Floride replaces iodine in the thyroid, upsetting the metabolism, causing weight gain and lethargy.
I checked on your assertion and several reputable sources agree with you (i.e. outside of the anti-flouride crowd).
Since flouride in food and water is almost inescapable nowadays, can the effect from flouride be overcome with higher levels of iodine in your diet or through supplements? I've heard of anti-radiation supplements that provided superdoses of iodine so that radioactive iodine from fallout wouldn't be taken up by your thyroid. Would a similar plan exclude flouride as effectively?
This also provides a causal hypothesis for an experiment I've been conducting on myself. I've been taking sugar pills or one-a-day multivitamins using a double-blind method (and capsules to hide the differences in flavor and pill shape) to confirm or refute my subjective observation that on days when I take a multivitamin in the morning, my energy level is much higher through that day. I just checked, and the multivitamin I'm using in the test does indeed have 300% RDA of iodine (as potassium iodide). When this experiment is complete, I think I've found my next experiment...
Work at a real company where millions of dollars change hands on a daily basis and Notes/Domino is the only solution.
This is a different conclusion at some places where billions of dollars change hands on a daily basis.
For instance, Disney uses Exchange/Outlook. And not just Disney Parks, Columbia Pictures, ESPN, ABC, Disney Interactive (Kingdom Hearts I and II), Disney Consumer Products, or... but the entire enormous media/marketing conglomerate that is Disney, Inc. uses Exchange/Outlook. There are rare exceptions, usually acquisitions that haven't been fully assimilated yet (*cough* Pixar). I actually don't know how many people that is, but it's comfortably in six figures, probably in the range of half a million people.
Somewhat interesting place to work, if only to watch the people who've seriously partaken of the kool-aid. There are some strange cats in the cubicle farms at Disney. Also there's a suprising number of incredibly hot asian women. If you haven't had a few sips of the kool-aid before starting work, however, it's just another job at a huge US company.
The result is that homebuilt aircraft are more likely to have safety features (e.g. modern auto engines,
Gotta stop you right there. Automobile engines and aircraft engines are very different beasts for very good reasons. Automobile engines normally run at 20% of rated power with occasional bursts to 80% rated power and only the rarest burst to 100% rated power. Aircraft engines normally run at 80% rated power and will routinely spend several minutes at 100% power during each flight (takeoff and climbout). That critical "expected normal load" results in a very different engine design.
If you try to put an automobile engine in an airplane without substantial redesign to account for the different expected loads, you're basically guaranteeing premature catastrophic failure.
The result is that homebuilt aircraft have as good a safety record as commercially built designs.
Check your facts. Homebuilts have a much higher accident rate per flight-hour. Still pretty low, though.
Your attempt to paint your opposition as anti-child is ludicrous. I'm very much pro-child. I'm so much in favor of children that I'm for deliberately wanted, happy children. Planning to have three little ones ourselves (though we'll stop and see after two if she's up for a third).
Contraception provides help to parents in controlling how many children they have. When we provide health aid and improve infant mortality from 60% to 5%, the same parental strategy (have as many kids as you can cause you don't know how many will live) is a recipe for population explosion and ecological disaster. Like Somalia, like Ethiopia, like...
Being for contraception is being for what is most important about life: quality (for adults and for children), not quantity of living things. The evangelical Christian leaders in the article you quoted have the same bankrupt ethics they've been parroting for tens upon tens of years.
[...] a chairman who gives money [... for] contraception aid to the poor (ok, I'm not so sure of THIS good deed, but it's fitting within Gates' left wing morality)
You were right the first time, it's a very good deed. On this topic, it's the Roman Catholic church that's backing the wrong horse for all the wrong reasons.
The real problem is that Pope John Paul II made his original pronouncement ex. cathedra. To the Roman Catholic church, that means God himself said it. Gonna be tough for them to back down. No matter how much pain, misery and dispair that statement brings to poor populations around the world.
Thank goodness the Gates foundation is doing the right thing in the face of the church's continued mistake.
Ross
Not only do the non-religious have morals, but we often disagree with the religious on what ought to be labelled right and wrong...
Out of curiosity, why would it be important to purify the water before separation into hydrogen/oxygen?
Well, if there's salt in the water and you attempt electrolysis, you'll get chlorine gas and NaOH in solution. It's actually the modern process for producing sodium lye (aptly named the chlor-alkali process). Once you run out of chloride ions to convert to chlorine, then you start to produce hydrogen gas, but now you've got some high pH liquid in your reaction vessel, and you probably have other reactions going on that you didn't intend...
Communism is actually the ideal system until you add the human factor.
I would say the problem is a slightly different one: communism doesn't scale past the group where everyone knows everyone else. In order to work, communism requires trust based on first-hand observation. Shaker communities, kibbutzim, families are common examples of successful communal groups (some families more than others). All have worked because people observe that others are actually contributing as much as they can and taking out no more than they need.
The upper limit on "everyone knowing everyone" appears to be in the range of 100 to 150 people.
A pure democracy stinks in some ways because you can never come to a consensus to get things done, but perhaps the world would be better off because you wouldn't see a massive government with a tax-and-spend mentality like we have here in America today.
Are you sure? I think modern media is pretty much able to whip the population into a frenzy when needed by "The Powers That Be(tm)" to get something voted in. I think a pure democracy stinks because if you can whip up a mob, you can get just about anything you want. Ultimately, pure democracies stink because there are no protections for the minority.
Remember, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Constitutionally limited republics get much less done (a very good thing), but are still subject to creeping expansion of powers and eventual subversion of the critical checks and balances once enough power is in the hands of the executive (police & military). Nothing is perfect forever.
Did you think that you refuted a single point I made? Or that you made a single point in your post?
You take full advantage of the violent defense of your carcasses, all the while taking pot-shots at those who put their lives on the line for your comfort and convenience.
My grandfather is retired military, my dad is retired military, I've worked closely with the military on security projects and know far better than you the score on that one. I like the military. I despise the government sending the brave people in that military off to die for a lie. Looks like you need a new hypothesis.
