In other words, if you don't like the rules, leave.
So I guess all the black people in the USA back in the 1950's should have just left. The (segregation) laws discriminated against them, most of the (white) public was against them, and there was really no reason for them to stay in a democracy where most people didn't want them around, right?
Wrong. Just because the majority disagrees with you doesn't mean you're wrong. Sometimes they're just biased or being lead down the wrong path in life.
I think they did the right thing and resisted, and eventually they got the rules changed in their favor. They sure wouldn't have accomplished that if they just sat there silently and took it.
This entire story is about the act of them getting arrested for telling lawyer jokes. The reason that they were in court is completely irrelevant. You can't just base their guilt or innocence *of this charge* on an unrelated piece of information.
It doesn't matter if they were in court for jaywalking, smoking crack, killing kittens or being KKK members- their rights under our legal system do not depend on those facts and the matter of whether it was right to arrest them for telling lawyer jokes has nothing at all to do with this.
Maybe the rock did leave a crater in the sand millions of years ago, and the crater got blown away by the wind, leaving the heavy rock sitting there.
Things can sit on the surface forever there. It's not like there's anyone there to say "ooh, this is shiny!" and disturb it. That's a human thing... (although now that human scientists sent a rover to Mars, they're saying "ooh, that rock is shiny!" and disturbing it)
Re:Funny Statistic
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I do hope that less than 1/3 of the population uses marijuana, as it's illegal.
Legality is not morality.
People used to drink also. They drank before prohibition, they drank during prohibition, and they drank after prohibition. The law didn't really change much, other than the fact that the same people went from being law abiding citizens, to criminals who supported the Kaiser (the same old Communist/Terrorist enemy tactic used forever) back to law abiding citizens.
Laws such as this are mainly academic in my opinion.
As a seven year old fascinated by the new rage of computers and technology, I thought Tron for my Intellivision was awesome.
Back then it was cool to be smart. If you knew computers you were The Man.
It just isn't the same anymore after being dumbed down to the point that the clueless masses are clogging up the Internet.
I think they should make this movie realistic and reflect technology in modern times. They should stick to the plot of the first movie and re-shoot it scene for scene, but add tens of thousands of extras who do nothing but get in the way of the camera, walk around each scene and get in the actors' way. Oh, and have the motorcycle scene congested with traffic and have some of extras driving the wrong way with "AOL" emblazoned on the side of their bikes.
Thank you for speaking for EVERYBODY. I'm sure EVERYONE agrees with your view. I was afraid for a minute that you'd let other people form their own opinion.
However, not everyone has parents as intellegent as yours, nor is every child as obiedient and intellegent as you were. So we can spend a lot of time and money trying to educate children and parents, or we can pass a law making smart guns the law. Which do you thing is easier and cheaper for the government to do?
Yeah, but one of those ways helps morons clone and feed, while the other lets the problem take care of itself.
When you idiot-proof the world, nature will produce a better idiot.
A major pharmaceutical company has patented the "morse code" used by cells to communicate. Such communication codes are now registered as a proprietary protocol belonging to the company. You have no chance to survive make your time.
This is an example of political correctness stifling scientific understanding. Over the years people have been taught to despise and shoot down any stereotype, even if that stereotype has a basis in truth. Remember, not ALL stereotypes are bad or offensive.
What the original poster said is true. The brains of men and women are specialized for different functions. It has been proven numerous times that men are more optimized at visual spatial skills while women have inherent advantages in verbal and organizational skills.
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?l an guage=english&type=24119&article_id=218391881&cat= 1_1
And as far as black people having more fast twitch musle fibers, that's not entirely accurate but there is some truth behind the story. It's not all black people, but specifically people who evolved in the Western Africa region do have a higher percentage of quick twitch muscle fibers and a higher testosterone level than those elsewhere in the world. They have a distinct advantage in anaerobic performance such as sprinting, and the records over the years spell it out clearly. Don't confuse this with "all" black people, because those who evolved in Eastern Africa, notably the high altitude region between Kenya and Ethiopia have almost the complete opposite evolutionary specialization. Not surprisingly, from evolving in a high altitude region, they have a larger lung capacity and better cardiovascular system (more red blood cells) than those who evolved at lower altitudes. They excel at aerobic activities such as long distance running.
