"It will not be worse because patents, especially software patents, do not result in a net social benefit, so the elimination of them would result in no longer having a hindrance."
Strictly Poli-Sci 101. No, that is an opinion only and not a very well thought out one.
I'm gonna have to assume that we're talking about a big enough distance into the future as well as space to consider hard vacuum battles taking place.
So, I agree with you completely except that I think the manufacturing will also take place in space.
I also think that we're talking about a war either elsewhere or against intruders because no one's gonna sit back and let an enemy interest assemble a battleship in orbit.
The construction would be pot-shotted to death.
If there is international space combat, it'll be those drones you mentioned no further out than orbit and shooting the shit out of each other like a fleet of amphetamine charged Halo-heads.
I wouldn't really call that "battle".
Shudder. I just heard that damned thirteen year old in the back of my mind.
"The main issue with using large guns in space is the recoil."
Same thing on Earth. That's why only really big ships have really big guns.
"Making a little pinhole in the side of a ship with a laser would be pretty effective in space..."
It would be near meaningless on a battlecruiser sized vessel. The idea of holes in ships is way overblown, just like with airliners. There will only be 16psi pushing out that little hole. You could seal it with metallic tape. There will also be laser deflecting materials developed.
A rail cannon could launch a package at immense speeds with two advantages. The package is (can be) just inert material and the energy signature would be more or less contained inside the vehicle.
This could lend itself interestingly to combat.
You could launch a rapid series of projectiles. The first N would electronically awaken part way there and deviate microscopically in all directions from trajectory. These are followed by a series of essentially pointed half-ton boulders of say, titanium.
If they target the lead loads they'll not only not see the trailers if the ballistics are sound, but their destruction should provide coverage. Then you get perforated by bunch of really mean meteors.
As for recoil. You can either use fuel and resist it or you can turn it into a tactically simultaneous retreat so you can see what happens. As this is a shit-load of energy and mass, recovery might take a bit as well.
Actually, no. The message is that intrusive busy-bodies attempting to disrupt a completely legal gathering of participants enjoying a completely legal activity should expect to get treated as such.
If some asshole was spying on me just because I was doing something they disapproved of, I'd shoot down their fucking helicopter too.
Besides, it's not really their fault. It was the activist's ignorance that did it. One of them was named Skeeter and another shouted to him for something.
The example would be valid if the person you were testing said they could set a piece of paper sealing on fire in a vacuum with a match. Of course, if you were to test such a claim you would find that it doesn't hold up.
"I also think that one could potentially design a match that produces it's own oxygen for combustion but I have never had a proper vacuum to play with so I have never had the opportunity to try."
The match carrying its own oxygen has that oxygen already bound into molecules and therefore won't burn in an open fire which requires molecular O2 to happen. Were you somehow able to carry the O2 without combining it, once the process is started in a vacuum (again, somehow), the O2 will immediately disperse into an extremely thin atmosphere and not burn in the match, much less set a piece of paper on fire.
There are sometimes sound reasons to dismiss moronic notions.
Randi isn't proving, he's disproving. That's done on an instance by instance basis. You take someone's claimed procedure and results and attempt to duplicated it. If it fails to duplicate, the claimed procedure and results are shown faulty or fraudulent.
Pure science.
That one extrapolates from the fact that every charlatan forced to prove their claim fails miserably that all others making the same claim are charlatans as well - is due to common sense.
Yeah, it is. Disproving bogus test results is the foundation of science. Falsifiability.
Just because he entertains at the same time isn't relevant. Each time he disproves a claim, the pile of bullshit that claim rests on is lessened and knowledge of our reality is made a bit more clear. That is indeed science. Just not in a "lab".
"You could use Randi's methods to prove that there is no such thing as cancer by finding ten people who claim to have cancer and showing that they actually don't.'
Horseshit. Cancer is a known and extensively documented phenomenon. That would simply prove those ten people had delusions of some nature
"He proved that those particular dousers claims were fraudulent."
Please name the energy that the dousers are using
to 'feel' these things. I don't even need to know how the human mind picks it up, just what it is and where it originates and how it can transmit the desired information.
"Randi's methods are unscientific."
Disproving claims is the foundation of science.
"Pseudoskeptics believe too little..."
