I still have my doubts. On a surface you can move at most in two directions. I don't find the surface having irregularities being relevant (you still keep moving over a 2D surface). Then again, it's nothing I will lose sleep over at this moment.
Being able to walk in one dimension is called 2D walking? Something doesn't add up here, unless that D stands for degree of movement, and I think that was used for joints, not whole robots.
The interesting thing about biodiesel, according to its proponents, is that you can use badland vegetation to create it. The UK would still be an importer, but the range of providers could be much greater. I can think of some places in the world with very low useful yield (areas of Africa and Australia come to mind).
Then again, all this relies on biodiesel production being self-sufficient in the long term. I won't talk about whether it can be, though I have read some texts that point to it being achievable.
...Pravda would have commented that the mammoth was so well preserved that the ones who found it were able to avidly eat its meat. And few would wonder what drives someone to eat raw unfrozen mammoth meat.
With apologies to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag archipelago".
If your biodiesel completely comes from a self-sufficient production derived from vegetal matter, you certainly cannot make emissions higher. Since some of the carbon used by plants is unavailable on the next round, carbon dioxide concentration in air or water will go down.
If you want references to back up my assertion, ask and I will try to comply. My central resource is written in spanish, but I think I can find other references in english. Unfortunately, I can't cite them right now.
And now I was thinking GPL was a way to turn copyright inside out, since the "no, you can't hoard your ideas" ideal is currently unavailable. You understand it so much better than even RMS it amazes me.
Government got into the game in the 1700s to bring art to the people,
Which government, you say? The same government that ordered a copy of every published work to be sent to them? You call that protection, I call that censure. Or perhaps you refer to the U.S. Government that decided that British copyright didn't apply any more. No, copyright has always been a mind construct of control: the only difference between then and now is that the controller isn't the government (and the jury is still out on what's worse). See how much good did copyright do to the author of the story that Disney plagiarized in "The Lion King"
That system is largely successful, evidenced by the fact that you aren't apparently aware that original works by "legendary" artists cost the equivalent of millions (plural) of dollars in some cases...
Excuse me? Is culture available because of copyright or is it available in spite of it? I don't see design studios getting paid once and again for each copy of their products: they are paid to do some work, they do it, and that's the end of it all. Do you get paid whenever someone makes a replica of a pot you created? Most artisans don't. And remember that, because the difference between artisan and artist is that the artisan does the work expecting to get paid, while the artist doesn't. But somehow this has been conveniently forgotten. Otherwise you would expect Rolls Royce to receive a royalty every time one of its cars is at an exposition or even a classic car meeting. Know what, that doesn't really happen. By the way, which original works by legendary artists cost the equivalent of millions? Written texts? Music? Architectural designs? The only thing I can think of costing millions is movies, and that's because there's a whole industry behind trying to reap benefits left and right: I suppose you know movie producers moved to Hollywood because it was dirt cheap compared to New York (see a bit of the film history of the time).
Asking for lower prices is one thing, but asking to have it for free is just as greedy and immoral as the RIAA.
Please don't try me to sell me the "oh, but it's so cheap" line. First: it isn't. I have bought quite a few tapes and discs, so I would know. Latest ones I bought were Internet downloads: I heard music from an author, looked her up, found the recording company would send half of my money directly to the artist if I bought the WAV files and bought them. I guess you will find it interesting that the least I could have paid was just $3. I paid more, which shows I will pay for what I like instead of getting a degraded copy from eMule, if I'm given the option. There usually is no option: you either pay through the nose or get such a restricted access to the material (I can't bring my own food and drinks from home? What the hell?) it isn't worth it. A run-of-the-mill CD with two songs accompanied by filler costs $20. Sorry, I don't buy it (neither in a literal nor in a figurative way). Paint me greedy: a disc I download isn't a disc I would have automatically bought, no matter what the recording industry says. That's one of the reasons private copy right exists (at least on continental legislation): the other one is, basically, "too many people are going to make copies like it or not, and we can't prosecute them all; we'd better make it a law and try to guide it".
Anyway, I think we have gone off-topic long enough: it was privacy what we were supposed to be talking about:-)
I disagree: for thousands of years mankind has progressed with copyright and author rights, and now you tell me a concept designed to censure (sp?) printers is protecting author's rights? Yeah, sure. I guess Bach really needed copyright protection, and so did Shakespeare and Cervantes.
I guess you don't watch football (neither U.S. "football" nor male European "soccer"), male basketball, male baseball, and so on. Almost no war movies (there are few with women roles), and... ok, do I need to keep going?
Save your apparent disgust for real problems. And no, seeing naked people isn't one per se. By the way, you talk about hormonal deficiencies. Please provide contrasted references (translation: I call bullshit).
