these things called fish are being depleted faster than they can be replaced. Aquaculture can work but the most economically feasible species are mostly tropical so require heat and input of land crops as a food source. overall roughly a 2:1 conversion ratio on feed. Better than any other land animal but still has it's limits.
vertical integration is only useful for living quarters. buildings shade arable land making it less productive. Try putting a section of garden under a tree and grow food crops. Yields drop substantially.
Melt down the copper, add around 12% tin, and make yourself an awesome replica greek helmet or a bronze axe.
Keep it on your desk at work as a symbol of your coolness
Lets just say that one of these guys hold some position where they can make important decisions that do not involve using a computer. Now say one of these employees makes a decision before he starts getting paid that negatively impacts a customer who then proceeds to sue the company. Now the company has a MAJOR problem.
The time records would show that the person who rendered the decision was actually not on the clock at the time as a paid employee.
Where I work this is not a hypothetical, it is a fact of life. As soon as I walk in the door I have people asking me to render decisions that, if I choose wrong could KILL a patient. Before I answer, I have to be on the clock. That's the rule.
Same thing here, these guys are doing work for the company and could be asked to do something while their computer is booting(even if their bosses are too busy jerking off in the bathroom to do so). If they loose the lawsuit, the way you screw the pooch is to never lift a finger to do anything until the computer is booted, or on the flip side would be to do something catastrophic to the company while the computer is booting if you are the evil type.
This one seems like they were just letting this one go in hopes that nobody would have the guts to speak up about it just like the no overtime for IT industry from awhile ago.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/13/0114216
Ok, lets indulge our over-inflated homo-sapien egos here and imagine we are the main cause of global warming. We have destroyed large portions of the planet and caused mass extinctions for the sake of technology and progress only to find out that we are all going to die in a horrible drought....okay, whatever
My question is: How is that a bad thing for the planet?
Obviously people imagine that a couple extra degrees are going to effectively end civilization and kill off many billions of people. You know what? Problem solved!! We are doing the planet a favor by killing ourselves. We are incapable of equilibrating our own population so it makes sense that we have to be purged every now and then right?
I know we have all thought it... I just felt like being captain obvious.
You can thank me later
I heard that same report on BBC news feeds about the hydroelectric power giving off methane. That had to be one of the most blatantly ignorant theories I have ever heard on the news. EVERYTHING on earth is cyclical, including carbon going in and out of a reservior. The way that guy was talking, he was making it sound like carbon was magically appearing out of the ether of the universe destroying the planet. Lucky for us he is wrong, carbon flows in carbon flows out just like the rest of the planet.. In the end the net carbon gain and loss for a region has to equal one another whether sequestered or not. Basically the carbon flowing out (if constant) must equal the carbon flowing in. Reserviors can't magically create carbon.
It's amazing what garbage makes it into the news.
The thought occurred to me a couple years ago that the reason this type of advertisement works is because only the interested parties will respond. They are however, sending these spam messages out to literally millions of people. If EVERYONE who got one of those messages responded to the message with JUNK DATA that was of no use to the company, then this method would not work. Companies would not bother sending junk mail if they had to sort through 3 million junk forms to find two valid forms. Companies use these guys because they are cheap and they can deliver customers to them. If we can insure that the cheap cost of questionable advertising is going to cause their systems to be flooded with millions of invalid forms for... whatever they are selling, they will quit using spam advertisement.
That is practically right out of Larry Niven's Ringworld series. The characters wore armor that stiffened when impacted. Very cool anyways.
"What we hope to gain from this program is body armor that wears like a traditional textile impregnated with nanomachines connected to an onboard computer, DeGay explained. "So when you shoot a round into the uniform system, it's normally pliable until it senses the strike of a round -- it becomes rigid, defeats the strike of the round and becomes soft again."
The Ohio State University has many wireless access points all over the campus. Since they already have pre-existing online student logins, those are used to gain online access. When you "hook up" to the router and open an internet browser is just pulls up a username verification page. That way any traffic from your address during the login period is associated with your username.
Please excuse my simplistic explanation, i'm not at the ubergeek level yet:-p
4lpha-$
You are forgetting a MAJOR problem with any gun laws. When "deadly weapons" are taken out of the hands of the public, the only people who have guns are the people who don't care about the law in the first place. If you ban guns, only the lawless will have them, and those are the people you have to worry about. Ahh, banning weapons, the allusion of safety.
Firearms are a give and take situation. They are alot like vaccinations. Many of us would not contest that we all need to get vaccinations, but their administration continues to kill thousands, maybe even tens of thousands a year. Guns are the same way; many people protect themselves each year with them, but some stupid morons decide to use them when they unjustified.
