Forgive me for questioning "FDA data", but for an average 100kg male, that'd imply that the radiation given off by a cell phone would be in excess of 100 Watts. Now lets just assume 100 watts (we'll underestimate). I can talk on my cell phone for more than 3 hours (a lot more, but i've actually done 3 so i know its the lower bound) without running out of batteries.
100 Watts / 5 volts = 20 Amps => 60Amp-hours.
Last time I checked, the approx 5 mm x 30 mm x 20 mm battery on my cell phone was.9Amp-hours.
To be more specific, what I'm saying is that you're misquoting FDA data, or that can't be the real amount. By a quick calculation, it can't even be the amount of enviromental cell phone radiation (hint, use inverse square law and propagation losses).
Replace IE like Firefox??? That is only because firefox can basically do all the things IE can (visit all the web pages, same functionality (even more some may argue)). This OS doesn't seem to have that leverage over Windows, and as long as Redmond can keep on putting out software that is mostly self-compatible only and get most of the population addicted to it, there isn't too much chance of this os replacing windows like firefox did to IE.
The real difference is the government controlling it. For NK, it is the whim of one man to launch a nuke. Is it rational for a self-preserving being to want to lauch a nuke? No, because of mutually assured destruction. But for someone irrational, this may be very possible. If Mexico and Canada had them, I'm certain that congress/parliment and whatever other democratic party that are they wouldn't want to launch a nuke, becuase the tens/hundreds of members in it understand that if they launch a nuke, they'd probably die. Even in China, which is ruled by an oligarcy, it is very likely that not all of those few very powerful people in the government would want to do something like that.
The problem with these all-in-one devices is that the ALWAYs, ALWAYs end up doing everything horribly. Since most people use handheld devices to do one or two major things, an all-in-one device doesn't make sense at all. For example, if I were into playing Mp3s, an generic all-in-one device might support this, but say, with only 32MB and mp3 only support, when for the price of the entire device, i might be able to buy an iRiver.
In the end, this product won't really sell because it has no singular attractive feature. If a user falls in love with the part of the device that does function X, s/he'll likely get a device decicated and much better at X.
Er.. What modern physics? Classical mechanics? Been around for a long long time (hundred of years... Newton anyone?). Don't tell me CS has been around that long. If you mean quantum theory, which is what most people mean by modern physics, it hasn't even been completely developed yet. In fact, development had barely started.
First of all, this new rule isn't "share whatever research America has"... Its only to share PUBLICLY FUNDED research to the same American people who paid tax money for the research. Sure, if there were an international body that every person in the world paid to (not necesarily evenly, or at all, a la the progressive tax system in the US), then it would be great to have a mandate saying all research funded by that foundation must be available for all.
Secondly, most scientists working in research (not for corporations) already share much of what they have with the world. The question at hand now is whether these scientists must publish their article for free rather than in some journal. You may say some countries are poor, but none of them are so poor that they can't afford subscriptions to these journals...
So when do the cease and desists start coming in? The post-IPO google isn't the type of google that would be happy with this kind of thing. (And if you say there are no post IPO pages, just take a look at the recent furor over parodies, and just a couple of days ago, I noticed an image ad for Picasa (TM) on google image search.)
While most of you are complaining that this service sucks, and would allow of illegal activity, let me make the mandatory "if this is criminalized, only criminals will have it" arguement.
This type of caller-ID spoofing is already available WITHOUT this company. I have seem friends use a caller ID spoof, I have seem demonstrations "proving" that it works, and I know the methodology to get a spoof for free. So those who really want to spoof caller-ids can very easily do it. (Technically, what I've seen is ANI spoofing, which is even one more level deeper than plain old caller-id spoofing) Therefore, banning this service WON'T stop the real ambitious criminals who may depend on this to fish out hundred-thousand dollar bank accounts.
Rather, what it would stop are ordinary people from using this in pranks and the like. Of course some criminals could use it, but then again, the really serious criminals can already do it (see above). What hanning this service would also do is prevent people, and thus legislators from realizing this problem, and making a solution to it.
