Bull. Sorry. There was *always* a way for OSS copyright holders to relicense under proprietary licenses. There are *many* examples of GPL projects that have a commercial side. For very easy examples see MySQL and Trolltech's Qt.
Or see the stdc++ library in the GNU GCC toolchain. It is listed under GPL but with the exemption that any software linked to it doesn't imply that it must be GPL as well.
The addition to the CC license is not even worthy of a mention as any copyright holder could do what this license implies at any given time.
100M people is less than 2% of the world population. It is about the same as the amount of people the die every year. Even a war that would kill off 90% of the people would still leave population the size of Europe and US combined.
Now, WWII killed a lot more people because then less than 2000M people were on this planet. So, the approximate 50M dip (almost not perceivable on the global scale even at that time) was larger than 100M today as a fraction of the population. Now, that should be the scary bit - the absolute size of our population and not some 1 in a billion shot from an asteroid.
Chances that we will be wiped out by an asteroid in next year => less than 1 in a billion Changes that human population size is unsustainable => hell of a lot greater than that!!
If you think about it, the human population size is more terrifying than any conflict or war. Actually, most of the current wars are because of the size of our population (wars over resources).
GW administration is the "USA"? Holy crap, pull the wool from your eyes man! Or in your eyes the US will disappear when Bush leaves the presidency?!?! You claim this like Bush was some sort of embodiment of the USA. I'm glad that vast majority of US citizens and lawmakers do not agree with your point of you.
Your post was definitely flaimbait. There are people that do a lot worse than Hussein ever did (you know Saddam is a first name, like George, or should I just call US's president George from now on?). They did a lot worse yet are perfectly fine because,
1. they have better military, and/or they have nukes, or
2. they do not oppose US, or
3. US doesn't need anything they have
For examples of areas that have leaders that did a lot worse than Hussein, the short list off the top of my head would be (for recent history): Somalia, Rwanda (genocide), Sudan (current genocide), Burma, DR. Congo, Burma, Uzbekistan, etc..
Hussein could have been a very good US asset in the area, even post 90s war. Bush should have made him into a puppet, but I guess they just don't understand the motivation of someone like Hussein. That is very sad considering they apparently have an "expert" in the Soviet politics in Rice - I guess that expert was on paper only.
Bush administration has so far ruined the US financially, economically and morally. The next administration will have a difficult time to get back up.
Hoes does this relate to the original flame of "Mac security worse than Windows" baffles me.
Of course, how the fsck how is 3rd party software the fault of the OS, I have no idea. IE is bundled, but can be disabled to browsing web sites (2003 server edition disables it). Most of the software is quite safe these days, but it still depends on how you use it. Exploits triggered by things like web browsers are the worst, but at least Vista addresses that issue by running IE in "lower than regular user account", not sure if that would protect vs. the IE bug in first link.
Summary: stop trolling for one side or another. If you get hacked it doesn't matter if you run Windows or Linux or BeOS.
Skip the airbags, make the capsule so it stays afloat just long enough for egress, and train the astronauts on how to get out fast
Spoken like a true gravity being. You see, the people that will land may have spent considerable amount of time in space. Probably either in order (0g) or at the moon (g/6), so, after 1 year or so. You go back to Earth and you are told to "get the hell out" while your ass weights 6x what it used to weigh!! I would like to see that scrambling, heart rates going to 200, etc.
After 1 year in space, when you get back and you can stand up in the first hour or two without blacking out, let me know.
You would not want to sit in Apollo for 6-9 months on your way to Mars. Space shuttle is cramped, but Apollo is like a tiny coffin in comparison. The CEV is something to get crew into space and back to ground - it is not necessarily the entire vehicle and definitely not for Mars mission;)
An alien race would not nuke us. They would just release a virus (or nanobots) that would kill all human DNA. Problem solved. Planet not really affected.
They would definitely use that if for some weird reason they wanted to use the planet for something else. Of course the reality is probably they are watching us and we are one of the few channels on their reality shows - Survivor Earth. For the next few hundred years at least we are nothing more than an amusement park and a real life teaching/research tool.
Most efficient jet engines are for commercial planes. Everything else you mention was advanced because of stability where it was invented, not destruction. Just look at how much positive science is coming out of Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan. The last one should be the pinnacle of human knowledge - they had was for almost 30 years now!
Military is waste. Period. Anything positive that comes out of it is not by design, it is purely as a side-effect.
It wasn't the military that got us to the moon. It wasn't the military building ISS. If it was up to military, we would not even have something like Hubble because it is useless.
Anything positive comes out of the military it is only a side-effect of its intended purpose. And that purpose is to kill and control.
Ok. Soooo, I'm not sure where this is really going. Of course there they are "electrical" in nature because they are charged particles (so there will be potential) and are moving (so current, as in electric current). But then I'm kind of a lay person, so I can't really spot if this thread started as one of the crazies post or actually the "Real Thing".
For example, the crazies are saying that "all problems" and "all everything" is caused by electrical nature. That our solar system is more electrical than anything else and all misfortunes can be read by reading the sun's "electrical mood" (yes, including global warming, tsunamis and earthquakes). They are misunderstanding electricity in wall socket with plasmas in space.
Or you could be on trying to explain something that is being researched to a lay person in simple way? But then,
The planets are connected back to the sun via "flux ropes" or "Birkeland currents." Of course the next logical question is, "But from whence does the sun's charge come." A natural question. The likely answer is that "the galaxy powers the solar system / sun, and the sun offloads that current to the planets." But, then, "from whence the galaxy?" Keep in mind that currents tend, by nature, to flow in filaments through light plasma. And what is the structure of the universe? You guessed it!
Ok, *crazy* post that layman don't get that is made by another crazy physics-wannabe. Good job with the insightful mods here.
PS. Of course, any positive mods for me and negative for the crazies would reinforce the filament nature of the evil-NASA and evil-NSA reaching out trying to prevent people from knowing the truth! The Truth of the filament aliens!
