Some of the films for older boys would be hard to classify as art, particularly some of Roger Ebert's work. He was co-writer with Russ Meyers of the infamous "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (1970).
From a user review on IMDB: "A 60s all-girl rock band decides to get in the van and head to Los Angeles to try to make it big. And they find it is super easy, and they make connections fast, but fame and fortune comes at an expense.... Yes, this is the movie that is infamous for being written by Roger Ebert. Yes, this is a bad movie with appalling editing. Yes, this is tasteless schlock. But, it is tasteless schlock at its best. Even though the lead cast is comprised of (very lovely) Playboy pin-ups and models that look stoned half the time, they do a great job at portraying immediately corrupted innocents. I actually really enjoy the 60s soul garage music..."
The quotes are hilarious: Ronnie (Z-Man) Barzell: This is my happening and it freaks me out! * Ronnie (Z-Man) Barzell: You will drink the black sperm of my vengence. * Petronella Danforth: C'mon, Casey. The principal's supposed to hit me with a coupla caps of acid. *
Susan Lake: I guess liquor's considered pretty square. Petronella Danforth: Same as grass. Depends on how you use it. * [Kelly and Z-Man have walked into a bathroom to find a couple having sex in Z-Man's bathroom] Ronnie (Z-Man) Barzell: Glad to see my audience in such happy dalliance. Pray, let them joust in peace! * Porter Hall: She was living in a single room with three other individuals. One of them was a male, and the other two, well the other two were females. God only knows what they were up to in there... and furthermore, Susan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that all four of them habitually smoked marijuana cigarettes... reefers.
Every expantion of governmental power at any level beyond the minimum explicitly delegated to the government is an attempted theft of the rights of the people. Any authoritarian point of view which thinks that the government grants rights or that a right must have some textual authority, constitutional provision or court ruling in order to be legitimate are quite wrong. All rights inhere in the human spirit, and some few have been explicitly delegated to the commonweal by our ancestors and our own actions, but in the main, the powers of governmant as currently exercised have been stolen from the people by illegitimate acts, regulations, customs and court decisions. No one is bound by these usurpations, but the balance of force lies with the usurpers in individual cases; oppression supports the roots of injusice and tyrrany here as elsewhere in history. Bush is a worse tyrant than the US has seen before, but most of the worst abuses and infringements of our rights have a long and progressively worsening institution in our country.
Some infringements of rights in our current government:
speech - "free speech zones", gag orders supposedly for national security but actually to conceal crimes, actions against confidentiality of reporters' sources, propaganda created to drive out news, defining t-shirt messages as hostile action aginst the government, effective destruction of collective labor bargaining
privacy - sneek and peek, no knock, phone and data network snooping, secret warrants, national security letters, financial-reporting noose-tightening to the point where there is no privacy in financial matters any longer, medical privacy obsolete, attorney-client privilege suspended in "terrorism" cases, buying private databases to collect information that it would be illegal to collect directly and using contractors to correlate and mine those databases in ways that the govenment could not dierectly
property - ubiquitous financial reporting, continued manipulation of inflation, GDP, money supply, government spending and deficit figures, no-bid contracts to cronys, encouragement of plunder of public lands, military contractor featherbedding consuming billions per week, lowering real wages and benefits to benefit the manager and owner classes, encouraging private takings through pollution of others' property by not charging for diffuse externalities; favoring of fictitious legal persons (corporations with no loyalty to any country) over actual natural people in regulation of trade, finance and politics
travel - ID requirements, searches
habeas corpus - Bush can lock anyone up as long as he likes withoout charge, let alone a fair trial
elections - no longer effective. Illegal manipulation of the voting rolls in Florida in 2000 and unavailability of machines in Democratic Ohio polling places in 2004 by themselves invalidate Bush's elections, even without getting into the substantial evidence of fraud in the machines and totalizers which also applies to some Congressional elections. Bush is not the legitimate US President, and the current government is not constitutional. Election-rigging is directly inimical to democratic government and as such is treason.
veto override - signing statements gutting laws cannot be overturned by the Congress
seperation of powers - the usual post-Roosevelt crap of letting agencies write laws, enforce them, and provide their own legal system and courts, and post-Truman arrogation of war powers to the President instead of Congress, but with the addition of military tribunals, the Supreme Court illegitimately choosing the election winner, and the "unitary executive" idea extended to frankly imperial perogatives.
war - now not only without declaration by Congress, but without end against undefined non-state enemy
truth - lies to the people by leaders to get them to endorse an immoral course of action (war, Social Security "privatization", torture, spying on Americans, etc.) infringe the rights of the people to the honest servic
"The fact that the person supplying the evidence was committing a crime to get the evidence does not usually matter as long as they were not an acting agent of a law-enforcement agency."
It should matter to you. It makes it much too tempting for cops to have such an easy way around the rules - anonymous tips should never be probable cause unless you want to just hotwire the power of government around the the bill of rights. It also makes it far too easy to get planted information accepted in court. The cops might plant evidence occasionally, but that's not the real danger. You won't just get vigilantes screwing up innocent people's computers - you'll get extortionists and framers, stalkers and vengeful crazy people going after anybody they hate, or in the case of the profit-minded ones, just anybody who looks sufficiently weak and solvent. There are times when courts have to let the wanker with the pervy pics go, so as not to set a bad precedent that will cause more harm in the long run than letting him off lightly. (Merely destroying his life with the trial and keeping him incarcerated for closer to 2 rather than 20 years for downloading porn seems not excessively light, anyway.)
Your link is informative, but the quote you cite is a bit misleading. The developers don't seem to have access to the real OLPC displays yet, so they need a display simulator to test the graphics settings of software meant to run on this display. The shrinking described is part of that simulation.
* The screen is very small (exactly 6 x 4.5 inches, about 15 x 11 cm).
* The screen has a resolution twice as high as our usual screens (200 dpi VS 96 dpi -- 1200 x 900 pixels).
* For power saving purposes, we work in a "color swizzling" mode, meaning that each pixel of the display can only be red, green or blue, according to the following layout:
[view of upper-left corner of square-pixel, conventional horizontal-vertical layout screen with sucessive diagonal lines of red, then green and blue pixels running from lower-left to upper right. -S.]
In photographic terms, the display has high resolution, but low acutance. The display can resolve small details more or less fine, but it has a hard time with sudden contrast changes between pixels.... Because of the swizzling + antialiasing process, thin lines won't look good. More precisely, thin lines with high contrast won't look good at all. Not too dark grey lines on a white background will probably look okay.