As some else has already said, the knowledge is available now. At least, allow this (quite old anyway) kids to know which precautions the must take. If any of them is intent on doing harm, they won't go here anyway (how much knowledge do you need to blow up a gas canister?).
The funny thing about all this is that the referred article talks about an area that activates when we detect something that is good for others and the same area activates when we detect something that is good for us. Then again, we have this other information that ties altruism to social-relationship-handling areas of the brain. It looks like many areas of the brain activate on altruism. To settle everything on pleasure seems, to me, simplistic. If it was just that, we wouldn't put ourselves at great risk of or suffer grave injuries to help someone we don't even know: the pain of losing a limb or your life is greater than the reward your altruism provides (at least usually). And yet, again and again we find people taking risks to help someone else.
I'm sorry, the "pleasure response" doesn't quite cut it, IMHO. Oh, by the way, I may have drifted off-topic: my main point of contention was that athloi's references were misinterpreted. You think the researcher reached the wrong conclusion, I don't. It's up to you to prove he did.
Exactly, we get pleasure when we watch someone succeed, so it is in our interests that others succeed. What's so hard to get?
There's a difference between getting pleasure because someone succeeds and getting pleasure because I help him to succeed. What's even more, I can still help someone and then see him not succeed (theoretically getting no pleasure).
Am I altruist only when the help I provide is successful in the end? No. If, as the article states, I get pleasure when someone succeeds, then there is altruism that doesn't lead to such pleasure (when it doesn't work). Eventually, a relation may be found, but this is certainly not it.
Face it, babies try to calm their distraught companions. It doesn't seem to bring them much pleasure, but they still do it. Feeling good about doing good or bad things doesn't seem to enter the equation.
Altruism triggers pleasure centers like a drug or sex, which means that we do altruistic acts for ourselves, not for others.
I find it interesting how you misread the article. Please let me refresh your memory with a couple of quotes from your own reference:
As it turns out, "That very same brain area not only tracks what is good for us, but what is good for others," he said.
Which means that the area that tracks what is good for us, tracks what is good for others. You read it as a pleasure response happening when we act altruistically (ergo altruism is ultimately egotistical), but it actually says that it tracks what is good for others (for example, it may as well activate when we watch someone succeed). But don't take my word for it, let's go back to the article:
"The fact that we find pleasurable activity in those mandatory tax-like situations strongly suggests the existence of pure altruism," he said.
Wouldn't 4MiB be exactly 32 million bits? Why is this roughly 33.5?
Since 1MiB=1048576B (Mi is a "binary mega" unit, not a decimal one, that's M), it is 8388608 bits. Multiplying by 4 gives 33554432 bits (so it is a bit over 33.5 million bits). Multiplying by 6 you get 201326592 transistors (a bit over 201 million). In the end it's a difference of "just" 9 million transistors or so, but everything adds up.
End note: unfortunately, hard disk manufacturers have long ago changed from MiB and GiB to MB and GB, shortchanging us all in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
I still have my doubts. On a surface you can move at most in two directions. I don't find the surface having irregularities being relevant (you still keep moving over a 2D surface). Then again, it's nothing I will lose sleep over at this moment.
"So may assholes, so few bullets".
Being able to walk in one dimension is called 2D walking? Something doesn't add up here, unless that D stands for degree of movement, and I think that was used for joints, not whole robots.
...get in the way of a good story, or accusation in this case.
Don't worry, there is space for both here in Spain. And then there's always Morocco, just a jump (for some values of jump) away.
It would be a very bad idea if you don't intend to replenish it, of course ;-) I never meant to go and raze the area.
Then again, all this relies on biodiesel production being self-sufficient in the long term. I won't talk about whether it can be, though I have read some texts that point to it being achievable.
With apologies to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag archipelago".
How does biodiesel reduce carbon emissions?
If your biodiesel completely comes from a self-sufficient production derived from vegetal matter, you certainly cannot make emissions higher. Since some of the carbon used by plants is unavailable on the next round, carbon dioxide concentration in air or water will go down.
If you want references to back up my assertion, ask and I will try to comply. My central resource is written in spanish, but I think I can find other references in english. Unfortunately, I can't cite them right now.
And now I was thinking GPL was a way to turn copyright inside out, since the "no, you can't hoard your ideas" ideal is currently unavailable. You understand it so much better than even RMS it amazes me.
Which government, you say? The same government that ordered a copy of every published work to be sent to them? You call that protection, I call that censure. Or perhaps you refer to the U.S. Government that decided that British copyright didn't apply any more. No, copyright has always been a mind construct of control: the only difference between then and now is that the controller isn't the government (and the jury is still out on what's worse). See how much good did copyright do to the author of the story that Disney plagiarized in "The Lion King"
That system is largely successful, evidenced by the fact that you aren't apparently aware that original works by "legendary" artists cost the equivalent of millions (plural) of dollars in some cases...
