You are stretching a point beyond credibility. Pretty much everything is poisonous if you absorb a high enough quantity. Ordinary salt is lethal in half the quantity as ethanol. Methanol, not ethanol, is toxic via skin absorption and inhalation as well as ingestion. Ethanol is actually efficacious as a TREATMENT for methanol poisoning.
7. Because ethanol is a toxic and hazardous substance, its use is regulated by OSHA, DOT, NFPA and NIOSH. Ethanol must be handled with extreme caution because it can enter the blood stream from breathing the fumes, or by penetration through the skin or mouth. Exposure can irritate the eyes, nose, mouth, and throat. As such, protective clothing, including gloves and splash-proof chemical goggles and face shields should be worn by anyone coming in contact with ethanol.
This is complete and utter bullshit and tells me that the "Professor" who wrote that study is an ignorant fool. Ethanol is NOT poisonous. METHANOL is poisonous. If the professor doesn't even know the difference between ethanol and methanol, it means thee are doubtless other massive faults in his report.
Sure about that? They're getting 1/3 of a mSv per month, so about 4 per year. one chest CT scan is about two dozen or so as a rough rule of thumb. Closer to a CT scan per six years.
Table 13: Typical doses from CT in the UK (2003 review):
* 9.9 for "Chest, abdomen & pelvis [CT] (lymphoma staging or follow up)"
* 6.3 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 0-1 y old [child]"
* 5.8 for "Chest [CT] (lung cancer: known, suspected or metastases)"
* 3.9 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 10 y old [child]"
* 3.6 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 5 y old [child]"
* 1.2 for "Chest, abdomen, & pelvis [CT]: Hi-resolution (diffuse lung disease)"
so I would say the exposure to 4 mSv per year is well within the range for a single chest CT scan.
Yes, there are places that are above average background radiation by the same amount, but that still doesn't mean that routine chest CT scans every year would be regarded as risk-justified without damn good reason.
It might interest you to learn that a National Research Council committee to "assess health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation," published by the National Academy of Sciences, disagrees with you.
In their report they state "An important task of the BEIR VII committee was to develop 'risk models' for estimating the relationship between exposure to low levels of low-LET ionizing radiation and harmful health effects. The committee judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by ionizing radiation."
The premise of the linear no-threshold model, as its name implies, is that there IS NO safe threshold of radiation exposure below which no harmful health effects can occur.
I don't happen to think the authors of this study are "crackpots". A single alpha or beta or gamma ray hit on a single cell can cause chromosomal damage and increases risk of cancer to some degree. Yes, for small doses, the degree is slight, but it is not zero. It is not at all like water in the lungs, where obviously a single molecule or even thimble-full presents zero hazard of choking to death or drowning.
How would this work with broadband mobile? In my experience, most if not all broadband mobile users get a different IP address every time they log on. Most dialup users, same thing. Anybody logging in from a place of business gets the opposite problem. Everyone at that site very often gets the same apparent IP address. People still do use multiuser hosts, as well. Everyone on a given host gets the same IP number.
We have to face the fact that IP addresses do not identify individuals; do not even serve usefully or reliably as indicators to distinguish anonymous individuals one from the other. I suppose IPV6 addresses COULD be enforced to identify specific hosts if you went out of your way to outlaw NAT, but there's a lot of implications to that. I'm pretty sure I couldn't be in favor of it.
Adolescence excuses NOTHING. Yes, it must be taken into account, but it's not a get out of jail free card. I don't know about ridiculing, but depending on the assholishness of the 16yo, I would try to apply correction. There are plenty of 16yos, some who have had it easy and some decidedly not, who are nevertheless not assholes. Quite a few have, on their own, surmounted terrible conditions and terrible things done to them. I won't just give a pass to those who never make the effort,who have no empathy or understanding whatsoever.
I think the headline itself basically conveys the reason why the Feds should get involved. If you don't see it, fine, but it's hardly necessary for him to elaborate.
Sorry, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Sound familiar? We really do mean self-evident. Not just for western white middle class people. We don't think we can lay the law down for India and the rest of the world, and you can ignore us, but not all of us are going to shut up. You know what you can do with your imperative which is essentially to tell us to shut up.
Having said that, India is Indians' country, for sure. Have a ball.
