A small increase in O2 levels (25% O2 instead of current 21%) would cause a significant increase in forest fires, don't recall where but there is supposed to be historical data for this happening in Paleozic era.
Oxygen toxicity is a known health risk. 40% is sometimes used as a safety threshold for treatment, but it is possible to suffer from oxygen toxicity at 21% at higher pressures (sea-level atmosphere or greater). Some O2 treatments exceed 90% O2 for short period (hours or days), treatment for the bends being a good case in point.
Yes, there is a reason I mentioned snuff films and pornography -- as I stated -- To make an example: I support the constitutional right or you or others to lobby for their position, even if the majority considers it extreme. Just like I do for the accused in thie story.
Seems to me that shutting down the PTC would be censorship too. The PTC has every right to complain to the FCC if that is what they want to do. This is political free speech, constitutionally guaranteed and all. Other's have equal right to lobby FCC for the opposing view.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech. It is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to broadcast this over the public airwaves. And government (acting on behalf of the public) does have the right to regulate what appears on such a public medium.
This regulation does not include the right to suppress political speech. However, suppressing speach is not the same denying the priviledge of airing snuff-videos (to use an extreme example).
You lobby the FCC to express your view where they should draw the line. This form of free speach is protected, and as far as I know unlikely to be changed by either the PTC or the ACLU.
You don't like FCC guidelines, lobby for you viewpoint. Tell them you want Desparate Housewives, tell them you want snuff films and pornography. It's your right to speak out that that is protected. As is the PTC's right for the same.
You charge your own mother? What an ingrate. There are some things you should just do -- like move away from your parents, so that they don't call you to fix their PC.
Road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the vehicle weight.
Having more axles/tires helps spread the load offsetting some of the damage, but just because a Hummer and a Civic both have 32 psi road pressure does not mean equal road wear. The flexing of the road surface is greater in the case of the heavier vehicle because the flexing is spread out over a much larger area than just the contact surface (because a road is much more rigid that the tire) And to support 2000 pounds of load requires roughly twice the flexing that 1000 pounds of load requires.
Cars cause very little road damage compared to trucks, even Hummers are much less than weight than and drastically less damage than a loaded semi.
Automobile mileage is a bigger factor in road congestion related costs than it it is in road damage costs.
Of course in many areas a big road damage cost factor is related to weather damage.
Listen to what I said. These are evidence, they are not frauds. The question is not "are they evidence" the question is the quality of the evidence.
If you reject actual evidence as fraud, a creationist will reject listening to you. Rather, you should discuss the quality and quantity of evidence. From a creationish viewpoint, evolutionists "explain away" creationist evidence, as opposed to explaining evidence. Thus the use of the quotes in my post. Certainly, you believe Darwinist / Neo-Darwinist theories if you are trying to convince someone of the superiority of your ideas, you do not call them stupid, ignorant, frauds -- you discuss the relative merit of the ideas.
Both of these articles are genuine, in that they were discovered via normal (non-fraudulent) methods -- i.e., Don Patton, a creationist geologist, did not bury Malachite man in place, then dig it up as evidence (which would be fraud). Similarly for the hammer.
So again I say, evaluate the quality of the evidence.
Impuning my motives as non-scientific when all I'm try to say is that all evidence should be evaluted scientifically strikes me as a little unfair. Evidence that goes against the grain deserves careful scientific treatment, that's why we refine theories.
There are a lot of crackpots that have theories against the evidence, however, scientistics closing there mind against opposing evidience is just as bad for science.
If lab results were faked, you are talking about fraud. If lab result are incorrect due to sloppy technique, etc. we dispute the claims as non-repeatable or experimental error.
For once, MS is doing a good thing, Though I'm sure they will spin it to their advantage, this is one of the actual advantages of commercial software to users of such. Since vendor is making money off of the software, they can afford to take the risk of patent infringement.
All commercial software vendors should do this.
And yes, MS products have been affected by this before. MS gets sued over patent infringement regularly, and some of the IP holders have threatened to go after individual users.
Get a clue, there has been evidence to suggest just that.
