However, you will probably find NPR stations run by public colleges, that obtain some portion of their revenue from the college's budget - which in turn may come partially from taxes.
In this case, I don't begrudge NPR my tax dollars. They have some truly interesting programming that probably wouldn't survive if it depended on commercials (not to mention that we'd have to listen to the commercials - bleh.) Whine as much as you like about government subsidy of media or a particular point of view. But as for me, I refuse to depend on Fox News et al for intelligent, balanced news coverage and information.
Here's a link for more information on the event at Kitty Hawk. It will be held on December 17, 2003. There was an event earlier this month celebrating the invention of flight in Dayton, Ohio, where the Wright Brothers' had their workshop.
Well, whether we're talking socialized health care or private, I don't think that insurance companies should be forced to pay out if people are stupid enough to not wear their seatbelts. I always wear my seatbelt, but I don't want my insurance bill to pay for those stupid people who don't. It's NOT just a matter of personal safety; even in a system dependent on private insurance, hundreds of thousands of dollars of ICU fees for people who get thrown though their windsheild in a 25mph accident have to be spread out among the premiums of people with brains. Just shut up with your worthless whining, grow a brain, and wear your seatbelt.
Actually Sen / Chihiro's voice was whiny in the Japanese version, too. Both of them kinda grated on me. But she is a pretty whiny girl, after all, so I thought the english version was a relatively faithful reproduction.
Every patent is NOT seen as evil on Slashdot. There isn't a slashdot article posted for every patent that's issued. If that were the case then we'd have to pick through pages of patent posts to discover the "non-patent" articles. Even Microsoft, which Slashdot hates so much, holds many (in my opinion) undeniably legitimate patents.
Slashdot does, however, think every ill-considered patent to be evil. It seems that the US patent office often issues a patent for an algorithm or technology that is generally considered to be public (hyperlinks) or something that's incredibly obvious (one-click buy). Such patents are equivilant to Gore's often-quoted and always overstated "I invented the internet" speech - taking credit for a concept so broad and common that no one person or corporation should be allowed to legitimately claim sole authorship.
Of course corrosion presents a problem. The solution? GOLD! Or better still, PLATINUM! That stuff is expensive for a reason, you know! It doesn't corrode or oxidize, is very thermally conductive, and extremely easy to work with. Never mind that buying enough gold for such a project would cost in the tens of thousands of dollars; just think of how jealous your LAN party going friends would be of the shiny GOLD or PLATINUM heat transfer blocks that you have in your rig.
"Written Japanese is overcomplicated by the use of kanji."
Kanji, I speculate, depends greatly on pattern recognition, something which is very deeply hardwired into the human brain. Once the brain has been trained to recognize the radicals, reading in Kanji not only helps one to read faster, but also assists in comprehension. It's a difficult system to learn, but many (myself included) would argue that the return is worth it.
Kanji also helps to clear up confusion about double meanings- like english, many words are pronounced the same but have different meanings. In english, the distinction often made evident in different spellings of the word; in Japanese, Kanji provides the clarification.
Without kanji, the Japanese language as a whole would lack color and be largely devoid of apparent links to its history.
I myself believe that the right to own a gun is protected by the constitution and should not be eliminated. I'm on the same side of the argument as you.
That being said, I disagree with some of the anecdotal evidence that you cite to support your argument.
1....SNIP... Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often. Compare that with Japan- a nation with almost no Gun Homicides- yet three times the suicide rate of the United States. Cultural differences aside, the means available to commit suicide do not affect the suicide rate.
When stating this fact, cultural differences should not be put aside. Suicide in Japan is historically (though hardly universally anymore) seen as a way of redeeming one's honor in a hopeless situation. In western culture, suicide is nearly always looked down upon as selfish and wasteful.
Guns are indeed a very efficient method of committing suicide. If you know where to point, it's just a simple twitch of the finger- and to me it seems that the gravity of the decision to pull the trigger is far more distant and less real than that of many other means of suicide. Suicide is not always something that a person makes up their mind about ahead of time and cannot be stopped after that. In fact, I'd not be surprised if (though I don't know where to go to find numbers to back up this statement so take it with a grain of salt) the vast majority of suicides involve an extended period of indecision, punctuated with a perhaps split-second decision where something happens that pushes the person over the edge. I don't want to think of what may have happened if there were a gun in the house when someone close to me attempted suicide a while ago.
2....SNIP... If you look at gun homocides and accidental deaths for children under 14, you'll find that far more children drown in swimming pools than die to guns.
The statistic about under-24 gun deaths seems to prove a point (assuming that it's true.) However, the statistic about more children drowning in swimming pools than dying to guns doesn't reinforce your argument in my mind at all. A death by gunfire or a death by drowning in a swimming pool are certainly both tragic occurances, especially for small children. To me it seems that, while tragic, a child drowning in a swimming pool could potentially be a frequent mishap. And the way you state the fact does more than just bring the deaths into perspective, it implies that the deaths that happen as a result of gunfire are excusable since the frequency is lower than some other causes of death.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms....SNIP...
Same as my comment to #2- by comparing gun deaths to some other, entirely unrelated cause of mortality does nothing to reinforce your argument. The fact is irrelevant.
Anyway, I hope I have demonstrated the moral and ethical dilemma present in this argument. As we already know, statistics and facts can often be distorted or presented with a slant that can make them say pretty much anything. As a previous poster has said, the decision about gun control comes down to ethics and the extent of personal liberties.
