The way most people of this generation upload all their personal things on myspace without a thought says a lot.
All it says is that the people using MySpace are too young to care about privacy... yet. I was that way 15 years ago, too. But something changed -- I gained wisdom. Or rather, I realized that I now have something to lose. I don't want the things I said or did when I was a child to be used as weapons against me now; I have a job, a mortgage, and 3 other people depending on me.
Simply said: if you don't care about your privacy, it's because you have nothing in your life that you care about enough to protect.
***Couldn't you use explosives to fragment the missile though?***
Maybe. You'd have to preignite the explosive charge.
Why worry about the timing? Just salt equatorial LEO with a hundred tons of buckshot. All you need the explosives to do is provide 2000 fps delta v for the shot in every direction.
Here's a simple calculation to start with: it costs about $1 to move a ton of produce 20 miles. If gasoline was $20 a gallon, then that number would be $6 per ton for the same 20 miles. Even if we accept your ridiculous premise of $20 a gallon gas, and your outside estimate of "thousands of miles", we are still talking about less than $600 to move a ton of food 2000 miles. If you think that's a lot, consider that the market is already marking up that produce by a significantly higher amount: tomato growers get about $65 a ton, where the "canned tomatoes on the store shelf" price is about $1800 a ton. Given all of your absurd assumptions as correct, the price on the store shelf would still not go up more than 35%.
But, that is a silly assumption -- if diesel was $20 a gallon, long haul trucking would bow to rail transport once again. Sorry, not even 35% increase in prices is likely.
Second, regarding your assertion that we will "run out of land to farm on": you need to get out of New York City and see the rest of the country. The US produces many hundreds of millions of tons of food every year, and is a net exporter. Nevertheless, tens of millions of acres of arable land goes unfarmed simply because there are more economic plots available, and the price of food is so low. Go look: most of the country is unplowed, unpaved, and unreachable by means other than helicopter or horse. You think there's a shortage on land? A square mile of Texas will cost you less than an single apartment in NYC.
Want to know why "flyover country" votes differently than big city folk? It's because they have a clue. They understand the environment because they make their livelihood from it. Fill up your tank this summer and go find it for yourself. Remember to bring maps, drinking water, and snake shot -- the environment out here kills people, not the other way around.
Each individual has a much higher chance of survival by hiding...
The biggest problem is that people believe this lie, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In nature, we call individuals that flee and hide "prey". It is a losing strategy reserved for those at the bottom of the food chain.
Polar bears interbreed with grizzlies -- we might better call them races instead of species: they just have different fur. When the habitat is ice and snow, thick white fur is a successful trait. When not, not. Should we similarly worry about fat people with blonde hair because they can't find dates?
I've never heard of any expectation that penguin habitat was going to shrink -- the Antarctic is forecast to gain ice through global warming.
Humans living near coastal regions have been continuously dealing with subsidence and coastal erosion and violent tropical storms -- a minor change in sea level is irrelevant.
Finally, coral reefs. Global warming is not destroying them, in fact they can only grow in areas where the water is quite warm. Coral habitats may move incrementally to higher latitudes, but that's it. What is destroying them is pollution, over-fishing, and erosion.
BTW: daily pacemaker and iPod user... no problems. If my EVDO equipped PocketPC doesn't affect it, why would my MP3 player? Stupid premise, stupid conclusion.
Last time I was at the device lab, the cardiologist kept frobbing some button that caused bouts of tachycardia. It is pretty uncomfortable to have your heart rate jump between 50 and 200, back and forth.
Then it dawned on me the she was trying to get me to crash.
At that point I asked her what security measures the device used to prevent this sort of denial-of-service attack by "unauthorized" people. Silence...
too much energy is lost to friction and heat when the force vector for the piston and the piston arm have to change.... the funds would have been better spent on improving designs like the rotary
I'm a little confused -- are you saying the rotary engine doesn't have componentents whose change their direction of momentum, have bearings, or produce friction? I'm starting to develop a picture in my mind of the Wankel fanatic, and it's strikingly similar to the electric universe fanatic.
The destruction of Israel, while it would be a horrendous act, would have a significantly smaller direct impact on the US than if North Korea nuked Japan.
An interesting assertion, but not necessarily the obvious conclusion.
If North Korea nuked Japan, no one would come to it's rescue -- it would have no allies and would soon (like 4 hours later) be utterly annihilated. If Iran nuked Israel, the world would weigh in on each side, with everyone from China to Greenland involved, and split dangerously close to "down-the-middle" -- otherwise known as "world war". The resources and prejudices surrounding the Middle East make open and global war there likely, and it could end with billions dead.
I don't think you've thought it through. Iran is by far the biggest threat, even if the only "warhead delivery system" they have is a pickup truck.
This is interesting, because my Verizon Wireless PocketPC came with Windows Media streaming software installed from the factory, with links to streaming media providers -- none of which were Verizon.
So using the software provided by Verizon is a prohibited use?
The thing that worries me most about XBox360 is that a lot of their best games eventually get released on PC a while later.
