I'm not telling you any such thing. I have no data on dropbox and would never give them any anyway.
While I agree the end user/corporation has a responsibility at some level to understand the technology Dropbox has a responsibility to be honest about their product and not make claims about data availability that are untrue.
Which would be fine if they said "Our employees have access to your data through key escrow in the event you forget your passphrase". If what you're storing is random pictures or some such that's quite likely good enough.
Some companies don't want that and give their business to companies that say "Key escrow is your problem, it is physically impossible for our employees to read your data". They tend to pay more for that service.
Dropbox was unfairly competing by claiming to do more expensive B when it really did cheaper A.
We don't kill them over nothing, we kill them because they're wrong, usually about incredibly important things like which side to butter your bread on.
Not sure why the author felt it was necessary to repeatedly reference 'a radio telescope in rural West Virginia' without giving an actual link or reference to the GBT instead of yet another self referential physorg link.
The Green Bank Telescope GBT (http://www.gb.nrao.edu/) is a very impressive instrument just from an engineering stand point. If you're even in the area it's well worth visiting though it is a bit off the beaten path.
With it's spectrometer (http://www.gb.nrao.edu/gbsapp/) it's also a good instrument for interstellar medium (ISM) biochemistry surveys. That may be a more fruitful area of study unless of course somebody does pick up the Ff99x22dddlw race's version of an Olympic broadcast.
Data from all NSF funded instruments are in the public domain after a 'suitable' period for the primary investigator who proposed the actual science with the instrument has had crack at it.
For the telescopes this tends to be 1 year from observing, after that the data is available to all. It sounds like the data from this project will wave that 1 year period and be available for SETI@home as soon as it's done.
Laws don't prevent anything, just because somebody wrote somewhere 'Thou shalt not kill' has no bearing on your ability to kill.
The use and appropriateness of injunctions doesn't change as a function of technology and the injunction will in fact have an effect; it will deter some people, the fact that it won't deter 100% is immaterial. The real problem is the exposure created by the injunction. That exposure only exists because it was the first injunction (according the author) that explicitly referenced twitter. The 2nd, 3rd or 100th time there's an injunction explicitly referencing twitter nobody will talk about it and the injunction will have roughly the same effect as it would have 20, 40 or 80 years ago.
Drat, I might have applied for one of those network security positions but sadly a) I don't live in Australia b) I have no pen testing experience.
I've always just used them on an as needed basis. I guess I could flub my way through an interview extolling the benefits of ball point vs felt tip and maybe make up some interesting war story of the good old days and ink wells. Ultimately I doubt I could penetrate the Australian job market.
My wife's been hounding me to by a kindle. Let's see, $150 for a device that needs charging and costs roughly the same per book which may or may not work 3 to 5 years from now versus a book I own forever can loan to anyone and reread 50 years from now if I feel like it.
I have every book I ever bought, including pulp sci-fi from 30 years ago. I'm free to loan them to whomever, reread them whenever. I really really have a hard time seeing the attraction of switching.
Saying I'd now be free to loan it to somebody for 14 days but only once just brings the distinction into starker reality for me, it's hardly a selling point. If they ever reach the point that I own the content, it's delivered in a completely portable format, I can transfer it to any device and loan it to anyone at any time and to as many people as I want just like I can with a normal book I might consider it, not until then.
You can't have a manufacturing business until you figure out the technical details. There's a reason Dow invests 1.2B a year in R&D. Ten years from now I suspect there'll be an article on some new conductive something or other and somebody will point out what a waste that is because you can already buy windows for Andersen Windows that act as transparent solar panels.
Places like LANL aren't set up to invent and patent products (though they have), they do pure research and post their findings so companies like Dow, GE and 3M can further advance the findings as real products. It is extremely risky to do pure research, there is little or no guarantee that areas of inquiry will lead to anything let alone a cost effective product. A centralized system for pure research backed by the combined economic force of an entire nation and then distributed to focused companies to implement promising lines is about as efficient as it gets (efficient there is a relative term, it doesn' t mean it is in itself efficient, just more efficient than alternatives).
Lastly all conductive polymers aren't created equal, simply making a conductive plastic is not a one size fits all regime. Some of the best work in polymeric photovoltaics is being done at LANL which, oddly enough, is the point of the article.
