Yeah the disease may be mental because drugs for schizophrenic patients alleviate it.
But Morgellons seem to be on the uprise. Maybe people are not being infected with skin parasites, but instead are being tainted with somethin that makes them think they have skin parasites.
Possibly people are being infected by some parasite that infects/affects their brain.
There are numerous examples where some parasite that infects say an insect or mouse alters the behavior of the animal so that it is easy for a predator to catch it, eat it, and become infected.
Polar bears have a reputation of relentlessly going after anything they can eat, even if it is humans in a strong cage firing guns at them. It is not easy to find food in the artic.
Grizzly bears are just big strong bullies. A top boar will get much of his meat just by appropriating killed flesh from any bear he can intimidate. But they are not all that vicious.
Now that global warming is forcing the polar bears out of the artic, I'm sure that there will be many such hybrids.
I just don't want to meet one.
Fing ignorant science writers.
The main article says:
Conventional production involves dissolving a catalyst, such as sodium hydroxide, in alcohol, then stirring it into vegetable oil in large vats for about two hours. The mixture then has to sit for 12 to 24 hours while a slow chemical reaction forms biodiesel along with glycerin, a byproduct.
The glycerin is separated and can be used to make other products, such as soaps, but it still contains the chemical catalyst, which must be neutralized and removed using hydrochloric acid, a long and costly process.
the only legitimate use is an "under construction" marker
Um, I just tried off the top of my head http://mybigfatass.com/ . Yup, it exists and has only 1 working internal link. However it does link to slashdot.
If you look at their site analysis, you can cruise porn sites without visiting them. E.g. http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/dirtyplumpers.com /summary/
Scroll to where it shows the graph of connected sites. Those sites are clickable to get their analysis, so you can iterate this process.
First I'm amazed at how many of these sites are listed as having "many users".
Second, the only reason I've seen so far for branding a site red is that if you give them your email address they will send you spam.
When Quicktime told me (on an XP pc) to update I did. It installed iTunes also (I didn't figure out how to disable this) and I belive I was taken to the iTunes web site.
Forced page hits should not count as real page hits.
It is nice that these skin cells can detect that they have been damaged, yet I read nothing about if they have been damaged, how they plan to repair the damages caused?
Um, no, a skin cell cannot detect that it itself is damaged. Undamaged neighbors that can't communicate with a cell can decide it is damaged.
"repair" in the sense used means routing communication and tasks around the damaged cells.
I guess the Cromagnons could not find the Neanderthals sexually attractive - what was the turn off?
I've seen lots of chimps, orangs, and gorillas in zoos. Some I like the look of, be it dignified or humerous but I have never found any of them remotely sexually attractive nor have I found any that I would call gorgeous.
Which is strange because I have seen horses and dogs that I would call gorgeous. And this type of prettyness is tied in with some inate system of sexual attraction - not that I am sexually attracted to dogs or horses but that somehow a great horse ass can remind one of human females' asses.
I've known women from many of the so-called races and sub-races of the humans that I consider gorgeous and think such can be found everywhere.
However I find birth defects such as midgets or Down's Syndrome as anti-attractive.
So my hypothesis is that modern humans did not want to interbreed with Neanderthals or great apes because they looked like they had birth defects, and somehow this notion of 'not true to form' is inately tied to our notion of attractiveness.
Though I still don't know what the big Neanderthal turnoff is.
I am not expert on the details of various building codes, but I am familiar with the intent of electrical codes that try to prevent high voltage/amperage wiring from being in the same enclosure as low stuff. For example, codes encourage 120 V wiring to run through conduits but prohibit running low power lines (such as phone) to run through the same conduits. Why? Because some stupid accident might cause the wires to become cross connected and blow out devices or start a fire.
Mounting an uncovered PCB (printed circuit board) that communicates with a computer within a 120 V distribution panel is a very big no-no. What if geek hubby is out of town and wifey experiences a power problem and calls in a yellow page electrician to fix the problem? In the worse case the "electrician" accidently drops a tool that winds up connecting 120 V to the computer circuits and starts a fire in the server room.
