Depends which school you're talking about, Buddhism has about as many internal differences as those between Christianity and Judaism. I'm going to butcher terms right now because I'm too lazy to look up the proper spellings for the correct ones. There is Traditional Buddhism (mostly what the Buddha preached, granted the modern version seems far removed) and Mahayana Buddhism (stresses compassion, helping other and has major philosophical differences). The later divides into Tantric Buddhism (in Tibet, allows the breaking of rules and taboos under certain conditions), Zen Buddhism and Mahayana itself.
In terms of practiced Buddhism there is a strong view that gaining "merit" (ie: karma) is a good thing, and there are actions which provide merit and those which take it away (and some rules as to what one should do). And much of Buddhism has gods, many of them in fact, as well as a concept of hell (and again, there are numerous texts describing exactly what actions will lead to what hell). In the Mahayana pure lands school there is even the concept of "heaven" besides that of nirvana. In some areas Buddhism has evolved into basically a psuedo-Christianity including "churches", "priests" and "sermons."
It's important to note that Buddhism as a whole has no concrete text and over the centuries as it spread more and more works were added (both as commentary and as claimed "canon").
I believe he meant the following: prospective seller has a scroll and a potential buyer wants to check if it's authentic. The buyer scans (more likely pays the authorizing company to do it) the scroll, gets the pattern and checks the database. If it's been stolen the he'd see so right away.
With time probably, at least for many features. The problem is that the effect of environment is not perfectly known, and the womb may have substantial influence (this may be compensated for partially by using maternal dna to simulate those effects as well, either from the half donated by the mother or from the mother herself). It's better than in the past since the environment nowadays is mostly "nice" so it has less bad effects (ie: you're short because your genetics say so not because you were near starvation for your first 20 years of life).
Right now I believe we can't even predict skin color except by predicting where the person's ancestors lived and what skin color they had.
A lot of peopel don't like change, may have software which is wondows only, require windows for compadibility with other people, actually prefer windows, or be a corporation.
Or maybe to peopel who want a mini-comp but don't want to get a mac... I mean it's not like Windows is 90% of the consumer market or anything... oh wait it is.
*sigh*, such lack of reading skills. If a third party gets the source code they can legally use it... the key word being "if they get it." IBM may give it to any third party but they don't have to.
It's now Gate's fault that you bought crappy hardware or because you didn't buy a UPS? (my guess is that your house has crappy electricity and you had crappy power supplies).
For one, copyright is a contract between the government and authors on their people's behalf. Since it's made without the individual's say-so, he might not consider himself bound by it.
You chose to (and continue to) live in the country and abide by its laws, as such you have a contract with the government. By your logic no one is bound by any laws which do not directly effect someone else.
Another argument that could be used is that modern copyright terms have been manipulated by big business into lengths of time that violate their intended purpose. Therefore the law is unjust and should be disobeyed.
Then please go ahead and download 25 year (or whatever the original term was) old things... oh wait most people pirate new things.
Another argument could be that copyright itself is a bad idea that stifles creation. In music, for example, the case could be made the copyright has killed live performance. Therefore the law is wrong and just be disobeyed.
And I will argue that without it there would be far less creation period since getting money for one's creation (ie: time) would be much harder.
No the pork barrel politics will start when the thing gets to congress and every single fuckin congressman will want to keep bases in his/her state/district open or get something else out of the deal. This will go on until they make deals using other legislation and other money, and everyone becomes happy having spent a lot of money on useless crap.
So what exactly do you find wrong with the proposed base closings?
I'd like to note that the odds of any distribution coming out at random are vary small, as the total number of possible distributions is very large.
They're best used as "bunker busters" or in other words over a conflict which is going on already. Either that or to quickly take out a given installation, which requires us knowing where the enemy is (and if these are put up, we probably won't anymore in most cases). It's also not like you can't move them around, and if they're in LEO then they'll still be only over a small region of the Earth, unless you cover the whole planet with them (which would be expensive). So in essence, even LEO ones would need to be "parked" over an area in the sense that they pass over it at least somewhat consistently.
Also, parking it over N. Korea would be great way of intimidating the country, although it's much less effective if the deployment time is slow or if it's not active 24/7 (you'd want to be able to kill their leader or other interesting targets before he can get away/they can be used). No different from all the other weapons S. Korea probably has aimed at N. Korea or the artillery that N. Korea has aimed at S. Korea (which from what I've heard can raze the capital to the ground before we can take them out). The US and USSR had weapons aimed at each other for decades (and still do I think) and nothing bad came out of it, it's simply another method of threatening the enemy to get them to comply with you.
