While they may not be "insanely great", one of the Japanese bands I've found a while ago that I enjoy listening to is YMCK. Its a chiptune band, so it sounds like old Nintendo music combined with vocals. I can't understand the lyrics, or not much of them anyways, but its fun to listen to. Samples are available on their website (linked to in the above wiki article).
I like the idea of the black-ice spray. Less destructive than spike strips, and with the spray-on reversal agent, more selective. Also, when have people in the middle east seen ice? They wouldn't know how to drive on it, and its not like they're going to send volunteers to Minnesota in the winter to take a defensive driving course.
Unlike most cases where I would immediately pipe in about the safety of microwave radiation as compared to other, higher power (or ionizing) radiation, in this case the questions of safety are justified I think. The reason that cell phones are safe is because, even though they are a microwave-using device right next to your head, the amount of radiation hitting your body doesn't penetrate the first couple layers of skin, and raises the temperature by less than walking out into the sun. This, on the other hand, pumps out enough juice to cause 130 degrees of pain. I can't imagine that enough microwaving to cause this kind of temperature increase wouldn't also penetrate deeper into the body, possibly heating other organs that really ought-not to be heated. Also, if I recall correctly, there was some evidence that microwave radiation in elevated amounts (as compared to the background) over time can increase the incidence of cataracts. In that case, even if we aren't giving people a higher risk of cancer, we might be making them blind. Sure, we can handle cataracts in the western world, but I imagine it'd be a different story in some of the places around the world where this system would be deployed.
Oh yeah, and that metal thing... yeah, that could be bad.
Hey, I feel sorry for the kids who got hurt, but this is exactly the same sort of thing as trying to sue a gun manufacturer because someone you know got shot. MySpace doesn't rape people (at least, not physically), people rape people. These ass-hat parents need to be taken to court themselves as they've proven they're unfit parents by not supervising their internet use and their travel. Oh wait, that would mean that parents are responsible for their children...
If the objective is to determine the purchaser of a file by means of the bits encoded in the file, would it not be possible to identify which bits and bit patterns are being removed and simply remove or replace them all? Or perhaps re-encode the file to a different format to totally change things?
Put a large fence around your yard - one of those nice looking stone ones that you can't see through, or over. Then just fill your yard with solar cells. Bonus points if you can cover enough of your yard to avoid having to mow ever again.
They models used to reach the conclusion mentioned in the summary were calculated using a maximum speed of 10% the speed of light. Suppose that FTL travel had been developed by these advanced extraterrestrials - what then? I know it seems now like science fiction or fantasy, but you know the old adage about sufficiently advanced technology...
They absolutely could. I mean, it'd be really tough for them to get an armed aircraft within our borders, but they could certainly use the mass-fire tactics, use a radar guided missile instead of infrared (although they're more expensive and usually larger, if I have my facts right), or just use un-guided projectile weapons to take them down (a few.50 cal rounds in the right spots would do the job). However, they could probably take a plane down without firing a shot - remember, ground crews generally don't have to go through security (or at least their security is much less stringent than passengers'), so a terrorist could just sneak in through the ground-crew entrance with some faked-up credentials and plant a bomb on a plane that way.
I don't dispute your claim about the slim odds of our airliners being shot down over friendly territory, but as for your technical questions, here goes:
If we had to shoot down an aircraft loaded with one of these, we could more-than-likely get away with it. These devices are belly-mounted, so an attack from above would be unaffected. In addition, don't forget that our fighter jets have cannons as well as missiles. Also, if I understand the technology correctly (I could easily be wrong on this point) then its supposed to work primarily against ground-to-air missiles that use IR for tracking. However, there are many air-to-air missiles that use radar for tracking, so this system would be useless against them (again, this is if I understand the way it's supposed to work). Finally, the system has only N lasers in it (where N >= 1). All you need to do is fire more missiles at it than it can shoot down before they hit home - mass fire tactics in excess of the system's capacity to keep up.
We are Slashdot. Lower your firewalls and prepare for decimation. Your biological and technological distinctiveness is already similar to our own. Resistance is futile.
Just so we're clear, "Fair and Balanced" != "Conservative". The closest thing we have to a truly fair and balanced news source is The Daily Show. I'd think it was sad if I wasn't laughing so hard.
Its not so much that they were "caught" uploading fake content, but that they were doing so with the intent to entrap downloaders and use that information in legal cases claiming infringement. This doesn't work however, since 1) the MPAA is not a law enforcement agency, and 2) the downloaded content was fake, so no infringement took place. These tactics can be used by them and their lawyers to claim that infringement took place, start some lawsuits, and since none of the cases will ever get to trial, they settle out of court without having to substantiate their evidence in front of a jury.