Actually, thin lines have a kind of "tut-tuttering" look, as if they had been sewn onto the screen.
Older CRTs are so much better value for the money- I have a 17" ADI (15.25" viewable) that cost about $600 about 11 years ago, and it is far more enjoyable to use than the POS cheap monitors today - and now they're virtually all cheap in the CRT end of the business. The build quality and the geometric precision on the old monitors is way better than you can find in CRTs today - at least without spending more than $600. The color and contrast are superb, too. Good CRT monitors can still be had at surplus and used computer shops, though, and they're often a steal. I got a high-end 18" (viewable, I-forget-what nominal) NEC for $80 at a local Taiwanese-run shop, which, after much on-screen menu adjustment has turned out to be a good monitor, although a little too new to be really well-made....but I do wish I could afford one of those Apple LCD displays - the big one or the huge one, I don't care...[sigh]
Your linked-to post is quite right, and worth a repost. IANAL but used to just about everything but appear in court working in a small law office in Maryland about 15 years ago. I believe specifically what this guy needs after getting a subpoena for the John Doe's ID is a "writ of replevin" in which the court may order the Sheriff to seize the property after an ex-parte pre-trial show-cause hearing. See: http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/forms/civil /dccv04br.html - for specific MD instructions and http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/forms/civil /dccv04.pdf - the form.
If you are not in MD you may make a federal case out of it; the U.S. Marshals serve these writs, too. You might find that has drawbacks - you really need a lawyer's advice, not Slashdot's.
>>anagama (611277) Sunday August 20, @01:07AM (#15943034) wrote: If the cops won't help, see the tort of conversion [wikipedia.org]. File a "john doe" civil suit. Once filed, your attorney would have subpoena power -- use it with Verizon to get the name, address, and phone number of the user associated with the IP. Verizon will have an entire department devoted to processing these types of requests -- you'll have no problem except figuring out what their number is. If you represent yourself, you may have to ask the court to issue the subpoena on your behalf. Once you have the identifier, amend your suit to name that party (probably keep the "john does" at least till you're certain you have all the people involved). Also check your states statutes, there may be something specifically related to your situation. The statutes are certainly available online free -- start at your state's homepage (somewhere burried of course).
As an approximation that can be shown to be in conflict with experiment. The ultraviolet catastrophe was the result of assuming a continuous and infinite distribution of energies. The need for renomalization is also an artifact of assuming continuity in a theory with point particles. The energy needed to probe very short distances at some point reaches a level that either creates a black hole, thus precluding getting a result of the attempted measurement (or, if black holes do not exist, the amount of energy in the whole universe still sets a bound on how fine a scale anything can be probed).
Any physical or mathematical theory has to be in accordance with information theory, and thus must place finite limits on how much information is expressed in or or transmitted by any spatiotemporally limited entity, attribute, or behavior. Since any random real number contains infinite information, and any interval contains an infinity of random reals, any theory that truly depends on real numbers or continuity is inconsistent with the proven limits of information.
See Geometric Algebra (Clifford algebra over the reals - though rationals work at any precision), particularly Hestene's introductory papers, for a natural interpretation of imaginary numbers as bivectors.
The question of whether 0 is a physically legitimate number hadn't occured to me. As a denominator it surely isn't legitimate, and may be illegitimate as a factor in some situations. Quantum effects in the vacuum seem to preclude zero energy.
Newton's laws and the curvature of space seem to have no bearing either way on what I said. Are you suggesting that there is no physical reality, or that it cannot even be known well enough to determine whether it is continuous or discrete? Perhaps you can articulate some reason why infinities as sets reather than processes are required to accurately represent anything physical? Certainly Zermelo had to add as an axiom that infinite sets exist, and this implies that the remaining axioms and thus the basis of mathematics do not require that infinite sets exist.
Unless you want to admit that math has no connection to reality then you have to abandon completed infinities. At any given time there are a finite number of energy quanta and Planck 4-volumes in our past light cone, and the two together only allow a finite number of permutations.
This number may grow with time and might not even be bounded, but at any given time, numbers larger than this number (and almost certainly most of those smaller) are physically meaningless. So go on playing with your infinite and transfinite sets, trancendental numbers and so forth, so long as it's understood that from a universal point of view, such impossible fantasies can never be needed to describe physical reality.
Have you actually read the Principia? Newton hid the calculus he really used and instead turgidly explained everything by geometric construction. This indicates to me that he not ultimately seeking to increase shared human knowledge and that he preferred the secretive alchemical way of operating when it came to important methods that others could potentially use to compete with him. When he did finally publish work on the calculus, he made his notation and methods more obscure than the earlier-publishing Leibniz. And the Newtonian telescope really did suck at the time - nearly everybody was still using refractors for about 200 years after Newton. (Newton's design was not the first reflecting telescope design, either. The more technically advanced Gregorian design was first, although Hooke didn't actually build one until a bit after Newton's prototype.) You say: "What Newton did that was so extraordinary was that he was able to, with four simple laws, explain EVERYTHING." No, he explained many things, and people who should have known better took that to mean that he had explained far more than he really had. In truth, the claims of long-term and in-principle perfect predictability of planetary motion or other complex mechanics were never well supported and have been disproven in the past few decades. Still, many continue to act as if present theories, logic and math can answer all questions. Newton's most lasting legacy (beyond his vicious academic infighting) may be that common strain of unscientific dogmatism and certainty in many who claim to be supporters of science.
While Hooke didn't discover universal gravitation, he might have if Newton or Halley hadn't, and some believe Newton might never have refined, justified, and published books on his ideas if it hadn't been for the acrimonious argument with Hooke about optics. There is only room for at most one grand theory per generation, so not discovering universal gravitation is no certain mark of inferiority, especially when you consider that it was Hooke who came up with the inverse-square law and suggested to Newton that the motion of the planets might be a combination of circular and linear motion. As for the supposed brevity of Hooke's accomplishments: who knows what else Hooke was up to? Newton really did do his best to see that Hooke's works wore destroyed.