You can run very old software in a chroot with the old version of the OS installed there and it should work provided the application doesn't use some non-POSIX kernel interfaces. Or use an emulator to run really-really old stuff.
I am able to run very old applications without problems. Though libc5 is not available anymore for those ancient things, but archive.debian.org has all their releases and those oldies can be installed in a chroot and still work.
When you figure something for yourself, you tend to learn it better. If you just ask questions as quick solutions, you learn nothing.
Learning stuff tends to be hard work and involves using your precious time, but in the end you are more productive than simply "getting an answer". Your argument reminds me of some people in elementary school that just copied answers and never learned anything. Sure, it is easier, but in the long term you'll have to learn it anyway.
Tech support should be there for problems you can't solve yourself in reasonable amount of time. Reading a manual is generally considered within reasonable amount of time. And if you cannot take the time to learn the software required to your job, maybe it is time to look for a different, less demanding one.
BTW, you fall into the "Mr. Entitlement" category and if you ask me that is by far *the worst* type of people to deal with for tech support. Sorry man, the world doesn't revolve around you.
TFA talks about evolution accelerating in the last few millennia *everywhere*. Now, evolution implies some sort of selection mechanism, be it natural (disease) or otherwise (war, genocide). For example, have you noticed that shortsightedness has accelerated in recent decades? Does that mean more mutation? No - these genes are hereditary. But it does mean lost selection against it. If you were shortsighted in 1600s or so, and your great leader raised an army and you got drafted, you would not do so well vs. normal sighted individual. That would be a selector against it.
Today, we do not have any selection mechanisms. No, malaria is not it. There are drugs that cure that selector. The mutations you talk about evolved LONG time ago. And hemophilia is a larger selector than malaria.
More mutations and so called "genetic diversity" without any natural selectors will simply result in overall quality of everyone's life to deteriorate until natural selectors kick-in again. Or people start to start being masters of their own evolution though genetic engineering. Since the former will take at least a few generations, the latter is most likely future of human evolution. More of creationist tale though with ourselves being the "mighty deity" (so creationists - does that mean we are gods?)
Also, inbreeding gives you more mutations, not the other way around. Current practices imply less mutations from sex.
TFA title is wrong. Evolution != more mutation. For evolution to happen you don't need much mutation. You need some sort of selector. We do not have that last bit anymore. Not since penicillin. And definitely not with modern medical technology. No selection == no evolution.
No selector means society is biologically *devolving*.
Why can't it re-processed from current "long term storage"? That actually makes little sense. Uranium is mined from much more diluted sources than that and somehow it gets concentrated without problems even though it has much wider range of impurities.
People that have been holding up current reactors generally are not pro-nuclear power. They are pro nuclear weapons. Very few reactors are built without the military in mind. Maybe that will change in the next few years, but who knows.
Please don't underestimate politics, money and power in the current state of affairs. There is a lot more money in oil/coal than nuclear. And a lot more money in nuclear than geothermal (Yellowstone could produce massive amounts of power - more than North America would need for 1000s of years). Anyway, geothermal needs support for experimental facilities (Iceland has some), and nuclear is highly regulated, as it should be, so political will is *fundamental* in any nuclear project. I've seen very few projects in civilian nuclear arena go because the scientists were recommending that the project is not possible. Almost all of the projects that are canceled, are canceled for political reasons.
Second, how can you be credible when you say that water vopour is a greenhouse gas in the same way as CO2? Water is always in a saturated state in the atmosphere. Yes, it is a major contributor to global warming that was *always there*. 70% of the surface is water! If CO2 was in pools like water and water was at the levels of CO2, then it would be backwards. Hope you can understand the difference between saturated, always there state and *new* additional greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. The 2 latter ones are never saturated and hence add to the greenhouse effect of what gases we currently have in the atmosphere.
Another example would be Titan (moon of Saturn). Currently it is thought that it contains liquid methane seas, etc. Thus, on Titan methane would not be a "global warming" greenhouse gas like it is on Earth.
Regarding evolution, it is a scientific fact now. It may have been a hypothesis by Darwin (his free book here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009), but now it is a fact that microbiologists rely on. It is even observed in nature on large organisms without our short lifespans. Of course you may chose not to read what Darwin has to say regarding his observations but continue to believe in dogma.
As for other examples, give me proof instead of idle talk. Especially about funding. And if you approach any project as "disprove of a", you'll not get funding because your method is unscientific. The idea is to observe something that then through that observation would disprove "a". This means, you cannot disprove evolution (which is a fact). Well, prove that creation happens right now. Prove to me that the bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics were "created" in such a way that would contradict evolution (no, humans engineering them doesn't mean creation - unless you think humans are now gods?:). So far the "evolution way" has been seen observed in every repeated case for how these bacteria evolved to deal with the antibiotic.
Of course, there is Chernobyl. Or were these animals that clearly descended from the original ones did not change in response environmental pressures mysteriously created by some deity?
could exhaust our current and known supply of nuclear fuel in a century or two
There, fixed it for you. The current waste is not a waste but usable fuel if it wasn't for all the politics and other shenanigans. Politics and public fear are what is stopping nuclear power than scientific know-how. There are *safe* reactors. The problem is current ones are mostly built to make nukes not power. But then nukes are even less safe than the dangerous power plants that are used to make them.
This reactor type seems very efficient (99+% efficient) and safe (we can deal with stuff like liquid sodium much better now than in the 90s). The waste can be disposed of either by waiting or though neutron capture. BTW, neutrons always escape fission reactors as well as future fusion ones (hydrogen/helium powered) hence those reactors may be used to kill off the fission waste from the Integral Fast Reactor. Total waste containment time: ~200 years. Much nicer than the millions of years figure people keep throwing around. Too bad it was canceled for political reasons.
Current nuclear waste is lots great fuel for these reactors.
I may argue that the planned nuclear policies are not safe / efficient. My argument that is not true as there are no policies. Politicians just want to be elected and people don't want to know about nuclear. It was (is?) so bad that something like NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) has to be called MRI because people are afraid of the word Nuclear.