You people with your sniffery about "needing to get the truth out there" never stop to think that YOU and those like you would be the first to have your heads roll - literally - should our enemies ever gain advantage over us.
You've bought into the fear. There is no need to be this afraid. You've got a much higher chance of drowning in a pool than being killed by a terrorist. Take some personal responsibility for your self-defense and grow a backbone. As a gun owner and a fierce supporter of the 2nd amendment, I'm embarassed that you call yourself a conservative. Bush supporters all seem to have checked their manhood with their brains at the door.
You stink.
Well, I did just work in the yard. But you're gullible, and I can take a shower to fix the only stink on me.
Little deluded neo-cons like yourself are vile little worms always willing to spend someone else's blood so that you can feel (but not be) a little safer. You've supported those who are making the US and the world less safe (there are more terrorists now because of Iraq). Every time a US soldier dies in Iraq I want to find a neo-con like yourself, knock you flat on your ass and scream: IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT YOU IGNORANT SHIT!
It's your fault, you utterly ignorant fuck. You voted for him twice.
Where do you live? Clearly not on the Gulf Coast, as there are plenty of places here who'd be happy to have ten oil refineries built.
I've lived in Houston and been scuba diving and fishing up and down the Gulf Coast. I know that the residents of Matogorda are not particularly thrilled with their local refineries (after one notable accident about four years ago). I know that the refineries closer to Houston are similarly considered an eyesore and a downward pressure on the neighbor's property value.
your idyllic notion of how the free market works
Based on this statement alone, it's clear that you have dramatically misunderstood me. I do not believe that 100% free markets result in social good or even fair outcomes for producers and consumers (as some lassie-faire advocates do believe). In general, I believe there are categories of regulation (public safety, truth in advertising, warranty enforcement, consumer advocacy, etc.) that are almost universally needed, and many other industry-specific categories of regulation (internet open carrier rules, etc.) that are also quite important.
See California's externally-created artificial energy crisis for proof of that. We can send you some tapes from here in Texas of Enron traders laughing at brownouts while they make $100/kWh from turning off generators during peak demand,
I've watched the Enron documentary (I currently live in Southern California), and I got pretty indignant at the blatant supply manipulations to inflate profits, joking about taking grannie's life savings et. al. They confirmed my belief that government regulation of critical resources is not simply a good idea, but an absolute necessity to maintain a functioning market.
What I don't accept without a lot more information is that the oil companies' lack of new refinery construction is entirely or mostly greed based. I think they could make more money with more capacity and I'm pretty sure they know that. I know for a fact that in Southern California, where I live now, there was one attempt to build a new refinery near Long Beach, and another attempt to expand one of the refineries currently operating in Long Beach. These efforts have been ongoing for at least three years. Both projects have been stopped cold by lawsuits and red tape put up by the local community.
The combined interests of property value, public safety, and environmental concerns (among many others) are all against new industrial development, even in areas already zoned for industry. Once those concerns are removed or made irrelevant, let's see if the oil companies build any more capacity. Until then, there are simply too many reasons not to build for anyone to conclusively say that it's all about greed.
As I understand it, they're not actually dying to build new refineries. That's B.S. that has been made up for you.
Your argument doesn't pass even basic muster. The issue isn't whether the incumbents are building refineries, but whether or not anyone is building refineries. When new entrepreneurs can't build refineries to cash in on the gasoline shortage, it isn't a lack of will, it's an impossibly high barrier to entry.
Stated another way: if you are convinced that there are hundreds of millions to be made by selling gasoline from a new refinery (which there is) and that it isn't too hard to build a new refinery, you should put together a business plan, convince some investors, and get in on the easy money. Even a little refinery could convert some of that excess supply and make you and your investors a nice bundle of cash... All you have to do is figure out where to put your new refinery.
No? Hmmm.
Or is driving the cost of their product down somehow in their interest?
No, maximizing their profit is, and with the profits that are being returned, you can bet that every entrepreneur who knows about oil is trying to find a way to get their part of those profits. But those new competitors can't get in. Because you can't build a new refinery in the US.
So it doesn't matter if the oil companies want to build, they aren't where the real test of the cost of entry happens.
No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!
Perhaps you could let the oil companies know of a location where they could set up a new refinery. It would need to be near existing oil distribution systems and the neighbors and local community ordinances will need to not oppose the development. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion.
These prices and profits can also be explained by limited supply (in gasoline and other refined products) and high demand. Limiting supply in many markets is only possible with a cartel, but there are exceptions. It all depends on the cost of entry. In refined oil products, there is no new entry. It is currently impossible to build a new refinery in the US for any amount of money. So you have an upper cap on supply with no upper cap on demand. High prices are the result as the demand curve shifts against the supply curve. Econ 101.
The problem is the "build absolutely nothing anywhere at any time" attitude that residents and communities currently have. Which they (and you and I) will start paying for with higher fuel prices. Which I don't mind. Personally, I think the government ought to phase in an additional 50% tax on gasoline to push the price still higher (and all of the interest in alternate fuel and power that will engender).
Native Indians had little or no concept of ownership of land, animals, tools and many other things.
Actually, this is a commonly believed falsehood that needs to be eradicated. For instance, there are two problems with the original "sale" of manhattan for a few beads. First, the settlers did not negotiate with the actual owners of the island. They negotiated with a different tribe that happened to be on Manhattan at the time and was willing to talk to them. Second, what the natives sold the european settlers was hunting and farming rights for one season (which they may have had the right to trade, given that they had a relationship with the actual owners of manhattan).
The refusal of the settlers to acknowledge the claim of the actual owners and the refusal to exit Manhattan upon the expiration of their lease might lead you to believe that either the european settlers were a bloodthirsty, racist lot who felt that "might makes right" or that the natives had a much more sophisticated concept of land ownership that the settlers just couldn't seem to grasp.