Nevertheless, what we do know about his accomplishments is impressive. The discovery of cells was at least as fundamental for biology as universal gravitation was for physics (though that did not really become clear until later). Hooke was in charge of demonstrations for the Royal Society and was one the foremost experimentalists of his day. Neal Stephenson in his fiction attributes the first internal combustion engine (gunpowder-powered) and designs for human-carrying winged aircraft to Hooke, although I do not know if this was accurate. Certainly he did more than you list - Wikipedia lists Hooke's major contributions:
* First to refer to cells in living matter. 1665: Robert Hooke discovers cells in cork, then in living plant tissue using an early microscope.
* First to study fossils and hypothesize that they were extinct species.
* First to report Jupiter's Red Spot and by observing it deduce that the planet rotated.
* First to report the rotation of Mars.
* Worked out the number of vibrations of each musical note.
* Observed Lunar craters.
* Published the first book on microscopy, Micrographia.
* First to explain the shape of crystal in terms of the packing of their component parts.
* One of the first to observe a binary star.
* Postulated a wave theory of light, rejected by Newton and not re-established until about 1820 by Fresnel.
* Advocated the me
Leibniz had apparently had some news of Newton's thinking and IIRC seems to have read an unpublished paper by Newton that had some hints. On the other hand, Newton's mathematical formalism and clarity of thought regarding calculus were much inferior to Leibniz's. Newton had not published this most important discovery despite having many years to do so, and so had cut himself off from the community of scientific endeavor, despite his later use of the Royal Society and other scientific contacts to attack Leibniz.
Newton did a handful of big things - laws of motion and universal gravitation (although these were building on the work of others more than is generally seen); color and light (although his corpuscular theory was not really even half right - photons aren't anything like Newton's corpuscules), and the reflector telescope (which didn't really work very well at the time). That's pretty much it, aside from the politics and the alchemy.
Hooke and Leibniz each did far more than Newton, and were better men intellectually and personally - and perhaps because of that, Newton destroyed the work of one and did his best to destroy the reputation of the other.
The number you cited was from the last calculation of three sets of assumptions about the specificity and sensitivity of the NSA's snooping program. The assumptions came in three sizes: excessively optimistic, delusional, and batshit; your 23% number came from the last.
Here's the relevant part:
>> The US Census shows that there are about 300 million people living in the USA.
Suppose that there are 1,000 terrorists there as well, which is probably a high estimate. The base-rate would be 1 terrorist per 300,000 people. In percentages, that is.00033%, which is way less than 1%. Suppose that NSA surveillance has an accuracy rate of.40, which means that 40% of real terrorists in the USA will be identified by NSA's monitoring of everyone's email and phone calls. This is probably a high estimate, considering that terrorists are doing their best to avoid detection. There is no evidence thus far that NSA has been so successful at finding terrorists. And suppose NSA's misidentification rate is.0001, which means that.01% of innocent people will be misidentified as terrorists, at least until they are investigated, detained and interrogated. Note that.01% of the US population is 30,000 people. With these suppositions, then the probability that people are terrorists given that NSA's system of surveillance identifies them as terrorists is only p=0.0132, which is near zero, very far from one. Ergo, NSA's surveillance system is useless for finding terrorists.
Suppose that NSA's system is more accurate than.40, let's say,.70, which means that 70% of terrorists in the USA will be found by mass monitoring of phone calls and email messages. Then, by Bayes' Theorem, the probability that a person is a terrorist if targeted by NSA is still only p=0.0228, which is near zero, far from one, and useless.
Suppose that NSA's system is really, really, really good, really, really good, with an accuracy rate of.90, and a misidentification rate of.00001, which means that only 3,000 innocent people are misidentified as terrorists. With these suppositions, then the probability that people are terrorists given that NSA's system of surveillance identifies them as terrorists is only p=0.2308, which is far from one and well below flipping a coin. NSA's domestic monitoring of everyone's email and phone calls is useless for finding terrorists. >>
Well, you're more right than most who have posted here. Several "real programmers" here seem to think that BCD eliminates cumulative errors. Fixed-point is not completely moronic, but you still need extra decimal places sufficient to handle iterated computations such as: interest calculations with rates to five significant digits compounded over decades, subtractions of nearly equal quantities, multiplications by one+/-epsilon or near-inverses, and so forth. But you misspoke about fixed-point numbers having fixed precision - rather, they have fixed accuracy. The former depends on the number of distinct values that can be represented, the latter depends on the absolute size of the smallest representable unit. Any given fixed-point representation has a different effective precision for every different numerical value it can hold, while floating-point numbers have a different minimum distinguishable increment (accuracy) for each value of exponent. As others have pointed out, IEEE-754 floating-point numbers have known accuracy and proper mathematical behavior, but they occasionally require some skill to use. So do the fixed-point systems, but they have less robust error behavior than the IEEE numbers with their curious special cases and ranges. Given sufficient bits in the floating-point number, the accuracy is as good or better than needed for any type of financial math (better really- finance often isn't as precise as most people here seem to think, and almost never so accurate). If you think that accuracy is important in this kind of application, though, why object to a couple of extra bytes per number? But really it's the fixed-point that wastes bits on the seldom-used but always-allocated headroom needed to store large values.
The Intel 80-bit double-extended precision floating-point number format has 64 bits of mantissa, and can exactly represent any integer between -2^64 and 2^64. Using only the positive range, that is over 19 decimal places, more than the 10 digits before and 8 after the decimal point which another poster has said is the numerical accuracy required of banks in order to be allowed connection to the London markets. In most cases, the 80-bit floating-point number is far more accurate: for account balances between +/- 16.7E6 currency units, the accuracy will be accurate to within about +/- 2^-40 units (12 decimal places), and for balances within +/- 8.6E9 currency units the accuracy will be within about +/- 2^-31 units (9 decimal places + 1 bit). Between about 137 - 274 billion-unit accounts one would have to make do with only 7.8 decimal places of accuracy instead of 8, but there would still be over 6 decimal places of accuracy even for single accounts of up to 17.6E12. So floating-point numbers can indeed guarantee high accuracy; for ordinary currency numbers, floating point has higher accuracy than almost all fixed point implementations. (And even if you do crowd the limits, the underflow is gradual due to the "subnormal" and "denormal" numbers which are smaller than the normal range.)
Examples: If you were to add fractional-cent amounts calculated to have the maximum possible error of representation in 80-bit format (7.45E-7 cents ) to a billion-dollar account once per minute for fifteen months, the accumulated error would still be less than half a cent. In more normal acccounts of 1 million dollars, the 2.27E-13 cent maximum error would have to be added once per millisecond for nearly 70 years to reach half a cent accumulated error. Any error from adding approximated binary fractions (1/odd number, etc.) would of course usually be less than the maximum error.
