Because it's actually true. The heart of socialism is often stated as "from he who has the ability to he who has the need" or such; and overall it's basically a system by which the group shares what it produces. The basic theory is each man can produce more than he needs, and thus we should produce enough for everyone and then share the excess.
The Free Software Foundation is Richard Stallman's brainchild. Stallman's philosophy is that programming code and other creative works are the righteous property of everyone. Because they can be duplicated freely, they should be duplicated freely; and because programming object code is much less elegant and harder to modify than programming source code, programming source code should be supplied with programming object code and should be traded freely as well.
The entire purpose of the FSF is to take Stallman's vision of a world where proprietary, closed, restricted software doesn't exist and shape reality around it. In other words: he wants to take from those who can produce programming code and give to all of us so that we can benefit from that work freely. He'll use any leverage he can to force the issue, too: he's happily forced a few proprietary software applications into GPL by threatening injunction for them linking to GPL libraries (this is covered on the GNU site under Stallman's 'philosophy' area, in an article about why glibc is LGPL and not GPL--he noted as an aside that gettext is GPL and has allowed him to force two closed products into a GPL release thanks to their oversight).
You're as insane as the OP. There is no 'world peace,' there's a different political atmosphere. Rather than fighting other countries, the politicians realized they can all live comfortably in power by oppressing their own people and helping each other oppress their own people. Instead of trying to rule the world, they're trying to keep knives out of their backs and grudgingly working together to make sure they're not deposed out of their own kingdom ever.
The syntax in the first GRUB was less ridiculous. GRUB is a very simple, very basic tool; they've mangled the syntax to make something trying to be a nearly turring complete scripting language.
this is wrong, because it'll keep booting old kernels, until they're removed and it won't boot anymore. You want to add your config to/etc/grub/41custom or whatever, so when the automated configurator runs it puts your custom config into the generated configuration file.
The FSF's version of freedom is equivalent to nanny-state socialism. They've basically decided that their idea of playing nice needs to be enforced by big stick, and will happily trample over anything and everything that does something they dislike.
In this particular case, Ubuntu wants to place a bootloader that will allow you to load ANY operating system, bypassing the "security" features they dislike in the new UEFI. Ubuntu wishes to ensure that users can boot any operating system they like and run any software they want. Their concern is that the GPLv3 makes provisions by which the FSF could, in this case as the owner of GRUB2, deem that a machine that won't let them replace GRUB2 with something else is in violation of the GPLv3. At that point, they can demand that Ubuntu surrender its encryption keys used to provide secure bootloader verification--which then allows anyone to sign any bootloader they want, thus negating any security features you could leverage out of the bootloader (for example, intentionally instructing it to boot only signed code--keeping the chain trusted, rather than booting a foreign OS as is the option).
The point of contention is where the FSF gets to demand Ubuntu hand over their encryption keys for this particular application because they've decided it's 'unfair' that users don't have the option to replace a bootloader. The GPLv3 is a restrictive license agreement whose provisions do in fact allow the copyright holder to make certain demands about HOW their software is used. Most people fixate on the "Free" part because you're free to distribute and modify the software; but you are also "Obligated" to publish your modifications in source form if published in any form.
The GPLv3 brings restrictions on how you can use the software, such that you must be able to modify it--the hardware you use the software on must be configured to allow the use of modified software (or any other software). 'Jailbreaking' is not a thing with GPLv3 because the vendors would have to supply a way to run custom software. If the Linux Kernel was GPLv3, then you wouldn't have to root any phones to install Cyanogenmod: vendors would be required to provide an official method for the end user to replace the software with custom versions.
The Affero versions of the GPL family of licenses go even further: if you USE a modified version of the software, you must publish its source. That means if you modify an AGPL Web server and use it to serve your Web site, you have to put up the Web server's source code. An AGPL Web application would work the same way: modify an AGPL CMS and you need to publish its source code on your Web site.
These licensing restrictions are important to understand when licensing Free software. Canonical has decided not to license GRUB2 in Ubuntu on UEFI platforms because of potential conflicts between their requirements and the requirements of fulfilling the licensing agreement in certain cases. The FSF is extremely well known for its hard-line enforcement stance and thus there is the concern that they would not negotiate to reconcile technical mistakes, but rather take advantage of them to file a hostile injunction and demand release of encryption keys. The FSF behaves in this way because they have high ideals about what's "good for everybody"--as I said, they are effectively nanny-state socialists and want to get their fingers in everything so they can make people "play nice."
