but you're forgetting that public schools, law enforcement, fire departments, public libraries, roads, post offices, etc. are all socialized public infrastructure.
take a look at the US public education system and tell me there isn't a problem...
wouldn't it be worse having them run the military, police, and writing laws?
judging by the last seven years including the war on terror, patriot act, telecom immunity act, torture and numerous other unconstitutional doings, I'd say that we have a very serious problem with how the US federal gov. handles the responsibilities that we have given it and to me the idea that we should limit the amount of power/control it has over pretty much everything is a very good one. socialized services are basically natural monopolies that the costs are hidden in taxation. to be frank, the belief that restricting competition to a single very large entity that has no limitation on funding [if it spends money badly it can always raise taxes] can remain efficient is absurd.
Instead, space travel is like any other scientific or engineering endeavor. Progress is linear, and what one group learns can be applied by others soon after
it depends on your definition of "soon", just take a look at most nations' space programs... decades behind the US and Russia, even the EU with its combined economic power greater than the US is still far behind in terms of their space technology. Technological advancement does spread from its originating country eventually but the fact is that even though this has to some extent occured in regard to space travel technology, the world is far far behind the US with the vast majority doing nothing particularly sophisticated even decades after the US and Russia accomplished the feat.
whoever gets space travel pinned down first is going to have a pretty good advantage over other nations. The GPS constellation, satellites in general and space resources [energy, research and mining to name a few]
there is nothing wrong with consumption, there is most definitely something wrong with exhausting Earth's resources and forcibly taking resources against the will of one person for the benefit of another. limiting consumption in of its self will not solve the problem, only prolong it- what we need to do is find less ecologically damaging methods of producing what we need. don't forget that some of the most ecologically damaging technologies were born out of poverty not excess [see china]
Why do we take the notion that space exploration and colonization is desirable as granted?
because Earth has a finite quantity of resources that we'd be foolish to exhaust and frankly given a choice between exhausting all of the resources of Earth, our home planet and all its inhabitants and some dead rock out in space, I'll take exhausting the dead rock in space any day.
Would you want to live on another planet in the solar system, where you couldn't go outside without a pressure suit, where you'd have to depend on complicated machines to support every second of your fragile life?
well, yes if I had the opportunity I'd be all for taking the risk. Why? I'd rather risk my life to learn something new and explore than sit here on Earth completely safe but unable to go out and explore what is out there.
Rather than finding new worlds to consume we could start caring more about our own
why do you assume that it needs to be one or the other?.2% of our GDP goes to space exploration, less than.0001% resulted in spaceship one and the beginnings of space tourism. by contrast, we spent nearly 6% of our GDP on the military [holy forty times that batman], much of which is used for meddling in our countys' affairs, heck we have 200,000 troops sitting in Germany and Japan [our allies no less] consuming an order of a magnitude more resources than the space program ever did for no good reason! I think you're confused as to where our resources are being wasted.
napthalene is a simple aromatic hydrocarbon, basically one benzene ring fused with another. molecular formula C10H8. hydrocarbons can be cracked under certain conditions to produce various aromatic hydrocarbons so finding it in space could be fairly common if there are hydrocarbons near a source capable of cracking them.
Just out of curiosity, where is the rest of her family? Why are they [or you] unable or unwilling to assist her? I don't know about you but if someone I cared for, someone in my family needed help, they would not need to ask the government for assistance for we would help them ourselves, I would help them. it should never devolve to a point where the government is the savior where people's own families and friends can't/don't do anything.
as much as i'd like to have another reason why social authoritarianism is laughable, this is clearly an irrelevant study with a very small set of subjects, the statistics alone are flawed.
yes yes we do, both sides. DMCA passed under a republican congress/senate and signed by clinton, the copyright cops nonsense reported on Slashdot passed with only 11 voting no... only 4 of the 238 dems voting against it, 7 of the reps. heart warming isn't it?
China's GDP is about 1/4 ours and yet they are putting out as much if not more than we are. That's the inefficiency of a developing economy and weak emissions standards. Had China actually made what the US did in terms of income at the rate they're putting out CO2 every year now, they would be producing more CO2 than the combined rest of the world, all 5 billion of everyone else.
something that isn't getting through here is that global warming is a warming trend, an increase in global temperatures over time... no one said that there couldn't be cooling in the short term, the long term climate change is what concerns global warming.
whether you realize it or not, none of those examples are free, each has a cost direct or not. for a lot of people a pay as you go system would be a welcome change from having so much advertising in their lives... but really the issue comes down to a few points: 1) why should grandma just checking email/her knitting blog pay as much as me using 100GB/month? 2) what comcast and other isps/telcos are doing with their unlimited deals is essentially fraud- promising something they can't possibly deliver and punishing people who actually do make use of their connection. 3) basing the internet on online ads isn't very effective, it's annoying [for anyone without noscript or adblock that is] and frankly, I don't see why pay as you go without ads or throttling is bad while putting up with the ads and getting constantly throttled is a good thing...