How does this phrase jibe in any way with the concept of "scientific"?
"The underlying corporate psychopathic distortion, is there is a lack of water."
Corporate? Water is typically produced by local municipalities, not corporations. Hence, your screed turns to mud. And for fuck's sake, put away the Poli-Sci 101 talk.
"...where is the government mandated shift..." "Where are the government demands" "The war here is..."
"I don't think we want to build a society where you must live in an arcology just to get basic infrastructure."
It's a philosophy, not a construct, but I get it and to answer, we don't. Basic infra - elec/phone - has already reached all but the most remote areas. So, there's no need to fret that.
If, however, you seriously believe that if I choose to move literally two hundred miles from anywhere, society has an obligation to run "basic infrastructure" out to me? Please.
When I bought my farm I knew before I moved there it was in the sticks. Guess what? I had elec and phone. Those are the "basic infrastructure". Water is called a well and septic takes various free forms. High-speed and other tech advancements are not "basic".
"Believe it or not, corporate america could actually have the aim of making our country a better place if our society actually valued that."
Our society valued forcing them to, or our society valued making our country a better place? Those are not inclusive concepts by nature.
Slashdot Mirror
"It will not be worse because patents, especially software patents, do not result in a net social benefit, so the elimination of them would result in no longer having a hindrance."
Strictly Poli-Sci 101. No, that is an opinion only and not a very well thought out one.
I'm gonna have to assume that we're talking about a big enough distance into the future as well as space to consider hard vacuum battles taking place.
So, I agree with you completely except that I think the manufacturing will also take place in space. I also think that we're talking about a war either elsewhere or against intruders because no one's gonna sit back and let an enemy interest assemble a battleship in orbit. The construction would be pot-shotted to death.
If there is international space combat, it'll be those drones you mentioned no further out than orbit and shooting the shit out of each other like a fleet of amphetamine charged Halo-heads.
I wouldn't really call that "battle".
Shudder. I just heard that damned thirteen year old in the back of my mind.
"The main issue with using large guns in space is the recoil."
Same thing on Earth. That's why only really big ships have really big guns.
"Making a little pinhole in the side of a ship with a laser would be pretty effective in space..."
It would be near meaningless on a battlecruiser sized vessel. The idea of holes in ships is way overblown, just like with airliners. There will only be 16psi pushing out that little hole. You could seal it with metallic tape. There will also be laser deflecting materials developed.
A rail cannon could launch a package at immense speeds with two advantages. The package is (can be) just inert material and the energy signature would be more or less contained inside the vehicle. This could lend itself interestingly to combat.
You could launch a rapid series of projectiles. The first N would electronically awaken part way there and deviate microscopically in all directions from trajectory. These are followed by a series of essentially pointed half-ton boulders of say, titanium.
If they target the lead loads they'll not only not see the trailers if the ballistics are sound, but their destruction should provide coverage. Then you get perforated by bunch of really mean meteors.
As for recoil. You can either use fuel and resist it or you can turn it into a tactically simultaneous retreat so you can see what happens. As this is a shit-load of energy and mass, recovery might take a bit as well.
Fer instance.
civilized != decent
Are you Muslim? If not, do you enjoy servitude?
"If I'm having sex on my lawn you could."
Not if a helicopter or telelens is required to do it. That's called surveillance.
"I've never understood why people think getting drunk and shooting things is a good idea at all."
It's not. Nor is the expounding of queries based on fallacies of the mind rather than fact.
Stuart Smalley's family is the exception, not the rule.
Actually, no. The message is that intrusive busy-bodies attempting to disrupt a completely legal gathering of participants enjoying a completely legal activity should expect to get treated as such.
If some asshole was spying on me just because I was doing something they disapproved of, I'd shoot down their fucking helicopter too.
Besides, it's not really their fault. It was the activist's ignorance that did it. One of them was named Skeeter and another shouted to him for something.
What happened then, was inevitable.
They didn't commit battery.
Webster's Unabridged:
"Law. an unlawful attack upon another person by beating or wounding, or by touching in an offensive manner."
Sure. And it was proper to use it because of the overhead of a "proper database".
I've been IT my whole life and I've always found strange the concept of "proper" anything.
If it works, it's proper.
