I would argue that food and health care are not rights either.
The Bible says, "If a man will not work, neither should he eat".
The Declaration of Independence lists "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as our inalienable rights.
Don't see the food or health care are rights -- things that cannot legally be denied to someone else. It costs me money to allocate food and health care to benefit something else. I don't see that he has the right to it. On the other hand, I have a responsibility, a moral obligation, to provide for my fellow man within reasonable limits.
Nothing in the article says that MS is getting rid of ACL's, just that they are going to start writing software that is function with local admin. Slashdot title is misleading (what a shocker).
Tons of software from MS & others on Windows won't work correctly unless user is admin (and support for su equivalent from Windows is weak).
It is like running everything as dba, sure its convenient, but you are just begging for trouble. Worse, when all software is written assuming dba, changing it to run as a regular user is painful. This is the same situation as most windows software is in. Pain will be worse the XP/SP2 by far.
MS should also added chroot to Windows if they are serious about security. Such a simple concept, such a valuable addition. Of course, much windows software goes boom if you introduce chroot, but they should still add it to Windows.
I did not misquote, I paraphrased accurately, but not completely. Here is what Darwin wrote.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, around which, according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
Now, Darwins said basically the same thing as what I paraphrased. I then gave an example there is extremly problematic (bellows to flow-thru lung transition).
You attacked me as either ignorant or dishonest. I am neither, despite your assertions to the contrary. Note, I did not say that creationism was thus proved (its not). Just the to say magically that Darwinism is proved and meets the valid scientific theory qualitification of disprovability does not mean it is so.
Honest reflection requires that the failure of the Bellows/flow-thru transmition to be considered disproof should require a valid scientific objection to the disproof. If I were to suggest you were ignorant or dishonest, that would be an ad-hominem attack. However, I notice that you did not refer to the lung transition in your response, perhaps you forgot, or did not have time to look up the answer.
Oh yeah, with respect to PreCambrian rabbit fossils, if I had an example (not that I am aware of any), I am quite certain it would be explained as an anomoly due to inclusion, or as a fake. I'm note even suggesting that the explanation would be false, just that such a counter example would likely be discarded as invalid.
What would be considered a valid falsification of the "Theory of Evolution"? Darwin himself proposed a falsifiability test, and when it was shown to be false, the theory changed to match the evidence.
Don't believe me? Paraphrasing, but Darwin stated that if there were gaps that could not be explained with transitional forms, the theory would fall apart. There is no possible way to fill the gap between dinosaur (bellow lungs) and birds (flow-through lungs) with a myriad of transitional forms. This does not seem to disqualify the theory, yet it seems to be a real problem with Darwinism. Darwins was very much opposed to incorporating saltation (abrupt changes).
Modern evolutionary theory includes saltation, though many do not seem to understand this as it is not widely taught (typical school textbook incorporate long-discredited evolutionary science, ontology recapitulates phylogeny is still in some current textbooks)
To a non-believer in evolution, it is hard to distinguish this from the invisible dog arguments.
I'm been writing Windows apps for a long time. With a well-engineered app (no Visual Basic for starters) this is not an issue. Deploying and updating well-engineering windows apps across scads of workstations is simply not a problem, done it many times.
You must lock down windows to keep all of the trojans, trashy games, etc. that will destroy your stable environmment otherwise.
Need I point out that I've seen thin client apps having problems on certain machines? The browser itself is very fat and full of inconsistencies.
Lots of app can be engineered either way without particular consequence, however the PC can run thin-client apps just fine, where a think client can not run a fat app where it makes sense.
Even better, you are repeating what the original article said. Gives support to the accuracy of your statement.
MS has the starter edition primarily for political reasons, attempts to sell only in poor countries with high piracy rates. As the article said, consumer tend to buy hardware sans O/S and load it with a $5 pirate copy. Unless they can buy the pirate copy of started edition for $3, what incentive is there?