Move to one of many US states. Get a permit, carry a Desert Eagle Mark XIX, make if obvious. If you make it obvious, that says to them, Ok, I might get a round off, but if he hits me with that hand-cannon, it WILL turn me inside out!;-)
I urge EVERYONE in favor of continued moon missions to email the president (president@whitehouse.gov) and tell him that you are in favor of this. Not many people realize the power of influence that we would have if only half of the Slashdot readers were to write and tell the president that it's a great idea. Obviously the thought has been suggested to him, now we need to stand behind him and tell him that we believe in this goal.
One time, I ran a stick of 256 SDRAM through the laundry in a pair of pants. It still works great to this day (a year later). Another time, a HD wouldn't work, so I kicked it across the room and put it back in. It worked for awhile longer, at least until i could get data off of it.
To address your first point, milita WAS used to fight back Germany (I.E. French Underground, Most Russian Soldiers were fresh recruits with little training similar to hastily organized militias, as stated before the country of Switzerland had a policy of using most citizens as a militia, etc..)
Second, The United States of America was protected by milita forces in a small war called the American Revolution. You may have heard of it.
To your third point, Trent Lott, University of Chicago, look up his early research using gun violence increasing with an increasing amount of guns as the null hypothesis. I believe he later wrote a book called "More guns, less crime".
Fourth, i seem to remember alot of people saying that very same thing before Sept. 11th, now i dont hear it as much(barring the use of tanks).
Fifth, a main reason that people were able to fight back was due to a well organized underground resistance (essentially a milita) and airdrops of cheap, mass-produced weapons airdropped behind enemy lines.
Sixth, i have no clue what you are talking about(probably not directed at me anyways), but the whole issue of WWII personally makes me sick too, simply because I lost family members and the ones that came back, well.. they were scarred for life.
Alpha-S
I have an even better idea,
---------Criminals who cause crime should pay 3rd party liability insurance.---------- This way, innocent people will not have to pay useless fees that void the point of trying to protect themselves from being robbed in the first place.
I suppose that is why Switzerland spent much of that time period massing defenses throughout its country that made any possible invasion worthless huh.?
Read some books, they are good for you.
Alpha-S
If he's wrong, explain why Germany rolled over all of Europe and left Switzerland alone. The German military was twice the entire population of Switzerland(They have a high concentration of firearms, by the way)
Alpha-S
You are simply manipulating statistics. This is a common tactic. In response, i ask what you think about Switzerland (High concentration of guns, very low crime), Mexico (no firearm priveledges, very high crime), or maybe South Africa (high gun concentration, very high crime). As you can see, you can use this type of statistic to say whatever you want to say.
First off to the main question posed in the article, all research based on firearms is flawed down to its base. This is simply because all research done in this field is based off of observational studies. Observational studies are one of the worst possible scenarios for any kind of research because there is no control over lurking variables (there are hundreds in this case that I won't get into). So in essence, any group or person (Handgun Control Inc., NRA) can generally use any study to prove exactly what they want. However, if you are still looking for good, unbiased research you might want to look into the early research done by John Lott of the University of Chicago (i think thats where he's from).
I have read some of the posts here, and I have read many other discussions over this very topic. It seems that people either believe that firearms are bad because they kill people, or they are good because they save people from being killed. I have yet to hear from any person the third possible view that I possess.
It is an undeniable fact that firearms do occasionally kill people. Argue all you want about this fact, if you don't believe me, just go to the USA's Latest Census statistics. It is also an undeniable fact that firearms do protect their owners from danger when they are correctly applied. Thirdly, it cannot be denied that the human race has grossly overpopulated the planet to a point that can no longer be sustained indefinitely under the current conditions.
Having said all of this, i now suggest that WHILE FIREARMS DO KILL PEOPLE, THEY ARE ACTUALLY ASSISTING IN THE CONTROL OF THE HUMAN POPULATION WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION OR PERSON RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHO LIVES OR DIES.
You can call me whatever you want to call me for suggesting this idea, as long as you recognise firearm deaths as a means of population control. Every other living thing on planet earth has numerous population regulation factors effecting it. One of the most common regulation factors in especially large predators is aggression. A population is not allowed to get too big because its own aggression towards other members of its own species keeps it from overpopulating.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate what I am proposing. I am saying that firearms kill people, and will continue killing people because of our increased population. This will continue at an increased rate (most likely with a strong correlation to our population growth and population).
While i have given you a highly condensed form of my idea, you get the picture.
Alpha-S
Alphasniper762@hotmail.com
The only difference between splicing DNA in a lab and letting genetic mutations proceed in the wild is that natural mutations (good or bad) we have no control over. Want an example? try Legionarres disease. A soil microbe decides one day that it wants to live in human lung tissue.
