DMSO is one of the most effective solvents known and makes the solution pass readily into the eyeball.
Yes, and absolutely everything else that it has been able to dissolve before it gets dropped into your eye also gets transported directly into your body.
As you rightly point out, it is a very effective solvent. Inside or outside of the lab it's dangerous stuff. I've always marveled at the "health nuts" who think DMSO must be good for you because it makes you smell like garlic.
Interesting and perhaps even informative, but nothing in the post you're replying to was on the "wrong subject"--unless you conflate the ideas of "car dealer" and "car manufacturer". There's no reason the same disastrous sort of scenario couldn't apply to a factory-installed system.
Ha, good point! But then again, does the CAF ever actually practice aerial combat in those vintage planes? I doubt it. I'll bet the EAF could virtually fly circles around them.
Why does a "group of over 30 players from all over Europe" care about heightened security, and how could they even afford hosting in such a datacenter?
The [European Air Force] was founded in 16th December 1998 by Serval and some other flight sim players from the Netherlands.
Oh c'mon. HHGTTG was originally a radio series, and worked well in that form. It worked far better, IMHO, as books.
But how could anyone *ever* turn the books, with their nuanced and nerdy humor, into a single feature film (or even a series of films)? Of course, movies are rarely as good as the books they're made from--and if they are, they're still *always* very different stories.
Movie-fying HHGTTG just wasn't possible.
When I went to see the movie I had low, low expectations, and wasn't disappointed. I wish no one had attempted such an impossible feat, but what they produced was just as good as I expected. It was, incidentally, pretty crappy. Or at least, I'm sure Marvin would have thought so.
Yes, a slightly different execution, but sounds like the same basic tech.
Opt-out is good to have if it works (like you'd ever know...). But I don't think most people know that Google is even doing this. I had no idea until I got a job working with traffic information systems. Before that, I always assumed Google Traffic was getting data from local governments (e.g. from loop sensors embedded in the pavement, etc.).
According to a local news story I heard reported a few weeks ago, there are systems in place used for traffic monitoring that already grabbing wireless data from people's cell phones. Apparently the technique is being used simply to model traffic patterns and for planning purposes.
Yes, there certainly are such systems, and they're not all that new. The most prominent one is probably Google Traffic.
Preferences > Show advanced settings > content settings > Plugins > click to play.
When it's hidden so deeply (in Chromium) that I had to keep referring back to your instructions to find exactly where it was, I'd say that installing Flashblock is about 10x easier. In any case, thanks for the tip.
Aside from compatibility testing, about the only reason I ever use Chromium is for viewing sites which break with Firefox+Flashblock. So I guess I'll find out before long if Chromium's "click to play" feature is any better on such obnoxious sites.
Click-to-play should the default for all video and/or sound-producing content, with the ability to easily whitelist sites you trust.
Yes, in salt water you DO have free sodium and chlorine ions floating around. That's exactly what you have. Sodium (Na+) and Chlorine (Cl-) ions, that is. They are not molecules at this point. Boil off the water and the ionic bonds reform, recreating crystalline salt (NaCl).
Yes, at least one person around here definitely needs to review their chemistry notes.:)
As soon as I see an "ibtimes" domain, I know better than to RTFA. I don't understand why/. ever posts links to their crappy sites unless they're getting kickbacks on click-throughs.
So how about looking for some alternate sources? Googling "Zeleniy Yar mummies" suggests that this isn't some ibtimes hoax after all.
This Siberian Times article seems to have the most information with lots of great pictures, the fewest ads, and other sites credit it as their source: http://siberiantimes.com/scien...
U.S. investigators suspect Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 flew for hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, based on an analysis of signals sent through the plane's satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of onboard systems, according to people familiar with the matter. An earlier version of this article and an accompanying graphic incorrectly said investigators based their suspicions on signals from monitoring systems embedded in the plane's Rolls-Royce PLC engines and described that process.
Which, due to Linux's efforts to guard every user account against every other user account, is an absolute nightmare.
With a comment like that, it's quite apparent you don't know much about Linux system administration. You should read up on the appropriate uses of 'sudo' before you go messing things up.