Well documented manufactured articles have been found intact in layers of coal such as an obvious hammer. There are several others. Check out malachite man, there are several others. Such artifacts are anomalous findings are rare, but even if Genesis flood accounts for the fossils, you would expect them to be rare.
The question is not "Is there evidence?", the question is "Is there sufficient evidence?" Is the evidence compelling, how does it compare to the opposing evidence? You know, actual scienctific investigation not just misinformed blanket statements re: the science or lack thereof.
I know that the links I referenced are religious sites, but these counter Darwinian examples are much easier to find there. I mentioned 2 examples I know to be well-documented (there are others). As you would expect, both are "explained away" by Darwinians, but creationists prefer the non-Darwinian explanation.
Actually, in the Greek language, oinos (wine) was the word used to describe both alchoholic and non-alchoholic version. There is no separate word in Koine (common) Greek of the time. Same think in Hebrew too.
Often, you can tell from context which was referred too, sometimes you can't
The effects of drinking wine to drunkeness are described in several places in the Bible. There are also other references to wine that are obviously non-alchoholic.
To be more precise, the Bible does not ever condemn the drinking of wine (oinos), but it does condemn drunkeness in most situations as well as strong drink. Dunkeness in the form of anethesia is specifically recommended in at least one passage.
It is amazing how many people that claim to be Christians (not to impune their motives) are in fact quite ignorant of what the book says. One would expect non-Christians to be generally ignorant of the Bible, but if you claim to base your life on it, you ought to at least know something about it.
Actually if you read the context Paul was talking about the Old Testament writings. He was referring to the texts that Timothy grew up with being taught to him by his mother and grandmother. As these were Jews, this would be the texts they were using.
The Hebrew text in Genesis does not allow 1 day = 1 billion years. Evening ignoring the meaning in Hebrew, the English translation is clear enough to leave no doubt -- and the evening and the morning were the nth day. I period and dark and one period of light per day.
Later the Sabbath (7th day of the week) is explained that God rested on the 7th day (so basically you should too). Nor does the Bible really permit the creation account to be an allegory, the Bible is littered with references to Adam, Eve, etc. as literal history.
Believe the Bible or believe in evolution. Asserting Generis teach 1 day = 1 billion year is ill-founded Biblically (though a popular attempt to reconcile Bible and evolution).
The Bible claims to be the inerrent word of God, given to men via word by word (verbal) inspiration -- literally God-breathed.
If the Bible is not scientifically accurate, chuck it, its not worth the paper it is written on. The Bible could be right, Darwin could be right, they can both be wrong, but they can not both be right.
Alternatives to the Bible exist, such as the Koran, etc. They each have the same problem in terms of scientific accuracy -- if incompatible with science, you have to disregard them or disregard science (at least the part that disagrees). In the case of Bible, etc., since they claim divine authorship they are either truth (divine) or error (manmade and non-authoritarian). Divine authorship is a heady claim, and I reject any such text maiking this claim that can be proven false.
The problems are not in the security model, it is in the implmentation. You don't have use root/admin all the time, servides can run as a specific user with the correct security levels, etc. I don't recall a chroot feature in Windows, but certainly most of the security model in the O/S is just fine and adding chroot or other missing security features should not change Windows.
Changing all the apps the use the security model correctly would be challenging, but 99.9% of apps on Windows are not written by MS.
XP SP2 is the indication that MS is finally willing to break apps (incrementally) in order to fix security issues.
What security model do you think is missing in Windows? I say it is the mounds of cruddy implmementation that is the problem, not the model. So yes, I believe MS can fix security without chucking everything.
One might even argue that MS could theoretically make security better than Unix since the Windows API offer may more functions than the Unix kernel and could support fine-grained security control over those API's
Even the unbelievablity stupid integration of IE that has been so target rich security-wise is still an implmentation issue. If user ran with regular account and IE ran with that security what would be the security model difference Windows and Unix. Nope, it's crappy implmentation all the way down.
I personally hope they fix it, the world would be a better place. If MS provided security updates for free to current and old versions of Windows for say 20 years, that would be have a unmitigated good thing as far as I am concerned. Just think, my box and Internet connectionwould not have to survive 10K with of probes, worms, etc. every month.
