The police station was "under-siege" (in reality just some protesters and vandals in front of it) for something totally unrelated to the phone (if it is not related to the news, why post it?). And why in the world is relevant that the Apple investigator is now dead? Maybe are they suggesting that Steve Jobs killed him to cover something?
Future posts I suggest to the/. editors
Bloody dictator X uses a Windows 8 tablet.
Research discovers that Nazi Germany used phones invented in the USA.
Patient Awakens From Comma in Hospital located 2000 KM away from RMS home
If China falls then they will sell all of the bonds that they bought to the "rich" countries, and rich countries will have a very difficult time finding funds.
But, IIRC, you are NOT going to vote for the president.
You are going to vote to decide for which presidential candidate your state is going to vote (I think it is called "electoral college".
Unless there is one of such votes in that electoral college, then you can use a proportional system without much problem (of course, there is always a little issue with rounding, but that is unavoidable). Or, alternatively, just elect the president by popular vote.
I see what you're saying, but look how easily you can maim yourself with any power-tool - just touch the blade while it's running.
But there is a limitation in range. Unless you actively go to your neighboor who is in front of his home and actively touch him with the tool, it is very difficult for you to harm him. But with a laser that potent you can easily harm him without moving.
Or a car: just turn the wheel 15 degrees in either direction into oncoming traffic.
I don't know about USA laws but I think that you need a licence to operate such a dangerous machinery. And DIY vehicles are not allowed in the road unless they pass a complete inspection and get registered.
Not to forget that cars serve an useful function for a great part of the population, while the utility of 40W lasers for the common user seems marginal, at best (and no, saying than "in ten years it will be different" is not a reasoning).
As other posts tell, if you want X to pay you for a work, you need to convince X that such work is interesting to him. Just saying "I want to open source it" is not going to impress anybody
An option, if the product has a functionality common enough, would be the possibility of creating a base of developers (that may add some useful functionality) and users (aka as "testers").
This can be combined with a marketing or "coolness" approach so that such company can be seen as providing something for free (don't they give free pencils?).
In the tomb of a Pharaoh (I think it was Rameses II), some of the painting was about his "crushing victory" in Qadesh. Turns out the "crushing victory" consisted in avoiding being crushed himself.
As long as there is a way to transmit information, there is a way of lying. News at 11.
Only one of those 3 propositions is correct :
* infinite growth is possible is a finite world
* economics is a science
* Duke Nukem Forever has been released
Note: I do not condone slavery or appartheid as a form of politics, but it is just a theory for the results
Maybe what the researchers have found (given the history of humanity) is that in a country with several ethnics groups you can have a ruling elite that concentrates capital and act as a whole to keep their privileges, and an oppressed, cheap workforce without rights to be used as a source of "profits"
That said, anyway it probably is just a structural development; Great Britain and Germany in XIX century, and Great Britain and Japan in XX century could not have been any more homogeneous yet they did way better than said, the heterogeneous Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.
It was an insider operation. Workers of the reserve dipped inside the vats each day; when they arrived home they just had to remove from their bodies and clothes and into the vat.
I think the whole point is if our time truly is meaningless, then this action doesn't hurt. We have nothing to lose, which means there is only potential to gain.
I will follow your logic and see how it scalates: If your time is truly meaningless, you should leave your job and family, go to live to the step of a granite mountain and start carving your name (or whatever inspired words you chose); this action doesn't hurt. You have nothing to lose, which means there is only potential for you to gain.
When I see someone doing things like that (ok, not exactly that, but trying to present themselves "for posterity"; look at political leaders for clues) I know that they are not doing that for posterity, but for the fuzzy warm feeling of being so "important" that the posterity "needs their words".
I'm trying to fill in the gaps here, but I'm having some trouble understanding. How would my argument no longer be valid? Let me try from one perspective, and let me know if I got it wrong.
