Noob mistake and karma burn. I forgot to post as plain text. My apologies.
This turned into a book. Sorry. This post lacks citations and specifics for reasons that should become clear.
A full-fledged fully-stocked bioengineering lab isn't really necessary. A high school chemistry lab would be overkill for most of it. Most plant extractions can be done with nothing more than an acid (hydrochloric preferred), a base (sodium hydroxide preferred), distilled water, a separatory funnel and a set of mason jars. Some extractions might further require a bunsen burner, while others might require an alternate solvent such as ethyl alchohol. A blender and a freezer is helpful.
Anyone that has passed a lab course should be able to extract aspirin (and a bunch of other chemicals) from willow bark in their kitchen. Purifying it down to a single active ingredient is much more complex, but that step is often unnecessary. Provided the plant has no materials with higher toxicity than the sought-after chemical, a simple extraction can be done relatively easily. It takes at least a week (without good equipment), usually more like 4 weeks, so this isn't a 'pick that from the garden and extract' process.
Actually purifying these extracts is generally either a crystallization or gravity separation process (or both), both of which can be greatly enhanced by the appropriate solvent or by the use of a centrifuge. There are some plants that contain other, unwanted toxic materials with similar physical and chemical properties. This is where the difficulty level starts to ramp up. If you know what you are doing, you can cause either the desireable or the undesireable substance in solution to react and precipitate out, then continue the refinement as normal. All that is required here is access to the appropriate reagents and an understanding of which chemicals to use (in addition to lab process familiarity).
A person could become competent at all of these processes given a few hours' training and a guidebook with specific instructions. It would be no more difficult than passing a Red Cross first aid test. They would not be chemists, but they would be able to make useful medicinal plant extracts. Of course, this would never happen. The same skills allow access to a number of interesting compounds which are illegal, where the source plant is not (due to proliferation).
This turned into a book. Sorry. This post lacks citations and specifics for reasons that should become clear.
A full-fledged fully-stocked bioengineering lab isn't really necessary. A high school chemistry lab would be overkill for most of it. Most plant extractions can be done with nothing more than an acid (hydrochloric preferred), a base (sodium hydroxide preferred), distilled water, a separatory funnel and a set of mason jars. Some extractions might further require a bunsen burner, while others might require an alternate solvent such as ethyl alchohol. A blender and a freezer is helpful.
Anyone that has passed a lab course should be able to extract aspirin (and a bunch of other chemicals) from willow bark in their kitchen. Purifying it down to a single active ingredient is much more complex, but that step is often unnecessary. Provided the plant has no materials with higher toxicity than the sought-after chemical, a simple extraction can be done relatively easily. It takes at least a week, usually more like 4 weeks, so this isn't a 'pick that from the garden and extract' process.
Actually purifying these extracts is generally either a crystallization or gravity separation process (or both), both of which can be greatly enhanced by the appropriate solvent or by the use of a centrifuge. There are some plants that contain other, unwanted toxic materials with similar physical and chemical properties. This is where the difficulty level starts to ramp up. If you know what you are doing, you can cause either the desireable or the undesireable substance in solution to react and precipitate out, then continue the refinement as normal. All that is required here is access to the appropriate reagents and an understanding of which chemicals to use (in addition to lab process familiarity).
A person could become competent at all of these processes given a few hours' training and a guidebook with specific instructions. It would be no more difficult than passing a Red Cross first aid test. They would not be chemists, but they would be able to make useful medicinal plant extracts. Of course, this would never happen. The same skills allow access to a number of interesting compounds which are illegal, where the source plant is not (due to proliferation).
not to break into a perfectly good argument, but why not do it this way?
An object does not need to be ferromagnetic to acquire a STATIC charge. Lob a stream of electrons into the debris field, and some of them will stick... to ANYTHING. The objects will develop a static, negative charge.
The objects with their newfound negative charge will now repel each other. The force is not likely to be large, but it does not have to be. The debris field will scatter over time, and even small destabilizations of their orbits will lead to a large divergence in position over successive orbits.
Now on your launch vehicle, you have two options. Maintain a static, negative charge on the nose; this will force further scattering and prevent impact with material within a certain range of relative velocities. Maintain a magnetic field extending in front of the vehicle; this will induce motion in the charged debris, forcing it out of the way. This also has a limit on the maximum relative velocities of the vehicle and the debris.
It may be more effective to use positive ions instead of electrons. In that case, you reverse the charge on the cone. The magnetic method would not require changes. All of this works under the inverse square law, so the force of the effect increases as ship and debris get closer.