Excuse me, but that is the basis of socialism, aka income redistribution. Many argue that this is in fact the right thing to do. The idea is that when the government robs Peter to pay Paul it is moral and good. When Peter does it as an independent contractor it is wrong. In the story of Robin Hood, he is the good guy.
Of course, they are wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, the rich man without compassion to his fellow man is wrong, but stealing from him to "correct the injustice" is not right either.
Sounds to me like the situation in the Roman Empire whereby in order to sell goods you had to get a merchants license from the empire.
Just as roman numbers have letters that have values, the same thing is true in Greek (in which the Bible was written). If you take the Greek name of the mythical founder of Rome and evaluate it as a number, you get 666. Look at the lnaguage in the verse quoted more carefully, "the number of his name" is 666. This fits the interp I believe to be most probably quite nicely.
The book of Revelation is usually grossly misinterpreted because people ignore the introduction where John says he is desribing things which must "shortly come to pass" -- I forget the exact verse I think its in Rev 1:3-6
Most of the book is highly figurative, that paints a set of pictures describing the early church. I don't recommend its study unless you have a strong background in Old Testament prophetic language.
Radiation temperatures are not measuring the amount of heat escaping as radiation, it is a measure of the temperature of the heat source. Heat != Temperature.
Radiation temperature is a function of the temperature of the object and the emissivity curve of said object having nothing to do with net heat transfer.
A givent object will at a higer temperature emit more radiation (watts/metter^2) than when cooler. The radiation profile is also skewed toward higher frequency with increasing temperature. Google on "blackbody radiation" for futher explanation or try here
Microsoft purchased the rights to QDOS from Seattle Computer Products (SCP) for $50K. MS did not steal, nor reverse engineer anything to get MS-DOS. They licensed PC-DOS to IBM and per agreeement with IBM, MS was allowed to sell their own version of DOS as MS-DOS. IBM re-wrote lots of the code due to numerous bugs in MS-DOS, naming their version PC-DOS.
SCP also retained the rights to license MS-DOS as well as long as it was done in conjunction with a computer purchase. You even saw magazines ads to but a copy of DOS bundled with a naked CPU chip.
Tim Patterson of SCP has been know to say he was glad to get $50K from MS for this deal. MS did not inform SCP of their deal with IBM (would you?). Now, although one may feel MS should have been more generous, or SCP should have been wiser, this was at least a legitimate and mutually acceptable arrangement between MS and SCP. Tim later became an MS employee.
IBM is generally considered to have screwed up on this deal as well, letting the fox inside the chicken coup.
Actually, I would argue that implemtation was innovative. By accounts, MS spent considerable effort coming up with details necessary for this to work somewhat transparently. This is and should be protected by copyright -- you should not take MS code as your own.
The idea was not however novel. The patent should fall.
1 down, 100,000 to go.
But I am of the opinion that software should never receive a patent. Software patents are harming innovation and the public, not helping them. Consitutional purpose of patents is the help the public by promoting innovation, not as a means of supporting more lawyers.
No, read the article. The supposed mechanism is hormesis. This is the logic whereby you consume small amounts of toxins because there is a health benefit to consuming small amounts of toxins. Thoough it sounds crazy, it is not.
This is also the reason a little radiation or a little arsenic may be good for you.
You might want to check the price of palladium before you think energy will suddenly become too cheap to meter. About $225/ounce or $7.90/gram today, and if cold fusion takes off you can bet demand for palladium would increase.
If it is primarily a surface effect, it may be possible to engineer the CF process to work on palladium plated electrodes, driving down the amount of palladium required dramatically though.
If fusion makes free energy though, you might want to read Midas World by Frederick Pohl. This novel explored free fusion power, not a bad read either, though nothing special. Should be available in libraries. Here's a link
Most women (and men) are whores. Negotiations are delicate, (Most quite pointedly do not like to be thought of as whores), but if the payment is right, the desired services can be purchased.
Programming is like prostitution. First you do it for love, then you do it for friends, and then you do it for money.
