It shouldn't, in my opinion, limit your freedoms to belong to society. Then again, most people mistakenly define the word "freedom." What should be restricted is liberties. This isn't a matter of simple semantics but is an important difference to point out and be aware of. I guess the best way to put it is that I'm free to kill you, I have that freedom. That is the way that it should be. I'm free to kill you but I'm not at liberty to do so. There will be consequences for that but my freedom isn't restricted in any way.
You can't read very well, can you? My ONLY point is that they claimed that gold had no intrinsic value which is false. Once again, it is as if you're being blinded by emotion and ignoring reality. It isn't off-topic, it's refuting the absurd claim that gold has no intrinsic value which is a false statement. You can't argue with lies. Hell, I even go so far as to point out that I'm not advocating a gold standard. You're just mentally handicapped. Or stupid.
He should be easier to get rid of. Maybe make his Achilles Heal a tomato or something. He could also be attracted to Cheetos dust but that might make him too easy. His signature "move" could be altering the keyboard layout to Dvorak or something. Next we'll need an artist. Also a writer 'cause I suck at it.
What is your point? That the intrinsic value isn't the same as its market value? I don't think anybody claimed that it was. Gold has properties that make it valuable. I'm not advocating the gold standard or the likes, I'm just curious as to why you'd try to claim some sort of victory in an argument when you skip the point entirely. It is like saying that the sky is blue therefore your preferred system of government is the most logical choice. You may be correct, it may be the logical choice, but the color of the sky in no way supports your argument. That gold has an intrinsic value shouldn't be upsetting to you. Being overly attached to an incorrect belief may be the cause of that. (Hint: Most everything has an intrinsic value. This is, by its nature, different than its market value.)
I've read a lot of what you've written this morning. You're aware that you can horde goal AND get an AK/gang membership all at the same time, right? It isn't an either/or situation. Your entire premise seems to be one of black and white in that it disallows both commodities hoarding and defensive/offensive strategies which, frankly, is absurd. I haven't any use for bitcoins or the likes and I don't hoard gold as I think an apocalypse is nearly impossible in my physical location within my lifetime so I only post to point out that you appear to have some illogical thinking going on.
I would agree that the future will have more jobs that require computer use but I don't believe your statement that "nearly all jobs of the future will require programming ability" so to speak. It seems unlikely. Computer use != programming which I assume you know and what makes your statement so bizarre.
Where, pray tell, did I assert that you were using emotional arguments? I didn't. You're not. You're dismissing what is potentially an emotional argument (for the children) out of hand without actually looking at its validity. In other words, you're not very bright, logical, or right. Calling you an idiot is an ad hominem fallacy only if you're not an idiot. An appeal to emotion (as the GGGP used) doesn't invalidate the remainder of the argument. You're correct though, I'll have an excellent day.
So, in other words, you don't have any logical argument? It's cute that you claim to support rational thought but completely fail at being anywhere close to rational.
How many times have you done this before? I'm curious as to where your authority comes from to claim that it isn't difficult. The logistics may not be difficult but I'd be surprised if dealing with the various States and local municipalities is easy. But, do go on. It's obvious you've done this many times, that you're an authoritative source, and that you know what is and isn't difficult for someone.
Thank you VERY much and, obviously, I haven't read it yet but I'll push my way through it when I'm done going through my daily ritual of reading, posting, and catching up. I appreciate it more than it may seem and your well thought out answer is something I see less frequently around here so my appreciation goes up accordingly. It doesn't really totally answer my question though I guess it does indirectly? So, please correct me if I'm mistaken...
The dictionary definition of nanoscale means something related to, or measured in, nanometers which, of course, could include very large objects being measured in nanometers for no other reason other than that's the unit of measurement the person chose. This definition, while fine for a layperson or a generic use dictionary, isn't adequate for academic or professional use.
Thus, either definitively or colloquially, the term "nanoscale" is more specifically, technologically or professionally, restricted to things measuring 1 nanometer or less?
Is that correct or correct enough for a laypersons vocabulary?
Once again, I appreciate the answer and will plod through the Engines of Creation because a quick glance indicates that it is very interesting.
