No, it's not. Propaganda, as such, especially military propaganda, is fairly modern. Ancient/classical militaries didn't depend much on popular support. There was political grandstanding, sure, but that's very different.
I guess you never studied ancient history. Here's one example of an academic who disagrees with you. Personally I considered Pericles' Funeral Oration pretty full of propaganda.
If memory serves me correctly it was a fairly major issue during Hannibal's Italy campaign as well as the Pyrrhic War.
Danish physicist Valdemar Poulsen took Duddell's audio oscillator and, by placing the arc in a transverse magnetic field, and in a hydrogen atmosphere (and somehow not getting blown up in the process), moved the frequency of oscillation up into the low radio range, around 500 kHz or so. This was the arc radio transmitter. It differed from the more common spark transmitter in that the arc's output oscillation was continuous, while that of the spark transmitter was a damped (decaying) oscillation.
I learned something on Slashdot, my day is done.
(I'm a software geek, so my electronics only had to go as far as a wheatstone bridge. Which is kind of embarrassing when you consider that my grandfather was an electrical engineer, I'll bet he could have whipped up an arc transmitter for fun.)
. ..and considering that "Pallywood" setups of faked massacres, or at least showing much larger events than actually happened are well documented in the recent past (google "Green Helmet Guy" or "White Coat Guy". ..), the claims of a chemwar massacre just after an observer team arrives, requires special scrutiny.
Not saying it DIDN'T happen, but there's a record of activists staging sites to make things look far worse than actually happened.
The classic example is a single older Palestinian woman, claiming her house was destroyed by Israeli attacks. At three separate sites. All within the same month. ..
Flood the app store with thousands of shitty apps so no one can find the ones that are actually useful. I wonder how well that will work for them.
It's really not so different with iOS, it's just that there's hundreds of thousands of apps so even if there are hundreds of thousands of shitty apps the top 1% is very good and still represents thousands of useful apps.
This was Microsofts strategy for a long time: Developers, Developers, Developers. (Yet another thing that Apple stole?)
Between OS-X, IOS and Android, this discussion is more than a little comical.
Not really, the article is quite specifically talking about Unix. Linux and iOS and OSX are not Unix. Much in the same way that Volkswagen does not makes (horse-drawn) wagons.
That's not even close to the truth, there are still thousands of Americans doing development and support in the United States, the Littleton, Austin, Beaverton and Raleigh labs are still going strong. There are more around the world, but the population of the united states is less than 5% of the world.
Just that being able to make fuel out of crops wouldn't mean that petroleum would stop being used in fertilizer, so that may be a small concern.
In terms of efficiency, it's insane to turn petroleum into fertilizer to grow crops to great a biofuel, you might as well just burn the damn fuel in the first place.
You don't have to worry about the CO2 emissions. One of the benefits of bio-fuel is that the carbon in the plants was taken out of the air. With bio-fuels you only add as much CO2 to the air as you take out.
Only if the means of production is also carbon neutral. Fertilizer, machinery, transportion etc.
That one guy knows a guy who knows a guy who is totally stoked about 8.1!! I hear he also owns a Kin and a turd-brown Zune. He's still longing to find someone to squirt songs with.
The great thing about CO2 emissions for plant-derived biofuels is that they won't modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Think about it for a moment: what you're doing is extracting carbon from the atmosphere, turning it into complex hydrocarbons using energy from the sun, and then burning it to release that energy. Any CO2 released was *already in the atmosphere* to begin with, so biofuels net zero greenhouse emissions (to first order at least, maybe there's some weird combustion products or whatever). Hard to get much lower than that.
Well, yes and no. Biofuel will only be carbon neutral if all the production, transportation and fertilization was done with biofuels as well. A great goal, but I don't think it's been realized anywhere yet.
And of course, that still leaves the whole fuel vs. food issue open. Now if we could manage to come up a biofuel production process that includes the net fixation of atmospheric CO2 (net reduced or zero carbon footprint), with close to zero ecological impact that is not using precious agricultural land then I'd be all over it. But at the moment it's a bit of a pipe dream.
Miriam Kramer writes at Space.com that in the new movie Elysium, Earth is beyond repair, and the rich and powerful have decided to leave it behind to live in a large, rotating space station stocked with mansions, grass, trees, water and gravity.
So, Wall-E?
Or one of dozens of SF stories from the 50s, 60s or 70s, Wall-E was great art, but hardly an original theme or plot.
Totally fascinating insight, we also don't know if the Hospitallers used M-16s in 1066 because we weren't alive back then. Or you know, we have this study called history that tells us things about the past without us having been personally present.
Exactly, any student of European weaponry will tell you that they would have naturally gravitated towards the FN FAL instead of the M16.
My question: Is ground for growing food crops affected by this? If farmers all grow switchgrass/hemp/$whatever and make more money selling that for fuel, then it will spike food prices, which can cause major problems down the line (people can put up with a lot of injustice, but if they are starving, all bets are off.)