Floats are usually much more convenient than fixed representations for practical higher financial calculations. However, if one needs to do something less useful - say, calculate the interest on the US national debt compounded and recalulated each microsecond in units of quadrillionths of Weimar-era hyperinflated Marks, (and you are too 1337 to use a 128-bit format), then use arbitrary-precision arithme
The ultrasonic unobtanium-plated bleed-burning boondoggle won't really be used in most internal injuries either - it's just for limbs. Limbs you are willing to risk amputating later, from the sound of its risky battlefield-operating, computer-controlled blood- boiling. Life-threatening closed-wound internal bleeding in the limbs has to be scarce - big arteries have to get nicked, and how often is that really going to happen in a limb without puncturing nearby skin? If the bleeder is not life-threatening, then it may be better to wait for surgery.
>If you have any references for the social aptitudes of homeschoolees, I'd like to read them.
Here's a bunch of sources - not exactly statistically rigorous sources, but at least there are a bunch.
Rather than just the social issue alone, I have sources for the other questions posted in reply to my original post the Evidence for the specific claims I made is in boldface. (homeschoolers better in: quality, extensive social life; learn more; less alienated; happier; no "learned helplessness", therefore are more effective and self directed) Hard numbers are few, as might be expected (how reliably can one quantify such traits?) but the hundreds of individual parent accounts I have read are overwhelmingly positive for homeschooling as opposed to the epic battles and institutional anti-competence that most parents of gifted children in public schools report having to battle, usually without real success.
A large collection of general articles and research on homeschooling visit the biggest and best gifted education and information site on the web, Hoagies' Gifted Education Page
The TAGFAM and TAGMAX email lists (linked on first Hoagie's page above) give a picture from hundreds of families that strongly supports the intellectual, personal and social ability advantages of homeschooling. Compared to any other electronic forum I have seen - including 4-sigma IQ lists - the TAG list moms' writing is light-years ahead in perceptible intelligence, substance, style and tact.
Some basics everyone should know about homeschooling:
"School's Out" Get ready for the new age of individualized education (Reason, October 2001) By Daniel H. Pink
[....] The Home-Schooling Revolution
"School is like starting life with a 12-year jail sentence in which bad habits are the only curriculum truly learned." Those are the words of John Taylor Gatto, who was named New York state's Teacher of the Year in 1991. Today he is one of the most forceful voices for one of the most powerful movements in American education -- home schooling. In home schooling, kids opt out of traditional school to take control of their own education and to learn with the help of parents, tutors, and peers. Home schooling is free agency for the under-18 set. And it's about to break through the surface of our national life.
As recently as 1980, home schooling was illegal in most states. In the early 1980s, no more than 15,000 students learned this way. But Christian conservatives, unhappy with schools they considered God-free zones and eager to teach their kids themselves, pressed for changes. Laws fell, and home schooling surged. By 1990, there were as many as 300,000 American home-schoolers. By 1993, home schooling was legal in all 50 states. Since then, home schooling has swum into the mainstream -- paddled there by secular parents dissatisfied with low-quality, and even dangerous, schools. In the first half of the 1990s, the home-schooling population more than doubled. Today some 1.7 million children are home-schoolers, their ranks growing as much as 15 percent each year. Factor in turnover, and one in 10 American kids under 18 has gotten part of his or her schooling at home.
Home schooling has become perhaps the largest and most successful education reform movement of the last two decades:
*While barely 3 percent of American schoolchildren are now home-schoolers, that represents a surprisingly large dent in the public school monopoly -- especially compared with private schools. For every four kids in private school, there's one youngster learning at home. The home-schooling population is roughly equal to all the school-age children in Pennsylvania.
>That leaves Hastert as the only GOP leader not expected to face criminal charges.
Not expected to be charged, but probably not clean either. FBI translator and whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds alleges that FBI counterintelligence wiretaps of Turkish operations in the US contain strong evidence that Hastert took large bribes to kill legislation that would have embarassed Turkey by condemning the Turkish genocide of Armenians.
Both Democrats and Republicans were implicated in the investigation. It's reasonable to suspect other such stories never got out. How much of the Democrats' spinelessness has been due to blackmail?
Edmonds has given confidential testimony inside a secure Sensitive Compartmented Information facility on several occasions: to congressional staffers, to investigators from the O.I.G., and to the staff from the 9/11 commission. Sources familiar with this testimony say that, in addition to her allegations about the Dickersons, she reported hearing Turkish wiretap targets boast that they had a covert relationship with a very senior politician indeed--Dennis Hastert, Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House since 1999. The targets reportedly discussed giving Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in surreptitious payments in exchange for political favors and information. [....]
in December 2001, Joel Robertz, an F.B.I. special agent in Chicago, contacted Sibel and asked her to review some wiretaps. [....]
Its subject was explosive; what sounded like attempts to bribe elected members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican. "There was pressure within the bureau for a special prosecutor to be appointed and take the case on, "the official says. Instead, his colleagues were told to alter the thrust of their investigation - away from elected politicians and toward appointed officials. "This is the reason why Ashcroft reacted to Sibel in such an extreme fashion," he says "It was to keep this from coming out."
In her secure testimony, Edmonds disclosed some of what she recalled hearing. In all, says a source who was present, she managed to listen to more than 40 of the Chicago recordings supplied by Robertz. Many involved an F.B.I. target at the city's large Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associates.
Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes. To a person who knew nothing about their context, the details were confusing and it wasn't always clear what might be significant. One name, however, apparently stood out - a man the Turkish callers often referred to by the nickname "Denny boy." It was the Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. According to some of the wiretaps, the F.B.I.'s targets had arranged for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to Hastert's campaign funds in small checks. Under Federal Election Commission rules, donations of less than $200 are not required to be itemized in public filings.
Hastert himself was never heard in the recordings, Edmonds told investigators, and it is possible that the claims of covert payments were hollow boasts. Nevertheless, an examination of Hastert's federal filings shows that the level of un-itemized payments his campaigns received over many years was relatively high. Between April 1996 and December 2002, un-itemized personal donations to the Hastert for Congress Committee amounted to $483,000. In contrast, un-itemized contributions in the same period to the committee run on behalf of the House majority leader, Tom Delay, Republican of Texas, were only $99,000. An analysis of the filings of four other senior Republicans shows that only one, Clay Shaw of Florida, dec
I agree with you 100%. All the mainstream American media present administration propaganda as unquestionable fact and do everything in their power to avoid really delving into any of the administration's many scandals.
