No, a true democracy wouldn't hold decision makers, all laws would be voted on by the people. Public officials would be voted on (i.e. people who actually performed tasks outside of legislative), but they wouldn't make the laws.
I never said the no confidence had to be a low priority
before 25% of the term is up, no confidence requires >90% before 26%-50% of the term, no confidence requires >75% 51%-75% of the term, no confidence requires >60% 76+% of the term, no confidence requres >50%
anarcho-capitalism puts the power into the hands of the corporations in most cases, as they are much better organized than the same number of joe-schmoe citizens.
It is just trading a government tyranny for a corporate tyranny. It least in the former the goal is sort-of "protect the people", in the latter the goal is "get more money and power to the people on top".
I'd prefer a true democracy where all public officials are elected - or randomly chosen for set terms, with a public no-confidence vote option.
However such a thing may exist, and has been reproduced with difficulty, albeit on a small and commercially non-viable scale. It looks like it's hell on the components. And I suspect there are areas of high heat since it mentions parts melting.
Your definition of cold fusion is fusion happing at relatively low temperatures I take it?
Well, the problem with that is that it most likely cannot exist, a certain amount of kinetic energy is required at the atomic level for fusion - meaning a lot of heat for the fusing atoms.
I think cold fusion in general means that the average temperature of the reaction chamber is low. If I read the wikipedia article right, the technique used generates small superheated bubbles, but doesn't necessarily superheat the solvent, this I think it can be classified as cold fusion.
Stop being a troll and reading more into this than I said. I've already countered every point you made long before you clicked the reply button, in response to other posters.
"You make your own luck" is about something slightly different.
Things can happen out of your control/planning [effectively luck], how you handle them is what making your own luck is all about. A Person cannot rationaly be expected to access resources they don't have available, and use/obtain resources they have no clue exists - making your luck is properly handling the situation once these resources or the knowledge of their existance becomes available.
I by no means meant that as condescending. As I've stated, I've been in science, and this kind of thing (though not anything nearly as useful) has happened to me.
I also made the point of taking the problematic result and making use of it. So much of science comes from these mistakes or accidents and making use of them, that it is "typical science". Until recently there hasn't really been enough redily accessible data to make synthesis/assimilation of existing data able to produce a lot of results.
It's a mixture, you have your accidents, your logic, your analysis, and your data. Put them together right and you get something useful, as often as not, something quite different than what you were after.
It's not condescending, and someone who thinks it is, has too much of an ego to be a good scientist. Reality shapes you and your results, not vice versa, thus you must accept reality and work with it to maximize your creations.
And if you had bothered reading what I said, you would have noticed that I never once said that the decades of research never happened. I simply said this step probably wouldn't have happened without that simple piece of blind luck.
A result in her field of study: that would be determined methodology. But this was luck. Any scientist would admit that, but you are probably and engineer or lawyer, correct?
What would you say about a person who uses insults in his arguments about someone else, and takes a comment about ONE SMALL ASPECT of a situation and then insinuates it's in regards to the whole situation? What would you say about yourself I wonder?
I've done plenty of science in my day, and there's nothing magical about it, there's a lot of work involved, and sometimes it can be EXTREMELY tedious and annoying. However occasionally steps are made due to blind luck. A mistake in a calculation or a step of procedure not quite correctly followed. I know it's happened to me before, though never in something quite this important.
I never said all success was blind luck either, I said that this one case was the result of blind luck. Maybe (probably) it would have happened without the luck, but it could have been days, months, years, even never, if they came out saying the results were inconclusive without realizing there was a slight detour they could have taken on their journey to get to their destination.
sorry, but had she not made the calculation mistake (LUCK) she would never have gotten the result.
Maybe she was working down the right path, but she likely would not have gotten to this step without the luck.
additionally, the other part of my comment, according to the paper, she almost dropped it right there, and wouldn't have published/presented the results except one of her coworkers heard her complaining and said something that made her put two and two together.
I wasn't saying the whole thing was blind luck, but it is sheer ignorance to discount the fact that quite a bit of what happened, even if it was "at the end" was blind luck.
uhh, you know that a researcher is a scientist right? Last I checked, scientists researched things to figure out how they worked... and researchers did the same damn thing. The Ph.D. if you think that is a requirement, is not.
for all the logic and deductive reasoning they use, it ends up being pure chance and blind luck that gives us some of the best discoveries.
And how many problems could have been solved by now, if instead of someone saying "Hey, this isn't doing what I wanted it to do!" instead they said "Wow, not doing what I wanted it to do, but this effect is pretty darn useful too!"
I suspect it is the former but for other reasons. Vista runs fine on even turn of the century equipment, as long as you don't use Aero. It runs more or less like XP. But DRMier. And with annoying installation popups.
A business or corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money.
If they screw up at it, then it's their fault. Additionally, if they had acted honestly an honorably and either
(a) ignored the problem or (b) simply asked for the normal payment instead of (c) tried to take the payment unlawfully and/or force/scare the people into payment
They would have looked good, ate a small cost, and may have been able to use that to encourage more customers.