In short, this is why we have many licenses. The FSF uses the GPLv3 because they have their ideals and can support them with the GPLv3 (which, by the way, was born mainly out of the FSF's distaste for locked-down TiVo platforms). Other people still use the GPLv2 because they understand what the GPLv3 entails and their ideals are dissimilar from the FSF--Linux is GPLv2 because the relevant bodies are not sharply against locked-down phones running android, something they could legally prevent with GPLv3. Similarly many people use the BSD and MIT licenses because their philosophy is, "Here is code! Somebody might find this useful!"
I agree with Verizon here. Their pipes are their property, and they're within their rights to claim regulatory control over them as a method of expressing their speech. They allow what they wish over their pipes, or everything if they wish to defer to the end users.
Now, there's this little matter of the thousands of gigabytes of child pornography that Verizon has been allowing over their pipes that I'd like to discuss in the DA's office...
The US isn't a very rich country. Money in the US is loaned into existence--a dollar saved is a dollar owed. Essentially the US will die if we don't have inflation.
Let's talk about education. In the US, student loans have interest. Additionally, we've government-guaranteed student loans, taking all risk off the banks. Thus, the banks (now the Government directly) can loan out endless money without worrying about defaults, since the US Government will levy taxes to pay for it. This gave a situation where students--the least experienced of the bunch, not necessarily financially irresponsible but very much inexperienced--can be told a college education is important, and then billed at rapidly increasing tuition costs, taking loans to cover it.
Let's say in year 2000, $100 billion is loaned at 1%. In year 2001, that $100 billion is owed at $101 billion, 1% interest making the other $1 billion, while $110 billion is loaned. That means that there are now $210 billion in the economy, all debt, but $211 billion owed. Now in year 2002, the people from 2000 are old (we're dealing in Plutonian years, they're long) and pay off their $102 billion in loans (another 1% interest..). Now there's $120 billion loaned in 2002, giving $330 out, $102 billion in, and $231 billion owed... with a pool of $228 billion.
Ok, let's face facts: A third of the money in the economy just vanished.
Salaries can't be sustained like this, because we are now poor. Economic activity decreases, hiring decreases, and defaults start happening. Money evaporates in defaults. The economy is suddenly weaker. Now students become wary of taking student loans, which means much less is loaned but interest keeps accruing. This in turn means less money flowing in the economy (imaginary borrowed money, but money nonetheless), making it even harder to get jobs. It's going to be impossible for the latest generation to pay their debts.
Crash.
The united states' balance sheets are a big mess of interest accruing on loans giving a negative net value. To handle this, we expand our population and take even more loans, and also have inflation (an invisible tax that makes everyone more poor and then allows the poor to demand higher salaries from businesses as a 'cost of living adjustment'). The government of course is in debt out the ass on the same scheme: hold debts, wait for inflation, take new debts and pay off the old debts--the new debt is hopefully similarly sized given inflation, and the old debt has hopefully not accrued enough interest to outpace inflation. Thus at 100% inflation, we hope to borrow $1000, then after inflation borrow $2000 which is equivalent to $1000, and use that to pay off the $1500 of debt + interest and have a net $500 left over to work with. It doesn't work that way, but we try.
Have you also considered that Norway and Canada are major exporters of oil (Norway is #4 in the world?) and that Canada is a major wood exporter? What does the US export in such size as to be one of the richest per capita countries in the world? I believe we export cheap grain...
Do you want a report supporting government-run health care (i.e. accounting for individual direct spending only) or a report showing that government-run healthcare is severely harmful (i.e. showing tax burdens, more granular differences in health care, and overall economic impact, along with comparisons between general income levels for various countries--Canada and Norway being prime examples, fantastic government health care from two major exporters of oil and one also a major exporter of wood)?
Why are these machines very expensive? Who could afford them if nobody could afford the treatment necessary for the hospitals to recover costs? What about $2,000 hearing aids?
Using a heat pump to recover energy is as silly as thinking you can build a perpetual motion machine by connecting a generator to a motor and having the motor power the generator. It's fantasy.
