back in the year 201.
I share a not too uncommon firstname lastname with a foreign politician as well as a popular song from several decades ago (that has been covered more than once), and since I never really attach anything online to any part of my real name, not even my middle name or relevant keywords can bring me up.
As another Canadian, I can assure you that our universities are far from affordable. Our tuition is in the range of $5000 to $10000+ for Canadians, with a few schools asking a bit less than that and a handful pushing as high as $20000+, and add $10000 to any of these numbers if you're not a Canadian. It's nowhere close to affordable or sane.
I would have thought that they barricaded the doors and windows with wicker baskets and throw pillows. Wait...
An anonymous reader writes "I'm starting a new job soon, and I will be issued a work laptop. For obvious reasons I cannot name any names, but I can state that I do expect my employer to have tracking software on the laptop, and I expect to not be the administrator on the device. That being said, I am not the kind of person who can just 'not browse the internet.' If I ever have to travel with this laptop, I may want to read an ebook or watch a movie or maybe even play a game. I can make an image of the drive, then wipe the machine, and restore it back to its former state if I ever have to return it. I can use portable apps off a usb key and browse in private mode. The machine will be encrypted, but I can also make myself my own little encrypted folder or partition perhaps. Are there any other precautions I could or should take?"
I can very easily envision them making vaccines like this for other drugs. The next generation of the drug war: don't stop the supply of drugs, just "vaccinate" the population (at an early age, what parent would say no?) from the pleasurable effects of non-state-approved psychoactives. This could be the endgame for the DEA and this scares the bejeezus out of me.
Let me be the first (!) to say that I would not be entirely opposed to this idea. I am not a rich man and my data is private, just not... *that* private. While I disagree with the sale of personal data on principle, in practice I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information. In a word, meh.
How is it that these organizations and lobbyists can claim they genuinely feel their profits are being "stolen" when they need to use fabricated data to support their claims? This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed. The self-interested scumbags who perpetrate this shit and the governments that not only allow but support this should both be fucking shamed.
China does nothing to stop the sale of pirated movies, music and software on physical media. But as soon as it's not on a cheap DVD-R, it requires a crackdown? Get your priorities straight.
1sockchuck (826398) writes "A supercomputing center in Quebec has transformed a huge concrete silo into the CLUMEQ Colossus, a data center filled with HPC clusters. The silo, which is 65 feet high with two-foot thick concrete walls, previously housed a Van de Graaf accelerator dating to the 1960s. It was redesigned to house three floors of server cabinets, arranged so cold air can slow from the outside of the facility, through the racks and return via an interior "hot core." The construction and operation of the unique facility are detailed in a presentation from CLUMEQ."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
When this is eventually better developed and more accurate, this could be a boon for parents/caregivers of the autistic.
Newtonian Mechanics are valid, just not as accurate as Relativity. Relativity is, in essence, a more accurate version of Newtonian Mechanics. It refines it, but the basic conclusions are very similar, save for extreme circumstances. Though relativity is more accurate, it's much more complicated, so most people will calculate things with N.M. It works fine at human-experienced scales, speeds and distances. Creationism is entirely different from evolution. It in no way refines the idea for more accuracy, it just throws the whole damn concept out the window and says "We know, and we're right because we said so." And it should be noted that Einstein, unlike the evolution-deniers, backed up his claims with math, logic and science, rather than just anecdotal evidence. Fact checking when you are an informed person or scientist is one thing, saying something is wrong because you don't get it and some old book told you it's wrong is entirely another, invalid, way of thinking.
The argument from incredulity is often applied to science by the layperson. You don't need an opponent or a debate to use a logical fallacy. The fact that the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case had to happen proves that people question science regardless of it's validity.