Don't know if it was the intention, but biochar (charcoal intended to be buried, sequestering CO2) screws up crop levels if it's used on fertilised land. As this use of exhaust fumes means that no fertiliser is being used, it probably means that the land can have biochar dug into it, which increases crop levels on land with no fertiliser. I agree that what is being done now does nothing for CO2 and I don't even know if the farmer's thought of it, but if biochar were dug into the land, it could be the start of the most effective known way to sequester carbon
Surely the characteristics of a psychopath would be worth looking at to define pure evil - probably charming to be able to manipulate people well, entirely self centred with no conscience, so harm to others is okay or even good as long as it means a gain for the psychopath and even those who help to inflict the harm are no more than disposable tools. Killing people wouldn't be out of the question, but getting others to do the killing, probably by manipulation, in a way that the psychopath can credibly deny involvement in would be more likely than becoming a murderer - the evil person wouldn't want to be punished for murder, but wouldn't care if someone else was. Obviously completely lacking in empathy and compassion, the evil person would probably have no idea about genuine intimacy, but would be able to give the impression of intimacy to those who it would help to manipulate.
Seems like we're talking more about the people at tobacco companies who knew that smoking caused cancer but still fought to make people believe it was good for you, or the people who buried the research showing that Vioxx caused heart attacks and did all they could to get it used than basic murderers or authors. Even politicians whose principles are easily bought for enough money or votes are being weak and therefore human in comparison with this. As long as the authors who plan murder or torture also relate to others' suffering or can describe a loving relationship, I don't think that they are necessarily evil, but I agree that pure evil is unlikely to be found in a murderer - even if is a cold blooded murder, there are always circumstances that influence murder and it is not just down to evil
Surely to some degree, the DIY ethic that came with punk started to make the music industry obsolete. I agree that it was the more specialist shops that stocked the records, so if your nearest record shop was a big chain, it took a trip to the nearest reasonable sized town or mail order to get your treasured piece of vinyl, but it started something that didn't end in the 70s. Add to that the reduced price of getting CDs made, software such as Audacity and the internet and there's much more potential these days for bands to make a living through their music. It might not be much of a living, but it isn't for an obscure band that happens to be signed to one of the major labels either - I know people signed to the likes of EMI who need a second job to keep a roof over their heads - and they don't even own their own songs.
The way it seems to me, the industry is good for getting airplay and CDs into shops, but there's an increasing number of radio programs (in the UK at least) that are playing independent bands and shops seem to have more open minds, so the point of the industry seems to be vanishing. It might mean that managers become more powerful for the likes of Britney, who I doubt would be up to sorting things out for herself, but I don't see a problem if "artists" like that disappear or their managers have to do a bit more work than getting their pictures into the tabloids. My guess is that the major labels will have to think of something big to return to their glory days and not turn into companies that have litigation providing a major part of their income. They will continue to get most of the money from top ten acts, but it keeps getting easier to get music that isn't promoted as part of the mainstream, especially with electronic distribution.
Tesla wanted an all wireless electricity transfer system from generator to device, but couldn't get the transfer to go more than about a couple of metres, so the idea got dropped, even after the idea of having a generator every couple of blocks was suggested.
The resonator you mentioned was far too effective - it ended up destroying his building - so maybe resonating wasn't the way to go either.
I don't remember the original sources for these, but here is a film about him and his work - sounds like parts of his life were pretty good.
These figures only go up to 1996, but it looks from this that it's heading towards a million arrests a year for pot. What a waste of police time (assuming this is reasonably correct data). Couldn't be bothered to find out how many were second/third/etc offences, but I'm guessing a lot of them - anyone done the research?
Plus whatever sites are listed in my spam - I don't click the links so don't find out, but I expect I prefer things that way. Maybe something that loads pages from Wikipedia or, if you don't mind appearing too keen on "Catcher in the Rye", Amazon?
Have you ever known legislation of this kind removed / repealed without revolution? Once this kind of thing is in statute it has a tendency to stay there
Maybe they have no use for it, but I expect the people at Google would be able to get the data they wanted out of that a lot easier than a government quango would. "HTTP header? Which bit of that can we use to show someone disagreeing with us?" might be a first reaction of some.
Bets on how long before email contents need to be stored forever for "official use"?
Whatever the reason for this (I believe to give further dictatorship power to the government, but that's just my belief) - if I accidentally delete my browser history, will I be able to get it back under the Freedom of Information Act? If so, I think every British person (and elsewhere in Europe if similar laws exist) needs to request this at least weekly
So when you go to the bathroom you invite people in with you? If you ever get a significant other, is it okay if my job with the government means that I can read your personal mails / emails to each other / "pleasure myself" over holiday snaps of him / her in minimal or no clothing and put this all on file to be shared with the rest of the civil service before being found by your / his / her stalker in a laptop on a train? We're talking about privacy here, not secrecy - I don't mind you knowing that I send sentimental or erotic emails to my girlfriend but you sure as hell don't get to read them.
