The summary said this was between microwaves and x-rays. Both of which have been considered cancer concerns. Of course, visible light, approximately between 350 and 700 nm is also in that range. Much of the cancer worry has to do with intensity and duration of exposure. Higher frequency light only reduces the amount needed to cause problems. I would think that if exposure to this weapon caused blisters and pain, the beam would have to be fairly intense.
First off, x-rays aren't a cancer *concern*, they are absolutely known to cause cancer. So there's that. However, for sub-visible wavelengths, the case for cancer is a bit weak. Cancer is caused when DNA molecular bonds are broken. This happens when the molecule absorbs a photon which excites a bonded electron temporarily, long enough for it to change the chemistry of the molecule. One problem with the cancer theory - this process requires visible-uv light at a minimum, and the process depends solely on the frequency of the light, not the intensity. Microwaves won't do the trick, nor will radio waves.
For microwaves or radio waves to cause cancer, they'd have to result in some pretty serious localized heating to your tissue, probably for a rather extended time period, and even then it's rather doubtful since you'd probably simply die first from being cooked.
Translation: last week the install base consisted of his algebra class. This week he installed it on his mom's computer. Next week he's going to grandma's house and he'll install it there too.
That's the entire point of an investigation like this. If no serious dissenting opinions exist, then the noise about counter-claims will be exposed as overblown hearsay.
Ah, but academia is more subtle than that. First, there's the word "serious" you use. How does one determine if it's serious? Tenure-track professors? Well, what if it's rather difficult to get a tenure-track job as a climatologist if you don't advocate the consensus view? One would need a rather good publication record as a grad student/postdoc to do that. What happens, then, if it's difficult to get a contrarian article into a peer-reviewed journal? That's often the case, as it happens. For someone with results that cut against the grain, it can take years to break through the peer review wall, assuming you're able to keep going that long.
This isn't unique to climatology - I've seen other situations in which a highly charged issue that has many believers on one side can squeeze out any last dissent. At best, the standard for publishing a contrarian view is much higher - at worst, reviewers can reject these articles out of hand. This makes it extremely difficult for a budding researcher to get established in a tenure-track position, and then to get tenure.
This is bad enough in purely academic fields - but in something like this that's as much politics as anything, forget it. Right or wrong, there's a serious problem when no one is even taking a serious Devil's Advocate position on things, and I've not seen that.
Yeah, just like nobody bought the PS2 for it's DVD player capabilities (with the games being a bonus) in the system's early years.. Oh wait, that's wrong, a lot of people did!
What people want is also important, indirectly. If I use crystal-clear packaging and yours is milky, my product will look a bit better and the customer will be more likely to choose it. If I use bigger packaging, it will stand out better on shelves.
Seriously, let me use GTA: San Andreas as an example. I finished that game months ago, but I still play it occasionally. There's nothing better than causing some nice explosions, steal a few cars and beating up some hookers after a frustrating day at work.
I love the freedom GTA: SA gives me and I'd probably buy more games that offer me that.
That's why I love GTA too. With kids in diapers, I don't generally have time to play a long involved game. I usually don't even have time for GTA missions. But I usually have time to wreak some havoc, and man, is it cathartic.
Speaking of California and the movie industry, does anyone know if we're hearing anything from any of these actors/actresses who speak out so often about social injustice? What's the Governator's opinion on this? I haven't seen anything. I wonder if maybe it's too close to their own pocketbook (maybe it's true about the love of money...) or maybe it's just peer pressure from within their social circles?
Those idiot actors speak out on social injustice when it gives them photo ops with starving children. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Angelina Jolie.
To paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie, History of Violence, "...how come the MPAA is so good at killing bills?" The answer is that succesful politicians are not developed, they're bought.
True. Although do bear in mind this is California, home of the movie industry. I'd be interested in seeing if they were quite as successful in getting a similar bill nuked in, say, Massachussets.
That would be like making the post office open every letter then copy and store them...I guess it's not EXACTLY the same thing because it's all digital, but it's still illogical, and a waste of resources.
No, it's more like saying you have to permanantly store every piece of paper you ever write on. Every memo, every piece of scrap paper. It gets ridiculous eventually.
Right. The important point here is that IBM didn't settle. SCO will never see a dime. IBM does not "negotiate with terrorists." And now every pissant company trying the same will know that.
The only tragedy is that SCO insiders seem to have made out very well executing a seemingly legal pump-n-dump scheme.
There are no winners. Only losers. No Correct solution to the problem. Personally I wish we (the US and its allies) would formulate a common long term plan (good or bad) and just stick to it.