His point was that although the impact to specific players and corporations was huge, the impact to the overall market affected only very specific t2 segments, and even then the effect was restrained by limiting factors involved. Consider also that the 0.7% of the market controlled by the exploiters was for the most part created out of nothing. The exploit makes it a non-zero-sum problem. They created wealth, they weren't taking it from others. Other people who were legitimately producing these materials were harmed by lower prices, but they were still profitable. Other people who used the materials to produce other items did benefit from increased supply, but they would have been profitable without them.
The market as a whole responded well to the whole ordeal. Even now, things are more or less back to normal. Some of the materials involved are still being influenced by speculation to some degree, but the overall result is that prices and supplies are back where they should be.
I'm in no position to discuss the impact this exploit had on alliance warfare, but do consider that a lot of capital ships were deleted as punishment.
So the transistors have a certain minimum operating voltage. We want to provide a margin over that value, let's call it A. They also have a certain maximum operating voltage. We want a good margin below that which we will call C. Let's call the voltage halfway between those semi-arbitrary margin points B. From B to the margin we will call X. A+X=B, A+2X=C.
The real problem for these circuits is the use of a hysteresis loop to definitively select between voltages. One loop switches handily between two values. Two loops would be required for three values. The basic error-correcting structures would have to be doubled to accommodate three-value circuitry. This is not a show-stopper.
There is no physical reason why n-value circuitry is impossible. (to a point [1])
[1]: In reality, our measurement granularity restricts us to a number of positions equal to the high voltage - the low voltage / the detectable step in voltage. From a practical standpoint, it (computation) works fine with 2 positions and adding more greatly increases the number of parts involved.
The innocence defense fails the moment that administrative or judicial bias, corruption, or ineptitude exists. Since no human is perfect, at least one of those three disqualifiers actually exists.
Innocent people are convicted of crimes from time to time. Sometimes they are even proven innocent so far after the fact that they're already dead. This is with the full recourse available to people in court proceedings. Some or all of those rights and reliefs do not apply to actions taken by federal agencies, especially anything associated with DHS.
The average person cannot afford a satisfactory legal defense against the federal government or it's agencies. The average person has little or no understanding of their rights and responsibilities with regard to an administrative action, lawsuit, or criminal suit. Further, the average person has the same impaired understanding of any relief available and in some cases such relief is so well-hidden that not even your average lawyer knows they exist.
Administrative actions are not subject to judicial review in most cases, unless the victim brings suit (which they probably don't know how or even that they can, let alone be able to pay for it). The rules of the court do not apply. You are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you. Decisions made are not subject to appeal or review. Agency directors are appointed, not elected; you cannot vote them out. Federal judges are appointed, not elected; you cannot vote them out.
Just going through an investigation associated with an administrative action can be so costly and damaging that you are effectively punished before your guilt or innocence is proven. Even if time is the only measure, you will spend a huge amount of it even to attempt to defend yourself.
To translate this to filesharing terms: The RIAA claims you distributed a song in violation of copyright. The court orders you to pay full statutory damages until you are proven innocent (if you ever are). You are charged for MediaSentry's investigative costs. You are prevented from working until the investigation is resolved. You are labeled a criminal in public before any truth or fact is even looked at.
Car analogy: You buy a car at a car lot. The DOT charges you $50,000 for property damage and $200,000 for medical damages because you might have had an accident. You can get the money back only if you can prove you were never in an accident, and after following Byzantine internal processes for requesting a review and paying for the agency's investigative work, for which you will not be reimbursed.
Never claim that the innocent has nothing to fear until you have been the innocent accused.
Analogies may or may not be comprehensive, appropriate, etc. IANAL, other disclaimers apply.
That would be an altruistic view. In reality, language shapes and guides thought. If there is no word to express displeasure, rebelliousness or unhappiness, then the population will never realize they experience those things. Instead, only a dull, misunderstood and misperceived dissatisfaction with existence will be present. With the appropriate guidance, this feeling can be transformed into anger and directed at a target in order to motivate and control the population. To bring this back on point: if there is no word or phrase for copyright infringement but only theft, then copyright infringement becomes the same as theft. Theft is serious and actually hurts someone. Copyright infringement may or may not hurt someone some of the time, but never one or the other all of the time. By it's very nature, copyright is a willful temporary harm on the people for the future benefit of more creative works. Since the 'temporary' clause no longer applies, the balance is shifted and the law must shift in response.
Congrats on getting the hell out of that, then. Catch up on sleep and body rhythm; feel better.
I've done 5/8, 4/10, and 12/12/10/6 in an IT environment. 4/10 is by far the best option for me. In a normal 5/8 week, I would work 9-10 hours a day anyway, so 4/10 was the same amount of effort for an extra day off and a lot less overtime pay. Now I'm promoted and they say they can't afford to have me on the overnight shift, so it's back to 5/8 (or 5/9 effective). Maybe I should start bringing lunch to work and taking a shorter lunch break. Who knows.
