The headline implies that the entire darknet is illegal, but the summary and article note that the judge simply ruled that you're liable for all traffic that travels through your exit node. Of course, it makes it difficult to be a legal exit node if people are using the darknet for illegal purposes, but not that you're automatically a criminal for using it.
When you lock your bike to a rack or rail, put your bike lock through one of the holes in the helmet first. Or even put your lock through the thick adjustable plastic band in the back -- they can steal your helmet by cutting the plastic, but that will ruin it as it won't be able to stay on their head.
An avid football fan calls their equally fanatic friend after their team scores the winning goal and yells, "GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!" The friend yells the same thing back, everyone is excited, and both they shout about how much they love their country. After no more than fifteen seconds of conversation, they both hang up.
Sure, some people might not be able to understand why these two people are so football crazy, but everyone can identify that something rich and emotional just happened. But when the exact same thing happens on twitter, it gets denounced it as 'useless observation.' Why?
We don't pay premiums because we're stupid. We pay premiums so we can relax and concentrate on what we need to concentrate on.
They actually do talk about that in the article. The difference in cost for one of the homegrown petabyte pods from the cheapest suppliers (Dell) is about $700,000. The difference between their pods and cloud services is over $2.7 million per petabyte. And they have many, many petabytes. Even if you do add "a few hundred thousand a year for the people who need to maintain this hardware" - and Dell isn't going to come down in the middle of the night when your power goes out - they are still way, way on top.
I know you don't pay premiums because you're stupid. But think about how much those premiums are actually costing you, what you are getting in return, and if it is worth it.
No, this is Scala, a language that is a blend of functional and object oriented programming. Scalia [wikipedia.org] is mix of textualism and originalism with a very conservative framework. Some consider its inability to recuse itself to be its greatest asset.
Hate to break this to you little girl, but especially in the textile industry during this new Industrial Age, this is just the way it is. My boss, like many others, seems to think that by being my employer, he dictates what I work, where I live, what I eat, who I can associate with... even if that means I neglect my family and health. In fact, I lost an arm in one of the factory machines a few years ago - didn't see me trying to fight the system, because I know how hard it is. Don't like it? Leave and don't come back.
The laws in place to protect against such things are way too mild and useless. Someone can fire you for being maimed in their own machinery or assaulted by their own managers... you can even get fired for refusing to have sex with your manager... and then get fired for getting pregnant if you do! Sure it isn't legal, but the trouble you have to go through to fight it, then what you get in return for doing so is horribly skewed.
The only solution, my dear child worker, is to find another job. Don't bother forming a union with others - strikes have never worked and never will. Don't bother protesting, or trying to raise awareness by getting your story out. Don't try the courts - they are just a horrific waste of time stacked against you. And especially don't bother voting - except with your feet to another employer. What? You can't leave because nobody will hire a child who has already run away from a factory? You can't leave because you don't have the money to go looking for another job because you're employed 17 hours a day just to eat? Well child, the best you can do is be resigned to your life of virtual slavery, complaining to yourself that the system just doesn't work for you. It may not be right. It may not be fair. That IS how it is.
This is the piece of advice that is always thrown around in these kinds of discussions - and for good reason - but it doesn't get you anything more than peace of mind. Yes, you should obviously ask that question in the interview, but that doesn't guarantee you anything. First, it is incredibly easy and tempting for the employer to simply 'underestimate' on such a question, and you will rarely get anything in writing to bind that spoken assurance. Another situation in bigger companies is that the person with whom you're interviewing/negotiating is not actually the one giving you assignments and performance evals. You should ask to talk to your immediate supervisor(s) and get their word on these issues (and other things as well). Finally, corporate cultures can change in an instant. Profits drop, management gets shuffled, consultants are hired, synergy is synergized, policies and regulations are streamlined, and then your 40 hours + 10 hours extra once a month gets turned into 55-60 hours a week every week.
If the company is big enough and you don't have to make a decision on an offer instantly, the best thing you can do is ask for a copy of their employee regulations. If they have a formalized policy on a specific aspect, like overtime pay or on-call hours, then you can have some security in your decision. But if all you have is a pat on the shoulder, a warm smile, and an empty promise, I wouldn't feel too secure.
60% of her decisions that were appealed to the Supreme court were overturned. Was this one of them?
The Supreme Court overturned 68% of all cases it decided to hear last year (and 74% the year before that!), so she actually is below average in terms of reversals. But you're confusing appealed with heard - every decision gets appealed to the Supreme Court, if the client still has money to pay for the lawyer. She only had 1.2% of her decisions overturned, which is a far lower figure.