I wish we'd stop using oil and just get the f*** out of there, screw any plan. There has never been peace there. Never. At least in SE Asia there has, at various points, been peace. The US cannot fix the middle east. The sooner we learn that, and cut the ties between our economy and that region, the better.
Even if Apple just made the hardware chances are pretty good at this point in the iPod's popularity the RIAA would be sending their lawyers over to 1 Infinite Loop.
As mentioned in the link, the RIAA lost. Taken in context with the other decisions, the fact that Apple has devoted major resources to providing a means of legally purchasing songs (iTMS), the fact that fair use doctrine exists allowing users to copy CDs, and in the absence of any evidence against them, any case of contributory copyright violation against Apple would be completely bunk. This isn't Napster - Apple has never touched illegal music, and there exist substantial legal uses for iPods.
So any litigation would be complete crap, and if they weren't a business partner of the RIAA members, Apple could more easily tell them that.
This is what happens when you dabble in both content and hardware. As they say, 'you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.' If Apple didn't have iTMS, they could more easily tell Universal to suck a fat dick.
In the end, this is just a negotiating ploy by Universal toward getting 1) a bigger cut of the pie, or 2) non-uniform pricing. This is the next logical step, and I'm sure they gave MS "friend" prices in exchange for being the first official hardware manufacturer to pay a pirate tax. Not much to see here...
how about the odd $1 bill smuggled in a handlful of $10's, or $2 in $20's.
You don't handle much cash do you ?
Then pay the hell attention if your money is worth anything to you, or get a sorter. And anyway, the font/size on the $1 is completely different than the new-style $10s, same for $2s vs. $20s.
Sure, you get the occasional story about how someone cut out the number 10 from somewhere, taped it on a $1, and passed off on a Dante-in-Clerks style convenience store clerk. However, the Gov. can't outlaw stupidity.
In what situations other than blindness and low-light conditions is this difficult? Do you have trouble confusing the nubers "10" and "20" in centimeter-tall letters? Does Alexander Hamilton resemble Andrew Jackson in some strange way?
germany didn't have an advantage over the rest of europe. Against the combined french and english forces, they were outnumbered and outgunned in every way...
And still Germany was dominating them until the US got involved. They rolled over France in what, a workday? And they were terrorizing Britain with bombs and rockets, even while the US were turning the tide of the war 1943-44.
Why on earth would someone even consider that is beyond me... I'm pretty sure that even in the cold war, Soviet Union never actually considered to attack US, just as US never considered to take military actions against Soviet Union...
Oftentimes wars arent planned, but occur because the parties see no way out. WWI is a great example, as was the Cold War in 1961. We came perilously close to nuclear war in 1961.
Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.
I don't know, really. Russia's military is an absolute shambles, it is literally rusting away. France, Spain, Germany, and Italy don't have anything close to an active military prepared for actual combat, and the amount of weaponry they have is minute. China is the only country that could counter the US: the US would almost certainly fail in an invasion of China given the distance, isolation, and China's fairly formidable military.
At this point, I'd say that the difference in military might between the US and all of Europe is greater now than it was between Germany and the rest of Europe at the beginning of WWII. With quick strike capabilities, the US would probably be able to destroy very quickly the offensive capabilities of all the European countries. At that point, Europe would win a protracted war if they fought valiantly, and gave the US enough supply chain headaches that they were able to ramp up production and research of advanced weapory. However, don't count on an Iraq-style insurgency, as Westerners aren't as prepared to sacrifice their lives for their faith/nation.
The only question is whether the US would be able to destroy the nukes of those countries who possess them before they were able to sucessfully fire them. The US would be able to easily overrun the conventional militaries of the major European nations. Naturally, successfully occupying that territory would be much more difficult.
All this is irrelevant, however, as the US has no notion of attacking its friends, and yes, even Germany and France are on that list to a degree. But if the question is putting together an alliance to attack the US, expecting decimation of the US, I'd rethink it.
Do a LOT of masturbating now, before the arthritis takes away the ability.
When it does, tell the wife you can't do the five-knuckle shuffle anymore, and you'll be expecting blow jobs like before you were married. It might even work!
MS's aren't usually *that* narrow. If they let me, I'd consider doing my degree in CS, taking some elective classes is the games department, and seeing if they might let me do my research project for a games prof. At my univ., that sort of thing happened all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary said this was between microwaves and x-rays. Both of which have been considered cancer concerns. Of course, visible light, approximately between 350 and 700 nm is also in that range. Much of the cancer worry has to do with intensity and duration of exposure. Higher frequency light only reduces the amount needed to cause problems. I would think that if exposure to this weapon caused blisters and pain, the beam would have to be fairly intense.
