Most of this planet is covered by water. We simply need to learn how to use it instead of our ground water. There are plenty of reasonable nascent technologies to provide that ability. There just needs to be an economic incentive to invest. Either it comes earlier through government/corporate sponsorship through policy and investment, or it comes later when ground water becomes economically unviable relative to the alternatives.
Amazon facilitated the transaction and may well have "fulfilled" it. Third-party sellers may choose to let Amazon warehouse and ship their goods for them. While they probably don't, I suppose it's conceivable that they could have a fulfillment warehouse located in a state where it's legal and a fulfillment policy that allows firearms. The article isn't really clear whether it was Amazon that slapped the wrong shipping label on the package or if UPS made the goof.
I cannot speak on this particular model. However, the jamming bit seems to be more common with western battle/assault style guns. Plenty of sport rifles will happily plink away at cans all afternoon with nary a problem. If you really want to spray like a paintballer and have a jam free experience go with one of the semi-auto AK variants.
That's funny. My wife is the whole reason why I'm pissing $100/month down the drain. I personally almost never even use what I'm paying for. If it weren't for a couple channels like Hallmark and Lifetime I think I could suffer her initial outrage until she "got over it" but without alternatives for those (such as Hulu) I'm stuck. Between the two of us our cable box averages perhaps an hour per day of use. $100/month for a few stupid Hallmark movies! I'm giving up dinner at a nice steak house every month for a handful of "made for women" mother fracking movies!
But nothing bad can happen in The Cloud? How did this happen? The sales person told me that if I move all of my critical infrastructure into the cloud it would be safe with six-nines reliability because it's distributed. It's not all my eggs in one basket anymore. One node goes does another takes its place. It's the almighty cloud...
Educating the reader is one thing. Speaking gibberish that leaves the reader confused, or worse (and more common) gives them a false sense of knowledge are entirely different.
Why is this sort of non-sense continuing to come up? If your audience is highly technical, and knowledgeable in the field then speak the language. If they are not, then bring it down to their level. It's common sense. The real question that should be being asked is whether or not to use non-technical, attention grabbing "buzz" words that add no value and are more likely to distance the reader from and hinder their understanding of the subject being discussed.
I'm kind of surprised that they haven't farmed this out to Watson yet. It can destroy Jeopardy grand champions, and partner with medical doctors, why not ask users if they're multi-purposing the CD tray as a drink holder or if they've inserted the power cord?
I'm not sure I'd say the only "successful," however, I would say that I--the customer--do appreciate their advertising far more than anyone else's. It's usually relevant, and I look for it, it doesn't come looking for me. Barnes and Noble (a brick-n-mortar bookseller) does a similar thing by occasionally sticking little slips of paper in their books that provide me with a list of similarly themed books. I often find them when I'm reading a book I've purchased and on a number of occasions I've went out and purchased one of the books on the list. I find this kind of advertising "useful" and that is the missing ingredient with most other advertisers. Advertisements should serve me, the customer first, and as a consequence, them when I purchase the product they helped me find. I don't think I've ever in my life purchased a product or service from an ad that was randomly thrown in my face. I've lost track of the number of products I've purchased on Amazon.com and at companies that use similar advertising strategies.
They don't work. They're just a pathetic, desperate attempt to garner "click" revenue. I would assert that most users just "click" on things to try and get rid of them and get to the content they really wanted. For me personally, I am far less likely to frequent any site that uses such ad strategies. I doubt I'm alone. Certainly any value from "clicks" derived from these ad strategies are near zero. Eventually content producers and/or advertisers might realize these things. My pessimism make me shudder to think of what they'll try next when that day comes.
You're assuming they do not do this already? We already know that Facebook will pimp their customers to anyone. Since when does "anyone" not include intrusive governments?
The Taliban has traditionally used physical harm as a conduit for communication. The Taliban has made an agreement with the government to permit the education of girls so long as they have substantial control over the curriculum. If the Taliban wanted to put a stop to these schools for girls what would be the logical reason for denying their involvement in poisoning the girls or for working with the government in operating these school?