And while the threat of an armed attack does frighten me, I would be even more frightened to know that the governent had begun systematically disarming the citizens. One reason that the right to bear arms is guaranteed is to give the people the right to rise up against oppression. Non-violence is obviously the best solution, for example, sit-ins during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, with gradual erosion of individual rights, to me it's comforting to know that there are people out there who are equipped and have the mentality to take a stand against it when it becomes necessary, whether it ever happens or not.
The TGV is capable of moving at greater than 500km/h (I think 519km/h is the world rail speed record that it holds, from 1990). However, this speed is not efficient, not safe for everyday travel, and too much strain on the infrastructure. But perhaps in a system designed for this sort of speed, it could happen regularly.
Another problem with using existing railways in the US for high speed service is that the tracks are segmented- made up of lots of short peices of steel rail bolted together. This is fine at speeds generally under 90mph (and, in the special case of the Acela, on selected tracks, 150mph).
This sectioned construction is, of course, the reason for the familiar "click-clack" noise that trains make as they go along their merry way. It allows for thermal expansion, and makes construction modular and repair relatively easy. Unfortunately, this type of construction isn't suited for traveling at high speeds, the small discontinuity between each section causes a lot of vibration and stress on the train's suspension (see example: Acela).
These tracks are also shared with freight trains, which place a huge amount of stress on the rails when compared to a (much lighter) passenger train, pushing the rails slightly out of alignment and level each time a train passes by, requiring frequent checks and maintenance.
Bullet train systems throughout the world use continuous welded rails (CWR) for high speed travel. This is just as important as long, straight, properly banked tracks for high speed travel. Unfortunately you cannot simply upgrade freight tracks to CWR, because the frequent mainenance required would become more difficult and expensive. High speed trains in other countries do travel on regular tracks in some places, but they cannot approach the "normal" cruising speed that they can on their dedicated, continuous tracks.
I seriously think that the best solution for the US is a whole new rail network for passenger traffic. Expensive, yes. But the benifit of having an alternative transportation system is worth the increase in cost over upgrading an interstate highway from 2 lanes each way to 4. The price increase isn't even too enormous. For example- a typical interstate improving project, widening I-40 to 4 lanes in Greensboro, NC is costing taxpayers $22m per mile, whereas according to the California High Speed Rail network's homepage, a high speed rail network would cost an average of $38m per mile, including stations and trains.
Maglev is of course another option, but it's largely untested, especially in commercial service. Welded steel rails are, to this day, just as fast, safe, proven, and less expensive. The choice seems clear to me.
OK, what are you doing here? If you're accusing Disney of plagarizing these stories, you're completely wrong to do so. Why, you even state yourself that they are "publicly owned works."
So that's not it. What is it, then?
I understand that you can be frustrated and dislike the Disney company, and I hold many negative sentiments towards the company myself. Their overly blatant commercialism and in my opinion often shoddy work of late is disappointing to say the least, coming from a company with such a prestigious history. The way they compromise the integrity of both their original and non-original stories by writing insipid sequels is saddening. Then, there's their often predatory defense of their near monopolistic grasp on the animated film market. (Miyazaki, anyone?) These practices should anger everyone.
However, you are wrong to criticize Disney for a lack of original stories in each of these cases. Disney was not attempting to pass the stories off as original, nor did the company try to seize control of them in any way. Rather, Disney adapted and produced these often age-old tales--many that he had read and loved as a child--as animated films. While the Disney adaptations may stray more from the original stories than some may prefer, there is nothing wrong with the concept morally or legally. Disney has not "raided the trove of publicly owned works," but rather, retold the stories in a way meant to be enjoyed by those who have read the original stories and those who haven't alike.
The Lion King? I don't know. Atlantis? I don't know either. Those might be plagarism to some extent, I haven't seen the works they were supposedly derived from myself so I won't claim to know anything about the subject. But the examples that you point out are just plain wrong.
And, by the way, when on earth does Winnie the Pooh ever ride a skateboard? I've seen quite a few Pooh cartoons and to the best of my recollection there weren't any skateboards, certainly not as a running theme. And while I'm at it, when did Disney ever claim that the story was American? Once again- they're just producing a cartoon out of an age old children's story, and something which they certainly have the right to do and frequently do very well.
When I rant about Disney, (the company or the man) I don't rant about the masterful films that they have made from familiar fairy tales and children's stories. Instead, I rant about their faults.
In this case, the government is still at fault for abridging the right to free speech and press because they have passed a law, the DMCA, that gives companies who posess the IP protected by the content control mechanism more than just the right to sue over the publication of a paper like that, but also the right to press criminal charges. And even in a lawsuit, the DMCA, though still largely untested in higher courts, provides a solid and apparently uncompromisable foundation from which these companies can win their case. Before the advent of the DMCA, if a company were to sue about the publication of a paper, the person who published the paper would only have to prove they did not use any illegal means of reverse engineering, etc. to discover the security flaws. Then, this person could claim their first amendment right to free speech and press, publish their paper, and the case would be over, possibly before even going to trial.
I've never read the full text of the DMCA (It's convoluted legalese and it's boring), so if I've missed something, please correct me. But regardless, the DMCA is evil and unconstitutional, and most/. readers understand that already. The solution to the DMCA as it stands is for a case such as this to make its way to the Supreme Court, and for the law to be overturned or radically changed in spite of all the big business lobbying and threats of removing campaign dollars.
Back in sixth grade, my science teacher took our class to a friend's house that was truly "off the grid" - no water, gas, sewer, electric, or telecom connections to the outside world at all.