In the examples I gave above, look at the records. You have a huge pool of competitors from all over the globe yet people from a small area seem to win a *huge* proportion of events that *far* exceeds the percentage that a random group of people should win. I mean just take a look at the Boston Marathon. Kenya is not exactly the most populous country on Earth, but look at the results from the last 20 years when they started competing:
This is not a racist or sexist discussion, this is a discussion of the realities of evolution and the differences that we live with. It's not a reason to hate, it's a reason to understand.
I am not racist or sexist, I'm just not an ultra left-wing PC Nazi or an ultra right-wing Bible thumper. I'm just a regular guy who would like to throw the racism and sexism out the window and find out the *real* underlying causes, even if they are taboo to talk about. I'm firm believer in evolution and I believe that many of the differences you see in races/the sexes is due to evolving in different areas or doing different tasks.
" If that's true, then isn't having slender-waisted, large breasted women characters also marketing towards a femal fantasy? Hmmm..."
No, of course not.
They'll tell you that they don't want to look like that, and they think it's wrong to promote that stereotype. Then, they'll go off and spend thousands of dollars to get breast implants and liposuction to fulfill their secret fantasy of looking like what they just got done telling you they DIDN'T want to look like.
Bah, who needs drugs and treehouses. it should say: producing everything from novel sandwiches to seeds that sprout into cakes.":) Now thats an application!
What if a group wants to replace the goverment leaders by clones which they control? ok, maybe it would be an improvement, but it is still a problem
Doesn't sound like a problem to me.
At least in the US, we are *supposed* to have politicians that we control... with our votes. But after a couple of centuries of American citizens dumbing down, that system is now corrupt. The politicans are now able to effectively control the majority of the population with negative campaign ads.
If the best scientific minds are able to make a cloned politician that they control, I'm all for it.
I'm sick of lame presidents being voted in by idiots. I, for one, welcome a cloned politician that is controlled by minds intelligent enough to create it.
"When you have a material advance which literally materially changes the way that energy is absorbed and transmitted to our devices... somebody out there tinkering away in a bedroom or in a government lab is going to come up with a great idea for a new device that will shock us all," he said in a phone interview."
Great. Some sick geek is going to discover that you can unplug your Ipod from your solar powered shirt and put the circuitry from a Taser in its place. Then he will shock us all like an electric eel gone postal.
Not really. I forget the exact number, but IIRC as little as 20V is enough to zap a component or cause a soft failure.
Actually the other poster was correct. You have a MUCH, MUCH higher chance of zapping something in a cold, dry climate than you do in a warm, moist climate. While some circuits might get damaged by 20v as you point out, the likelihood of them getting damaged by a 2000v shock is much higher. And when you live in a colder, drier climate the chance of generating high voltage static is very high.
So his statement was correct- it does depend on your location to a large degree. It's all about probability.
It's incredibly amazing how much insight the poster of the first "Osama bin Laden" usenet post must have had back in 1993.
Don't forget that when he wrote that post, the World Trade center had already been bombed by Bin Laden, so everyone could read the writing on the wall. He wasn't an unknown up and coming terrorist leader, he had already struck and was already well known.
It takes money to get laws passed. Lobby groups have tons of money and they can easily get laws passed in their favor. When it's business vs. business, it's still ~somewhat fair because their respective lobbying groups counteract each other.
But when it's lobby groups backed by the industry as a whole that lobby for laws that go against everyday people, how can we compete? How are we going to stop the billions of dollars of lobbying money that the industry has? This is a very lopsided match here. The companies can get laws passed almost unimpeded while the average citizen just has to sit there and live under those new laws. Some of these new laws, such as ones that favor patents and IP have the effect of stomping out anything open source or free (since it takes loads of money to get your ideas patented and if you're not working for profit, you won't have the money to get your ideas patented).
I'll use an example just to give you an idea of what I mean. Let's say there was an "open source" pharmaceutical effort that came out with a drug to cure xxxx disease. That drug would never be allowed to be sold. Being open source, you wouldn't have the money to "convince" the FDA to approve your drug, and you wouldn't have the money to defend yourself against the bully lawsuits that the big rich established pharm companies would surely throw at you. Even though your product would help mankind, it wouldn't generate the money needed to defend itself. Instead, a company which generates lots of money by selling a product to *treat* the disease instead of curing it would have the money (and therefore political power) to stifle you.
Big Money rules the government in the US. Non-profit can no longer compete with for-profit, and that's a bad thing when the point of the organization was to donate their time and skill to give to the community. When you look at the net effect of all these laws as a whole, they basically amount to you *having* to give companies your money.
I'm sorry for the long post but I see where things are going and this is getting out of hand.