If the girls truly were poisoned then it would be best to look at motive. Who would have a motive? Since the Taliban were to my understanding being universally assigned blame then it would stand to reason that either another group failed spectacularly to be earn the credit and communicate their message, or it was another group that would benefit from the Taliban being blamed for poisoning girls attending school. Since the first one is most unlikely then it falls to trying to make the Taliban look evil to the victims' families and other concerns. We also know that the Taliban have become partner with the Afghan government to a certain small extent through negotiated agreements such as this one dealing with the schooling of girls. It cannot be ruled out that there may be motivation to put a stop to this cooperation.
So if these girls were really poisoned--which I don't think can be ruled out, given the number of schools over geographically separated areas and given that "mass-{x}" psychology assignments are typically specious excuses for things unexplainable, or things unwilling to be explained--who has motive? Since the Taliban have no motive to deny doing it. Who is left? What group(s) would see value in inciting anger against the Taliban, and/or harming the cooperation between the Taliban and the Afghan government?
I think you may misunderstand the situation. You were hired to do a certain job. The developers were hired to do a certain job. Would you take a mop out of the closet and scrub a floor at the office if you noticed it dirty? Neither would they fiddle around with network diagnosis and configuration. I may have a reasonable knowledge of the gear in the server room, I may even know how to do drywall work. But my time is scarce and my boss doesn't pay me to fix network cables, nor hang drywall. To her and myself my time is best spent doing the job I was hired to do. Let the tech do the cables and the contractor do the drywall.
Confidence and passion can often be translated as arrogance when observed by someone else. While you are probably no more an overachiever than anyone else with a passion for tech you will need to take pains to demonstrate humility with your coworkers and others you share with. Along those lines "honest" questions can often sound like honest insults. Sometimes it's better to let people tell you the story rather than inquire directly about inadequacies. Sometimes it's better to let people discover your talent and abilities than it is for you to point it out to them. Offer help when solicited but sparingly otherwise. It is enough to be available. Ask advice of your co-workers and management. You may believe you know the answer, but sometimes you're missing an angle. Even if the well is dry it still demonstrates that you value them. Gradually they'll come to believe the same of you.
There has been no war between the major world power primarily because there has been no profit incentive to do so. There is nothing that could be gained that would have justified the cost. However, there have been innumerable profit motivations for the world powers to engage in skirmishes with the third-world either directly or by proxy. Consequently, nearly every major power has been either aiding or directly engaged in these activities.
Could it be argued that nukes have eliminated the profit motivation for direct conflict between the major world powers? Sure. Would a nuclear armed world eliminate or even reduce the remainder of wars fought around the world? Doubtful. Much of the remainder, are either not profit motivated or stand to lose very little by engaging in nuclear war. In some cases, the gamble may even be justified by the potential of success in seriously harming the world powers such as the U.S..
Are you familiar with the concept of "resonance"? If not I would suggest that you read up on it. Your microwave operates on that principle after all. As have a large number of disasters been blamed on it from bridges, buildings, rockets, etc.. There is evidence that terahertz radiation resonates DNA. I don't care if it doesn't blast electrons out of my molecules. I care about resonance being established sufficient to destroy physical structures within my body. Things like DNA.
Of course you could. However it wouldn't be as relevant. The author is asserting that non-ionizing radiation is "safe". I suggest that that wasn't necessarily true with an "in your face" obvious example. Just because it is "non-ionizing" does not mean that it is safe. Microwaves resonate with water molecules, sound waves resonate with physical objects, there is evidence that terahertz radiation can resonate with DNA. Resonance may achieved in all manner of physical systems. It simply requires a certain radiating frequency. These physical systems "can" break down if the resonance produced is strong enough. That is where the danger is. That is the big unknown that demands further research with regards to these scanners.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of this planet is covered by water. We simply need to learn how to use it instead of our ground water. There are plenty of reasonable nascent technologies to provide that ability. There just needs to be an economic incentive to invest. Either it comes earlier through government/corporate sponsorship through policy and investment, or it comes later when ground water becomes economically unviable relative to the alternatives.