For efficient nuclear fission based economy (ie. nuclear power plants generate hydrogen for "hydrogen economy"), in addition to nuclear reactors that are flexible in nuclear input and safe and do not generate nuclear weapon isotopes but burn them (eg. CANDU ver.2 being developed), we would need reprocessing plants preferably with isotopic separators to minimize waste and also to get useful isotopes. Another problem is that the society would need A LOT more people knowledgeable enough in physics and chemistry for this to work - that may be the largest problem.
Safe waste disposal already exists in theory but the waste is NOT that bad. After reprocessing, you can use the waste for a lot of things including thermal reactors (ie. reactor that just warms water, but can't go critical so not very useful for power, but good for central heating). Also, the waste may be a good source of something useful in not so distant future. But if you really want to bury it forever, bury it in the subduction layer in the oceanic floor right under/at the edge of a continental plate. The subduction layer will pull the waste towards the mantle (aka. The Center of the Earth!), where it will be quite harmless. Or shall we protect the Lost World?
This will go on forever. You sir/madam, have *preconceived* ideas that will never be moved even in face of *proof* like real warming being observed *now* or CO2 levels rising. Your ideas are no longer scientific, they are dogmatic. Showing you proof of anything would be like showing a religious zealot proof of evolution (even though Roman Catholic church has no problem with evolution - probably learned their lesson from Galileo as they finally had to apologize that Galileo views were not blasphemous. The Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun). It is just wasted bits and bytes.
Science doesn't *care* about research from "Big Oil" or Greenpeace - both are treated the same. Everyone will just try to find holes in the research just like with any other research. And if holes are found, that research or part thereof is invalid. That is how science WORKS.
So, find holes in global warming. Then write it up. Then get it published by some scientist (just contact big oil if you need PhD to review - they may want to help if you are not a wacko). Then defend it against currently accepted views and if they can't find any holes in your research, well, you just showed the world they are wrong. If you CANNOT find holes in the global warming research, well, then your ideas remain dogmatic - 100% worthless to the real world situation.
As for arguing on how to tackle global warming (climate change for the scientifically deficient crowd), then do that with your politicians. That is not a scientific process. Scientists are just there to recommend targets - politicians are there to actually do anything about it. That's how we got Kyoto - political step.
Anyway, dogmatic ideas are not scientific, no matter how much you believe in them they are not true.
Nuclear energy from the sun provides us with over 10,000 times the energy that humans use every day
Yey! We should cover all oceans with solar panels! The connect it all and use that energy! That would fix all the energy problems. It is not like oceans are really needed for anything. Or, let's put solar on all rooftops. We'll just invent a magic device A for easy installation and integration. And then the mystic superconducting global power grid will make sure we can use solar as a base-load!
Now, since this is reality, solar/wind will NEVER be base-loads (just complimentary peak power) because of the lack of global political stability and lack of scientific knowledge to build global, interconnected, superconducting power grid so Sahara could power US and US could power India (ie. sunny area powers dark areas, then you can star thinking of base-loads for solar). Opps, even if technical problems are solved, political will not be.
So, nuclear is the *only* solution. Biofuels are bad-bad-bad. They use MORE of the energy that the ecosystem needs to function and transforms it to our use! Any so called environmentalist that supports them needs a kick in the ass. Jungles, savannas, forests, all need solar energy for the life cycle of our planet. We CANNOT use more and more of the energy from the sun by occupying new areas and draining all the energy. You know, Earth with just humans and cockroaches and rats and "perfect" grass would be a rather bleak and lonely planet:(
But I guess we can cut down the stuff in areas we can't use for agriculture. It is not like it has any value. Animals/plants that live there are worth what? $4/gallon?
So far I would like to congratulate the environmental lobby for contributing to the destruction of the Amazon and major part in killing off Indonesia's jungle in the name of "environmentally friend" fuel.
There is no *waste* that lasts 100,000 years. Most of the isotopes currently viewed as waste are very good sources of energy. Current reactors are not even built to utilize most of the fuel but to generate nuclear weapons hence the so called *waste*. For example, UK now has a problem with all the *waste* Plutonium being generated by its power plants!! That is the insanity! Plutonium is a better power source than U-235 if you have a real energy reactor. One of the few truly civilian reactors are the CANDU reactors designed in Canada. They utilize heavy water and breed Plutonium and use it for energy at the same time. No Plutonium *waste* there. Heck, they are used now to get rid off the US extra nuclear stockpiles - stuff that can't be handled by US reactors mailing because of the Plutonium content.
Secondly, don't be freaked out about radiation so much. If you were transparent to radiation such that a Geiger counter would see all the radiation going off inside of you (where the damage is done), it will go into a nice high pitched, continuous whine. You sid/madam, contain enough radioactive radioactive potassium for about 5000 events per second. Add that nice trails of cosmic muons hitting out every 0.5-1 second (enough to go right through you and ionize LOTS of stuff), and you are positively glowing:)
Also, coal has 2-3 ppm uranium and about 5ppm thorium (means, 1,000,000 pounds of coal have 2-3 pounds of uranium and 5 ponds of thorium). Since US burns about 2200 times that http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html, US alone is releasing about 5000 pounds of Uranium and 10,000 pounds of Thorium into the air. Ok, there are those precipitators, but only about 50% effective on these things (unlike soot). So, about 1 metric ton of Uranium goes poof, into the air *NOW* in the US.
Anyway, most of the so called *waste* can be recycled. You only end up with maybe one small barrel of waste per large nuclear plant per year. That is much cheaper to watch that one can for 10,000 years than letting all the mercury from the coal power plants pollute the lakes such that we can't even fish there anymore. Sad.
BTW: Uranium is not HOT. ANYTHING that has a 10,000 year half-life, by definition, is NOT hot. HOT stuff has a life time of seconds or minutes or maybe up to a few days. Hot stuff is used in medicine.
