sure you can replicate anything, but you need an expensive machine and the right raw materials
Star Trek canon is pretty sparse about "right raw materials", but the consensus seems to be that replication feedstock is some kind of bulk inert matter. (I don't understand why they don't just skip that and just directly use the energy equivalent).
However "expensive" isn't guaranteed. You'd just need one replicator and a feedstock source to replicate every other replicator you'd ever want... so only the first would be expensive.
If you're arguing there's some natural scarcity in (entirely fictional) replication technology, it's not a strong argument in light of the few sources I've seen. I think the stronger argument would be artificial scarcity: replicators with embedded restrictions preventing replication of replicators or replicator parts, for instance, or requiring a certain proprietary unobtainium as the feedstock, or heavy heavy DRM over replication patterns.
Certainly, that's how the the MPAA, the RIAA, and the Ferengi would do it.
An RFC is a standard in all but name. Not as clumsy or random as a formal specification; an elegant standard for a more civilized age. Back when "rough consensus and running code" was enough. Before the dark times... before Eternal September.
God: Go out into the woods, collect all of the animals in the world by two and make the ark out of cubits. Eighty cubits, forty cubits, thirty cubits.
Noah: Riiiiiight! What's a cubit?
I was going to chastise you about snarking about proven technology, but it appears that the Aerojet AJ-26 in this mission's Antares booster represents the first successful launch using the NK-33 core... a design originally intended for the Soviet Union's abortive moon landing program, and specifically as the cluster engine for the F1 launch vehicle first stage.
It appears that as far as track records are concerned, SpaceX may have the upper hand: 5 launches for missions based on the NK-33, 4 failures; 5 launches for SpaceX Dragons, 1/2 failure (secondary payload failed to attain intended orbit on Flight 4)
But I'm not sure you're on about, unless you're weirding out about some non-standard definition of "weaponization of space" that involves weapons merely passing through space, in which case the non-weaponization of space was stillborn.
Larry Niven's Slaver Disintegrator worked along similar lines, except it surpressed intermolecular bonds rather than nuclear ones. Pretty effective, and less danger of an entirely hypothetical side effect I first read about in the little-known but apparently seminal Terran Trade Authority book Spacecraft 2000-2100 AD regarding the Proximan Tarantula weapon:
Virtually undetectable in their screened silos, these sinister scarlet painted craft would wait until overrun by our advancing ground forces before blowing off their camouflages covers and erupting from beneath the surface with the shriek of jetstream They were heavily armoured and carried the most frightening and indiscriminate weapon of the War. Housed in each of the legs were multiple sub- atomic particle oscillators (SAPO) able to project an omni-directional field which disrupted the relationships between atomic components.
All matter within an effective range of 5-600 metres was instantly and entirely dispersed, leaving a circle of boiling gases, and occasionally particle collision would set off a chain of nuclear reactions which not only devastated a wider area but destroyed the Tarantula as well.
Doesn't that sound a little bit like "Look what you made me do to you?"
That particular little line is a distinctive indication of an abuser... blaming the abused.
Abusers have alloplastic defenses. They tend to blame every mistake, failure, or mishap on others, or on the world at large. They do not assume personal responsibility, do not admit to having faults and miscalculations, keep blaming others for their predicament. "Look what you made me do!" is an abuser's ubiquitous catchphrase.
No...I'd have a harder time justifying ending another person's life, with the understanding that it's highly likely that their afterlife is going to be infinitely more horrible than the worst possible current life they're living now. Which is why I don't own any firearms, or anything that is primarily a weapon, even of self-defense.
Both, really. Office-type uniform combinations show soil and wrinkles quite a lot. To stay crisp enough to project correct military bearing (and avoid a word from the First Sergeant), you have to avoid getting dusty or being too active, and wear fresh every day. Fatigues/battledress mask it a lot of the same kinds of signs of "doing real work", so you can stretch it (as long as you don't get filthy or stinky), and you can do slightly grungy stuff and just dust the clothing off.
Also, expectations are a bit relaxed with battledress. Razor-sharp creases are doable, but you can't starch the fabric to attain persistent creases (because starch damages the fabric's engineered finish), so any ironing job you do is doomed to vanish within a few hours of even mild activity. So you look a tiny bit slouchier in camo uniform, but it's expected.
Finally, there is no necktie in camo uniform. Many of the office-style uniform combos mandate a necktie, or at least have one available (which often becomes "highly suggested" by superiors with broomsticks up their asses). And my job, as an enlisted technical leader, involved my brain...and I didn't need anyone commanding me to constrict cerebral blood flow.
