I generally agree, but the Gaia hypothesis says a trace amount of methane probably isn't evidence of life. Lovelock's argument regarding Mars was that if there was any life there, it would be easy to tell. The fact that extremophile life exists in niches on Earth doesn't really show that a small amount of extremophile life exists on Mars: over the eons it would have evolved, spread, and altered the Martian environment in ways easy to see. The theory doesn't rule out the possibility that there was once life on Mars that died out, though.
There's little reason for incubators to be particularly high-tech, given that they were successful when first invented in the 1880s. And the story of their development is fascinating: to generate publicity, the inventors displayed infants in incubators at large exhibitions and world's fairs starting in the 1890s. Beginning in 1903 Martin Couney ran his incubators as an exhibit at Luna Park in Coney Island, where it was quite popular at 25 cents a ticket (when most attractions were 10 cents).
So for decades, the best premature infant care facility in the country was run as a profitable sideshow attraction!
If you want a cheap, expandable, desktop then you are a minority in a minority and don't have much money. Who in their right mind would design a product to cater to you?
I disagree. It's not just developers and Slashdotters, it's also switchers and the enterprise. And yes, Apple could make money with it. It would be a Mac Mini with a desktop hard drive, one good CPU, an upgradeable graphics card, maybe one other slot, plus the standard ports and DVD drive. Make it beautiful and call it a new standard and "green" and guarantee available motherboard upgrades for five years. Sell it for no more than $999, or even $899 or less. (Yes, there would still be an "Apple premium," but it's cheap as Apple expandable desktops go.) Pitch it to businesses afraid of or disgusted by Vista and I think they'd sell boatloads. Lots of people want more than a Mini or an iMac, think a Pro is overkill, and already have a monitor.
It seems to me that all these yahoos arguing to "don't regulate, just let the market sort it out," are saying it's perfect by implication.
Not to speak for or defend all yahoos, but I think that argument is saying that letting the market sort it out usually works out better than regulation, not that anything is perfect.
IANA oceanographer, but I don't think most of the problems you list apply, because the idea is to do this in relatively barren areas of the ocean far from shore: few fish and no coral beds. And the idea has been tested in a way: the iron-rich runoff of rivers and seashore areas are the areas that have the most fish and other desirable ocean life. Doing the same thing in the middle of nowhere, in a controlled way without the pollutants etc. in regular runoff, seems like a pretty safe bet.
On the whole it's a far more sensible idea than the glitter, and far cheaper than launching anything into orbit. Relatively inexpensive small-scale tests are also easy. And the argument that it would take decades to take effect, well, global warming takes effect over decades as well.
The Qur'an is out of copyright by now, so what's the problem?
I appreciate the joke, but the answer is kind of interesting. Unlike the Bible, which was written by many people in many languages over a long period, the Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad. According to Muslims, it's a copy of the Qur'an which exists in Heaven, and is the literal, untranslated word of God. (God speaks medieval Arabic, you see.) So copies on Earth, even quotes, are sacred in a way that a quote from the Bible isn't for Christians (AFAIK). For example, newspapers in Muslim countries don't quote the Qur'an, because disposing of the newspaper in a regular way would be disrespectful or blasphemous.
Are you sure? The lawsuit was settled in 2007 with Apple owning all trademark rights and licensing some of them back to Apple Corps. There are confidential terms, though, so who knows?
At the very least, a sudden release of mass amounts of methane could create immense hurricanes, even if no ignition takes place. The entertaining science fiction disaster novel Mother of Storms by John Barnes is based on that premise.
I'm sure there would be a dent in Mac Pro sales, but I think the mini-tower would more than compensate by being quite popular among people who might not otherwise buy a Mac. And imagine the press coverage of a "new, cheap, 'green' computer from Apple that's expandable and guaranteed upgradable for 5 years." Use the unpopularity of Vista, and the popularity of iPods and iPhones, to target switchers.
Frankly, sometimes Steve Jobs makes dubious decisions based on quirks or aesthetics: no floppy drive in the original NeXT computer, the G3/G4-era "hockey-puck" round mouse, and a few others. I suspect he hates traditional cheap towers, and so only wants to make portables, or snazzy workstations, and (kinda-sorta) the Mac Mini. Pitching a mini-tower as a green machine might appeal to him, though.