Scholarships and other income tax changes are good though Employment Credit does hit some small business people - you can't deduct it unless you incorporate your business. Sucks to have a proprietorship. While the scholarships change simplified the tax system, the employment credit complicated it. Anyway, I basically only disagree with the GST cut in Conservatives fiscal policy. The corporate tax cut was really needed. This is what will keep a lot of small/medium businesses in Canada and allow current ones to re-invest.
Kyoto protocol, on the surface, does seem really screwed up. I mean, why is China off the hook? Or India? Then I realized something - this is NOT about cutting CO2 and taxing but about changing the economy from a carbon based economy to a hydrogen based economy. Oil/gas is running out as you can see that by ever increasing fuel prices. By imposing regulation of carbon emissions, Kyoto is an attempt to allow a free-market economy to develop technology and infrastructure that is sorely needed *before* hydrogen economy can function. If we run out of oil (aka. oil @ $300/barrel? $500? $1000? oil will always be there - just name the price when it is unreachable) before we have infrastructure in place for hydrogen economy, we will have a depression that we haven't seen in our lifetimes. And who will be screwed if we run out of oil but have Kyoto implemented? Well, China and other countries not prepared. Kyoto is an investment in technology that would make Canada's expertise very valuable in not so distant future. And this is not even brining in global warming (aka. climate change) which will cost Canada's economy in the long run much more than Kyoto ever would.
Of course, instead of doing this, the no-brain politicians are now putting money into more subsidies for farmers to plant food crops to make fuel for cars. That's a great idea.:( I haven't heard what Dion's great plan is either, but then Layton, while a Good Guy, is kind of out there in the left field;)
Aside: Oil was $20/barrel about 5 years ago and now it is $95/barrel. Now, if you price it in CND or EUR, ignoring USD devaluation, that would still be 3 times the current price (almost 5x in USD). If this trend continues, will people afford $300/barrel oil in 2012? (aka. $3-4/L gas) $1000/barel in 2030? (aka. $13-15/L gas)
With regards to GST, I just received a brochure (from the Conservative party) that their little 1% tax cut costs $6,000,000,000 in revenue. Now, assuming that 75% of people actually spends that money and that we have 35M people in Canada, that means, the revenue that is "lost" is about $230 per taxpayer. This means that each of these people would have to spend $23,000 on non-mortgage, non-food stuffs *per year* for this tax cut to be worth it (vs. income tax cut). Or a family of 4 (2 kids that don't spend anything + 2 adults), that would mean at least $46,000 *post income tax* money spent!! That means you need to have about $75,000 pre-tax income that is *extra* and disposable - not with today's mortgages! Now, giving $230 to each taxpayer by raising the lowest income tax bracket by $1,500 to $11,000 immediately, well, would give you $230. But then if one spends $1,000,000 a year on crap, $230 is useless as that 1% tax cut just gave you a nice $10,000 bonus. On the other hand, if you only make $30,000 a year and pay $15,000 in rent and another $5,000 in food and then $5,000 in income taxes, you only have $5,000 disposable income left meaning 1% tax cut just saved you whopping $50. The latter is the reality for most Canadians.
GST is not that bad of a tax as it hits end consumers on discretionary spending only. PST tends to a A LOT worse because in many provinces, business expenses are taxable unlike with GST, meaning that it hits business bottom line as well as end-consumers. And if you hit business bottom line, you and up with less business => unemployment. PST => HST is a great move for business, yet sadly not followed by provinces like Ontario or Manitoba
In Canada, we have a semi-hidden theocracy of Steven Harper (the prime minister). Anyone that does not agree with him, is his enemy. Even in his own party.
When some MP from maritime wanted a better deal for his area than was being offered (and the provincial gov't there wanted it as well), Harper threw him out of the party. Then under pressure, did the exact deal that MP wanted. When asked if the MP that was thrown out would be allowed to rejoin the party, Harper essentially said that he will *never* be part of his party ever again.
Or, he was saying that gov't would be accountable to its people and all other stuff, BS as it turns out. The day after he got a *minority*, he *appointed* a *non-elected* person to Senate *AND* into his cabinet!!! No one from the Conservative party disagreed even the former Reformers - quite sad.
Or, he said that global warming is not real. Then when public sentiment changed, so did he and now he proclaims that his party will somehow fit it now and that is a serious problem. Major flip-flopping there too. No one disagreed on that magic 1984-style switch.
Or, let's help the poor by cutting GST but screwing them with income taxes. Poor older people on fixed income are probably hardest hit here. Instead of drastic cuts in GST, he should have cut income taxes, but I guess it looks better if you pay $0.02 less on cup of coffee than $100 on a paycheck. The only people that disagreed were the conservatives - none were MPs.
One can go on and on here. While Liberals where in power, he said that Canada betrayed US by not going with the 2003 invasion (something that US didn't even want anyway). Now he said he never supported that. Essentially, Harper to Canada is like Bush to US. You disagree with him, and you are the enemy. He is always right. The only thing saving his butt right now is the giant surpluses that started when Paul Martin was the finance minister (good finance minister, very bad prime minister:(.
So essentially, high ranking or low ranking in Harper gov't means nothing. You have to follow the Harper dogma or you'll be kicked out. Any criticism is NOT tolerated.
Will this DMCA pass? Depends. Depends if it gets a vote and that depends only if Harper wants it passed. If he does, it will go to a vote no matter what the Justice minister thinks. The only ones that can stop him are the opposition parties (its minority gov't) - fortunately Liberals are aiming for an election soon so it may be more effective trying to prod their Justice critic over this (or maybe even Dion?) than the Conservatives.
I would categorize my self as a definite fiscal conservative, but Harper is definitely NOT a conservative. He's as much of a conservative as Bush is, which is kind of sad.:( Where are you Reform???!
