lupatus

Use sourdough in your crust.

I've basically been using these instructions for a few years and have nothing but rave reviews for my pies no matter what toppings I put on it: http://www.varasanos.com/PizzaRecipe.htm.

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1464760, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2023280.

So, I just read through all of the other comments and see that I was the only person who didn't comment on Eich's ouster.

I think I understand now why you asked if my account was hijacked.

Nope, but thanks for the concern. I just have diverse interests, and think that the URbit project is quite strange and, as a result, sort of wonderful, IMO. For example, the algebra grammar for the Nock VM is fascinating for me. Moreover, I'm thinking of even using the C# port of Nock as a basis for bringing the rest of the project over to the Windows platform. My children take up a lot of time though.

The solution to his network problem is probably something bizarre, like URbit (http://www.urbit.org/).

Go tell this kid happy birthday.

Adolescence is already hard enough. Going through it with Aspergers and feeling like you have zero friends has got to be a lot worse.

I think that this is something that folks in on this message board can relate to. Imagine being able to help him out, even just a little bit.

Part of the explanation is the convoluted history of the people who lived in the British isles.

Originally, it was inhabited by gaelic-speaking Celts. Some of their words that are still used today ():

plaide -> plaid

tàrmachan -> ptarmigan

triubhas -> trousers

peata -> pet

Then, it was conquered by the Romans. Latin words that found their way into English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_words_with_Engli...):

honor -> honor

imbecillus -> imbecile

inferus -> inferior

vulgus -> vulgar

Then, after the fall of the Romans, Britain was conquered by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who brought the old German words mentioned below.

After this, the area was Christianized, and the priests and proselytizers brought even more latin with them because that was the language of the Church.

After this, large portions of England were conquered by the Vikings, who introduced more Scandinavian-origin words that others have mentioned here. In fact, King Canute was once simultaneously king of England, Denmark, and Norway.

After the Vikings, England was conquered by the Normans by William the Conqueror in the Battle of Hastings. The Normans were Viking raiders who settled in northwestern France and who had turned in francophones. They introduce french-origin words like:

boef -> beef

mouton -> mutton

veal -> veal

porc -> pork

After which, all these language influences congealed, vaguely, into the English we know and love today.

For this graphed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Origins_of_English_PieCha...

Edited for formatting.

"... and what would we do if we find it ?"

Grill it.

Even if it can talk to us.

In all sincerity, that's what I honestly think will happen.

Humans are the apex predators of Earth. Give us starships and we would be the apex predators of the galaxy in short order.

For tens to hundreds of thousands of years, there have been no creatures on Earth about which some human didn't think, "I wonder what that tastes like?" For Pete's sake, our ancestors ate giant, super-fast cave bears to extinction using little more than sharp sticks. Eskimos hunt huge multi-ton whales in the open ocean in flimsy canoes with hooked spears.

Sure alien life will be examined in labs and some will go to zoos. But, eventually, Monsanto would sell you Venusian steaks with a side of Martian scrapple. And, the most telling thing is, I would buy some and eat it. My mouth is already watering.

Here's one instance: http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20121218flagstaff-gun-tot...

Throwing knives, throwing axes?

And, the grandparent commenter's comment duly considered, I still wouldn't easily dismiss a Finn's ability to use guns to kill people; see the White Death[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Better yet, pretend that everything you say/post/share will be seen on a jumbotron at a packed sporting arena.

This way, you will have data security, better grammar, and fewer embarrassing personal moments.

I must have missed that. Thanks!

Left-out of this article is that the Denisovans seem to be one of the ancestors of the Melanesian peoples living in and near Papua New Guinea: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_d....

More about the Melanesians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesians

What? Occam's razor says that's preposterous.

Source, please?

I'm pretty sure that pg _was_ implying that the NSA program was frowned upon by the laws in the Bill of Rights; while it seems that the NSA is in fact complying with all applicable laws (based on what the government has revealed, as quoted in Wikipedia and other media outlets).