Heck, they could even may an "occasionaly-screwup-in-your-favor" policy or ad campaign out of it, it'd be cheap and they'd be a lot better off for it. No, they'd rather abuse their customers by being just as much in the wrong, if not moreso, than those who didn't want to pay the difference.
Except this isn't theft. This isn't someone taking something without permission. Amazon gave them the items for free, with their go-ahead. Amazon screwed up here. Now, I'm not saying that keeping the items is completely right, but at the same time, if people decide to keep the items, Amazon has no right whatsoever to strong arm them into it.
Lets say I buy a new $50k sports car. A month later I put out an add to sell the car for $10k, I mean to put it out for $100k but I made a mistake. You then come and write me a check for $1k and in my infinite absentmindedness, misread it, and I accept.
Who's fault is it? Do you implicitly owe me the remaining $49k or $99k? No, I screwed up. Just because Amazon is a company, doesn't make it any different. Except, as a large company they tend to be used to screwing the common person who doesn't have a lot of leverage, it's nice to see that they will probably have to eat their own now.
I also don't want to get cancer or have to pay $0.01 per cell replication in my body because some dumb fuck decided to allow a patent on P53
I admit that's an extreme case, but it stands to reason if it's made all over the place, all the time, and has been for millenia, it shouldn't be patentable.
Well, we can start with everyone who plays WoW... Some people like getting their favorite free *nix distros via P2P. Just like some pirates like getting their free *dows distro via P2P, except the former is legal.
Also, I know Safari is based off of Konqueror, and both are pass ACID2 (I think Opera does as well?)
So by having one of these in your compatability list, that should implicitly add the rest, even if all are a relatively lower market share compared to IE/Firefox.
Re:Opposite way of thinking?
on
PHP 5 in Practice
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm the same way, but I've been programming for 10 years. I'm more likely to get tripped up on quirks of a language, even one I know well, than to not be able to figure out an algorithm to solve a problem.
Actually the most common problem is usually a small typo, that I don't see for three hours...
Slashdot Mirror
No, a true democracy wouldn't hold decision makers, all laws would be voted on by the people. Public officials would be voted on (i.e. people who actually performed tasks outside of legislative), but they wouldn't make the laws.
I never said the no confidence had to be a low priority
before 25% of the term is up, no confidence requires >90%
before 26%-50% of the term, no confidence requires >75%
51%-75% of the term, no confidence requires >60%
76+% of the term, no confidence requres >50%
anarcho-capitalism puts the power into the hands of the corporations in most cases, as they are much better organized than the same number of joe-schmoe citizens.
It is just trading a government tyranny for a corporate tyranny. It least in the former the goal is sort-of "protect the people", in the latter the goal is "get more money and power to the people on top".
I'd prefer a true democracy where all public officials are elected - or randomly chosen for set terms, with a public no-confidence vote option.
cows?
OK, this doesn't look like low energy input, even if it is room temperature, so it's probably not cold fusion as the OP posted.
Cold Fusion
However such a thing may exist, and has been reproduced with difficulty, albeit on a small and commercially non-viable scale. It looks like it's hell on the components. And I suspect there are areas of high heat since it mentions parts melting.
Your definition of cold fusion is fusion happing at relatively low temperatures I take it?
Well, the problem with that is that it most likely cannot exist, a certain amount of kinetic energy is required at the atomic level for fusion - meaning a lot of heat for the fusing atoms.
I think cold fusion in general means that the average temperature of the reaction chamber is low. If I read the wikipedia article right, the technique used generates small superheated bubbles, but doesn't necessarily superheat the solvent, this I think it can be classified as cold fusion.
Stop being a troll and reading more into this than I said. I've already countered every point you made long before you clicked the reply button, in response to other posters.
"You make your own luck" is about something slightly different.
Things can happen out of your control/planning [effectively luck], how you handle them is what making your own luck is all about. A Person cannot rationaly be expected to access resources they don't have available, and use/obtain resources they have no clue exists - making your luck is properly handling the situation once these resources or the knowledge of their existance becomes available.
I by no means meant that as condescending. As I've stated, I've been in science, and this kind of thing (though not anything nearly as useful) has happened to me.
I also made the point of taking the problematic result and making use of it. So much of science comes from these mistakes or accidents and making use of them, that it is "typical science". Until recently there hasn't really been enough redily accessible data to make synthesis/assimilation of existing data able to produce a lot of results.
It's a mixture, you have your accidents, your logic, your analysis, and your data. Put them together right and you get something useful, as often as not, something quite different than what you were after.
It's not condescending, and someone who thinks it is, has too much of an ego to be a good scientist. Reality shapes you and your results, not vice versa, thus you must accept reality and work with it to maximize your creations.
And if you had bothered reading what I said, you would have noticed that I never once said that the decades of research never happened. I simply said this step probably wouldn't have happened without that simple piece of blind luck.