A -LOT- of these components that have been mentioned as taking a lot of power can be replaced with components designed to run on propane, or run directly off of the sun's power. This family had a propane refrigerator (Sounded ridiculous to me in sixth grade, propane burns to make heat, right?), and they had solar collectors for heating water plus a small propane storage tank for keeping it warm when the sun was not out. The water from the solar collectors was used for heating- they had a system where water pipes ran through the floors of the house and caused the tiles to radiate heat.
I remember seeing a wall full of batteries, in their garage, with probably 40 or so 12v lead-acid car batteries. They also had both propane and gasoline generators for those times when the solar system was inadequate.
There lots of solar lighting for the daytime, but for nighttime, every single electrical fixture was fluorescent.
They had plenty of power to leave their Macintosh SE on just about all the time, though I suppose that's hardly a modern desktop... >_
An aspect of human nature that is on the same level as the desire for wealth is the desire for power. Record companies have, for a long time, had nearly complete control over the release of music. They've been able to tell bands what they can and can't release. They've controlled pricing, production, distribution, and marketingand lots of other things that I can't think of at the moment.
They absolutely hate the idea that music, an artistic expresion that they've kept their fingers on for so long, is beginning to break free. The internet has eroded their control over distribution, and thus shaking the foundations of their complete vertically integrated monopoly. Perhaps the RIAA fears the loss of one segment of their monopoly alone, or perhaps they fear that their stranglehold on the market will disappear entirely.
I'd like to see the net kill off record companies as we know it entirely. Who actually benifits from their existence? Let's see...
The public? Not one bit. The record companies control what we see on TV and hear on the radio and what we see first when we walk into a music store. They control how much we pay for an album. On the whole they try their hardest to control the opinions of the public.
The recording artists? At first glance, they benifit somewhat, as record sales are the main source of their income, and they don't have to worry about . But the record companies, of course, skim an enormous margin off the price of each record. And then, many bands are told what they can and can't put on their own records, diluting the most sacred quality of music, its value as an artistic expression.
To me, it's clear that only one entity benifits from the RIAA's existence- the RIAA itself. That's why it's evil, and that's why I want to see it die.
I guarantee that almost every serious musician in the industry would still be in the music business even if they didn't get their monthly paychecks from record companies. I'm certainly not saying that musicians don't deserve to live a comfortable life, because they do... but there are other ways for musicians to earn a living and gain public respect- plenty of bands handle their own production and distribution entirely on their own. Even non-affiliated (read non-evil) record companies can still achieve a good deal of exposure. The value of music would be much better preserved if bands reached the top solely by public consensus - by the merits of their music, rather than what industry execs decide will be the most profitable.
Even though their press releases may quote monitary facts, that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the control (read: monopoly) that the recording industry currently holds. Everyone in the world except record companies themselves would benifit from the demise of the RIAA.
You're very right. Every time someone posts an opinion, it is (and should be) an invitation for anyone who disagrees to state their own contrasting opinion. By stating that he does not want to be flamed for his opinion, it seems to me that he doesn't want to have his time wasted by people who don't agree with him. I understand that his job at/. involves recieving an avalanche of e-mail every day and it probably gets overwhelming and very frustrating, but as with every branch of the media, if you make your opinion public, you should expect the public to have something to say about your opinion.
I can imagine that someone who was red/green colorblind (which can sometimes affect blue as well) the logo would look just like a sphere with a weird white line thru it. Hm.
I'm not about to go join movie pirating chat rooms because it'd probably make my stomach turn. But I'll give you the benifit of the doubt assume that your statement is valid because it does make sense.
That being said, I'm sure you've heard of LiViD. DeCSS isn't meant to be a DVD player in and of itself. It doesn't offer a UI. LiViD, however, the project based off of DeCSS, was designed with the sole purpose of playing movies. I'd guess there are just as many people who are interested in LiViD as there are pirates abusing this piece of software.
We as a slashdot community do have to admit that pirating with DeCSS is a problem. These people aren't helping the case for the legitimacy of DeCSS. We instead need to think of what cam be done to stop these illegal pirates? Obviously trying to tell them that what they're doing is wrong won't work. They know that already, they're just after money or fame or just satisfaction. Any ideas?
I'm a high school student. I don't know much at all about physics or electrons or anything like that, certainly nowhere near as much as someone working on a degree in general relativity. But I do know that my high school physics teacher tells me that it's speculated that this mysterious stuff called dark matter makes up a very large percentage of the entire mass of the universe. If this low-energy "Hydrino" stuff is in fact dark matter, then wouldn't it seem that since so much of the universe is dark matter that nature has already found this low energy state, just not in our general vicinity in the universe? I'm not trying to agree or disagree with Mills. I read the article, and didn't think it was very well written -- it kinda went from topic to topic arbitrarily, if this is really what the theory is like then it just reinforces the feeling that this guy sounds like a scam. Am I just sounding blatantly stupid here? If I'm dreadfully wrong and you feel like it, enlighten me =)
Now it seems to me that the European system is definitely better. But regarding general digital transfer of information over the airwaves, I'd like to bring up a point. Anybody who has used a digital "cellular" phone can say that when it works it has much better audio quality than an analog phone. But if you talk to a sales representative, you'll hear that if you live in an outlying area that you'll definitely want to opt for analog or dual-band. This is due to two reasons, obviously the digital networks are not as widespread as the analog networks. However, in addition, the digital towers have to be about 3 times closer together to ensure a signal. I'd imagine that this is because with digital, you are either getting clear enough reception to get a signal, or you're not, whereas an analog phone can deal with weak signals by simply having sound that's less clear. Error correction can probably in some way compensate for this, but obviously it doesn't work as well because the towers still need to be closer.