Slashdot Mirror
these things called fish are being depleted faster than they can be replaced. Aquaculture can work but the most economically feasible species are mostly tropical so require heat and input of land crops as a food source. overall roughly a 2:1 conversion ratio on feed. Better than any other land animal but still has it's limits.
vertical integration is only useful for living quarters. buildings shade arable land making it less productive. Try putting a section of garden under a tree and grow food crops. Yields drop substantially.
Melt down the copper, add around 12% tin, and make yourself an awesome replica greek helmet or a bronze axe. Keep it on your desk at work as a symbol of your coolness
Lets just say that one of these guys hold some position where they can make important decisions that do not involve using a computer. Now say one of these employees makes a decision before he starts getting paid that negatively impacts a customer who then proceeds to sue the company. Now the company has a MAJOR problem. The time records would show that the person who rendered the decision was actually not on the clock at the time as a paid employee. Where I work this is not a hypothetical, it is a fact of life. As soon as I walk in the door I have people asking me to render decisions that, if I choose wrong could KILL a patient. Before I answer, I have to be on the clock. That's the rule. Same thing here, these guys are doing work for the company and could be asked to do something while their computer is booting(even if their bosses are too busy jerking off in the bathroom to do so). If they loose the lawsuit, the way you screw the pooch is to never lift a finger to do anything until the computer is booted, or on the flip side would be to do something catastrophic to the company while the computer is booting if you are the evil type. This one seems like they were just letting this one go in hopes that nobody would have the guts to speak up about it just like the no overtime for IT industry from awhile ago. http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/13/0114216
Ok, lets indulge our over-inflated homo-sapien egos here and imagine we are the main cause of global warming. We have destroyed large portions of the planet and caused mass extinctions for the sake of technology and progress only to find out that we are all going to die in a horrible drought....okay, whatever My question is: How is that a bad thing for the planet? Obviously people imagine that a couple extra degrees are going to effectively end civilization and kill off many billions of people. You know what? Problem solved!! We are doing the planet a favor by killing ourselves. We are incapable of equilibrating our own population so it makes sense that we have to be purged every now and then right? I know we have all thought it... I just felt like being captain obvious. You can thank me later
I heard that same report on BBC news feeds about the hydroelectric power giving off methane. That had to be one of the most blatantly ignorant theories I have ever heard on the news. EVERYTHING on earth is cyclical, including carbon going in and out of a reservior. The way that guy was talking, he was making it sound like carbon was magically appearing out of the ether of the universe destroying the planet. Lucky for us he is wrong, carbon flows in carbon flows out just like the rest of the planet.. In the end the net carbon gain and loss for a region has to equal one another whether sequestered or not. Basically the carbon flowing out (if constant) must equal the carbon flowing in. Reserviors can't magically create carbon. It's amazing what garbage makes it into the news.
The thought occurred to me a couple years ago that the reason this type of advertisement works is because only the interested parties will respond. They are however, sending these spam messages out to literally millions of people. If EVERYONE who got one of those messages responded to the message with JUNK DATA that was of no use to the company, then this method would not work. Companies would not bother sending junk mail if they had to sort through 3 million junk forms to find two valid forms. Companies use these guys because they are cheap and they can deliver customers to them. If we can insure that the cheap cost of questionable advertising is going to cause their systems to be flooded with millions of invalid forms for... whatever they are selling, they will quit using spam advertisement.
That is practically right out of Larry Niven's Ringworld series. The characters wore armor that stiffened when impacted. Very cool anyways. "What we hope to gain from this program is body armor that wears like a traditional textile impregnated with nanomachines connected to an onboard computer, DeGay explained. "So when you shoot a round into the uniform system, it's normally pliable until it senses the strike of a round -- it becomes rigid, defeats the strike of the round and becomes soft again."
oh, i get it, it was a joke rofl good one man
The Ohio State University has many wireless access points all over the campus. Since they already have pre-existing online student logins, those are used to gain online access. When you "hook up" to the router and open an internet browser is just pulls up a username verification page. That way any traffic from your address during the login period is associated with your username. Please excuse my simplistic explanation, i'm not at the ubergeek level yet :-p
4lpha-$
You are forgetting a MAJOR problem with any gun laws. When "deadly weapons" are taken out of the hands of the public, the only people who have guns are the people who don't care about the law in the first place. If you ban guns, only the lawless will have them, and those are the people you have to worry about. Ahh, banning weapons, the allusion of safety.
Firearms are a give and take situation. They are alot like vaccinations. Many of us would not contest that we all need to get vaccinations, but their administration continues to kill thousands, maybe even tens of thousands a year. Guns are the same way; many people protect themselves each year with them, but some stupid morons decide to use them when they unjustified.
Move to one of many US states. Get a permit, carry a Desert Eagle Mark XIX, make if obvious. If you make it obvious, that says to them, Ok, I might get a round off, but if he hits me with that hand-cannon, it WILL turn me inside out! ;-)
Proof that there is a God and that he has a sense of humor about evolution?