Ethically, I can't support a fuel that takes food out of people's mouths, even though ethanol has a number of decent advantages.
There are three major areas of concern here, food vs. fuel, CO2 emissions/footprint and the ecological cost of production.
In my opinion CO2 emissions is the elephant in the room for biofuels. Extensive production and consumption of biofuels may ween us off fossil fuels but it does nothing to address just how stupid it is for us to be modifying the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Note that the process of biofuel production does not exist in a vacuum, like any other agricultural activity it has a direct ecological impact furthermore the vast majority of current agricultural practice involves burning fuels (tractors and other farm equipment) and the use of inorganic commercial fertilizer which also has a wide variety of impacts such as the seepage of phosphates in runoff leading to downstream agae blooms.
IMHO, the development of biofuels is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. While other alternative power sources are less efficient, more costly or less power dense the vast majority of systems that are currently in production, (wind, water, solar) are both profitable and significantly better for the environment.
So you mean to tell me all those people in the passing lane, who are driving significantly slower than the speed limit, weaving from side to side within their lane, and have their head tilted over, looking down, with their cell phone clamped to their ear are safe drivers?????
This must be the same researchers that are telling the world that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact on climate.
Remember in the 70's when the tobacco companies trotted out expert after expert to tell us that smoking was safe?
Slashdot Mirror
And let's not forget the Crusades... the Christians would never have fielded that many armies for so long without some serious propaganda...
War propaganda is as old as war itself.
No, it's not. Propaganda, as such, especially military propaganda, is fairly modern. Ancient/classical militaries didn't depend much on popular support. There was political grandstanding, sure, but that's very different.
I guess you never studied ancient history. Here's one example of an academic who disagrees with you. Personally I considered Pericles' Funeral Oration pretty full of propaganda.
If memory serves me correctly it was a fairly major issue during Hannibal's Italy campaign as well as the Pyrrhic War.
How about the hundred years war?
Or did I misunderstand your meaning of modern?
Also I think they had to be made by hand, from Germanium, which made them expensive and unstable.
#import <std_ex_wife_joke>
Danish physicist Valdemar Poulsen took Duddell's audio oscillator and, by placing the arc in a transverse magnetic field, and in a hydrogen atmosphere (and somehow not getting blown up in the process), moved the frequency of oscillation up into the low radio range, around 500 kHz or so. This was the arc radio transmitter. It differed from the more common spark transmitter in that the arc's output oscillation was continuous, while that of the spark transmitter was a damped (decaying) oscillation.
I learned something on Slashdot, my day is done.
(I'm a software geek, so my electronics only had to go as far as a wheatstone bridge. Which is kind of embarrassing when you consider that my grandfather was an electrical engineer, I'll bet he could have whipped up an arc transmitter for fun.)
. . .and considering that "Pallywood" setups of faked massacres, or at least showing much larger events than actually happened are well documented in the recent past (google "Green Helmet Guy" or "White Coat Guy". . .), the claims of a chemwar massacre just after an observer team arrives, requires special scrutiny.
Not saying it DIDN'T happen, but there's a record of activists staging sites to make things look far worse than actually happened.
The classic example is a single older Palestinian woman, claiming her house was destroyed by Israeli attacks. At three separate sites. All within the same month. . .
War propaganda is as old as war itself.
Flood the app store with thousands of shitty apps so no one can find the ones that are actually useful. I wonder how well that will work for them.
It's really not so different with iOS, it's just that there's hundreds of thousands of apps so even if there are hundreds of thousands of shitty apps the top 1% is very good and still represents thousands of useful apps.
This was Microsofts strategy for a long time: Developers, Developers, Developers. (Yet another thing that Apple stole?)
Not really, the article is quite specifically talking about Unix. Linux and iOS and OSX are not Unix.
Mac OS X is UNIX. iOS and Linux are not.
The micro-kernel is not unix and the userland came from Unix.
It is unix-like, it is not unix.
Between OS-X, IOS and Android, this discussion is more than a little comical.
Not really, the article is quite specifically talking about Unix. Linux and iOS and OSX are not Unix. Much in the same way that Volkswagen does not makes (horse-drawn) wagons.
So, you're from Montreal and think you're cool?
That does sound like the attitude of someone from Montreal... carry on.
Sounds like someone needs a hug, the good news is that in Montreal money CAN buy you love.
Educated in Canada, French Canadian wife, work in Canada for American companies.
All I need is a Swedish mistress to round it out.
laying off all the non-Sales positions
That's not even close to the truth, there are still thousands of Americans doing development and support in the United States, the Littleton, Austin, Beaverton and Raleigh labs are still going strong. There are more around the world, but the population of the united states is less than 5% of the world.