Although they may be talking specifically about this class of submarine and sub-launched aircraft, the Japanese did attack the US mainland, both with sub-mounted artillery, and sub-launched aircraft.
And yes the aircraft were recoverable by the sub crew: they were seaplanes, and would be picked up by a crane aboard the sub.
Luckily we have the FDA looking out for our health and best interests (joke!).
You do realize that the FDA employees and their families use this medicine, right? They've got a bit of a vested interest in actually looking out for us.
Yes, I always trust my government to look out for me too. Anyway, never mind the rank and file employees. They don't make the important decisions. How about the decision-makers of the FDA? Are they trustworthy? They're often pharmaceutical industry insiders (and when they're done working at the FDA, they often go right [back] into the industry). Fox, hen house, anyone?
I won't waste anyone's time posting lots of links to stuff you can easily research yourself, but here's one good example of a no-good FDA commissioner who actually got canned.
In the words of another writer:
However, the profits up for grabs have become so enormous that critics say the goal of industry-controlled research is no longer focused on finding a cure for cancer to save lives. Instead, the focus is on thwarting the development and approval of new therapies in order to protect the profits of the treatments already on the market. (source; emphasis mine)
I mean, come on, READ the article you just linked: "The results in The Lancet Infectious Diseases conflict with other studies that show no beneficial effect."
I have. The conclusions of the cited study were based on the results of 14 previous studies! As stated, some previous studies haven't shown any preventative or ameliorative effect of Echinacea. Those might have been commissioned by people with a vested interest in "proving" Echinacea ineffective. Or maybe they were done by incompetent researchers. Maybe they were using some adulterated form of the herb that wasn't effective, or based on the wrong variety (before you call 'bullshit', consider the difference in "effectiveness" of smoking industrial hemp vs. smoking recreational marijuana; all varieties of the same plant).
I'm sure I could design with a study that would pass the average peer review AND fail to show any positive effect of Echinacea (especially if those "peers" were biased towards, or at least expecting, the stated results). Perhaps I could design one to show positive results. The question is, what is my vested interest in proving something one way or another? Even if there's no personal benefit involved, do I have a preconceived notion of what the results will be? Let's say I carefully design a double-blind study, and the results, to my chagrin, prove something that is extremely financially detrimental to me and/or my employer. Will I lose my funding grants? Will my employer even allow it to be published? Will my conscience demand that I publish it, or will I leave it to the dust heap of history because I must feed my family? It's incredibly naive to assume that all "scientific" studies are accurate. Especially when you see similar ones appearing to contradict one another.
In my first post, perhaps I shouldn't have been so bold as to say Echinacea *does* have value. I don't know that. Some studies have shown it to be so. Some have shown otherwise. My personal experience is generally positive, but obviously that could be the placebo effect at work. Good thing it's cheap; if I'm wasting my money, at least I'm not wasting much.
Speaking of money--although alternative medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US, it is still dwarfed by the pharmaceutical industry. The more money you've got to prove your point (which will help you get more money), the more skeptical I'm going to be about your
...and many pharmaceuticals (read: synthetic or chemically purified and processed medicines) have limited value as well. Plus, they can often kill you.
Luckily we have the FDA looking out for our health and best interests (joke!).
Meanwhile, as far as herbal medicine that *does* have value: Even to my surprise, a study from a couple years ago showed that Echinacea has been found to more than halve the risk of catching the common cold: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm
I'm sure if more research was done into natural and traditional remedies, many others would also be found to also have value. Problem is, if you can pick it from a forest or a field, there's no money in it for the shareholders... unless you can purify/extract/synthesize and patent it (after all, aspirin was originally derived from willow bark). http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blaspirin.htm
So, you're saying that there's a more than 100% chance that someone did it. Right.
Anyway, the way I see it, some governmental organization was probably practicing, proving that they could do it and observing the consequences. The chances that the world would learn from this and suddenly make all undersea cables less vulnerable to this sort of attack (how?) seems slim.
If it hadn't happened under the sea, I'd term it a 'dry run'.