Me, but I could be part of the 'conspiracy'. That is, if western nebraska counts. Doubly so, since I work for one of those shadowy media conglomerates that ate up all those little radio stations over the past two decades... Or do I?
In short, aluminum, iron, and titanium are available in very useful quantities. Common additives for the creation of steel (excepting carbon, sadly) are readily available as well. Oxygen is abundant as is silicon. The majority of these materials can be extracted in thermal processes alone, or more efficiently through pulverizing and then heating. An RTG of sufficient capacity could easily run the extraction processes both electrically and thermally. Slugs of various metals and tanks of compressed oxygen would not be difficult to make by automated processes. Carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen are in short supply on the surface. A sustainable lunar colony would require periodic resupply of organic chemicals from asteroids or comets. On a material basis alone, metals and semiconductors are easy and plastics and plants are hard. Methane and ammonia ices would provide the missing bulk materials for continued plastic production and expansion of plant life.
A guy in my company (onsite install) took a couple of trophy shots of a client's NetWare 5 system that had been running in excess of five years during an install. The thing had been in continuous operation for 1,967 days, including surviving three hard drive failures while online. He used a digital camera to take the shot straight from the console monitor because rconsole had crashed (abended) two years prior and they wouldn't reboot it to restore remote access.
Contraception doesn't work. The people we are talking about are primarily subsistence farmers. Another child to help tend the fields means a better chance of surviving the off-season. Birth 12 so you still have 2 to support you in your old age after childhood diseases, war, and accidents kill off the rest. Contraception is antagonistic to their lifestyle. Changing the realities they face takes a lot more than some extra food and the availability of medicine, but it is a start. A better start would be cheap sustainable water purification, access to seed developed to thrive in their climates, and fertilizer. Continue that with a means of making an income (something to export, cottage industry style) and a lot of things become possible without external intervention.
The issues driving the Gates foundation and others to contribute to the third world are complex and far from altruistic. There is a similar if somewhat less sinister complexity behind the release of previously proprietary code and/or specs. There are dozens of reasons why AMD would be making their developments available to the public. The fact that they have means they have decided that it will offer their competitors no advantage in the Windows world at the very least. Certainly there are other negatives that had to be overcome or offset by the positives stemming from an open-sourcing of their spec. I'm in no position to elucidate on the subject, so I'm going back into my hole now.
What if there is no more challenging class? What if you are stuck taking analytic geometry before they will even let you attempt calculus? What if your high school has no calculus classes?
Same applies to other subjects. Computer Science is typically limited and includes little or no programming. Biology stops at a certain level of detail with regard to human anatomy. Inorganic chemistry may as well be imaginary chemistry, partly because of the application to explosives.
This may not apply as strongly to the arts, but the sciences are limited beyond a certain point in high schools because there may only be two or three students a year who could grasp the material. If high schools were partnered with local colleges or with a state satellite-based learning program, these higher-level classes could be provided without the buy-in cost of a dedicated on-site teacher. I took two years of Japanese in high school by satellite and phone conference, and it worked very well. The school paid intern rates for a facilitator who 'taught' (read: oversaw) all the satellite courses. Surely we can find a way that doesn't blow the budget and doesn't put our brightest to sleep.
It's not exactly that they are teens, it is that they are inexperienced drivers. If we increase the driving age to 25, then we can complain about the under-30's crashing into everything.
Granted there are issues of maturity, attention span, and focus with regard to teenage drivers. These are not the sole reasons for the higher accident rates.
They do that everywhere, through the apparatus of eyes.
This, then, is really a proper russian reversal where the eyes are watching the brain cells.
or perhaps your reversal is a double reversal... in reversal russians, russia soviet you, or something to that effect.
*(Un)fortunately, the price is what the seller thinks the market will bear. If people will buy a license + install disk on their own for $150 or more, then there's no requirement or incentive to sell it at their bundled price.
*depending on your fiscal perspective.
It shouldn't be necessary to do that. Usually, though, it would be either a problem in the firmware leading to instability or a change in routing, DNS, or DHCP assignments that the router can't handle live for some reason. It could also be possible that the firmware allows no changes at all to the running configuration, forcing a restart for any change made in an attempt at making it less hackable.
ok...
You're claiming that gravity has a corollary force, in much the same way that the electric force and magnetic force are corollaries. Instead of being perpendicular in some manner of cartesian coordinates, gravity and antigravity are prependicular in some form of polar coordinates, where gravity exerts force along r and antigravity exerts force along theta. I could accept this if you can provide some manner of mathematical explanation as to how that works (a rotational force equally opposing a linear force). Better yet would be to construct and execute an experiment which shows an effect that can only be predicted by this specific formulation of gravity, and not by any of the other theories.