The real US history is much more interesting, and a lot less flattering, than the high-school history books let on. Ever wonder why there are so many towns named Springfield? Or <something>field? The settlers didn't arrive and find untamed wilderness, they landed in someone's tilled field, enslaved him, sent him back to europe (or just killed him), and took his land. Ever think about what really happened in the Louisiana purchase? In that enormous marking on a map were about 100 Indian countries that had already sent ambassadors to other north american countries (and some to europe). And yet, somehow, we bought those hundred soverign nations and the land they were on from France. Without ever checking with those hundred separate sovereign nations. Did you know that until the middle of the 20th century, the US broke every treaty ever made with any native tribe? 100%. Not a single treaty was honored. Pretty impressive record if you ask me.
But many Indian tribes had concepts of land and use-rights every bit as sophisticated as we use today. Don't let the "made for Hallmark" history book misinform you as to that point.
Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism.
My family has always been communal (like most nuclear families in the west). The Shakers and Quakers lived in communal economic enclaves. The modern kibbutz (Israeli communal farm) has been a repeatable success with some failures (actual successes depend highly on the individuals involved).
An important component of a successful communist economy is trust in the social contract (people really are putting in according to their abilities and taking according to their needs), engendered by reliable knowledge. This can only realistically happen in small communities where everyone can know everyone else.
Communism has been tested on a small scale and it works beautifully over and over again. But it doesn't scale beyond about 150 people.
Oh, and there are many roads to totalitarianism. Fascist Germany went straight to totalitarianism with a mostly-capitalist economy churning away the whole time. Not that you disagree, as I agree that large scale communism could only possibly work under a centrally controlled system which precludes personal freedoms. Just that it's not the only way to end up with a centrally controlled system that prohibits personal freedoms.
Humans have souls, Chimps don't have souls. It's easy to tell the difference. Prove that a fetus has a soul, or go dive onto a pike with your pro-life supersticions.
First, I'll ask you to define what a soul is. Then I'll ask you to substantiate your assertion that a human has a soul. No need for proof here, just one piece of reliable evidence that there might be more than just complex chemistry going on. Back to you: you seem to be equating the presence of a soul with "worthy of protection"... when does the soul appear in this equation and how are you so certain of that?* You're pro-choice, as am I, but your argument is preposterous.
Personally, I believe that conciousness is a fully embodied emergent property of a sufficiently sophisticated biological control system. When you die, your conciousness fades out and that's the end of it.** I can't prove any of that, or disprove the existence of a soul, but an embodied mind requires many fewer complications than the whole "soul" concept. Occam's razor and all that.
Regards, Ross
* we can't define the word "life" adequately, so why would we agree upon when life starts? It's this disagreement that is the real core of the debate and is the reason why the pro-choice group is superior: they'll let you make up your own mind about when life begins for yourself and your children. The pro-life group refuses to do this, pretending that the definition is black and white (and has always been black and white), when there's really a huge band of grey (and what was black and what was white was different in times past).
** Corollary: this is the only existence you've likely got. Conclusion: you should stop wasting the time you've got and start living a joyful life (easier said than done, but it could probably start with less time at the office).
Yeah, it's much better to be killed in the streets for political demonstrations than to be asked to pay for music you enjoy.
I hate to be one of those spelling nazi's, but you misspelled "...go to federal prison for failing to have documentation proving you're allowed to listen to the music you enjoy."
In your defense, it does seem to be a common error these days. Happy to help.
Sadly, since our law does not admit any kind of guilt below the age of 10, he was right, and AIUI I couldn't have laid a finger on him even as I watched him keying the car.
Why not? Does the U.K. have no juvenile courts? In the U.S., I'd grab him by the collar of his shirt, drag him to his home (if you know where it is), tell his parents what he was doing. Alternatively, if you want a potentially more significant impact on his behavior, hold on to him and call the police (assuming you carry a mobile phone). When the police arrive, hand him over with an accurate description of his vandalism and your contact information.
Here, kids can be charged with all sort of crimes. Charged as juvevniles, that is. There are whole court systems for handling juvenile crimes. Occasionally, they even get charged as adults, though personally, I think that's a serious mistake.
My fiance and I have been thinking of emigrating to Ireland after we visited last year, but I'm not convinced that the U.K. is actually any better off than the U.S. in what's really wrong (wars on abstract nouns, et.al.).
Regards, Ross
Re:The Myth of the 80 Hour Week
on
On Point On Slacking
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have not met a single soul outside of the medical and legal profession whose actual and typical workload could not be accomplished in 30-40 hours of real honest work.
And I have yet to see a creative job where it is practical to work more than 20-25 hours on task week after week. This includes time spent during overtime and/or excessive overtime. Other time is spent exchanging ideas with other people, rest breaks (recharging eyes, body, and mind; allowing ideas to percolate), company meetings, dealing with personal issues (these become a larger part of the workday when overtime has been mandated), going to the bathroom, etc. Best of breed software development teams average 20 on-task hours per week per person. Typical teams average 12-15 on-task hours per week per person.
In my experience as a software developer, as a team lead, and as an entrepreneur: 30-40 hours of "real honest work" for a creative worker can not be done in the average week. Perhaps in one exceptional week (the crunch week), but not the third crunch week in a row. If you force the issue by standing over shoulders or requiring lots of overtime, or whatever: you guarantee low quality results.
To expect that people are on task for all or even most of their time in the office is just dumb. To expect that creative people can work overtime and sacrifice other parts of their lives without consequences that will impact job productivity is even more dumb.
The problem is that most of them spend at least 2 hours a day screwing around, reading Slashdot, reading CNN, chatting in the aisles, or doing make-work while waiting for somebody else to deliver something that they need to continue their legitimate work.
This kind of slack time is critical to have in the "normal" schedule. If you don't have time like this, your organization has no room to react to new demands. Fundamentally, it's the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. The first is worthless without the second. I say this as a supervisor of people who read slashdot (hi, Mike).
If you disagree, please take some time out of your busy schedule, read Slack and Peopleware and afterwards, I'll be more than happy to continue the conversation.
I have a theory that most software written today is written by human beings
I have a theory about the brontosaurus. Which is mine.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
Often the users are better UI developers than programmers are.
I might say that each user brings a different perspective to the discussion, and maintaining perspective on the UI they're writing is a skill that is very difficult for most developers to maintain.