Some credulous, conformist pseudo-conservative abused his mod points to shoot down a post that introduced some real truth into this discussion.
Your cursing, poor grammar, spelling, and incorrect vocabulary suggest that your opinions on education can safely be dismissed. Your failure to understand the GP poster's comments and your incoherent response to those comments confirms that your opinion on this subject is stupid.
"Professional teacher" just means they get paid. To get a public-school teaching job the main requirement is not subject knowledge or teaching ability but rather taking content-free "education" courses in college.
Schools - especially public schools - are not there to teach, but to present a politically prescribed curriculum at a uniform rate for a set number of years, regardless of what any given student already knows or how fast they are capable of learning. Highly intelligent students are rarely presented with anything they do not already know, and when they are actually taught something, it is presented much more slowly and shallowly than the students could learn the subject on their own.
The culture of school is also dedicated to conditioning students to accept arbitrary and unreasonable infringements of their natural rights, and censorship of what students can read online is one instance of this. Opting out by homeschooling is not just a reasonable alternative; forcing a student to participate in the meat-grinder of assembly-line anti-education is abuse.
Homeschoolers usually have higher-quality and more extensive social lives than those in conventional school, learn more, are less likely to be alienated, depressed and to have the "learned helplessness" that results from being treated in school as shoddy parts destined for corporate machines.
Why do you see "social integration" (enforced conformity) as a benefit? Being held captive in an education-preventing prison with immature students and dim authoritarians actually inhibits not only the ability to learn and work independently but also the ability to socially interact with intelligent adults later in life.
>Also, I'd like to see this power applied to an internal injury.
QuikClot is now available on a "sponge" which will stay in the wound despite massive blood flow. Using this stuff does not require finding the exact source of the bleeding, and it can be used on internal inuries in virtually any area of the body.
>Really, I find it hard to respect an environmentalist who has four children.
And I find it hard to respect an evolutionary biologist who does not have at least three kids.
The whole "too many people" thing is really stupid - we're nowhere near the carrying capacity of the earth, let alone the solar system, and particularly nowhere near the carrying capacity for people who are smart about finding effective ways to use resources. Which really means engineers more than "environmentalists", but ecologists and field biologists are certainly needed too.
Tourniquets do kinda suck, though. Rather than hauling some ridiculous ultrasonic contrapton around, keep a couple packets of QuikClot (zeolite powder) in your kit.
Testing this on pigs, they cut the pigs' femoral arteries and let 'em bleed for 3 min. IIRC.
No therapy - 80% mortality. Best competing products - 60% mortality. QuikClot - 0% mortality.
There's an idea - James Bond in space. No, not Moonraker, but something more like the "Stainless Steel Rat" or those Cole & Bunch "Mantis" novels - or whatever they were called. Or Resnick's Santiago. Whatshisname from "The Stars My Desination". Or even Laumer's Retief. Or rip off a bit from all of them and don't pay royalties - that's real industry thinking! Or it would be if those TV kinda people could read...
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the films for older boys would be hard to classify as art, particularly some of Roger Ebert's work. He was co-writer with Russ Meyers of the infamous "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (1970).
..."
From a user review on IMDB: "A 60s all-girl rock band decides to get in the van and head to Los Angeles to try to make it big. And they find it is super easy, and they make connections fast, but fame and fortune comes at an expense.... Yes, this is the movie that is infamous for being written by Roger Ebert. Yes, this is a bad movie with appalling editing. Yes, this is tasteless schlock. But, it is tasteless schlock at its best. Even though the lead cast is comprised of (very lovely) Playboy pin-ups and models that look stoned half the time, they do a great job at portraying immediately corrupted innocents. I actually really enjoy the 60s soul garage music
The quotes are hilarious:
Ronnie (Z-Man) Barzell: This is my happening and it freaks me out!
*
Ronnie (Z-Man) Barzell: You will drink the black sperm of my vengence.
*
Petronella Danforth: C'mon, Casey. The principal's supposed to hit me with a coupla caps of acid.
*
Susan Lake: I guess liquor's considered pretty square.
Petronella Danforth: Same as grass. Depends on how you use it.
*
[Kelly and Z-Man have walked into a bathroom to find a couple having sex in Z-Man's bathroom]
Ronnie (Z-Man) Barzell: Glad to see my audience in such happy dalliance. Pray, let them joust in peace!
*
Porter Hall: She was living in a single room with three other individuals. One of them was a male, and the other two, well the other two were females. God only knows what they were up to in there... and furthermore, Susan, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that all four of them habitually smoked marijuana cigarettes... reefers.
Every expantion of governmental power at any level beyond the minimum explicitly delegated to the government is an attempted theft of the rights of the people. Any authoritarian point of view which thinks that the government grants rights or that a right must have some textual authority, constitutional provision or court ruling in order to be legitimate are quite wrong. All rights inhere in the human spirit, and some few have been explicitly delegated to the commonweal by our ancestors and our own actions, but in the main, the powers of governmant as currently exercised have been stolen from the people by illegitimate acts, regulations, customs and court decisions. No one is bound by these usurpations, but the balance of force lies with the usurpers in individual cases; oppression supports the roots of injusice and tyrrany here as elsewhere in history. Bush is a worse tyrant than the US has seen before, but most of the worst abuses and infringements of our rights have a long and progressively worsening institution in our country.