Hint... don't call the big boys who know what they're talking about names. You're not doing yourself any favors. The first time was a mistake; anybody can make a mistake. The second time was doubling down on stupidity. Words have meaning.
The USA suffered far more deaths in World War II than any of the allied countries (except maybe Russia after they switched sides).
Maybe you'd like to read YOUR OWN reference, Mr. Coward:
China total deaths at least 10,000,000 Dutch East Indies total deaths at least 3,000,000 India total deaths at least 1,587,000 France total deaths 567,600 Phillipines total deaths at least 557,000 UK total deaths 450,900 US total deaths 418,500
But you totally blow all your credibility when you toss off "except maybe Russia [sic]...":
USSR total deaths: 23,400,000
Pretty stupid to just blow off the only major combatant who lost more than 1 out of 10 of their entire pre-war population, as opposed to 1 out of 312 for the US, a much more severe 1 out of 106 for the UK, 1 out of 74 for France, and 1 in 28 for the Philippines,
Which do you fear more? Making your passwords so easy to steal that someone robs you of everything? Or making your passwords so hard to retrieve that you effectively lose access to them and lose access to all of your own stuff? Choose one or the other. Think carefully. Hint... it's a trick question. Hobson's choice.
If your arm is eaten by a shark or your eye is poked out by a nail gun, you'll never be able to get a replacement fingerprint or retina pattern, but if you lose your access card and are able to talk the security officer into giving you another, you won't be fired for inability to do your job because you can't get into the site.
Secure and sure. Secure and sure. Not just secure. A system even the authorized user can never enter because it's too bloody hard to accomplish is busted, but it's still secure. DAMN secure.
Slashdot Mirror
The old divisions which were fostered by the establishment are breaking down. I'll welcome allies where I find them.
I think so too. The world should be enraged at this power grab.
You are stretching a point beyond credibility. Pretty much everything is poisonous if you absorb a high enough quantity. Ordinary salt is lethal in half the quantity as ethanol. Methanol, not ethanol, is toxic via skin absorption and inhalation as well as ingestion. Ethanol is actually efficacious as a TREATMENT for methanol poisoning.
LD50 in rat:
* sucrose (table sugar) 29,700 mg/kg
* ethanol 7060 mg/kg
* sodium chloride (table salt) 3000 mg/kg
* methanol 400 mg/kg
* aspirin 200 mg/kg
* nicotine 50 mg/kg
* sodium cyanide 6.4 mg/kg
* VX nerve agent (human) 0.0023 mg/kg
Maybe he's just, like, stupid. Sorry, he left himself wide open.
HDCP is not HDMI only. In fact it predated HDMI. Any half decent DVI monitor has HDCP. Yeah, there are some lame ones without.
This is complete and utter bullshit and tells me that the "Professor" who wrote that study is an ignorant fool. Ethanol is NOT poisonous. METHANOL is poisonous. If the professor doesn't even know the difference between ethanol and methanol, it means thee are doubtless other massive faults in his report.
Well, this reference gives:
Table 13: Typical doses from CT in the UK (2003 review):
* 9.9 for "Chest, abdomen & pelvis [CT] (lymphoma staging or follow up)"
* 6.3 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 0-1 y old [child]"
* 5.8 for "Chest [CT] (lung cancer: known, suspected or metastases)"
* 3.9 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 10 y old [child]"
* 3.6 for "Chest [CT] (detection of malignancy): 5 y old [child]"
* 1.2 for "Chest, abdomen, & pelvis [CT]: Hi-resolution (diffuse lung disease)"
so I would say the exposure to 4 mSv per year is well within the range for a single chest CT scan.
Yes, there are places that are above average background radiation by the same amount, but that still doesn't mean that routine chest CT scans every year would be regarded as risk-justified without damn good reason.
It might interest you to learn that a National Research Council committee to "assess health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation," published by the National Academy of Sciences, disagrees with you.
In their report they state "An important task of the BEIR VII committee was to develop 'risk models' for estimating the relationship between exposure to low levels of low-LET ionizing radiation and harmful health effects. The committee judged that the linear no-threshold model (LNT) provided the most reasonable description of the relation between low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of solid cancers that are induced by ionizing radiation."