My Windows 2000 and WinXP boxes run non-stop, 24/7. They never crash. The only time I have to reboot is when I upgrade or the power goes out.
In fact, my Windows 98 machine did not crash either, and I had a Cyrix CPU in it. I've used Cyrix, Intel, and AMD CPU's without problems. Set a machine up right and it will work fine.
I think the stability of the system has a lot to do with the user. If I build a computer and it crashes when I test it, I know something isn't set up right. So I find the cause of the crash and make sure it doesn't happen again. I'm not satisfied until it's rock solid.
If I had a Mac it wouldn't crash repeatedly either. Much of the stability of a system depends on the the person setting it up and the user.
I think the best answer here is that normal light source has all the power scattered around all wavelenghts
LED's are a normal light source, and they make their light in only one wavelength also. They aren't lasers, but their light is monochromatic like lasers.
I think household robots will finally go mainstream when they gain the capability to autonomously navigate to the refrigerator, grab the owner a beer, then sit down and watch the football game playing on the widescreen TV.
i just recently saw one with a 2 mega pixel camera in it, and i'm sure it's only a matter of time until we see great quality 4 mega pixel cameraphones (4 megapixels seems to be the break point for cheapish snapshot digital photos).
The megapixel count seems to be the big selling point to uneducated consumers. They think that the more megapixels, the better the camera. But in actuality the quality of the picture doesn't usually depend on the pixel count. You can have a crappy lens and a 99 megapixel sensor behind it, and you're going to get a very big blurry, distorted picture. Also, if the sensor is not a very good one, you'll get a picture made of a lot of washed out pixels.
Take an older high end camera where they put effort into giving it a quality lens and quality sensor and compare it to a heavily marketed modern camera with lots o' megapixels. The difference in picture quality will speak for itself. There are lots of 5 mp cameras nowadays, but lots of them still take crappy pictures. They're just BIG crappy pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, if you don't like the rules, leave.
So I guess all the black people in the USA back in the 1950's should have just left. The (segregation) laws discriminated against them, most of the (white) public was against them, and there was really no reason for them to stay in a democracy where most people didn't want them around, right?
Wrong. Just because the majority disagrees with you doesn't mean you're wrong. Sometimes they're just biased or being lead down the wrong path in life.
I think they did the right thing and resisted, and eventually they got the rules changed in their favor. They sure wouldn't have accomplished that if they just sat there silently and took it.
This entire story is about the act of them getting arrested for telling lawyer jokes. The reason that they were in court is completely irrelevant. You can't just base their guilt or innocence *of this charge* on an unrelated piece of information.
It doesn't matter if they were in court for jaywalking, smoking crack, killing kittens or being KKK members- their rights under our legal system do not depend on those facts and the matter of whether it was right to arrest them for telling lawyer jokes has nothing at all to do with this.
Did you see the heat shield that they just examined the other day? It was all burnt up.
Maybe the rock did leave a crater in the sand millions of years ago, and the crater got blown away by the wind, leaving the heavy rock sitting there.
Things can sit on the surface forever there. It's not like there's anyone there to say "ooh, this is shiny!" and disturb it. That's a human thing... (although now that human scientists sent a rover to Mars, they're saying "ooh, that rock is shiny!" and disturbing it)
I do hope that less than 1/3 of the population uses marijuana, as it's illegal.
Legality is not morality.
People used to drink also. They drank before prohibition, they drank during prohibition, and they drank after prohibition. The law didn't really change much, other than the fact that the same people went from being law abiding citizens, to criminals who supported the Kaiser (the same old Communist/Terrorist enemy tactic used forever) back to law abiding citizens.
Laws such as this are mainly academic in my opinion.
As a seven year old fascinated by the new rage of computers and technology, I thought Tron for my Intellivision was awesome.
Back then it was cool to be smart. If you knew computers you were The Man.
It just isn't the same anymore after being dumbed down to the point that the clueless masses are clogging up the Internet.
I think they should make this movie realistic and reflect technology in modern times. They should stick to the plot of the first movie and re-shoot it scene for scene, but add tens of thousands of extras who do nothing but get in the way of the camera, walk around each scene and get in the actors' way. Oh, and have the motorcycle scene congested with traffic and have some of extras driving the wrong way with "AOL" emblazoned on the side of their bikes.
Thank you for speaking for EVERYBODY. I'm sure EVERYONE agrees with your view. I was afraid for a minute that you'd let other people form their own opinion.
Thanks.