You stated that
we are the universe, we are the consciuous part of it
. If this satellite is useful, it means that then we would no longer be alive, not to say conscious. It is like buying a bumper sticker that you can only put when your car is in the junk yard.
Let's say we all die. Does that make our existence any less meaningful? Possibly.
In the event, I won't care about the futility of existence because I will be dead. And, as I do know now that I won't care then, I don't care now. That does not mean that I would like to die now.
Also, who told you existence has(or has to have) a meaning (other than itself)?
I guess some people would say yes, and others would say no. I don't think there's a decisive way to prove one or the other wrong. I'd like to think there are two ways to think about life--either everything's futile or some things are meaningful.
On the scale of planets and galaxies, I existed for a short time--hardly any time at all. But I experienced it. These things did not. And even though I'll fade, and they'll stay for another couple billions years, I'd rather have known than not known at all. But each to his own.
That is not the issue being discussed. What the GGGP said (and I agreed) that the project is just an (expensive) form of a "I was here" graffitti... and has the same uses ("hey, surely people who walks by this wall in the future will be VERY interested to know that I was here and I did a graffiti here"). And at least you can meet the graffiter in person someday, but this satellite is thought to be found when nobody is here to be met.
no animals / pets (inter-species friendship for example)
What is that you want, the alien version of goatse?
Anyway, more seriously, the Armstrong / Aldrin photo in the moon is a good idea, but the "state of the art technology" will become obsolete and meaningless to ourselves in perhaps half a generation, that is a bad example.
But the utility of that contraption kicks in only after we are no more, so your argument will no longer be valid.
So I agree with the GP. Also, I find depressing that some people are counting on the extinction of mankind, and are more worried about the time after that and some hipotetical aliens (who may not even exist or come close to Sun, let alone find a piece of debris around a dead planet).
In essence, this gets to be both a silly and depressing idea. Great boooh.
Yes, because military leadership is demostrated in Photoshop compositions.
Do you think the photo was chosen/doctored by a navy assessor? Most likely, it is the job of some assistant who thought "Well, the thing under looks like the sea, so the big things on it must be ships. And they are grey and have guns, so they probably are from the military (they lack *so much* imagination when it comes to colour!). And since we won the Cold War, only we have ships, don't we".
If you want to worry about military leadership, a better issue would be the childlike bickering between officers of the different branches ("if you say that a Navy plane is an Air Force plane they won't hear to you, even if it is not related to the argument!")
The GP didn't say that the government assumes the people who signed the petition is gay, he said that the government (or the minister) thinks that the people that signed the petition worrying about a gay immigrant may be interested in the rights of gay immigrants. I think this is a logic process (except for those who signed because they were relatives/friends/admirer of that particular person, and would not care for any other gay immigrant).
The logic for "anyone who promotes legalization of drugs is a drug user" is a far more twisted. It involves making assumptions (like that only "current drug users" would support such a law).
Also, the government didn't compile anything. Probably an association requested the people to sign in and it was that association who did compile the list and gave it to the government. The government just used it.
The only concern about this issue is the government used data available only to them (that is, that no other political party had access to) and public means to publicite their gestion only for electoral reasons(instead of having the government run the country and the party prepare the elections). But that seems the usual conduct everywhere, so it is less of a news.
As much damage as it supported, in the end it was a ship with almost 3000 people onboard that took years to build, sunk by probably less than one hundred people on planes that took a few months to build.
Upgrade a battleship with modern anti aircraft systems and a single IOWA class battleship would utterly destroy most nations entire navy fleet before it was taken down. Unless Japan brings back the Yamato, that one was HUGE with 46cm guns that was basically shooting a school bus full of explosives at the enemy.
I see a problem with that... to fight the Iowa we would need to call in the Yamato... but to do that, we would need to recover it from the bottom of the ocean... and it was put there by a bunch of vintage aircraft...