Restates, I disagree that the user is a better UI designer, but instead, they can help developers get outside their normal "deep in the guts" perspective. I intensely dislike the assumption that developers are "bad at UI development". Most are actually pretty good at identifying poor designs and making them better.
Me, I think it's useful when American reporters don't divulge American secrets.
When something wrong is a secret: the right thing... the moral thing to do is to reveal the secret.
The current system of the President deciding that the government can ignore the laws he finds annoying and then make a secret out of that is seriously messed up. But those checks and balances that might prevent such abuses are annoying and slow the government down in its pursuit of terrorists. So apparently, we should do without checks and balances.
That it's happening more and more often is bad enough. That much of the population doesn't get pissed off about it is embarassing. You'd think that nobody in this country reads history. Or reads.
Nice to keep everyone's head on their shoulders that way.
Different kind of secret (exactly where troops are located). Nothing like the president directly violating a law (FISA). But thanks for trying to confuse the issue in support of the current president's propaganda campaign.
To be honest, I don't know how 1024-bit DH key exchange stacks up against RSA or a 128-bit single key cipher I know in GPG, 4096-bit public/private keys are fairly typical. You'll sit at the keyboard a while generating random data for it, but assuming that factoring large numbers remains NP-hard, your key won't be cracked any time soon, and it doesn't take that much longer to encrypt a message than using a 1024-bit key.
You're right about the government, though. If they knew how to crack it, they'd still put up just as much of a fight, to make certain those they were hoping to listen to wouldn't realize the lack of security.
The NSA does not need a back door with 128 bit encryption they can attack it head on.
2^61 / 2^59 = 2^2 hours or 4 hours to crack 128 bit inscription.
Something's not right...
PS: Now this is a vary low ball estimate. I was just pointing out that they could crack 128 bit encryption. However, if you use 2 * 128 bit primes to make a 256 bit key your probably safe, unless they found new math to make cracking such key's easy.
Ah. I see the problem. You're confusing public key encryption and single-key encryption. Nominal key lengths for public/private key systems is 4096 bits not 128-bits. In RSA, 4096-bits is believed to be almost as secure as 128-bit IDEA. Nobody does 128-bit public key encryption. Factoring a 128-bit number to two primes is solvable with modern PC's in hours. No 10k CPU supercomputer needed.
Assuming a known plaintext brute-force attack against 128-bit IDEA, on average, you'll find the key after searching half of the keyspace. So you'll have to test 2^127 keys.
Now, lets assume for the moment that the NSA does have your 10k CPU "16 billion complete key tests per second". So they can test 2^54 keys per second. 2^127 / 2^54 = 2^73 seconds. At 2^25 seconds per year, that's a mere 2^49 years, and since the universe is about 2^34 years old, that's only thirty two thousand times as long as the universe has been around.
That's a long time. A little longer than four hours. And a specialized CPU that can completely encrypt 2 billion blocks with different keys per second (let alone 8 pipelines in one chip) is thousands to millions of times faster than current state of the art hardware. Sure the NSA has stuff better than can be found on the market. But not that much better.
The new math is definitely still a threat. Actually, that's the threat against 4096-bit public key encryption, but with the UK government making such a squawk about giving up keys, I'd say they haven't cracked it yet.
here on Earth emotions trump logic. Terrorism, by its definition is fear. Fear of random, horrifying, deadly violence against your family and friends and countrymen.
But terrorism only works when you let yourself be afraid. We don't have to be afraid. The government and the media are both very interested in having us be afraid. The government wants it because that fear can be translated into reasons for expansions of power, which eventually reward the corporations who pay the lobbyists that compensate the politicians. The media wants it because that fear translates into more advertising dollars during the airtime that panders to fear.
But you don't have to accept either group's assertion that you should be afraid. You should think carefully and act rationally and live your life deliberately aligned with your principles. Being afraid of the vague threat of terrorism doesn't do that. It directly and completely prevents that.
people react with emotion. The[y] feel fear. They also feel an incredibly strong, compelling emotion for justice and to make things right. I do not mock this, I salute it.
You're conflating a bunch of things together as if they were the same thing. They're not. Having a healthy understanding of risk means avoiding dangerous situations based on a reasonable fear of harm. Being paralyzed by fear to the point that you're willing to sacrifice your freedoms to feel a little security is pure insanity. Wanting to find and punish those who have harmed us is a healthy desire for justice. Wanting to keep anyone who might harm us locked away without any charge or even a promise of a trial runs afoul of so many principles Americans should hold dear (prior restraint, innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc.) that the fear has again caused people to set aside their core principles.
Pure insanity. There is no reason to be so afraid. There is good reason to want to correct what has gone wrong. There is good reason to want to make sure that the police can do their jobs. There is no reason to believe that the police couldn't do their job with the laws before 9/11.
You are a slave to the fear you have been told to feel and I pity you. As long as you are afraid, you will never be free.
If you are a software developer and you want to live in Sweden, you want to apply for a software developer job in Ireland, get a work visa, establish residency (3-5 years), then move to Sweden for a year under a simple EU visa. During that year in Sweden, learn the language (if you haven't already), get a job (do not expect to find lots of jobs for software developers), and then apply for permanent residency (2-4 more years).
Ireland is currently the gateway into the EU for software developers as your job description results in an expedited work visa application, which is an effective pathway to EU residency. Once you have EU residency, you have a great deal of freedom to move around from there.
Good. I hope there are more guys out there like you who hamstring their own efficiency. Makes competing that much easier.
Depending on the day and the task, I design and code between 2 and 5 times faster than the typical "solid" developer and only very rarely do I meet anyone in the same ballpark as myself.
Most other developers I know use IDE's as their primary editor while I only rarely depart from emacs for specific tasks. Doesn't seem to have slowed me down.
I think you're going to have to rely on more than just "choice of development tools" as a competitive edge. The best developers will do excellent work with what they know best.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked on your assertion and several reputable sources agree with you (i.e. outside of the anti-flouride crowd).