Now the point of my response - will the same thing be true of digital TV? Will the broadcast area for each station not be able to reach as far? This study on 8VSB vs CODFM does seem to indicate that there is the potential for this problem. I live in a somewhat outlying area, I don't have cable, and half the stations that I get come from about 100 miles away (and over quite a few mountains) so the signal is fairly weak. If digital TV means that I won't be able to get the CBS and NBC stations that come out of the next state, then as far as I'm concerned it's useless.
I think it's pretty easy to say that the article was incorrect in saying that the hydrocarbons were made in the big bang and such. Rather than concentrating on one errant statement, look at the important stuff. The theory hypothesizes that the hydrocarbons were part of the matter that originally formed the earth. (But don't those seem to be rather complicated molecules for that point in the development of the universe?).
Now, I venture into the land of conjecture and speculation. Perhaps the microbes formed as a result of the extreme conditions under the earth's surface at the time, similar to the "primordial soup" that has been hypothesized for decades. Since the best source of energy underground was these hydrocarbons (probably not oil and gas yet) the microbes digested these and created other forms of hydrocarbons (waste products - this is where petroleum comes in). I'm confusing myself even more with this speculation... Because in this situation, the hydrocarbons of the initial form (whatever it may have been) would eventually be depleted by the microbes. It wouldn't make sense for a microbe to excrete the same type of molecule as a waste product that it uses as fuel, so there must be some type of change going on there...
I guess this is what separates people like Gold from me. I really have a hard time thinking outside the box of logic, and pulling data together that seems on the outside to contradict into a coherent theory.
I agree that Gold is a good thing to the scientific community of late. Rather than taking every theory that has been examined and used so many times that it is practically accepted as fact, he takes a fresh look at the data present.
However, I see some problems here. Firstly, I need to qualify my statements. I am not even a college graduate; I am technically in no position to argue against Dr. Gold. However, I begin to wonder whether even an accomplished man such as he has not begun to overstep his bounds? If nothing else, I would say he needs to be careful lest he should adopt a cavalier attitude towards "shaking up" the scientific community. I certainly don't think he's to this point yet, but (I hope I'm not overstepping MY bounds by saying this...) it would be quite harmful to the scientific community if such a well-known man's pursuits became self-gratifying rather than for the pursuit of knowledge.
Anyway, on to his actual theories...
The Washington Post seems to have given more evidence proving him right than wrong; I wish that it went into greater depth describing and criticizing the deep, underground, high pressure microbial biosphere that he theorises. For example, how does he explain the transition of the dominant forms of life on earth from underground to the surface? Why does it seem that evolution has not taken place underground? And does he also intend to "dis" the more or less generally accepted idea that most, nearly all of the energy that supports life comes from the sun? I'm confused, how the petroleum hydrocarbons can become fuel for life, and where exactly they came from. If these petroleum hydrocarbons are from the decaying remains of these microbes, but the microbes depend on the hydrocarbons for energy (which is what I got out of the article), you end up in a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" situation.
I am certainly not trying to debunk Dr. Gold's theories with a simple article on slashdot, much less insult his character as a scientist. I ask rather for clarification. Anybody who hass discussed this before or read his book... any input?
Alright, I can take some criticism. I was wrong, and I'm corrected; I was less than polite in my original statement so I deserve your less than polite reply. My point still stands, however, that the government is attempting to discourage computer vandals, which is a GOOD THING, no matter whether it's called "hacking" or "cracking" or whatever.
I would like to know exactly WHEN this idea of cracking v. hacking started? For as long as I can remember, until quite recently, somebody who maliciously breaks into a computer system has been referred to as a hacker. Hacking should be what it always has been. Most of the people in the world view hacking as a form of terrorism.
If I went and asked somebody on "So, what do you think of cracking?" they'd probably say "What do you mean, cracking nuts? Personally I prefer cashews..." But if I asked them "What do you think of hacking?" they might say something along the lines of "It's preventing the internet from becoming what it could be because of it necessitates such a concentration on security..."
The way I see it, people that want to be called hackers usually want other people to be afraid of or impressed by them. The way that this happens is that most people make the "computer terrorism" link in their mind when they hear "hacker". If you want to be called a hacker, you should be willing to be associated with people that really are hackers! The word hacker should always keep the meaning and negative context that it originally had before it was transformed into cracking."
It seems no matter what program the US government comes up with regarding computers or the internet is always torn to pieces almost without a thought or even carefully examining it. I ask you this: at what time do people develop most of their habits, learn most of their manners? When they're young! A large part of this program is just to teach children proper internet "ettequete(sp)." This also brings up something else. Just because the article says the program aims "to discourage hacking" doesn't mean that the government wants to stop people from messing around with computers. To tell the truth, I'm somewhat fed up with the obsession that the word "Hacker" can not be used in the place of "Cracker". I'm certainly not old enough to remember the time when the very first person broke into somebody else's computer. However, I do know that the term "Hacker" was soon used to describe such a person. Where the whole business about this type of computer terrorist getting changed into a "Cracker" happened I don't know, but it seems to euphamize the word "Hacker" into a fun-loving computer guy who likes to find out how things work, ignoring the origins of the word and what 90% of the people on the planet THINK it means... My point is, There is NO EXCUSE for computer terrorism. This bill is designed to prevent that (as well as some of the more annoying things on the internet like SPAM). When are habits formed? When people are children! It's best to facilitate the formation of good habits when children are young. I don't see where you get the idea that it's bad to discourage children from being terrorists. Sometimes the government can get something right. I think that this has a chance of doing that, if it is taken seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
However, you will probably find NPR stations run by public colleges, that obtain some portion of their revenue from the college's budget - which in turn may come partially from taxes.