One of the major benefits (that I can see) is that this printer doesn't NEED to print stuff that small - it CAN print stuff that small which means that larger objects can be printed with a greater degree of accuracy. I see the precision being the benefit more so than the scale being the benefit. The majority of commenters here on/. seem to be concentrating on how small they can potentially build things which is great and all but my thoughts immediately went to how larger things can be made with a finer degree of accuracy which means less trimming, greater tolerances, and greater control when prototyping.
While that may be true that doesn't mean that they can't keep losing money. They can have non-profitable departments and keep it up for quite a while. Such is the nature of the beast I'm afraid. They are, of course, still profitable overall the last I checked and could even operate at a loss for quite a while I imagine. Microsoft isn't going away any time soon no matter how hard some folks wish for it or work towards it.
They've got plenty of money and can keep at it for quite a while. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but Microsoft seems to be doing fine financially even if some areas are losing money. They're a pretty profitable and large company and can keep pushing out crap for a long time. It isn't that I approve of them, I'm just pointing out that they can.
For nanoscale devices you need one nanometer or better.
Pardon my ignorance but, according to whom? My attempt to seek clarification on this wasn't very fruitful and the definitions that I found insisted that it only had to relate to scale of nanometers which this device purports to do. Is it that you want it to mean something else or am I missing something?
I need/want more information. Sure, this is great from a tech viewpoint but from a humanitarian view... Well, I want to know if they have free press AND if that press is what it needs to be in order to do its job. We have that right here in America and we tend to use it fairly well, more so when we get away from mainstream media but pretty well regardless. What free press demands, to be effective, is an inquisitive and persevering group of people to perform that task. Without that you have nominal free press that doesn't do any good. The article touches on this and hopefully the movie covers it more. I'll watch it when it is available to me. Also, the lady has a big nose. (I'm a little high and couldn't help but notice and comment on it.)
I am, by no means, a fan of the United States as it stands today but to compare the two is idiotic. I'll start with: In the United States you'll at least get a trial, probably, if they did any more than question you. You're not going to GITMO (or to the firing squad) for taking pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge and you're not going to jail either assuming all one was doing was taking pictures. Let's at least start with reality and work our way down.
You can say that if you'd like though I use Mandriva, Ubuntu, and Windows 7 here.;) I'm an OS whore I suppose. I have other computers with other OSes on 'em around the house (as well as phones, ebook readers, and iDevices) but I mostly use Windows 7 because it is there and, alas, I'm lazy. I did, however, quantify it with "in" which should have probably let ya know that I use more than one OS though I suppose I could have been clearer. Either way, Linux has its place though it appears that that place isn't on this laptop because I am lazy and I kind of like Windows 7. It's speedy, stable, and I've not had any security issues that I've found. Oh, and it does what I want it to do - easily and when I want it to do it.
Interesting and thanks for sharing your views though I guess I'm also HOPEFUL that we're not entering the ring this late in the game. I've always (well, in recent times at least) assumed we had a three letter agency who had a crew of folk who took care of that sort of stuff.
When the Brits attacked on D-Day they were doing so in defense of United Kingdom. An offensive act may be committed in a defensive capacity in the form of needing to attack in order to get someone to stop attacking you. Make sense?
Your post made me think of this from the description:
This is a major change in policy from previous public statements — in the past, the US has publicly focused on defensive actions and homegrown security improvements.
I've always assumed we had offensive capabilities and have never doubted we did. I suspect we are hearing about it publicly due to the recent news-making attacks from China. I'd have honestly been shocked and disappointed to find out that we hadn't prepared and we actively working in this area. I think it is a requirement for every warring nation to have such capability and I assume the non-third world countries all have such capacity.
So, no, I don't think this is the first salvo, nor are your links, as I think that we've likely had this capacity for quite some time. It seems likely.
I ran into Pope Hat just the other day when I first came across this story. I'm not sure if I should be suing anyone but I spent the next couple of days pretty much glued to his site and the links that I found on his site. I added some overly large number of new bookmarks and have been perusing since. While Pope Hat is great and there may be some overlap between PH and EFF the reality is that they're not the same and that EFF has an entirely different goal.
Slashdot Mirror
It shouldn't, in my opinion, limit your freedoms to belong to society. Then again, most people mistakenly define the word "freedom." What should be restricted is liberties. This isn't a matter of simple semantics but is an important difference to point out and be aware of. I guess the best way to put it is that I'm free to kill you, I have that freedom. That is the way that it should be. I'm free to kill you but I'm not at liberty to do so. There will be consequences for that but my freedom isn't restricted in any way.