However, not everyone has parents as intellegent as yours, nor is every child as obiedient and intellegent as you were. So we can spend a lot of time and money trying to educate children and parents, or we can pass a law making smart guns the law. Which do you thing is easier and cheaper for the government to do?
Yeah, but one of those ways helps morons clone and feed, while the other lets the problem take care of itself.
When you idiot-proof the world, nature will produce a better idiot.
This just in:
A major pharmaceutical company has patented the "morse code" used by cells to communicate. Such communication codes are now registered as a proprietary protocol belonging to the company. You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cost. Technology is expensive. Storing data costs money. Paying staff to process said data is even more expensive.
Why do they care how expensive it is? You're the one paying for it!
They'll just say that the police department needs additional funds... to track terrorists.
1. Robots should always get their power from an easily unpluggable power cord just in case the shit hits the fan.
This is an example of political correctness stifling scientific understanding. Over the years people have been taught to despise and shoot down any stereotype, even if that stereotype has a basis in truth. Remember, not ALL stereotypes are bad or offensive.
l an guage=english&type=24119&article_id=218391881&cat= 1_1
0 11 106.asp
_ th e_Boston_Marathon
What the original poster said is true. The brains of men and women are specialized for different functions. It has been proven numerous times that men are more optimized at visual spatial skills while women have inherent advantages in verbal and organizational skills.
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?
And as far as black people having more fast twitch musle fibers, that's not entirely accurate but there is some truth behind the story. It's not all black people, but specifically people who evolved in the Western Africa region do have a higher percentage of quick twitch muscle fibers and a higher testosterone level than those elsewhere in the world. They have a distinct advantage in anaerobic performance such as sprinting, and the records over the years spell it out clearly. Don't confuse this with "all" black people, because those who evolved in Eastern Africa, notably the high altitude region between Kenya and Ethiopia have almost the complete opposite evolutionary specialization. Not surprisingly, from evolving in a high altitude region, they have a larger lung capacity and better cardiovascular system (more red blood cells) than those who evolved at lower altitudes. They excel at aerobic activities such as long distance running.
http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/index_20
In the examples I gave above, look at the records. You have a huge pool of competitors from all over the globe yet people from a small area seem to win a *huge* proportion of events that *far* exceeds the percentage that a random group of people should win. I mean just take a look at the Boston Marathon. Kenya is not exactly the most populous country on Earth, but look at the results from the last 20 years when they started competing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of
This is not a racist or sexist discussion, this is a discussion of the realities of evolution and the differences that we live with. It's not a reason to hate, it's a reason to understand.
I am not racist or sexist, I'm just not an ultra left-wing PC Nazi or an ultra right-wing Bible thumper. I'm just a regular guy who would like to throw the racism and sexism out the window and find out the *real* underlying causes, even if they are taboo to talk about. I'm firm believer in evolution and I believe that many of the differences you see in races/the sexes is due to evolving in different areas or doing different tasks.
" If that's true, then isn't having slender-waisted, large breasted women characters also marketing towards a femal fantasy?
Hmmm..."
No, of course not.
They'll tell you that they don't want to look like that, and they think it's wrong to promote that stereotype. Then, they'll go off and spend thousands of dollars to get breast implants and liposuction to fulfill their secret fantasy of looking like what they just got done telling you they DIDN'T want to look like.
Bah, who needs drugs and treehouses. it should say: producing everything from novel sandwiches to seeds that sprout into cakes." :) Now thats an application!
Yeah, a cake that is AWARE you are eating it!
What if a group wants to replace the goverment leaders by clones which they control? ok, maybe it would be an improvement, but it is still a problem
Doesn't sound like a problem to me.
At least in the US, we are *supposed* to have politicians that we control... with our votes. But after a couple of centuries of American citizens dumbing down, that system is now corrupt. The politicans are now able to effectively control the majority of the population with negative campaign ads.
If the best scientific minds are able to make a cloned politician that they control, I'm all for it.
I'm sick of lame presidents being voted in by idiots. I, for one, welcome a cloned politician that is controlled by minds intelligent enough to create it.
"When you have a material advance which literally materially changes the way that energy is absorbed and transmitted to our devices... somebody out there tinkering away in a bedroom or in a government lab is going to come up with a great idea for a new device that will shock us all," he said in a phone interview."
Great. Some sick geek is going to discover that you can unplug your Ipod from your solar powered shirt and put the circuitry from a Taser in its place. Then he will shock us all like an electric eel gone postal.