Odd, I knew someone would say that. And if you devise and easy and mostly fool-proof test then yes we should, however unlike alchohol sleep-deprivation is a bit harder to check for.
Shuttle is LEO. And with LEO you have to wait for the thing to get over whatever spot you wish to drop it on. The US is usually involved in only a few conflicts so for example having them gover over Iraq woudl be better than having them be near Iraq for only an hour per day each.
...someone actually considers the "Rods of God" thing to be a viable option... what the fuck are the smoking because I want some of it. A 6th grader can in 20 minutes figure out exactly why such a system is flawed by design. Let me explain: -Cost: They want to put very heavy object into space... that costs thousands per pound. -Delay: If they're in geocentric orbit it will take some time (hours at 10km/s, not counting acceleration time) for them to fall to the ground. If they're not in geocentric orbit then we will need to put even more in space to cover an area 24/7 (see first point).
If I remember my calculation, the cost for such a system (just to put into orbit at current costs) came out to billions of dollars per projectile... again I ask what they were smoking.
...so we should wait until a DUI drivers kills a bunch of people before putting him in jail eventhough two warnings were already given... I'm sorry but I don't agree with that.
...what the heck does your rant have to do with the topic at hand? (When did the Free Trade Agreement come into play? This patent is from 1996)
I'll be nice and explain in simple terms what is happening: A groups of US companies is challenging a US patent filed by an Australian agency in the US (not in Australia, this is the important part). Had this Australian agency not filed a patent in the US (again this is not Australia) then the US companies would not mind as much as they could not be forced to pay royalties on their products sold outside Australia. It's really quite simple, you try to patent something in another country so that companies in that country are subject to the patent and you run the risk of them using that patent system against you (in that particular case).
You knwo you can upgrade the drive right? I belive the problem was that at the time there were no 5400 drives of the required size, or rather not in the volume that apple wanted. Also, a lot of laptops used/use 4500 drives so it's not like they're that bad.
"The only way to demonstrate that you can download social security numbers is by downloading social security numbers."
And the proper way to show this is with a teacher or network person next to you, after telling the school of the possible problem and your desire to show them how it may be exploited (in writing). I am not sure of what type of exploit this was however it may have very well been possible to show that one can take the SSNs without taking everyones (take your friends or whatever).
...because it will save them $6 billion in the long run. I should have worded my statement as: the Russian's underfunded space program which is probably one of the places where the goverment is trying to pull funds from to save money.
The more people that launch to there, the more facilities are needed, and the cheaper it becomes to use lunar resources than launch everthing from the Earth- it turns out that that is cheaper, but the startup costs are high.
"high" is an understatement. The ISS is around $100 billion in cost and has a weight of 1mil pounds. Quick calculations put the cost of sending the ISS into orbit at $10billion (and probably less), which is only 10% of the cost. Consider that for a second, launch costs aren't the biggest thing we have to worry about right now and the other costs will not go down on the moon. It'll be a long time before lunar based construction can match what is possible on Earth, and until it comes close the lower launch costs may not mean much.
Actually, the space elevator probably doesn't work for humans because of the Van Allen belts, (but it might be good for cargo); but simply launching a LOT probably does.
Yeah, we'd still need rocket for people as shielding against radiation would probably raise the costs too much.
Cheap energy (Solar Power Satellites), colonisation of other planets, reduction of CO2 production, exploration of the solar system. Basically launching a lot reduces the costs, and opens up space so that we can actually use it and go places other than the Earth. Is that bad or wrong?
Yes, launching a few people won't lower costs however the costs are still high. If lucky we can get down to $1k per pound which is still very high. I'd prefer for NASA to research new technology than to deal with this sort of crap, which right now won't accomplish much.
So what you're saying is that Russia is doing it to make money, and there is a market. And this is a problem because?
A small one all things considered and one that is very limited, as it relies of massive initial costs which cannot be paid of by the market (ie: the currently underused Russian space program). Trying to make it anything larger makes you suddenly slam straight into those limits (ie: you need to build your own space station or add extra launch facilities, training facilities, etc.). Also it's in Russia; it's questionable if such a venture would even be profitable in the US.
Why does it matter? So you get to spend a week on a largely-US funded space station for $20mil? Humanity doesn't gain anything and most people can't afford it anyway. Hell the launch costs alone are probably around $300k+ per person, and that won't go down without either a space elevator, nuclear rocket or a lot more space travel (and I mean a lot). And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.