Your words make little sense to me. Of course you talk about upgraded AA systems, but thinking that there are "perfect" systems that make something invulnerable is like thinking that I may beat a marathon runner just by deciding to not slow my pace.
But it is "all or nothing" intimidation, and that has a lot of disvantages.
If you say "obey my order X or I fire" then either:
1: They obey you, you get your short place objetive but appear as the international mad man. Also, as it is easy, you will surely step your demands leading to option 2
2: they don't obey you, you have either to back off or kill thousands of people (at the minimum) to make your point. Even if your opponent has no nuclear deterrence itself, the very fact of appearing to the world as someone capable of launching a nuclear first strike will aim a lot of missiles at you.
So, the MAD is effective to ensure that your enemy does not attempt to destroy you, but for subtler situations it is not so useful. Think how the USA and the URSS still fought a lot of proxy wars even with their nuclear arsenals. In that sense, an aircraft carrier is way more flexible.
Remember that war is a continuation of politics, not the other way around...
I stopped reading when he suggested that current air carriers could be destroyed by "a swarm of iranians flying Cessnas" (I didn't know Iranians had that many Cessnas) or with a German V2 (yes, really). That guy is a joke, and presents any information as if he had a personal issues with aircraft carriers (maybe one of them ran over his mother?)
I guess that a (modified version of) SMART-L radar could do this job. Don't understand why 6 milion Euro is needed for building a demonstrator.
Have you read your own link? It says it can track an aircraft at 480 km. Now, assuming that just area is the only concern (and that radar waves are not altered when crossing the ionosphere), an space object with an area of 0.25m^2 (which can easily destroy a rocket/satellite) would be undetectable at just 100km. And that is just the lower limit of "space", and assumes that the radar is vertically under the object.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is quite a mark for /.
The police station was "under-siege" (in reality just some protesters and vandals in front of it) for something totally unrelated to the phone (if it is not related to the news, why post it?). And why in the world is relevant that the Apple investigator is now dead? Maybe are they suggesting that Steve Jobs killed him to cover something?
Future posts I suggest to the /. editors
Where is the "Delete my account" button?
If China falls then they will sell all of the bonds that they bought to the "rich" countries, and rich countries will have a very difficult time finding funds.
But, IIRC, you are NOT going to vote for the president.
You are going to vote to decide for which presidential candidate your state is going to vote (I think it is called "electoral college".
Unless there is one of such votes in that electoral college, then you can use a proportional system without much problem (of course, there is always a little issue with rounding, but that is unavoidable). Or, alternatively, just elect the president by popular vote.
Or in the USA
You are right!
To begin with, they don't speak English! And adding to that, they do not use dollars as their currency!
I see what you're saying, but look how easily you can maim yourself with any power-tool - just touch the blade while it's running.
But there is a limitation in range. Unless you actively go to your neighboor who is in front of his home and actively touch him with the tool, it is very difficult for you to harm him. But with a laser that potent you can easily harm him without moving.
Or a car: just turn the wheel 15 degrees in either direction into oncoming traffic.
I don't know about USA laws but I think that you need a licence to operate such a dangerous machinery. And DIY vehicles are not allowed in the road unless they pass a complete inspection and get registered.
Not to forget that cars serve an useful function for a great part of the population, while the utility of 40W lasers for the common user seems marginal, at best (and no, saying than "in ten years it will be different" is not a reasoning).
Could you pick some better analogies, please?
As other posts tell, if you want X to pay you for a work, you need to convince X that such work is interesting to him. Just saying "I want to open source it" is not going to impress anybody
An option, if the product has a functionality common enough, would be the possibility of creating a base of developers (that may add some useful functionality) and users (aka as "testers").
This can be combined with a marketing or "coolness" approach so that such company can be seen as providing something for free (don't they give free pencils?).
Photographers? Talk about painters.
In the tomb of a Pharaoh (I think it was Rameses II), some of the painting was about his "crushing victory" in Qadesh. Turns out the "crushing victory" consisted in avoiding being crushed himself.
