Just to be sure we understand each other, I'm not defending his position, with which I disagree.
That stated, his position is that those 3000 murdered civilians weren't innocent because as part of the economic elite they at least indirectly supported past U.S. policies in the Middle East that propped up corrupt governments throughout the region. I think his logic is way off base on that--a whole lot of the people who died at the WTC were anything but "elite". However, his position that the 9/11 attacks were a result of years of bad Middle East policy does have some merit.
the "retard professor" (though I have no idea who would fit the bill here...what alleged professors do you hang out with?
I think he was referring to Ward Churchill, the former ethics professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder who wrote an essay about the 9/11 attacks entitled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Chickens Coming Home to Roost. His ideas are pretty out there but not totally without merit and even if you don't agree with him, he's definitely not a retard.
they will help integrate smart grid technology with the electric grid
It's pretty obvious to anyone familiar with computer networking that making the the electric power grid "smart" would make it more vulnerable to attack. After all, if the grid's control apparatus isn't online, there's no way to hack into it in the first place. I realize there are other advantages to a smart grid but to claim that making the current "dumb" grid smart would also make it more secure seems disingenuous at best.
A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions. Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.
Exactly right--I'm one of those people. I still have a 36" CRT TV set and because it's placed diagonally in a corner of the room on top of all my home theater audio gear, depth will not a be a big concern to me when it comes time to replace it with an HDTV. Lower cost certainly will be, however. If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer, I could very well be the type of customer you've mentioned.
Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.
Boy, you got the heavy part right! It takes two people to move my TV safely. The sucker weighs pretty close to 200 pounds.
That was the perhaps most indecipherable thing ever posted to Slashdot. But it looks like you're right, I was wrong--it is possible to detect FM signals with a crystal radio. I stand corrected.
Oh, and by the way, you're about as big an asshole as the guy on solomonsmusic.net.
The first radio receivers, about a hundred years ago, needed no batteries, they got all the power they needed from the antenna.
That's true, and you can still build one with a few feet of wire, a ten-cent diode and a set of headphones. It will still work, too, although not very well. You must remember that 100 years ago, there wasn't the plethora of transmitters that currently exist so a receiver did not have to be particularly selective. A simple set as described will generally be overwhelmed by a local station and that's all you'll receive.
Okay, I'm breaking my own rules. I guess I should have said "if there's any good science. There certainly wasn't any at the site you aimed me to. It was so bad that the editor resigned, in fact. Here's a short quote from a very interesting article:
“I was in fact in doubt about [the Open Chemical Physics Journal] before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal”, says [former editor-in-chief] Marie-Paule Pileni and continues:
“There are no references to the Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles. I have two colleagues who contributed to publishing an article which was not cited anyplace either. If no one reads it, it is a bad journal, and there is not use for it”
Since their theories have no basis in fact, this is the sort of thing that the so-called "truthers" are forced to hang their hats on. No wonder no one takes them seriously
Great stuff, thanks for the URL. I especially liked the one cover with the propellor-driven ice racers that said "Written so you can understand it" right under the magazine's title. That says a whole lot about PM's target audience.
If you ask me, attacking the "9-11 truth" (and there's an oxymoron if ever there was one) movement only adds to Popular Mechanics' credibility. I've spent a lot of time at the various WTC conspiracy Web site and if there's any real science (or credible evidence) presented on any of them, it's damned well hidden.
FYI, don't bother to try and argue your case with me--I won't read it or reply. It's a waste of time arguing with conspiracy theorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be sure we understand each other, I'm not defending his position, with which I disagree.
That stated, his position is that those 3000 murdered civilians weren't innocent because as part of the economic elite they at least indirectly supported past U.S. policies in the Middle East that propped up corrupt governments throughout the region. I think his logic is way off base on that--a whole lot of the people who died at the WTC were anything but "elite". However, his position that the 9/11 attacks were a result of years of bad Middle East policy does have some merit.
the "retard professor" (though I have no idea who would fit the bill here...what alleged professors do you hang out with?
I think he was referring to Ward Churchill, the former ethics professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder who wrote an essay about the 9/11 attacks entitled Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Chickens Coming Home to Roost. His ideas are pretty out there but not totally without merit and even if you don't agree with him, he's definitely not a retard.
