate opinions of white poodles.
Now let's flip the scenario. Let's say Rupert Murdoch espoused that crocodiles are vicious creatures that shouldn't be kept as pets for fear they may turn on their owners. This makes sense. If the government intruded on Rupert's message and required equal time on for someone to say that crocodiles are harmless, lovable creatures that every household should own, we'd have a mixed message of the truth.
In one scenario, the listener can make up their mind, back the appropriate broadcaster thus elevating the truth whether it be continuing to listen to Murdoch or listening to a competitor. The listener has a choice and that choice will set the truth free. However, when the government intervenes, what we have is a sustained disruption of truth. No matter where a listener goes, he/she will receive false information. We should advocate preserving freedom of speech. The government shouldn't be in the business of determining what's truth and lies. The people are much better at this. Eventually, the truth always prevails without government intervention. Our founding fathers knew this and that's the reason they founded the first amendment. Please don't let the government censor information.
If change entails taking a crap on our freedom of speech then I don't want any part of it. The fairness doctrine is the government telling citizens what they can and can't say. If this is implemented, the greatest part of America will die.
Yea, I'm so excited for this guy to implement the fairness doctrine so our free country can be censored. Police state censorship for the win! Can't wait...
I once heard the American government now employs more people than the private industry. Something's got to give. I'm secretly rooting for Obama to continue this absurd increase in the government so that we can finally achieve REAL change, not just the continuation of this non-sustainable system of gimme, gimme that must have the founding fathers rolling in their graves.
b96miata's comment seems like an observation of the Slashdot community's past posts and bares no comment toward ones race. Please put away your race card Sir.
Step 1: Start an open source Quadrant project Step 2: Develop a Quadrant SQL to Oracle bridge Step 3: Profit?
For those who are good a solving problems, this is a means to discredit their potential. I'm fairly certain specific tests weren't given to the scientists who invented the A-Bomb. There are those who have a diversity of skills which enable them to solve a variety of problems. Those types of people are ousted from the typical "IT" employment test, regardless of their brilliant mind. Finding robots for a specific job is one things but when the medium means black balling a person who has invested their life in obtaining general understanding in many areas, it either means they're ill-prepared for the market or they're a genious.
Some of the tests I've submitted to during the interview process are ridiculous. As an engineer, I rely on tables and references to do my work. To be expected to have memorized arbitrary, inconsequential tidbits has no bearing on problem solving and algorithmic writing skills.
I watched a great documentary recently (maybe one of my top 3) called Bigger, Stronger, Faster. It takes an unbiased look at doping, sheds light on this debate as well as provide some common misnomers about performance enhancing drugs. One point from the movie worth mentioning was that athletes who withdraw blood months before and inject it back into their body prior to a competition is illegal. However, the same effect can be obtained by training at high altitude which is legal. There are grey areas in this debate.
Allowing this type of precedent into private homes will only get worse with time. This is an invasion of privacy on the n'th degree. This sounds like the beginning of the Orwellian state
I think the word you're looking for is: Woo
I think what the above poster meant was that their attempts to control their population is similar to many extremist muslim countries. I think it's safe to say, based on China's past, the Chinese government tends to try and control what the average Chinese citizen sees and hears. If their philosophy is correct, why wouldn't they let the chips fall where they may and let truth prevail? To me, their attempts to silence information is testament to their fear their ideals won't hold water.
All I'm asking is why won't the Chinese government engage in intellectual debates instead of pretending differences don't exist?
I'd make a comment here but I'm afraid Comcast is watching me. *Adjusts tin foil hat* Seriously though, they're always watching me.
Right. Practically speaking, China's hands are tied. If China were to react over anything said by an athlete, they would have an International public relations disaster on their hands. They know this, feel cornered and is why they have attempted to make athletes sign contracts to shut them up.
Exactly! And can it run while submerged in beer?
Wait a second. AOL is still around?!?
/picky
Sadly this is not 100% possible. There's no way around particle tunneling and so complete silence simply isn't feasible -- at least for now.
LOL - that's funny. Too true. Too true.
This was on the Drudge Report two days ago. Slashdot is starting to become just another slow news outlet.
Step 1.) Create super fast Internet
Step 2.) Lobby anti-net neutrality
Step 3.) Charge extra for super fast Internet
Step 4.) Profit!
I'm building a gaming machine. Is the RPM and random/seek response times of HDs the most important thing as far as gaming performance is concerned?