As long as there is a way to transmit information, there is a way of lying. News at 11.
Its actually Practical Existence with Recursion Language. -- Your God
That would explain why, when someone claims that he can read the program and can predict the future, the more sensible people laugh at them.
Only one of those 3 propositions is correct : * infinite growth is possible is a finite world * economics is a science * Duke Nukem Forever has been released
I had no idea DNF had been released!
Note: I do not condone slavery or appartheid as a form of politics, but it is just a theory for the results
Maybe what the researchers have found (given the history of humanity) is that in a country with several ethnics groups you can have a ruling elite that concentrates capital and act as a whole to keep their privileges, and an oppressed, cheap workforce without rights to be used as a source of "profits"
That said, anyway it probably is just a structural development; Great Britain and Germany in XIX century, and Great Britain and Japan in XX century could not have been any more homogeneous yet they did way better than said, the heterogeneous Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.
My bet? They profited from the syrup properties.
It was an insider operation. Workers of the reserve dipped inside the vats each day; when they arrived home they just had to remove from their bodies and clothes and into the vat.
I think the whole point is if our time truly is meaningless, then this action doesn't hurt. We have nothing to lose, which means there is only potential to gain.
I will follow your logic and see how it scalates: If your time is truly meaningless, you should leave your job and family, go to live to the step of a granite mountain and start carving your name (or whatever inspired words you chose); this action doesn't hurt. You have nothing to lose, which means there is only potential for you to gain.
When I see someone doing things like that (ok, not exactly that, but trying to present themselves "for posterity"; look at political leaders for clues) I know that they are not doing that for posterity, but for the fuzzy warm feeling of being so "important" that the posterity "needs their words".
I'm trying to fill in the gaps here, but I'm having some trouble understanding. How would my argument no longer be valid? Let me try from one perspective, and let me know if I got it wrong.
You stated that
we are the universe, we are the consciuous part of it
. If this satellite is useful, it means that then we would no longer be alive, not to say conscious. It is like buying a bumper sticker that you can only put when your car is in the junk yard.
Let's say we all die. Does that make our existence any less meaningful? Possibly.
In the event, I won't care about the futility of existence because I will be dead. And, as I do know now that I won't care then, I don't care now. That does not mean that I would like to die now.
Also, who told you existence has(or has to have) a meaning (other than itself)?
I guess some people would say yes, and others would say no. I don't think there's a decisive way to prove one or the other wrong. I'd like to think there are two ways to think about life--either everything's futile or some things are meaningful.
On the scale of planets and galaxies, I existed for a short time--hardly any time at all. But I experienced it. These things did not. And even though I'll fade, and they'll stay for another couple billions years, I'd rather have known than not known at all. But each to his own.
That is not the issue being discussed. What the GGGP said (and I agreed) that the project is just an (expensive) form of a "I was here" graffitti... and has the same uses ("hey, surely people who walks by this wall in the future will be VERY interested to know that I was here and I did a graffiti here"). And at least you can meet the graffiter in person someday, but this satellite is thought to be found when nobody is here to be met.
no animals / pets (inter-species friendship for example)
What is that you want, the alien version of goatse?
Anyway, more seriously, the Armstrong / Aldrin photo in the moon is a good idea, but the "state of the art technology" will become obsolete and meaningless to ourselves in perhaps half a generation, that is a bad example.
But the utility of that contraption kicks in only after we are no more, so your argument will no longer be valid.
So I agree with the GP. Also, I find depressing that some people are counting on the extinction of mankind, and are more worried about the time after that and some hipotetical aliens (who may not even exist or come close to Sun, let alone find a piece of debris around a dead planet).
In essence, this gets to be both a silly and depressing idea. Great boooh.
Yes, because military leadership is demostrated in Photoshop compositions.