PS. If you are not Canadian, this post probably has some references you do not understand. That is OK:)
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of the duke nukem lines are from the movie They Live. It includes the "It's chew bubble gum and kick some ass. But I'm all out of gum."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/
Bull. Sorry. There was *always* a way for OSS copyright holders to relicense under proprietary licenses. There are *many* examples of GPL projects that have a commercial side. For very easy examples see MySQL and Trolltech's Qt.
Or see the stdc++ library in the GNU GCC toolchain. It is listed under GPL but with the exemption that any software linked to it doesn't imply that it must be GPL as well.
The addition to the CC license is not even worthy of a mention as any copyright holder could do what this license implies at any given time.
100M people is less than 2% of the world population. It is about the same as the amount of people the die every year. Even a war that would kill off 90% of the people would still leave population the size of Europe and US combined.
Now, WWII killed a lot more people because then less than 2000M people were on this planet. So, the approximate 50M dip (almost not perceivable on the global scale even at that time) was larger than 100M today as a fraction of the population. Now, that should be the scary bit - the absolute size of our population and not some 1 in a billion shot from an asteroid.
Chances that we will be wiped out by an asteroid in next year => less than 1 in a billion
Changes that human population size is unsustainable => hell of a lot greater than that!!
If you think about it, the human population size is more terrifying than any conflict or war. Actually, most of the current wars are because of the size of our population (wars over resources).
GW administration is the "USA"? Holy crap, pull the wool from your eyes man! Or in your eyes the US will disappear when Bush leaves the presidency?!?! You claim this like Bush was some sort of embodiment of the USA. I'm glad that vast majority of US citizens and lawmakers do not agree with your point of you.
Your post was definitely flaimbait. There are people that do a lot worse than Hussein ever did (you know Saddam is a first name, like George, or should I just call US's president George from now on?). They did a lot worse yet are perfectly fine because,
1. they have better military, and/or they have nukes, or
2. they do not oppose US, or
3. US doesn't need anything they have
For examples of areas that have leaders that did a lot worse than Hussein, the short list off the top of my head would be (for recent history): Somalia, Rwanda (genocide), Sudan (current genocide), Burma, DR. Congo, Burma, Uzbekistan, etc..
Hussein could have been a very good US asset in the area, even post 90s war. Bush should have made him into a puppet, but I guess they just don't understand the motivation of someone like Hussein. That is very sad considering they apparently have an "expert" in the Soviet politics in Rice - I guess that expert was on paper only.
Bush administration has so far ruined the US financially, economically and morally. The next administration will have a difficult time to get back up.
Hoes does this relate to the original flame of "Mac security worse than Windows" baffles me.
One of IE bugs (currently exploited 0-day bug),
http://secunia.com/advisories/28036/
is not very pretty.
For example of Mozilla bugs,
http://secunia.com/product/12434/
vs. IE,
http://secunia.com/product/12366/
Of course, how the fsck how is 3rd party software the fault of the OS, I have no idea. IE is bundled, but can be disabled to browsing web sites (2003 server edition disables it). Most of the software is quite safe these days, but it still depends on how you use it. Exploits triggered by things like web browsers are the worst, but at least Vista addresses that issue by running IE in "lower than regular user account", not sure if that would protect vs. the IE bug in first link.
Summary: stop trolling for one side or another. If you get hacked it doesn't matter if you run Windows or Linux or BeOS.
Spoken like a true gravity being. You see, the people that will land may have spent considerable amount of time in space. Probably either in order (0g) or at the moon (g/6), so, after 1 year or so. You go back to Earth and you are told to "get the hell out" while your ass weights 6x what it used to weigh!! I would like to see that scrambling, heart rates going to 200, etc.
After 1 year in space, when you get back and you can stand up in the first hour or two without blacking out, let me know.
You would not want to sit in Apollo for 6-9 months on your way to Mars. Space shuttle is cramped, but Apollo is like a tiny coffin in comparison. The CEV is something to get crew into space and back to ground - it is not necessarily the entire vehicle and definitely not for Mars mission ;)
An alien race would not nuke us. They would just release a virus (or nanobots) that would kill all human DNA. Problem solved. Planet not really affected.
They would definitely use that if for some weird reason they wanted to use the planet for something else. Of course the reality is probably they are watching us and we are one of the few channels on their reality shows - Survivor Earth. For the next few hundred years at least we are nothing more than an amusement park and a real life teaching/research tool.
Sorry, but bullshit.
Most efficient jet engines are for commercial planes. Everything else you mention was advanced because of stability where it was invented, not destruction. Just look at how much positive science is coming out of Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan. The last one should be the pinnacle of human knowledge - they had was for almost 30 years now!
Military is waste. Period. Anything positive that comes out of it is not by design, it is purely as a side-effect.
It wasn't the military that got us to the moon. It wasn't the military building ISS. If it was up to military, we would not even have something like Hubble because it is useless.
Anything positive comes out of the military it is only a side-effect of its intended purpose. And that purpose is to kill and control.
For example, the crazies are saying that "all problems" and "all everything" is caused by electrical nature. That our solar system is more electrical than anything else and all misfortunes can be read by reading the sun's "electrical mood" (yes, including global warming, tsunamis and earthquakes). They are misunderstanding electricity in wall socket with plasmas in space.
Or you could be on trying to explain something that is being researched to a lay person in simple way? But then,
Ok, *crazy* post that layman don't get that is made by another crazy physics-wannabe. Good job with the insightful mods here.
PS. Of course, any positive mods for me and negative for the crazies would reinforce the filament nature of the evil-NASA and evil-NSA reaching out trying to prevent people from knowing the truth! The Truth of the filament aliens!
You can run very old software in a chroot with the old version of the OS installed there and it should work provided the application doesn't use some non-POSIX kernel interfaces. Or use an emulator to run really-really old stuff.
I am able to run very old applications without problems. Though libc5 is not available anymore for those ancient things, but archive.debian.org has all their releases and those oldies can be installed in a chroot and still work.
When you figure something for yourself, you tend to learn it better. If you just ask questions as quick solutions, you learn nothing.