Regardless of whether Snowden is correct or not, I think that there are government functions that the general public should not be informed of. Having a policy of detailing the exact nature of PRISM could be just as damaging as, say, having a policy of publicly detailing all planned drone strikes. I bet the NSA's job is already harder because of Snowden's leaks.

I also think that there is a very real possibility that people who would seek destruction could acquire possession of an aircraft carrier's control systems or the control systems of the missile defense shield. Should the US not pursue those tools because of that possibility, too?

The citizenry will have a hard time exercising it's natural rights to participate in debates about national policies in the American Republic if each citizen has to also worry about protecting himself from thieves/bandits/pirates/foreign armies.

First, according to Wikipedia, they can't use the PRISM data against you without a warrant; which means that they are operating all this within the 4th Amendment's restrictions (so why do we need to restore the 4th if it isn't broken...?)[1].

Second, Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution states that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the states against invasion and domestic violence[2]. Clandestine surveillance programs have long been tools of governments to accomplish such goals; PRISM is just a 21st century version.

Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. But, the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner.

In conclusion, it seems to me that PRISM is a necessary and justified government function. This makes me wonder who exactly is benefiting from the Obama administration receiving so much bad press because it seems that they really are being unjustly crucified (and this is coming from someone who voted against Obama both times).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), paragraph 4.

[2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...

Speaking from America, you sound like a pretentious stuffed shirt.

Through the miracle of broadcast media, like the printing press or YouTube, it is wholly unnecessary to experience an invasion to know that it is something worth repelling.

Besides, we American have experience with repelling invasions both large and small and from regular military and irregular forces, just not in recent years. Try searching on these topics: American Indian Wars, French and Indian War, War of 1812, Aroostook War, the Texas War of Independence, the Battle of Gettysburg, Sherman's March to the Sea, and the Aleutian Islands Campaign.

Lately, we Americans have been doing a good job of keeping the fighting over there instead of over here, and I imagine PRISM has been a big contributor to that success.

I bend no words. One of the experiences of colonialists was the Beaver Wars in which the Iroquois invaded and captured the territory of the Huron. The Iroquois would not constitute an army in the traditional sense because they were not uniformed and regimented - they were a force of irregulars, much like Al Qaeda is today. Suppose the Iroquois wanted to invade and recapture New York, that would be an invasion by a force other than an army that New York would need to repel.

And, do you spray insect REPELlent on yourself before you get bug bites or after? Protective measures also constitute repelling.

Also, I originally didn't want to argue the legality of the surveillance. I devised a hand-wavy scenario to illustrate my threat-assessment point.

Because, saying that kittens are as or more dangerous than terrorists IS blockheaded. If I'm wrong, I invite you to go down to your local SPCA and adopt a new pet terrorist.

First, I have not redefined anything. I simply went with dictionary.com instead.

Invasions: an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasions)

Repel: to keep off or out; fail to mix with: Water and oil repel each other. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repel)

Second, I mean warranted as in "has a warrant". From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)_ "U.S. government officials have disputed some aspects of the Guardian and Washington Post stories and have defended the program by asserting it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant, and that the program receives independent oversight from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches."

Third, I tried to let you people know that my scenarios were a bit factually incorrect by saying that I was "pulling the numbers out of my arse"! That some aspects of Scenario B were wrong beyond just the numbers shouldn't be surprising. Furthermore, where's the nitpicking about Scenario A then? I spent even less time thinking about it, so it should a little easier to pick apart.

I blew up at mikeash not because he was criticizing you, but because he is being blockheaded. As are you.

Don't fret too much about the down votes. I once got voted down to something like -182 karma for giving supported arguments that a gay illegal immigrant journalist should be deported.

After that, pg stopped showing karma scores in the comments.

I see your questionably attribute Jefferson quote and raise you a whole Constitutional Convention, which wrote in the US Constitution, Article IV Section 4, "[The federal goverment] shall protect each of them [State in the Union] against Invasion".