The Duckbilled Platypus.
I urge EVERYONE in favor of continued moon missions to email the president (president@whitehouse.gov) and tell him that you are in favor of this. Not many people realize the power of influence that we would have if only half of the Slashdot readers were to write and tell the president that it's a great idea. Obviously the thought has been suggested to him, now we need to stand behind him and tell him that we believe in this goal.
well won't you feel dumb someday sitting around old and decrepit, dying of nothing ;-)
One time, I ran a stick of 256 SDRAM through the laundry in a pair of pants. It still works great to this day (a year later). Another time, a HD wouldn't work, so I kicked it across the room and put it back in. It worked for awhile longer, at least until i could get data off of it.
I think the ultimate user interface would be similar to the NES PowerGlove. By the way, has anyone tried tweaking one for their computer??
To address your first point, milita WAS used to fight back Germany (I.E. French Underground, Most Russian Soldiers were fresh recruits with little training similar to hastily organized militias, as stated before the country of Switzerland had a policy of using most citizens as a militia, etc..) Second, The United States of America was protected by milita forces in a small war called the American Revolution. You may have heard of it. To your third point, Trent Lott, University of Chicago, look up his early research using gun violence increasing with an increasing amount of guns as the null hypothesis. I believe he later wrote a book called "More guns, less crime". Fourth, i seem to remember alot of people saying that very same thing before Sept. 11th, now i dont hear it as much(barring the use of tanks). Fifth, a main reason that people were able to fight back was due to a well organized underground resistance (essentially a milita) and airdrops of cheap, mass-produced weapons airdropped behind enemy lines. Sixth, i have no clue what you are talking about(probably not directed at me anyways), but the whole issue of WWII personally makes me sick too, simply because I lost family members and the ones that came back, well.. they were scarred for life. Alpha-S
I have an even better idea, ---------Criminals who cause crime should pay 3rd party liability insurance.---------- This way, innocent people will not have to pay useless fees that void the point of trying to protect themselves from being robbed in the first place.
I suppose that is why Switzerland spent much of that time period massing defenses throughout its country that made any possible invasion worthless huh.? Read some books, they are good for you. Alpha-S
If he's wrong, explain why Germany rolled over all of Europe and left Switzerland alone. The German military was twice the entire population of Switzerland(They have a high concentration of firearms, by the way) Alpha-S
You are simply manipulating statistics. This is a common tactic. In response, i ask what you think about Switzerland (High concentration of guns, very low crime), Mexico (no firearm priveledges, very high crime), or maybe South Africa (high gun concentration, very high crime). As you can see, you can use this type of statistic to say whatever you want to say.
First off to the main question posed in the article, all research based on firearms is flawed down to its base. This is simply because all research done in this field is based off of observational studies. Observational studies are one of the worst possible scenarios for any kind of research because there is no control over lurking variables (there are hundreds in this case that I won't get into). So in essence, any group or person (Handgun Control Inc., NRA) can generally use any study to prove exactly what they want. However, if you are still looking for good, unbiased research you might want to look into the early research done by John Lott of the University of Chicago (i think thats where he's from). I have read some of the posts here, and I have read many other discussions over this very topic. It seems that people either believe that firearms are bad because they kill people, or they are good because they save people from being killed. I have yet to hear from any person the third possible view that I possess. It is an undeniable fact that firearms do occasionally kill people. Argue all you want about this fact, if you don't believe me, just go to the USA's Latest Census statistics. It is also an undeniable fact that firearms do protect their owners from danger when they are correctly applied. Thirdly, it cannot be denied that the human race has grossly overpopulated the planet to a point that can no longer be sustained indefinitely under the current conditions. Having said all of this, i now suggest that WHILE FIREARMS DO KILL PEOPLE, THEY ARE ACTUALLY ASSISTING IN THE CONTROL OF THE HUMAN POPULATION WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION OR PERSON RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHO LIVES OR DIES. You can call me whatever you want to call me for suggesting this idea, as long as you recognise firearm deaths as a means of population control. Every other living thing on planet earth has numerous population regulation factors effecting it. One of the most common regulation factors in especially large predators is aggression. A population is not allowed to get too big because its own aggression towards other members of its own species keeps it from overpopulating. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate what I am proposing. I am saying that firearms kill people, and will continue killing people because of our increased population. This will continue at an increased rate (most likely with a strong correlation to our population growth and population). While i have given you a highly condensed form of my idea, you get the picture. Alpha-S Alphasniper762@hotmail.com
The only difference between splicing DNA in a lab and letting genetic mutations proceed in the wild is that natural mutations (good or bad) we have no control over. Want an example? try Legionarres disease. A soil microbe decides one day that it wants to live in human lung tissue.