It seems that as of late, "leaks" have been good publicity for companies. Could it have been an apple authorized leak? Has apple done anything like this in the past?
Bah!
I certainly have prior art! I've been using my human power to get to the Internet during power outages, as to prevent my Internet withdrawal syndrome from coming up.
I'm interesting in HOW he's able to do this. I mean, is it a clause that SOLELY allows political spam, or is he exploiting a loophole, as a previous poster pointed out, about pre-existing business relationships.
If the former is true, then its very amusing how these politicans make "backdoors" for themselves in law.
Alright, one of the criteria that a piece of software needs to meet according to this is that the software needs to get most of its revenue from the piracy use of the software. What if this is FREE software and there is no commerical revenue, like bittorrent.
How about we take it a step further, and unlike bittorrent, we have a piece of free software whose authors made with the purpose of piracy, what is to be done about that?
The way I see it, this bill won't satisfy those in Hollywood for the above loopholes. So all the software used for de facto pirating will be non-commericial, how does Hollywood benefit much from this. Looks like they'll still want to draft some other legislation.
For those who actually read the article, it was stated that Microsoft, when it was in the standards union, was pushing for standards that would benefit them (not open Gnu/GPL standards). With Microsoft out of the consortium, they'll have less influence on the standards that the world decides to make, and in the end, lose say in standards that may become very popular.
Even better would be if MS made their own propreitary objects to compete with the UN standards, and LOSE (a la IPX and Novell). Because now not only do they lose say in something that's popular, they also wasted time on their own protocol that nobody uses.
I did, but did I say 20 minutes for everyone? Probably not. The fact that I've had 14 flights shows that unless someone in the airline industry really likes me (probably not the case), or the short delay i encounter each of the 14 times ARE NOT isolated incidents.
The key step here is damage control. Sure, I'm certain they're happy that America is putting all these security restrictions in place, but I'm also certain that the terrorists would be even happier to kill a few more thousand people and destroy a few more buildings.
Yes, they were indeed very successful, but the USA government is helping keep that success to only one.
American citizens miserable? I'm an average flyer, and I haven't had too much hassel with the security measures. Yea, so I have to bring an ID, and occasionally take off my shoes, but I can tell you that this never amounted to more than 20 minutes of time on the 14 flights I have been on this summer. I'm certainly not miserable, and I don't see how the majority of American citizens are miserable either because of these few extra checks either.
The caculation of GNP assumes the fact that the 1st platinum piece sold (converted) to USD has the same worth as the 100 millionth, which is clearly an unsafe assumption for the report to make about a currency of an online game, even though this fact is usually taken for granted about real currencies.
In online games, people tend to not want to sell their in-game pieces just because they spent so much time earning them, inflating the real value of the platinum pieces. For example, if I were to value a ring I don't have so much that I would not sell it for a trillion dollars, that doesn't mean that if I were given the ring, my GNP would be greater than a few countries'.
If you look through the results, it seems that most webpages just took a template of some business, product, or organization and just changed all the keywords to Nigritude and Ultramarine, the two desired.
This gave me the idea to make my own Nigritude Ultramarine contest site, which basically took a BBC article about a spacecraft getting photos of a Saturn moon, and changed everything into the two keywords desired.
How much information can they REALLY gather from flying overhead? I assume that those planes travel as speeds > 85mph. Given the range of most APs, and the altitude of the plane, wouldn't they only be in range for a couple of seconds?
Actually, the earliest pencils WERE made from lead, until graphite was found to be a much better substititute. I wouldn't nitpick, but I think the above nitpicking gives me more than ample justification =).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead
Not only do we have to worry about how much gold/heavy metals will be left in the plant, a much more important question is how this material will be extracted. I assume that to get rid of all the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen that make up most of the plant, they would burn or heat the plant in some way, which could posssily contribute to pollution (since the Nitrogen containing compounds don't necesarily always go into Nitrogen gas). Also, since the plant is basically contaiminated with heavy metals, it really has no other side use, and so its only purpose will be for this mineral extraction. Is this profitable or feasible?