Do you think the photo was chosen/doctored by a navy assessor? Most likely, it is the job of some assistant who thought "Well, the thing under looks like the sea, so the big things on it must be ships. And they are grey and have guns, so they probably are from the military (they lack *so much* imagination when it comes to colour!). And since we won the Cold War, only we have ships, don't we".
If you want to worry about military leadership, a better issue would be the childlike bickering between officers of the different branches ("if you say that a Navy plane is an Air Force plane they won't hear to you, even if it is not related to the argument!")
You are confusing terms.
The GP didn't say that the government assumes the people who signed the petition is gay, he said that the government (or the minister) thinks that the people that signed the petition worrying about a gay immigrant may be interested in the rights of gay immigrants. I think this is a logic process (except for those who signed because they were relatives/friends/admirer of that particular person, and would not care for any other gay immigrant).
The logic for "anyone who promotes legalization of drugs is a drug user" is a far more twisted. It involves making assumptions (like that only "current drug users" would support such a law).
Also, the government didn't compile anything. Probably an association requested the people to sign in and it was that association who did compile the list and gave it to the government. The government just used it.
The only concern about this issue is the government used data available only to them (that is, that no other political party had access to) and public means to publicite their gestion only for electoral reasons(instead of having the government run the country and the party prepare the elections). But that seems the usual conduct everywhere, so it is less of a news.
And a few days after you put the changes in production and nothing has burned, make it a tag.
Better yet, make it a tag before putting changes in production (TAGbeta) and a few days later (TAGrelease). Tags are cheap.
As much damage as it supported, in the end it was a ship with almost 3000 people onboard that took years to build, sunk by probably less than one hundred people on planes that took a few months to build.
Upgrade a battleship with modern anti aircraft systems and a single IOWA class battleship would utterly destroy most nations entire navy fleet before it was taken down. Unless Japan brings back the Yamato, that one was HUGE with 46cm guns that was basically shooting a school bus full of explosives at the enemy.
I see a problem with that... to fight the Iowa we would need to call in the Yamato... but to do that, we would need to recover it from the bottom of the ocean... and it was put there by a bunch of vintage aircraft...
Your words make little sense to me. Of course you talk about upgraded AA systems, but thinking that there are "perfect" systems that make something invulnerable is like thinking that I may beat a marathon runner just by deciding to not slow my pace.
But it is "all or nothing" intimidation, and that has a lot of disvantages.
If you say "obey my order X or I fire" then either:
1: They obey you, you get your short place objetive but appear as the international mad man. Also, as it is easy, you will surely step your demands leading to option 2
2: they don't obey you, you have either to back off or kill thousands of people (at the minimum) to make your point. Even if your opponent has no nuclear deterrence itself, the very fact of appearing to the world as someone capable of launching a nuclear first strike will aim a lot of missiles at you.
So, the MAD is effective to ensure that your enemy does not attempt to destroy you, but for subtler situations it is not so useful. Think how the USA and the URSS still fought a lot of proxy wars even with their nuclear arsenals. In that sense, an aircraft carrier is way more flexible.
Remember that war is a continuation of politics, not the other way around...
I stopped reading when he suggested that current air carriers could be destroyed by "a swarm of iranians flying Cessnas" (I didn't know Iranians had that many Cessnas) or with a German V2 (yes, really). That guy is a joke, and presents any information as if he had a personal issues with aircraft carriers (maybe one of them ran over his mother?)
Don't forget the ceiling falling on the head of that guy that was dumb enough to go to work wearing a red sweater.
I guess that a (modified version of) SMART-L radar could do this job. Don't understand why 6 milion Euro is needed for building a demonstrator.
Have you read your own link? It says it can track an aircraft at 480 km. Now, assuming that just area is the only concern (and that radar waves are not altered when crossing the ionosphere), an space object with an area of 0.25m^2 (which can easily destroy a rocket/satellite) would be undetectable at just 100km. And that is just the lower limit of "space", and assumes that the radar is vertically under the object.