Nah, don't be stupid. The deskbound "warfighters" are riding the Metro in camo because it's easier to maintain than dressier uniforms.
True story.
In my case, I wore the camo NOT MERELY because it was more comfortable and easier to maintain... but as a sysadmin, crawling around in the subfloor pulling cable would have been pretty much impossible in my Air Force desk-driver blues. (Well, not impossible... but having to rush home to change into a fresh uniform would have been just a waste of time).
Essentially, what's commonly known of as battledress now was once generally known of as fatigues... working clothes.
I can't speak for those whose whole day is guaranteed to be behind a desk. Probably the comfort/maintainability thing.
I'm sorry. I may be misunderstanding... but... are you making a comment on the assumption that anything Slashdot submitters or editors does may be remotely appropriate from a grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or orthographic basis?
In other words, you're assuming the use of all upper case was intentional and conveys something significant, and not just stupid Slashdot editing?
You're thinking Feist v. Rural. That US Supreme Court judgement held that simply collecting and unoriginally arranging mere information wasn't sufficiently creative to constitute a copyrightable work.
However, this is a UK suit. Feist isn't precedent. Also, it appears that the rest of the world (outside of the US) seems more friendly to the idea of copyrightable collections: the EU "database right" (and more specifically implemented in the UK by the The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997); the explicit language in the Berne Convention supporing the copyrightability of collections (Article 2, section 5); and the corresponding wording in the GATT Uruguay Round Treaty Agreement, specifically in the TRIPS Agreement.
So, Feist appears to be an exception, not the rule.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, you know, only the United States has manned aircraft in its airspace.
Or maybe you don't really care if those airliners are full of brown people?
The US may blow people up with remote-controlled death, but only on purpose. Not because the expensive drone blundered in from of a crowded A300.
When we shoot down Iranian Airbuses, we do it with missiles, not recon drones.
Man: Will you have sex with me for a 4.7 billion dollars?
Woman: That's a lot of money. Of course I would.
Man: How about for fifty bucks?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?!?
Man: We've already established what you are. Now we're haggling over price.
Seems odd if you ask me. Does he wear a skipper hat or a Militarist uniform?
You will not speak disrepectfully of El Presidente in this way.
We're keeping an eye on you.
-- Oracle Dignity Guard
Directive 4
sure you can replicate anything, but you need an expensive machine and the right raw materials
Star Trek canon is pretty sparse about "right raw materials", but the consensus seems to be that replication feedstock is some kind of bulk inert matter. (I don't understand why they don't just skip that and just directly use the energy equivalent).
However "expensive" isn't guaranteed. You'd just need one replicator and a feedstock source to replicate every other replicator you'd ever want... so only the first would be expensive.
If you're arguing there's some natural scarcity in (entirely fictional) replication technology, it's not a strong argument in light of the few sources I've seen. I think the stronger argument would be artificial scarcity: replicators with embedded restrictions preventing replication of replicators or replicator parts, for instance, or requiring a certain proprietary unobtainium as the feedstock, or heavy heavy DRM over replication patterns.
Certainly, that's how the the MPAA, the RIAA, and the Ferengi would do it.
An RFC is a standard in all but name. Not as clumsy or random as a formal specification; an elegant standard for a more civilized age. Back when "rough consensus and running code" was enough. Before the dark times... before Eternal September.
God: Go out into the woods, collect all of the animals in the world by two and make the ark out of cubits. Eighty cubits, forty cubits, thirty cubits.
Noah: Riiiiiight! What's a cubit?
-- Bill Cosby
I was going to chastise you about snarking about proven technology, but it appears that the Aerojet AJ-26 in this mission's Antares booster represents the first successful launch using the NK-33 core... a design originally intended for the Soviet Union's abortive moon landing program, and specifically as the cluster engine for the F1 launch vehicle first stage.
It appears that as far as track records are concerned, SpaceX may have the upper hand: 5 launches for missions based on the NK-33, 4 failures; 5 launches for SpaceX Dragons, 1/2 failure (secondary payload failed to attain intended orbit on Flight 4)
So carry on then.
Weapons were in space by 1973. Soviet weapons.
But I'm not sure you're on about, unless you're weirding out about some non-standard definition of "weaponization of space" that involves weapons merely passing through space, in which case the non-weaponization of space was stillborn.
OpenZFS' creation as an organization was announced today.
OpenZFS, the software stack, has been part of FreeBSD (9.2, since July) and FreeNAS (9.1, since August).