Since flouride in food and water is almost inescapable nowadays, can the effect from flouride be overcome with higher levels of iodine in your diet or through supplements? I've heard of anti-radiation supplements that provided superdoses of iodine so that radioactive iodine from fallout wouldn't be taken up by your thyroid. Would a similar plan exclude flouride as effectively?
This also provides a causal hypothesis for an experiment I've been conducting on myself. I've been taking sugar pills or one-a-day multivitamins using a double-blind method (and capsules to hide the differences in flavor and pill shape) to confirm or refute my subjective observation that on days when I take a multivitamin in the morning, my energy level is much higher through that day. I just checked, and the multivitamin I'm using in the test does indeed have 300% RDA of iodine (as potassium iodide). When this experiment is complete, I think I've found my next experiment...
Regards,
Ross
Work at a real company where millions of dollars change hands on a daily basis and Notes/Domino is the only solution.
This is a different conclusion at some places where billions of dollars change hands on a daily basis.
For instance, Disney uses Exchange/Outlook. And not just Disney Parks, Columbia Pictures, ESPN, ABC, Disney Interactive (Kingdom Hearts I and II), Disney Consumer Products, or... but the entire enormous media/marketing conglomerate that is Disney, Inc. uses Exchange/Outlook. There are rare exceptions, usually acquisitions that haven't been fully assimilated yet (*cough* Pixar). I actually don't know how many people that is, but it's comfortably in six figures, probably in the range of half a million people.
Somewhat interesting place to work, if only to watch the people who've seriously partaken of the kool-aid. There are some strange cats in the cubicle farms at Disney. Also there's a suprising number of incredibly hot asian women. If you haven't had a few sips of the kool-aid before starting work, however, it's just another job at a huge US company.
Regards,
Ross
The result is that homebuilt aircraft are more likely to have safety features (e.g. modern auto engines,
Gotta stop you right there. Automobile engines and aircraft engines are very different beasts for very good reasons. Automobile engines normally run at 20% of rated power with occasional bursts to 80% rated power and only the rarest burst to 100% rated power. Aircraft engines normally run at 80% rated power and will routinely spend several minutes at 100% power during each flight (takeoff and climbout). That critical "expected normal load" results in a very different engine design.
If you try to put an automobile engine in an airplane without substantial redesign to account for the different expected loads, you're basically guaranteeing premature catastrophic failure.
The result is that homebuilt aircraft have as good a safety record as commercially built designs.
Check your facts. Homebuilts have a much higher accident rate per flight-hour. Still pretty low, though.
Regards,
Ross
Your attempt to paint your opposition as anti-child is ludicrous. I'm very much pro-child. I'm so much in favor of children that I'm for deliberately wanted, happy children. Planning to have three little ones ourselves (though we'll stop and see after two if she's up for a third).
Contraception provides help to parents in controlling how many children they have. When we provide health aid and improve infant mortality from 60% to 5%, the same parental strategy (have as many kids as you can cause you don't know how many will live) is a recipe for population explosion and ecological disaster. Like Somalia, like Ethiopia, like...
Being for contraception is being for what is most important about life: quality (for adults and for children), not quantity of living things. The evangelical Christian leaders in the article you quoted have the same bankrupt ethics they've been parroting for tens upon tens of years.
Did you know that legal abortion seems to be responsible for about half of the falling crime rate in the 90's? Suprised me too. But it makes a lot of sense if you take the time to think about it.
Regards,
Ross
You were right the first time, it's a very good deed. On this topic, it's the Roman Catholic church that's backing the wrong horse for all the wrong reasons.
The real problem is that Pope John Paul II made his original pronouncement ex. cathedra. To the Roman Catholic church, that means God himself said it. Gonna be tough for them to back down. No matter how much pain, misery and dispair that statement brings to poor populations around the world.
Thank goodness the Gates foundation is doing the right thing in the face of the church's continued mistake.
Ross
Not only do the non-religious have morals, but we often disagree with the religious on what ought to be labelled right and wrong...
Well, if there's salt in the water and you attempt electrolysis, you'll get chlorine gas and NaOH in solution. It's actually the modern process for producing sodium lye (aptly named the chlor-alkali process). Once you run out of chloride ions to convert to chlorine, then you start to produce hydrogen gas, but now you've got some high pH liquid in your reaction vessel, and you probably have other reactions going on that you didn't intend...
Regards,
Ross
I would say the problem is a slightly different one: communism doesn't scale past the group where everyone knows everyone else. In order to work, communism requires trust based on first-hand observation. Shaker communities, kibbutzim, families are common examples of successful communal groups (some families more than others). All have worked because people observe that others are actually contributing as much as they can and taking out no more than they need.
The upper limit on "everyone knowing everyone" appears to be in the range of 100 to 150 people.
Are you sure? I think modern media is pretty much able to whip the population into a frenzy when needed by "The Powers That Be(tm)" to get something voted in. I think a pure democracy stinks because if you can whip up a mob, you can get just about anything you want. Ultimately, pure democracies stink because there are no protections for the minority.
Remember, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Constitutionally limited republics get much less done (a very good thing), but are still subject to creeping expansion of powers and eventual subversion of the critical checks and balances once enough power is in the hands of the executive (police & military). Nothing is perfect forever.
Regards,
Ross
Did you think that you refuted a single point I made? Or that you made a single point in your post?
You take full advantage of the violent defense of your carcasses, all the while taking pot-shots at those who put their lives on the line for your comfort and convenience.
My grandfather is retired military, my dad is retired military, I've worked closely with the military on security projects and know far better than you the score on that one. I like the military. I despise the government sending the brave people in that military off to die for a lie. Looks like you need a new hypothesis.
You people with your sniffery about "needing to get the truth out there" never stop to think that YOU and those like you would be the first to have your heads roll - literally - should our enemies ever gain advantage over us.
You've bought into the fear. There is no need to be this afraid. You've got a much higher chance of drowning in a pool than being killed by a terrorist. Take some personal responsibility for your self-defense and grow a backbone. As a gun owner and a fierce supporter of the 2nd amendment, I'm embarassed that you call yourself a conservative. Bush supporters all seem to have checked their manhood with their brains at the door.