Amazon facilitated the transaction and may well have "fulfilled" it. Third-party sellers may choose to let Amazon warehouse and ship their goods for them. While they probably don't, I suppose it's conceivable that they could have a fulfillment warehouse located in a state where it's legal and a fulfillment policy that allows firearms. The article isn't really clear whether it was Amazon that slapped the wrong shipping label on the package or if UPS made the goof.
I cannot speak on this particular model. However, the jamming bit seems to be more common with western battle/assault style guns. Plenty of sport rifles will happily plink away at cans all afternoon with nary a problem. If you really want to spray like a paintballer and have a jam free experience go with one of the semi-auto AK variants.
Being a user of Microsoft Visual Studio I'd like to take issue with that last one...
That's funny. My wife is the whole reason why I'm pissing $100/month down the drain. I personally almost never even use what I'm paying for. If it weren't for a couple channels like Hallmark and Lifetime I think I could suffer her initial outrage until she "got over it" but without alternatives for those (such as Hulu) I'm stuck. Between the two of us our cable box averages perhaps an hour per day of use. $100/month for a few stupid Hallmark movies! I'm giving up dinner at a nice steak house every month for a handful of "made for women" mother fracking movies!
Sorry, I'll quit ranting now.
That particular form of entertainment did not last much beyond the year Two Thousand Forty.
But nothing bad can happen in The Cloud ? How did this happen? The sales person told me that if I move all of my critical infrastructure into the cloud it would be safe with six-nines reliability because it's distributed. It's not all my eggs in one basket anymore. One node goes does another takes its place. It's the almighty cloud...
Educating the reader is one thing. Speaking gibberish that leaves the reader confused, or worse (and more common) gives them a false sense of knowledge are entirely different.
Why is this sort of non-sense continuing to come up? If your audience is highly technical, and knowledgeable in the field then speak the language. If they are not, then bring it down to their level. It's common sense. The real question that should be being asked is whether or not to use non-technical, attention grabbing "buzz" words that add no value and are more likely to distance the reader from and hinder their understanding of the subject being discussed.
I'm kind of surprised that they haven't farmed this out to Watson yet. It can destroy Jeopardy grand champions, and partner with medical doctors, why not ask users if they're multi-purposing the CD tray as a drink holder or if they've inserted the power cord?
I'm not sure I'd say the only "successful," however, I would say that I--the customer--do appreciate their advertising far more than anyone else's. It's usually relevant, and I look for it, it doesn't come looking for me. Barnes and Noble (a brick-n-mortar bookseller) does a similar thing by occasionally sticking little slips of paper in their books that provide me with a list of similarly themed books. I often find them when I'm reading a book I've purchased and on a number of occasions I've went out and purchased one of the books on the list. I find this kind of advertising "useful" and that is the missing ingredient with most other advertisers. Advertisements should serve me, the customer first, and as a consequence, them when I purchase the product they helped me find. I don't think I've ever in my life purchased a product or service from an ad that was randomly thrown in my face. I've lost track of the number of products I've purchased on Amazon.com and at companies that use similar advertising strategies.
That is true, however, very few want to drive a model T or make calls with a DynaTAC.
They don't work. They're just a pathetic, desperate attempt to garner "click" revenue. I would assert that most users just "click" on things to try and get rid of them and get to the content they really wanted. For me personally, I am far less likely to frequent any site that uses such ad strategies. I doubt I'm alone. Certainly any value from "clicks" derived from these ad strategies are near zero. Eventually content producers and/or advertisers might realize these things. My pessimism make me shudder to think of what they'll try next when that day comes.
You're assuming they do not do this already? We already know that Facebook will pimp their customers to anyone. Since when does "anyone" not include intrusive governments?
It's pretty simple. He's saying that since he doesn't make lots of money, eat the rich.
The Taliban has traditionally used physical harm as a conduit for communication. The Taliban has made an agreement with the government to permit the education of girls so long as they have substantial control over the curriculum. If the Taliban wanted to put a stop to these schools for girls what would be the logical reason for denying their involvement in poisoning the girls or for working with the government in operating these school?