Why is that bad? From the game developer's perspective that's a boon -- more money for the same work. If the game developer is happy to make an XBOX 360 game and then port it to PC, then there is a bigger market than for the XBOX 360 alone. Hence, more games get developed for the XBOX 360. More games as an outcome is better for the XBOX 360 owner. Everyone wins.
This may actually reveal a bit of the developer reticence with respect to the PS3 -- trying to take advantage of the Cell architecture is a one-hit effort. That expense of that effort cannot be recovered in a port.
What I'm waiting for is for someone in the mainstream media to break from the "PS3 is the highest-performance console of this generation" talking points: I've yet to see evidence that this is actually true. It looks like hype of the same flavor as the PS1 polygon counts and the PS2 "supercomputer" status -- transparently false, yet never confronted as a lie.
You are mistaking trees as a carbon scrubber. They are not machines that clean CO2 out of the air -- they are carbon sinks, converting airborne CO2 into cellulose. The best thing you can do is cut down the trees, dry them out, and store the wood in a cool, dry place. One mechanism for this is by framing houses out of the wood. Then, plant another tree in it's place. As it grows it will pull CO2 out of the air. Then, when it's growth slows, cut it down, turn it into lumber, build another house out of it, and plant yet another tree in it's place. So long as the wood doesn't rot (and the house stands), the carbon dioxide will not return to the carbon cycle.
I repeat: cut down trees and build houses out of them. Letting trees decay in the forest is bad for the environment.
I don't think you understand the concept of a software patent. There is no invention -- it's all about implementation. There's not really any way to invent something in software -- the concept just doesn't apply. Software just describes a procedure -- a formal description language. If there is any inventing going on, it happened long before the project got to software.
In this case, requirements were presented to the Visual Studio developers, who then implemented code that satisfied the requirements. The requirements weren't the invention, because they came from users of Visual Studio. The users didn't invent anything either: they simply wanted a system that would illustrate object-oriented principles. Object-oriented principles aren't the invention, the object-browser-container-fiddly-widget isn't the invention -- there is no invention. There never was. There are simply people trying to effectively describe abstract concepts to one another.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is a big corporation with deep pockets. With the patent system broken like it is, Microsoft has a fiduciary responsibility to attempt to patent anything they can if there is any chance that the attempt might possibly slip past the dullest of patent examiners. If they don't, someone else will. Those deep pockets are actually holding part of grampa's pension, and your kid's college fund -- it's not "evil" money, it's your money. If Microsoft doesn't try to protect it from the scumbags of the patent system, then they aren't being good citizens.
Evil begets evil, stupid begets stupid, worlds without end.
Current wind power installations are generating ~50 GW, whereas current geothermal installations are generating ~8 GW. How can you say that wind power is decades from delivering affordable massive power when it's clearly not true?
I have a friend who is generating 37.5 MW off of the back few sections of his ranch from wind power: one family, one ranch, generating power for 30,000 homes. And that's not some aberration: the middle 1/3 of the US has reliable winds capable of producing at an investment of about $1 per watt (at peak output).
And at $3 per watt, solar is getting absolutely demolished in the market against the $1 per watt that wind turbines are put up for. But that's not a fair comparison: wind turbines also work at night, pollute less, and last longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Simply said: if you don't care about your privacy, it's because you have nothing in your life that you care about enough to protect.
Wow, where to start?
First, buy a calculator and learn how to use it.
Here's a simple calculation to start with: it costs about $1 to move a ton of produce 20 miles. If gasoline was $20 a gallon, then that number would be $6 per ton for the same 20 miles. Even if we accept your ridiculous premise of $20 a gallon gas, and your outside estimate of "thousands of miles", we are still talking about less than $600 to move a ton of food 2000 miles. If you think that's a lot, consider that the market is already marking up that produce by a significantly higher amount: tomato growers get about $65 a ton, where the "canned tomatoes on the store shelf" price is about $1800 a ton. Given all of your absurd assumptions as correct, the price on the store shelf would still not go up more than 35%.
But, that is a silly assumption -- if diesel was $20 a gallon, long haul trucking would bow to rail transport once again. Sorry, not even 35% increase in prices is likely.
Second, regarding your assertion that we will "run out of land to farm on": you need to get out of New York City and see the rest of the country. The US produces many hundreds of millions of tons of food every year, and is a net exporter. Nevertheless, tens of millions of acres of arable land goes unfarmed simply because there are more economic plots available, and the price of food is so low. Go look: most of the country is unplowed, unpaved, and unreachable by means other than helicopter or horse. You think there's a shortage on land? A square mile of Texas will cost you less than an single apartment in NYC.
Want to know why "flyover country" votes differently than big city folk? It's because they have a clue. They understand the environment because they make their livelihood from it. Fill up your tank this summer and go find it for yourself. Remember to bring maps, drinking water, and snake shot -- the environment out here kills people, not the other way around.
That's hysteria, plain and simple.
Polar bears interbreed with grizzlies -- we might better call them races instead of species: they just have different fur. When the habitat is ice and snow, thick white fur is a successful trait. When not, not. Should we similarly worry about fat people with blonde hair because they can't find dates?