If you wear a mask to rob a bank, you will get a harsher sentence than if you rob a bank without a mask. Now, masks aren't banned - you are totally free to wear one in public. Wearing a mask is neither a crime nor suspicious behavior that can be used as evidence of a crime by itself. The increased punishment only applies if you commit a crime wearing a mask.
I'll be the first to admit that this seems pretty tricky at first - that the GNU and Wikipedia could get together and retroactively re-license an entire project through the "later versions" clause. However, the later versions have to be "similar in spirit" to the original in order for this to happen. If they did this to re-license Wikipedia's GFDL content under the BSD license or the public domain, that would not be similar in spirit. The differences between the CCSA and the GFDL are minor, especially in the context of Wikipedia - which uses no front cover texts or invariant sections. The big one is the need to attach a copy of the license to the content (as opposed to a URI to the license) - it is a bit absurd that I've violated the GFDL by printing out a copy of a Wikipedia article and giving it to my students, because I didn't think to attach a copy of the GFDL to it.
Apparently they could not figure out that "9999" was probably not the actual last 4 digits of anyone's SSN.
To be fair, there is a 1 in 9,999 chance that 9999 are the last 4 digits of someone's SSN. Statistically speaking, it is no less and no more common than 8425, 1234, or 0001. However, there are no valid social security numbers ending in 0000 - they should use that as the default.
That's the 21st century version of failing a student for referencing a book from a "popular press" like Penguin, Harper, Random House, Doubleday, etc. No joke, one of my professors told me that when he was in grad school, he was publicly berated for citing one such book, even though it was a reprinted out-of-copyright classic. He was told he should have gotten the reprint published by a university press.
Wow, it looks like you just don't get the point, or you're just trying to be "edgy" by straw-manning a popular service. Why do you and the other posters in this thread get so angry over something that other people genuinely use but you don't find useful?
And no, I am not so important that everyone is interested in what I am doing, but the twenty-five or so people who follow me on Twitter do. If not, they wouldn't be following me. And I actually am interested in what all the people I am following are doing. If not, I wouldn't be following them - and I have dropped people who I don't care about or those update every thirty minutes. Twitter lets me stay connected to my friends without all the bloat of something like Facebook. If you don't want to know when I'm going shopping, then don't follow me on Twitter and shut up.
Offline, we have to deal with caged monkeys throwing feces all the time. From political organizations of all ideologies to middle management, groups of people get angry or power-hungry or self-righteous and do things they shouldn't. Sometimes it is someone in power like police officer or a doctor, other times it is a group of teenagers who are just hellbent on stirring things up. But regardless, it is a fact of life that troublemakers exist in numbers and screw things up. We don't always win against those who we perceive as jerks in the wrong, but we don't expect to.
People talk about their experiences with Wikipedia and treat it as if it were somehow different from every other institution on the planet. They expect some utopian harmony where people are calmly and coolly working together for a common goal. And most of the time, it is like that. Yet like everything else, it isn't perfect, people break rules, there are jerks, bad things happen to good people, and so on. What gets me is that for some reason, people just give up on Wikipedia when they would normally defend any their involvement in other civic, non-profit, for-profit, governmental, or educational organization.
Put articles on a single web page, instead of forcing me to click through three different "Next" links in order to get through an entire article. I understand if the article is one of those 5000 word New Yorker extended expositions, but I absolutely hate this trend in turning already short articles into even shorter multi-page articles. Single-page articles save energy, as well as my attention and patience.
I'm saddened by the initial slate of questions proposed here. Instead of sending rhetorically-charged questions about the hot button issues that will assuredly be addressed in any debate (spending, healthcare, the economy, gun control, abortion, the war/military, outdated ideological labels, and vague issues of credibility, change, responsibility and accountability), why don't we mod up questions about issues that affect the kinds of news stories we see on this site each and every day? I'm talking about issues of copyright, net neutrality, science funding, patents, the FCC, e-voting, space exploration, and open source adoption in governmental agencies.
Anyway, it would be good to let the free market sort this out.
The cell phone market is not situated in a free market of any kind. The nature of the service is based on the airwaves, which are limited and metered out by the government to ensure that it doesn't get noisy and unusable for everyone. Because of this, there are only a handful of companies actually directly licensed to transmit data by the FCC, stifling competition. This means that the market will not self-correct - instead, as history has shown, a very small number of companies leads to cabals and price fixing.