Not really. I forget the exact number, but IIRC as little as 20V is enough to zap a component or cause a soft failure.
Actually the other poster was correct. You have a MUCH, MUCH higher chance of zapping something in a cold, dry climate than you do in a warm, moist climate. While some circuits might get damaged by 20v as you point out, the likelihood of them getting damaged by a 2000v shock is much higher. And when you live in a colder, drier climate the chance of generating high voltage static is very high.
So his statement was correct- it does depend on your location to a large degree. It's all about probability.
It's incredibly amazing how much insight the poster of the first "Osama bin Laden" usenet post must have had back in 1993.
Don't forget that when he wrote that post, the World Trade center had already been bombed by Bin Laden, so everyone could read the writing on the wall. He wasn't an unknown up and coming terrorist leader, he had already struck and was already well known.
It takes money to get laws passed. Lobby groups have tons of money and they can easily get laws passed in their favor. When it's business vs. business, it's still ~somewhat fair because their respective lobbying groups counteract each other.
But when it's lobby groups backed by the industry as a whole that lobby for laws that go against everyday people, how can we compete? How are we going to stop the billions of dollars of lobbying money that the industry has? This is a very lopsided match here. The companies can get laws passed almost unimpeded while the average citizen just has to sit there and live under those new laws. Some of these new laws, such as ones that favor patents and IP have the effect of stomping out anything open source or free (since it takes loads of money to get your ideas patented and if you're not working for profit, you won't have the money to get your ideas patented).
I'll use an example just to give you an idea of what I mean. Let's say there was an "open source" pharmaceutical effort that came out with a drug to cure xxxx disease. That drug would never be allowed to be sold. Being open source, you wouldn't have the money to "convince" the FDA to approve your drug, and you wouldn't have the money to defend yourself against the bully lawsuits that the big rich established pharm companies would surely throw at you. Even though your product would help mankind, it wouldn't generate the money needed to defend itself. Instead, a company which generates lots of money by selling a product to *treat* the disease instead of curing it would have the money (and therefore political power) to stifle you.
Big Money rules the government in the US. Non-profit can no longer compete with for-profit, and that's a bad thing when the point of the organization was to donate their time and skill to give to the community. When you look at the net effect of all these laws as a whole, they basically amount to you *having* to give companies your money.
I'm sorry for the long post but I see where things are going and this is getting out of hand.
My Windows 2000 and WinXP boxes run non-stop, 24/7. They never crash. The only time I have to reboot is when I upgrade or the power goes out.
In fact, my Windows 98 machine did not crash either, and I had a Cyrix CPU in it. I've used Cyrix, Intel, and AMD CPU's without problems. Set a machine up right and it will work fine.
I think the stability of the system has a lot to do with the user. If I build a computer and it crashes when I test it, I know something isn't set up right. So I find the cause of the crash and make sure it doesn't happen again. I'm not satisfied until it's rock solid.
If I had a Mac it wouldn't crash repeatedly either. Much of the stability of a system depends on the the person setting it up and the user.
I think the best answer here is that normal light source has all the power scattered around all wavelenghts
LED's are a normal light source, and they make their light in only one wavelength also. They aren't lasers, but their light is monochromatic like lasers.
Silicon is not silicone.
I think household robots will finally go mainstream when they gain the capability to autonomously navigate to the refrigerator, grab the owner a beer, then sit down and watch the football game playing on the widescreen TV.
Windows XP also only sees 136GB by default, but if you install Service Pack 1 that limitation is removed.
Also, you can copy/paste some code into a text file, name it 48bitLba.inf and install it to give windows 48 bit addressing.
i just recently saw one with a 2 mega pixel camera in it, and i'm sure it's only a matter of time until we see great quality 4 mega pixel cameraphones (4 megapixels seems to be the break point for cheapish snapshot digital photos).
The megapixel count seems to be the big selling point to uneducated consumers. They think that the more megapixels, the better the camera. But in actuality the quality of the picture doesn't usually depend on the pixel count. You can have a crappy lens and a 99 megapixel sensor behind it, and you're going to get a very big blurry, distorted picture. Also, if the sensor is not a very good one, you'll get a picture made of a lot of washed out pixels.
Take an older high end camera where they put effort into giving it a quality lens and quality sensor and compare it to a heavily marketed modern camera with lots o' megapixels. The difference in picture quality will speak for itself. There are lots of 5 mp cameras nowadays, but lots of them still take crappy pictures. They're just BIG crappy pictures.