You stink.
Well, I did just work in the yard. But you're gullible, and I can take a shower to fix the only stink on me.
Little deluded neo-cons like yourself are vile little worms always willing to spend someone else's blood so that you can feel (but not be) a little safer. You've supported those who are making the US and the world less safe (there are more terrorists now because of Iraq). Every time a US soldier dies in Iraq I want to find a neo-con like yourself, knock you flat on your ass and scream: IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT YOU IGNORANT SHIT!
It's your fault, you utterly ignorant fuck. You voted for him twice.
Ross
Where do you live? Clearly not on the Gulf Coast, as there are plenty of places here who'd be happy to have ten oil refineries built.
I've lived in Houston and been scuba diving and fishing up and down the Gulf Coast. I know that the residents of Matogorda are not particularly thrilled with their local refineries (after one notable accident about four years ago). I know that the refineries closer to Houston are similarly considered an eyesore and a downward pressure on the neighbor's property value.
your idyllic notion of how the free market works
Based on this statement alone, it's clear that you have dramatically misunderstood me. I do not believe that 100% free markets result in social good or even fair outcomes for producers and consumers (as some lassie-faire advocates do believe). In general, I believe there are categories of regulation (public safety, truth in advertising, warranty enforcement, consumer advocacy, etc.) that are almost universally needed, and many other industry-specific categories of regulation (internet open carrier rules, etc.) that are also quite important.
See California's externally-created artificial energy crisis for proof of that. We can send you some tapes from here in Texas of Enron traders laughing at brownouts while they make $100/kWh from turning off generators during peak demand,
I've watched the Enron documentary (I currently live in Southern California), and I got pretty indignant at the blatant supply manipulations to inflate profits, joking about taking grannie's life savings et. al. They confirmed my belief that government regulation of critical resources is not simply a good idea, but an absolute necessity to maintain a functioning market.
What I don't accept without a lot more information is that the oil companies' lack of new refinery construction is entirely or mostly greed based. I think they could make more money with more capacity and I'm pretty sure they know that. I know for a fact that in Southern California, where I live now, there was one attempt to build a new refinery near Long Beach, and another attempt to expand one of the refineries currently operating in Long Beach. These efforts have been ongoing for at least three years. Both projects have been stopped cold by lawsuits and red tape put up by the local community.
The combined interests of property value, public safety, and environmental concerns (among many others) are all against new industrial development, even in areas already zoned for industry. Once those concerns are removed or made irrelevant, let's see if the oil companies build any more capacity. Until then, there are simply too many reasons not to build for anyone to conclusively say that it's all about greed.
Regards,
Ross
As I understand it, they're not actually dying to build new refineries. That's B.S. that has been made up for you.
Your argument doesn't pass even basic muster. The issue isn't whether the incumbents are building refineries, but whether or not anyone is building refineries. When new entrepreneurs can't build refineries to cash in on the gasoline shortage, it isn't a lack of will, it's an impossibly high barrier to entry.
Stated another way: if you are convinced that there are hundreds of millions to be made by selling gasoline from a new refinery (which there is) and that it isn't too hard to build a new refinery, you should put together a business plan, convince some investors, and get in on the easy money. Even a little refinery could convert some of that excess supply and make you and your investors a nice bundle of cash... All you have to do is figure out where to put your new refinery.
No? Hmmm.
Or is driving the cost of their product down somehow in their interest?
No, maximizing their profit is, and with the profits that are being returned, you can bet that every entrepreneur who knows about oil is trying to find a way to get their part of those profits. But those new competitors can't get in. Because you can't build a new refinery in the US.
So it doesn't matter if the oil companies want to build, they aren't where the real test of the cost of entry happens.
Regards,
Ross
No new oil refineries have been built in the US since 1976. We are at an 8 year high in supply for oil, we just don't refine it!
Perhaps you could let the oil companies know of a location where they could set up a new refinery. It would need to be near existing oil distribution systems and the neighbors and local community ordinances will need to not oppose the development. Shouldn't be too hard, right?
If you look at these oil companies investor reports, you will see it is price gouging. Take Exxon/Mobil. Last year as a share of capital investment, Exxon Mobil made a 46% rate of return on it's US oil operations, a 59% profit margin on it's US oil refining, totalling $36 billion.
These prices and profits can also be explained by limited supply (in gasoline and other refined products) and high demand. Limiting supply in many markets is only possible with a cartel, but there are exceptions. It all depends on the cost of entry. In refined oil products, there is no new entry. It is currently impossible to build a new refinery in the US for any amount of money. So you have an upper cap on supply with no upper cap on demand. High prices are the result as the demand curve shifts against the supply curve. Econ 101.
The problem is the "build absolutely nothing anywhere at any time" attitude that residents and communities currently have. Which they (and you and I) will start paying for with higher fuel prices. Which I don't mind. Personally, I think the government ought to phase in an additional 50% tax on gasoline to push the price still higher (and all of the interest in alternate fuel and power that will engender).
Regards,
Ross
Native Indians had little or no concept of ownership of land, animals, tools and many other things.
Actually, this is a commonly believed falsehood that needs to be eradicated. For instance, there are two problems with the original "sale" of manhattan for a few beads. First, the settlers did not negotiate with the actual owners of the island. They negotiated with a different tribe that happened to be on Manhattan at the time and was willing to talk to them. Second, what the natives sold the european settlers was hunting and farming rights for one season (which they may have had the right to trade, given that they had a relationship with the actual owners of manhattan).
The refusal of the settlers to acknowledge the claim of the actual owners and the refusal to exit Manhattan upon the expiration of their lease might lead you to believe that either the european settlers were a bloodthirsty, racist lot who felt that "might makes right" or that the natives had a much more sophisticated concept of land ownership that the settlers just couldn't seem to grasp.