In this case, I don't begrudge NPR my tax dollars. They have some truly interesting programming that probably wouldn't survive if it depended on commercials (not to mention that we'd have to listen to the commercials - bleh.) Whine as much as you like about government subsidy of media or a particular point of view. But as for me, I refuse to depend on Fox News et al for intelligent, balanced news coverage and information.
Here's a link for more information on the event at Kitty Hawk. It will be held on December 17, 2003. There was an event earlier this month celebrating the invention of flight in Dayton, Ohio, where the Wright Brothers' had their workshop.
Well, whether we're talking socialized health care or private, I don't think that insurance companies should be forced to pay out if people are stupid enough to not wear their seatbelts. I always wear my seatbelt, but I don't want my insurance bill to pay for those stupid people who don't. It's NOT just a matter of personal safety; even in a system dependent on private insurance, hundreds of thousands of dollars of ICU fees for people who get thrown though their windsheild in a 25mph accident have to be spread out among the premiums of people with brains. Just shut up with your worthless whining, grow a brain, and wear your seatbelt.
Actually Sen / Chihiro's voice was whiny in the Japanese version, too. Both of them kinda grated on me. But she is a pretty whiny girl, after all, so I thought the english version was a relatively faithful reproduction.
Every patent is NOT seen as evil on Slashdot. There isn't a slashdot article posted for every patent that's issued. If that were the case then we'd have to pick through pages of patent posts to discover the "non-patent" articles. Even Microsoft, which Slashdot hates so much, holds many (in my opinion) undeniably legitimate patents.
Slashdot does, however, think every ill-considered patent to be evil. It seems that the US patent office often issues a patent for an algorithm or technology that is generally considered to be public (hyperlinks) or something that's incredibly obvious (one-click buy). Such patents are equivilant to Gore's often-quoted and always overstated "I invented the internet" speech - taking credit for a concept so broad and common that no one person or corporation should be allowed to legitimately claim sole authorship.
Of course corrosion presents a problem. The solution? GOLD! Or better still, PLATINUM! That stuff is expensive for a reason, you know! It doesn't corrode or oxidize, is very thermally conductive, and extremely easy to work with. Never mind that buying enough gold for such a project would cost in the tens of thousands of dollars; just think of how jealous your LAN party going friends would be of the shiny GOLD or PLATINUM heat transfer blocks that you have in your rig.
"Written Japanese is overcomplicated by the use of kanji."
Kanji, I speculate, depends greatly on pattern recognition, something which is very deeply hardwired into the human brain. Once the brain has been trained to recognize the radicals, reading in Kanji not only helps one to read faster, but also assists in comprehension. It's a difficult system to learn, but many (myself included) would argue that the return is worth it.
Kanji also helps to clear up confusion about double meanings- like english, many words are pronounced the same but have different meanings. In english, the distinction often made evident in different spellings of the word; in Japanese, Kanji provides the clarification.
Without kanji, the Japanese language as a whole would lack color and be largely devoid of apparent links to its history.
I myself believe that the right to own a gun is protected by the constitution and should not be eliminated. I'm on the same side of the argument as you.
...SNIP... Guns are efficient at this, so they are used often. Compare that with Japan- a nation with almost no Gun Homicides- yet three times the suicide rate of the United States. Cultural differences aside, the means available to commit suicide do not affect the suicide rate.
...SNIP... If you look at gun homocides and accidental deaths for children under 14, you'll find that far more children drown in swimming pools than die to guns.
...SNIP...
That being said, I disagree with some of the anecdotal evidence that you cite to support your argument.
1.
When stating this fact, cultural differences should not be put aside. Suicide in Japan is historically (though hardly universally anymore) seen as a way of redeeming one's honor in a hopeless situation. In western culture, suicide is nearly always looked down upon as selfish and wasteful.
Guns are indeed a very efficient method of committing suicide. If you know where to point, it's just a simple twitch of the finger- and to me it seems that the gravity of the decision to pull the trigger is far more distant and less real than that of many other means of suicide. Suicide is not always something that a person makes up their mind about ahead of time and cannot be stopped after that. In fact, I'd not be surprised if (though I don't know where to go to find numbers to back up this statement so take it with a grain of salt) the vast majority of suicides involve an extended period of indecision, punctuated with a perhaps split-second decision where something happens that pushes the person over the edge. I don't want to think of what may have happened if there were a gun in the house when someone close to me attempted suicide a while ago.
2.
The statistic about under-24 gun deaths seems to prove a point (assuming that it's true.) However, the statistic about more children drowning in swimming pools than dying to guns doesn't reinforce your argument in my mind at all. A death by gunfire or a death by drowning in a swimming pool are certainly both tragic occurances, especially for small children. To me it seems that, while tragic, a child drowning in a swimming pool could potentially be a frequent mishap. And the way you state the fact does more than just bring the deaths into perspective, it implies that the deaths that happen as a result of gunfire are excusable since the frequency is lower than some other causes of death.
3. With any variety of "Gun Deaths" included, Doctor's mistakes kill far many more people each year than firearms.
Same as my comment to #2- by comparing gun deaths to some other, entirely unrelated cause of mortality does nothing to reinforce your argument. The fact is irrelevant.
Anyway, I hope I have demonstrated the moral and ethical dilemma present in this argument. As we already know, statistics and facts can often be distorted or presented with a slant that can make them say pretty much anything. As a previous poster has said, the decision about gun control comes down to ethics and the extent of personal liberties.