Because the evidence fits much better when viewed from what the Bible records as history. I don't know how much evolution you've studied but if you've studied any, study the alternatives, as well. I wouldn't consider myself well informed, as a Christian, if I hadn't been reading up on alternatives.
I'm confused, I can't find anywhere in the bible where they even mention the existence of molly fish in Mexico let alone any scripture that suggests how they might go about adapting to increased toxicity levels.
Looking at the link you provided I don't see how evidence of weakness in current theory is to be taken as proof of Biblical correctness, particularly considering the Bible makes no claims in the first place.
i think it's a spatial thing, one goes on the top of the house, the other on the side.
I agree with your point, transparent solar panels seem fairly useless since their efficiency is directly related to their opacity, windows that absorb solar energy seems pretty slick.
Not if you do it right, we just need to set them up so they properly affect the earths rotation, say give us 4 more hours of sunlight a day for more solar power. Two rocs with one stone.
Those examples don't pass the test of being predictive models, their predictions can't be disproved because they make none, except maybe end of times or after death which are distinctly difficult to measure.
I've yet to find the atomic weight of hydrogen in any religious text or a reasonable explanation for the existence of the Alps, Australia, how a diode works or even why the sky is blue. Barring central African mythos with which I'm not familiar I don't think any religion even attempts to explain why Giraffes have long necks.
On a side note, I personally have little trouble believing this is an evolutionary response, on the other hand it's extremely important to consider alternative causes like mithridatization.
Science is not intended to prove theories, it's intended to find underlying truth. It doesn't do anyone any good to get it wrong. This works both ways, disproving theories requires similar rigor.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not telling you any such thing. I have no data on dropbox and would never give them any anyway.
While I agree the end user/corporation has a responsibility at some level to understand the technology Dropbox has a responsibility to be honest about their product and not make claims about data availability that are untrue.
with howls of protest and ad hominem attack.
AHHHHH you're an idiot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lier
The phantom tracking software is just waiting to get you.
Which would be fine if they said "Our employees have access to your data through key escrow in the event you forget your passphrase". If what you're storing is random pictures or some such that's quite likely good enough.
Some companies don't want that and give their business to companies that say "Key escrow is your problem, it is physically impossible for our employees to read your data". They tend to pay more for that service.
Dropbox was unfairly competing by claiming to do more expensive B when it really did cheaper A.
We don't kill them over nothing, we kill them because they're wrong, usually about incredibly important things like which side to butter your bread on.
Bah
Here's a comma or two, ',,,' to insert as you see fit, s/has had/to have a.
Not sure why the author felt it was necessary to repeatedly reference 'a radio telescope in rural West Virginia' without giving an
actual link or reference to the GBT instead of yet another self referential physorg link.
The Green Bank Telescope GBT (http://www.gb.nrao.edu/) is a very impressive instrument just from an engineering stand point.
If you're even in the area it's well worth visiting though it is a bit off the beaten path.
With it's spectrometer (http://www.gb.nrao.edu/gbsapp/) it's also a good instrument for interstellar medium (ISM) biochemistry surveys. That may be a more fruitful area of study unless of course somebody does pick up the Ff99x22dddlw race's version of an Olympic broadcast.
Data from all NSF funded instruments are in the public domain after a 'suitable' period for the primary investigator who proposed the actual science with the instrument has had crack at it.
For the telescopes this tends to be 1 year from observing, after that the data is available to all. It sounds like the data from this project will wave that 1 year period and be available for SETI@home as soon as it's done.
Laws don't prevent anything, just because somebody wrote somewhere 'Thou shalt not kill' has no bearing on your ability to kill.
The use and appropriateness of injunctions doesn't change as a function of technology and the injunction will in fact have an effect; it will deter some people, the
fact that it won't deter 100% is immaterial. The real problem is the exposure created by the injunction. That exposure only exists because it was the first injunction (according the author) that explicitly referenced twitter. The 2nd, 3rd or 100th time there's an injunction explicitly referencing twitter nobody will talk about it and the injunction will have roughly the same effect as it would have 20, 40 or 80 years ago.
I'm sure he got a 100 on the test and only missed the extra credit question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backspace
It's like ^H but for the entire word.
Most AT&T customers.
Radiation concerns have killed the banana phone sales.
Drat, I might have applied for one of those network security positions but sadly
a) I don't live in Australia
b) I have no pen testing experience.