Learning stuff tends to be hard work and involves using your precious time, but in the end you are more productive than simply "getting an answer". Your argument reminds me of some people in elementary school that just copied answers and never learned anything. Sure, it is easier, but in the long term you'll have to learn it anyway.
Tech support should be there for problems you can't solve yourself in reasonable amount of time. Reading a manual is generally considered within reasonable amount of time. And if you cannot take the time to learn the software required to your job, maybe it is time to look for a different, less demanding one.
BTW, you fall into the "Mr. Entitlement" category and if you ask me that is by far *the worst* type of people to deal with for tech support. Sorry man, the world doesn't revolve around you.
Hey, not all of us are ambiturners! Some of us just can't turn left.... T.T
TFA talks about evolution accelerating in the last few millennia *everywhere*. Now, evolution implies some sort of selection mechanism, be it natural (disease) or otherwise (war, genocide). For example, have you noticed that shortsightedness has accelerated in recent decades? Does that mean more mutation? No - these genes are hereditary. But it does mean lost selection against it. If you were shortsighted in 1600s or so, and your great leader raised an army and you got drafted, you would not do so well vs. normal sighted individual. That would be a selector against it.
Today, we do not have any selection mechanisms. No, malaria is not it. There are drugs that cure that selector. The mutations you talk about evolved LONG time ago. And hemophilia is a larger selector than malaria.
More mutations and so called "genetic diversity" without any natural selectors will simply result in overall quality of everyone's life to deteriorate until natural selectors kick-in again. Or people start to start being masters of their own evolution though genetic engineering. Since the former will take at least a few generations, the latter is most likely future of human evolution. More of creationist tale though with ourselves being the "mighty deity" (so creationists - does that mean we are gods?)
Also, inbreeding gives you more mutations, not the other way around. Current practices imply less mutations from sex.
TFA title is wrong. Evolution != more mutation. For evolution to happen you don't need much mutation. You need some sort of selector. We do not have that last bit anymore. Not since penicillin. And definitely not with modern medical technology. No selection == no evolution.
No selector means society is biologically *devolving*.
Why can't it re-processed from current "long term storage"? That actually makes little sense. Uranium is mined from much more diluted sources than that and somehow it gets concentrated without problems even though it has much wider range of impurities.
People that have been holding up current reactors generally are not pro-nuclear power. They are pro nuclear weapons. Very few reactors are built without the military in mind. Maybe that will change in the next few years, but who knows.
Please don't underestimate politics, money and power in the current state of affairs. There is a lot more money in oil/coal than nuclear. And a lot more money in nuclear than geothermal (Yellowstone could produce massive amounts of power - more than North America would need for 1000s of years). Anyway, geothermal needs support for experimental facilities (Iceland has some), and nuclear is highly regulated, as it should be, so political will is *fundamental* in any nuclear project. I've seen very few projects in civilian nuclear arena go because the scientists were recommending that the project is not possible. Almost all of the projects that are canceled, are canceled for political reasons.
Don't twist my words please.
:). So far the "evolution way" has been seen observed in every repeated case for how these bacteria evolved to deal with the antibiotic.
:) lol
Second, how can you be credible when you say that water vopour is a greenhouse gas in the same way as CO2? Water is always in a saturated state in the atmosphere. Yes, it is a major contributor to global warming that was *always there*. 70% of the surface is water! If CO2 was in pools like water and water was at the levels of CO2, then it would be backwards. Hope you can understand the difference between saturated, always there state and *new* additional greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. The 2 latter ones are never saturated and hence add to the greenhouse effect of what gases we currently have in the atmosphere.
Another example would be Titan (moon of Saturn). Currently it is thought that it contains liquid methane seas, etc. Thus, on Titan methane would not be a "global warming" greenhouse gas like it is on Earth.
Regarding evolution, it is a scientific fact now. It may have been a hypothesis by Darwin (his free book here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009), but now it is a fact that microbiologists rely on. It is even observed in nature on large organisms without our short lifespans. Of course you may chose not to read what Darwin has to say regarding his observations but continue to believe in dogma.
As for other examples, give me proof instead of idle talk. Especially about funding. And if you approach any project as "disprove of a", you'll not get funding because your method is unscientific. The idea is to observe something that then through that observation would disprove "a". This means, you cannot disprove evolution (which is a fact). Well, prove that creation happens right now. Prove to me that the bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics were "created" in such a way that would contradict evolution (no, humans engineering them doesn't mean creation - unless you think humans are now gods?
Of course, there is Chernobyl. Or were these animals that clearly descended from the original ones did not change in response environmental pressures mysteriously created by some deity?
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/437/4324.html
Or are you going to state that this is it a government cover up of the alien experiments?
Anyway, at least read some articles from BBC (or do you considered them biased gov't sponsored propaganda?),
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081026.stm
There, fixed it for you. The current waste is not a waste but usable fuel if it wasn't for all the politics and other shenanigans. Politics and public fear are what is stopping nuclear power than scientific know-how. There are *safe* reactors. The problem is current ones are mostly built to make nukes not power. But then nukes are even less safe than the dangerous power plants that are used to make them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
This reactor type seems very efficient (99+% efficient) and safe (we can deal with stuff like liquid sodium much better now than in the 90s). The waste can be disposed of either by waiting or though neutron capture. BTW, neutrons always escape fission reactors as well as future fusion ones (hydrogen/helium powered) hence those reactors may be used to kill off the fission waste from the Integral Fast Reactor. Total waste containment time: ~200 years. Much nicer than the millions of years figure people keep throwing around. Too bad it was canceled for political reasons.
Current nuclear waste is lots great fuel for these reactors.
I may argue that the planned nuclear policies are not safe / efficient. My argument that is not true as there are no policies. Politicians just want to be elected and people don't want to know about nuclear. It was (is?) so bad that something like NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) has to be called MRI because people are afraid of the word Nuclear.