The posters above a're absolutely correct, and it's a huge opportunity that Apple is missing. All they need is a cut-down Mac Pro, call it a Mac Pro Mini. One upgradeable CPU, one (not four) hard drive bays, one (not two) optical bays, two (not eight) RAM slots, one slot for a graphics card, maybe one other slot, and a nice set of ports. They can't sell that for $999 and make a profit? Or sell it for $699 and use it to storm the gates of corporate America while they are annoyed about Vista. I think hackers, switchers, and many businesses would be thrilled with a Mac like that.
I even have a way to make it sexy enough for Steve Jobs: Make it "green"! Put it in a recyclable aluminum case and commit to making motherboard upgrades available for (say) five years.
A list of measures that could help includes eradication of population in warm underdeveloped countries
I hate spam as much or more than the next fellow, but am unwilling to advocate "eradication of population" to solve it. And I find it amazing that a post that includes such a suggestion can get a +3 Insightful mod.
So, the implication is that a big conspiracy set up charges to bring down the towers and that this conspiracy is good enough to never be uncovered, but not good enough to make it look unlike a professional demolition?
Exactly, and that's not the only giant logical hole in the conspiracy theories. If you are going to blow up the Towers and/or WTC7 with a controlled demolition, why bother with the unnecessary complication of the hijackings? That just leaves more to go wrong: the hijackers might be overcome by the passengers, or miss their targets. Plus, blowing up the buildings with everyone in them would vastly increase the death toll, which was the plan with the first truck bomb attack in 1993.
The standard JFK conspiracy theories have a similar logical flaw: if it was an inside job and the insiders are going to cover up the autopsy, why bother recruiting some loony loner and count on his marksmanship? Just have your insiders slip something into JFK's morning coffee, sadly announce that he had an unexpected heart attack, and you're done.
Your comment makes me wonder if all newspapers are equally doomed. Does the web threaten the major big-city dailies more than smaller local papers? At the other end, I suspect the nationally-distributed papers like USA Today and the Wall Street Journal are also better positioned than big-city dailies.
I imagine that all news-on-dead-trees will go away sooner or later, but I think some are going away sooner.
I would generally trust MIT as well, and the discovery sounds good to me, but I find it very odd that they are claiming their catalyst is "green" and doesn't "react with the environment" when it's cobalt phosphate. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't cobalt rather toxic, even in phosphate form?
Yes, I think you're quibbling. Registration fraud can certainly facilitate vote fraud: lots of vote fraud happens when people vote multiple times under other's names. If there are fake people registered, then fraudsters can vote as the fake registrants without worry that a real person will contradict them. If you don't like the ACORN example, though, I can point to Chicago in 1960, Lyndon Johnson in 1948, and many more examples of fraud that are far more established than anything involving Diebold, etc. And if Fund's solutions "skews voter rolls in favor of his party" because it eliminates partisan voter fraud, well, I thought we were all in favor of fair elections? I'm in favor of eliminating all ways to fix elections, regardless of which party it helps or hurts.
I think are defining the problem as "making sure every vote is counted accurately," which is certainly a worthy goal. I agree, but just want to make sure it's every legal vote. Otherwise, you are ignoring a proven, fundamental, commonly-exploited hole in election security. It's as if you want to protect yourself from burglars, but focus on a narrow technical issue like the type of locks on your front door, while leaving your windows open. Even though every time burglars have struck, they've come in through your windows.
No, not the same as poll taxes or literacy tests. Proving a legal identity as a citizen is trivial 98%+ of the time. There can be plenty of ways to help poor people get ID if they don't have it. And if we require ID to buy a beer or rent a DVD, it's not a lot to ask to require it for something as important as voting.
No, a red herring is something fake. These are real examples of vote fraud: for example, four ACORN people pled guilty in the case you are eager to dismiss. So there are numerous proven instances of old-fashioned vote fraud, which continue to this day. In contrast, the electronic type that many around here are excited about is still theoretical, AFAIK: no hard-to-argue proof like actual convictions in a court of law.
But hey, I'm not arguing against top-quality security for electronic voting systems. I just want the same level of security applied to all levels of the process: voter registration, requiring photo ID at the polls, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Or even simpler and cheaper, a Tritium Flatenna. Under $20 shipped to the USA.