Does the open non-Oracle filesystem stack predate the organization?
Anonymoos Coward, no less.
-- http://www.bisbos.com/sf_tta_p_tarantula.html
I saw that movie.
I thought the happy ending was much too optimistic. Real life hasn't changed my opinion yet.
Doesn't that sound a little bit like "Look what you made me do to you?"
That particular little line is a distinctive indication of an abuser... blaming the abused.
-- Abusers - Denying the Abuse
Now it seems all very clear to me.
No...I'd have a harder time justifying ending another person's life, with the understanding that it's highly likely that their afterlife is going to be infinitely more horrible than the worst possible current life they're living now. Which is why I don't own any firearms, or anything that is primarily a weapon, even of self-defense.
But that's just me.
Is something like windows longhorn that much better?
The longhorn is a sacred totem animal to many. The longhorn is srs bzns.
In contrast, no one could take a suicidal squirrel seriously. Squirrels, regardless of their sense of self-preservation, and not srs bzns.
The NSA itself existed for a long time before the public ever knew about it at all.
No Such Agency.
Both, really. Office-type uniform combinations show soil and wrinkles quite a lot. To stay crisp enough to project correct military bearing (and avoid a word from the First Sergeant), you have to avoid getting dusty or being too active, and wear fresh every day. Fatigues/battledress mask it a lot of the same kinds of signs of "doing real work", so you can stretch it (as long as you don't get filthy or stinky), and you can do slightly grungy stuff and just dust the clothing off.
Also, expectations are a bit relaxed with battledress. Razor-sharp creases are doable, but you can't starch the fabric to attain persistent creases (because starch damages the fabric's engineered finish), so any ironing job you do is doomed to vanish within a few hours of even mild activity. So you look a tiny bit slouchier in camo uniform, but it's expected.
Finally, there is no necktie in camo uniform. Many of the office-style uniform combos mandate a necktie, or at least have one available (which often becomes "highly suggested" by superiors with broomsticks up their asses). And my job, as an enlisted technical leader, involved my brain...and I didn't need anyone commanding me to constrict cerebral blood flow.
Nah, don't be stupid. The deskbound "warfighters" are riding the Metro in camo because it's easier to maintain than dressier uniforms.
True story.
In my case, I wore the camo NOT MERELY because it was more comfortable and easier to maintain... but as a sysadmin, crawling around in the subfloor pulling cable would have been pretty much impossible in my Air Force desk-driver blues. (Well, not impossible... but having to rush home to change into a fresh uniform would have been just a waste of time).
Essentially, what's commonly known of as battledress now was once generally known of as fatigues... working clothes.
I can't speak for those whose whole day is guaranteed to be behind a desk. Probably the comfort/maintainability thing.
Because "everything else" at Amazon doesn't include old-school retro hardware.
Please, point out where I can get early-80s computer hardware at Amazon. Say, a TRS-80 Model I Expansion Interface. Or S-100 memory cards.
Sorry. Asides from lots of usually fruitless google searching, there's no real market for retro hardware besides Ebay.
Not a real rabbit.
Don't forget, they have clean rooms with bunny suits in FABs. Or "fabs". Both. Whatever.
So the arsonist was in an employee in a bunny suit.
I'm sorry. I may be misunderstanding... but... are you making a comment on the assumption that anything Slashdot submitters or editors does may be remotely appropriate from a grammatical, spelling, punctuation, or orthographic basis?
In other words, you're assuming the use of all upper case was intentional and conveys something significant, and not just stupid Slashdot editing?
Wow. You must be new here.
Temporary sleep-deprivation-induced Dunning-Kruger Effect, perhaps?
Oh.
Zombies aren't shambling horrors mocking life with their undeath. They're just REALLY sleep-deprived.
Makes perfect sense. I turn into a zombie after 22 continuous hours without sleep, so that must be what's happening.
You're thinking Feist v. Rural. That US Supreme Court judgement held that simply collecting and unoriginally arranging mere information wasn't sufficiently creative to constitute a copyrightable work.
However, this is a UK suit. Feist isn't precedent. Also, it appears that the rest of the world (outside of the US) seems more friendly to the idea of copyrightable collections: the EU "database right" (and more specifically implemented in the UK by the The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997); the explicit language in the Berne Convention supporing the copyrightability of collections (Article 2, section 5); and the corresponding wording in the GATT Uruguay Round Treaty Agreement, specifically in the TRIPS Agreement.
So, Feist appears to be an exception, not the rule.