From the summary:
they will help integrate smart grid technology with the electric grid
It's pretty obvious to anyone familiar with computer networking that making the the electric power grid "smart" would make it more vulnerable to attack. After all, if the grid's control apparatus isn't online, there's no way to hack into it in the first place. I realize there are other advantages to a smart grid but to claim that making the current "dumb" grid smart would also make it more secure seems disingenuous at best.
It should be obvious to any other geek who the ultimate geek is. Woz of course.
Not only that, the Woz can dance!
Oh, wait...
What's the story on this chair thing I keep seeing referenced?
Check it out yourself.
Goes off is more like it.
Yeah. And hard to implant anywhere you could watch it yourself--at least, not without a mirror.
What's the other LPD?
It's that drug we used to take back in the Sixties, man. It was really far out.
If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer,
That should have read: If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer marketplace,
A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions. Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.
Exactly right--I'm one of those people. I still have a 36" CRT TV set and because it's placed diagonally in a corner of the room on top of all my home theater audio gear, depth will not a be a big concern to me when it comes time to replace it with an HDTV. Lower cost certainly will be, however. If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer, I could very well be the type of customer you've mentioned.
Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.
Boy, you got the heavy part right! It takes two people to move my TV safely. The sucker weighs pretty close to 200 pounds.
Check some of the links on the post that called me to task for saying that you can't receive FM on a crystal radio. Turns out you can.
That was the perhaps most indecipherable thing ever posted to Slashdot. But it looks like you're right, I was wrong--it is possible to detect FM signals with a crystal radio. I stand corrected.
Oh, and by the way, you're about as big an asshole as the guy on solomonsmusic.net.
The first radio receivers, about a hundred years ago, needed no batteries, they got all the power they needed from the antenna.
That's true, and you can still build one with a few feet of wire, a ten-cent diode and a set of headphones. It will still work, too, although not very well. You must remember that 100 years ago, there wasn't the plethora of transmitters that currently exist so a receiver did not have to be particularly selective. A simple set as described will generally be overwhelmed by a local station and that's all you'll receive.
Oh, yeah--no FM either.
Okay, I'm breaking my own rules. I guess I should have said "if there's any good science. There certainly wasn't any at the site you aimed me to. It was so bad that the editor resigned, in fact. Here's a short quote from a very interesting article:
Since their theories have no basis in fact, this is the sort of thing that the so-called "truthers" are forced to hang their hats on. No wonder no one takes them seriously
Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in that world where nothing ever broke down and all roads were straight.
No. Then there would be no place for British sports cars.
The Swiss hate cars, even more than nanny-state California does. A 210+ mph ticket on a Veyron there had a max fine of $500.
You've obviously never actually spent any time in California or you'd know that, in fact, the car totally rules!
Try getting around most anywhere in this state other than San Francisco without one.
Tio ne estas akir multe spamo en i.
I just figured it out:
"I can not hear you, the rotorcraft is too loud."
Great stuff, thanks for the URL. I especially liked the one cover with the propellor-driven ice racers that said "Written so you can understand it" right under the magazine's title. That says a whole lot about PM's target audience.
mi ne povas aud vi, la rotoroj estas tro lauta!
"I do not can aud you, the rotoroj is too much lauta"? Please to explain...
If you ask me, attacking the "9-11 truth" (and there's an oxymoron if ever there was one) movement only adds to Popular Mechanics' credibility. I've spent a lot of time at the various WTC conspiracy Web site and if there's any real science (or credible evidence) presented on any of them, it's damned well hidden.
FYI, don't bother to try and argue your case with me--I won't read it or reply. It's a waste of time arguing with conspiracy theorists.
If they weren't, we'd all be flying autogiros and speaking Esperanto by now.
I believe you are thinking of the erotic Song of Solomon
Yes, you're right. What little I know about the Bible was learned many years ago (and against my will) so it's sometimes a little sketchy.
The violence part still stands, though. Plenty of that all through the Old Testament.
Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun, but at a rate that is too slow to be observable.
Except for the fact that if something is falling slowly, it ain't a plummet. From the Oxford American Dictionary:
All that begatting and not a bare breast in sight.
Plenty of sex (check out the Psalms sometime) and violence, though. Especially violence.