In the end, they're basically using this as a means to falsely accuse downloaders and extort money from them.
Well, your assumption that I own a bible aside, I was not trying to say anything about the age of the earth and the galaxy, merely trying to use logic (in response to a religious post? what was I thinking?) to try to show what I thought was an error in the parent's post.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Genesis say it wasn't just the earth, but the heavens as well? If we take "the heavens" to mean the rest of the galaxy as well, then should they not be the same age?
Either way, you're dismissing all the accumulated knowledge of science in favor of the superstitions of ancient sheep herders who thought that all the animals on earth were within walking distance of Noah's house. The bible contains equal parts fact, history, and pizza.
About 1.03461597 × 10^23 football fields, assuming a 100 yard field.
Also equal to 4.70279985 × 10^22 furlongs.
Also equal to 6.32396717 × 10^13 Astronomical Units.
Also equal to 9.31154371 × 10^25 hands.
Any other peculiar units of measure you'd like translations into? Google calculator is really good at this stuff.
If you have your dead-man switch on a Windows machine, odds are your friends and relatives have already received these emails several times, and know your secrets.
While I would agree that weighing the value of human life (or human life-to-be) is a strange exercise at best, I would like to put forth the following for your consideration. Yes, 214 sounds like an awfully big number, and when weighed in developing lives, the human mind may have difficulty grasping it. However, when compared to back to your 4-million-odd annual birth rate, one pales in comparison to the other. Since these are developing lives that are wanted by the parents, each one is sad, and as you said, these numbers don't take into account other complicating factors such as infection harming both mother and fetus.
Again, as you said the point is or may be moot. However, there are other issues with a similar cost/benefit trade-off out there, emotionally charged and parading numbers about. One of the best issues by comparison (that I can think of, anyways) is that of gun ownership. Yes, a number of children are killed each year by finding and playing with their parents' guns, and each one is tragic. However, when compared to the number of guns and other weapons owned by private citizens in America, the number is very small, a similar comparison to that I made above. And in both situations, we don't know how many lives have been or will be saved by the article in question - one has yet to be researched fully and have cures developed from it, the other may ward off potential violent criminals (although this too can be debated endlessly). In both cases, the numbers can be improved as well, with better methods in the case of the former, and better education to children and more weapon security in the case of the latter.
Yes, of course no matter what the percentage is, if I lost a child due to it I would feel the risk was too high, but I was trying to think about it rationally, not emotionally. Nice link BTW. Your 2500 miscarriages figure is slightly off though, due to the fact that of course not all mothers would want this done, as no matter how low-risk you make the process its still very uncomfortable and painful from what I hear.
Who cares what size of population you're measuring? Its 1% of that population. I don't know what the medical community calls high risk, but statistically speaking, 1% is pretty small.
Ok, so perhaps "appealing" wasn't the right word there. But my proposal probably sounded just about as good or bad as the previous one, which was my point. To make it clear, I am somewhat liberal on this issue, although not necessarily for the reasons I stated. As I don't have a problem with abortion, I am glad to see that it is affordable by most people - I don't see that it causes damage to society, rather, that it helps society. Like it or not, people are going to get pregnant. The desire for sex isn't going to go away with classes on the subject, its part of our biology, and that can only be curbed so much. That being the case, which would you rather have: a) an overwhelmed foster care and orphanage system, as well as parents raising children they didn't want in the first place, or b) fewer kids. Admittedly, I don't like kids, but trying to think objectively I still think (b) is the better choice. On the death-row side of things, I think its a good thing that it is both prohibitively expensive and time consuming, as the extra time allows for the possibility that evidence could come about that clears the convict. Were I to be wrongly convicted, I would want every opportunity to prove my innocence, and I would much rather that I be freed later than killed quickly only to be exonerated posthumously. I am not against the death penalty, but I do think it should be a relatively infrequent thing, and would want an innocent killed by mistake. Thus, the more opportunity for exoneration, the better.
By that same logic(?), why is it that conservatives are so bent out of shape on the idea of protecting biological matter which might be unwanted and may, MAY become a worthwhile human, and yet in the same breath are ready to throw the switch on a human being that, while they are no longer fit for society, can be put to so many other uses (hard labor) and with a much smaller cost? See, if you chose your adjectives and adverbs carefully, you can make any position sound appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
While they may not be "insanely great", one of the Japanese bands I've found a while ago that I enjoy listening to is YMCK. Its a chiptune band, so it sounds like old Nintendo music combined with vocals. I can't understand the lyrics, or not much of them anyways, but its fun to listen to. Samples are available on their website (linked to in the above wiki article).