I've figured it out! They are normal people like you and me. Only when they step into a voting booth, they get claustrophobic. This fear triggers other irrational fears, leading them to vote neoconservative.
I can't even imagine why one person would want five PCs.
How much time does he spend applying patches and updating software? Transferring data?
THREE different laptops? Doesn't he realize that the whole appeal of a laptop is that you can take it with you wherever you go?
He's Michael Dell. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't even wipe his own ass, much less patch his own system. When something breaks or needs a replacement/upgrade, do you honestly think he'll do it himself? Well, he might still tinker with systems as a hobby, but I bet there are one or two backup models of each system which get rsynced (or whatever the Windows equivalent is) nightly just in case something breaks and he needs it fixed NOW.
The different laptops are for different things. At work, he doesn't need a kickass graphics card; at home he doesn't need EVDO (cell-phone internet); on the go, he doesn't need extra weight. I've got an IBM x41 (2.7lb ultraportable with no CD-ROM), and I'm thinking about getting a 17" MacBook Pro for those times when I don't care about weight. The IBM would become my work-only computer, while the Mac would be more general purpose.
Also, there is an appeal of having three different laptops: you lug the work one around work, the home one around home, and the travel one around the world. You don't have to lug anything between work and home, for example. As long as everything important is backed up to a central server with version control, it really isn't a problem. Plus, the different laptops would put you in different moods. Ever tried to work in your bedroom or relax in your office? It just doesn't work (for me at least), because I've conditioned myself to be in work-mode when I'm in the office. I don't see why this would be a bad thing for computers.
Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public. It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?
Well, the way routers work, it is like asking a bouncer if you can come in. The bouncer asks for a some identification (driver's license or MAC address), and then gives you a unique identifier (nametag or IP address) that you have to use when inside the bar/network.
The point is, when you connect to a router, your computer asks the router if you can connect. If that router says no or requires a login/key, it would/should be against the law to attempt to gain access anyway.
In an off the cuff remark, Imus calls the Rutgers girls "nappy headed hos". Moral outrage, Al and Jesse crank up their publicity machine, Imus gets fired.
Meanwhile, rapper DMX uses lyrics such as "what these bitches want from a nigga", and "I fuck with these hoes from a distance", and we hear cash registers.
Just as racist, just as misogynistic, just as insensitive.
But Imus was on the air. Those songs were never played on the radio. If they were played on a top 40 station, I'm positive that the same level of outrage would exist. Do you think that there would be the same level of outrage if Imus had a podcast and said those things? Like, say, Howard Stern? People get pissed off at Stern, but no one can get so riled up because we feel that the free market (when utilizing private space and private goods) should remain somewhat free. However, when you get into the public space (including the airwaves), it is totally different.
...but could someone explain what the significance of this is?
I know I'm new here because I'm reading the articles, but the opening and closing paragraphs of the article directly answers your question:
If you want to really see quantum mechanics in action, you've got to turn the temperature down so low that even atoms stop moving. Physicists have come close to achieving this "absolute zero" state by using precision-tuned lasers, but the technique has only allowed researchers to freeze small groups of atoms at a time. Now members of an international team say they have managed to cool a dime-sized mirror to within one degree of absolute zero, the lowest laser-induced freeze yet achieved with a visible object.
[...]
If the effort is successful, Mavalvala says, it will also lead to much more sensitive instruments for LIGO, which is attempting to detect elusive phenomena called gravity waves. Predicted by Einstein but not yet observed, the waves are thought to be emitted by the most violent events in the universe, such as black hole collisions.
I realize that it does indeed violate their copyright, but as a student, wouldn't you want your paper in their catalog so that some lazy student can't make it through school by plagiarizing YOUR work?
So you're saying you want a private company to violate your rights so that individuals can't?
Well, at least the dogs should not get addicted to plastics, like the drug sniffing dogs...
I know you're joking, but this comment is also in response to the "Won't dogs get cancer sniffing chemicals?" question. The dogs take in the same amount of particles no matter what they trained to detect. Imagine them like a vacuum cleaner that picks up every scent that every bag gives off. They are trained to notice certain smells, but they inhale everything equally. Bomb sniffing dogs were inhaling drugs long before they were trained to detect them, and both drug and bomb dogs have been inhaling these chemicals since they were put in action.