The real US history is much more interesting, and a lot less flattering, than the high-school history books let on. Ever wonder why there are so many towns named Springfield? Or <something>field? The settlers didn't arrive and find untamed wilderness, they landed in someone's tilled field, enslaved him, sent him back to europe (or just killed him), and took his land. Ever think about what really happened in the Louisiana purchase? In that enormous marking on a map were about 100 Indian countries that had already sent ambassadors to other north american countries (and some to europe). And yet, somehow, we bought those hundred soverign nations and the land they were on from France. Without ever checking with those hundred separate sovereign nations. Did you know that until the middle of the 20th century, the US broke every treaty ever made with any native tribe? 100%. Not a single treaty was honored. Pretty impressive record if you ask me.
But many Indian tribes had concepts of land and use-rights every bit as sophisticated as we use today. Don't let the "made for Hallmark" history book misinform you as to that point.
Regards,
Ross
Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism.
My family has always been communal (like most nuclear families in the west). The Shakers and Quakers lived in communal economic enclaves. The modern kibbutz (Israeli communal farm) has been a repeatable success with some failures (actual successes depend highly on the individuals involved).
An important component of a successful communist economy is trust in the social contract (people really are putting in according to their abilities and taking according to their needs), engendered by reliable knowledge. This can only realistically happen in small communities where everyone can know everyone else.
Communism has been tested on a small scale and it works beautifully over and over again. But it doesn't scale beyond about 150 people.
Oh, and there are many roads to totalitarianism. Fascist Germany went straight to totalitarianism with a mostly-capitalist economy churning away the whole time. Not that you disagree, as I agree that large scale communism could only possibly work under a centrally controlled system which precludes personal freedoms. Just that it's not the only way to end up with a centrally controlled system that prohibits personal freedoms.
Regards,
Ross
Humans have souls, Chimps don't have souls. It's easy to tell the difference. Prove that a fetus has a soul, or go dive onto a pike with your pro-life supersticions.
First, I'll ask you to define what a soul is. Then I'll ask you to substantiate your assertion that a human has a soul. No need for proof here, just one piece of reliable evidence that there might be more than just complex chemistry going on. Back to you: you seem to be equating the presence of a soul with "worthy of protection"... when does the soul appear in this equation and how are you so certain of that?* You're pro-choice, as am I, but your argument is preposterous.
Personally, I believe that conciousness is a fully embodied emergent property of a sufficiently sophisticated biological control system. When you die, your conciousness fades out and that's the end of it.** I can't prove any of that, or disprove the existence of a soul, but an embodied mind requires many fewer complications than the whole "soul" concept. Occam's razor and all that.
Regards,
Ross
* we can't define the word "life" adequately, so why would we agree upon when life starts? It's this disagreement that is the real core of the debate and is the reason why the pro-choice group is superior: they'll let you make up your own mind about when life begins for yourself and your children. The pro-life group refuses to do this, pretending that the definition is black and white (and has always been black and white), when there's really a huge band of grey (and what was black and what was white was different in times past).
** Corollary: this is the only existence you've likely got. Conclusion: you should stop wasting the time you've got and start living a joyful life (easier said than done, but it could probably start with less time at the office).
Yeah, it's much better to be killed in the streets for political demonstrations than to be asked to pay for music you enjoy.
I hate to be one of those spelling nazi's, but you misspelled "...go to federal prison for failing to have documentation proving you're allowed to listen to the music you enjoy."
In your defense, it does seem to be a common error these days. Happy to help.
Regards,
Ross
Sadly, since our law does not admit any kind of guilt below the age of 10, he was right, and AIUI I couldn't have laid a finger on him even as I watched him keying the car.
Why not? Does the U.K. have no juvenile courts? In the U.S., I'd grab him by the collar of his shirt, drag him to his home (if you know where it is), tell his parents what he was doing. Alternatively, if you want a potentially more significant impact on his behavior, hold on to him and call the police (assuming you carry a mobile phone). When the police arrive, hand him over with an accurate description of his vandalism and your contact information.
Here, kids can be charged with all sort of crimes. Charged as juvevniles, that is. There are whole court systems for handling juvenile crimes. Occasionally, they even get charged as adults, though personally, I think that's a serious mistake.
My fiance and I have been thinking of emigrating to Ireland after we visited last year, but I'm not convinced that the U.K. is actually any better off than the U.S. in what's really wrong (wars on abstract nouns, et.al.).
Regards,
Ross
I have not met a single soul outside of the medical and legal profession whose actual and typical workload could not be accomplished in 30-40 hours of real honest work.
And I have yet to see a creative job where it is practical to work more than 20-25 hours on task week after week. This includes time spent during overtime and/or excessive overtime. Other time is spent exchanging ideas with other people, rest breaks (recharging eyes, body, and mind; allowing ideas to percolate), company meetings, dealing with personal issues (these become a larger part of the workday when overtime has been mandated), going to the bathroom, etc. Best of breed software development teams average 20 on-task hours per week per person. Typical teams average 12-15 on-task hours per week per person.
In my experience as a software developer, as a team lead, and as an entrepreneur: 30-40 hours of "real honest work" for a creative worker can not be done in the average week. Perhaps in one exceptional week (the crunch week), but not the third crunch week in a row. If you force the issue by standing over shoulders or requiring lots of overtime, or whatever: you guarantee low quality results.
To expect that people are on task for all or even most of their time in the office is just dumb.
To expect that creative people can work overtime and sacrifice other parts of their lives without consequences that will impact job productivity is even more dumb.
The problem is that most of them spend at least 2 hours a day screwing around, reading Slashdot, reading CNN, chatting in the aisles, or doing make-work while waiting for somebody else to deliver something that they need to continue their legitimate work.
This kind of slack time is critical to have in the "normal" schedule. If you don't have time like this, your organization has no room to react to new demands. Fundamentally, it's the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. The first is worthless without the second. I say this as a supervisor of people who read slashdot (hi, Mike).
If you disagree, please take some time out of your busy schedule, read Slack and Peopleware and afterwards, I'll be more than happy to continue the conversation.
Regards,
Ross
I have a theory that most software written today is written by human beings
I have a theory about the brontosaurus. Which is mine.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
A. Elk [miss]
Often the users are better UI developers than programmers are.
I might say that each user brings a different perspective to the discussion, and maintaining perspective on the UI they're writing is a skill that is very difficult for most developers to maintain.