I like the idea of the black-ice spray. Less destructive than spike strips, and with the spray-on reversal agent, more selective. Also, when have people in the middle east seen ice? They wouldn't know how to drive on it, and its not like they're going to send volunteers to Minnesota in the winter to take a defensive driving course.
Unlike most cases where I would immediately pipe in about the safety of microwave radiation as compared to other, higher power (or ionizing) radiation, in this case the questions of safety are justified I think. The reason that cell phones are safe is because, even though they are a microwave-using device right next to your head, the amount of radiation hitting your body doesn't penetrate the first couple layers of skin, and raises the temperature by less than walking out into the sun. This, on the other hand, pumps out enough juice to cause 130 degrees of pain. I can't imagine that enough microwaving to cause this kind of temperature increase wouldn't also penetrate deeper into the body, possibly heating other organs that really ought-not to be heated. Also, if I recall correctly, there was some evidence that microwave radiation in elevated amounts (as compared to the background) over time can increase the incidence of cataracts. In that case, even if we aren't giving people a higher risk of cancer, we might be making them blind. Sure, we can handle cataracts in the western world, but I imagine it'd be a different story in some of the places around the world where this system would be deployed.
Oh yeah, and that metal thing... yeah, that could be bad.
I know just how you feel man... I got goatse'd as a young man, by someone I considered a close friend... I've never been the same.
Hey, I feel sorry for the kids who got hurt, but this is exactly the same sort of thing as trying to sue a gun manufacturer because someone you know got shot. MySpace doesn't rape people (at least, not physically), people rape people. These ass-hat parents need to be taken to court themselves as they've proven they're unfit parents by not supervising their internet use and their travel. Oh wait, that would mean that parents are responsible for their children...
If the objective is to determine the purchaser of a file by means of the bits encoded in the file, would it not be possible to identify which bits and bit patterns are being removed and simply remove or replace them all? Or perhaps re-encode the file to a different format to totally change things?
Put a large fence around your yard - one of those nice looking stone ones that you can't see through, or over. Then just fill your yard with solar cells. Bonus points if you can cover enough of your yard to avoid having to mow ever again.
I hope so - with IBM consulting fees as they are, it might put SCO in the ground faster than the trial.
They models used to reach the conclusion mentioned in the summary were calculated using a maximum speed of 10% the speed of light. Suppose that FTL travel had been developed by these advanced extraterrestrials - what then? I know it seems now like science fiction or fantasy, but you know the old adage about sufficiently advanced technology...
They absolutely could. I mean, it'd be really tough for them to get an armed aircraft within our borders, but they could certainly use the mass-fire tactics, use a radar guided missile instead of infrared (although they're more expensive and usually larger, if I have my facts right), or just use un-guided projectile weapons to take them down (a few .50 cal rounds in the right spots would do the job). However, they could probably take a plane down without firing a shot - remember, ground crews generally don't have to go through security (or at least their security is much less stringent than passengers'), so a terrorist could just sneak in through the ground-crew entrance with some faked-up credentials and plant a bomb on a plane that way.
I don't dispute your claim about the slim odds of our airliners being shot down over friendly territory, but as for your technical questions, here goes:
If we had to shoot down an aircraft loaded with one of these, we could more-than-likely get away with it. These devices are belly-mounted, so an attack from above would be unaffected. In addition, don't forget that our fighter jets have cannons as well as missiles. Also, if I understand the technology correctly (I could easily be wrong on this point) then its supposed to work primarily against ground-to-air missiles that use IR for tracking. However, there are many air-to-air missiles that use radar for tracking, so this system would be useless against them (again, this is if I understand the way it's supposed to work). Finally, the system has only N lasers in it (where N >= 1). All you need to do is fire more missiles at it than it can shoot down before they hit home - mass fire tactics in excess of the system's capacity to keep up.
We are Slashdot. Lower your firewalls and prepare for decimation. Your biological and technological distinctiveness is already similar to our own. Resistance is futile.
Just so we're clear, "Fair and Balanced" != "Conservative". The closest thing we have to a truly fair and balanced news source is The Daily Show. I'd think it was sad if I wasn't laughing so hard.
Eh, liberal, conservative who cares. Everyone just gets their news from The Daily Show anyways.
Even better - Half-Life. Remember, CounterStrike used to be just a lowly user-made mod for the original HL.