Men have nipples for a simple reason, originally, men were destined to bear children. After Eve ate the fruit, God cursed women with the responsibility for childbirth. Male nipples are just a reminder of what we almost got stuck with.
I am one of two partners for an IT consulting company with 12 employees. One day, not long ago a customer said he need a few copies of MS Office, and could we take care of that for him. My partner received spam at almost that exact time for Cheap MS Office, like $80 or so. And said, Hmmm, maybe spam is not so bad after all.
Partner is not stupid (one of the more talented people I know, be developing software for 25 years, and his stuff is good). However, he had never considered what makes spam work, and what spammers are. I immediately said, don't do it, spam is evil. After a little Googling, I showed him where spammer was strongly suspected to be a importer of pirate software from China. This is nothing I want to be associated with, nor does he.
A lot of spam is delivering (or failing to deliver) fraudulent goods or services. Supported by outright theft of computer services via hacked computers to send their spam. Or directly criminal, where the point of the spam is to engage in criminal activity such as investment fraud, Ponzi schemes, etc.
All spammers deserve to be in hell. They cause huge amounts of monetary and social damage to millions of innocent people based on their own greed hoping to make some easy money. Malware promoters deserve the same.
Does the sin of avarice ring a bell? I'm a religious man. I believe spammers will get what they deserve eventually, unless they repent. Preach the gospel of repentance and forgiveness and maybe we can get less spam in the deal too.
KJV: And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea...
heaven comes from word ouranos whihh can be accurately translated as universe in some contexts. However, it is usually better translated as "heaven" or "sky" as it refers to spiritual or starry heavens (where God dwells), or a atmosphere, and only occasionally universe -- which must be determined from context when possible.
There is not enough context in the Greek to be certain in this verse, but the word earth is translated from ge (basis for gaia) and sea is from thalassa. Both of these forms are correctly rendered as land/earth sea/ocean. Given the comparative here, ouranos is far more likely referring to sky/atmosphere thus referring to birds not ETS.
Slashdot Mirror
A small increase in O2 levels (25% O2 instead of current 21%) would cause a significant increase in forest fires, don't recall where but there is supposed to be historical data for this happening in Paleozic era.
Oxygen toxicity is a known health risk. 40% is sometimes used as a safety threshold for treatment, but it is possible to suffer from oxygen toxicity at 21% at higher pressures (sea-level atmosphere or greater). Some O2 treatments exceed 90% O2 for short period (hours or days), treatment for the bends being a good case in point.
Yes, there is a reason I mentioned snuff films and pornography -- as I stated -- To make an example: I support the constitutional right or you or others to lobby for their position, even if the majority considers it extreme. Just like I do for the accused in thie story.
Seems to me that shutting down the PTC would be censorship too. The PTC has every right to complain to the FCC if that is what they want to do. This is political free speech, constitutionally guaranteed and all. Other's have equal right to lobby FCC for the opposing view.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech. It is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to broadcast this over the public airwaves. And government (acting on behalf of the public) does have the right to regulate what appears on such a public medium.
This regulation does not include the right to suppress political speech. However, suppressing speach is not the same denying the priviledge of airing snuff-videos (to use an extreme example).
You lobby the FCC to express your view where they should draw the line. This form of free speach is protected, and as far as I know unlikely to be changed by either the PTC or the ACLU.
You don't like FCC guidelines, lobby for you viewpoint. Tell them you want Desparate Housewives, tell them you want snuff films and pornography. It's your right to speak out that that is protected. As is the PTC's right for the same.
You charge your own mother? What an ingrate. There are some things you should just do -- like move away from your parents, so that they don't call you to fix their PC.
Road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the vehicle weight.
Having more axles/tires helps spread the load offsetting some of the damage, but just because a Hummer and a Civic both have 32 psi road pressure does not mean equal road wear. The flexing of the road surface is greater in the case of the heavier vehicle because the flexing is spread out over a much larger area than just the contact surface (because a road is much more rigid that the tire) And to support 2000 pounds of load requires roughly twice the flexing that 1000 pounds of load requires.
Cars cause very little road damage compared to trucks, even Hummers are much less than weight than and drastically less damage than a loaded semi.