Restates, I disagree that the user is a better UI designer, but instead, they can help developers get outside their normal "deep in the guts" perspective. I intensely dislike the assumption that developers are "bad at UI development". Most are actually pretty good at identifying poor designs and making them better.
Regards,
Ross
Me, I think it's useful when American reporters don't divulge American secrets.
When something wrong is a secret: the right thing... the moral thing to do is to reveal the secret.
The current system of the President deciding that the government can ignore the laws he finds annoying and then make a secret out of that is seriously messed up. But those checks and balances that might prevent such abuses are annoying and slow the government down in its pursuit of terrorists. So apparently, we should do without checks and balances.
That it's happening more and more often is bad enough. That much of the population doesn't get pissed off about it is embarassing. You'd think that nobody in this country reads history. Or reads.
Nice to keep everyone's head on their shoulders that way.
Different kind of secret (exactly where troops are located). Nothing like the president directly violating a law (FISA). But thanks for trying to confuse the issue in support of the current president's propaganda campaign.
Ross
To be honest, I don't know how 1024-bit DH key exchange stacks up against RSA or a 128-bit single key cipher I know in GPG, 4096-bit public/private keys are fairly typical. You'll sit at the keyboard a while generating random data for it, but assuming that factoring large numbers remains NP-hard, your key won't be cracked any time soon, and it doesn't take that much longer to encrypt a message than using a 1024-bit key.
You're right about the government, though. If they knew how to crack it, they'd still put up just as much of a fight, to make certain those they were hoping to listen to wouldn't realize the lack of security.
Regards,
Ross
The NSA does not need a back door with 128 bit encryption they can attack it head on.
2^61 / 2^59 = 2^2 hours or 4 hours to crack 128 bit inscription.
Something's not right...
PS: Now this is a vary low ball estimate. I was just pointing out that they could crack 128 bit encryption. However, if you use 2 * 128 bit primes to make a 256 bit key your probably safe, unless they found new math to make cracking such key's easy.
Ah. I see the problem. You're confusing public key encryption and single-key encryption. Nominal key lengths for public/private key systems is 4096 bits not 128-bits. In RSA, 4096-bits is believed to be almost as secure as 128-bit IDEA. Nobody does 128-bit public key encryption. Factoring a 128-bit number to two primes is solvable with modern PC's in hours. No 10k CPU supercomputer needed.
Assuming a known plaintext brute-force attack against 128-bit IDEA, on average, you'll find the key after searching half of the keyspace. So you'll have to test 2^127 keys.
Now, lets assume for the moment that the NSA does have your 10k CPU "16 billion complete key tests per second". So they can test 2^54 keys per second. 2^127 / 2^54 = 2^73 seconds. At 2^25 seconds per year, that's a mere 2^49 years, and since the universe is about 2^34 years old, that's only thirty two thousand times as long as the universe has been around.
That's a long time. A little longer than four hours. And a specialized CPU that can completely encrypt 2 billion blocks with different keys per second (let alone 8 pipelines in one chip) is thousands to millions of times faster than current state of the art hardware. Sure the NSA has stuff better than can be found on the market. But not that much better.
The new math is definitely still a threat. Actually, that's the threat against 4096-bit public key encryption, but with the UK government making such a squawk about giving up keys, I'd say they haven't cracked it yet.
Regards,
Ross
here on Earth emotions trump logic. Terrorism, by its definition is fear. Fear of random, horrifying, deadly violence against your family and friends and countrymen.
But terrorism only works when you let yourself be afraid. We don't have to be afraid. The government and the media are both very interested in having us be afraid. The government wants it because that fear can be translated into reasons for expansions of power, which eventually reward the corporations who pay the lobbyists that compensate the politicians. The media wants it because that fear translates into more advertising dollars during the airtime that panders to fear.
But you don't have to accept either group's assertion that you should be afraid. You should think carefully and act rationally and live your life deliberately aligned with your principles. Being afraid of the vague threat of terrorism doesn't do that. It directly and completely prevents that.
people react with emotion. The[y] feel fear. They also feel an incredibly strong, compelling emotion for justice and to make things right. I do not mock this, I salute it.
You're conflating a bunch of things together as if they were the same thing. They're not. Having a healthy understanding of risk means avoiding dangerous situations based on a reasonable fear of harm. Being paralyzed by fear to the point that you're willing to sacrifice your freedoms to feel a little security is pure insanity. Wanting to find and punish those who have harmed us is a healthy desire for justice. Wanting to keep anyone who might harm us locked away without any charge or even a promise of a trial runs afoul of so many principles Americans should hold dear (prior restraint, innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc.) that the fear has again caused people to set aside their core principles.
Pure insanity. There is no reason to be so afraid. There is good reason to want to correct what has gone wrong. There is good reason to want to make sure that the police can do their jobs. There is no reason to believe that the police couldn't do their job with the laws before 9/11.
You are a slave to the fear you have been told to feel and I pity you. As long as you are afraid, you will never be free.
Regards,
Ross
If you are a software developer and you want to live in Sweden, you want to apply for a software developer job in Ireland, get a work visa, establish residency (3-5 years), then move to Sweden for a year under a simple EU visa. During that year in Sweden, learn the language (if you haven't already), get a job (do not expect to find lots of jobs for software developers), and then apply for permanent residency (2-4 more years).
Ireland is currently the gateway into the EU for software developers as your job description results in an expedited work visa application, which is an effective pathway to EU residency. Once you have EU residency, you have a great deal of freedom to move around from there.
Regards,
Ross
Good. I hope there are more guys out there like you who hamstring their own efficiency. Makes competing that much easier.
Depending on the day and the task, I design and code between 2 and 5 times faster than the typical "solid" developer and only very rarely do I meet anyone in the same ballpark as myself.
Most other developers I know use IDE's as their primary editor while I only rarely depart from emacs for specific tasks. Doesn't seem to have slowed me down.
I think you're going to have to rely on more than just "choice of development tools" as a competitive edge. The best developers will do excellent work with what they know best.
Regards,
Ross