For efficient nuclear fission based economy (ie. nuclear power plants generate hydrogen for "hydrogen economy"), in addition to nuclear reactors that are flexible in nuclear input and safe and do not generate nuclear weapon isotopes but burn them (eg. CANDU ver.2 being developed), we would need reprocessing plants preferably with isotopic separators to minimize waste and also to get useful isotopes. Another problem is that the society would need A LOT more people knowledgeable enough in physics and chemistry for this to work - that may be the largest problem.
Safe waste disposal already exists in theory but the waste is NOT that bad. After reprocessing, you can use the waste for a lot of things including thermal reactors (ie. reactor that just warms water, but can't go critical so not very useful for power, but good for central heating). Also, the waste may be a good source of something useful in not so distant future. But if you really want to bury it forever, bury it in the subduction layer in the oceanic floor right under/at the edge of a continental plate. The subduction layer will pull the waste towards the mantle (aka. The Center of the Earth!), where it will be quite harmless. Or shall we protect the Lost World?
This will go on forever. You sir/madam, have *preconceived* ideas that will never be moved even in face of *proof* like real warming being observed *now* or CO2 levels rising. Your ideas are no longer scientific, they are dogmatic. Showing you proof of anything would be like showing a religious zealot proof of evolution (even though Roman Catholic church has no problem with evolution - probably learned their lesson from Galileo as they finally had to apologize that Galileo views were not blasphemous. The Earth does in fact revolve around the Sun). It is just wasted bits and bytes.
Science doesn't *care* about research from "Big Oil" or Greenpeace - both are treated the same. Everyone will just try to find holes in the research just like with any other research. And if holes are found, that research or part thereof is invalid. That is how science WORKS.
So, find holes in global warming. Then write it up. Then get it published by some scientist (just contact big oil if you need PhD to review - they may want to help if you are not a wacko). Then defend it against currently accepted views and if they can't find any holes in your research, well, you just showed the world they are wrong. If you CANNOT find holes in the global warming research, well, then your ideas remain dogmatic - 100% worthless to the real world situation.
As for arguing on how to tackle global warming (climate change for the scientifically deficient crowd), then do that with your politicians. That is not a scientific process. Scientists are just there to recommend targets - politicians are there to actually do anything about it. That's how we got Kyoto - political step.
Anyway, dogmatic ideas are not scientific, no matter how much you believe in them they are not true.
Yey! We should cover all oceans with solar panels! The connect it all and use that energy! That would fix all the energy problems. It is not like oceans are really needed for anything. Or, let's put solar on all rooftops. We'll just invent a magic device A for easy installation and integration. And then the mystic superconducting global power grid will make sure we can use solar as a base-load!
Now, since this is reality, solar/wind will NEVER be base-loads (just complimentary peak power) because of the lack of global political stability and lack of scientific knowledge to build global, interconnected, superconducting power grid so Sahara could power US and US could power India (ie. sunny area powers dark areas, then you can star thinking of base-loads for solar). Opps, even if technical problems are solved, political will not be.
So, nuclear is the *only* solution. Biofuels are bad-bad-bad. They use MORE of the energy that the ecosystem needs to function and transforms it to our use! Any so called environmentalist that supports them needs a kick in the ass. Jungles, savannas, forests, all need solar energy for the life cycle of our planet. We CANNOT use more and more of the energy from the sun by occupying new areas and draining all the energy. You know, Earth with just humans and cockroaches and rats and "perfect" grass would be a rather bleak and lonely planet
But I guess we can cut down the stuff in areas we can't use for agriculture. It is not like it has any value. Animals/plants that live there are worth what? $4/gallon?
So far I would like to congratulate the environmental lobby for contributing to the destruction of the Amazon and major part in killing off Indonesia's jungle in the name of "environmentally friend" fuel.
http://www.bt.com.bn/en/focus/2007/11/20/biofuels_vs_indonesian_natives_forests
There is no *waste* that lasts 100,000 years. Most of the isotopes currently viewed as waste are very good sources of energy. Current reactors are not even built to utilize most of the fuel but to generate nuclear weapons hence the so called *waste*. For example, UK now has a problem with all the *waste* Plutonium being generated by its power plants!! That is the insanity! Plutonium is a better power source than U-235 if you have a real energy reactor. One of the few truly civilian reactors are the CANDU reactors designed in Canada. They utilize heavy water and breed Plutonium and use it for energy at the same time. No Plutonium *waste* there. Heck, they are used now to get rid off the US extra nuclear stockpiles - stuff that can't be handled by US reactors mailing because of the Plutonium content.
:)
Secondly, don't be freaked out about radiation so much. If you were transparent to radiation such that a Geiger counter would see all the radiation going off inside of you (where the damage is done), it will go into a nice high pitched, continuous whine. You sid/madam, contain enough radioactive radioactive potassium for about 5000 events per second. Add that nice trails of cosmic muons hitting out every 0.5-1 second (enough to go right through you and ionize LOTS of stuff), and you are positively glowing
Also, coal has 2-3 ppm uranium and about 5ppm thorium (means, 1,000,000 pounds of coal have 2-3 pounds of uranium and 5 ponds of thorium). Since US burns about 2200 times that http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html, US alone is releasing about 5000 pounds of Uranium and 10,000 pounds of Thorium into the air. Ok, there are those precipitators, but only about 50% effective on these things (unlike soot). So, about 1 metric ton of Uranium goes poof, into the air *NOW* in the US.
Anyway, most of the so called *waste* can be recycled. You only end up with maybe one small barrel of waste per large nuclear plant per year. That is much cheaper to watch that one can for 10,000 years than letting all the mercury from the coal power plants pollute the lakes such that we can't even fish there anymore. Sad.
http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Fission%20Fuel%20Conservation.htm
BTW: Uranium is not HOT. ANYTHING that has a 10,000 year half-life, by definition, is NOT hot. HOT stuff has a life time of seconds or minutes or maybe up to a few days. Hot stuff is used in medicine.