Build a sealed box. The bottom box contains 40% ammonia, 60% water.
Run a pipe from the box, up into a reflux chamber (pack glass beads or a copper pot scrubber into the pipe, it'll make water condense out but pass ammonia), then across, into a condenser that zigzags down.
Connect the condenser to a pipe that runs diagonally down and to the bottom of the reservoir.
The chemical composition was not in question; the hazard was. If you are inhaling particles of graphene present in water, you're going to have a lot more trouble than toxic graphene poisoning. Soot is mainly burned carbon particles, which are hazardous to inhale; however soot may also contain resins and products of resin combustion, along with other toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, depending on what was burned (smoke from a "Fire Log" contains all kinds of nasty shit you don't want to inhale or ingest, while pure charcoal smoke is less hazardous but will still cure your lungs into leather if inhaled).
At the end of the day, the carbon particles in soot aren't harmful to ingest, though other shit that may be present is. In the same way, graphene is harmless to ingest--it is chemically a form of graphite.
Soot is hazardous to inhale. So is paper dust and flour. The carbon in soot is not hazardous to ingest; other compounds present may be hazardous, in the same way that charcoal is non-hazardous when ingested but modern charcoal is tainted with toxic hydrocarbon accelerants. Popcorn and hotdogs can also kill you if inhaled, by the way.
Compare C++ to Objective-C. You might dislike the syntax of Objective-C some, but it has clear advantages:
It is a strict superset of C: C compiles as Objective-C (C++ doesn't, since structs have a different syntax, among other things)
More importantly, it is runtime-resolved. That means you can expand Objective-C classes without breaking the ABI; in C++ you can't add members to classes, at all. Class members can be in different libraries, and in different header files (a "private" member is one not exposed in the API, but you COULD access it directly by defining it or including the header for it).
The mangling in C++ is a serious pain and makes loading C++ libraries and programs retardedly slow.
Swizzling (you can replace members of classes at runtime--not just inherit, but actually overload class members) makes the language quite a bit more flexible.
Operator overloading and templates are an abomination, and don't exist in Objective-C.
We can all supply better languages for a purpose; Objective-C and C++ have the same purpose (an object oriented general purpose native compiled mid-level programming language), and so this comparison is relevant. Comparing to Java or Python or C#.NET would be irrelevant.
A loose argument can be made that Objective-C is better because of its much better polymorphism features--the main point of an object oriented language. Objective-C does indeed supply much more flexible, more useful polymorphism; C++ class inheritance is pretty rigid because of its rigid ABI. Objective-C's run time resolution enables this, and I would admit that run time resolution of class objects is a bit slower... if it wasn't optimized by cache (i.e. resolve the first time on demand and build the PLT) AND if C++ class member mangling didn't make actually building the PLT at load time so god damn slow. Two points to Objective-C.
Objective-C doesn't have operator overloading. Operator overloading is often claimed as a negative feature because it makes code hard to read. The effective argument AGAINST operator overloading is is that everyone is used to the 'cout >>' and 'cin
The biggest argument for operator overloading is really that nobody uses it, so we're all familiar with the corner case syntax in the standard library. Think about that: the biggest argument for it is that it never gets used.
Also, Objective C has reference counting with cycle detectors and all. Garbage collection is a limited feature (you can create garbage collected objects intentionally).
It's actually relatively easy to argue that C++ is an abomination. It's not unexpected either: it's an old language, and an OOP shim hacked on top of a well-designed mid-level language. That C is so well designed is surprising; but then it is the legacy of assembly, PASCAL, FORTRAN, and BASIC. COBAL is circa 1959, BASIC circa 1964, C circa 1972, C++ circa 1984. C++ had only Smalltalk to learn from, really, and was trying to be C with Classes.
Doesn't perfectly desalinate. highly salty water continues to flow, cleaning the input side of the filter. That flow is ejected as waste, while the output is purified water.
It's carbon in sheets. The effects are known: it's completely harmless. In the absolute worst case, it reacts with oxygen to produce CO2, which you exhale... thus making it an anti-oxidant, a cancer-fighting agent, since it would react with free oxygen radicals (though it would produce carbon monoxide in small amounts in that case, which is also harmless).