You're also claiming a set of hypotheses about star formation, stellar processes, and astrophysical phenomena which almost completely excludes gravity in favor of magnetism. This is demonstrably false; the force of magnetism on a stellar or galactic scale is so minute (in comparison to gravity) as to be completely irrelevant in all but a handful of extreme cases. Additionally, there is absolutely no need, and in fact significant contrary evidence, for any form of heavy matter in the primordial universe. As above, if you can show an equation or model which fits our observation of the early universe (however indirect it may be) that allows for elements heavier than beryllium to exist, then you should publish, for fame and glory will surely be yours. Be sure to rewrite all of stellar nucleosynthesis and explain how the p-p chain, CNO cycle, and alpha cycles are wrong.
Something to consider might be: how does the spin of a nucleon relate to it's mass? Is there any way to demonstrate mathematically the reason for and cause of mass? If so, how does it relate to your rotational force? Set aside the grand galactic consequences of your theory until you fully understand and can formulate the microcosm of forces on particles within the framework of your theory of universal forces. The macrocosm will follow naturally from the microcosm; proof at the atomic level becomes compelling evidence for your theories at the cosmic level.
Please don't take this the wrong way; I'm not disrespecting your ideas or poking fun at you personally. This theory you've given us has some problems that need to be resolved with regard to existing observational and experimental data. That doesn't mean it's without merit, just that you have a very long way to go before you have something that other scientists will take seriously.
It's all relative. If we build factories that make atmosphere faster than it gets blown away, then the solar wind is irrelevant to the atmosphere for as long as we can run the factories. It is still relevant to mutation rates, sunburns, and cancer so we're still going to be looking for a greenhouse-style growing/living environment with adequate UV protection. I would think we can use reasonably thick plastic sheeting to help block or attenuate some of the nastier solar radiation as well. Most of the current ideas for a Martian base I've seen involve digging underground and using 10-20 feet of soil as a radiation shield. That would also be quite effective, and less demanding of material resources.
I used the same method, using the 25MHz bandwidth cited below, and arrived at 166.455 megabits/s (metric bits) or about 19.8mbps (base2 bytes). It seems to me that this might actually be a decent connection most of the time, censorship and advertising issues aside.
That depends on your definition of harm. To keep this somewhat on topic, suppose the reverse situation had happened. A creationist group funds an educational video describing some aspect of their theories. An academic group then strips the copyright and dubs new dialog into the video which reverses it's meaning and purpose. This video is then played, with no attribution of source. Said creationist group would sue, and the academic community would be shocked and appalled when they discovered such gross dishonesty.
Is the scientific method a reasonable, rational approach to understanding reality? I believe that it is the best method we have available, and I am not alone in that belief. I believe that undermining that method, the very foundation of our modern technological society, causes great harm to logical and rational abilities. Someone who has been taught ID methods as though they were science is at a disadvantage when actually performing science. The ultimate cop-out (God [or a higher intelligence such as the FSM] designed it that way, and we simple creatures will never understand how or why) is where it all fails. Science doesn't just give up; you prove something true, false, or untestable. You never simply abandon a line of investigation because it is too hard or because it goes against established research (or even a collection of stories from our past that have been given special status). This approach to science is inherently flawed, hobbled, and damages the practitioner's rational faculties to the extent that all of their scientific endeavors are suspect. I think that qualifies as harm.
If there exists an intelligent design argument that does not involve an unknowable intelligent designer and does not simply comprise challenges to cited evidence used in evolutionary theory, I would love to hear it. Seriously. So much so that all of you can have my personal email account to tell me what that argument might be. (my_/._username_at_yahoo) Try to write an email that doesn't use the word God (or equalivent concept), says something other than a refutation of some piece of evolutionist evidence, makes a rational argument without recourse to scripture, or maybe even actually posits a hypothesis that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
I do believe in higher powers. I also believe in quantum mechanics, genetics, evolution, and the scientific method in general. I'm willing to examine any evidence provided with an open mind. Come, ease my boredom, give me a laugh at work, and just maybe give me something to think about. Consider it an easy challenge: I already believe in a higher power, so the hard part is done. Now just convince me that science and the scientific method is wrong, and you're in business. Best of luck, you're going to need it.
(footnote: Gujo-Odori, this rant isn't aimed at you. Sorry if it came off that way. It's directed at anyone who thinks they have valid evidence of intelligent design that supercedes any possible logical or rational counterargument.)
Slashdot Mirror
Noob mistake and karma burn. I forgot to post as plain text. My apologies.
This turned into a book. Sorry. This post lacks citations and specifics for reasons that should become clear.