Automobile mileage is a bigger factor in road congestion related costs than it it is in road damage costs.
Of course in many areas a big road damage cost factor is related to weather damage.
Listen to what I said. These are evidence, they are not frauds. The question is not "are they evidence" the question is the quality of the evidence.
If you reject actual evidence as fraud, a creationist will reject listening to you. Rather, you should discuss the quality and quantity of evidence. From a creationish viewpoint, evolutionists "explain away" creationist evidence, as opposed to explaining evidence. Thus the use of the quotes in my post. Certainly, you believe Darwinist / Neo-Darwinist theories if you are trying to convince someone of the superiority of your ideas, you do not call them stupid, ignorant, frauds -- you discuss the relative merit of the ideas.
Both of these articles are genuine, in that they were discovered via normal (non-fraudulent) methods -- i.e., Don Patton, a creationist geologist, did not bury Malachite man in place, then dig it up as evidence (which would be fraud). Similarly for the hammer.
So again I say, evaluate the quality of the evidence.
Impuning my motives as non-scientific when all I'm try to say is that all evidence should be evaluted scientifically strikes me as a little unfair. Evidence that goes against the grain deserves careful scientific treatment, that's why we refine theories.
There are a lot of crackpots that have theories against the evidence, however, scientistics closing there mind against opposing evidience is just as bad for science.
If lab results were faked, you are talking about fraud. If lab result are incorrect due to sloppy technique, etc. we dispute the claims as non-repeatable or experimental error.
Gee, I guess you never heard of SCO.
For once, MS is doing a good thing, Though I'm sure they will spin it to their advantage, this is one of the actual advantages of commercial software to users of such. Since vendor is making money off of the software, they can afford to take the risk of patent infringement.
All commercial software vendors should do this.
And yes, MS products have been affected by this before. MS gets sued over patent infringement regularly, and some of the IP holders have threatened to go after individual users.
Get a clue, there has been evidence to suggest just that.
Well documented manufactured articles have been found intact in layers of coal such as an obvious hammer. There are several others. Check out malachite man, there are several others. Such artifacts are anomalous findings are rare, but even if Genesis flood accounts for the fossils, you would expect them to be rare.
The question is not "Is there evidence?", the question is "Is there sufficient evidence?" Is the evidence compelling, how does it compare to the opposing evidence? You know, actual scienctific investigation not just misinformed blanket statements re: the science or lack thereof.
I know that the links I referenced are religious sites, but these counter Darwinian examples are much easier to find there. I mentioned 2 examples I know to be well-documented (there are others). As you would expect, both are "explained away" by Darwinians, but creationists prefer the non-Darwinian explanation.
Actually, in the Greek language, oinos (wine) was the word used to describe both alchoholic and non-alchoholic version. There is no separate word in Koine (common) Greek of the time. Same think in Hebrew too.
Often, you can tell from context which was referred too, sometimes you can't
The effects of drinking wine to drunkeness are described in several places in the Bible. There are also other references to wine that are obviously non-alchoholic.
To be more precise, the Bible does not ever condemn the drinking of wine (oinos), but it does condemn drunkeness in most situations as well as strong drink. Dunkeness in the form of anethesia is specifically recommended in at least one passage.
It is amazing how many people that claim to be Christians (not to impune their motives) are in fact quite ignorant of what the book says. One would expect non-Christians to be generally ignorant of the Bible, but if you claim to base your life on it, you ought to at least know something about it.
Actually if you read the context Paul was talking about the Old Testament writings. He was referring to the texts that Timothy grew up with being taught to him by his mother and grandmother. As these were Jews, this would be the texts they were using.
The Hebrew text in Genesis does not allow 1 day = 1 billion years. Evening ignoring the meaning in Hebrew, the English translation is clear enough to leave no doubt -- and the evening and the morning were the nth day. I period and dark and one period of light per day.
Later the Sabbath (7th day of the week) is explained that God rested on the 7th day (so basically you should too). Nor does the Bible really permit the creation account to be an allegory, the Bible is littered with references to Adam, Eve, etc. as literal history.
Believe the Bible or believe in evolution. Asserting Generis teach 1 day = 1 billion year is ill-founded Biblically (though a popular attempt to reconcile Bible and evolution).