And while the threat of an armed attack does frighten me, I would be even more frightened to know that the governent had begun systematically disarming the citizens. One reason that the right to bear arms is guaranteed is to give the people the right to rise up against oppression. Non-violence is obviously the best solution, for example, sit-ins during the civil rights movement. Nevertheless, with gradual erosion of individual rights, to me it's comforting to know that there are people out there who are equipped and have the mentality to take a stand against it when it becomes necessary, whether it ever happens or not.
The TGV is capable of moving at greater than 500km/h (I think 519km/h is the world rail speed record that it holds, from 1990). However, this speed is not efficient, not safe for everyday travel, and too much strain on the infrastructure. But perhaps in a system designed for this sort of speed, it could happen regularly.
Another problem with using existing railways in the US for high speed service is that the tracks are segmented- made up of lots of short peices of steel rail bolted together. This is fine at speeds generally under 90mph (and, in the special case of the Acela, on selected tracks, 150mph).
This sectioned construction is, of course, the reason for the familiar "click-clack" noise that trains make as they go along their merry way. It allows for thermal expansion, and makes construction modular and repair relatively easy. Unfortunately, this type of construction isn't suited for traveling at high speeds, the small discontinuity between each section causes a lot of vibration and stress on the train's suspension (see example: Acela).
These tracks are also shared with freight trains, which place a huge amount of stress on the rails when compared to a (much lighter) passenger train, pushing the rails slightly out of alignment and level each time a train passes by, requiring frequent checks and maintenance.
Bullet train systems throughout the world use continuous welded rails (CWR) for high speed travel. This is just as important as long, straight, properly banked tracks for high speed travel. Unfortunately you cannot simply upgrade freight tracks to CWR, because the frequent mainenance required would become more difficult and expensive. High speed trains in other countries do travel on regular tracks in some places, but they cannot approach the "normal" cruising speed that they can on their dedicated, continuous tracks.
I seriously think that the best solution for the US is a whole new rail network for passenger traffic. Expensive, yes. But the benifit of having an alternative transportation system is worth the increase in cost over upgrading an interstate highway from 2 lanes each way to 4. The price increase isn't even too enormous. For example- a typical interstate improving project, widening I-40 to 4 lanes in Greensboro, NC is costing taxpayers $22m per mile, whereas according to the California High Speed Rail network's homepage, a high speed rail network would cost an average of $38m per mile, including stations and trains.
Maglev is of course another option, but it's largely untested, especially in commercial service. Welded steel rails are, to this day, just as fast, safe, proven, and less expensive. The choice seems clear to me.
OK, what are you doing here? If you're accusing Disney of plagarizing these stories, you're completely wrong to do so. Why, you even state yourself that they are "publicly owned works."
So that's not it. What is it, then?
I understand that you can be frustrated and dislike the Disney company, and I hold many negative sentiments towards the company myself. Their overly blatant commercialism and in my opinion often shoddy work of late is disappointing to say the least, coming from a company with such a prestigious history. The way they compromise the integrity of both their original and non-original stories by writing insipid sequels is saddening. Then, there's their often predatory defense of their near monopolistic grasp on the animated film market. (Miyazaki, anyone?) These practices should anger everyone.
However, you are wrong to criticize Disney for a lack of original stories in each of these cases. Disney was not attempting to pass the stories off as original, nor did the company try to seize control of them in any way. Rather, Disney adapted and produced these often age-old tales--many that he had read and loved as a child--as animated films. While the Disney adaptations may stray more from the original stories than some may prefer, there is nothing wrong with the concept morally or legally. Disney has not "raided the trove of publicly owned works," but rather, retold the stories in a way meant to be enjoyed by those who have read the original stories and those who haven't alike.
The Lion King? I don't know. Atlantis? I don't know either. Those might be plagarism to some extent, I haven't seen the works they were supposedly derived from myself so I won't claim to know anything about the subject. But the examples that you point out are just plain wrong.
And, by the way, when on earth does Winnie the Pooh ever ride a skateboard? I've seen quite a few Pooh cartoons and to the best of my recollection there weren't any skateboards, certainly not as a running theme. And while I'm at it, when did Disney ever claim that the story was American? Once again- they're just producing a cartoon out of an age old children's story, and something which they certainly have the right to do and frequently do very well.
When I rant about Disney, (the company or the man) I don't rant about the masterful films that they have made from familiar fairy tales and children's stories. Instead, I rant about their faults.
In this case, the government is still at fault for abridging the right to free speech and press because they have passed a law, the DMCA, that gives companies who posess the IP protected by the content control mechanism more than just the right to sue over the publication of a paper like that, but also the right to press criminal charges. And even in a lawsuit, the DMCA, though still largely untested in higher courts, provides a solid and apparently uncompromisable foundation from which these companies can win their case. Before the advent of the DMCA, if a company were to sue about the publication of a paper, the person who published the paper would only have to prove they did not use any illegal means of reverse engineering, etc. to discover the security flaws. Then, this person could claim their first amendment right to free speech and press, publish their paper, and the case would be over, possibly before even going to trial.
/. readers understand that already. The solution to the DMCA as it stands is for a case such as this to make its way to the Supreme Court, and for the law to be overturned or radically changed in spite of all the big business lobbying and threats of removing campaign dollars.
I've never read the full text of the DMCA (It's convoluted legalese and it's boring), so if I've missed something, please correct me. But regardless, the DMCA is evil and unconstitutional, and most
Back in sixth grade, my science teacher took our class to a friend's house that was truly "off the grid" - no water, gas, sewer, electric, or telecom connections to the outside world at all.