I generally agree, but the Gaia hypothesis says a trace amount of methane probably isn't evidence of life. Lovelock's argument regarding Mars was that if there was any life there, it would be easy to tell. The fact that extremophile life exists in niches on Earth doesn't really show that a small amount of extremophile life exists on Mars: over the eons it would have evolved, spread, and altered the Martian environment in ways easy to see. The theory doesn't rule out the possibility that there was once life on Mars that died out, though.
As a comic once said: "Health food doesn't make you live longer, it just makes it seem longer."
There are OS X apps like DragThing and LaunchBar that I believe might be what you're looking for.
There's little reason for incubators to be particularly high-tech, given that they were successful when first invented in the 1880s. And the story of their development is fascinating: to generate publicity, the inventors displayed infants in incubators at large exhibitions and world's fairs starting in the 1890s. Beginning in 1903 Martin Couney ran his incubators as an exhibit at Luna Park in Coney Island, where it was quite popular at 25 cents a ticket (when most attractions were 10 cents).
So for decades, the best premature infant care facility in the country was run as a profitable sideshow attraction!
Of course it's possible to accelerate payloads gradually, using a launch ring.
Another cool idea: airship to orbit. More. Still more.
In any case, we need something beyond standard chemical rockets to get cheap access to orbit.
To support your point, check out this map of farm subsidy payments to people living in New York City. So yes, any waste in NASA is dwarfed by waste elsewhere in the budget.
I disagree. It's not just developers and Slashdotters, it's also switchers and the enterprise. And yes, Apple could make money with it. It would be a Mac Mini with a desktop hard drive, one good CPU, an upgradeable graphics card, maybe one other slot, plus the standard ports and DVD drive. Make it beautiful and call it a new standard and "green" and guarantee available motherboard upgrades for five years. Sell it for no more than $999, or even $899 or less. (Yes, there would still be an "Apple premium," but it's cheap as Apple expandable desktops go.) Pitch it to businesses afraid of or disgusted by Vista and I think they'd sell boatloads. Lots of people want more than a Mini or an iMac, think a Pro is overkill, and already have a monitor.
Not to speak for or defend all yahoos, but I think that argument is saying that letting the market sort it out usually works out better than regulation, not that anything is perfect.
Call it an iron (pronounced EYE-ron).
You forgot: 5. No piracy. (You can't pirate apps or an OS hosted in the cloud, can you?)
Of course, that's not a benefit for you, but I'm sure Microsoft sees it as a benefit.
IANA oceanographer, but I don't think most of the problems you list apply, because the idea is to do this in relatively barren areas of the ocean far from shore: few fish and no coral beds. And the idea has been tested in a way: the iron-rich runoff of rivers and seashore areas are the areas that have the most fish and other desirable ocean life. Doing the same thing in the middle of nowhere, in a controlled way without the pollutants etc. in regular runoff, seems like a pretty safe bet.
On the whole it's a far more sensible idea than the glitter, and far cheaper than launching anything into orbit. Relatively inexpensive small-scale tests are also easy. And the argument that it would take decades to take effect, well, global warming takes effect over decades as well.
I appreciate the joke, but the answer is kind of interesting. Unlike the Bible, which was written by many people in many languages over a long period, the Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad. According to Muslims, it's a copy of the Qur'an which exists in Heaven, and is the literal, untranslated word of God. (God speaks medieval Arabic, you see.) So copies on Earth, even quotes, are sacred in a way that a quote from the Bible isn't for Christians (AFAIK). For example, newspapers in Muslim countries don't quote the Qur'an, because disposing of the newspaper in a regular way would be disrespectful or blasphemous.
And those of us wise in the ways of the internet all know how subject lines are an excellent way to determine the actual content of emails!
The Reagan tax cuts really did increase revenue. (Or at least the tax cuts were associated with rising revenue, if you want to argue about causation.) Many other interesting graphs here.
Are you sure? The lawsuit was settled in 2007 with Apple owning all trademark rights and licensing some of them back to Apple Corps. There are confidential terms, though, so who knows?
At the very least, a sudden release of mass amounts of methane could create immense hurricanes, even if no ignition takes place. The entertaining science fiction disaster novel Mother of Storms by John Barnes is based on that premise.
I'm sure there would be a dent in Mac Pro sales, but I think the mini-tower would more than compensate by being quite popular among people who might not otherwise buy a Mac. And imagine the press coverage of a "new, cheap, 'green' computer from Apple that's expandable and guaranteed upgradable for 5 years." Use the unpopularity of Vista, and the popularity of iPods and iPhones, to target switchers.