I've always just used them on an as needed basis. I guess I could flub my way through an interview extolling the benefits of ball point vs felt tip and maybe make up some interesting war story of the good old days and ink wells. Ultimately I doubt I could penetrate the Australian job market.
Emacs maybe but not vi, vi sucks. I would never hire anybody who used vi by choice, sure sometimes you're forced to use it but mostly it's a choice.
Ahh nothing like facts:
Slashdot is the most pro nuclear site on the web ?
Virtually a 100% (ie almost all ?) of the posts are pro nuke ?
My wife's been hounding me to by a kindle. Let's see, $150 for a device that needs charging and costs roughly the same per book which may or may not work 3 to 5 years from now versus a book I own forever can loan to anyone and reread 50 years from now if I feel like it.
I have every book I ever bought, including pulp sci-fi from 30 years ago. I'm free to loan them to whomever, reread them whenever. I really really have a hard time seeing the attraction of switching.
Saying I'd now be free to loan it to somebody for 14 days but only once just brings the distinction into starker reality for me, it's hardly a selling point. If they ever reach the point that I own the content, it's delivered in a completely portable format, I can transfer it to any device and loan it to anyone at any time and to as many people as I want just like I can with a normal book I might consider it, not until then.
You can't have a manufacturing business until you figure out the technical details. There's a reason Dow invests 1.2B a year in R&D. Ten years from now I suspect there'll be an article on some new conductive something or other and somebody will point out what a waste that is because you can already buy windows for Andersen Windows that act as transparent solar panels.
Last year there were numerous scoffing posts at the announcement that Dow would be rolling out shingles next year.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/10/05/2126210/Dow-Chemical-Rolling-Our-Solar-Shingles-Next-Year?from=rss
Places like LANL aren't set up to invent and patent products (though they have), they do pure research and post their findings so companies like Dow, GE and 3M can further advance the findings as real products. It is extremely risky to do pure research, there is little or no guarantee that areas of inquiry will lead to anything let alone a cost effective product. A centralized system for pure research backed by the combined economic force of an entire nation and then distributed to focused companies to implement promising lines is about as efficient as it gets (efficient there is a relative term, it doesn' t mean it is in itself efficient, just more efficient than alternatives).
Lastly all conductive polymers aren't created equal, simply making a conductive plastic is not a one size fits all regime. Some of the best work in polymeric photovoltaics is being done at LANL which, oddly enough, is the point of the article.
...why Christians deny evolution?
Because the evidence fits much better when viewed from what the Bible records as history. I don't know how much evolution you've studied but if you've studied any, study the alternatives, as well. I wouldn't consider myself well informed, as a Christian, if I hadn't been reading up on alternatives.
For further reading on what I meant about evidence fitting the bible better: http://creation.com/an-awesome-mind-creation-magazine-jonathan-sarfati-interview
I'm confused, I can't find anywhere in the bible where they even mention the existence of molly fish in Mexico let alone any scripture that suggests how they might go about adapting to increased toxicity levels.
Looking at the link you provided I don't see how evidence of weakness in current theory is to be taken as proof of Biblical correctness, particularly considering the Bible makes no claims in the first place.
i think it's a spatial thing, one goes on the top of the house, the other on the side.
I agree with your point, transparent solar panels seem fairly useless since their efficiency is directly related to their opacity, windows that absorb solar energy seems pretty slick.
Not if you do it right, we just need to set them up so they properly affect the earths rotation, say give us 4 more hours of sunlight a day for more solar power. Two rocs with one stone.
Those examples don't pass the test of being predictive models, their predictions can't be disproved because they make none, except maybe end of times or after death which are distinctly difficult to measure.
I've yet to find the atomic weight of hydrogen in any religious text or a reasonable explanation for the existence of the Alps, Australia, how a diode works or even why the sky is blue. Barring central African mythos with which I'm not familiar I don't think any religion even attempts to explain why Giraffes have long necks.
Also not trolling.
On a side note, I personally have little trouble believing this is an evolutionary response, on the other hand it's extremely important to consider alternative causes like mithridatization.
Science is not intended to prove theories, it's intended to find underlying truth. It doesn't do anyone any good to get it wrong. This works both ways, disproving theories requires similar rigor.
Technically they take the icles out of articles.