The beauty of this is that you have it backwards. Fresh, clear, cool water leaves the system, leaving more salinated water behind. The increased salt concentration makes it more difficult to pull out fresh water. So you flush your over-salinated water back out to the salt water source. Effectively, you're pulling rain water from the bay. Of course, as a side effect of all this, you don't get a cakey salt build-up on the membrane: flushing it and bringing in new salt water actually keeps the system clean. It self-maintains.
What do you mean, would have been 40? Atari is over 4000 years old, older than the Han Dynasty. People have been playing atari for unknown ages. Even some pros occasionally play self-atari...
It's ridiculous is what it is. Tons of fuel and energy to course correct in 3D and do computer calculations without a fixed anchor point. Gravity is excellent for making sure things hold together the way you want; weightlessness is excellent for making things move in a slow, controlled manner. Too bad weight and mass are two different things.
We can't absolute match speeds, stuff drifts and pushing against something causes lots of shifting with nothing to reset the momentum. Leveraging against gravity is a fantastic tool: you don't have to worry about nudging something and then pulling it back to stop it in place (along with anything it touches/pushes against). In space, you'll need to push as hard to move something in any direction as you would to push it sideways on earth; you'll have to push a lot harder (in fact, as hard to move it in any direction) to move it "down"; and you gain the advantage of not having to push so hard to move things "up". Seems like a minimal gain for all the hassle and energy expenditure needed to manage shit flying all over the place.
Assembly in minor gravity--such as on the moon--makes more sense.
Your beliefs also cover that adultery is wrong. Now, being as such, you shouldn't support adultery. It is, in fact, harmful to mingle a bunch of slutty cheerleaders with fine upstanding Catholic preppy kids, and so you would best protect the finer members of society by shunning the cheerleaders and excluding them from the group.
When you shun them, though, you take away opportunities, causing them harm. You pass judgment and sentencing on their lives. Likewise, if the local economy is "Christian" (whatever that means--people like to use it as a general adjective) and all the businesses refuse to hire such people for employees, these people are reduced to beggars. In any case, you impoverish them in some way--only the scale changes.
So now do you protect your flock from the sick sheep, or do you care for the needs of the sick sheep? That's the dilemma of any moral system that doesn't decide to just execute people it doesn't like: both paths have consequences, and under such beliefs those consequences are in the form of harm done to one group of people (through being shunned from society) or another (through being exposed to corruption).
As we know, of course, humans simply ignore whichever part makes them less uncomfortable. Look at the capital punishment argument: people argue about executing the innocent, about the safety of inmates mixed with murderers, about the cost to society of supporting murderers, or even if capital punishment is a deterrent. Nobody likes to admit that in, say, Texas, capital punishment won't do shit (because you're likely to get shot in the face in the course of a crime punishable by execution); while up in the northern end of the midwest, when capital punishment was banned, the murder rate immediately quadrupled until they re-instated the death sentence. Nobody wants to address murderers being loose in jail, mixed with smaller criminals--the safety of criminals is immaterial, or at least it's bad for arguments where we're trying to convince people that criminals can cause no harm while safely locked away in prison. Nobody wants to deal with the economics--either the monetary costs of housing criminals (though people are quick to claim killing someone is more expensive than feeding and housing them for 20 years) or the number of innocent lives that would be lost to loose murderers (in jail or out of it) versus the number of innocent lives lost to execution of innocent men that simply lost in court (apparently the state executing 5 innocent men is a bigger crime than the state sitting murderers in jail to kill 50 petty pickpockets who should only be there for 90 days).
Given that this is how humans approach every issue, how do you think they'd approach harming someone that makes them uncomfortable by shunning them versus exposing fine, upstanding, non-creepy people that don't bother their moral stricture to the corruption of such individuals? Of course they would claim that mingling with the sinners is harmful and that they are doing no harm and protecting everyone by pushing them away. Of course they would ignore the harm done, or blame it on those people for their own behavior (which is the core of passing judgment). How could they not? Even great, broad thinkers like myself can only see the questions, the inconsistencies, the conflicts; and even Confucius, Buddha, Gandhi, and Voltair couldn't solve them. Just understanding the question isn't just hard, but emotionally taxing; finding answers is beyond ken.