A full-fledged fully-stocked bioengineering lab isn't really necessary. A high school chemistry lab would be overkill for most of it. Most plant extractions can be done with nothing more than an acid (hydrochloric preferred), a base (sodium hydroxide preferred), distilled water, a separatory funnel and a set of mason jars. Some extractions might further require a bunsen burner, while others might require an alternate solvent such as ethyl alchohol. A blender and a freezer is helpful.
Anyone that has passed a lab course should be able to extract aspirin (and a bunch of other chemicals) from willow bark in their kitchen. Purifying it down to a single active ingredient is much more complex, but that step is often unnecessary. Provided the plant has no materials with higher toxicity than the sought-after chemical, a simple extraction can be done relatively easily. It takes at least a week (without good equipment), usually more like 4 weeks, so this isn't a 'pick that from the garden and extract' process.
Actually purifying these extracts is generally either a crystallization or gravity separation process (or both), both of which can be greatly enhanced by the appropriate solvent or by the use of a centrifuge. There are some plants that contain other, unwanted toxic materials with similar physical and chemical properties. This is where the difficulty level starts to ramp up. If you know what you are doing, you can cause either the desireable or the undesireable substance in solution to react and precipitate out, then continue the refinement as normal. All that is required here is access to the appropriate reagents and an understanding of which chemicals to use (in addition to lab process familiarity).
A person could become competent at all of these processes given a few hours' training and a guidebook with specific instructions. It would be no more difficult than passing a Red Cross first aid test. They would not be chemists, but they would be able to make useful medicinal plant extracts. Of course, this would never happen. The same skills allow access to a number of interesting compounds which are illegal, where the source plant is not (due to proliferation).
This turned into a book. Sorry. This post lacks citations and specifics for reasons that should become clear. A full-fledged fully-stocked bioengineering lab isn't really necessary. A high school chemistry lab would be overkill for most of it. Most plant extractions can be done with nothing more than an acid (hydrochloric preferred), a base (sodium hydroxide preferred), distilled water, a separatory funnel and a set of mason jars. Some extractions might further require a bunsen burner, while others might require an alternate solvent such as ethyl alchohol. A blender and a freezer is helpful. Anyone that has passed a lab course should be able to extract aspirin (and a bunch of other chemicals) from willow bark in their kitchen. Purifying it down to a single active ingredient is much more complex, but that step is often unnecessary. Provided the plant has no materials with higher toxicity than the sought-after chemical, a simple extraction can be done relatively easily. It takes at least a week, usually more like 4 weeks, so this isn't a 'pick that from the garden and extract' process. Actually purifying these extracts is generally either a crystallization or gravity separation process (or both), both of which can be greatly enhanced by the appropriate solvent or by the use of a centrifuge. There are some plants that contain other, unwanted toxic materials with similar physical and chemical properties. This is where the difficulty level starts to ramp up. If you know what you are doing, you can cause either the desireable or the undesireable substance in solution to react and precipitate out, then continue the refinement as normal. All that is required here is access to the appropriate reagents and an understanding of which chemicals to use (in addition to lab process familiarity). A person could become competent at all of these processes given a few hours' training and a guidebook with specific instructions. It would be no more difficult than passing a Red Cross first aid test. They would not be chemists, but they would be able to make useful medicinal plant extracts. Of course, this would never happen. The same skills allow access to a number of interesting compounds which are illegal, where the source plant is not (due to proliferation).
not to break into a perfectly good argument, but why not do it this way?
An object does not need to be ferromagnetic to acquire a STATIC charge. Lob a stream of electrons into the debris field, and some of them will stick... to ANYTHING. The objects will develop a static, negative charge.
The objects with their newfound negative charge will now repel each other. The force is not likely to be large, but it does not have to be. The debris field will scatter over time, and even small destabilizations of their orbits will lead to a large divergence in position over successive orbits.
Now on your launch vehicle, you have two options. Maintain a static, negative charge on the nose; this will force further scattering and prevent impact with material within a certain range of relative velocities. Maintain a magnetic field extending in front of the vehicle; this will induce motion in the charged debris, forcing it out of the way. This also has a limit on the maximum relative velocities of the vehicle and the debris.
It may be more effective to use positive ions instead of electrons. In that case, you reverse the charge on the cone. The magnetic method would not require changes. All of this works under the inverse square law, so the force of the effect increases as ship and debris get closer.
His point was that although the impact to specific players and corporations was huge, the impact to the overall market affected only very specific t2 segments, and even then the effect was restrained by limiting factors involved. Consider also that the 0.7% of the market controlled by the exploiters was for the most part created out of nothing. The exploit makes it a non-zero-sum problem. They created wealth, they weren't taking it from others. Other people who were legitimately producing these materials were harmed by lower prices, but they were still profitable. Other people who used the materials to produce other items did benefit from increased supply, but they would have been profitable without them.