First off, x-rays aren't a cancer *concern*, they are absolutely known to cause cancer. So there's that. However, for sub-visible wavelengths, the case for cancer is a bit weak. Cancer is caused when DNA molecular bonds are broken. This happens when the molecule absorbs a photon which excites a bonded electron temporarily, long enough for it to change the chemistry of the molecule. One problem with the cancer theory - this process requires visible-uv light at a minimum, and the process depends solely on the frequency of the light, not the intensity. Microwaves won't do the trick, nor will radio waves.
For microwaves or radio waves to cause cancer, they'd have to result in some pretty serious localized heating to your tissue, probably for a rather extended time period, and even then it's rather doubtful since you'd probably simply die first from being cooked.
reportedly growing 5% every single week.
Translation: last week the install base consisted of his algebra class. This week he installed it on his mom's computer. Next week he's going to grandma's house and he'll install it there too.
Pathetic that an open-source wiki *needs* to be established, but it's accomplished more than, say, SAIC's failed $200M boondoggle that was supposed to modernize the FBI's computer systems. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485_pf.html for an enlightening read.
That's the entire point of an investigation like this. If no serious dissenting opinions exist, then the noise about counter-claims will be exposed as overblown hearsay.
Ah, but academia is more subtle than that. First, there's the word "serious" you use. How does one determine if it's serious? Tenure-track professors? Well, what if it's rather difficult to get a tenure-track job as a climatologist if you don't advocate the consensus view? One would need a rather good publication record as a grad student/postdoc to do that. What happens, then, if it's difficult to get a contrarian article into a peer-reviewed journal? That's often the case, as it happens. For someone with results that cut against the grain, it can take years to break through the peer review wall, assuming you're able to keep going that long.
This isn't unique to climatology - I've seen other situations in which a highly charged issue that has many believers on one side can squeeze out any last dissent. At best, the standard for publishing a contrarian view is much higher - at worst, reviewers can reject these articles out of hand. This makes it extremely difficult for a budding researcher to get established in a tenure-track position, and then to get tenure.
This is bad enough in purely academic fields - but in something like this that's as much politics as anything, forget it. Right or wrong, there's a serious problem when no one is even taking a serious Devil's Advocate position on things, and I've not seen that.
Or timothy with 200 lbs of gay scheisse porn?
Damn, I wish he was still an editor here.
Yeah, just like nobody bought the PS2 for it's DVD player capabilities (with the games being a bonus) in the system's early years.. Oh wait, that's wrong, a lot of people did!
Nobody I know did that.
or that teenage girls should have have hands-on sex ed in junior high
Well, the question is, hands-on whom? ;)
What people want is also important, indirectly. If I use crystal-clear packaging and yours is milky, my product will look a bit better and the customer will be more likely to choose it. If I use bigger packaging, it will stand out better on shelves.
Seriously, let me use GTA: San Andreas as an example. I finished that game months ago, but I still play it occasionally. There's nothing better than causing some nice explosions, steal a few cars and beating up some hookers after a frustrating day at work. I love the freedom GTA: SA gives me and I'd probably buy more games that offer me that.
That's why I love GTA too. With kids in diapers, I don't generally have time to play a long involved game. I usually don't even have time for GTA missions. But I usually have time to wreak some havoc, and man, is it cathartic.
Speaking of California and the movie industry, does anyone know if we're hearing anything from any of these actors/actresses who speak out so often about social injustice? What's the Governator's opinion on this? I haven't seen anything. I wonder if maybe it's too close to their own pocketbook (maybe it's true about the love of money...) or maybe it's just peer pressure from within their social circles?
Those idiot actors speak out on social injustice when it gives them photo ops with starving children. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Angelina Jolie.
To paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie, History of Violence, "...how come the MPAA is so good at killing bills?" The answer is that succesful politicians are not developed, they're bought.
True. Although do bear in mind this is California, home of the movie industry. I'd be interested in seeing if they were quite as successful in getting a similar bill nuked in, say, Massachussets.
That would be like making the post office open every letter then copy and store them...I guess it's not EXACTLY the same thing because it's all digital, but it's still illogical, and a waste of resources.
No, it's more like saying you have to permanantly store every piece of paper you ever write on. Every memo, every piece of scrap paper. It gets ridiculous eventually.
Right. The important point here is that IBM didn't settle. SCO will never see a dime. IBM does not "negotiate with terrorists." And now every pissant company trying the same will know that.
The only tragedy is that SCO insiders seem to have made out very well executing a seemingly legal pump-n-dump scheme.
There are no winners. Only losers. No Correct solution to the problem. Personally I wish we (the US and its allies) would formulate a common long term plan (good or bad) and just stick to it.