There's an idea of personal sovereignty here. There's some videos on the site, some of it clearly tinfoil hat territory but some good ideas and information that can be verified elsewhere, which I've found to be correct. Some good ways to get yourself put in a police cell overnight, but used well, some good ways to protest at the dominance exerted over the British people by its parliament (or whoever is really pulling the strings - surprisingly I haven't seen a mention of Murdoch on the site)
Blair took a unilateral decision to go to war which was only debated in parliament AFTER the war had started. This means that all necessary pressure would have been put on enough MPs to agree to the war so that there was never any real doubt about the outcome of the parliamentary debate. It was basically a pantomime debate for the rest of the country. As the Queen may not refuse royal assent, while she may have signed the document, she did not have a choice about it
I should hope they'd rather swear allegiance to someone who is likely to be in the same position when they return from their tour than someone who is likely to be out of a job by then!
The Queen is a constitutional soveriegn so only has the powers granted to her by the constitution (as much as we have one - very little - in the UK). Her constitutional powers are:
1) To be informed / consulted
2) To encourage / guide
3) To warn
It is as vague but specifically lacking in power as that - she is basically a mascot / figurehead / tourist attraction. She does not have the power to withhold royal assent, so it doesn't mean anything for a bill to receive it. Her common law power is basically dissolution of Parliament, but that will happen the day after hell freezes over and not before
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
so sanitizing manipulators and refusing drink would be covered by the first law as long as the robot knew that not doing it might harm a human being
Slashdot Mirror
Someone mod parent funny
Don't know if it was the intention, but biochar (charcoal intended to be buried, sequestering CO2) screws up crop levels if it's used on fertilised land. As this use of exhaust fumes means that no fertiliser is being used, it probably means that the land can have biochar dug into it, which increases crop levels on land with no fertiliser. I agree that what is being done now does nothing for CO2 and I don't even know if the farmer's thought of it, but if biochar were dug into the land, it could be the start of the most effective known way to sequester carbon
You might like to know - Singh just got right to appeal: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/simon-singh-wins-leave-to-appeal-in-bca-libel-case/ I agree with you entirely and hope that this sets a precedent for libel
Won't we all be able to take the space elevator in case the sharks with lasers can't deal with it by then?
How about how many Volkswagens it is?
Oh no, not again
Surely the characteristics of a psychopath would be worth looking at to define pure evil - probably charming to be able to manipulate people well, entirely self centred with no conscience, so harm to others is okay or even good as long as it means a gain for the psychopath and even those who help to inflict the harm are no more than disposable tools. Killing people wouldn't be out of the question, but getting others to do the killing, probably by manipulation, in a way that the psychopath can credibly deny involvement in would be more likely than becoming a murderer - the evil person wouldn't want to be punished for murder, but wouldn't care if someone else was. Obviously completely lacking in empathy and compassion, the evil person would probably have no idea about genuine intimacy, but would be able to give the impression of intimacy to those who it would help to manipulate.
Seems like we're talking more about the people at tobacco companies who knew that smoking caused cancer but still fought to make people believe it was good for you, or the people who buried the research showing that Vioxx caused heart attacks and did all they could to get it used than basic murderers or authors. Even politicians whose principles are easily bought for enough money or votes are being weak and therefore human in comparison with this. As long as the authors who plan murder or torture also relate to others' suffering or can describe a loving relationship, I don't think that they are necessarily evil, but I agree that pure evil is unlikely to be found in a murderer - even if is a cold blooded murder, there are always circumstances that influence murder and it is not just down to evil
Surely to some degree, the DIY ethic that came with punk started to make the music industry obsolete. I agree that it was the more specialist shops that stocked the records, so if your nearest record shop was a big chain, it took a trip to the nearest reasonable sized town or mail order to get your treasured piece of vinyl, but it started something that didn't end in the 70s. Add to that the reduced price of getting CDs made, software such as Audacity and the internet and there's much more potential these days for bands to make a living through their music. It might not be much of a living, but it isn't for an obscure band that happens to be signed to one of the major labels either - I know people signed to the likes of EMI who need a second job to keep a roof over their heads - and they don't even own their own songs.
