TFA is about a refinement to tech that's existed for quite some decades now -- I remember pricing out dual FSO/microwave setups way back when. They never really came down into a price range where we could justify deploying them versus leasing telco, even the small ones, and we saw no real motion towards commoditization.

The cloning could go horribly wrong yielding birth defects, or the animal could endure a lifetime of suffering due to factors like (spitballing here) not having compatible intestinal flora.

Yep, I wrote a bunch of code for Google Checkout (I think that was what it was called) and then all of a sudden it didn't work. They just up and killed it. Not trusting them again.

You should start the business-account ticket process anyway. You might even convince them to proactively approach these services from their side. Defending the ability of one's assigned blocks to send email is one of the jobs of any address holder, even if Comcast doesn't care about how badly their residential customers are treated (by others as well as their own techs) they should care about business address ranges.

You could try demanding different addresses as well.

This is evident since people seem to "just know" things that are easily disprovable, not just hard to prove subject matter that requires a research paper.

A google of phrases like "most people think" can make for some fun afternoon reading.

I'd make a similar complaint, but the objective of this project is obviously just to harvest a base of credentials. It's such a bad idea on the surface when they could just mine wikipedia, that I don;t believe for a second they are serious about the product.

Heh. I see what you did there.

In all seriousness, were GNOME-the-desktop to have some major security incident and it affects the viability of GNOME-the-PoS with potential customers by associating the brand with security problems in search engine results, someone will start to appreciate the merit of avoiding name collisions.

Neither are interframe arrival times on just about any traffic monitored, and one could easily encode a cnc to look at stat counters on the interfaces.

So really this is in the area of "horse already left the barn."

Those academic scientists at (insert school) and their money grubbing ways, always asking for a handout, feeding off the public trough.

...and they have an ample supply of cats and clown noses.

This argument is as spurious as the frames of reference and definitions needed to support it are extreme. Also the orginal post didn't say there were no flaws with "simultaneity", just that calling it "wrong" was "wrong." It's well known that any causal relationship is preserved from any frame of reference, and furthermore "events" on the macro scale don't happen at a discrete moment in time. If you have a balloon with a chipmunk suspended inside it, and you release the chipmunk so it falls and pops the balloon, it can be said with perfect accuracy that the baloon popped simultaneuously with the chipmunk falling, assuming the balloon was not on a table and the chipmunk continued to fall past the edge of the balloon.

The arguments against "simultaneity" require the precise scientific definition of the term, which should be confined to academic papers.

Do not try the above experiment at home.

The general gist of the matter is it would be technically possible to "synchronize" these clocks in the sense that with enough external data to accurately determine the frames of reference involved, we could know the time on one of the clocks as observed by an individual next to that clock from the value of another a clock next to us, even if that individual could never tell us the time on the clock because by the time any communication reached us, it would be stale. This despite the fact that the clocks are actually running at different rates on most frames of reference, not just different offsets. If that was done bilaterally, and both calculations yielded each other's input value, both parties could agree that, in retrospect, they read the clocks at the same "time".

An external observer to both clocks might see the readings happen at different times, but if they have any intellect they have to account for their perspective not being the only valid one.

It would also be possible to construct an average aggregate clock out of a group of these, the question is merely the utility of such a clock, since instead of a "timezone" you'd have a "framezone" where you'd have both an offset and an ongoing drift, not to mention the parameters of that adjustment would not be constant because phenomina like shifting planetary crust don't play nice.

We would not be able to measure the speed of light without such systems, so they obviously play an important role.

This assumes the observer is not capable of measuring the velocity to the observed system and compensating for it. Given enough data, the two observers at different velocities could calculate what time each of the two events would have occured at if at the exact time of the event the system the two observers magically teleported to the same location. The problems are agreeing on a mutual standardized location/frame and acquiring said data. You can construct systems where the former is difficult, but there are far more simple applications where it is not difficult to do so. The latter may indeed be very difficult.

Maybe I'm up too late, but this post makes no sense to me whatseoever. It's the usual "major parties both suck" substance-free mantra that gets mod points, followed by some sort of assertion that people who vote for major party candidates believe cops will know how they voted and retaliate (clue: people who believe that vote libertarian. Or well some of them probably vote for extremist parties as well.) There are reaons people vote for major parties. They may not be right or even strategic reasons, but they are not some ridiclous fear of institutional retaliation. Were they, we would not have so many registered independents.

More importantly, it means there is probably something larger than an asteriod to settle on a lot closer to us than Alpha Centauri. Of course we'd need a buttload of reactor power to survive in such an environment.

Well, IIRC it is stated in TFA with the right equipment the range could be extended up to several centimeters or perhaps more. Not sure how accurate that statement is though.

Enough to, say, be pretty disturbing if coupled to a sensor for metabolites in a urinal.