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me for questioning "FDA data", but for an average 100kg male, that'd imply that the radiation given off by a cell phone would be in excess of 100 Watts. Now lets just assume 100 watts (we'll underestimate). I can talk on my cell phone for more than 3 hours (a lot more, but i've actually done 3 so i know its the lower bound) without running out of batteries. 100 Watts / 5 volts = 20 Amps => 60Amp-hours. Last time I checked, the approx 5 mm x 30 mm x 20 mm battery on my cell phone was .9Amp-hours.
To be more specific, what I'm saying is that you're misquoting FDA data, or that can't be the real amount. By a quick calculation, it can't even be the amount of enviromental cell phone radiation (hint, use inverse square law and propagation losses).
Replace IE like Firefox??? That is only because firefox can basically do all the things IE can (visit all the web pages, same functionality (even more some may argue)). This OS doesn't seem to have that leverage over Windows, and as long as Redmond can keep on putting out software that is mostly self-compatible only and get most of the population addicted to it, there isn't too much chance of this os replacing windows like firefox did to IE.
The real difference is the government controlling it. For NK, it is the whim of one man to launch a nuke. Is it rational for a self-preserving being to want to lauch a nuke? No, because of mutually assured destruction. But for someone irrational, this may be very possible. If Mexico and Canada had them, I'm certain that congress/parliment and whatever other democratic party that are they wouldn't want to launch a nuke, becuase the tens/hundreds of members in it understand that if they launch a nuke, they'd probably die. Even in China, which is ruled by an oligarcy, it is very likely that not all of those few very powerful people in the government would want to do something like that.
The problem with these all-in-one devices is that the ALWAYs, ALWAYs end up doing everything horribly. Since most people use handheld devices to do one or two major things, an all-in-one device doesn't make sense at all. For example, if I were into playing Mp3s, an generic all-in-one device might support this, but say, with only 32MB and mp3 only support, when for the price of the entire device, i might be able to buy an iRiver. In the end, this product won't really sell because it has no singular attractive feature. If a user falls in love with the part of the device that does function X, s/he'll likely get a device decicated and much better at X.
Er.. What modern physics? Classical mechanics? Been around for a long long time (hundred of years... Newton anyone?). Don't tell me CS has been around that long. If you mean quantum theory, which is what most people mean by modern physics, it hasn't even been completely developed yet. In fact, development had barely started.
First of all, this new rule isn't "share whatever research America has"... Its only to share PUBLICLY FUNDED research to the same American people who paid tax money for the research. Sure, if there were an international body that every person in the world paid to (not necesarily evenly, or at all, a la the progressive tax system in the US), then it would be great to have a mandate saying all research funded by that foundation must be available for all. Secondly, most scientists working in research (not for corporations) already share much of what they have with the world. The question at hand now is whether these scientists must publish their article for free rather than in some journal. You may say some countries are poor, but none of them are so poor that they can't afford subscriptions to these journals...
So when do the cease and desists start coming in?
The post-IPO google isn't the type of google that would be happy with this kind of thing. (And if you say there are no post IPO pages, just take a look at the recent furor over parodies, and just a couple of days ago, I noticed an image ad for Picasa (TM) on google image search.)
While most of you are complaining that this service sucks, and would allow of illegal activity, let me make the mandatory "if this is criminalized, only criminals will have it" arguement.
This type of caller-ID spoofing is already available WITHOUT this company. I have seem friends use a caller ID spoof, I have seem demonstrations "proving" that it works, and I know the methodology to get a spoof for free. So those who really want to spoof caller-ids can very easily do it. (Technically, what I've seen is ANI spoofing, which is even one more level deeper than plain old caller-id spoofing) Therefore, banning this service WON'T stop the real ambitious criminals who may depend on this to fish out hundred-thousand dollar bank accounts.
Rather, what it would stop are ordinary people from using this in pranks and the like. Of course some criminals could use it, but then again, the really serious criminals can already do it (see above). What hanning this service would also do is prevent people, and thus legislators from realizing this problem, and making a solution to it.