In my US schools, that's how we played football, except we called it "flag Football" and instead of touching people you had to grab a flag attached to a belt via weak velcro. Pushing and poking was a foul.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's actually true. The heart of socialism is often stated as "from he who has the ability to he who has the need" or such; and overall it's basically a system by which the group shares what it produces. The basic theory is each man can produce more than he needs, and thus we should produce enough for everyone and then share the excess.
The Free Software Foundation is Richard Stallman's brainchild. Stallman's philosophy is that programming code and other creative works are the righteous property of everyone. Because they can be duplicated freely, they should be duplicated freely; and because programming object code is much less elegant and harder to modify than programming source code, programming source code should be supplied with programming object code and should be traded freely as well.
The entire purpose of the FSF is to take Stallman's vision of a world where proprietary, closed, restricted software doesn't exist and shape reality around it. In other words: he wants to take from those who can produce programming code and give to all of us so that we can benefit from that work freely. He'll use any leverage he can to force the issue, too: he's happily forced a few proprietary software applications into GPL by threatening injunction for them linking to GPL libraries (this is covered on the GNU site under Stallman's 'philosophy' area, in an article about why glibc is LGPL and not GPL--he noted as an aside that gettext is GPL and has allowed him to force two closed products into a GPL release thanks to their oversight).
You're as insane as the OP. There is no 'world peace,' there's a different political atmosphere. Rather than fighting other countries, the politicians realized they can all live comfortably in power by oppressing their own people and helping each other oppress their own people. Instead of trying to rule the world, they're trying to keep knives out of their backs and grudgingly working together to make sure they're not deposed out of their own kingdom ever.
The syntax in the first GRUB was less ridiculous. GRUB is a very simple, very basic tool; they've mangled the syntax to make something trying to be a nearly turring complete scripting language.
Whenever I hear people toting the line that open source is equivalent to security, I immediately imagine Peter Gutmann unzipping his pants.
(Search for 'sound wave')
this is wrong, because it'll keep booting old kernels, until they're removed and it won't boot anymore. You want to add your config to /etc/grub/41custom or whatever, so when the automated configurator runs it puts your custom config into the generated configuration file.
The GPLv3 was actually designed specifically for that, to prevent "Tivoization."
The FSF's version of freedom is equivalent to nanny-state socialism. They've basically decided that their idea of playing nice needs to be enforced by big stick, and will happily trample over anything and everything that does something they dislike.
In this particular case, Ubuntu wants to place a bootloader that will allow you to load ANY operating system, bypassing the "security" features they dislike in the new UEFI. Ubuntu wishes to ensure that users can boot any operating system they like and run any software they want. Their concern is that the GPLv3 makes provisions by which the FSF could, in this case as the owner of GRUB2, deem that a machine that won't let them replace GRUB2 with something else is in violation of the GPLv3. At that point, they can demand that Ubuntu surrender its encryption keys used to provide secure bootloader verification--which then allows anyone to sign any bootloader they want, thus negating any security features you could leverage out of the bootloader (for example, intentionally instructing it to boot only signed code--keeping the chain trusted, rather than booting a foreign OS as is the option).
The point of contention is where the FSF gets to demand Ubuntu hand over their encryption keys for this particular application because they've decided it's 'unfair' that users don't have the option to replace a bootloader. The GPLv3 is a restrictive license agreement whose provisions do in fact allow the copyright holder to make certain demands about HOW their software is used. Most people fixate on the "Free" part because you're free to distribute and modify the software; but you are also "Obligated" to publish your modifications in source form if published in any form.
The GPLv3 brings restrictions on how you can use the software, such that you must be able to modify it--the hardware you use the software on must be configured to allow the use of modified software (or any other software). 'Jailbreaking' is not a thing with GPLv3 because the vendors would have to supply a way to run custom software. If the Linux Kernel was GPLv3, then you wouldn't have to root any phones to install Cyanogenmod: vendors would be required to provide an official method for the end user to replace the software with custom versions.
The Affero versions of the GPL family of licenses go even further: if you USE a modified version of the software, you must publish its source. That means if you modify an AGPL Web server and use it to serve your Web site, you have to put up the Web server's source code. An AGPL Web application would work the same way: modify an AGPL CMS and you need to publish its source code on your Web site.