Some infringements of rights in our current government:
speech - "free speech zones", gag orders supposedly for national security but actually to conceal crimes, actions against confidentiality of reporters' sources, propaganda created to drive out news, defining t-shirt messages as hostile action aginst the government, effective destruction of collective labor bargaining
privacy - sneek and peek, no knock, phone and data network snooping, secret warrants, national security letters, financial-reporting noose-tightening to the point where there is no privacy in financial matters any longer, medical privacy obsolete, attorney-client privilege suspended in "terrorism" cases, buying private databases to collect information that it would be illegal to collect directly and using contractors to correlate and mine those databases in ways that the govenment could not dierectly
property - ubiquitous financial reporting, continued manipulation of inflation, GDP, money supply, government spending and deficit figures, no-bid contracts to cronys, encouragement of plunder of public lands, military contractor featherbedding consuming billions per week, lowering real wages and benefits to benefit the manager and owner classes, encouraging private takings through pollution of others' property by not charging for diffuse externalities; favoring of fictitious legal persons (corporations with no loyalty to any country) over actual natural people in regulation of trade, finance and politics
travel - ID requirements, searches
habeas corpus - Bush can lock anyone up as long as he likes withoout charge, let alone a fair trial
elections - no longer effective. Illegal manipulation of the voting rolls in Florida in 2000 and unavailability of machines in Democratic Ohio polling places in 2004 by themselves invalidate Bush's elections, even without getting into the substantial evidence of fraud in the machines and totalizers which also applies to some Congressional elections. Bush is not the legitimate US President, and the current government is not constitutional. Election-rigging is directly inimical to democratic government and as such is treason.
veto override - signing statements gutting laws cannot be overturned by the Congress
seperation of powers - the usual post-Roosevelt crap of letting agencies write laws, enforce them, and provide their own legal system and courts, and post-Truman arrogation of war powers to the President instead of Congress, but with the addition of military tribunals, the Supreme Court illegitimately choosing the election winner, and the "unitary executive" idea extended to frankly imperial perogatives.
war - now not only without declaration by Congress, but without end against undefined non-state enemy
truth - lies to the people by leaders to get them to endorse an immoral course of action (war, Social Security "privatization", torture, spying on Americans, etc.) infringe the rights of the people to the honest servic
"The fact that the person supplying the evidence was committing a crime to get the evidence does not usually matter as long as they were not an acting agent of a law-enforcement agency."
It should matter to you. It makes it much too tempting for cops to have such an easy way around the rules - anonymous tips should never be probable cause unless you want to just hotwire the power of government around the the bill of rights. It also makes it far too easy to get planted information accepted in court. The cops might plant evidence occasionally, but that's not the real danger. You won't just get vigilantes screwing up innocent people's computers - you'll get extortionists and framers, stalkers and vengeful crazy people going after anybody they hate, or in the case of the profit-minded ones, just anybody who looks sufficiently weak and solvent. There are times when courts have to let the wanker with the pervy pics go, so as not to set a bad precedent that will cause more harm in the long run than letting him off lightly. (Merely destroying his life with the trial and keeping him incarcerated for closer to 2 rather than 20 years for downloading porn seems not excessively light, anyway.)
Info from your link on the display:
Older CRTs are so much better value for the money- I have a 17" ADI (15.25" viewable) that cost about $600 about 11 years ago, and it is far more enjoyable to use than the POS cheap monitors today - and now they're virtually all cheap in the CRT end of the business. The build quality and the geometric precision on the old monitors is way better than you can find in CRTs today - at least without spending more than $600. The color and contrast are superb, too. Good CRT monitors can still be had at surplus and used computer shops, though, and they're often a steal. I got a high-end 18" (viewable, I-forget-what nominal) NEC for $80 at a local Taiwanese-run shop, which, after much on-screen menu adjustment has turned out to be a good monitor, although a little too new to be really well-made. ...but I do wish I could afford one of those Apple LCD displays - the big one or the huge one, I don't care...[sigh]
Your linked-to post is quite right, and worth a repost. IANAL but used to just about everything but appear in court working in a small law office in Maryland about 15 years ago. I believe specifically what this guy needs after getting a subpoena for the John Doe's ID is a "writ of replevin" in which the court may order the Sheriff to seize the property after an ex-parte pre-trial show-cause hearing.l /dccv04br.html - for specific MD instructions and http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/forms/civil /dccv04.pdf - the form.
See:
http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/forms/civi
If you are not in MD you may make a federal case out of it; the U.S. Marshals serve these writs, too. You might find that has drawbacks - you really need a lawyer's advice, not Slashdot's.
>>anagama (611277) Sunday August 20, @01:07AM (#15943034) wrote:
If the cops won't help, see the tort of conversion [wikipedia.org]. File a "john doe" civil suit. Once filed, your attorney would have subpoena power -- use it with Verizon to get the name, address, and phone number of the user associated with the IP. Verizon will have an entire department devoted to processing these types of requests -- you'll have no problem except figuring out what their number is. If you represent yourself, you may have to ask the court to issue the subpoena on your behalf. Once you have the identifier, amend your suit to name that party (probably keep the "john does" at least till you're certain you have all the people involved). Also check your states statutes, there may be something specifically related to your situation. The statutes are certainly available online free -- start at your state's homepage (somewhere burried of course).
As an approximation that can be shown to be in conflict with experiment. The ultraviolet catastrophe was the result of assuming a continuous and infinite distribution of energies. The need for renomalization is also an artifact of assuming continuity in a theory with point particles. The energy needed to probe very short distances at some point reaches a level that either creates a black hole, thus precluding getting a result of the attempted measurement (or, if black holes do not exist, the amount of energy in the whole universe still sets a bound on how fine a scale anything can be probed).
Any physical or mathematical theory has to be in accordance with information theory, and thus must place finite limits on how much information is expressed in or or transmitted by any spatiotemporally limited entity, attribute, or behavior. Since any random real number contains infinite information, and any interval contains an infinity of random reals, any theory that truly depends on real numbers or continuity is inconsistent with the proven limits of information.
See Geometric Algebra (Clifford algebra over the reals - though rationals work at any precision), particularly Hestene's introductory papers, for a natural interpretation of imaginary numbers as bivectors.
The question of whether 0 is a physically legitimate number hadn't occured to me. As a denominator it surely isn't legitimate, and may be illegitimate as a factor in some situations. Quantum effects in the vacuum seem to preclude zero energy.
Newton's laws and the curvature of space seem to have no bearing either way on what I said. Are you suggesting that there is no physical reality, or that it cannot even be known well enough to determine whether it is continuous or discrete? Perhaps you can articulate some reason why infinities as sets reather than processes are required to accurately represent anything physical? Certainly Zermelo had to add as an axiom that infinite sets exist, and this implies that the remaining axioms and thus the basis of mathematics do not require that infinite sets exist.
Unless you want to admit that math has no connection to reality then you have to abandon completed infinities. At any given time there are a finite number of energy quanta and Planck 4-volumes in our past light cone, and the two together only allow a finite number of permutations.
This number may grow with time and might not even be bounded, but at any given time, numbers larger than this number (and almost certainly most of those smaller) are physically meaningless. So go on playing with your infinite and transfinite sets, trancendental numbers and so forth, so long as it's understood that from a universal point of view, such impossible fantasies can never be needed to describe physical reality.