Building codes are designed as protection from stupidity - not only the stupidity of the the original builders but from the stupidity of those called in to fix problems.
To anybody who wants to do anything similar - it makes sense to put the current sensors in the distribution panel, but please rout them out to a seperate box that sends their info to a computer.
maybe there are some sects of baptists that do allow moderate drinking. But most sects are absolute on this point. And for discounting the religious motivation behind the desire for a ban, here is a recent editorial by the Rev. Mark H. Creech (Executive Director of the Christian Action League
of North Carolina)
Moreover, Jesus would have never approved the actions of a bunch of greedy Internet wine retailers who were determined to distribute "strong drink" at the expense of the nation's children.
So there are religious groups working to support the ban. But it may be that they are secretly in the pockets of liquor distributors.
Baptists (non drinkers) have been a major force behind attempted legislation to force all alcohol to be sold from local retail outlets. They claim it is so underage kids can't order their own wine and drift into a life of sin. But who really thinks that a parent would not notice credit charge bills or large packages delivered to home.
The real reason is to keep other adult Baptists from secrectly drinking. Right now, most "wet Baptists" have to drive 100 miles to buy their hooch at liquor store where it is unlikely someone will recognize them. UPS delivery will make it much easier to be secrectly wet.
"If you go fishing with a Baptist, make sure there is at least 2 of them" (e.g. if there is only one then he will drink all of your beer).
Maybe they just want to make sure that hunters are wearing pants when they kill.
Occasionally in flipping through the TV channels, I've come across hunting shows where some guy in a tree ambushes a deer. And some of those guys get really worked up and excited untill the climax of the kill.
Maybe the opponents of internet hunting want do discourage people from engaging in unseemly behavior in their basements.
I've had experience with some of the computers in older government satellites.
Simple processors are preferred because that makes it much easier to figure out the time bounds on a subroutine. You don't want one routine to use up so much time that it keeps something else from being done. Timing information is rigoriously analyzed to make sure that the system won't miss something if lots of things happens at once. Fancy modern archetectures like cache, pipeline stalls, out-of-order operations, etc. make timing analysis very difficult.
Generally interrupts are not used - instead conditions are polled at a regular time slice. One reason for this is that polled data is also down-linked in a telemetry stream for status monitoring and trouble shooting. Also interrupts greatly complicate timing analysis.
In LISP, good coding is already SSA trees
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
In LISP code, whenever you see a SETQ (assignment) it cries out that the programmer may be lazy or not very good. Good coders know to bind values (LET) rather than change them (SETQ) and treat iteration as recursion.
Of course functional languages have to bite the bullet when munging data structures (SET!). I have no idea how SSA representation handles such cases.
In the pure functional sphere (e.g. Prolog) you have to treat changing an element in a data structure as making an altered clone of that data structure (though there good structural hacks so that altering 1 element in a 100000 element array does not cause the whole array to be cloned).
Worse than functional languages are the linear logics. I'm sure they make a lot of "deep" sense, but there not only can each variable be only assigned once, but also it can only be read once.
Maybe if Mozilla had better documentation I wouldn't visit it so often, hoping to find documentation to explain things. Firefox does provide local (F1) help but that often sends you to the web - which ups Moz's page hits.
Also, Firefox has all sorts of neat hacking potential which dovetails with increasingly exposed hooks into Google things like Google maps.
Sadly, some basic browser commands and options are poorly documented and advanced information (on hacking) is largely non-existant. Which kinda sucks because some people find it easy to extend Firefox with bookmarklets, extensions, and GreaseMonkey scripts.
For example, a full Firefox contains a DOM (Document Object Model) Inspector which can help in traking down say how a page hid something in a style sheet. However there is no official documentation for this DOMi. Some outside web pages have helped by explaining what some of the buttons mean, but I have yet to see any discussion of "evalute javascript" and I can't seem to get it to work.
I am someone well versed in programming in many languages, but professionally never learned javascript. Yet I have written a few bookmarklets by example (e.g. find some js code examples that do things similar to what you want and imitate them).