I don't imaging to many of us are going to cry long over MS misfortune in this case. They have plenty of fortune in other cases.
So why is it so hard to conceive that MS desires something that is self-serving which simply happens to be good for others as well.
For example, there are laws against stealing. This protects me (in my interest) and it protects others as well. A law against theft is good for everybody (except the lawbreakers).
Also note MS is not saying software patents must go away entirely as I suspect that they don't consider that in their self interest.
MS is not evil for the pure joy of being evil, they are evil for common reasons -- greed, pride, greed, hubris, greed, envy, etc.
You can put a valve on the tank that controls the rate of flow and shuts it off when no power is desired.
Storing compressed air as a energy source is done occasionally. It has the advantage of trickle charge when a high-pressure (but low-volume) source is available since it can be discharged at a high rate. Air-starters for diesel-engines are a common example. Engine vacuum is same idea (negative-pressure instead of positive, but otherwise the same). Engine vacuum is used to prevent having to use more electic motors or power transmission linkage, so its quick practical.
This is pretty inefficient means to store and recover energy however (ever notice how hot a air-pump becomes, this is waste heat). Power densities are relatively poor. Tanks are bulky, pressure is limited (safety). Throw in a phase change in the working fluid and you get much better power-density, but this means you either use something that is liquid at room temp under pressure, or you have to chill the tank. Discharging the working fluid is undesirable in many cases due to cost of replacing or recapturing the working fluid (unless you use something free like air). Pretty good for emergency (one-time) power though.
For power-grid scale (megawatts+) stored energy, pumping water uphill at night and flowing downhill during the day is the most practical stored energy system in general use.
Water is cheap, the machinery is centralized (capital costs are reasonble), energy losses are managable (1/3-1/2 of the energy). Power density is ok, discharge-rate is good. This works because cost of power generation changes dramatically based on the load, i.e., cheapest source is used 100% of the time, high demand power source are several to many times more exensive than the cheapest source on any power grid.
Come up with a better way, you will be very wealthy indeed. If you could make something 90% efficient with low capital costs, you could make many billions of bucks.
Sure, but about.com for $690 million in 2000, sell for $410 million in 2005. Yep, great reason to party. Have to admit it beats the fire out of many other possible tech purchases in 2000 though.
My company has been writing software for this very function based on active tracking, zone tracking, etc. based on GPS enabled phone technology (not quite ready for primetime yet) Our deployed cost will be much less than the Boston system too.
Let me assure you, one of the HUGE advantages to the criminal justice system is the cost of home detention vs. conventional detentiion. -- You even get to charges to home detention people for the cost of the GPS service.
Home detention (especially the active, zone-based approach) is a huge advantage to the detainee -- much more freedom, change to continue working, live with family etc.
Eventually, nearly all non-violent offenders will be on this system.
Seems to me that there is plenty of Black-Body radiation coming from a living person
Stefan-Boltzmann Law
E = sT^4
where E = the blackbody irradiance [in W m-2]
s = 5.67x10-8 W m-2 K-4 (Stefan-Boltzmann constant)
T = the temperature of the radiating body [in degrees K]
Human is roughly 37C or 310K
Comes out to about 510 W/m^2, if I've done the math correctly. Most adults human have surface area in the 1-2 m^2 range. (women 1.6 m^2, men 1.8 m^2)
For comparison, sun's power leverl at surface of earth is around 1000 W / m^2
No, I know human is not a perfect blackbody, but I am fairly sure that it absorbs/emits a significant port of the black-body potential.
Collecting only the area covered by a sweater should still yield a quite usable enery rate.
However, the characteristic wavelength is way off 310K vs. 6000K (making these cells useless). Conceivably, a different photo-electric response could capture 310K light effectively. Thought I am not familiar with any such material (nor anyone researching it)
Converting 30% of it into electricity (temporarily) that is eventually dissipated as waste heat would not alter the energy balance that warms the earth.