These licensing restrictions are important to understand when licensing Free software. Canonical has decided not to license GRUB2 in Ubuntu on UEFI platforms because of potential conflicts between their requirements and the requirements of fulfilling the licensing agreement in certain cases. The FSF is extremely well known for its hard-line enforcement stance and thus there is the concern that they would not negotiate to reconcile technical mistakes, but rather take advantage of them to file a hostile injunction and demand release of encryption keys. The FSF behaves in this way because they have high ideals about what's "good for everybody"--as I said, they are effectively nanny-state socialists and want to get their fingers in everything so they can make people "play nice."
In short, this is why we have many licenses. The FSF uses the GPLv3 because they have their ideals and can support them with the GPLv3 (which, by the way, was born mainly out of the FSF's distaste for locked-down TiVo platforms). Other people still use the GPLv2 because they understand what the GPLv3 entails and their ideals are dissimilar from the FSF--Linux is GPLv2 because the relevant bodies are not sharply against locked-down phones running android, something they could legally prevent with GPLv3. Similarly many people use the BSD and MIT licenses because their philosophy is, "Here is code! Somebody might find this useful!"
Why?
I agree with Verizon here. Their pipes are their property, and they're within their rights to claim regulatory control over them as a method of expressing their speech. They allow what they wish over their pipes, or everything if they wish to defer to the end users.
Now, there's this little matter of the thousands of gigabytes of child pornography that Verizon has been allowing over their pipes that I'd like to discuss in the DA's office...
The US isn't a very rich country. Money in the US is loaned into existence--a dollar saved is a dollar owed. Essentially the US will die if we don't have inflation.
Let's talk about education. In the US, student loans have interest. Additionally, we've government-guaranteed student loans, taking all risk off the banks. Thus, the banks (now the Government directly) can loan out endless money without worrying about defaults, since the US Government will levy taxes to pay for it. This gave a situation where students--the least experienced of the bunch, not necessarily financially irresponsible but very much inexperienced--can be told a college education is important, and then billed at rapidly increasing tuition costs, taking loans to cover it.
Let's say in year 2000, $100 billion is loaned at 1%. In year 2001, that $100 billion is owed at $101 billion, 1% interest making the other $1 billion, while $110 billion is loaned. That means that there are now $210 billion in the economy, all debt, but $211 billion owed. Now in year 2002, the people from 2000 are old (we're dealing in Plutonian years, they're long) and pay off their $102 billion in loans (another 1% interest..). Now there's $120 billion loaned in 2002, giving $330 out, $102 billion in, and $231 billion owed... with a pool of $228 billion.
Ok, let's face facts: A third of the money in the economy just vanished.
Salaries can't be sustained like this, because we are now poor. Economic activity decreases, hiring decreases, and defaults start happening. Money evaporates in defaults. The economy is suddenly weaker. Now students become wary of taking student loans, which means much less is loaned but interest keeps accruing. This in turn means less money flowing in the economy (imaginary borrowed money, but money nonetheless), making it even harder to get jobs. It's going to be impossible for the latest generation to pay their debts.
Crash.
The united states' balance sheets are a big mess of interest accruing on loans giving a negative net value. To handle this, we expand our population and take even more loans, and also have inflation (an invisible tax that makes everyone more poor and then allows the poor to demand higher salaries from businesses as a 'cost of living adjustment'). The government of course is in debt out the ass on the same scheme: hold debts, wait for inflation, take new debts and pay off the old debts--the new debt is hopefully similarly sized given inflation, and the old debt has hopefully not accrued enough interest to outpace inflation. Thus at 100% inflation, we hope to borrow $1000, then after inflation borrow $2000 which is equivalent to $1000, and use that to pay off the $1500 of debt + interest and have a net $500 left over to work with. It doesn't work that way, but we try.
Poorest country ever.
Have you also considered that Norway and Canada are major exporters of oil (Norway is #4 in the world?) and that Canada is a major wood exporter? What does the US export in such size as to be one of the richest per capita countries in the world? I believe we export cheap grain...
Do you want a report supporting government-run health care (i.e. accounting for individual direct spending only) or a report showing that government-run healthcare is severely harmful (i.e. showing tax burdens, more granular differences in health care, and overall economic impact, along with comparisons between general income levels for various countries--Canada and Norway being prime examples, fantastic government health care from two major exporters of oil and one also a major exporter of wood)?