Slashdot Mirror
The headline implies that the entire darknet is illegal, but the summary and article note that the judge simply ruled that you're liable for all traffic that travels through your exit node. Of course, it makes it difficult to be a legal exit node if people are using the darknet for illegal purposes, but not that you're automatically a criminal for using it.
When you lock your bike to a rack or rail, put your bike lock through one of the holes in the helmet first. Or even put your lock through the thick adjustable plastic band in the back -- they can steal your helmet by cutting the plastic, but that will ruin it as it won't be able to stay on their head.
An avid football fan calls their equally fanatic friend after their team scores the winning goal and yells, "GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!" The friend yells the same thing back, everyone is excited, and both they shout about how much they love their country. After no more than fifteen seconds of conversation, they both hang up.
Sure, some people might not be able to understand why these two people are so football crazy, but everyone can identify that something rich and emotional just happened. But when the exact same thing happens on twitter, it gets denounced it as 'useless observation.' Why?
We don't pay premiums because we're stupid. We pay premiums so we can relax and concentrate on what we need to concentrate on.
They actually do talk about that in the article. The difference in cost for one of the homegrown petabyte pods from the cheapest suppliers (Dell) is about $700,000. The difference between their pods and cloud services is over $2.7 million per petabyte. And they have many, many petabytes. Even if you do add "a few hundred thousand a year for the people who need to maintain this hardware" - and Dell isn't going to come down in the middle of the night when your power goes out - they are still way, way on top.
I know you don't pay premiums because you're stupid. But think about how much those premiums are actually costing you, what you are getting in return, and if it is worth it.
No, this is Scala, a language that is a blend of functional and object oriented programming. Scalia [wikipedia.org] is mix of textualism and originalism with a very conservative framework. Some consider its inability to recuse itself to be its greatest asset.
Eh, different tools for different jobs.
Hate to break this to you little girl, but especially in the textile industry during this new Industrial Age, this is just the way it is. My boss, like many others, seems to think that by being my employer, he dictates what I work, where I live, what I eat, who I can associate with... even if that means I neglect my family and health. In fact, I lost an arm in one of the factory machines a few years ago - didn't see me trying to fight the system, because I know how hard it is. Don't like it? Leave and don't come back.
The laws in place to protect against such things are way too mild and useless. Someone can fire you for being maimed in their own machinery or assaulted by their own managers... you can even get fired for refusing to have sex with your manager... and then get fired for getting pregnant if you do! Sure it isn't legal, but the trouble you have to go through to fight it, then what you get in return for doing so is horribly skewed.
The only solution, my dear child worker, is to find another job. Don't bother forming a union with others - strikes have never worked and never will. Don't bother protesting, or trying to raise awareness by getting your story out. Don't try the courts - they are just a horrific waste of time stacked against you. And especially don't bother voting - except with your feet to another employer. What? You can't leave because nobody will hire a child who has already run away from a factory? You can't leave because you don't have the money to go looking for another job because you're employed 17 hours a day just to eat? Well child, the best you can do is be resigned to your life of virtual slavery, complaining to yourself that the system just doesn't work for you. It may not be right. It may not be fair. That IS how it is.
This is the piece of advice that is always thrown around in these kinds of discussions - and for good reason - but it doesn't get you anything more than peace of mind. Yes, you should obviously ask that question in the interview, but that doesn't guarantee you anything. First, it is incredibly easy and tempting for the employer to simply 'underestimate' on such a question, and you will rarely get anything in writing to bind that spoken assurance. Another situation in bigger companies is that the person with whom you're interviewing/negotiating is not actually the one giving you assignments and performance evals. You should ask to talk to your immediate supervisor(s) and get their word on these issues (and other things as well). Finally, corporate cultures can change in an instant. Profits drop, management gets shuffled, consultants are hired, synergy is synergized, policies and regulations are streamlined, and then your 40 hours + 10 hours extra once a month gets turned into 55-60 hours a week every week.
If the company is big enough and you don't have to make a decision on an offer instantly, the best thing you can do is ask for a copy of their employee regulations. If they have a formalized policy on a specific aspect, like overtime pay or on-call hours, then you can have some security in your decision. But if all you have is a pat on the shoulder, a warm smile, and an empty promise, I wouldn't feel too secure.
60% of her decisions that were appealed to the Supreme court were overturned. Was this one of them?
The Supreme Court overturned 68% of all cases it decided to hear last year (and 74% the year before that!), so she actually is below average in terms of reversals. But you're confusing appealed with heard - every decision gets appealed to the Supreme Court, if the client still has money to pay for the lawyer. She only had 1.2% of her decisions overturned, which is a far lower figure.