I wish I could find a good discussion of javascript "namespaces" and Firefox hacking. My guess is that there is some contium. Bookmarklets only give you access to DOM stuff, GreaseMonkey exposes certain hooks into Firefox, Extensions expose more Firefox hooks, and hacking Firefox lets you do anything.
What nobody has objected to is the IBM claim that the architecture has:
On-chip hardware in support of security system for intellectual property protection.
Much of the curent discussion has been on how to program and coordinate all the little digital signal processors (DSPs - aka DPUs). I think these questions are moot because the envisioned DRM (digital rights management) will make the "cell data" and "cell programs" uninspectable. Even by the the on-chip PUs (processor unit - something like a power-Mac running Linux).
In other words, media data and processing algorithms will be behind an impenetrable DRM hardware wall. "Cell programs" (the little vectorizable data manipulators) will be trade secretes. Outsiders that want to program something new will only be able to string together DRM approved cells. For example, there might be an approved MPG6 cell that will report meta-data found initially in a MPG6 stream but Rights Management interests will never permit any cell that exports all of the MPG6 data.
Why does the recommended single chip PE (processing element) include 8 DPUs? My guess is that a certified library of Cell Programs will not allow anything to be sent off chip that is not strongly encrypted. Thus one might have an 8 DPU chip where 3 are used to decrypt the input, 2 to do the actual processing, and 3 are used to encrypt the output.
This off-chip disadvantage is a strong reason for putting multiple PUs and their 8 DPUs on one chip - If intercommunication between Cells cannot be detected externally then there is no need for the encryption/description stuff.
Hmmm, at Vortex HC LLC of Morrisville NC, the "commercial source" of the wall climbing robot, I find that the only human listed as a contact is " Office Manager : Jason Janet, PhD.", who just happens to appear in the Duke News release above as:
Jason Janet, an adjunct professor in Duke's electrical and computer engineering department and faculty advisor on the robotics project.
And if you check out Duke faculty web pages, you find that Janet is not just an "adjunct professor", he is an adjunct assistant professor".
And Janet's email goes to avionicinstruments.com, a company with web pages that give the company no physical location. However they can be reached at a phone number assigned to Rahwey New Jersey.
So it seems that Janet was able to convince the "Lords Foundation" (whoever they may be) to give money so that his club could buy a robot from his company and generate publicity. Who knows, maybe the mysterious NJ company is behind the Lords Foundation and most of their buildings house red lectroids banished from planet 10
I also suggest people check out the high rez version of the photo. It looks like a scene from "Revenge of the Nerds".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah the disease may be mental because drugs for schizophrenic patients alleviate it. But Morgellons seem to be on the uprise. Maybe people are not being infected with skin parasites, but instead are being tainted with somethin that makes them think they have skin parasites. Possibly people are being infected by some parasite that infects/affects their brain. There are numerous examples where some parasite that infects say an insect or mouse alters the behavior of the animal so that it is easy for a predator to catch it, eat it, and become infected.
Polar bears have a reputation of relentlessly going after anything they can eat, even if it is humans in a strong cage firing guns at them. It is not easy to find food in the artic. Grizzly bears are just big strong bullies. A top boar will get much of his meat just by appropriating killed flesh from any bear he can intimidate. But they are not all that vicious. Now that global warming is forcing the polar bears out of the artic, I'm sure that there will be many such hybrids. I just don't want to meet one.
The main article says: NaOH + glycerin = soap.
the only legitimate use is an "under construction" marker
Um, I just tried off the top of my head http://mybigfatass.com/ . Yup, it exists and has only 1 working internal link. However it does link to slashdot.
Looks like somebody is parking their ass.
I work in a company that SiteAdvisor marked with big red "X" and I question the analysis by SiteAdvisor.
Since you don't mention what site you work for your comment is completly worthless - no way for anybody to evaluate what you are saying
If you look at their site analysis, you can cruise porn sites without visiting them. E.g.m /summary/
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/dirtyplumpers.co
Scroll to where it shows the graph of connected sites. Those sites are clickable to get their analysis, so you can iterate this process.
First I'm amazed at how many of these sites are listed as having "many users".
