Because of possible complications with the procedure (infection, possible rejection, and such) the insurance premiums are probably high for the company. Doing anything, even slightly surgical with humans, makes the cost go up tremendously.
Since combustion makes inhalable nano-scale molecules. Maybe it would help to imagine a bunch of destructive nano-machines pouring out of the tailpipe of a car, blanketing the streets of the city, you inhale as you walk from the parking lot to the office.
Now your questions doesn't seem new. In fact, it could boil down to the ongoing questions: what do we do with pollution? Who is responsible if pollution harms people?
I watched that series... I found it lacking. The main problem is that it introduced a lot of ideas, but didn't try to explain anything. It seemed like a chicken soup for the tired-of-the-current-foundation-of-physics soul; or an extended infomercial (take your pick). Maybe you can recommend books instead.
I found Suse to be a very good mix of windows (profesional grades) and linux. Having tried linux sporadically since '95, it is definitely one of the most polished distributions I have ever seen.
Looks aside, I think YaST is one of the most useful configurator/installers/admin panels I have ever used.
The downsides of 9.1 are its wireless tools (I have a broadcom chip, so I had to use ndiswrapper... switching between networks required admin commandline work.) The other problem, which is a problem with many linux distro's but still hasn't been addressed for my situation, is ACPI. Yes I use a laptop. No, Suse did not pander to me with easy to install packages... meanwhile, it did install at least 4 different packages for bluetooth, which is one thing I don't use.
In general, though, I would tell anyone to give it a try.
Indeed! Unless... the FBI-CIA-NSA creates its own: messenger/p2p/download manager/wallet/bookmark manager/search bar/internet-excellerator... (to be bundled with any free software package) it'll have its "opt-in" to government monitoring buried somewhere in the EULA.
I appreciate your reply to this. And yes, I searched for Dombey, not Dunbey, but the proper spelling didn't make it into my post.
I agree that this is an important matter, and I didn't intend to just smash the topic, but given the list of articles presented as proof, then juxtaposing them to the work done by the NY Times for the WMD evidence, makes these articles appear ludicrous. I don't mean to burst any bloggers sphere, but simply presenting a piece of evidence with a lot of speculation is not good journalism; it maybe the start of a story, but it should never stop there. Unfortunately, these articles are not substantive enough on their own or as a whole (seeing as how they all seem to be derivitives of another article) to warrant any opinion. That being typed... I, like you, think they would be grounds for investigation, but convincing an editor that there is a story here, again - from the articles presented - would take an 800lb gorilla or Larry Flynt to become republican.
I visited your links. Read the articles. Searched for more information on Danbey, who seems to be the only source cited by any of the articles... I'm still skeptical. Look, the New York Times did a very good job with this piece, unfortunately it is about 2 years late.
In regards to the articles you provided, did you notice that not one of them is signed by an individual? That the only evidence is speculation by an English physicist and the certainty of a Jordanian scrap metal dealer, who won't be named? I think the articles would be more aptly titled: "Lost and Found: Denmark recieves/finds shipment of radioactive metal - Call to Claim it." or "Yellow Cake Uranium Could be Made into Enriched Uranium - This Article will Trivialize the Proccess"
Greetings,
Could you share with us how you would use the US Presidency to leverage your environmental initiatives here and abroad? Especially in terms of countries such as Taiwan and parts of China, where computer/proccessor manufacturing is a huge economic factor and ecological disaster.
Google is evil. Spooks use google. Lusers use google. Google is a huge ginormous database that can be scanned in seconds to output a postmodern library just by using the word "nuts". Now google (grin smile grin smile grin) wants to tabulate every word you use in an e-mail and it wants you to hug it for doing this. It offers you a gigabyte of storage... Hug (grin smile grin smile grin). It offers brain ticklers in public spaces for morose ronin intelligensia. hug (grin smile grin smile grin). Geeks line up from miles around. Geeks like (grin smile grins), the same kind that came from pretty people at school, who you lusted after, who abandoned you as a joke. Google knows this, its database knows all. Google is evil.
Technical aspects aside, I'm not quite sure the most comfortable ride is having a body that is completely still. I've ridden in a Mercedes SL500 (about $120k) and the system would constantly adjust the suspension to road conditions, for instance: negating the effects of inertia for sharp corners by tilting the cabin etc... I mean, while it is interesting to see a car body that appears to be completely seperate from the road, there seems to be a lot more to making a nice ride than simply this capability.
I've heard the same the same thing. They are more common in praries (more common meaning they exist) where high winds are frequent. You can buy the geodesic houses in kits, but you'll need a bit of ego to set one up in a burb in FL.