While Hooke didn't discover universal gravitation, he might have if Newton or Halley hadn't, and some believe Newton might never have refined, justified, and published books on his ideas if it hadn't been for the acrimonious argument with Hooke about optics. There is only room for at most one grand theory per generation, so not discovering universal gravitation is no certain mark of inferiority, especially when you consider that it was Hooke who came up with the inverse-square law and suggested to Newton that the motion of the planets might be a combination of circular and linear motion. As for the supposed brevity of Hooke's accomplishments: who knows what else Hooke was up to? Newton really did do his best to see that Hooke's works wore destroyed.
Nevertheless, what we do know about his accomplishments is impressive. The discovery of cells was at least as fundamental for biology as universal gravitation was for physics (though that did not really become clear until later). Hooke was in charge of demonstrations for the Royal Society and was one the foremost experimentalists of his day. Neal Stephenson in his fiction attributes the first internal combustion engine (gunpowder-powered) and designs for human-carrying winged aircraft to Hooke, although I do not know if this was accurate. Certainly he did more than you list -
Wikipedia lists Hooke's major contributions:
Leibniz had apparently had some news of Newton's thinking and IIRC seems to have read an unpublished paper by Newton that had some hints. On the other hand, Newton's mathematical formalism and clarity of thought regarding calculus were much inferior to Leibniz's. Newton had not published this most important discovery despite having many years to do so, and so had cut himself off from the community of scientific endeavor, despite his later use of the Royal Society and other scientific contacts to attack Leibniz.
Newton did a handful of big things - laws of motion and universal gravitation (although these were building on the work of others more than is generally seen); color and light (although his corpuscular theory was not really even half right - photons aren't anything like Newton's corpuscules), and the reflector telescope (which didn't really work very well at the time). That's pretty much it, aside from the politics and the alchemy.
Hooke and Leibniz each did far more than Newton, and were better men intellectually and personally - and perhaps because of that, Newton destroyed the work of one and did his best to destroy the reputation of the other.
The number you cited was from the last calculation of three sets of assumptions about the specificity and sensitivity of the NSA's snooping program. The assumptions came in three sizes: excessively optimistic, delusional, and batshit; your 23% number came from the last.
.00033%, which is way less than 1%. Suppose that NSA surveillance has an accuracy rate of .40, which means that 40% of real terrorists in the USA will be identified by NSA's monitoring of everyone's email and phone calls. This is probably a high estimate, considering that terrorists are doing their best to avoid detection. There is no evidence thus far that NSA has been so successful at finding terrorists. And suppose NSA's misidentification rate is .0001, which means that .01% of innocent people will be misidentified as terrorists, at least until they are investigated, detained and interrogated. Note that .01% of the US population is 30,000 people. With these suppositions, then the probability that people are terrorists given that NSA's system of surveillance identifies them as terrorists is only p=0.0132, which is near zero, very far from one. Ergo, NSA's surveillance system is useless for finding terrorists.
.40, let's say, .70, which means that 70% of terrorists in the USA will be found by mass monitoring of phone calls and email messages. Then, by Bayes' Theorem, the probability that a person is a terrorist if targeted by NSA is still only p=0.0228, which is near zero, far from one, and useless.
.90, and a misidentification rate of .00001, which means that only 3,000 innocent people are misidentified as terrorists. With these suppositions, then the probability that people are terrorists given that NSA's system of surveillance identifies them as terrorists is only p=0.2308, which is far from one and well below flipping a coin. NSA's domestic monitoring of everyone's email and phone calls is useless for finding terrorists.
Here's the relevant part:
>>
The US Census shows that there are about 300 million people living in the USA.
Suppose that there are 1,000 terrorists there as well, which is probably a high estimate. The base-rate would be 1 terrorist per 300,000 people. In percentages, that is
Suppose that NSA's system is more accurate than
Suppose that NSA's system is really, really, really good, really, really good, with an accuracy rate of
>>
Well, you're more right than most who have posted here. Several "real programmers" here seem to think that BCD eliminates cumulative errors. Fixed-point is not completely moronic, but you still need extra decimal places sufficient to handle iterated computations such as: interest calculations with rates to five significant digits compounded over decades, subtractions of nearly equal quantities, multiplications by one+/-epsilon or near-inverses, and so forth. But you misspoke about fixed-point numbers having fixed precision - rather, they have fixed accuracy. The former depends on the number of distinct values that can be represented, the latter depends on the absolute size of the smallest representable unit. Any given fixed-point representation has a different effective precision for every different numerical value it can hold, while floating-point numbers have a different minimum distinguishable increment (accuracy) for each value of exponent. As others have pointed out, IEEE-754 floating-point numbers have known accuracy and proper mathematical behavior, but they occasionally require some skill to use. So do the fixed-point systems, but they have less robust error behavior than the IEEE numbers with their curious special cases and ranges. Given sufficient bits in the floating-point number, the accuracy is as good or better than needed for any type of financial math (better really- finance often isn't as precise as most people here seem to think, and almost never so accurate). If you think that accuracy is important in this kind of application, though, why object to a couple of extra bytes per number? But really it's the fixed-point that wastes bits on the seldom-used but always-allocated headroom needed to store large values.
The Intel 80-bit double-extended precision floating-point number format has 64 bits of mantissa, and can exactly represent any integer between -2^64 and 2^64. Using only the positive range, that is over 19 decimal places, more than the 10 digits before and 8 after the decimal point which another poster has said is the numerical accuracy required of banks in order to be allowed connection to the London markets. In most cases, the 80-bit floating-point number is far more accurate: for account balances between +/- 16.7E6 currency units, the accuracy will be accurate to within about +/- 2^-40 units (12 decimal places), and for balances within +/- 8.6E9 currency units the accuracy will be within about +/- 2^-31 units (9 decimal places + 1 bit). Between about 137 - 274 billion-unit accounts one would have to make do with only 7.8 decimal places of accuracy instead of 8, but there would still be over 6 decimal places of accuracy even for single accounts of up to 17.6E12. So floating-point numbers can indeed guarantee high accuracy; for ordinary currency numbers, floating point has higher accuracy than almost all fixed point implementations. (And even if you do crowd the limits, the underflow is gradual due to the "subnormal" and "denormal" numbers which are smaller than the normal range.)