Second, the only reason I've seen so far for branding a site red is that if you give them your email address they will send you spam.
One of those must have been me.
When Quicktime told me (on an XP pc) to update I did. It installed iTunes also (I didn't figure out how to disable this) and I belive I was taken to the iTunes web site.
Forced page hits should not count as real page hits.
Here is the blurb in Nature, Nature's Editor's Summary
and here is the PDF research paper The scaling laws of human travel.
One thing that screws up web page studies is that some sites duplicate pages hundreds or thousands of times.
Oliver Steele did a cute study on how to spell aargh.
Unfortunately much of his data is screwed up because he counted pages for each spelling not unique pages.
For this study, I don't see this problem ocurring.
arstechnica.com cannot be found right now.
and the article is not in the google cache.
Though it probably included too many technical details that the bad science writers will not be able to understand.
maybe they just unearthed containers from an old prison where they were making pruno.
An analysis of one old pot does nothing to prove the prevalence of such a drink.
It is nice that these skin cells can detect that they have been damaged, yet I read nothing about if they have been damaged, how they plan to repair the damages caused?
Um, no, a skin cell cannot detect that it itself is damaged. Undamaged neighbors that can't communicate with a cell can decide it is damaged.
"repair" in the sense used means routing communication and tasks around the damaged cells.
I guess the Cromagnons could not find the Neanderthals sexually attractive - what was the turn off?
I've seen lots of chimps, orangs, and gorillas in zoos. Some I like the look of, be it dignified or humerous but I have never found any of them remotely sexually attractive nor have I found any that I would call gorgeous.
Which is strange because I have seen horses and dogs that I would call gorgeous. And this type of prettyness is tied in with some inate system of sexual attraction - not that I am sexually attracted to dogs or horses but that somehow a great horse ass can remind one of human females' asses.
I've known women from many of the so-called races and sub-races of the humans that I consider gorgeous and think such can be found everywhere.
However I find birth defects such as midgets or Down's Syndrome as anti-attractive.
So my hypothesis is that modern humans did not want to interbreed with Neanderthals or great apes because they looked like they had birth defects, and somehow this notion of 'not true to form' is inately tied to our notion of attractiveness.
Though I still don't know what the big Neanderthal turnoff is.
I am not expert on the details of various building codes, but I am familiar with the intent of electrical codes that try to prevent high voltage/amperage wiring from being in the same enclosure as low stuff. For example, codes encourage 120 V wiring to run through conduits but prohibit running low power lines (such as phone) to run through the same conduits. Why? Because some stupid accident might cause the wires to become cross connected and blow out devices or start a fire.
Mounting an uncovered PCB (printed circuit board) that communicates with a computer within a 120 V distribution panel is a very big no-no. What if geek hubby is out of town and wifey experiences a power problem and calls in a yellow page electrician to fix the problem? In the worse case the "electrician" accidently drops a tool that winds up connecting 120 V to the computer circuits and starts a fire in the server room.
Building codes are designed as protection from stupidity - not only the stupidity of the the original builders but from the stupidity of those called in to fix problems.
To anybody who wants to do anything similar - it makes sense to put the current sensors in the distribution panel, but please rout them out to a seperate box that sends their info to a computer.
Baptists (non drinkers) have been a major force behind attempted legislation to force all alcohol to be sold from local retail outlets. They claim it is so underage kids can't order their own wine and drift into a life of sin. But who really thinks that a parent would not notice credit charge bills or large packages delivered to home.
The real reason is to keep other adult Baptists from secrectly drinking. Right now, most "wet Baptists" have to drive 100 miles to buy their hooch at liquor store where it is unlikely someone will recognize them. UPS delivery will make it much easier to be secrectly wet.
"If you go fishing with a Baptist, make sure there is at least 2 of them" (e.g. if there is only one then he will drink all of your beer).
Maybe they just want to make sure that hunters are wearing pants when they kill.
Occasionally in flipping through the TV channels, I've come across hunting shows where some guy in a tree ambushes a deer. And some of those guys get really worked up and excited untill the climax of the kill.