If the girls truly were poisoned then it would be best to look at motive. Who would have a motive? Since the Taliban were to my understanding being universally assigned blame then it would stand to reason that either another group failed spectacularly to be earn the credit and communicate their message, or it was another group that would benefit from the Taliban being blamed for poisoning girls attending school. Since the first one is most unlikely then it falls to trying to make the Taliban look evil to the victims' families and other concerns. We also know that the Taliban have become partner with the Afghan government to a certain small extent through negotiated agreements such as this one dealing with the schooling of girls. It cannot be ruled out that there may be motivation to put a stop to this cooperation.
So if these girls were really poisoned--which I don't think can be ruled out, given the number of schools over geographically separated areas and given that "mass-{x}" psychology assignments are typically specious excuses for things unexplainable, or things unwilling to be explained--who has motive? Since the Taliban have no motive to deny doing it. Who is left? What group(s) would see value in inciting anger against the Taliban, and/or harming the cooperation between the Taliban and the Afghan government?
I think you may misunderstand the situation. You were hired to do a certain job. The developers were hired to do a certain job. Would you take a mop out of the closet and scrub a floor at the office if you noticed it dirty? Neither would they fiddle around with network diagnosis and configuration. I may have a reasonable knowledge of the gear in the server room, I may even know how to do drywall work. But my time is scarce and my boss doesn't pay me to fix network cables, nor hang drywall. To her and myself my time is best spent doing the job I was hired to do. Let the tech do the cables and the contractor do the drywall.
Confidence and passion can often be translated as arrogance when observed by someone else. While you are probably no more an overachiever than anyone else with a passion for tech you will need to take pains to demonstrate humility with your coworkers and others you share with. Along those lines "honest" questions can often sound like honest insults. Sometimes it's better to let people tell you the story rather than inquire directly about inadequacies. Sometimes it's better to let people discover your talent and abilities than it is for you to point it out to them. Offer help when solicited but sparingly otherwise. It is enough to be available. Ask advice of your co-workers and management. You may believe you know the answer, but sometimes you're missing an angle. Even if the well is dry it still demonstrates that you value them. Gradually they'll come to believe the same of you.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
--Einstein
There has been no war between the major world power primarily because there has been no profit incentive to do so. There is nothing that could be gained that would have justified the cost. However, there have been innumerable profit motivations for the world powers to engage in skirmishes with the third-world either directly or by proxy. Consequently, nearly every major power has been either aiding or directly engaged in these activities.
Could it be argued that nukes have eliminated the profit motivation for direct conflict between the major world powers? Sure. Would a nuclear armed world eliminate or even reduce the remainder of wars fought around the world? Doubtful. Much of the remainder, are either not profit motivated or stand to lose very little by engaging in nuclear war. In some cases, the gamble may even be justified by the potential of success in seriously harming the world powers such as the U.S..
Which groups of scientists and engineers do you mean? The ones similar to those that design weapons, or promote fluoridation of the water supply, created shoe fitting fluoroscope, or the ones that just outright peddle snake oil such as radium water jars?
Are you familiar with the concept of "resonance"? If not I would suggest that you read up on it. Your microwave operates on that principle after all. As have a large number of disasters been blamed on it from bridges, buildings, rockets, etc.. There is evidence that terahertz radiation resonates DNA. I don't care if it doesn't blast electrons out of my molecules. I care about resonance being established sufficient to destroy physical structures within my body. Things like DNA.
Of course you could. However it wouldn't be as relevant. The author is asserting that non-ionizing radiation is "safe". I suggest that that wasn't necessarily true with an "in your face" obvious example. Just because it is "non-ionizing" does not mean that it is safe. Microwaves resonate with water molecules, sound waves resonate with physical objects, there is evidence that terahertz radiation can resonate with DNA. Resonance may achieved in all manner of physical systems. It simply requires a certain radiating frequency. These physical systems "can" break down if the resonance produced is strong enough. That is where the danger is. That is the big unknown that demands further research with regards to these scanners.
So you wouldn't mind if I say, popped you into an industrial sized microwave and powered it up? Or would you like to reevaluate your position?
As certified by the $10/hr TSA agent with barely a high school education.