The market as a whole responded well to the whole ordeal. Even now, things are more or less back to normal. Some of the materials involved are still being influenced by speculation to some degree, but the overall result is that prices and supplies are back where they should be.
I'm in no position to discuss the impact this exploit had on alliance warfare, but do consider that a lot of capital ships were deleted as punishment.
So the transistors have a certain minimum operating voltage. We want to provide a margin over that value, let's call it A. They also have a certain maximum operating voltage. We want a good margin below that which we will call C. Let's call the voltage halfway between those semi-arbitrary margin points B. From B to the margin we will call X. A+X=B, A+2X=C.
The real problem for these circuits is the use of a hysteresis loop to definitively select between voltages. One loop switches handily between two values. Two loops would be required for three values. The basic error-correcting structures would have to be doubled to accommodate three-value circuitry. This is not a show-stopper.
There is no physical reason why n-value circuitry is impossible. (to a point [1])
[1]: In reality, our measurement granularity restricts us to a number of positions equal to the high voltage - the low voltage / the detectable step in voltage. From a practical standpoint, it (computation) works fine with 2 positions and adding more greatly increases the number of parts involved.
The innocence defense fails the moment that administrative or judicial bias, corruption, or ineptitude exists. Since no human is perfect, at least one of those three disqualifiers actually exists.
Innocent people are convicted of crimes from time to time. Sometimes they are even proven innocent so far after the fact that they're already dead. This is with the full recourse available to people in court proceedings. Some or all of those rights and reliefs do not apply to actions taken by federal agencies, especially anything associated with DHS.
The average person cannot afford a satisfactory legal defense against the federal government or it's agencies. The average person has little or no understanding of their rights and responsibilities with regard to an administrative action, lawsuit, or criminal suit. Further, the average person has the same impaired understanding of any relief available and in some cases such relief is so well-hidden that not even your average lawyer knows they exist.
Administrative actions are not subject to judicial review in most cases, unless the victim brings suit (which they probably don't know how or even that they can, let alone be able to pay for it). The rules of the court do not apply. You are guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof is on you. Decisions made are not subject to appeal or review. Agency directors are appointed, not elected; you cannot vote them out. Federal judges are appointed, not elected; you cannot vote them out.
Just going through an investigation associated with an administrative action can be so costly and damaging that you are effectively punished before your guilt or innocence is proven. Even if time is the only measure, you will spend a huge amount of it even to attempt to defend yourself.
To translate this to filesharing terms:
The RIAA claims you distributed a song in violation of copyright. The court orders you to pay full statutory damages until you are proven innocent (if you ever are). You are charged for MediaSentry's investigative costs. You are prevented from working until the investigation is resolved. You are labeled a criminal in public before any truth or fact is even looked at.
Car analogy:
You buy a car at a car lot. The DOT charges you $50,000 for property damage and $200,000 for medical damages because you might have had an accident. You can get the money back only if you can prove you were never in an accident, and after following Byzantine internal processes for requesting a review and paying for the agency's investigative work, for which you will not be reimbursed.
Never claim that the innocent has nothing to fear until you have been the innocent accused.
Analogies may or may not be comprehensive, appropriate, etc. IANAL, other disclaimers apply.
That would be an altruistic view.
In reality, language shapes and guides thought. If there is no word to express displeasure, rebelliousness or unhappiness, then the population will never realize they experience those things. Instead, only a dull, misunderstood and misperceived dissatisfaction with existence will be present. With the appropriate guidance, this feeling can be transformed into anger and directed at a target in order to motivate and control the population.
To bring this back on point: if there is no word or phrase for copyright infringement but only theft, then copyright infringement becomes the same as theft. Theft is serious and actually hurts someone. Copyright infringement may or may not hurt someone some of the time, but never one or the other all of the time. By it's very nature, copyright is a willful temporary harm on the people for the future benefit of more creative works. Since the 'temporary' clause no longer applies, the balance is shifted and the law must shift in response.
Congrats on getting the hell out of that, then. Catch up on sleep and body rhythm; feel better. I've done 5/8, 4/10, and 12/12/10/6 in an IT environment. 4/10 is by far the best option for me. In a normal 5/8 week, I would work 9-10 hours a day anyway, so 4/10 was the same amount of effort for an extra day off and a lot less overtime pay. Now I'm promoted and they say they can't afford to have me on the overnight shift, so it's back to 5/8 (or 5/9 effective). Maybe I should start bringing lunch to work and taking a shorter lunch break. Who knows.
Me, but I could be part of the 'conspiracy'. That is, if western nebraska counts. Doubly so, since I work for one of those shadowy media conglomerates that ate up all those little radio stations over the past two decades... Or do I?