"has caused untold damages"
And you didn't tell of them either.
"So you take the files in a USB, print them at home and send them anonymously to an activist group."
Why? Just for the glory of watching the paper spew? Send a copy of the USB.
I'm seriously curious. Why is it hard to believe Romney did that? That statement seems to clash with your "blatant, unabashed partisanship" quip.
Get ready for some scientific testing.
"The Republicans DEFINITELY believe it."
I'm Republican and I'm hard-core atheist. Hypothesis falsified.
The example would be valid if the person you were testing said they could set a piece of paper sealing on fire in a vacuum with a match. Of course, if you were to test such a claim you would find that it doesn't hold up.
"I also think that one could potentially design a match that produces it's own oxygen for combustion but I have never had a proper vacuum to play with so I have never had the opportunity to try."
The match carrying its own oxygen has that oxygen already bound into molecules and therefore won't burn in an open fire which requires molecular O2 to happen. Were you somehow able to carry the O2 without combining it, once the process is started in a vacuum (again, somehow), the O2 will immediately disperse into an extremely thin atmosphere and not burn in the match, much less set a piece of paper on fire.
There are sometimes sound reasons to dismiss moronic notions.
Randi isn't proving, he's disproving. That's done on an instance by instance basis. You take someone's claimed procedure and results and attempt to duplicated it. If it fails to duplicate, the claimed procedure and results are shown faulty or fraudulent.
Pure science.
That one extrapolates from the fact that every charlatan forced to prove their claim fails miserably that all others making the same claim are charlatans as well - is due to common sense.
"It's not science, ..."
Yeah, it is. Disproving bogus test results is the foundation of science. Falsifiability.
Just because he entertains at the same time isn't relevant. Each time he disproves a claim, the pile of bullshit that claim rests on is lessened and knowledge of our reality is made a bit more clear. That is indeed science. Just not in a "lab".
"You could use Randi's methods to prove that there is no such thing as cancer by finding ten people who claim to have cancer and showing that they actually don't.'
Horseshit. Cancer is a known and extensively documented phenomenon. That would simply prove those ten people had delusions of some nature
"He proved that those particular dousers claims were fraudulent."
Please name the energy that the dousers are using to 'feel' these things. I don't even need to know how the human mind picks it up, just what it is and where it originates and how it can transmit the desired information.
"Randi's methods are unscientific."
Disproving claims is the foundation of science.
"Pseudoskeptics believe too little..."
How does this phrase jibe in any way with the concept of "scientific"?
While the city folk did precisely the same thing because food was short and *they* sure's hell couldn't grow it.
"The underlying corporate psychopathic distortion, is there is a lack of water."
Corporate? Water is typically produced by local municipalities, not corporations. Hence, your screed turns to mud. And for fuck's sake, put away the Poli-Sci 101 talk.
"...where is the government mandated shift..." "Where are the government demands" "The war here is..."
Socio-political bullshit.
"I don't think we want to build a society where you must live in an arcology just to get basic infrastructure."
It's a philosophy, not a construct, but I get it and to answer, we don't. Basic infra - elec/phone - has already reached all but the most remote areas. So, there's no need to fret that.
If, however, you seriously believe that if I choose to move literally two hundred miles from anywhere, society has an obligation to run "basic infrastructure" out to me? Please.
When I bought my farm I knew before I moved there it was in the sticks. Guess what? I had elec and phone. Those are the "basic infrastructure". Water is called a well and septic takes various free forms. High-speed and other tech advancements are not "basic".
"Believe it or not, corporate america could actually have the aim of making our country a better place if our society actually valued that."
Our society valued forcing them to, or our society valued making our country a better place? Those are not inclusive concepts by nature.
Show me a sodium battery that produces drinkable water, thereby making it *useful* on a lifeboat.
Cannibus ruderalis is not Cannibus sativa. What was your point?
Just the positive indicators in Chong's voice. The rejection messages should be delivered in Cheech's voice.
"Unfortunately the chemicals that industrial agriculture uses interferes with the nutrient cycle that you're thinking of."
Nice, general statement, unsupported by fact. Your post reflect old techniques, not modern farming.
Ah yes..... "betterment of human society". Where, oh where, have I heard that phrase uttered before?