Slashdot Mirror
has no concept of evil
Depends which school you're talking about, Buddhism has about as many internal differences as those between Christianity and Judaism. I'm going to butcher terms right now because I'm too lazy to look up the proper spellings for the correct ones. There is Traditional Buddhism (mostly what the Buddha preached, granted the modern version seems far removed) and Mahayana Buddhism (stresses compassion, helping other and has major philosophical differences). The later divides into Tantric Buddhism (in Tibet, allows the breaking of rules and taboos under certain conditions), Zen Buddhism and Mahayana itself.
In terms of practiced Buddhism there is a strong view that gaining "merit" (ie: karma) is a good thing, and there are actions which provide merit and those which take it away (and some rules as to what one should do). And much of Buddhism has gods, many of them in fact, as well as a concept of hell (and again, there are numerous texts describing exactly what actions will lead to what hell). In the Mahayana pure lands school there is even the concept of "heaven" besides that of nirvana. In some areas Buddhism has evolved into basically a psuedo-Christianity including "churches", "priests" and "sermons."
It's important to note that Buddhism as a whole has no concrete text and over the centuries as it spread more and more works were added (both as commentary and as claimed "canon").
I believe he meant the following: prospective seller has a scroll and a potential buyer wants to check if it's authentic. The buyer scans (more likely pays the authorizing company to do it) the scroll, gets the pattern and checks the database. If it's been stolen the he'd see so right away.
With time probably, at least for many features. The problem is that the effect of environment is not perfectly known, and the womb may have substantial influence (this may be compensated for partially by using maternal dna to simulate those effects as well, either from the half donated by the mother or from the mother herself). It's better than in the past since the environment nowadays is mostly "nice" so it has less bad effects (ie: you're short because your genetics say so not because you were near starvation for your first 20 years of life).
Right now I believe we can't even predict skin color except by predicting where the person's ancestors lived and what skin color they had.
A lot of peopel don't like change, may have software which is wondows only, require windows for compadibility with other people, actually prefer windows, or be a corporation.
Or maybe to peopel who want a mini-comp but don't want to get a mac... I mean it's not like Windows is 90% of the consumer market or anything... oh wait it is.
*sigh*, such lack of reading skills. If a third party gets the source code they can legally use it... the key word being "if they get it." IBM may give it to any third party but they don't have to.
It's now Gate's fault that you bought crappy hardware or because you didn't buy a UPS? (my guess is that your house has crappy electricity and you had crappy power supplies).
Depends, AOL Search uses the Google engine. Add that in and Google is over 50%.
Not every nation has signed it from what I can see, so you can go to places where it does not hold.
For one, copyright is a contract between the government and authors on their people's behalf. Since it's made without the individual's say-so, he might not consider himself bound by it.
You chose to (and continue to) live in the country and abide by its laws, as such you have a contract with the government. By your logic no one is bound by any laws which do not directly effect someone else.
Another argument that could be used is that modern copyright terms have been manipulated by big business into lengths of time that violate their intended purpose. Therefore the law is unjust and should be disobeyed.
Then please go ahead and download 25 year (or whatever the original term was) old things... oh wait most people pirate new things.
Another argument could be that copyright itself is a bad idea that stifles creation. In music, for example, the case could be made the copyright has killed live performance. Therefore the law is wrong and just be disobeyed.
And I will argue that without it there would be far less creation period since getting money for one's creation (ie: time) would be much harder.
No the pork barrel politics will start when the thing gets to congress and every single fuckin congressman will want to keep bases in his/her state/district open or get something else out of the deal. This will go on until they make deals using other legislation and other money, and everyone becomes happy having spent a lot of money on useless crap.
So what exactly do you find wrong with the proposed base closings?
I'd like to note that the odds of any distribution coming out at random are vary small, as the total number of possible distributions is very large.
They're best used as "bunker busters" or in other words over a conflict which is going on already. Either that or to quickly take out a given installation, which requires us knowing where the enemy is (and if these are put up, we probably won't anymore in most cases). It's also not like you can't move them around, and if they're in LEO then they'll still be only over a small region of the Earth, unless you cover the whole planet with them (which would be expensive). So in essence, even LEO ones would need to be "parked" over an area in the sense that they pass over it at least somewhat consistently.
Also, parking it over N. Korea would be great way of intimidating the country, although it's much less effective if the deployment time is slow or if it's not active 24/7 (you'd want to be able to kill their leader or other interesting targets before he can get away/they can be used). No different from all the other weapons S. Korea probably has aimed at N. Korea or the artillery that N. Korea has aimed at S. Korea (which from what I've heard can raze the capital to the ground before we can take them out). The US and USSR had weapons aimed at each other for decades (and still do I think) and nothing bad came out of it, it's simply another method of threatening the enemy to get them to comply with you.