The Bible claims to be the inerrent word of God, given to men via word by word (verbal) inspiration -- literally God-breathed.
If the Bible is not scientifically accurate, chuck it, its not worth the paper it is written on. The Bible could be right, Darwin could be right, they can both be wrong, but they can not both be right.
Alternatives to the Bible exist, such as the Koran, etc. They each have the same problem in terms of scientific accuracy -- if incompatible with science, you have to disregard them or disregard science (at least the part that disagrees). In the case of Bible, etc., since they claim divine authorship they are either truth (divine) or error (manmade and non-authoritarian).
Divine authorship is a heady claim, and I reject any such text maiking this claim that can be proven false.
The problems are not in the security model, it is in the implmentation. You don't have use root/admin all the time, servides can run as a specific user with the correct security levels, etc. I don't recall a chroot feature in Windows, but certainly most of the security model in the O/S is just fine and adding chroot or other missing security features should not change Windows.
Changing all the apps the use the security model correctly would be challenging, but 99.9% of apps on Windows are not written by MS.
XP SP2 is the indication that MS is finally willing to break apps (incrementally) in order to fix security issues.
What security model do you think is missing in Windows? I say it is the mounds of cruddy implmementation that is the problem, not the model. So yes, I believe MS can fix security without chucking everything.
One might even argue that MS could theoretically make security better than Unix since the Windows API offer may more functions than the Unix kernel and could support fine-grained security control over those API's
Even the unbelievablity stupid integration of IE that has been so target rich security-wise is still an implmentation issue. If user ran with regular account and IE ran with that security what would be the security model difference Windows and Unix. Nope, it's crappy implmentation all the way down.
I personally hope they fix it, the world would be a better place. If MS provided security updates for free to current and old versions of Windows for say 20 years, that would be have a unmitigated good thing as far as I am concerned. Just think, my box and Internet connectionwould not have to survive 10K with of probes, worms, etc. every month.
Excuse me, but that is the basis of socialism, aka income redistribution. Many argue that this is in fact the right thing to do. The idea is that when the government robs Peter to pay Paul it is moral and good. When Peter does it as an independent contractor it is wrong. In the story of Robin Hood, he is the good guy.
Of course, they are wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, the rich man without compassion to his fellow man is wrong, but stealing from him to "correct the injustice" is not right either.
Sounds to me like the situation in the Roman Empire whereby in order to sell goods you had to get a merchants license from the empire.
Just as roman numbers have letters that have values, the same thing is true in Greek (in which the Bible was written). If you take the Greek name of the mythical founder of Rome and evaluate it as a number, you get 666. Look at the lnaguage in the verse quoted more carefully, "the number of his name" is 666. This fits the interp I believe to be most probably quite nicely.
The book of Revelation is usually grossly misinterpreted because people ignore the introduction where John says he is desribing things which must "shortly come to pass" -- I forget the exact verse I think its in Rev 1:3-6
Most of the book is highly figurative, that paints a set of pictures describing the early church. I don't recommend its study unless you have a strong background in Old Testament prophetic language.
Radiation temperatures are not measuring the amount of heat escaping as radiation, it is a measure of the temperature of the heat source. Heat != Temperature.
Radiation temperature is a function of the temperature of the object and the emissivity curve of said object having nothing to do with net heat transfer.
A givent object will at a higer temperature emit more radiation (watts/metter^2) than when cooler. The radiation profile is also skewed toward higher frequency with increasing temperature. Google on "blackbody radiation" for futher explanation or try here
At least around here, the discount self-serve's fill their trucks at the same rack as the majors. At least thats what the truck drivers tell me.
History lesson.
Microsoft purchased the rights to QDOS from Seattle Computer Products (SCP) for $50K. MS did not steal, nor reverse engineer anything to get MS-DOS. They licensed PC-DOS to IBM and per agreeement with IBM, MS was allowed to sell their own version of DOS as MS-DOS. IBM re-wrote lots of the code due to numerous bugs in MS-DOS, naming their version PC-DOS.