If you consider a mass of air moving with a given velocity, it will contain a given amount of kinetic energy (say 10 kwh).
Bringing the air to rest via frictional dissipation will generate 10 kwh of rest heat.
Bring the air to rest via 20% efficient turbines will generate 2 kwh of electrity and 8 kwh of waste heat. The 2 kwh of electricity will eventually be converted into 2 kwh of waste heat (while powering our computers, etc).
If you don't want the waste heat to affect the environment, you have to convert it into EM and radiate it into space. Since this is not going to happen on any large scale, seems to me that the heat load on the environment is the same whether you allow the wind to blow naturally or be artifically slowed via turbines
Let me get this straight. You think the solution to nuclear waste is to dump it into the sun, and you expect me to believe your arguments are intelligent? I am laughing way too hard. I'm pro-nuke, but I would prefer sanity when trying to make the case for it.
If I could put nuclear waste into orbit cheaply, I certainly would not want to dump it into the sun. I might decide I want it back for all of the good stuff in it and it would be much harder to get.
Much more likely would be to process and vitrify it (turn it into glass) and store it here on earth. Who knows, I might even be able to discover a way to cook off the nuclear reactions much more quickly, rendering the materials safe.
BTW, Fusion would create new radioactive by-products, massiive amounts of waste heat, but still would be more environmentally friendly than burning coal.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that food and health care are not rights either.
The Bible says, "If a man will not work, neither should he eat".
The Declaration of Independence lists "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as our inalienable rights.
Don't see the food or health care are rights -- things that cannot legally be denied to someone else. It costs me money to allocate food and health care to benefit something else. I don't see that he has the right to it. On the other hand, I have a responsibility, a moral obligation, to provide for my fellow man within reasonable limits.
Yes, and the fact that China does not give a hoot regarding Intellectual Property and Copyright should not concern India in the least.
If you read the article, MS is planning this as part of this program.
Oddly, a prior poster considered this a part of some conspiracy to keep out underfunded 3rd party software.
Nothing in the article says that MS is getting rid of ACL's, just that they are going to start writing software that is function with local admin. Slashdot title is misleading (what a shocker).
Tons of software from MS & others on Windows won't work correctly unless user is admin (and support for su equivalent from Windows is weak).
It is like running everything as dba, sure its convenient, but you are just begging for trouble. Worse, when all software is written assuming dba, changing it to run as a regular user is painful. This is the same situation as most windows software is in. Pain will be worse the XP/SP2 by far.
MS should also added chroot to Windows if they are serious about security. Such a simple concept, such a valuable addition. Of course, much windows software goes boom if you introduce chroot, but they should still add it to Windows.
Been away, did not have a change to reply.
I did not misquote, I paraphrased accurately, but not completely. Here is what Darwin wrote.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No
doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades,
more especially if we look to much-isolated species, around which,
according to the theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we
take an organ common to all the members of a class, for in this latter case
the organ must have been originally formed at a remote period, since which
all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to
discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed,
we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become
extinct.
Now, Darwins said basically the same thing as what I paraphrased. I then gave an example there is extremly problematic (bellows to flow-thru lung transition).
You attacked me as either ignorant or dishonest. I am neither, despite your assertions to the contrary. Note, I did not say that creationism was thus proved (its not). Just the to say magically that Darwinism is proved and meets the valid scientific theory qualitification of disprovability does not mean it is so.
Honest reflection requires that the failure of the Bellows/flow-thru transmition to be considered disproof should require a valid scientific objection to the disproof. If I were to suggest you were ignorant or dishonest, that would be an ad-hominem attack. However, I notice that you did not refer to the lung transition in your response, perhaps you forgot, or did not have time to look up the answer.
Oh yeah, with respect to PreCambrian rabbit fossils, if I had an example (not that I am aware of any), I am quite certain it would be explained as an anomoly due to inclusion, or as a fake. I'm note even suggesting that the explanation would be false, just that such a counter example would likely be discarded as invalid.
