Reading over Slashdot comments since the Fukushima disaster started, I've been struck by the large number of comments that either say nuclear energy is actually less dangerous than coal, etc. even in the face of possible nuclear meltdown or that blame "anti-nuclear luddites" for the disaster. It's hard for me to understand how anyone, especially since this disaster has released radiation that will likely cause cancer and birth defects, could not at least acknowledge the tragedy that has happened even if they remain committed in the long run to nuclear power. It makes me wonder exactly what the motives are of these people.
Personally it's made me realize that nuclear power is much more complicated than I had once thought; like many other industries it would seem to be rife with the profit motives of large corporations overriding responsible regulation. So even if nuclear power is hypothetically safe if regulated properly, it would seem that it's actual implementation is not in the context of the huge corporate influence on the political system.
Also, some have said the problem was merely that the plant was not decommissioned on time or not upgraded to be in line with current safety measures, but were not the same safety risks present during the near 40 years leading up to this disaster? And how can anyone trust that the nuclear industry's current safety measures are really safe when the same was probably said 40 years ago?
Actually the U.S. military has already used its control of the GPS satellites to its strategic advantage - during the Persian Gulf War the U.S. made the GPS satellites give data that was slightly off and then reset the satellites so the Iraqis had to waste time recalibrating their weapons systems twice before the war started.
Show me exactly where these "secret" usernames and passwords are... Give me an exact hyperlink! I need them for my... project... and I'm too lazy to rtfa!
Perhaps the person experiencing this should take advantage of his situation and test the censorship laws of various countries and see what content changes when non-Americans visit U.S. sites - at the very least NBC doesn't allow non-American viewers to see its shows, for instance.
Well Firewire is faster than USB, so people are willing to pay more for it. Plus it doesn't have quite as wide adoption as USB, so manufacturers don't make as many Firewire devices, which limits the supply.
Whatever the details of this particular case, whenever I hear things like "link-based culture" I just think how out of touch old journalism is with the Web. It's like they can't understand the deeper concepts like shared resources that linking implies.
Most big newspapers didn't really even establish much of an online presence until Web 2.0 was gaining momentum, and they're still trying to catch up. Web sites, like the Los Angeles Times, fear user-generated content like wikis because they can't figure out how to manage them. They don't trust the medium enough to embrace concepts like self-regulated systems that work through tagging, ratings, etc...
It really makes me wonder how these news sites will survive... consider that ABC News' idea of bringing in an online audience was to have someone with a laptop sitting with the commentators/anchors screening messages from Facebook; the internet is supposed to enable direct communication between individuals, not the same filtered meaningless content that's been called news for the last few decades...
Consider too that many wire articles that reference Web sites do not actually link directly to the Web site. Why? Do they not know how? Are they afraid of what people might see, or do they not trust the authenticity of the site? Maybe they just don't like the idea of people getting information directly from sources.
What relevance does this have to modchips in the UK? Whatever Bush may be doing, I don't think he's fighting against modchips in British courts... I doubt he really has an opinion on modchips.
Doesn't the fact that there's water right there make it somewhat unsuitable? How much space is there to really drive around and such without falling into the lake?
No, sorry, I should have said this... that is what the genetic data suggests in terms of the diversity of the human genome... obviously we know for a fact that people have been around much longer than that. (And that other similar species also used to exist.) It's one of the pieces of evidence though that suggests humans did not converge from several different species but rather were one species that managed to survive unlike other homo species.
To be fair, the whole human species is pretty inbred. Genetic data points to a common origin in the relatively recent past with not very many individuals involved. My figures might be off, but I believe it's something like the almost all the genes of our species can be traced to maybe 500 individuals 2000 years ago.
In any case, relative to a lot of other species, humans are way less diverse. By the time you get to breeding with second cousins, it's as though you're breeding with any random person, so as long as this group can maintain at least that much distance in their sexual relationships, they should be fine. And considering they've lived this long it's likely they will. Most cultures have taboos against incest and it's imprinted on the human brain not to breed with those you live with.
Oh, and by the way, the OP should be modded troll.
I tend to agree. Except for the anti-competitive practice of the big software companies and the high cost of trying to compete with them, I think there would be a big opportunity for a new image manipulation program to become a real challenge, especially on the Mac.
Adobe took about a year longer than it should have to release a universal binary of Photoshop, and now, apparently at an early stage of development, they've already decided they're not going to fully support Mac users. What are they thinking?
I don't really understand how the company can expect this approach to work. From the article:
Oxitec's technique is considered less controversial by some scientists because the genetically modified insects are programmed to die, not take over the existing mosquito population.
If the modified mosquitoes are to have any effect they must replace the wild mosquitoes. Otherwise, the wild mosquitoes will still continue to transmit dengue to humans.
The article doesn't say whether offspring of wild and modified mosquito live long enough to breed nor what proportion of them still depend on tetracycline, but if you have two populations, one that dies young and another that doesn't and is thus able to breed longer, the longer-lived population will outcompete the short-lived one. Thus if the goal of this is replacement, that too would not work.
At best they could hope to kill off maybe half of the mosquito population and thereby reduce dengue fever in the short-term, but doing so could unbalance the ecosystem and potentially have negative effects, including disease, for humans. Maybe a better approach would be to create mosquitoes that only die if they are infected with dengue fever.
You don't need more thumbs, just count the spaces between and outside the fingers... okay, maybe there are advantages to being able to signal a number with your hand.
How do you know it hasn't hurt you? Have you never been sick? At this very moment those bacteria may be evolving sentience and soon they will plot to destroy your brain with laser beams fired from bacteria-proportioned starships.