Its not so much that they were "caught" uploading fake content, but that they were doing so with the intent to entrap downloaders and use that information in legal cases claiming infringement. This doesn't work however, since 1) the MPAA is not a law enforcement agency, and 2) the downloaded content was fake, so no infringement took place. These tactics can be used by them and their lawyers to claim that infringement took place, start some lawsuits, and since none of the cases will ever get to trial, they settle out of court without having to substantiate their evidence in front of a jury.
In the end, they're basically using this as a means to falsely accuse downloaders and extort money from them.
Well, your assumption that I own a bible aside, I was not trying to say anything about the age of the earth and the galaxy, merely trying to use logic (in response to a religious post? what was I thinking?) to try to show what I thought was an error in the parent's post.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Genesis say it wasn't just the earth, but the heavens as well? If we take "the heavens" to mean the rest of the galaxy as well, then should they not be the same age?
Either way, you're dismissing all the accumulated knowledge of science in favor of the superstitions of ancient sheep herders who thought that all the animals on earth were within walking distance of Noah's house. The bible contains equal parts fact, history, and pizza.
About 1.03461597 × 10^23 football fields, assuming a 100 yard field.
Also equal to 4.70279985 × 10^22 furlongs.
Also equal to 6.32396717 × 10^13 Astronomical Units.
Also equal to 9.31154371 × 10^25 hands.
Any other peculiar units of measure you'd like translations into? Google calculator is really good at this stuff.
If you have your dead-man switch on a Windows machine, odds are your friends and relatives have already received these emails several times, and know your secrets.
While I would agree that weighing the value of human life (or human life-to-be) is a strange exercise at best, I would like to put forth the following for your consideration. Yes, 214 sounds like an awfully big number, and when weighed in developing lives, the human mind may have difficulty grasping it. However, when compared to back to your 4-million-odd annual birth rate, one pales in comparison to the other. Since these are developing lives that are wanted by the parents, each one is sad, and as you said, these numbers don't take into account other complicating factors such as infection harming both mother and fetus.
Again, as you said the point is or may be moot. However, there are other issues with a similar cost/benefit trade-off out there, emotionally charged and parading numbers about. One of the best issues by comparison (that I can think of, anyways) is that of gun ownership. Yes, a number of children are killed each year by finding and playing with their parents' guns, and each one is tragic. However, when compared to the number of guns and other weapons owned by private citizens in America, the number is very small, a similar comparison to that I made above. And in both situations, we don't know how many lives have been or will be saved by the article in question - one has yet to be researched fully and have cures developed from it, the other may ward off potential violent criminals (although this too can be debated endlessly). In both cases, the numbers can be improved as well, with better methods in the case of the former, and better education to children and more weapon security in the case of the latter.
Yes, of course no matter what the percentage is, if I lost a child due to it I would feel the risk was too high, but I was trying to think about it rationally, not emotionally. Nice link BTW. Your 2500 miscarriages figure is slightly off though, due to the fact that of course not all mothers would want this done, as no matter how low-risk you make the process its still very uncomfortable and painful from what I hear.
Who cares what size of population you're measuring? Its 1% of that population. I don't know what the medical community calls high risk, but statistically speaking, 1% is pretty small.
Ok, so perhaps "appealing" wasn't the right word there. But my proposal probably sounded just about as good or bad as the previous one, which was my point. To make it clear, I am somewhat liberal on this issue, although not necessarily for the reasons I stated. As I don't have a problem with abortion, I am glad to see that it is affordable by most people - I don't see that it causes damage to society, rather, that it helps society. Like it or not, people are going to get pregnant. The desire for sex isn't going to go away with classes on the subject, its part of our biology, and that can only be curbed so much. That being the case, which would you rather have: a) an overwhelmed foster care and orphanage system, as well as parents raising children they didn't want in the first place, or b) fewer kids. Admittedly, I don't like kids, but trying to think objectively I still think (b) is the better choice. On the death-row side of things, I think its a good thing that it is both prohibitively expensive and time consuming, as the extra time allows for the possibility that evidence could come about that clears the convict. Were I to be wrongly convicted, I would want every opportunity to prove my innocence, and I would much rather that I be freed later than killed quickly only to be exonerated posthumously. I am not against the death penalty, but I do think it should be a relatively infrequent thing, and would want an innocent killed by mistake. Thus, the more opportunity for exoneration, the better.
By that same logic(?), why is it that conservatives are so bent out of shape on the idea of protecting biological matter which might be unwanted and may, MAY become a worthwhile human, and yet in the same breath are ready to throw the switch on a human being that, while they are no longer fit for society, can be put to so many other uses (hard labor) and with a much smaller cost? See, if you chose your adjectives and adverbs carefully, you can make any position sound appealing.