Jokes aside--The real questions are who did it, and what is the target they were practicing for?
Of course, many countries have better internet service than the US, but none have bigger economies, more dependent on high tech (never mind the outsourced workforce, which has already been hard-hit by these problems in the Middle East & South Asia), than the US. A sudden loss of most of the internet connectivity for North America would be catastrophic to the US. I say that makes them the richest target, and conversely the least likely to have made this practice run.
Such an attack would be cheap to undertake, so any number of America's enemies could be responsible. I can think of some prime suspects, but have no reason to pick one over another.
Stealing bread when you can't afford it (and no one's giving it away) is difficult to condemn.
Running pirated software because you can't afford it? Well, since you can get almost any software you could possibly need both free and legally, you're apparently either uninformed or not the sort of person to take responsibility for your own actions and choices (just like a spammer).
Not true. Amazon was still losing money when the bubble burst... the recorded their first profit in 2002.
In the fourth quarter a year ago [end of 2001], the company reported a net loss $545 million, or $1.53 a share, on sales of $972 million. For 2001, Amazon reported a net loss of $567 million, or $1.56 a share, on sales of $3.12 billion. The company ended 2001 with $996 million in cash and marketable securities on hand, compared with $1.1 billion in 2000.
You've got a reasonable point, Colin, except that Ubuntu (7.x, at least) hides all desktop icons by default--assuming you'd rather not clutter it up with stuff you can access through the file browser (or at least allowing you to start with a clean slate). The only things that appear, by default, are hot mounts (network drives, CDs, DVDs, USB devices, etc.).
So if you want folders on your desktop, you need to find and link all the wee file folders to your desktop. Of course, just like Windows, you can create folders on the desktop, on-the-fly, by right-clicking and selecting the appropriate menu item.
If you want the default/special icons ("Computer", "Documents", your home folder, Network browser, or Trash Can), I know of no easier way to get them than to launch gconf-editor, navigate to/apps/nautilus/desktop, and enable the desired items. There could very well be an easier way, I don't know. There should be.
Anyway, I'm very happy with Ubuntu 7.04 and it has finally allowed me to completely stop using Windows on my desktop machine at work (I do have a Windows box, but only to test our software on that OS). I'm fine with the "clean desktop" defaults; all those "special" items are available one way or another through the normal file browser. I've chosen to make the Computer and Documents icons visible on the desktop, but that's just a matter of taste. Probably because I grew so used to Windows that I'm more comfortable having them there.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and absolutely everything else that it has been able to dissolve before it gets dropped into your eye also gets transported directly into your body.
As you rightly point out, it is a very effective solvent. Inside or outside of the lab it's dangerous stuff. I've always marveled at the "health nuts" who think DMSO must be good for you because it makes you smell like garlic.
Indeed. Here's a 5 minute Airbus-produced video showing how the reinforced door interlock system works, including the exact same switch you describe:
Airbus Reinforced Cockpit Door Description and Procedure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Interesting and perhaps even informative, but nothing in the post you're replying to was on the "wrong subject"--unless you conflate the ideas of "car dealer" and "car manufacturer". There's no reason the same disastrous sort of scenario couldn't apply to a factory-installed system.
Ha, good point! But then again, does the CAF ever actually practice aerial combat in those vintage planes? I doubt it. I'll bet the EAF could virtually fly circles around them.
http://www.europeanaf.net/
Oh c'mon. HHGTTG was originally a radio series, and worked well in that form. It worked far better, IMHO, as books.
But how could anyone *ever* turn the books, with their nuanced and nerdy humor, into a single feature film (or even a series of films)? Of course, movies are rarely as good as the books they're made from--and if they are, they're still *always* very different stories.
Movie-fying HHGTTG just wasn't possible.
When I went to see the movie I had low, low expectations, and wasn't disappointed. I wish no one had attempted such an impossible feat, but what they produced was just as good as I expected. It was, incidentally, pretty crappy. Or at least, I'm sure Marvin would have thought so.
(I didn't RTFA, but it sounds as if this article *might* have been written by someone who did some actual research.)
Yes, a slightly different execution, but sounds like the same basic tech.