SCP also retained the rights to license MS-DOS as well as long as it was done in conjunction with a computer purchase. You even saw magazines ads to but a copy of DOS bundled with a naked CPU chip.
Tim Patterson of SCP has been know to say he was glad to get $50K from MS for this deal. MS did not inform SCP of their deal with IBM (would you?). Now, although one may feel MS should have been more generous, or SCP should have been wiser, this was at least a legitimate and mutually acceptable arrangement between MS and SCP. Tim later became an MS employee.
IBM is generally considered to have screwed up on this deal as well, letting the fox inside the chicken coup.
See history of MS-DOS or another one for this.
Life is often stranger than imagination.
Actually, I would argue that implemtation was innovative. By accounts, MS spent considerable effort coming up with details necessary for this to work somewhat transparently. This is and should be protected by copyright -- you should not take MS code as your own.
The idea was not however novel. The patent should fall.
1 down, 100,000 to go.
But I am of the opinion that software should never receive a patent. Software patents are harming innovation and the public, not helping them. Consitutional purpose of patents is the help the public by promoting innovation, not as a means of supporting more lawyers.
No, read the article. The supposed mechanism is hormesis. This is the logic whereby you consume small amounts of toxins because there is a health benefit to consuming small amounts of toxins. Thoough it sounds crazy, it is not.
This is also the reason a little radiation or a little arsenic may be good for you.
You might want to check the price of palladium before you think energy will suddenly become too cheap to meter. About $225/ounce or $7.90/gram today, and if cold fusion takes off you can bet demand for palladium would increase.
If it is primarily a surface effect, it may be possible to engineer the CF process to work on palladium plated electrodes, driving down the amount of palladium required dramatically though.
If fusion makes free energy though, you might want to read Midas World by Frederick Pohl. This novel explored free fusion power, not a bad read either, though nothing special. Should be available in libraries. Here's a link
Most women (and men) are whores. Negotiations are delicate, (Most quite pointedly do not like to be thought of as whores), but if the payment is right, the desired services can be purchased.
Programming is like prostitution. First you do it for love, then you do it for friends, and then you do it for money.
Men have nipples for a simple reason, originally, men were destined to bear children. After Eve ate the fruit, God cursed women with the responsibility for childbirth. Male nipples are just a reminder of what we almost got stuck with.
Windows iteself -- It prefers to crash at startup.
I am one of two partners for an IT consulting company with 12 employees. One day, not long ago a customer said he need a few copies of MS Office, and could we take care of that for him. My partner received spam at almost that exact time for Cheap MS Office, like $80 or so. And said, Hmmm, maybe spam is not so bad after all.
Partner is not stupid (one of the more talented people I know, be developing software for 25 years, and his stuff is good). However, he had never considered what makes spam work, and what spammers are. I immediately said, don't do it, spam is evil. After a little Googling, I showed him where spammer was strongly suspected to be a importer of pirate software from China. This is nothing I want to be associated with, nor does he.
A lot of spam is delivering (or failing to deliver) fraudulent goods or services. Supported by outright theft of computer services via hacked computers to send their spam. Or directly criminal, where the point of the spam is to engage in criminal activity such as investment fraud, Ponzi schemes, etc.
All spammers deserve to be in hell. They cause huge amounts of monetary and social damage to millions of innocent people based on their own greed hoping to make some easy money. Malware promoters deserve the same.
Does the sin of avarice ring a bell? I'm a religious man. I believe spammers will get what they deserve eventually, unless they repent. Preach the gospel of repentance and forgiveness and maybe we can get less spam in the deal too.
Rev 5:13
...
KJV: And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea
heaven comes from word ouranos whihh can be accurately translated as universe in some contexts. However, it is usually better translated as "heaven" or "sky" as it refers to spiritual or starry heavens (where God dwells), or a atmosphere, and only occasionally universe -- which must be determined from context when possible.
There is not enough context in the Greek to be certain in this verse, but the word earth is translated from ge (basis for gaia) and sea is from thalassa. Both of these forms are correctly rendered as land/earth sea/ocean. Given the comparative here, ouranos is far more likely referring to sky/atmosphere thus referring to birds not ETS.