Maybe the wood worms just spread out and find new wood to eat on an annual cycle, or are just really slow to find new wood.
Where would this wood come from? The tropical rainforests of Antarctica?
Shhh.... everyone will want one.
Big hair, pasty make-up, loud ties and announcer voices which grab your attention and slap you around a bit, no matter how banal the news item.
Perhaps growing up with the BBC and the CBC has biased me but that sounds like American journalism to me.
Just that being able to make fuel out of crops wouldn't mean that petroleum would stop being used in fertilizer, so that may be a small concern.
In terms of efficiency, it's insane to turn petroleum into fertilizer to grow crops to great a biofuel, you might as well just burn the damn fuel in the first place.
You don't have to worry about the CO2 emissions. One of the benefits of bio-fuel is that the carbon in the plants was taken out of the air. With bio-fuels you only add as much CO2 to the air as you take out.
Only if the means of production is also carbon neutral. Fertilizer, machinery, transportion etc.
That one guy knows a guy who knows a guy who is totally stoked about 8.1!! I hear he also owns a Kin and a turd-brown Zune. He's still longing to find someone to squirt songs with.
Pervy Zune fancier!
The original part of Wall-E was the non-human, almost entirely non-speaking POV. That's pretty rare in both Hollywood and literary sci-fi.
It's been done, so not original, but yes rare and very effective.
The great thing about CO2 emissions for plant-derived biofuels is that they won't modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Think about it for a moment: what you're doing is extracting carbon from the atmosphere, turning it into complex hydrocarbons using energy from the sun, and then burning it to release that energy. Any CO2 released was *already in the atmosphere* to begin with, so biofuels net zero greenhouse emissions (to first order at least, maybe there's some weird combustion products or whatever). Hard to get much lower than that.
Well, yes and no. Biofuel will only be carbon neutral if all the production, transportation and fertilization was done with biofuels as well. A great goal, but I don't think it's been realized anywhere yet.
And of course, that still leaves the whole fuel vs. food issue open. Now if we could manage to come up a biofuel production process that includes the net fixation of atmospheric CO2 (net reduced or zero carbon footprint), with close to zero ecological impact that is not using precious agricultural land then I'd be all over it. But at the moment it's a bit of a pipe dream.
Miriam Kramer writes at Space.com that in the new movie Elysium, Earth is beyond repair, and the rich and powerful have decided to leave it behind to live in a large, rotating space station stocked with mansions, grass, trees, water and gravity.
So, Wall-E?
Or one of dozens of SF stories from the 50s, 60s or 70s, Wall-E was great art, but hardly an original theme or plot.
Totally fascinating insight, we also don't know if the Hospitallers used M-16s in 1066 because we weren't alive back then. Or you know, we have this study called history that tells us things about the past without us having been personally present.
Exactly, any student of European weaponry will tell you that they would have naturally gravitated towards the FN FAL instead of the M16.
My question: Is ground for growing food crops affected by this? If farmers all grow switchgrass/hemp/$whatever and make more money selling that for fuel, then it will spike food prices, which can cause major problems down the line (people can put up with a lot of injustice, but if they are starving, all bets are off.)
Ethically, I can't support a fuel that takes food out of people's mouths, even though ethanol has a number of decent advantages.
Excellent question, this is already subject to debate.
There are three major areas of concern here, food vs. fuel, CO2 emissions/footprint and the ecological cost of production.
In my opinion CO2 emissions is the elephant in the room for biofuels. Extensive production and consumption of biofuels may ween us off fossil fuels but it does nothing to address just how stupid it is for us to be modifying the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Note that the process of biofuel production does not exist in a vacuum, like any other agricultural activity it has a direct ecological impact furthermore the vast majority of current agricultural practice involves burning fuels (tractors and other farm equipment) and the use of inorganic commercial fertilizer which also has a wide variety of impacts such as the seepage of phosphates in runoff leading to downstream agae blooms.
IMHO, the development of biofuels is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. While other alternative power sources are less efficient, more costly or less power dense the vast majority of systems that are currently in production, (wind, water, solar) are both profitable and significantly better for the environment.
"Anti-american?" No, read your link. Anti-current-us-foreign-policy. So if you parse that out, it's a double-negative, anti-anti-american.
Wikipedia is being nice, he's pretty out there.
What's stranger though is the anti-jewish fruit-loop groups that oppose him... in some cases the enemy of your enemy might need medicating.
The "lying about it" link comes from a website run by an anti-american consipracy theorist who writes nonsense like this
So you mean to tell me all those people in the passing lane, who are driving significantly slower than the speed limit, weaving from side to side within their lane, and have their head tilted over, looking down, with their cell phone clamped to their ear are safe drivers?????
This must be the same researchers that are telling the world that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere has no impact on climate.
Remember in the 70's when the tobacco companies trotted out expert after expert to tell us that smoking was safe?
Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health?
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.