You can't read very well, can you? My ONLY point is that they claimed that gold had no intrinsic value which is false. Once again, it is as if you're being blinded by emotion and ignoring reality. It isn't off-topic, it's refuting the absurd claim that gold has no intrinsic value which is a false statement. You can't argue with lies. Hell, I even go so far as to point out that I'm not advocating a gold standard. You're just mentally handicapped. Or stupid.
He should be easier to get rid of. Maybe make his Achilles Heal a tomato or something. He could also be attracted to Cheetos dust but that might make him too easy. His signature "move" could be altering the keyboard layout to Dvorak or something. Next we'll need an artist. Also a writer 'cause I suck at it.
What is your point? That the intrinsic value isn't the same as its market value? I don't think anybody claimed that it was. Gold has properties that make it valuable. I'm not advocating the gold standard or the likes, I'm just curious as to why you'd try to claim some sort of victory in an argument when you skip the point entirely. It is like saying that the sky is blue therefore your preferred system of government is the most logical choice. You may be correct, it may be the logical choice, but the color of the sky in no way supports your argument. That gold has an intrinsic value shouldn't be upsetting to you. Being overly attached to an incorrect belief may be the cause of that. (Hint: Most everything has an intrinsic value. This is, by its nature, different than its market value.)
I've read a lot of what you've written this morning. You're aware that you can horde goal AND get an AK/gang membership all at the same time, right? It isn't an either/or situation. Your entire premise seems to be one of black and white in that it disallows both commodities hoarding and defensive/offensive strategies which, frankly, is absurd. I haven't any use for bitcoins or the likes and I don't hoard gold as I think an apocalypse is nearly impossible in my physical location within my lifetime so I only post to point out that you appear to have some illogical thinking going on.
I would agree that the future will have more jobs that require computer use but I don't believe your statement that "nearly all jobs of the future will require programming ability" so to speak. It seems unlikely. Computer use != programming which I assume you know and what makes your statement so bizarre.
Now we need a superhero who goes and fixes issues like this. We can call him NATman.
Where, pray tell, did I assert that you were using emotional arguments? I didn't. You're not. You're dismissing what is potentially an emotional argument (for the children) out of hand without actually looking at its validity. In other words, you're not very bright, logical, or right. Calling you an idiot is an ad hominem fallacy only if you're not an idiot. An appeal to emotion (as the GGGP used) doesn't invalidate the remainder of the argument. You're correct though, I'll have an excellent day.
So, in other words, you don't have any logical argument? It's cute that you claim to support rational thought but completely fail at being anywhere close to rational.
Did you use that same dismissal when they outlawed lead paint or gasoline?
How many times have you done this before? I'm curious as to where your authority comes from to claim that it isn't difficult. The logistics may not be difficult but I'd be surprised if dealing with the various States and local municipalities is easy. But, do go on. It's obvious you've done this many times, that you're an authoritative source, and that you know what is and isn't difficult for someone.
Thank you VERY much and, obviously, I haven't read it yet but I'll push my way through it when I'm done going through my daily ritual of reading, posting, and catching up. I appreciate it more than it may seem and your well thought out answer is something I see less frequently around here so my appreciation goes up accordingly. It doesn't really totally answer my question though I guess it does indirectly? So, please correct me if I'm mistaken...
The dictionary definition of nanoscale means something related to, or measured in, nanometers which, of course, could include very large objects being measured in nanometers for no other reason other than that's the unit of measurement the person chose. This definition, while fine for a layperson or a generic use dictionary, isn't adequate for academic or professional use.
Thus, either definitively or colloquially, the term "nanoscale" is more specifically, technologically or professionally, restricted to things measuring 1 nanometer or less?
Is that correct or correct enough for a laypersons vocabulary?
Once again, I appreciate the answer and will plod through the Engines of Creation because a quick glance indicates that it is very interesting.
One of the major benefits (that I can see) is that this printer doesn't NEED to print stuff that small - it CAN print stuff that small which means that larger objects can be printed with a greater degree of accuracy. I see the precision being the benefit more so than the scale being the benefit. The majority of commenters here on /. seem to be concentrating on how small they can potentially build things which is great and all but my thoughts immediately went to how larger things can be made with a finer degree of accuracy which means less trimming, greater tolerances, and greater control when prototyping.