Source: Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955
If you wear a mask to rob a bank, you will get a harsher sentence than if you rob a bank without a mask. Now, masks aren't banned - you are totally free to wear one in public. Wearing a mask is neither a crime nor suspicious behavior that can be used as evidence of a crime by itself. The increased punishment only applies if you commit a crime wearing a mask.
Now replace mask with proxy.
I'll be the first to admit that this seems pretty tricky at first - that the GNU and Wikipedia could get together and retroactively re-license an entire project through the "later versions" clause. However, the later versions have to be "similar in spirit" to the original in order for this to happen. If they did this to re-license Wikipedia's GFDL content under the BSD license or the public domain, that would not be similar in spirit. The differences between the CCSA and the GFDL are minor, especially in the context of Wikipedia - which uses no front cover texts or invariant sections. The big one is the need to attach a copy of the license to the content (as opposed to a URI to the license) - it is a bit absurd that I've violated the GFDL by printing out a copy of a Wikipedia article and giving it to my students, because I didn't think to attach a copy of the GFDL to it.
Apparently they could not figure out that "9999" was probably not the actual last 4 digits of anyone's SSN.
To be fair, there is a 1 in 9,999 chance that 9999 are the last 4 digits of someone's SSN. Statistically speaking, it is no less and no more common than 8425, 1234, or 0001. However, there are no valid social security numbers ending in 0000 - they should use that as the default.
That's the 21st century version of failing a student for referencing a book from a "popular press" like Penguin, Harper, Random House, Doubleday, etc. No joke, one of my professors told me that when he was in grad school, he was publicly berated for citing one such book, even though it was a reprinted out-of-copyright classic. He was told he should have gotten the reprint published by a university press.
Wow, it looks like you just don't get the point, or you're just trying to be "edgy" by straw-manning a popular service. Why do you and the other posters in this thread get so angry over something that other people genuinely use but you don't find useful?
And no, I am not so important that everyone is interested in what I am doing, but the twenty-five or so people who follow me on Twitter do. If not, they wouldn't be following me. And I actually am interested in what all the people I am following are doing. If not, I wouldn't be following them - and I have dropped people who I don't care about or those update every thirty minutes. Twitter lets me stay connected to my friends without all the bloat of something like Facebook. If you don't want to know when I'm going shopping, then don't follow me on Twitter and shut up.
Offline, we have to deal with caged monkeys throwing feces all the time. From political organizations of all ideologies to middle management, groups of people get angry or power-hungry or self-righteous and do things they shouldn't. Sometimes it is someone in power like police officer or a doctor, other times it is a group of teenagers who are just hellbent on stirring things up. But regardless, it is a fact of life that troublemakers exist in numbers and screw things up. We don't always win against those who we perceive as jerks in the wrong, but we don't expect to.
People talk about their experiences with Wikipedia and treat it as if it were somehow different from every other institution on the planet. They expect some utopian harmony where people are calmly and coolly working together for a common goal. And most of the time, it is like that. Yet like everything else, it isn't perfect, people break rules, there are jerks, bad things happen to good people, and so on. What gets me is that for some reason, people just give up on Wikipedia when they would normally defend any their involvement in other civic, non-profit, for-profit, governmental, or educational organization.
All I want to know is if I can fsck this BtrFS.
Put articles on a single web page, instead of forcing me to click through three different "Next" links in order to get through an entire article. I understand if the article is one of those 5000 word New Yorker extended expositions, but I absolutely hate this trend in turning already short articles into even shorter multi-page articles. Single-page articles save energy, as well as my attention and patience.
I'm saddened by the initial slate of questions proposed here. Instead of sending rhetorically-charged questions about the hot button issues that will assuredly be addressed in any debate (spending, healthcare, the economy, gun control, abortion, the war/military, outdated ideological labels, and vague issues of credibility, change, responsibility and accountability), why don't we mod up questions about issues that affect the kinds of news stories we see on this site each and every day? I'm talking about issues of copyright, net neutrality, science funding, patents, the FCC, e-voting, space exploration, and open source adoption in governmental agencies.
Anyway, it would be good to let the free market sort this out.
The cell phone market is not situated in a free market of any kind. The nature of the service is based on the airwaves, which are limited and metered out by the government to ensure that it doesn't get noisy and unusable for everyone. Because of this, there are only a handful of companies actually directly licensed to transmit data by the FCC, stifling competition. This means that the market will not self-correct - instead, as history has shown, a very small number of companies leads to cabals and price fixing.