But could you really tell the difference? If you have a rendered image of child porn that looks exactly like the real thing and you don't pursue those buying, selling, or creating it because they say it's computer-generated, it's pretty likely that everyone's going to say their stuff is computer-generated too.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading over Slashdot comments since the Fukushima disaster started, I've been struck by the large number of comments that either say nuclear energy is actually less dangerous than coal, etc. even in the face of possible nuclear meltdown or that blame "anti-nuclear luddites" for the disaster. It's hard for me to understand how anyone, especially since this disaster has released radiation that will likely cause cancer and birth defects, could not at least acknowledge the tragedy that has happened even if they remain committed in the long run to nuclear power. It makes me wonder exactly what the motives are of these people. Personally it's made me realize that nuclear power is much more complicated than I had once thought; like many other industries it would seem to be rife with the profit motives of large corporations overriding responsible regulation. So even if nuclear power is hypothetically safe if regulated properly, it would seem that it's actual implementation is not in the context of the huge corporate influence on the political system. Also, some have said the problem was merely that the plant was not decommissioned on time or not upgraded to be in line with current safety measures, but were not the same safety risks present during the near 40 years leading up to this disaster? And how can anyone trust that the nuclear industry's current safety measures are really safe when the same was probably said 40 years ago?
After all ghouls are healed by it.
Umm... personally I'd be in favor of a law that forced corporations to secure MY private data.
Not really flamebait
Outdated webpages are the hallmark of a dying product
Actually the U.S. military has already used its control of the GPS satellites to its strategic advantage - during the Persian Gulf War the U.S. made the GPS satellites give data that was slightly off and then reset the satellites so the Iraqis had to waste time recalibrating their weapons systems twice before the war started.
I'll execute fsck as much as I please, thank you very much, and I have no desire to see someone die, you insensitive clod!
Show me exactly where these "secret" usernames and passwords are... Give me an exact hyperlink! I need them for my... project... and I'm too lazy to rtfa!
If they're actually able to get to slashdot... I doubt you can in the PRC.
Perhaps the person experiencing this should take advantage of his situation and test the censorship laws of various countries and see what content changes when non-Americans visit U.S. sites - at the very least NBC doesn't allow non-American viewers to see its shows, for instance.
Well Firewire is faster than USB, so people are willing to pay more for it. Plus it doesn't have quite as wide adoption as USB, so manufacturers don't make as many Firewire devices, which limits the supply.
Whatever the details of this particular case, whenever I hear things like "link-based culture" I just think how out of touch old journalism is with the Web. It's like they can't understand the deeper concepts like shared resources that linking implies.
Most big newspapers didn't really even establish much of an online presence until Web 2.0 was gaining momentum, and they're still trying to catch up. Web sites, like the Los Angeles Times, fear user-generated content like wikis because they can't figure out how to manage them. They don't trust the medium enough to embrace concepts like self-regulated systems that work through tagging, ratings, etc...
It really makes me wonder how these news sites will survive... consider that ABC News' idea of bringing in an online audience was to have someone with a laptop sitting with the commentators/anchors screening messages from Facebook; the internet is supposed to enable direct communication between individuals, not the same filtered meaningless content that's been called news for the last few decades...
Consider too that many wire articles that reference Web sites do not actually link directly to the Web site. Why? Do they not know how? Are they afraid of what people might see, or do they not trust the authenticity of the site? Maybe they just don't like the idea of people getting information directly from sources.
What relevance does this have to modchips in the UK? Whatever Bush may be doing, I don't think he's fighting against modchips in British courts... I doubt he really has an opinion on modchips.
How can a game be illegal unless it infringes on the some copyright or patent, etc. for another game?
It's weird... on geographical maps eaastern Washington looks more mountainous than deserty.
Doesn't the fact that there's water right there make it somewhat unsuitable? How much space is there to really drive around and such without falling into the lake?
No, sorry, I should have said this... that is what the genetic data suggests in terms of the diversity of the human genome... obviously we know for a fact that people have been around much longer than that. (And that other similar species also used to exist.) It's one of the pieces of evidence though that suggests humans did not converge from several different species but rather were one species that managed to survive unlike other homo species.
To be fair, the whole human species is pretty inbred. Genetic data points to a common origin in the relatively recent past with not very many individuals involved. My figures might be off, but I believe it's something like the almost all the genes of our species can be traced to maybe 500 individuals 2000 years ago.
In any case, relative to a lot of other species, humans are way less diverse. By the time you get to breeding with second cousins, it's as though you're breeding with any random person, so as long as this group can maintain at least that much distance in their sexual relationships, they should be fine. And considering they've lived this long it's likely they will. Most cultures have taboos against incest and it's imprinted on the human brain not to breed with those you live with.
Oh, and by the way, the OP should be modded troll.
I tend to agree. Except for the anti-competitive practice of the big software companies and the high cost of trying to compete with them, I think there would be a big opportunity for a new image manipulation program to become a real challenge, especially on the Mac.
Adobe took about a year longer than it should have to release a universal binary of Photoshop, and now, apparently at an early stage of development, they've already decided they're not going to fully support Mac users. What are they thinking?
I stand corrected. It seems then that to work this would require a few waves of releases of GMO'd mosquitoes.
You don't need more thumbs, just count the spaces between and outside the fingers... okay, maybe there are advantages to being able to signal a number with your hand.
I think those links got slashdotted.
How do you know it hasn't hurt you? Have you never been sick? At this very moment those bacteria may be evolving sentience and soon they will plot to destroy your brain with laser beams fired from bacteria-proportioned starships.
But could you really tell the difference? If you have a rendered image of child porn that looks exactly like the real thing and you don't pursue those buying, selling, or creating it because they say it's computer-generated, it's pretty likely that everyone's going to say their stuff is computer-generated too.