Maybe the opponents of internet hunting want do discourage people from engaging in unseemly behavior in their basements.
I've had experience with some of the computers in older government satellites.
Simple processors are preferred because that makes it much easier to figure out the time bounds on a subroutine. You don't want one routine to use up so much time that it keeps something else from being done. Timing information is rigoriously analyzed to make sure that the system won't miss something if lots of things happens at once. Fancy modern archetectures like cache, pipeline stalls, out-of-order operations, etc. make timing analysis very difficult.
Generally interrupts are not used - instead conditions are polled at a regular time slice. One reason for this is that polled data is also down-linked in a telemetry stream for status monitoring and trouble shooting. Also interrupts greatly complicate timing analysis.
In LISP code, whenever you see a SETQ (assignment) it cries out that the programmer may be lazy or not very good. Good coders know to bind values (LET) rather than change them (SETQ) and treat iteration as recursion.
Of course functional languages have to bite the bullet when munging data structures (SET!). I have no idea how SSA representation handles such cases.
In the pure functional sphere (e.g. Prolog) you have to treat changing an element in a data structure as making an altered clone of that data structure (though there good structural hacks so that altering 1 element in a 100000 element array does not cause the whole array to be cloned).
Worse than functional languages are the linear logics. I'm sure they make a lot of "deep" sense, but there not only can each variable be only assigned once, but also it can only be read once.
Maybe if Mozilla had better documentation I wouldn't visit it so often, hoping to find documentation to explain things. Firefox does provide local (F1) help but that often sends you to the web - which ups Moz's page hits.
Also, Firefox has all sorts of neat hacking potential which dovetails with increasingly exposed hooks into Google things like Google maps.
Sadly, some basic browser commands and options are poorly documented and advanced information (on hacking) is largely non-existant. Which kinda sucks because some people find it easy to extend Firefox with bookmarklets, extensions, and GreaseMonkey scripts.
For example, a full Firefox contains a DOM (Document Object Model) Inspector which can help in traking down say how a page hid something in a style sheet. However there is no official documentation for this DOMi. Some outside web pages have helped by explaining what some of the buttons mean, but I have yet to see any discussion of "evalute javascript" and I can't seem to get it to work.
I am someone well versed in programming in many languages, but professionally never learned javascript. Yet I have written a few bookmarklets by example (e.g. find some js code examples that do things similar to what you want and imitate them).
I wish I could find a good discussion of javascript "namespaces" and Firefox hacking. My guess is that there is some contium. Bookmarklets only give you access to DOM stuff, GreaseMonkey exposes certain hooks into Firefox, Extensions expose more Firefox hooks, and hacking Firefox lets you do anything.
Firefox only runs on W98 and above. K-Meleon can run on W95. What could be geekier than updating software on a W95 box?
In other words, media data and processing algorithms will be behind an impenetrable DRM hardware wall. "Cell programs" (the little vectorizable data manipulators) will be trade secretes. Outsiders that want to program something new will only be able to string together DRM approved cells. For example, there might be an approved MPG6 cell that will report meta-data found initially in a MPG6 stream but Rights Management interests will never permit any cell that exports all of the MPG6 data.
Why does the recommended single chip PE (processing element) include 8 DPUs? My guess is that a certified library of Cell Programs will not allow anything to be sent off chip that is not strongly encrypted. Thus one might have an 8 DPU chip where 3 are used to decrypt the input, 2 to do the actual processing, and 3 are used to encrypt the output. This off-chip disadvantage is a strong reason for putting multiple PUs and their 8 DPUs on one chip - If intercommunication between Cells cannot be detected externally then there is no need for the encryption/description stuff.
pirating is rampant in China. Is HP thinking the PC will probably get a pirated copy of Win-XP, but it is not their fault if it does?
So it seems that Janet was able to convince the "Lords Foundation" (whoever they may be) to give money so that his club could buy a robot from his company and generate publicity. Who knows, maybe the mysterious NJ company is behind the Lords Foundation and most of their buildings house red lectroids banished from planet 10
I also suggest people check out the high rez version of the photo. It looks like a scene from "Revenge of the Nerds".