A result in her field of study: that would be determined methodology. But this was luck. Any scientist would admit that, but you are probably and engineer or lawyer, correct?
What would you say about a person who uses insults in his arguments about someone else, and takes a comment about ONE SMALL ASPECT of a situation and then insinuates it's in regards to the whole situation? What would you say about yourself I wonder?
I've done plenty of science in my day, and there's nothing magical about it, there's a lot of work involved, and sometimes it can be EXTREMELY tedious and annoying. However occasionally steps are made due to blind luck. A mistake in a calculation or a step of procedure not quite correctly followed. I know it's happened to me before, though never in something quite this important.
I never said all success was blind luck either, I said that this one case was the result of blind luck. Maybe (probably) it would have happened without the luck, but it could have been days, months, years, even never, if they came out saying the results were inconclusive without realizing there was a slight detour they could have taken on their journey to get to their destination.
There really is an art to science.
sorry, but had she not made the calculation mistake (LUCK) she would never have gotten the result.
Maybe she was working down the right path, but she likely would not have gotten to this step without the luck.
additionally, the other part of my comment, according to the paper, she almost dropped it right there, and wouldn't have published/presented the results except one of her coworkers heard her complaining and said something that made her put two and two together.
I wasn't saying the whole thing was blind luck, but it is sheer ignorance to discount the fact that quite a bit of what happened, even if it was "at the end" was blind luck.
my favorite is rubber
Dangit, I spilled the sticky useless-tree-goo on the stove...
Wait a minute, this new stuff is interesting...
uhh, you know that a researcher is a scientist right? Last I checked, scientists researched things to figure out how they worked... and researchers did the same damn thing. The Ph.D. if you think that is a requirement, is not.
for all the logic and deductive reasoning they use, it ends up being pure chance and blind luck that gives us some of the best discoveries.
And how many problems could have been solved by now, if instead of someone saying "Hey, this isn't doing what I wanted it to do!" instead they said "Wow, not doing what I wanted it to do, but this effect is pretty darn useful too!"
I suspect it is the former but for other reasons. Vista runs fine on even turn of the century equipment, as long as you don't use Aero. It runs more or less like XP. But DRMier. And with annoying installation popups.
sad isn't it? Maybe someday they'll realize these "HWCNDW"s are simply people too, and are suceptable to mistakes and greed.
I prefer to critcize just about everybody... Then again, I'll also mention their advantages and good sides when relevant too.
That's the way it should be
Funny, if someone said the same thing about Jobs, they are trolls, but if they say it about the music industry people it's insightful.
Not that I disagree, I'd say you are right on the ball, they just want to look good to encourage sales.
A business or corporation exists for the sole purpose of making money.
If they screw up at it, then it's their fault. Additionally, if they had acted honestly an honorably and either
(a) ignored the problem
or
(b) simply asked for the normal payment
instead of
(c) tried to take the payment unlawfully and/or force/scare the people into payment
They would have looked good, ate a small cost, and may have been able to use that to encourage more customers.
Heck, they could even may an "occasionaly-screwup-in-your-favor" policy or ad campaign out of it, it'd be cheap and they'd be a lot better off for it. No, they'd rather abuse their customers by being just as much in the wrong, if not moreso, than those who didn't want to pay the difference.
Except this isn't theft. This isn't someone taking something without permission. Amazon gave them the items for free, with their go-ahead. Amazon screwed up here. Now, I'm not saying that keeping the items is completely right, but at the same time, if people decide to keep the items, Amazon has no right whatsoever to strong arm them into it.
Lets say I buy a new $50k sports car. A month later I put out an add to sell the car for $10k, I mean to put it out for $100k but I made a mistake. You then come and write me a check for $1k and in my infinite absentmindedness, misread it, and I accept.
Who's fault is it? Do you implicitly owe me the remaining $49k or $99k? No, I screwed up. Just because Amazon is a company, doesn't make it any different. Except, as a large company they tend to be used to screwing the common person who doesn't have a lot of leverage, it's nice to see that they will probably have to eat their own now.
There's local, and if travel is a challange (such as in my case), I've found buy.com to be a nice competator to amazon that has treated me well.
I agree.
I also don't want to get cancer or have to pay $0.01 per cell replication in my body because some dumb fuck decided to allow a patent on P53
I admit that's an extreme case, but it stands to reason if it's made all over the place, all the time, and has been for millenia, it shouldn't be patentable.
Well, we can start with everyone who plays WoW... Some people like getting their favorite free *nix distros via P2P. Just like some pirates like getting their free *dows distro via P2P, except the former is legal.
Very good poitns here.
Also, I know Safari is based off of Konqueror, and both are pass ACID2 (I think Opera does as well?)
So by having one of these in your compatability list, that should implicitly add the rest, even if all are a relatively lower market share compared to IE/Firefox.
I'm the same way, but I've been programming for 10 years. I'm more likely to get tripped up on quirks of a language, even one I know well, than to not be able to figure out an algorithm to solve a problem.
Actually the most common problem is usually a small typo, that I don't see for three hours...