Excuse me? Is culture available because of copyright or is it available in spite of it? I don't see design studios getting paid once and again for each copy of their products: they are paid to do some work, they do it, and that's the end of it all. Do you get paid whenever someone makes a replica of a pot you created? Most artisans don't. And remember that, because the difference between artisan and artist is that the artisan does the work expecting to get paid, while the artist doesn't. But somehow this has been conveniently forgotten. Otherwise you would expect Rolls Royce to receive a royalty every time one of its cars is at an exposition or even a classic car meeting. Know what, that doesn't really happen. By the way, which original works by legendary artists cost the equivalent of millions? Written texts? Music? Architectural designs? The only thing I can think of costing millions is movies, and that's because there's a whole industry behind trying to reap benefits left and right: I suppose you know movie producers moved to Hollywood because it was dirt cheap compared to New York (see a bit of the film history of the time).
Asking for lower prices is one thing, but asking to have it for free is just as greedy and immoral as the RIAA.
Please don't try me to sell me the "oh, but it's so cheap" line. First: it isn't. I have bought quite a few tapes and discs, so I would know. Latest ones I bought were Internet downloads: I heard music from an author, looked her up, found the recording company would send half of my money directly to the artist if I bought the WAV files and bought them. I guess you will find it interesting that the least I could have paid was just $3. I paid more, which shows I will pay for what I like instead of getting a degraded copy from eMule, if I'm given the option. There usually is no option: you either pay through the nose or get such a restricted access to the material (I can't bring my own food and drinks from home? What the hell?) it isn't worth it. A run-of-the-mill CD with two songs accompanied by filler costs $20. Sorry, I don't buy it (neither in a literal nor in a figurative way). Paint me greedy: a disc I download isn't a disc I would have automatically bought, no matter what the recording industry says. That's one of the reasons private copy right exists (at least on continental legislation): the other one is, basically, "too many people are going to make copies like it or not, and we can't prosecute them all; we'd better make it a law and try to guide it".
Anyway, I think we have gone off-topic long enough: it was privacy what we were supposed to be talking about :-)
I disagree: for thousands of years mankind has progressed with copyright and author rights, and now you tell me a concept designed to censure (sp?) printers is protecting author's rights? Yeah, sure. I guess Bach really needed copyright protection, and so did Shakespeare and Cervantes.
Yes, because we all know those tetragram Gregorian chants are actually satanic invocations...
Save your apparent disgust for real problems. And no, seeing naked people isn't one per se. By the way, you talk about hormonal deficiencies. Please provide contrasted references (translation: I call bullshit).
It might be seen from space, but hardly without a telescope.
Not to mention it isn't, as far as I know, man-made.
As some else has already said, the knowledge is available now. At least, allow this (quite old anyway) kids to know which precautions the must take. If any of them is intent on doing harm, they won't go here anyway (how much knowledge do you need to blow up a gas canister?).
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but proof of absence might still exist.
Unfortunately, PCMag detects the attempt to get the print page and redirects you to the original one. Bummer.
I'm sorry, the "pleasure response" doesn't quite cut it, IMHO. Oh, by the way, I may have drifted off-topic: my main point of contention was that athloi's references were misinterpreted. You think the researcher reached the wrong conclusion, I don't. It's up to you to prove he did.
There's a difference between getting pleasure because someone succeeds and getting pleasure because I help him to succeed. What's even more, I can still help someone and then see him not succeed (theoretically getting no pleasure).
Am I altruist only when the help I provide is successful in the end? No. If, as the article states, I get pleasure when someone succeeds, then there is altruism that doesn't lead to such pleasure (when it doesn't work). Eventually, a relation may be found, but this is certainly not it.
Face it, babies try to calm their distraught companions. It doesn't seem to bring them much pleasure, but they still do it. Feeling good about doing good or bad things doesn't seem to enter the equation.
I find it interesting how you misread the article. Please let me refresh your memory with a couple of quotes from your own reference:
Which means that the area that tracks what is good for us, tracks what is good for others. You read it as a pleasure response happening when we act altruistically (ergo altruism is ultimately egotistical), but it actually says that it tracks what is good for others (for example, it may as well activate when we watch someone succeed). But don't take my word for it, let's go back to the article:
Need I say more?
Since 1MiB=1048576B (Mi is a "binary mega" unit, not a decimal one, that's M), it is 8388608 bits. Multiplying by 4 gives 33554432 bits (so it is a bit over 33.5 million bits). Multiplying by 6 you get 201326592 transistors (a bit over 201 million). In the end it's a difference of "just" 9 million transistors or so, but everything adds up.
End note: unfortunately, hard disk manufacturers have long ago changed from MiB and GiB to MB and GB, shortchanging us all in the process.
Open minded is not exactly what I would say ;)
"A communications disruption can mean only one thing - invasion". Sorry, I couldn't resist.