Frankly, sometimes Steve Jobs makes dubious decisions based on quirks or aesthetics: no floppy drive in the original NeXT computer, the G3/G4-era "hockey-puck" round mouse, and a few others. I suspect he hates traditional cheap towers, and so only wants to make portables, or snazzy workstations, and (kinda-sorta) the Mac Mini. Pitching a mini-tower as a green machine might appeal to him, though.
The posters above a're absolutely correct, and it's a huge opportunity that Apple is missing. All they need is a cut-down Mac Pro, call it a Mac Pro Mini. One upgradeable CPU, one (not four) hard drive bays, one (not two) optical bays, two (not eight) RAM slots, one slot for a graphics card, maybe one other slot, and a nice set of ports. They can't sell that for $999 and make a profit? Or sell it for $699 and use it to storm the gates of corporate America while they are annoyed about Vista. I think hackers, switchers, and many businesses would be thrilled with a Mac like that.
I even have a way to make it sexy enough for Steve Jobs: Make it "green"! Put it in a recyclable aluminum case and commit to making motherboard upgrades available for (say) five years.
I hate spam as much or more than the next fellow, but am unwilling to advocate "eradication of population" to solve it. And I find it amazing that a post that includes such a suggestion can get a +3 Insightful mod.
Exactly, and that's not the only giant logical hole in the conspiracy theories. If you are going to blow up the Towers and/or WTC7 with a controlled demolition, why bother with the unnecessary complication of the hijackings? That just leaves more to go wrong: the hijackers might be overcome by the passengers, or miss their targets. Plus, blowing up the buildings with everyone in them would vastly increase the death toll, which was the plan with the first truck bomb attack in 1993.
The standard JFK conspiracy theories have a similar logical flaw: if it was an inside job and the insiders are going to cover up the autopsy, why bother recruiting some loony loner and count on his marksmanship? Just have your insiders slip something into JFK's morning coffee, sadly announce that he had an unexpected heart attack, and you're done.
Your comment makes me wonder if all newspapers are equally doomed. Does the web threaten the major big-city dailies more than smaller local papers? At the other end, I suspect the nationally-distributed papers like USA Today and the Wall Street Journal are also better positioned than big-city dailies.
I imagine that all news-on-dead-trees will go away sooner or later, but I think some are going away sooner.
I would generally trust MIT as well, and the discovery sounds good to me, but I find it very odd that they are claiming their catalyst is "green" and doesn't "react with the environment" when it's cobalt phosphate. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't cobalt rather toxic, even in phosphate form?
Yes, I think you're quibbling. Registration fraud can certainly facilitate vote fraud: lots of vote fraud happens when people vote multiple times under other's names. If there are fake people registered, then fraudsters can vote as the fake registrants without worry that a real person will contradict them. If you don't like the ACORN example, though, I can point to Chicago in 1960, Lyndon Johnson in 1948, and many more examples of fraud that are far more established than anything involving Diebold, etc. And if Fund's solutions "skews voter rolls in favor of his party" because it eliminates partisan voter fraud, well, I thought we were all in favor of fair elections? I'm in favor of eliminating all ways to fix elections, regardless of which party it helps or hurts.
I think are defining the problem as "making sure every vote is counted accurately," which is certainly a worthy goal. I agree, but just want to make sure it's every legal vote. Otherwise, you are ignoring a proven, fundamental, commonly-exploited hole in election security. It's as if you want to protect yourself from burglars, but focus on a narrow technical issue like the type of locks on your front door, while leaving your windows open. Even though every time burglars have struck, they've come in through your windows.
No, not the same as poll taxes or literacy tests. Proving a legal identity as a citizen is trivial 98%+ of the time. There can be plenty of ways to help poor people get ID if they don't have it. And if we require ID to buy a beer or rent a DVD, it's not a lot to ask to require it for something as important as voting.
No, a red herring is something fake. These are real examples of vote fraud: for example, four ACORN people pled guilty in the case you are eager to dismiss. So there are numerous proven instances of old-fashioned vote fraud, which continue to this day. In contrast, the electronic type that many around here are excited about is still theoretical, AFAIK: no hard-to-argue proof like actual convictions in a court of law.
But hey, I'm not arguing against top-quality security for electronic voting systems. I just want the same level of security applied to all levels of the process: voter registration, requiring photo ID at the polls, etc.