Opt-out is good to have if it works (like you'd ever know...). But I don't think most people know that Google is even doing this. I had no idea until I got a job working with traffic information systems. Before that, I always assumed Google Traffic was getting data from local governments (e.g. from loop sensors embedded in the pavement, etc.).
Yes, there certainly are such systems, and they're not all that new. The most prominent one is probably Google Traffic.
Preferences > Show advanced settings > content settings > Plugins > click to play.
When it's hidden so deeply (in Chromium) that I had to keep referring back to your instructions to find exactly where it was, I'd say that installing Flashblock is about 10x easier. In any case, thanks for the tip.
Aside from compatibility testing, about the only reason I ever use Chromium is for viewing sites which break with Firefox+Flashblock. So I guess I'll find out before long if Chromium's "click to play" feature is any better on such obnoxious sites.
Click-to-play should the default for all video and/or sound-producing content, with the ability to easily whitelist sites you trust.
Yes, in salt water you DO have free sodium and chlorine ions floating around. That's exactly what you have. Sodium (Na+) and Chlorine (Cl-) ions, that is. They are not molecules at this point. Boil off the water and the ionic bonds reform, recreating crystalline salt (NaCl).
Yes, at least one person around here definitely needs to review their chemistry notes. :)
As soon as I see an "ibtimes" domain, I know better than to RTFA. I don't understand why /. ever posts links to their crappy sites unless they're getting kickbacks on click-throughs.
So how about looking for some alternate sources? Googling "Zeleniy Yar mummies" suggests that this isn't some ibtimes hoax after all.
This Siberian Times article seems to have the most information with lots of great pictures, the fewest ads, and other sites credit it as their source:
http://siberiantimes.com/scien...
With a comment like that, it's quite apparent you don't know much about Linux system administration. You should read up on the appropriate uses of 'sudo' before you go messing things up.
Did you RTFSummary? The web servers hosting the content are getting requests from Microsoft! The only thing exclusive about it is Skype's monopoly.
Double the U, double the FUD?
We should bend over backwards to satisfy 1/25000 of the population.
RFTFY Original AC's comment was asinine but at least got the math right.
And yes the aircraft were recoverable by the sub crew: they were seaplanes, and would be picked up by a crane aboard the sub.
You can read a summary of US-mainland attacks here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_United_States_territory_in_North_America_during_World_War_II#Japanese_assaults
You do realize that the FDA employees and their families use this medicine, right? They've got a bit of a vested interest in actually looking out for us.
Yes, I always trust my government to look out for me too. Anyway, never mind the rank and file employees. They don't make the important decisions. How about the decision-makers of the FDA? Are they trustworthy? They're often pharmaceutical industry insiders (and when they're done working at the FDA, they often go right [back] into the industry). Fox, hen house, anyone? I won't waste anyone's time posting lots of links to stuff you can easily research yourself, but here's one good example of a no-good FDA commissioner who actually got canned.
In the words of another writer: However, the profits up for grabs have become so enormous that critics say the goal of industry-controlled research is no longer focused on finding a cure for cancer to save lives. Instead, the focus is on thwarting the development and approval of new therapies in order to protect the profits of the treatments already on the market. (source; emphasis mine)
I have. The conclusions of the cited study were based on the results of 14 previous studies! As stated, some previous studies haven't shown any preventative or ameliorative effect of Echinacea. Those might have been commissioned by people with a vested interest in "proving" Echinacea ineffective. Or maybe they were done by incompetent researchers. Maybe they were using some adulterated form of the herb that wasn't effective, or based on the wrong variety (before you call 'bullshit', consider the difference in "effectiveness" of smoking industrial hemp vs. smoking recreational marijuana; all varieties of the same plant).