Odd, I knew someone would say that. And if you devise and easy and mostly fool-proof test then yes we should, however unlike alchohol sleep-deprivation is a bit harder to check for.
Shuttle is LEO. And with LEO you have to wait for the thing to get over whatever spot you wish to drop it on. The US is usually involved in only a few conflicts so for example having them gover over Iraq woudl be better than having them be near Iraq for only an hour per day each.
Except studies show that even .06 impairs your judgment (granted it's not that much), and some countries have the limit at 0.05.
...someone actually considers the "Rods of God" thing to be a viable option... what the fuck are the smoking because I want some of it. A 6th grader can in 20 minutes figure out exactly why such a system is flawed by design. Let me explain: ... that costs thousands per pound.
-Cost: They want to put very heavy object into space
-Delay: If they're in geocentric orbit it will take some time (hours at 10km/s, not counting acceleration time) for them to fall to the ground. If they're not in geocentric orbit then we will need to put even more in space to cover an area 24/7 (see first point).
If I remember my calculation, the cost for such a system (just to put into orbit at current costs) came out to billions of dollars per projectile... again I ask what they were smoking.
...so we should wait until a DUI drivers kills a bunch of people before putting him in jail eventhough two warnings were already given... I'm sorry but I don't agree with that.
...which does not in any way invalidate (or really relate to) what he said.
...what the heck does your rant have to do with the topic at hand? (When did the Free Trade Agreement come into play? This patent is from 1996)
I'll be nice and explain in simple terms what is happening: A groups of US companies is challenging a US patent filed by an Australian agency in the US (not in Australia, this is the important part). Had this Australian agency not filed a patent in the US (again this is not Australia) then the US companies would not mind as much as they could not be forced to pay royalties on their products sold outside Australia. It's really quite simple, you try to patent something in another country so that companies in that country are subject to the patent and you run the risk of them using that patent system against you (in that particular case).
You knwo you can upgrade the drive right?
I belive the problem was that at the time there were no 5400 drives of the required size, or rather not in the volume that apple wanted. Also, a lot of laptops used/use 4500 drives so it's not like they're that bad.
"The only way to demonstrate that you can download social security numbers is by downloading social security numbers."
And the proper way to show this is with a teacher or network person next to you, after telling the school of the possible problem and your desire to show them how it may be exploited (in writing). I am not sure of what type of exploit this was however it may have very well been possible to show that one can take the SSNs without taking everyones (take your friends or whatever).
...because it will save them $6 billion in the long run. I should have worded my statement as: the Russian's underfunded space program which is probably one of the places where the goverment is trying to pull funds from to save money.
The more people that launch to there, the more facilities are needed, and the cheaper it becomes to use lunar resources than launch everthing from the Earth- it turns out that that is cheaper, but the startup costs are high.
"high" is an understatement. The ISS is around $100 billion in cost and has a weight of 1mil pounds. Quick calculations put the cost of sending the ISS into orbit at $10billion (and probably less), which is only 10% of the cost. Consider that for a second, launch costs aren't the biggest thing we have to worry about right now and the other costs will not go down on the moon. It'll be a long time before lunar based construction can match what is possible on Earth, and until it comes close the lower launch costs may not mean much.
Actually, the space elevator probably doesn't work for humans because of the Van Allen belts, (but it might be good for cargo); but simply launching a LOT probably does.
Yeah, we'd still need rocket for people as shielding against radiation would probably raise the costs too much.
Cheap energy (Solar Power Satellites), colonisation of other planets, reduction of CO2 production, exploration of the solar system. Basically launching a lot reduces the costs, and opens up space so that we can actually use it and go places other than the Earth. Is that bad or wrong?
Yes, launching a few people won't lower costs however the costs are still high. If lucky we can get down to $1k per pound which is still very high. I'd prefer for NASA to research new technology than to deal with this sort of crap, which right now won't accomplish much.
So what you're saying is that Russia is doing it to make money, and there is a market. And this is a problem because?
A small one all things considered and one that is very limited, as it relies of massive initial costs which cannot be paid of by the market (ie: the currently underused Russian space program). Trying to make it anything larger makes you suddenly slam straight into those limits (ie: you need to build your own space station or add extra launch facilities, training facilities, etc.). Also it's in Russia; it's questionable if such a venture would even be profitable in the US.
Why does it matter? So you get to spend a week on a largely-US funded space station for $20mil? Humanity doesn't gain anything and most people can't afford it anyway. Hell the launch costs alone are probably around $300k+ per person, and that won't go down without either a space elevator, nuclear rocket or a lot more space travel (and I mean a lot). And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.
There are various pre-compilled binaries not by Mozilla for Windows, so its not that much harder than using the official version.