What would be considered a valid falsification of the "Theory of Evolution"? Darwin himself proposed a falsifiability test, and when it was shown to be false, the theory changed to match the evidence.
Don't believe me? Paraphrasing, but Darwin stated that if there were gaps that could not be explained with transitional forms, the theory would fall apart. There is no possible way to fill the gap between dinosaur (bellow lungs) and birds (flow-through lungs) with a myriad of transitional forms. This does not seem to disqualify the theory, yet it seems to be a real problem with Darwinism. Darwins was very much opposed to incorporating saltation (abrupt changes).
Modern evolutionary theory includes saltation, though many do not seem to understand this as it is not widely taught (typical school textbook incorporate long-discredited evolutionary science, ontology recapitulates phylogeny is still in some current textbooks)
To a non-believer in evolution, it is hard to distinguish this from the invisible dog arguments.
Dude, ever heard of VM/370
or maybe Multics
or, more obscure but even earlier Atlas
Someone sends me a Word document. I open it with Open Office. What aspect of licensing applies to me who never licensed Word?
I'm been writing Windows apps for a long time. With a well-engineered app (no Visual Basic for starters) this is not an issue. Deploying and updating well-engineering windows apps across scads of workstations is simply not a problem, done it many times.
You must lock down windows to keep all of the trojans, trashy games, etc. that will destroy your stable environmment otherwise.
Need I point out that I've seen thin client apps having problems on certain machines? The browser itself is very fat and full of inconsistencies.
Lots of app can be engineered either way without particular consequence, however the PC can run thin-client apps just fine, where a think client can not run a fat app where it makes sense.
Even better, you are repeating what the original article said. Gives support to the accuracy of your statement.
MS has the starter edition primarily for political reasons, attempts to sell only in poor countries with high piracy rates. As the article said, consumer tend to buy hardware sans O/S and load it with a $5 pirate copy. Unless they can buy the pirate copy of started edition for $3, what incentive is there?
I don't imaging to many of us are going to cry long over MS misfortune in this case. They have plenty of fortune in other cases.
So why is it so hard to conceive that MS desires something that is self-serving which simply happens to be good for others as well.
For example, there are laws against stealing. This protects me (in my interest) and it protects others as well. A law against theft is good for everybody (except the lawbreakers).
Also note MS is not saying software patents must go away entirely as I suspect that they don't consider that in their self interest.
MS is not evil for the pure joy of being evil, they are evil for common reasons -- greed, pride, greed, hubris, greed, envy, etc.
Yes, of course. After all, we know how well the UN ran the Oil for Food program in Iraq
You can put a valve on the tank that controls the rate of flow and shuts it off when no power is desired.
Storing compressed air as a energy source is done occasionally. It has the advantage of trickle charge when a high-pressure (but low-volume) source is available since it can be discharged at a high rate. Air-starters for diesel-engines are a common example. Engine vacuum is same idea (negative-pressure instead of positive, but otherwise the same). Engine vacuum is used to prevent having to use more electic motors or power transmission linkage, so its quick practical.
This is pretty inefficient means to store and recover energy however (ever notice how hot a air-pump becomes, this is waste heat). Power densities are relatively poor. Tanks are bulky, pressure is limited (safety). Throw in a phase change in the working fluid and you get much better power-density, but this means you either use something that is liquid at room temp under pressure, or you have to chill the tank. Discharging the working fluid is undesirable in many cases due to cost of replacing or recapturing the working fluid (unless you use something free like air). Pretty good for emergency (one-time) power though.
For power-grid scale (megawatts+) stored energy, pumping water uphill at night and flowing downhill during the day is the most practical stored energy system in general use.
Water is cheap, the machinery is centralized (capital costs are reasonble), energy losses are managable (1/3-1/2 of the energy). Power density is ok, discharge-rate is good. This works because cost of power generation changes dramatically based on the load, i.e., cheapest source is used 100% of the time, high demand power source are several to many times more exensive than the cheapest source on any power grid.