I'm sure I could design with a study that would pass the average peer review AND fail to show any positive effect of Echinacea (especially if those "peers" were biased towards, or at least expecting, the stated results). Perhaps I could design one to show positive results. The question is, what is my vested interest in proving something one way or another? Even if there's no personal benefit involved, do I have a preconceived notion of what the results will be? Let's say I carefully design a double-blind study, and the results, to my chagrin, prove something that is extremely financially detrimental to me and/or my employer. Will I lose my funding grants? Will my employer even allow it to be published? Will my conscience demand that I publish it, or will I leave it to the dust heap of history because I must feed my family? It's incredibly naive to assume that all "scientific" studies are accurate. Especially when you see similar ones appearing to contradict one another.
In my first post, perhaps I shouldn't have been so bold as to say Echinacea *does* have value. I don't know that. Some studies have shown it to be so. Some have shown otherwise. My personal experience is generally positive, but obviously that could be the placebo effect at work. Good thing it's cheap; if I'm wasting my money, at least I'm not wasting much.
Speaking of money--although alternative medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US, it is still dwarfed by the pharmaceutical industry. The more money you've got to prove your point (which will help you get more money), the more skeptical I'm going to be about your
...and many pharmaceuticals (read: synthetic or chemically purified and processed medicines) have limited value as well. Plus, they can often kill you.
Luckily we have the FDA looking out for our health and best interests (joke!).
Meanwhile, as far as herbal medicine that *does* have value: Even to my surprise, a study from a couple years ago showed that Echinacea has been found to more than halve the risk of catching the common cold:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6231190.stm
I'm sure if more research was done into natural and traditional remedies, many others would also be found to also have value. Problem is, if you can pick it from a forest or a field, there's no money in it for the shareholders... unless you can purify/extract/synthesize and patent it (after all, aspirin was originally derived from willow bark).
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blaspirin.htm
So, you're saying that there's a more than 100% chance that someone did it. Right.
Anyway, the way I see it, some governmental organization was probably practicing, proving that they could do it and observing the consequences. The chances that the world would learn from this and suddenly make all undersea cables less vulnerable to this sort of attack (how?) seems slim.
If it hadn't happened under the sea, I'd term it a 'dry run'.
Jokes aside--The real questions are who did it, and what is the target they were practicing for?
Of course, many countries have better internet service than the US, but none have bigger economies, more dependent on high tech (never mind the outsourced workforce, which has already been hard-hit by these problems in the Middle East & South Asia), than the US. A sudden loss of most of the internet connectivity for North America would be catastrophic to the US. I say that makes them the richest target, and conversely the least likely to have made this practice run.
Such an attack would be cheap to undertake, so any number of America's enemies could be responsible. I can think of some prime suspects, but have no reason to pick one over another.
Here's the html version, with pretty pictures.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/text/index.php?action=view_section&id=1333&story_id=320
I did look for other comments mentioning HTML or text but to my astonishment it appears no one bothered to post this all day.
Running pirated software because you can't afford it? Well, since you can get almost any software you could possibly need both free and legally, you're apparently either uninformed or not the sort of person to take responsibility for your own actions and choices (just like a spammer).
Hard to find data on eBay but you're probably right that they were making a profit then.
You've got a reasonable point, Colin, except that Ubuntu (7.x, at least) hides all desktop icons by default--assuming you'd rather not clutter it up with stuff you can access through the file browser (or at least allowing you to start with a clean slate). The only things that appear, by default, are hot mounts (network drives, CDs, DVDs, USB devices, etc.).
/apps/nautilus/desktop, and enable the desired items. There could very well be an easier way, I don't know. There should be.
So if you want folders on your desktop, you need to find and link all the wee file folders to your desktop. Of course, just like Windows, you can create folders on the desktop, on-the-fly, by right-clicking and selecting the appropriate menu item.
If you want the default/special icons ("Computer", "Documents", your home folder, Network browser, or Trash Can), I know of no easier way to get them than to launch gconf-editor, navigate to
Anyway, I'm very happy with Ubuntu 7.04 and it has finally allowed me to completely stop using Windows on my desktop machine at work (I do have a Windows box, but only to test our software on that OS). I'm fine with the "clean desktop" defaults; all those "special" items are available one way or another through the normal file browser. I've chosen to make the Computer and Documents icons visible on the desktop, but that's just a matter of taste. Probably because I grew so used to Windows that I'm more comfortable having them there.