It seems that as of late, "leaks" have been good publicity for companies. Could it have been an apple authorized leak? Has apple done anything like this in the past?
Bah! I certainly have prior art! I've been using my human power to get to the Internet during power outages, as to prevent my Internet withdrawal syndrome from coming up.
I'm interesting in HOW he's able to do this. I mean, is it a clause that SOLELY allows political spam, or is he exploiting a loophole, as a previous poster pointed out, about pre-existing business relationships. If the former is true, then its very amusing how these politicans make "backdoors" for themselves in law.
Alright, one of the criteria that a piece of software needs to meet according to this is that the software needs to get most of its revenue from the piracy use of the software. What if this is FREE software and there is no commerical revenue, like bittorrent.
How about we take it a step further, and unlike bittorrent, we have a piece of free software whose authors made with the purpose of piracy, what is to be done about that?
The way I see it, this bill won't satisfy those in Hollywood for the above loopholes. So all the software used for de facto pirating will be non-commericial, how does Hollywood benefit much from this. Looks like they'll still want to draft some other legislation.
For those who actually read the article, it was stated that Microsoft, when it was in the standards union, was pushing for standards that would benefit them (not open Gnu/GPL standards). With Microsoft out of the consortium, they'll have less influence on the standards that the world decides to make, and in the end, lose say in standards that may become very popular.
Even better would be if MS made their own propreitary objects to compete with the UN standards, and LOSE (a la IPX and Novell). Because now not only do they lose say in something that's popular, they also wasted time on their own protocol that nobody uses.
I did, but did I say 20 minutes for everyone? Probably not. The fact that I've had 14 flights shows that unless someone in the airline industry really likes me (probably not the case), or the short delay i encounter each of the 14 times ARE NOT isolated incidents.
The key step here is damage control. Sure, I'm certain they're happy that America is putting all these security restrictions in place, but I'm also certain that the terrorists would be even happier to kill a few more thousand people and destroy a few more buildings.
Yes, they were indeed very successful, but the USA government is helping keep that success to only one.
American citizens miserable? I'm an average flyer, and I haven't had too much hassel with the security measures. Yea, so I have to bring an ID, and occasionally take off my shoes, but I can tell you that this never amounted to more than 20 minutes of time on the 14 flights I have been on this summer. I'm certainly not miserable, and I don't see how the majority of American citizens are miserable either because of these few extra checks either.
The caculation of GNP assumes the fact that the 1st platinum piece sold (converted) to USD has the same worth as the 100 millionth, which is clearly an unsafe assumption for the report to make about a currency of an online game, even though this fact is usually taken for granted about real currencies.
In online games, people tend to not want to sell their in-game pieces just because they spent so much time earning them, inflating the real value of the platinum pieces. For example, if I were to value a ring I don't have so much that I would not sell it for a trillion dollars, that doesn't mean that if I were given the ring, my GNP would be greater than a few countries'.
If you look through the results, it seems that most webpages just took a template of some business, product, or organization and just changed all the keywords to Nigritude and Ultramarine, the two desired.
This gave me the idea to make my own Nigritude Ultramarine contest site, which basically took a BBC article about a spacecraft getting photos of a Saturn moon, and changed everything into the two keywords desired.
How much information can they REALLY gather from flying overhead? I assume that those planes travel as speeds > 85mph. Given the range of most APs, and the altitude of the plane, wouldn't they only be in range for a couple of seconds?
Actually, the earliest pencils WERE made from lead, until graphite was found to be a much better substititute. I wouldn't nitpick, but I think the above nitpicking gives me more than ample justification =). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead
Not only do we have to worry about how much gold/heavy metals will be left in the plant, a much more important question is how this material will be extracted. I assume that to get rid of all the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen that make up most of the plant, they would burn or heat the plant in some way, which could posssily contribute to pollution (since the Nitrogen containing compounds don't necesarily always go into Nitrogen gas). Also, since the plant is basically contaiminated with heavy metals, it really has no other side use, and so its only purpose will be for this mineral extraction. Is this profitable or feasible?