So, because you can't find fault with my main point that there are scary high-impact potential threats that the US government can and should try to protect us from, you are instead picking apart an imaginary scenario that I spent all of 30 seconds thinking up in order to illustrate my main point? Or, did I miss something?

No crap there are holes in Scenario B. Why don't you describe one that would be realistic since you seem to be good at looking at the details? I gave you all sorts of links about missing plagues and other bomb-making materials.

Or maybe the terrorist's just put up a sign at the launchpad that says "Acme Oil Drilling, Serving Des Moines since 1897!"

Regardless, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists one of the duties of the federal government as "repel Invasions". An invasion occurs when someone or some group enters the land as an enemy and any activity to prevent or discontinue that situation would constitute repelling.

Additionally, Article IV Section 4 says "shall protect each of them [State in the Union] against Invasion".

I know the 4th Amendment talks about being secure in your papers and effects against searches, but this NSA surveillance (from what I've read) seems to be reasonable, warranted, and used in a limited manner (given that the real economy is still in a slump and new politicians get elected to existing posts).

Please try explaining to me again how the NSA looking for potential high-impact terrorist events is not a valid and important government function.

I think your metrics for concern about potential threats is a little skewed. You seem to be looking at "concern about a potential threat" has having a 1-dimensional score. Yes, there are more instances of death by hammer in the USA in a given year than there are terrorist attacks. But, the terrorist attacks have the potential for much larger impact (see links, below). Consider a 2-dimensional score for threat scenarios where we multiply likelihood of occurrence by potential impact for the following scenarios:

Scenario A:

Bludgeoned to death by a hammer.

Scenario B:

Terrorists recover a missing Cold-war era nuke, and detonate it over Iowa, during the winter. Effects are: nuclear explosion, EMP pulse disrupting power grid and electronics, disruption in home heating and food/medical supplies, downwind radioactive fallout over Chicago, Ohio, Pittsburgh, Philly, Boston, New York, Baltimore, DC, etc..

Scoring (pulling these numbers out of my arse for illustration purposes):

Scenario A: 6000 occurrences per year * 1.2 deaths per occurrence = 12000

Scenario B: 0.2 terrorist occurrences per year * (10 million fatalities + ((0.5 fatality / endangered) * 150 million endangered) = 17 million

As you can see, the terrorism is a lot more serious than hammers (or kittens). And, something like the NSA program could catch these potential large-impact events, because there are a lot of realistic and very scary scenarios:

(A short list from some quick duckduckgo-ing)

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1002/20130325/deadly...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ksYDuIuuAE

http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-terrorism/loose-nukes/p9549

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Los-Alamos-can-t-find-two...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/usa-lost-tons-nuclea...

http://www.mentalfloss.com/article/17483/8-nuclear-weapons-u...

http://rense.com/general33/mss.htm

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9355413/ns/health-infectious_disea...

P.S. Hello, NSA! I'm guessing this comment has gotten caught in some of your filters. I just want to say, keep up the good work. My brother-in-law works at Fort Mead, too.

-Updated for grammar.

I think I may know you in real life. Did you successfully represent yourself in court?

That's one of the reasons I use Republic Wireless (I'm just a customer and not affilated in any way) - my cell phone can route calls over any open WiFi hotspot it can find.

Don't worry, I've got your back; I'll do it for you, dougk16.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=turmeric+cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=piperlongumine+canc...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=bromelain+cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=frankincense+cancer

Thanks! I just thought of smartphones too.

More seriously, I could also do the rise of Facebook and Wikipedia and the adoption of smart phones.

That's a great one. Probably also the Higgs boson.

A series of tubes? ;-)

Kevin,

It seems that the Singularity Institute also reads James Altucher: http://www.jamesaltucher.com/what-is-the-quickest-way-to-mak....

My guess is that your "productize step" is to also use your researchers to train a specialized medical search engine you'll keep on the back-end (sort of a Mahalo+Watson).

If that isn't what you're doing, let me know. Maybe I can help get you there.