Examples:
If you were to add fractional-cent amounts calculated to have the maximum possible error of representation in 80-bit format (7.45E-7 cents ) to a billion-dollar account once per minute for fifteen months, the accumulated error would still be less than half a cent. In more normal acccounts of 1 million dollars, the 2.27E-13 cent maximum error would have to be added once per millisecond for nearly 70 years to reach half a cent accumulated error. Any error from adding approximated binary fractions (1/odd number, etc.) would of course usually be less than the maximum error.
Floats are usually much more convenient than fixed representations for practical higher financial calculations. However, if one needs to do something less useful - say, calculate the interest on the US national debt compounded and recalulated each microsecond in units of quadrillionths of Weimar-era hyperinflated Marks, (and you are too 1337 to use a 128-bit format), then use arbitrary-precision arithme
Wow..imagine a /Beowulf cluster/ of those virtual machines...
um - nevermind.
The ultrasonic unobtanium-plated bleed-burning boondoggle won't really be used in most internal injuries either - it's just for limbs. Limbs you are willing to risk amputating later, from the sound of its risky battlefield-operating, computer-controlled blood- boiling. Life-threatening closed-wound internal bleeding in the limbs has to be scarce - big arteries have to get nicked, and how often is that really going to happen in a limb without puncturing nearby skin? If the bleeder is not life-threatening, then it may be better to wait for surgery.
>Prove it.
8 79283
See post above in this thead:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193262&cid=15
Here's a bunch of sources - not exactly statistically rigorous sources, but at least there are a bunch.
Rather than just the social issue alone, I have sources for the other questions posted in reply to my original post the Evidence for the specific claims I made is in boldface. (homeschoolers better in: quality, extensive social life; learn more; less alienated; happier; no "learned helplessness", therefore are more effective and self directed) Hard numbers are few, as might be expected (how reliably can one quantify such traits?) but the hundreds of individual parent accounts I have read are overwhelmingly positive for homeschooling as opposed to the epic battles and institutional anti-competence that most parents of gifted children in public schools report having to battle, usually without real success.
A large collection of general articles and research on homeschooling visit the biggest and best gifted education and information site on the web, Hoagies' Gifted Education Page
A collection of homeschooling success stories: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/success_stories.htm
The TAGFAM and TAGMAX email lists (linked on first Hoagie's page above) give a picture from hundreds of families that strongly supports the intellectual, personal and social ability advantages of homeschooling. Compared to any other electronic forum I have seen - including 4-sigma IQ lists - the TAG list moms' writing is light-years ahead in perceptible intelligence, substance, style and tact.
Some basics everyone should know about homeschooling:
"School's Out"
Get ready for the new age of individualized education
(Reason, October 2001)
By Daniel H. Pink
Not expected to be charged, but probably not clean either. FBI translator and whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds alleges that FBI counterintelligence wiretaps of Turkish operations in the US contain strong evidence that Hastert took large bribes to kill legislation that would have embarassed Turkey by condemning the Turkish genocide of Armenians.
Both Democrats and Republicans were implicated in the investigation. It's reasonable to suspect other such stories never got out. How much of the Democrats' spinelessness has been due to blackmail?
"An Inconvenient Patriot"
By David Rose
08/15/05 "Vanity Fair" - September 2005 Issue
I agree with you 100%. All the mainstream American media present administration propaganda as unquestionable fact and do everything in their power to avoid really delving into any of the administration's many scandals.
Some credulous, conformist pseudo-conservative abused his mod points to shoot down a post that introduced some real truth into this discussion.
"being thaught things by professional teachers"
Your cursing, poor grammar, spelling, and incorrect vocabulary suggest that your opinions on education can safely be dismissed. Your failure to understand the GP poster's comments and your incoherent response to those comments confirms that your opinion on this subject is stupid.
"Professional teacher" just means they get paid. To get a public-school teaching job the main requirement is not subject knowledge or teaching ability but rather taking content-free "education" courses in college.
Schools - especially public schools - are not there to teach, but to present a politically prescribed curriculum at a uniform rate for a set number of years, regardless of what any given student already knows or how fast they are capable of learning. Highly intelligent students are rarely presented with anything they do not already know, and when they are actually taught something, it is presented much more slowly and shallowly than the students could learn the subject on their own.
The culture of school is also dedicated to conditioning students to accept arbitrary and unreasonable infringements of their natural rights, and censorship of what students can read online is one instance of this. Opting out by homeschooling is not just a reasonable alternative; forcing a student to participate in the meat-grinder of assembly-line anti-education is abuse.
Homeschoolers usually have higher-quality and more extensive social lives than those in conventional school, learn more, are less likely to be alienated, depressed and to have the "learned helplessness" that results from being treated in school as shoddy parts destined for corporate machines.
Why do you see "social integration" (enforced conformity) as a benefit? Being held captive in an education-preventing prison with immature students and dim authoritarians actually inhibits not only the ability to learn and work independently but also the ability to socially interact with intelligent adults later in life.
>Also, I'd like to see this power applied to an internal injury.
QuikClot is now available on a "sponge" which will stay in the wound despite massive blood flow. Using this stuff does not require finding the exact source of the bleeding, and it can be used on internal inuries in virtually any area of the body.
>Really, I find it hard to respect an environmentalist who has four children.
And I find it hard to respect an evolutionary biologist who does not have at least three kids.
The whole "too many people" thing is really stupid - we're nowhere near the carrying capacity of the earth, let alone the solar system, and particularly nowhere near the carrying capacity for people who are smart about finding effective ways to use resources. Which really means engineers more than "environmentalists", but ecologists and field biologists are certainly needed too.
Tourniquets do kinda suck, though. Rather than hauling some ridiculous ultrasonic contrapton around, keep a couple packets of QuikClot (zeolite powder) in your kit.
Testing this on pigs, they cut the pigs' femoral arteries and let 'em bleed for 3 min. IIRC.
No therapy - 80% mortality.
Best competing products - 60% mortality.
QuikClot - 0% mortality.
There's an idea - James Bond in space. No, not Moonraker, but something more like the "Stainless Steel Rat" or those Cole & Bunch "Mantis" novels - or whatever they were called. Or Resnick's Santiago. Whatshisname from "The Stars My Desination". Or even Laumer's Retief. Or rip off a bit from all of them and don't pay royalties - that's real industry thinking! Or it would be if those TV kinda people could read...