Come up with a better way, you will be very wealthy indeed. If you could make something 90% efficient with low capital costs, you could make many billions of bucks.
Sure, but about.com for $690 million in 2000, sell for $410 million in 2005. Yep, great reason to party. Have to admit it beats the fire out of many other possible tech purchases in 2000 though.
My company has been writing software for this very function based on active tracking, zone tracking, etc. based on GPS enabled phone technology
(not quite ready for primetime yet) Our deployed cost will be much less than the Boston system too.
Let me assure you, one of the HUGE advantages to the criminal justice system is the cost of home detention vs. conventional detentiion. -- You even get to charges to home detention people for the cost of the GPS service.
Home detention (especially the active, zone-based approach) is a huge advantage to the detainee -- much more freedom, change to continue working, live with family etc.
Eventually, nearly all non-violent offenders will be on this system.
And why are you revealing confidential reports on the Internet
Seems to me that there is plenty of Black-Body radiation coming from a living person
Stefan-Boltzmann Law
E = sT^4
where E = the blackbody irradiance [in W m-2]
s = 5.67x10-8 W m-2 K-4 (Stefan-Boltzmann constant)
T = the temperature of the radiating body [in degrees K]
Human is roughly 37C or 310K
Comes out to about 510 W/m^2, if I've done the math correctly. Most adults human have surface area in the 1-2 m^2 range. (women 1.6 m^2, men 1.8 m^2)
For comparison, sun's power leverl at surface of earth is around 1000 W / m^2
No, I know human is not a perfect blackbody, but I am fairly sure that it absorbs/emits a significant port of the black-body potential.
Collecting only the area covered by a sweater should still yield a quite usable enery rate.
However, the characteristic wavelength is way off 310K vs. 6000K (making these cells useless). Conceivably, a different photo-electric response could capture 310K light effectively. Thought I am not familiar with any such material (nor anyone researching it)
Converting 30% of it into electricity (temporarily) that is eventually dissipated as waste heat would not alter the energy balance that warms the earth.
Yeah, just think of the impact on the red state / blue state mix. Where did all of the blue states go?
AH, the 13-month calendar.
13 months, 4weeks each, plus an extra saturday after week 52 (2 extra Saturdays on leap years).
Now you have calendar reform that I could support.
Gee, and I thought crocodiles, turtles and snakes where supposed to be reptiles, just like the dinos
But if you are a cop, you're glad stupidity is not a crime because you would be busy 24x7 arresting people.
This makes no sense to me.
If you consider a mass of air moving with a given velocity, it will contain a given amount of kinetic energy (say 10 kwh).
Bringing the air to rest via frictional dissipation will generate 10 kwh of rest heat.
Bring the air to rest via 20% efficient turbines will generate 2 kwh of electrity and 8 kwh of waste heat. The 2 kwh of electricity will eventually be converted into 2 kwh of waste heat (while powering our computers, etc).
If you don't want the waste heat to affect the environment, you have to convert it into EM and radiate it into space. Since this is not going to happen on any large scale, seems to me that the heat load on the environment is the same whether you allow the wind to blow naturally or be artifically slowed via turbines
Let me get this straight. You think the solution to nuclear waste is to dump it into the sun, and you expect me to believe your arguments are intelligent? I am laughing way too hard. I'm pro-nuke, but I would prefer sanity when trying to make the case for it.
If I could put nuclear waste into orbit cheaply, I certainly would not want to dump it into the sun. I might decide I want it back for all of the good stuff in it and it would be much harder to get.
Much more likely would be to process and vitrify it (turn it into glass) and store it here on earth. Who knows, I might even be able to discover a way to cook off the nuclear reactions much more quickly, rendering the materials safe.
BTW, Fusion would create new radioactive by-products, massiive amounts of waste heat, but still would be more environmentally friendly than burning coal.
Mmmm, blowing up the earth. Now, that is a plan.