Why are these machines very expensive? Who could afford them if nobody could afford the treatment necessary for the hospitals to recover costs? What about $2,000 hearing aids?
Using a heat pump to recover energy is as silly as thinking you can build a perpetual motion machine by connecting a generator to a motor and having the motor power the generator. It's fantasy.
Build a sealed box. The bottom box contains 40% ammonia, 60% water.
Run a pipe from the box, up into a reflux chamber (pack glass beads or a copper pot scrubber into the pipe, it'll make water condense out but pass ammonia), then across, into a condenser that zigzags down.
Connect the condenser to a pipe that runs diagonally down and to the bottom of the reservoir.
Attach really hot shit to the box.
Watch ice form on the condenser.
The chemical composition was not in question; the hazard was. If you are inhaling particles of graphene present in water, you're going to have a lot more trouble than toxic graphene poisoning. Soot is mainly burned carbon particles, which are hazardous to inhale; however soot may also contain resins and products of resin combustion, along with other toxic chemicals like formaldehyde, depending on what was burned (smoke from a "Fire Log" contains all kinds of nasty shit you don't want to inhale or ingest, while pure charcoal smoke is less hazardous but will still cure your lungs into leather if inhaled).
At the end of the day, the carbon particles in soot aren't harmful to ingest, though other shit that may be present is. In the same way, graphene is harmless to ingest--it is chemically a form of graphite.
Soot is hazardous to inhale. So is paper dust and flour. The carbon in soot is not hazardous to ingest; other compounds present may be hazardous, in the same way that charcoal is non-hazardous when ingested but modern charcoal is tainted with toxic hydrocarbon accelerants. Popcorn and hotdogs can also kill you if inhaled, by the way.
Haruchai.. annoying telepathic mountain-folk.
Compare C++ to Objective-C. You might dislike the syntax of Objective-C some, but it has clear advantages:
We can all supply better languages for a purpose; Objective-C and C++ have the same purpose (an object oriented general purpose native compiled mid-level programming language), and so this comparison is relevant. Comparing to Java or Python or C#.NET would be irrelevant.
A loose argument can be made that Objective-C is better because of its much better polymorphism features--the main point of an object oriented language. Objective-C does indeed supply much more flexible, more useful polymorphism; C++ class inheritance is pretty rigid because of its rigid ABI. Objective-C's run time resolution enables this, and I would admit that run time resolution of class objects is a bit slower ... if it wasn't optimized by cache (i.e. resolve the first time on demand and build the PLT) AND if C++ class member mangling didn't make actually building the PLT at load time so god damn slow. Two points to Objective-C.
Objective-C doesn't have operator overloading. Operator overloading is often claimed as a negative feature because it makes code hard to read. The effective argument AGAINST operator overloading is is that everyone is used to the 'cout >>' and 'cin
The biggest argument for operator overloading is really that nobody uses it, so we're all familiar with the corner case syntax in the standard library. Think about that: the biggest argument for it is that it never gets used.
Also, Objective C has reference counting with cycle detectors and all. Garbage collection is a limited feature (you can create garbage collected objects intentionally).
It's actually relatively easy to argue that C++ is an abomination. It's not unexpected either: it's an old language, and an OOP shim hacked on top of a well-designed mid-level language. That C is so well designed is surprising; but then it is the legacy of assembly, PASCAL, FORTRAN, and BASIC. COBAL is circa 1959, BASIC circa 1964, C circa 1972, C++ circa 1984. C++ had only Smalltalk to learn from, really, and was trying to be C with Classes.
Doesn't perfectly desalinate. highly salty water continues to flow, cleaning the input side of the filter. That flow is ejected as waste, while the output is purified water.
It's carbon in sheets. The effects are known: it's completely harmless. In the absolute worst case, it reacts with oxygen to produce CO2, which you exhale... thus making it an anti-oxidant, a cancer-fighting agent, since it would react with free oxygen radicals (though it would produce carbon monoxide in small amounts in that case, which is also harmless).
The beauty of this is that you have it backwards. Fresh, clear, cool water leaves the system, leaving more salinated water behind. The increased salt concentration makes it more difficult to pull out fresh water. So you flush your over-salinated water back out to the salt water source. Effectively, you're pulling rain water from the bay. Of course, as a side effect of all this, you don't get a cakey salt build-up on the membrane: flushing it and bringing in new salt water actually keeps the system clean. It self-maintains.