Again, thanks.
While that may be true that doesn't mean that they can't keep losing money. They can have non-profitable departments and keep it up for quite a while. Such is the nature of the beast I'm afraid. They are, of course, still profitable overall the last I checked and could even operate at a loss for quite a while I imagine. Microsoft isn't going away any time soon no matter how hard some folks wish for it or work towards it.
Microsoft cant afford to keep flushing cash away.
How many windows 8s can they afford?
They've got plenty of money and can keep at it for quite a while. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but Microsoft seems to be doing fine financially even if some areas are losing money. They're a pretty profitable and large company and can keep pushing out crap for a long time. It isn't that I approve of them, I'm just pointing out that they can.
For nanoscale devices you need one nanometer or better.
Pardon my ignorance but, according to whom? My attempt to seek clarification on this wasn't very fruitful and the definitions that I found insisted that it only had to relate to scale of nanometers which this device purports to do. Is it that you want it to mean something else or am I missing something?
I need/want more information. Sure, this is great from a tech viewpoint but from a humanitarian view... Well, I want to know if they have free press AND if that press is what it needs to be in order to do its job. We have that right here in America and we tend to use it fairly well, more so when we get away from mainstream media but pretty well regardless. What free press demands, to be effective, is an inquisitive and persevering group of people to perform that task. Without that you have nominal free press that doesn't do any good. The article touches on this and hopefully the movie covers it more. I'll watch it when it is available to me. Also, the lady has a big nose. (I'm a little high and couldn't help but notice and comment on it.)
I am, by no means, a fan of the United States as it stands today but to compare the two is idiotic. I'll start with: In the United States you'll at least get a trial, probably, if they did any more than question you. You're not going to GITMO (or to the firing squad) for taking pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge and you're not going to jail either assuming all one was doing was taking pictures. Let's at least start with reality and work our way down.
You can say that if you'd like though I use Mandriva, Ubuntu, and Windows 7 here. ;) I'm an OS whore I suppose. I have other computers with other OSes on 'em around the house (as well as phones, ebook readers, and iDevices) but I mostly use Windows 7 because it is there and, alas, I'm lazy. I did, however, quantify it with "in" which should have probably let ya know that I use more than one OS though I suppose I could have been clearer. Either way, Linux has its place though it appears that that place isn't on this laptop because I am lazy and I kind of like Windows 7. It's speedy, stable, and I've not had any security issues that I've found. Oh, and it does what I want it to do - easily and when I want it to do it.
Interesting and thanks for sharing your views though I guess I'm also HOPEFUL that we're not entering the ring this late in the game. I've always (well, in recent times at least) assumed we had a three letter agency who had a crew of folk who took care of that sort of stuff.
When the Brits attacked on D-Day they were doing so in defense of United Kingdom. An offensive act may be committed in a defensive capacity in the form of needing to attack in order to get someone to stop attacking you. Make sense?
Your post made me think of this from the description:
This is a major change in policy from previous public statements — in the past, the US has publicly focused on defensive actions and homegrown security improvements.
I've always assumed we had offensive capabilities and have never doubted we did. I suspect we are hearing about it publicly due to the recent news-making attacks from China. I'd have honestly been shocked and disappointed to find out that we hadn't prepared and we actively working in this area. I think it is a requirement for every warring nation to have such capability and I assume the non-third world countries all have such capacity.
So, no, I don't think this is the first salvo, nor are your links, as I think that we've likely had this capacity for quite some time. It seems likely.
I ran into Pope Hat just the other day when I first came across this story. I'm not sure if I should be suing anyone but I spent the next couple of days pretty much glued to his site and the links that I found on his site. I added some overly large number of new bookmarks and have been perusing since. While Pope Hat is great and there may be some overlap between PH and EFF the reality is that they're not the same and that EFF has an entirely different goal.
They are beautiful in their own right I suppose. My most common shortcut in Windows would be WinKey+D.
Man, I always click to read more on those things unless I've read it before. They must think me a perv which, honestly...
He violated the cease fire agreement. I'd say that counts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441