I wish we'd stop using oil and just get the f*** out of there, screw any plan. There has never been peace there. Never. At least in SE Asia there has, at various points, been peace. The US cannot fix the middle east. The sooner we learn that, and cut the ties between our economy and that region, the better.
We should have learned this lesson in 1974.
Even if Apple just made the hardware chances are pretty good at this point in the iPod's popularity the RIAA would be sending their lawyers over to 1 Infinite Loop.
As mentioned in the link, the RIAA lost. Taken in context with the other decisions, the fact that Apple has devoted major resources to providing a means of legally purchasing songs (iTMS), the fact that fair use doctrine exists allowing users to copy CDs, and in the absence of any evidence against them, any case of contributory copyright violation against Apple would be completely bunk. This isn't Napster - Apple has never touched illegal music, and there exist substantial legal uses for iPods.
So any litigation would be complete crap, and if they weren't a business partner of the RIAA members, Apple could more easily tell them that.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were a fucking idiot
Wow, is that really the best you can do? Oh, that's right, you're the moron working at a convenience store who can't tell a $1 from a $10.
This is what happens when you dabble in both content and hardware. As they say, 'you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.' If Apple didn't have iTMS, they could more easily tell Universal to suck a fat dick.
In the end, this is just a negotiating ploy by Universal toward getting 1) a bigger cut of the pie, or 2) non-uniform pricing. This is the next logical step, and I'm sure they gave MS "friend" prices in exchange for being the first official hardware manufacturer to pay a pirate tax. Not much to see here...
how about the odd $1 bill smuggled in a handlful of $10's, or $2 in $20's. You don't handle much cash do you ?
Then pay the hell attention if your money is worth anything to you, or get a sorter. And anyway, the font/size on the $1 is completely different than the new-style $10s, same for $2s vs. $20s.
Sure, you get the occasional story about how someone cut out the number 10 from somewhere, taped it on a $1, and passed off on a Dante-in-Clerks style convenience store clerk. However, the Gov. can't outlaw stupidity.
People aren't dying of starvation by the truckload in the "bad" parts of Flint. NK is bad beyond Western comprehension.
In what situations other than blindness and low-light conditions is this difficult? Do you have trouble confusing the nubers "10" and "20" in centimeter-tall letters? Does Alexander Hamilton resemble Andrew Jackson in some strange way?
germany didn't have an advantage over the rest of europe. Against the combined french and english forces, they were outnumbered and outgunned in every way...
And still Germany was dominating them until the US got involved. They rolled over France in what, a workday? And they were terrorizing Britain with bombs and rockets, even while the US were turning the tide of the war 1943-44.
Why on earth would someone even consider that is beyond me... I'm pretty sure that even in the cold war, Soviet Union never actually considered to attack US, just as US never considered to take military actions against Soviet Union...
Oftentimes wars arent planned, but occur because the parties see no way out. WWI is a great example, as was the Cold War in 1961. We came perilously close to nuclear war in 1961.
Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.
I don't know, really. Russia's military is an absolute shambles, it is literally rusting away. France, Spain, Germany, and Italy don't have anything close to an active military prepared for actual combat, and the amount of weaponry they have is minute. China is the only country that could counter the US: the US would almost certainly fail in an invasion of China given the distance, isolation, and China's fairly formidable military.
At this point, I'd say that the difference in military might between the US and all of Europe is greater now than it was between Germany and the rest of Europe at the beginning of WWII. With quick strike capabilities, the US would probably be able to destroy very quickly the offensive capabilities of all the European countries. At that point, Europe would win a protracted war if they fought valiantly, and gave the US enough supply chain headaches that they were able to ramp up production and research of advanced weapory. However, don't count on an Iraq-style insurgency, as Westerners aren't as prepared to sacrifice their lives for their faith/nation.
The only question is whether the US would be able to destroy the nukes of those countries who possess them before they were able to sucessfully fire them. The US would be able to easily overrun the conventional militaries of the major European nations. Naturally, successfully occupying that territory would be much more difficult.
All this is irrelevant, however, as the US has no notion of attacking its friends, and yes, even Germany and France are on that list to a degree. But if the question is putting together an alliance to attack the US, expecting decimation of the US, I'd rethink it.
Do a LOT of masturbating now, before the arthritis takes away the ability.
When it does, tell the wife you can't do the five-knuckle shuffle anymore, and you'll be expecting blow jobs like before you were married. It might even work!
MS's aren't usually *that* narrow. If they let me, I'd consider doing my degree in CS, taking some elective classes is the games department, and seeing if they might let me do my research project for a games prof. At my univ., that sort of thing happened all the time.
That rhythmic thudding sound you hear is the sound of every computer professional on the planet simultaneously laughing their balls off.
Sexist.