I've figured it out! They are normal people like you and me. Only when they step into a voting booth, they get claustrophobic. This fear triggers other irrational fears, leading them to vote neoconservative.
I can't even imagine why one person would want five PCs. How much time does he spend applying patches and updating software? Transferring data? THREE different laptops? Doesn't he realize that the whole appeal of a laptop is that you can take it with you wherever you go?
He's Michael Dell. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't even wipe his own ass, much less patch his own system. When something breaks or needs a replacement/upgrade, do you honestly think he'll do it himself? Well, he might still tinker with systems as a hobby, but I bet there are one or two backup models of each system which get rsynced (or whatever the Windows equivalent is) nightly just in case something breaks and he needs it fixed NOW.
The different laptops are for different things. At work, he doesn't need a kickass graphics card; at home he doesn't need EVDO (cell-phone internet); on the go, he doesn't need extra weight. I've got an IBM x41 (2.7lb ultraportable with no CD-ROM), and I'm thinking about getting a 17" MacBook Pro for those times when I don't care about weight. The IBM would become my work-only computer, while the Mac would be more general purpose.
Also, there is an appeal of having three different laptops: you lug the work one around work, the home one around home, and the travel one around the world. You don't have to lug anything between work and home, for example. As long as everything important is backed up to a central server with version control, it really isn't a problem. Plus, the different laptops would put you in different moods. Ever tried to work in your bedroom or relax in your office? It just doesn't work (for me at least), because I've conditioned myself to be in work-mode when I'm in the office. I don't see why this would be a bad thing for computers.
Unless you are told/informed/read other wise, a network is NOT public. It's no different than seeing an unlocked door. You wouldn't just walk in and look around would you?
Well, the way routers work, it is like asking a bouncer if you can come in. The bouncer asks for a some identification (driver's license or MAC address), and then gives you a unique identifier (nametag or IP address) that you have to use when inside the bar/network.
The point is, when you connect to a router, your computer asks the router if you can connect. If that router says no or requires a login/key, it would/should be against the law to attempt to gain access anyway.
In an off the cuff remark, Imus calls the Rutgers girls "nappy headed hos". Moral outrage, Al and Jesse crank up their publicity machine, Imus gets fired. Meanwhile, rapper DMX uses lyrics such as "what these bitches want from a nigga", and "I fuck with these hoes from a distance", and we hear cash registers. Just as racist, just as misogynistic, just as insensitive.
But Imus was on the air. Those songs were never played on the radio. If they were played on a top 40 station, I'm positive that the same level of outrage would exist. Do you think that there would be the same level of outrage if Imus had a podcast and said those things? Like, say, Howard Stern? People get pissed off at Stern, but no one can get so riled up because we feel that the free market (when utilizing private space and private goods) should remain somewhat free. However, when you get into the public space (including the airwaves), it is totally different.
I know I'm new here because I'm reading the articles, but the opening and closing paragraphs of the article directly answers your question: If you want to really see quantum mechanics in action, you've got to turn the temperature down so low that even atoms stop moving. Physicists have come close to achieving this "absolute zero" state by using precision-tuned lasers, but the technique has only allowed researchers to freeze small groups of atoms at a time. Now members of an international team say they have managed to cool a dime-sized mirror to within one degree of absolute zero, the lowest laser-induced freeze yet achieved with a visible object. [...] If the effort is successful, Mavalvala says, it will also lead to much more sensitive instruments for LIGO, which is attempting to detect elusive phenomena called gravity waves. Predicted by Einstein but not yet observed, the waves are thought to be emitted by the most violent events in the universe, such as black hole collisions.
I realize that it does indeed violate their copyright, but as a student, wouldn't you want your paper in their catalog so that some lazy student can't make it through school by plagiarizing YOUR work?
So you're saying you want a private company to violate your rights so that individuals can't?
Well, at least the dogs should not get addicted to plastics, like the drug sniffing dogs...
I know you're joking, but this comment is also in response to the "Won't dogs get cancer sniffing chemicals?" question. The dogs take in the same amount of particles no matter what they trained to detect. Imagine them like a vacuum cleaner that picks up every scent that every bag gives off. They are trained to notice certain smells, but they inhale everything equally. Bomb sniffing dogs were inhaling drugs long before they were trained to detect them, and both drug and bomb dogs have been inhaling these chemicals since they were put in action.