40GB/month would cost 20$, the average high speed bill is ~40$/month meaning you would need to download 120GB/month to hit that, it is only an example though, something I yanked out of nowhere...
how about the consequences of being a botnet at all? online fraud, DDOS attacks etc... what is the cost of people not caring about computer security when none of the consequences affect them? do you think someone would take a little more interest in security if they did get a 200$ bill because they were part of a botnet?
no throttling and potentially lower cost for most people would make a lot more sense than unlimited [unless you're using p2p which is actually a lot of people] in other words, people actually using the network who get throttled are going to look a lot more closely at a network where you don't get throttled even if it means paying a bit more over all.
The majority who use the internet normally would have significantly lower cable bills
indeed. lower cost for most people, an economic incentive not to throttle anything [good for the isp and us] and the more people use the more incentive there is for isps to expand the US's pathetic network strucutre [after all more bandwidth= more money for the isps] in addition to that, imagine the number of people who get throttled by comcast [probably over a million easy] even if that's a small percentage of those on the web, there's still a lot of money to be made catering to those who do use more bandwidth and ultimately it benefits everyone else because of the new infrastructure being built to support the business model.
pay based on how much bandwidth you use- say 25 cents a gig + 10$/month for the connection its self- that way it regulates its self. you use more, you pay more and it doesn't matter what kind of data it is. the isps get more $ for more traffic they get and consumers don't get throttled nor do those who don't use much pay truckloads for the privilage of just getting online. [in fact data use would somewhat be encourageable by isps because they'd make more] it works for utilities like water, gas, electric etc why not here too?
shifting the source of power from an inefficient source to a more efficient one is an improvement. most cars average around 20% efficiency while even coal plants get around 35%. That and the fact that not all of our power comes from coal, that is nuclear, hydro, natural gas etc.
simple, these "speaking books" are a supplement not a replacement for actually reading books. same thing for those who read to their kids, the fact that it's a book reading to them rather than their parents is irrelevant.
HTLV-1 causes changes in gene expression resulting in adult t-cell leukemia. This year my advisor had a paper on this very research detailing some of the changes which are involved: http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/51/49459 basically the idea is that the virus in its attempt to replicate its self using cellular machinery alters the expression of specific genes, Tax, CREB and histones. better explained from my advisor: "HTLV-I Tax functions to short circuit the normal regulation of cell cycle progression by abrogating the need for mitogen stimulation and blocking checkpoint controls, resulting in unregulated initiation of S phase." in other words, the virus kicks out some of the cell regulatory controls that at least in part prevent it from becoming a cancer cell.
Slashdot Mirror
take a look at the US public education system and tell me there isn't a problem...
judging by the last seven years including the war on terror, patriot act, telecom immunity act, torture and numerous other unconstitutional doings, I'd say that we have a very serious problem with how the US federal gov. handles the responsibilities that we have given it and to me the idea that we should limit the amount of power/control it has over pretty much everything is a very good one. socialized services are basically natural monopolies that the costs are hidden in taxation. to be frank, the belief that restricting competition to a single very large entity that has no limitation on funding [if it spends money badly it can always raise taxes] can remain efficient is absurd.
it depends on your definition of "soon", just take a look at most nations' space programs... decades behind the US and Russia, even the EU with its combined economic power greater than the US is still far behind in terms of their space technology. Technological advancement does spread from its originating country eventually but the fact is that even though this has to some extent occured in regard to space travel technology, the world is far far behind the US with the vast majority doing nothing particularly sophisticated even decades after the US and Russia accomplished the feat.
whoever gets space travel pinned down first is going to have a pretty good advantage over other nations. The GPS constellation, satellites in general and space resources [energy, research and mining to name a few]
because Earth has a finite quantity of resources that we'd be foolish to exhaust and frankly given a choice between exhausting all of the resources of Earth, our home planet and all its inhabitants and some dead rock out in space, I'll take exhausting the dead rock in space any day.
well, yes if I had the opportunity I'd be all for taking the risk. Why? I'd rather risk my life to learn something new and explore than sit here on Earth completely safe but unable to go out and explore what is out there.
why do you assume that it needs to be one or the other? .2% of our GDP goes to space exploration, less than .0001% resulted in spaceship one and the beginnings of space tourism. by contrast, we spent nearly 6% of our GDP on the military [holy forty times that batman], much of which is used for meddling in our countys' affairs, heck we have 200,000 troops sitting in Germany and Japan [our allies no less] consuming an order of a magnitude more resources than the space program ever did for no good reason! I think you're confused as to where our resources are being wasted.
Hopefully China will make a real push for space forcing the US to get off its arse in regard to the final frontier...
napthalene is a simple aromatic hydrocarbon, basically one benzene ring fused with another. molecular formula C10H8. hydrocarbons can be cracked under certain conditions to produce various aromatic hydrocarbons so finding it in space could be fairly common if there are hydrocarbons near a source capable of cracking them.