A -LOT- of these components that have been mentioned as taking a lot of power can be replaced with components designed to run on propane, or run directly off of the sun's power. This family had a propane refrigerator (Sounded ridiculous to me in sixth grade, propane burns to make heat, right?), and they had solar collectors for heating water plus a small propane storage tank for keeping it warm when the sun was not out. The water from the solar collectors was used for heating- they had a system where water pipes ran through the floors of the house and caused the tiles to radiate heat.
I remember seeing a wall full of batteries, in their garage, with probably 40 or so 12v lead-acid car batteries. They also had both propane and gasoline generators for those times when the solar system was inadequate.
There lots of solar lighting for the daytime, but for nighttime, every single electrical fixture was fluorescent.
They had plenty of power to leave their Macintosh SE on just about all the time, though I suppose that's hardly a modern desktop... >_
An aspect of human nature that is on the same level as the desire for wealth is the desire for power. Record companies have, for a long time, had nearly complete control over the release of music. They've been able to tell bands what they can and can't release. They've controlled pricing, production, distribution, and marketingand lots of other things that I can't think of at the moment.
They absolutely hate the idea that music, an artistic expresion that they've kept their fingers on for so long, is beginning to break free. The internet has eroded their control over distribution, and thus shaking the foundations of their complete vertically integrated monopoly. Perhaps the RIAA fears the loss of one segment of their monopoly alone, or perhaps they fear that their stranglehold on the market will disappear entirely.
I'd like to see the net kill off record companies as we know it entirely. Who actually benifits from their existence? Let's see...
The public? Not one bit. The record companies control what we see on TV and hear on the radio and what we see first when we walk into a music store. They control how much we pay for an album. On the whole they try their hardest to control the opinions of the public.
The recording artists? At first glance, they benifit somewhat, as record sales are the main source of their income, and they don't have to worry about . But the record companies, of course, skim an enormous margin off the price of each record. And then, many bands are told what they can and can't put on their own records, diluting the most sacred quality of music, its value as an artistic expression.
To me, it's clear that only one entity benifits from the RIAA's existence- the RIAA itself. That's why it's evil, and that's why I want to see it die.
I guarantee that almost every serious musician in the industry would still be in the music business even if they didn't get their monthly paychecks from record companies. I'm certainly not saying that musicians don't deserve to live a comfortable life, because they do... but there are other ways for musicians to earn a living and gain public respect- plenty of bands handle their own production and distribution entirely on their own. Even non-affiliated (read non-evil) record companies can still achieve a good deal of exposure. The value of music would be much better preserved if bands reached the top solely by public consensus - by the merits of their music, rather than what industry execs decide will be the most profitable.
Even though their press releases may quote monitary facts, that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the control (read: monopoly) that the recording industry currently holds. Everyone in the world except record companies themselves would benifit from the demise of the RIAA.
I think I've said enough by now. Comment away.
You're very right. Every time someone posts an opinion, it is (and should be) an invitation for anyone who disagrees to state their own contrasting opinion. By stating that he does not want to be flamed for his opinion, it seems to me that he doesn't want to have his time wasted by people who don't agree with him. I understand that his job at /. involves recieving an avalanche of e-mail every day and it probably gets overwhelming and very frustrating, but as with every branch of the media, if you make your opinion public, you should expect the public to have something to say about your opinion.
I can imagine that someone who was red/green colorblind (which can sometimes affect blue as well) the logo would look just like a sphere with a weird white line thru it. Hm.
I'm not about to go join movie pirating chat rooms because it'd probably make my stomach turn. But I'll give you the benifit of the doubt assume that your statement is valid because it does make sense.
That being said, I'm sure you've heard of LiViD. DeCSS isn't meant to be a DVD player in and of itself. It doesn't offer a UI. LiViD, however, the project based off of DeCSS, was designed with the sole purpose of playing movies. I'd guess there are just as many people who are interested in LiViD as there are pirates abusing this piece of software.
We as a slashdot community do have to admit that pirating with DeCSS is a problem. These people aren't helping the case for the legitimacy of DeCSS. We instead need to think of what cam be done to stop these illegal pirates? Obviously trying to tell them that what they're doing is wrong won't work. They know that already, they're just after money or fame or just satisfaction. Any ideas?
I'm a high school student. I don't know much at all about physics or electrons or anything like that, certainly nowhere near as much as someone working on a degree in general relativity. But I do know that my high school physics teacher tells me that it's speculated that this mysterious stuff called dark matter makes up a very large percentage of the entire mass of the universe. If this low-energy "Hydrino" stuff is in fact dark matter, then wouldn't it seem that since so much of the universe is dark matter that nature has already found this low energy state, just not in our general vicinity in the universe? I'm not trying to agree or disagree with Mills. I read the article, and didn't think it was very well written -- it kinda went from topic to topic arbitrarily, if this is really what the theory is like then it just reinforces the feeling that this guy sounds like a scam. Am I just sounding blatantly stupid here? If I'm dreadfully wrong and you feel like it, enlighten me =)
Now it seems to me that the European system is definitely better. But regarding general digital transfer of information over the airwaves, I'd like to bring up a point. Anybody who has used a digital "cellular" phone can say that when it works it has much better audio quality than an analog phone. But if you talk to a sales representative, you'll hear that if you live in an outlying area that you'll definitely want to opt for analog or dual-band. This is due to two reasons, obviously the digital networks are not as widespread as the analog networks. However, in addition, the digital towers have to be about 3 times closer together to ensure a signal. I'd imagine that this is because with digital, you are either getting clear enough reception to get a signal, or you're not, whereas an analog phone can deal with weak signals by simply having sound that's less clear. Error correction can probably in some way compensate for this, but obviously it doesn't work as well because the towers still need to be closer.