As the other poster pointed out, Buck was concerned with air dropping, if not the entire structure, then the materials. Also, one of his more wild eyed theories was to have geodesic spheres and domes held up by poles, like veggies on a skewer (or a sky city). He felt such vertical construction would limit the suburban sprawl of the time and still allow each family to have their own 'house'.
His designs never really 'took off' because they required a lot of change in habits and expectations from the consumer eg: his houses included water misters instead of water faucets and showers; and his target market was, in his own mind, people who need very basic shelter and very basic sanitary utilities, so he paid little attention to decor or style of the time. His designs also did not allow for easy expansion or remodeling.
I visited a geodesic dome, built on the same lightweight principles as the dymaxion house, and found it to be very elegant in design. From the living room and kitchen at the bottom floor, there was a beautiful spiral staircase that went to the top (about 4 stories up). The various rooms of the house were vertically staggerred along the walls, with the master bedroom overlooking it all. When you looked down from here, it was like being in cloud city or something. Three things to note though: its not a good place for privacy, it could get noisy, and the temperature at the top was considerably warmer than at the bottom. Still, I like some of his designs, but they are really for the spartan/stoic among us.
They are robots and they are fighting. IMNAF, I can see where the concepts used in fighting can be applied into other arenas, but why don't we have robots dancing instead? Something artistic? Why not a robot painting competition, where they paint (with brushes) something provided by the judges? Why is it that everything has to be reduced to the most banal and repulsive aspect of human nature... the need for strategic agression and domination?
There are millions of different things robots can do, but every couple of months they stage fights, it makes no sense. Why not have an opera robot competition where the contestants must use synthetic vocal chords, mouth, and diaphragm to produce its music? Or, how about something more practical, like a robot that can sculpt bushes, maybe do bonsai. The tech necessary to perform these tasks would be as useful as any tech gained from fighting.
yeah, I remember I could only watch curling on cbc last winter olympics. US media has no respect for curling... unless the US a gold contender, which it never is.
but that means almost nothing. I can look at a scene and see a simple scene, nothing outstanding. An FBI agent can look at the same scene and find suspicious activity. A phyicist can look at a scene and see something else. A prosecutor can look at the scene, after the fact, from my perspective, and try to imply that because I saw something it had an effect on me or that the glance actually meant something. This is worse than being hooked up to a lie detector and having broad questions lobbed at you.... it's equally worthless.
I just got rid of my Pentium 2 400mhz MMX. I had it in a huge tower (3ft tall). Now I have a laptop. It's 6 times faster, has twice the ram, and more hd space than my old comp. It weighs less than 4 pounds too. The laptop I bought cost about the same price as the pII 5 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Because of possible complications with the procedure (infection, possible rejection, and such) the insurance premiums are probably high for the company. Doing anything, even slightly surgical with humans, makes the cost go up tremendously.
I hate math, but that idea alone helped me get through higher level classes.
Since combustion makes inhalable nano-scale molecules. Maybe it would help to imagine a bunch of destructive nano-machines pouring out of the tailpipe of a car, blanketing the streets of the city, you inhale as you walk from the parking lot to the office.
Now your questions doesn't seem new. In fact, it could boil down to the ongoing questions: what do we do with pollution? Who is responsible if pollution harms people?
Thank you.
No. But inhalers might become more common.
I agree. Banning someone from the internet, or computers in general, is akin to banning someone from using the electrical grid.
I watched that series... I found it lacking. The main problem is that it introduced a lot of ideas, but didn't try to explain anything. It seemed like a chicken soup for the tired-of-the-current-foundation-of-physics soul; or an extended infomercial (take your pick). Maybe you can recommend books instead.
We'll live like the octospiders!
I found Suse to be a very good mix of windows (profesional grades) and linux. Having tried linux sporadically since '95, it is definitely one of the most polished distributions I have ever seen.
Looks aside, I think YaST is one of the most useful configurator/installers/admin panels I have ever used.
The downsides of 9.1 are its wireless tools (I have a broadcom chip, so I had to use ndiswrapper... switching between networks required admin commandline work.) The other problem, which is a problem with many linux distro's but still hasn't been addressed for my situation, is ACPI. Yes I use a laptop. No, Suse did not pander to me with easy to install packages... meanwhile, it did install at least 4 different packages for bluetooth, which is one thing I don't use.
In general, though, I would tell anyone to give it a try.
Indeed! Unless... the FBI-CIA-NSA creates its own: messenger/p2p/download manager/wallet/bookmark manager/search bar/internet-excellerator... (to be bundled with any free software package) it'll have its "opt-in" to government monitoring buried somewhere in the EULA.
Fun!
This competes with Red Bull and Vodka and its derivitives.