Try these, and follow links to get more info as desired.
composition of the moon:
http://www.neiu.edu/~jmhemzac/mooncomp.htm
lunar mining and refining:
http://www.asi.org/adb/02/02/
In short, aluminum, iron, and titanium are available in very useful quantities. Common additives for the creation of steel (excepting carbon, sadly) are readily available as well. Oxygen is abundant as is silicon. The majority of these materials can be extracted in thermal processes alone, or more efficiently through pulverizing and then heating. An RTG of sufficient capacity could easily run the extraction processes both electrically and thermally. Slugs of various metals and tanks of compressed oxygen would not be difficult to make by automated processes.
Carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen are in short supply on the surface. A sustainable lunar colony would require periodic resupply of organic chemicals from asteroids or comets. On a material basis alone, metals and semiconductors are easy and plastics and plants are hard. Methane and ammonia ices would provide the missing bulk materials for continued plastic production and expansion of plant life.
airport security. tazer. fatality. google is your friend.
A guy in my company (onsite install) took a couple of trophy shots of a client's NetWare 5 system that had been running in excess of five years during an install. The thing had been in continuous operation for 1,967 days, including surviving three hard drive failures while online. He used a digital camera to take the shot straight from the console monitor because rconsole had crashed (abended) two years prior and they wouldn't reboot it to restore remote access.
Contraception doesn't work. The people we are talking about are primarily subsistence farmers. Another child to help tend the fields means a better chance of surviving the off-season. Birth 12 so you still have 2 to support you in your old age after childhood diseases, war, and accidents kill off the rest. Contraception is antagonistic to their lifestyle. Changing the realities they face takes a lot more than some extra food and the availability of medicine, but it is a start. A better start would be cheap sustainable water purification, access to seed developed to thrive in their climates, and fertilizer. Continue that with a means of making an income (something to export, cottage industry style) and a lot of things become possible without external intervention.
The issues driving the Gates foundation and others to contribute to the third world are complex and far from altruistic. There is a similar if somewhat less sinister complexity behind the release of previously proprietary code and/or specs. There are dozens of reasons why AMD would be making their developments available to the public. The fact that they have means they have decided that it will offer their competitors no advantage in the Windows world at the very least. Certainly there are other negatives that had to be overcome or offset by the positives stemming from an open-sourcing of their spec. I'm in no position to elucidate on the subject, so I'm going back into my hole now.
What if there is no more challenging class? What if you are stuck taking analytic geometry before they will even let you attempt calculus? What if your high school has no calculus classes?
Same applies to other subjects. Computer Science is typically limited and includes little or no programming. Biology stops at a certain level of detail with regard to human anatomy. Inorganic chemistry may as well be imaginary chemistry, partly because of the application to explosives.
This may not apply as strongly to the arts, but the sciences are limited beyond a certain point in high schools because there may only be two or three students a year who could grasp the material. If high schools were partnered with local colleges or with a state satellite-based learning program, these higher-level classes could be provided without the buy-in cost of a dedicated on-site teacher. I took two years of Japanese in high school by satellite and phone conference, and it worked very well. The school paid intern rates for a facilitator who 'taught' (read: oversaw) all the satellite courses. Surely we can find a way that doesn't blow the budget and doesn't put our brightest to sleep.
It's not exactly that they are teens, it is that they are inexperienced drivers. If we increase the driving age to 25, then we can complain about the under-30's crashing into everything. Granted there are issues of maturity, attention span, and focus with regard to teenage drivers. These are not the sole reasons for the higher accident rates.
They do that everywhere, through the apparatus of eyes. This, then, is really a proper russian reversal where the eyes are watching the brain cells. or perhaps your reversal is a double reversal... in reversal russians, russia soviet you, or something to that effect.
What's with all the astroturfing?
Someone with too much marketing money has a serious axe to grind with IBM.
I was married on leap day of this year. (some of us ball-and-chain types post from work)
*(Un)fortunately, the price is what the seller thinks the market will bear. If people will buy a license + install disk on their own for $150 or more, then there's no requirement or incentive to sell it at their bundled price. *depending on your fiscal perspective.
It shouldn't be necessary to do that.
Usually, though, it would be either a problem in the firmware leading to instability or a change in routing, DNS, or DHCP assignments that the router can't handle live for some reason. It could also be possible that the firmware allows no changes at all to the running configuration, forcing a restart for any change made in an attempt at making it less hackable.
ok...
You're claiming that gravity has a corollary force, in much the same way that the electric force and magnetic force are corollaries. Instead of being perpendicular in some manner of cartesian coordinates, gravity and antigravity are prependicular in some form of polar coordinates, where gravity exerts force along r and antigravity exerts force along theta. I could accept this if you can provide some manner of mathematical explanation as to how that works (a rotational force equally opposing a linear force). Better yet would be to construct and execute an experiment which shows an effect that can only be predicted by this specific formulation of gravity, and not by any of the other theories.