I've never heard of any expectation that penguin habitat was going to shrink -- the Antarctic is forecast to gain ice through global warming.
Humans living near coastal regions have been continuously dealing with subsidence and coastal erosion and violent tropical storms -- a minor change in sea level is irrelevant.
Finally, coral reefs. Global warming is not destroying them, in fact they can only grow in areas where the water is quite warm. Coral habitats may move incrementally to higher latitudes, but that's it. What is destroying them is pollution, over-fishing, and erosion.
Score: 0
1) That's called "equivocation". It's a logical fallacy.
2) It's still funny.
BTW: daily pacemaker and iPod user... no problems. If my EVDO equipped PocketPC doesn't affect it, why would my MP3 player? Stupid premise, stupid conclusion.
Last time I was at the device lab, the cardiologist kept frobbing some button that caused bouts of tachycardia. It is pretty uncomfortable to have your heart rate jump between 50 and 200, back and forth.
Then it dawned on me the she was trying to get me to crash.
At that point I asked her what security measures the device used to prevent this sort of denial-of-service attack by "unauthorized" people. Silence...
No. The loophole can be found in "effectively controls access". That phrase could not possibly describe CSS.
A change to the ABI.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question.
If North Korea nuked Japan, no one would come to it's rescue -- it would have no allies and would soon (like 4 hours later) be utterly annihilated. If Iran nuked Israel, the world would weigh in on each side, with everyone from China to Greenland involved, and split dangerously close to "down-the-middle" -- otherwise known as "world war". The resources and prejudices surrounding the Middle East make open and global war there likely, and it could end with billions dead.
I don't think you've thought it through. Iran is by far the biggest threat, even if the only "warhead delivery system" they have is a pickup truck.
This joke is a STUB. You can help make slashdot funnier by adding more inside jokes and obscure pop-culture references.
This is interesting, because my Verizon Wireless PocketPC came with Windows Media streaming software installed from the factory, with links to streaming media providers -- none of which were Verizon.
So using the software provided by Verizon is a prohibited use?
The U.S. Marshals are under the D.O.J, and are therefore executive branch.
This may actually reveal a bit of the developer reticence with respect to the PS3 -- trying to take advantage of the Cell architecture is a one-hit effort. That expense of that effort cannot be recovered in a port.
What I'm waiting for is for someone in the mainstream media to break from the "PS3 is the highest-performance console of this generation" talking points: I've yet to see evidence that this is actually true. It looks like hype of the same flavor as the PS1 polygon counts and the PS2 "supercomputer" status -- transparently false, yet never confronted as a lie.
You are mistaking trees as a carbon scrubber. They are not machines that clean CO2 out of the air -- they are carbon sinks, converting airborne CO2 into cellulose. The best thing you can do is cut down the trees, dry them out, and store the wood in a cool, dry place. One mechanism for this is by framing houses out of the wood. Then, plant another tree in it's place. As it grows it will pull CO2 out of the air. Then, when it's growth slows, cut it down, turn it into lumber, build another house out of it, and plant yet another tree in it's place. So long as the wood doesn't rot (and the house stands), the carbon dioxide will not return to the carbon cycle.
I repeat: cut down trees and build houses out of them. Letting trees decay in the forest is bad for the environment.
1) It's copyright infringement: sue.
2) It's restraint of trade: sue.
3) It's defamation of character: sue.
4) It's slander of title: sue.
Sue, and do not accept a settlement. Make sure to use loaded words like "piracy" and "theft" in every press release. Have fun!
In this case, requirements were presented to the Visual Studio developers, who then implemented code that satisfied the requirements. The requirements weren't the invention, because they came from users of Visual Studio. The users didn't invent anything either: they simply wanted a system that would illustrate object-oriented principles. Object-oriented principles aren't the invention, the object-browser-container-fiddly-widget isn't the invention -- there is no invention. There never was. There are simply people trying to effectively describe abstract concepts to one another.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is a big corporation with deep pockets. With the patent system broken like it is, Microsoft has a fiduciary responsibility to attempt to patent anything they can if there is any chance that the attempt might possibly slip past the dullest of patent examiners. If they don't, someone else will. Those deep pockets are actually holding part of grampa's pension, and your kid's college fund -- it's not "evil" money, it's your money. If Microsoft doesn't try to protect it from the scumbags of the patent system, then they aren't being good citizens.
Evil begets evil, stupid begets stupid, worlds without end.
Welcome to slashdot; here's your junk science for the day.
You can't prove string theory through experimentation, all you can do is attempt to disprove it.
Current wind power installations are generating ~50 GW, whereas current geothermal installations are generating ~8 GW. How can you say that wind power is decades from delivering affordable massive power when it's clearly not true?
I have a friend who is generating 37.5 MW off of the back few sections of his ranch from wind power: one family, one ranch, generating power for 30,000 homes. And that's not some aberration: the middle 1/3 of the US has reliable winds capable of producing at an investment of about $1 per watt (at peak output).
And at $3 per watt, solar is getting absolutely demolished in the market against the $1 per watt that wind turbines are put up for. But that's not a fair comparison: wind turbines also work at night, pollute less, and last longer.