The way it seems to me, the industry is good for getting airplay and CDs into shops, but there's an increasing number of radio programs (in the UK at least) that are playing independent bands and shops seem to have more open minds, so the point of the industry seems to be vanishing. It might mean that managers become more powerful for the likes of Britney, who I doubt would be up to sorting things out for herself, but I don't see a problem if "artists" like that disappear or their managers have to do a bit more work than getting their pictures into the tabloids. My guess is that the major labels will have to think of something big to return to their glory days and not turn into companies that have litigation providing a major part of their income. They will continue to get most of the money from top ten acts, but it keeps getting easier to get music that isn't promoted as part of the mainstream, especially with electronic distribution.
Tesla wanted an all wireless electricity transfer system from generator to device, but couldn't get the transfer to go more than about a couple of metres, so the idea got dropped, even after the idea of having a generator every couple of blocks was suggested.
The resonator you mentioned was far too effective - it ended up destroying his building - so maybe resonating wasn't the way to go either.
I don't remember the original sources for these, but here is a film about him and his work - sounds like parts of his life were pretty good.
Or the neighbours wanted to get their own back for previous partying, someone slept with the right superintendent ...
...
Riot police
Profit
These figures only go up to 1996, but it looks from this that it's heading towards a million arrests a year for pot. What a waste of police time (assuming this is reasonably correct data). Couldn't be bothered to find out how many were second/third/etc offences, but I'm guessing a lot of them - anyone done the research?
Plus whatever sites are listed in my spam - I don't click the links so don't find out, but I expect I prefer things that way. Maybe something that loads pages from Wikipedia or, if you don't mind appearing too keen on "Catcher in the Rye", Amazon?
I should stand at the next election, I've clearly got the right attitude for government.
Or retired bank CEO?
a legislative life expectancy of a few years.
Have you ever known legislation of this kind removed / repealed without revolution? Once this kind of thing is in statute it has a tendency to stay there
Maybe they have no use for it, but I expect the people at Google would be able to get the data they wanted out of that a lot easier than a government quango would. "HTTP header? Which bit of that can we use to show someone disagreeing with us?" might be a first reaction of some.
Bets on how long before email contents need to be stored forever for "official use"?
Whatever the reason for this (I believe to give further dictatorship power to the government, but that's just my belief) - if I accidentally delete my browser history, will I be able to get it back under the Freedom of Information Act? If so, I think every British person (and elsewhere in Europe if similar laws exist) needs to request this at least weekly
Honestly? I just don't have anything to hide
So when you go to the bathroom you invite people in with you? If you ever get a significant other, is it okay if my job with the government means that I can read your personal mails / emails to each other / "pleasure myself" over holiday snaps of him / her in minimal or no clothing and put this all on file to be shared with the rest of the civil service before being found by your / his / her stalker in a laptop on a train? We're talking about privacy here, not secrecy - I don't mind you knowing that I send sentimental or erotic emails to my girlfriend but you sure as hell don't get to read them.
There's an idea of personal sovereignty here. There's some videos on the site, some of it clearly tinfoil hat territory but some good ideas and information that can be verified elsewhere, which I've found to be correct. Some good ways to get yourself put in a police cell overnight, but used well, some good ways to protest at the dominance exerted over the British people by its parliament (or whoever is really pulling the strings - surprisingly I haven't seen a mention of Murdoch on the site)
Blair took a unilateral decision to go to war which was only debated in parliament AFTER the war had started. This means that all necessary pressure would have been put on enough MPs to agree to the war so that there was never any real doubt about the outcome of the parliamentary debate. It was basically a pantomime debate for the rest of the country. As the Queen may not refuse royal assent, while she may have signed the document, she did not have a choice about it
I should hope they'd rather swear allegiance to someone who is likely to be in the same position when they return from their tour than someone who is likely to be out of a job by then!
The Queen is a constitutional soveriegn so only has the powers granted to her by the constitution (as much as we have one - very little - in the UK). Her constitutional powers are:
1) To be informed / consulted
2) To encourage / guide
3) To warn
It is as vague but specifically lacking in power as that - she is basically a mascot / figurehead / tourist attraction. She does not have the power to withhold royal assent, so it doesn't mean anything for a bill to receive it. Her common law power is basically dissolution of Parliament, but that will happen the day after hell freezes over and not before
I am pretty sure, that a brain can't work without messenger substances (I don't know the exact translation for the German word "Botenstoff".)
I don't know the German word either, but messenger substances in the brain? Maybe neurotransmitters?
Maybe: /etc/init.d / .profile entries
Win: Startup folder / registry entries
Linux:
When he tried for 69, he blew it.
Yes, but he got blown right back, so he wasn't complaining
Just an idea, but how about:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
so sanitizing manipulators and refusing drink would be covered by the first law as long as the robot knew that not doing it might harm a human being