The premise of the linear no-threshold model, as its name implies, is that there IS NO safe threshold of radiation exposure below which no harmful health effects can occur.
I don't happen to think the authors of this study are "crackpots". A single alpha or beta or gamma ray hit on a single cell can cause chromosomal damage and increases risk of cancer to some degree. Yes, for small doses, the degree is slight, but it is not zero. It is not at all like water in the lungs, where obviously a single molecule or even thimble-full presents zero hazard of choking to death or drowning.
* Limit of one account per IP addy.
How would this work with broadband mobile? In my experience, most if not all broadband mobile users get a different IP address every time they log on. Most dialup users, same thing. Anybody logging in from a place of business gets the opposite problem. Everyone at that site very often gets the same apparent IP address. People still do use multiuser hosts, as well. Everyone on a given host gets the same IP number.
We have to face the fact that IP addresses do not identify individuals; do not even serve usefully or reliably as indicators to distinguish anonymous individuals one from the other. I suppose IPV6 addresses COULD be enforced to identify specific hosts if you went out of your way to outlaw NAT, but there's a lot of implications to that. I'm pretty sure I couldn't be in favor of it.
I'm curious, just how do you think that might be done, in a realistic technical sense?
Adolescence excuses NOTHING. Yes, it must be taken into account, but it's not a get out of jail free card. I don't know about ridiculing, but depending on the assholishness of the 16yo, I would try to apply correction. There are plenty of 16yos, some who have had it easy and some decidedly not, who are nevertheless not assholes. Quite a few have, on their own, surmounted terrible conditions and terrible things done to them. I won't just give a pass to those who never make the effort,who have no empathy or understanding whatsoever.
Good work, mods. Seriously.
Jeeze, can you buy ME some? We're about 70% above those numbers in the land of the free and the home of the shafted.
I think the headline itself basically conveys the reason why the Feds should get involved. If you don't see it, fine, but it's hardly necessary for him to elaborate.
Sorry, "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Sound familiar? We really do mean self-evident. Not just for western white middle class people. We don't think we can lay the law down for India and the rest of the world, and you can ignore us, but not all of us are going to shut up. You know what you can do with your imperative which is essentially to tell us to shut up.
Having said that, India is Indians' country, for sure. Have a ball.
Hint ... don't call the big boys who know what they're talking about names. You're not doing yourself any favors. The first time was a mistake; anybody can make a mistake. The second time was doubling down on stupidity. Words have meaning.
Maybe you'd like to read YOUR OWN reference, Mr. Coward:
China total deaths at least 10,000,000
Dutch East Indies total deaths at least 3,000,000
India total deaths at least 1,587,000
France total deaths 567,600
Phillipines total deaths at least 557,000
UK total deaths 450,900
US total deaths 418,500
But you totally blow all your credibility when you toss off "except maybe Russia [sic] ...":
USSR total deaths: 23,400,000
Pretty stupid to just blow off the only major combatant who lost more than 1 out of 10 of their entire pre-war population, as opposed to 1 out of 312 for the US, a much more severe 1 out of 106 for the UK, 1 out of 74 for France, and 1 in 28 for the Philippines,
All right, wise guy, can't argue with that - but if both arms are eaten off and both eyes are poked out ... ?
Which do you fear more? Making your passwords so easy to steal that someone robs you of everything? Or making your passwords so hard to retrieve that you effectively lose access to them and lose access to all of your own stuff? Choose one or the other. Think carefully. Hint ... it's a trick question. Hobson's choice.
If your arm is eaten by a shark or your eye is poked out by a nail gun, you'll never be able to get a replacement fingerprint or retina pattern, but if you lose your access card and are able to talk the security officer into giving you another, you won't be fired for inability to do your job because you can't get into the site.
Secure and sure. Secure and sure. Not just secure. A system even the authorized user can never enter because it's too bloody hard to accomplish is busted, but it's still secure. DAMN secure.
14 years to complete just part of it?? It took only six years for the greatest mobilization in world history to defeat the Axis.
And all the signs that said "Stop" but failed to add "... and then go".
AS IF the flash came anywhere near even 2.0 speed.
Should really be 3.0 not 2.0 for 1TB of space to fill.
In what strange land does a 1 TB drive cost $50 these days?