The guy is probably the same person as in
:)
Thank you for smoking
Nice comedy
Scholarships and other income tax changes are good though Employment Credit does hit some small business people - you can't deduct it unless you incorporate your business. Sucks to have a proprietorship. While the scholarships change simplified the tax system, the employment credit complicated it. Anyway, I basically only disagree with the GST cut in Conservatives fiscal policy. The corporate tax cut was really needed. This is what will keep a lot of small/medium businesses in Canada and allow current ones to re-invest.
:( I haven't heard what Dion's great plan is either, but then Layton, while a Good Guy, is kind of out there in the left field ;)
Kyoto protocol, on the surface, does seem really screwed up. I mean, why is China off the hook? Or India? Then I realized something - this is NOT about cutting CO2 and taxing but about changing the economy from a carbon based economy to a hydrogen based economy. Oil/gas is running out as you can see that by ever increasing fuel prices. By imposing regulation of carbon emissions, Kyoto is an attempt to allow a free-market economy to develop technology and infrastructure that is sorely needed *before* hydrogen economy can function. If we run out of oil (aka. oil @ $300/barrel? $500? $1000? oil will always be there - just name the price when it is unreachable) before we have infrastructure in place for hydrogen economy, we will have a depression that we haven't seen in our lifetimes. And who will be screwed if we run out of oil but have Kyoto implemented? Well, China and other countries not prepared. Kyoto is an investment in technology that would make Canada's expertise very valuable in not so distant future. And this is not even brining in global warming (aka. climate change) which will cost Canada's economy in the long run much more than Kyoto ever would.
Of course, instead of doing this, the no-brain politicians are now putting money into more subsidies for farmers to plant food crops to make fuel for cars. That's a great idea.
Aside: Oil was $20/barrel about 5 years ago and now it is $95/barrel. Now, if you price it in CND or EUR, ignoring USD devaluation, that would still be 3 times the current price (almost 5x in USD). If this trend continues, will people afford $300/barrel oil in 2012? (aka. $3-4/L gas) $1000/barel in 2030? (aka. $13-15/L gas)
With regards to GST, I just received a brochure (from the Conservative party) that their little 1% tax cut costs $6,000,000,000 in revenue. Now, assuming that 75% of people actually spends that money and that we have 35M people in Canada, that means, the revenue that is "lost" is about $230 per taxpayer. This means that each of these people would have to spend $23,000 on non-mortgage, non-food stuffs *per year* for this tax cut to be worth it (vs. income tax cut). Or a family of 4 (2 kids that don't spend anything + 2 adults), that would mean at least $46,000 *post income tax* money spent!! That means you need to have about $75,000 pre-tax income that is *extra* and disposable - not with today's mortgages! Now, giving $230 to each taxpayer by raising the lowest income tax bracket by $1,500 to $11,000 immediately, well, would give you $230. But then if one spends $1,000,000 a year on crap, $230 is useless as that 1% tax cut just gave you a nice $10,000 bonus. On the other hand, if you only make $30,000 a year and pay $15,000 in rent and another $5,000 in food and then $5,000 in income taxes, you only have $5,000 disposable income left meaning 1% tax cut just saved you whopping $50. The latter is the reality for most Canadians.
GST is not that bad of a tax as it hits end consumers on discretionary spending only. PST tends to a A LOT worse because in many provinces, business expenses are taxable unlike with GST, meaning that it hits business bottom line as well as end-consumers. And if you hit business bottom line, you and up with less business => unemployment. PST => HST is a great move for business, yet sadly not followed by provinces like Ontario or Manitoba
In Canada, we have a semi-hidden theocracy of Steven Harper (the prime minister). Anyone that does not agree with him, is his enemy. Even in his own party.
:(.
:( Where are you Reform???!
:)
When some MP from maritime wanted a better deal for his area than was being offered (and the provincial gov't there wanted it as well), Harper threw him out of the party. Then under pressure, did the exact deal that MP wanted. When asked if the MP that was thrown out would be allowed to rejoin the party, Harper essentially said that he will *never* be part of his party ever again.
Or, he was saying that gov't would be accountable to its people and all other stuff, BS as it turns out. The day after he got a *minority*, he *appointed* a *non-elected* person to Senate *AND* into his cabinet!!! No one from the Conservative party disagreed even the former Reformers - quite sad.
Or, he said that global warming is not real. Then when public sentiment changed, so did he and now he proclaims that his party will somehow fit it now and that is a serious problem. Major flip-flopping there too. No one disagreed on that magic 1984-style switch.
Or, let's help the poor by cutting GST but screwing them with income taxes. Poor older people on fixed income are probably hardest hit here. Instead of drastic cuts in GST, he should have cut income taxes, but I guess it looks better if you pay $0.02 less on cup of coffee than $100 on a paycheck. The only people that disagreed were the conservatives - none were MPs.
One can go on and on here. While Liberals where in power, he said that Canada betrayed US by not going with the 2003 invasion (something that US didn't even want anyway). Now he said he never supported that. Essentially, Harper to Canada is like Bush to US. You disagree with him, and you are the enemy. He is always right. The only thing saving his butt right now is the giant surpluses that started when Paul Martin was the finance minister (good finance minister, very bad prime minister
So essentially, high ranking or low ranking in Harper gov't means nothing. You have to follow the Harper dogma or you'll be kicked out. Any criticism is NOT tolerated.
Will this DMCA pass? Depends. Depends if it gets a vote and that depends only if Harper wants it passed. If he does, it will go to a vote no matter what the Justice minister thinks. The only ones that can stop him are the opposition parties (its minority gov't) - fortunately Liberals are aiming for an election soon so it may be more effective trying to prod their Justice critic over this (or maybe even Dion?) than the Conservatives.
I would categorize my self as a definite fiscal conservative, but Harper is definitely NOT a conservative. He's as much of a conservative as Bush is, which is kind of sad.
PS. If you are not Canadian, this post probably has some references you do not understand. That is OK
IPv6 with static addressing, but no, we don't need it. Dynamic IPv4 is why asshats are good and well on the internets - you can't really block them.