Now the point of my response - will the same thing be true of digital TV? Will the broadcast area for each station not be able to reach as far? This study on 8VSB vs CODFM does seem to indicate that there is the potential for this problem. I live in a somewhat outlying area, I don't have cable, and half the stations that I get come from about 100 miles away (and over quite a few mountains) so the signal is fairly weak. If digital TV means that I won't be able to get the CBS and NBC stations that come out of the next state, then as far as I'm concerned it's useless.
I think it's pretty easy to say that the article was incorrect in saying that the hydrocarbons were made in the big bang and such. Rather than concentrating on one errant statement, look at the important stuff. The theory hypothesizes that the hydrocarbons were part of the matter that originally formed the earth. (But don't those seem to be rather complicated molecules for that point in the development of the universe?).
Now, I venture into the land of conjecture and speculation. Perhaps the microbes formed as a result of the extreme conditions under the earth's surface at the time, similar to the "primordial soup" that has been hypothesized for decades. Since the best source of energy underground was these hydrocarbons (probably not oil and gas yet) the microbes digested these and created other forms of hydrocarbons (waste products - this is where petroleum comes in). I'm confusing myself even more with this speculation... Because in this situation, the hydrocarbons of the initial form (whatever it may have been) would eventually be depleted by the microbes. It wouldn't make sense for a microbe to excrete the same type of molecule as a waste product that it uses as fuel, so there must be some type of change going on there...
I guess this is what separates people like Gold from me. I really have a hard time thinking outside the box of logic, and pulling data together that seems on the outside to contradict into a coherent theory.
I agree that Gold is a good thing to the scientific community of late. Rather than taking every theory that has been examined and used so many times that it is practically accepted as fact, he takes a fresh look at the data present.
However, I see some problems here. Firstly, I need to qualify my statements. I am not even a college graduate; I am technically in no position to argue against Dr. Gold. However, I begin to wonder whether even an accomplished man such as he has not begun to overstep his bounds? If nothing else, I would say he needs to be careful lest he should adopt a cavalier attitude towards "shaking up" the scientific community. I certainly don't think he's to this point yet, but (I hope I'm not overstepping MY bounds by saying this...) it would be quite harmful to the scientific community if such a well-known man's pursuits became self-gratifying rather than for the pursuit of knowledge.
Anyway, on to his actual theories...
The Washington Post seems to have given more evidence proving him right than wrong; I wish that it went into greater depth describing and criticizing the deep, underground, high pressure microbial biosphere that he theorises. For example, how does he explain the transition of the dominant forms of life on earth from underground to the surface? Why does it seem that evolution has not taken place underground? And does he also intend to "dis" the more or less generally accepted idea that most, nearly all of the energy that supports life comes from the sun? I'm confused, how the petroleum hydrocarbons can become fuel for life, and where exactly they came from. If these petroleum hydrocarbons are from the decaying remains of these microbes, but the microbes depend on the hydrocarbons for energy (which is what I got out of the article), you end up in a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" situation.
I am certainly not trying to debunk Dr. Gold's theories with a simple article on slashdot, much less insult his character as a scientist. I ask rather for clarification. Anybody who hass discussed this before or read his book... any input?
Alright, I can take some criticism. I was wrong, and I'm corrected; I was less than polite in my original statement so I deserve your less than polite reply. My point still stands, however, that the government is attempting to discourage computer vandals, which is a GOOD THING, no matter whether it's called "hacking" or "cracking" or whatever.
I would like to know exactly WHEN this idea of cracking v. hacking started? For as long as I can remember, until quite recently, somebody who maliciously breaks into a computer system has been referred to as a hacker. Hacking should be what it always has been. Most of the people in the world view hacking as a form of terrorism.
If I went and asked somebody on "So, what do you think of cracking?" they'd probably say "What do you mean, cracking nuts? Personally I prefer cashews..." But if I asked them "What do you think of hacking?" they might say something along the lines of "It's preventing the internet from becoming what it could be because of it necessitates such a concentration on security..."
The way I see it, people that want to be called hackers usually want other people to be afraid of or impressed by them. The way that this happens is that most people make the "computer terrorism" link in their mind when they hear "hacker". If you want to be called a hacker, you should be willing to be associated with people that really are hackers! The word hacker should always keep the meaning and negative context that it originally had before it was transformed into cracking."
It seems no matter what program the US government comes up with regarding computers or the internet is always torn to pieces almost without a thought or even carefully examining it. I ask you this: at what time do people develop most of their habits, learn most of their manners? When they're young! A large part of this program is just to teach children proper internet "ettequete(sp)." This also brings up something else. Just because the article says the program aims "to discourage hacking" doesn't mean that the government wants to stop people from messing around with computers. To tell the truth, I'm somewhat fed up with the obsession that the word "Hacker" can not be used in the place of "Cracker". I'm certainly not old enough to remember the time when the very first person broke into somebody else's computer. However, I do know that the term "Hacker" was soon used to describe such a person. Where the whole business about this type of computer terrorist getting changed into a "Cracker" happened I don't know, but it seems to euphamize the word "Hacker" into a fun-loving computer guy who likes to find out how things work, ignoring the origins of the word and what 90% of the people on the planet THINK it means... My point is, There is NO EXCUSE for computer terrorism. This bill is designed to prevent that (as well as some of the more annoying things on the internet like SPAM). When are habits formed? When people are children! It's best to facilitate the formation of good habits when children are young. I don't see where you get the idea that it's bad to discourage children from being terrorists. Sometimes the government can get something right. I think that this has a chance of doing that, if it is taken seriously.