I appreciate your reply to this. And yes, I searched for Dombey, not Dunbey, but the proper spelling didn't make it into my post.
... I, like you, think they would be grounds for investigation, but convincing an editor that there is a story here, again - from the articles presented - would take an 800lb gorilla or Larry Flynt to become republican.
I agree that this is an important matter, and I didn't intend to just smash the topic, but given the list of articles presented as proof, then juxtaposing them to the work done by the NY Times for the WMD evidence, makes these articles appear ludicrous. I don't mean to burst any bloggers sphere, but simply presenting a piece of evidence with a lot of speculation is not good journalism; it maybe the start of a story, but it should never stop there. Unfortunately, these articles are not substantive enough on their own or as a whole (seeing as how they all seem to be derivitives of another article) to warrant any opinion. That being typed
I visited your links. Read the articles. Searched for more information on Danbey, who seems to be the only source cited by any of the articles... I'm still skeptical. Look, the New York Times did a very good job with this piece, unfortunately it is about 2 years late.
In regards to the articles you provided, did you notice that not one of them is signed by an individual? That the only evidence is speculation by an English physicist and the certainty of a Jordanian scrap metal dealer, who won't be named? I think the articles would be more aptly titled: "Lost and Found: Denmark recieves/finds shipment of radioactive metal - Call to Claim it." or "Yellow Cake Uranium Could be Made into Enriched Uranium - This Article will Trivialize the Proccess"
Greetings,
Could you share with us how you would use the US Presidency to leverage your environmental initiatives here and abroad? Especially in terms of countries such as Taiwan and parts of China, where computer/proccessor manufacturing is a huge economic factor and ecological disaster.
Thanks,
Google is evil. Spooks use google. Lusers use google. Google is a huge ginormous database that can be scanned in seconds to output a postmodern library just by using the word "nuts". Now google (grin smile grin smile grin) wants to tabulate every word you use in an e-mail and it wants you to hug it for doing this. It offers you a gigabyte of storage... Hug (grin smile grin smile grin). It offers brain ticklers in public spaces for morose ronin intelligensia. hug (grin smile grin smile grin). Geeks line up from miles around. Geeks like (grin smile grins), the same kind that came from pretty people at school, who you lusted after, who abandoned you as a joke. Google knows this, its database knows all. Google is evil.
These babies will be in the stores while I'm still grappling with the pickle matrix
Technical aspects aside, I'm not quite sure the most comfortable ride is having a body that is completely still. I've ridden in a Mercedes SL500 (about $120k) and the system would constantly adjust the suspension to road conditions, for instance: negating the effects of inertia for sharp corners by tilting the cabin etc... I mean, while it is interesting to see a car body that appears to be completely seperate from the road, there seems to be a lot more to making a nice ride than simply this capability.
I've heard the same the same thing. They are more common in praries (more common meaning they exist) where high winds are frequent. You can buy the geodesic houses in kits, but you'll need a bit of ego to set one up in a burb in FL.
His designs never really 'took off' because they required a lot of change in habits and expectations from the consumer eg: his houses included water misters instead of water faucets and showers; and his target market was, in his own mind, people who need very basic shelter and very basic sanitary utilities, so he paid little attention to decor or style of the time. His designs also did not allow for easy expansion or remodeling.
I visited a geodesic dome, built on the same lightweight principles as the dymaxion house, and found it to be very elegant in design. From the living room and kitchen at the bottom floor, there was a beautiful spiral staircase that went to the top (about 4 stories up). The various rooms of the house were vertically staggerred along the walls, with the master bedroom overlooking it all. When you looked down from here, it was like being in cloud city or something. Three things to note though: its not a good place for privacy, it could get noisy, and the temperature at the top was considerably warmer than at the bottom. Still, I like some of his designs, but they are really for the spartan/stoic among us.
For $5,000 I'll copywrite the first 2-Ds. Each additionaly D is a $1,000.
best conspiracy theory in this thread. Congrats.
Long live canadian broadcasting!
but that means almost nothing. I can look at a scene and see a simple scene, nothing outstanding. An FBI agent can look at the same scene and find suspicious activity. A phyicist can look at a scene and see something else. A prosecutor can look at the scene, after the fact, from my perspective, and try to imply that because I saw something it had an effect on me or that the glance actually meant something. This is worse than being hooked up to a lie detector and having broad questions lobbed at you .... it's equally worthless.
I just got rid of my Pentium 2 400mhz MMX. I had it in a huge tower (3ft tall). Now I have a laptop. It's 6 times faster, has twice the ram, and more hd space than my old comp. It weighs less than 4 pounds too. The laptop I bought cost about the same price as the pII 5 years ago.