You're also claiming a set of hypotheses about star formation, stellar processes, and astrophysical phenomena which almost completely excludes gravity in favor of magnetism. This is demonstrably false; the force of magnetism on a stellar or galactic scale is so minute (in comparison to gravity) as to be completely irrelevant in all but a handful of extreme cases. Additionally, there is absolutely no need, and in fact significant contrary evidence, for any form of heavy matter in the primordial universe. As above, if you can show an equation or model which fits our observation of the early universe (however indirect it may be) that allows for elements heavier than beryllium to exist, then you should publish, for fame and glory will surely be yours. Be sure to rewrite all of stellar nucleosynthesis and explain how the p-p chain, CNO cycle, and alpha cycles are wrong.
Something to consider might be: how does the spin of a nucleon relate to it's mass? Is there any way to demonstrate mathematically the reason for and cause of mass? If so, how does it relate to your rotational force? Set aside the grand galactic consequences of your theory until you fully understand and can formulate the microcosm of forces on particles within the framework of your theory of universal forces. The macrocosm will follow naturally from the microcosm; proof at the atomic level becomes compelling evidence for your theories at the cosmic level.
Please don't take this the wrong way; I'm not disrespecting your ideas or poking fun at you personally. This theory you've given us has some problems that need to be resolved with regard to existing observational and experimental data. That doesn't mean it's without merit, just that you have a very long way to go before you have something that other scientists will take seriously.
It's all relative. If we build factories that make atmosphere faster than it gets blown away, then the solar wind is irrelevant to the atmosphere for as long as we can run the factories. It is still relevant to mutation rates, sunburns, and cancer so we're still going to be looking for a greenhouse-style growing/living environment with adequate UV protection. I would think we can use reasonably thick plastic sheeting to help block or attenuate some of the nastier solar radiation as well. Most of the current ideas for a Martian base I've seen involve digging underground and using 10-20 feet of soil as a radiation shield. That would also be quite effective, and less demanding of material resources.
I used the same method, using the 25MHz bandwidth cited below, and arrived at 166.455 megabits/s (metric bits) or about 19.8mbps (base2 bytes). It seems to me that this might actually be a decent connection most of the time, censorship and advertising issues aside.
They don't need to bundle it. Offer it as a free download. Avoids the monopoly problem, avoids the technical ineptitude problem.
That depends on your definition of harm.
To keep this somewhat on topic, suppose the reverse situation had happened. A creationist group funds an educational video describing some aspect of their theories. An academic group then strips the copyright and dubs new dialog into the video which reverses it's meaning and purpose. This video is then played, with no attribution of source. Said creationist group would sue, and the academic community would be shocked and appalled when they discovered such gross dishonesty.
Is the scientific method a reasonable, rational approach to understanding reality? I believe that it is the best method we have available, and I am not alone in that belief. I believe that undermining that method, the very foundation of our modern technological society, causes great harm to logical and rational abilities. Someone who has been taught ID methods as though they were science is at a disadvantage when actually performing science. The ultimate cop-out (God [or a higher intelligence such as the FSM] designed it that way, and we simple creatures will never understand how or why) is where it all fails. Science doesn't just give up; you prove something true, false, or untestable. You never simply abandon a line of investigation because it is too hard or because it goes against established research (or even a collection of stories from our past that have been given special status). This approach to science is inherently flawed, hobbled, and damages the practitioner's rational faculties to the extent that all of their scientific endeavors are suspect. I think that qualifies as harm.
If there exists an intelligent design argument that does not involve an unknowable intelligent designer and does not simply comprise challenges to cited evidence used in evolutionary theory, I would love to hear it. Seriously. So much so that all of you can have my personal email account to tell me what that argument might be. (my_/._username_at_yahoo) Try to write an email that doesn't use the word God (or equalivent concept), says something other than a refutation of some piece of evolutionist evidence, makes a rational argument without recourse to scripture, or maybe even actually posits a hypothesis that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
I do believe in higher powers. I also believe in quantum mechanics, genetics, evolution, and the scientific method in general. I'm willing to examine any evidence provided with an open mind. Come, ease my boredom, give me a laugh at work, and just maybe give me something to think about. Consider it an easy challenge: I already believe in a higher power, so the hard part is done. Now just convince me that science and the scientific method is wrong, and you're in business. Best of luck, you're going to need it.
(footnote: Gujo-Odori, this rant isn't aimed at you. Sorry if it came off that way. It's directed at anyone who thinks they have valid evidence of intelligent design that supercedes any possible logical or rational counterargument.)