That's what I was thinking: Holy shit a fully decked out RepRap Mendel is cheaper than this, as is a spool of ABS feed stock.
What do you mean, would have been 40? Atari is over 4000 years old, older than the Han Dynasty. People have been playing atari for unknown ages. Even some pros occasionally play self-atari...
It's ridiculous is what it is. Tons of fuel and energy to course correct in 3D and do computer calculations without a fixed anchor point. Gravity is excellent for making sure things hold together the way you want; weightlessness is excellent for making things move in a slow, controlled manner. Too bad weight and mass are two different things.
We can't absolute match speeds, stuff drifts and pushing against something causes lots of shifting with nothing to reset the momentum. Leveraging against gravity is a fantastic tool: you don't have to worry about nudging something and then pulling it back to stop it in place (along with anything it touches/pushes against). In space, you'll need to push as hard to move something in any direction as you would to push it sideways on earth; you'll have to push a lot harder (in fact, as hard to move it in any direction) to move it "down"; and you gain the advantage of not having to push so hard to move things "up". Seems like a minimal gain for all the hassle and energy expenditure needed to manage shit flying all over the place.
Assembly in minor gravity--such as on the moon--makes more sense.
Yes and that's my point.
Your beliefs also cover that adultery is wrong. Now, being as such, you shouldn't support adultery. It is, in fact, harmful to mingle a bunch of slutty cheerleaders with fine upstanding Catholic preppy kids, and so you would best protect the finer members of society by shunning the cheerleaders and excluding them from the group.
When you shun them, though, you take away opportunities, causing them harm. You pass judgment and sentencing on their lives. Likewise, if the local economy is "Christian" (whatever that means--people like to use it as a general adjective) and all the businesses refuse to hire such people for employees, these people are reduced to beggars. In any case, you impoverish them in some way--only the scale changes.
So now do you protect your flock from the sick sheep, or do you care for the needs of the sick sheep? That's the dilemma of any moral system that doesn't decide to just execute people it doesn't like: both paths have consequences, and under such beliefs those consequences are in the form of harm done to one group of people (through being shunned from society) or another (through being exposed to corruption).
As we know, of course, humans simply ignore whichever part makes them less uncomfortable. Look at the capital punishment argument: people argue about executing the innocent, about the safety of inmates mixed with murderers, about the cost to society of supporting murderers, or even if capital punishment is a deterrent. Nobody likes to admit that in, say, Texas, capital punishment won't do shit (because you're likely to get shot in the face in the course of a crime punishable by execution); while up in the northern end of the midwest, when capital punishment was banned, the murder rate immediately quadrupled until they re-instated the death sentence. Nobody wants to address murderers being loose in jail, mixed with smaller criminals--the safety of criminals is immaterial, or at least it's bad for arguments where we're trying to convince people that criminals can cause no harm while safely locked away in prison. Nobody wants to deal with the economics--either the monetary costs of housing criminals (though people are quick to claim killing someone is more expensive than feeding and housing them for 20 years) or the number of innocent lives that would be lost to loose murderers (in jail or out of it) versus the number of innocent lives lost to execution of innocent men that simply lost in court (apparently the state executing 5 innocent men is a bigger crime than the state sitting murderers in jail to kill 50 petty pickpockets who should only be there for 90 days).
Given that this is how humans approach every issue, how do you think they'd approach harming someone that makes them uncomfortable by shunning them versus exposing fine, upstanding, non-creepy people that don't bother their moral stricture to the corruption of such individuals? Of course they would claim that mingling with the sinners is harmful and that they are doing no harm and protecting everyone by pushing them away. Of course they would ignore the harm done, or blame it on those people for their own behavior (which is the core of passing judgment). How could they not? Even great, broad thinkers like myself can only see the questions, the inconsistencies, the conflicts; and even Confucius, Buddha, Gandhi, and Voltair couldn't solve them. Just understanding the question isn't just hard, but emotionally taxing; finding answers is beyond ken.
In my US schools, that's how we played football, except we called it "flag Football" and instead of touching people you had to grab a flag attached to a belt via weak velcro. Pushing and poking was a foul.