Just out of curiosity, where is the rest of her family? Why are they [or you] unable or unwilling to assist her? I don't know about you but if someone I cared for, someone in my family needed help, they would not need to ask the government for assistance for we would help them ourselves, I would help them. it should never devolve to a point where the government is the savior where people's own families and friends can't/don't do anything.
as much as i'd like to have another reason why social authoritarianism is laughable, this is clearly an irrelevant study with a very small set of subjects, the statistics alone are flawed.
yes yes we do, both sides. DMCA passed under a republican congress/senate and signed by clinton, the copyright cops nonsense reported on Slashdot passed with only 11 voting no... only 4 of the 238 dems voting against it, 7 of the reps. heart warming isn't it?
then there's Biden who has made it quite clear he's alright with being lead around by lobbyists...
multiple copies just like any other good storage solution.
China's GDP is about 1/4 ours and yet they are putting out as much if not more than we are. That's the inefficiency of a developing economy and weak emissions standards. Had China actually made what the US did in terms of income at the rate they're putting out CO2 every year now, they would be producing more CO2 than the combined rest of the world, all 5 billion of everyone else.
something that isn't getting through here is that global warming is a warming trend, an increase in global temperatures over time... no one said that there couldn't be cooling in the short term, the long term climate change is what concerns global warming.
whether you realize it or not, none of those examples are free, each has a cost direct or not. for a lot of people a pay as you go system would be a welcome change from having so much advertising in their lives... but really the issue comes down to a few points: 1) why should grandma just checking email/her knitting blog pay as much as me using 100GB/month? 2) what comcast and other isps/telcos are doing with their unlimited deals is essentially fraud- promising something they can't possibly deliver and punishing people who actually do make use of their connection. 3) basing the internet on online ads isn't very effective, it's annoying [for anyone without noscript or adblock that is] and frankly, I don't see why pay as you go without ads or throttling is bad while putting up with the ads and getting constantly throttled is a good thing...
40GB/month would cost 20$, the average high speed bill is ~40$/month meaning you would need to download 120GB/month to hit that, it is only an example though, something I yanked out of nowhere...
how about the consequences of being a botnet at all? online fraud, DDOS attacks etc... what is the cost of people not caring about computer security when none of the consequences affect them? do you think someone would take a little more interest in security if they did get a 200$ bill because they were part of a botnet?
no throttling and potentially lower cost for most people would make a lot more sense than unlimited [unless you're using p2p which is actually a lot of people] in other words, people actually using the network who get throttled are going to look a lot more closely at a network where you don't get throttled even if it means paying a bit more over all.
indeed. lower cost for most people, an economic incentive not to throttle anything [good for the isp and us] and the more people use the more incentive there is for isps to expand the US's pathetic network strucutre [after all more bandwidth= more money for the isps] in addition to that, imagine the number of people who get throttled by comcast [probably over a million easy] even if that's a small percentage of those on the web, there's still a lot of money to be made catering to those who do use more bandwidth and ultimately it benefits everyone else because of the new infrastructure being built to support the business model.
pay based on how much bandwidth you use- say 25 cents a gig + 10$/month for the connection its self- that way it regulates its self. you use more, you pay more and it doesn't matter what kind of data it is. the isps get more $ for more traffic they get and consumers don't get throttled nor do those who don't use much pay truckloads for the privilage of just getting online. [in fact data use would somewhat be encourageable by isps because they'd make more] it works for utilities like water, gas, electric etc why not here too?
yes.
for Silicon it's probably around 10nm or so. as for what is thought to be possible, molecule size components measuring a few nm.
shifting the source of power from an inefficient source to a more efficient one is an improvement. most cars average around 20% efficiency while even coal plants get around 35%. That and the fact that not all of our power comes from coal, that is nuclear, hydro, natural gas etc.
simple, these "speaking books" are a supplement not a replacement for actually reading books. same thing for those who read to their kids, the fact that it's a book reading to them rather than their parents is irrelevant.
HTLV-1 causes changes in gene expression resulting in adult t-cell leukemia. This year my advisor had a paper on this very research detailing some of the changes which are involved: http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/51/49459 basically the idea is that the virus in its attempt to replicate its self using cellular machinery alters the expression of specific genes, Tax, CREB and histones. better explained from my advisor: "HTLV-I Tax functions to short circuit the normal regulation of cell cycle progression by abrogating the need for mitogen stimulation and blocking checkpoint controls, resulting in unregulated initiation of S phase." in other words, the virus kicks out some of the cell regulatory controls that at least in part prevent it from becoming a cancer cell.
as opposed to concrete that doesn't clean the air at all?
that's certainly a good point, on the other hand why would someone choose to leave the plan at all if it were better than the competition?