If he doesn't want to leave, he isn't going to arrange a peaceful transition. If he were to leave today there would be a vacuum. If the people don't want a new dictatorship, they need to have some alternative poised to take over.
Great answer. But in Egypt today all there is are crowds demanding Mubarak leave, and if that happens, there is no "democratically elected government" waiting to fill that vacuum.
Getting used to a new look is fine, but I'm having trouble using the site.
I used to be able to set a minimum score to browse at.
I used to be able to see an overview of each thread, including subjects, first lines, and how deep the thread goes.
I used to be able to click on a comment id and view that comment. Now I end up at some ancestor comment.
This design feels like I'm looking through a cardboard tube on a foggy day. I have to actually traverse a thread post-by-post to discover what's hidden inside.
When we don't see comments unless we happen upon them while spelunking, how is anybody supposed to know whether or not they are repeating what five guys already said?
> exclusivity contracts in medical research are stupid. I don't think that's exactly the problem. The article is about patents.
Lots of people have problems with biotech patents because it seems immoral to patent a life form.
I sympathize with that view, but in my opinion DNA is software. On patenting software I like Donald Knuth's view, that software is math and it makes no sense to patent math.
I'm with you. The "Federal Reserve" is a privately owned banking cartel, engineered by banks, for banks. The system is a collossal Ponzi scheme designed to siphon wealth off to bank owners, and (unfortunately) eventually collapse under it's own weight.
Strong claims require strong evidence, right?
1) Go to Google Images and search "federal debt". You will see charts indicating an exponential function, where we currently are in a nearly vertical rise.
2) Next google "federal deficit". This is basically the amount we are behind on our loan payments.
3) If you want some background, here's some interesting reading:
"What Has Government Done to Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard (free download at http://mises.org/money.asp)
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin "The Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown (I trust the history more than the recommendations)
I agree. I think the reason he doesn't reign in TSA might be that most Americans like having the illusion of security to counteract their illusion that flying is dangerous.
Until somebody figures out how to explain risk management sanity in a way that fits on a bumper sticker, I fear voters will readily sacrifice their freedom for the security facade.
> Why buy a computer with Windows when you want a computer without Windows? Why buy an onion with skin when you don't want the skin?
> I don't expect a refund on the skin of an onion that gets peeled and promptly thrown away. The onion skin doesn't cost $129.95 when purchased separately. Nor does the grocery store deliberately add the skin and pay Microsoft for the privilege.
Maybe, but more likely it's just a phemomenon where every degree of separation from the original research brings a more sensational (and less accurate) headline.
In this case, you have a Slashdot post about an MSN article citing a "mongabay" article citing a press release announcing the research. I see no evidence anybody in that chain actually looked at the research paper.
> 1) Most humans can't farm; they have to learn > it after they're born.
Good argument; I'll concede the "instinct" point.
> [ants] haven't shown a lot of intelligence in > other ways
I don't think of the ant organism as an individual bug, I think of it as a colony. An individual ant brain is tiny, but together there's potentially distributed processing in a massively parallel system.
And ants have constructed amazing structures, under the ground and above.
> It is definitely an instinctive behavior, but the same can be said of the ants' behavior.
What's the "instinctive" distinction for? Who's to say that human farmers don't also do it instinctively? And how do we really know that ants (or squirrels) aren't in some way planning ahead?
When I ask such questions I get drummed for being stupid and not seeing the obvious. Maybe I am stupid, because I really don't see why we humans think we are so different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Every time somebody comes along with some human trait that separates us from other animals, an example of other animals doing that behavior turns up. And we just keep on moving the goalpost.
In light of [my Hungarian experience] in doesn't seem so harsh, does it?
I'm not sure former Soviet satellites are the gold standard here.
Therse background checks are stupid/wasteful because they ask the wrong questions of the wrong people. And they are invasive because the government really doesn't need to stick its nose up scientist's pants.
Are you only joking, or really implying that if they don't like the policy they should just go somewhere else?
Leaving may be great advice for minimizing their personal troubles, but it's lousy advice for fixing a paranoid and stupid bureaucracy. Some people fight evil/stupidity rather than running away from it.
Woops. I somehow thought khallow's post and arisvega's post were from the same person.
Sorry guys.
Arisvega - energy density is important for aircraft because it needs to weigh as little as possible. Batteries have about the worst energy/weight ratios you can find.
Khallow - AeroVironment doing diesel is about as likely as the NRA lobbying to ban guns.
> "Very high energy density"... How does it apply to this
Interesting strategy. Not exactly circular, perhaps a spiral: 1) Lobby for a diesel-burning plane, asserting diesel has a higher energy density than Hydrogen 2) Get corrected by first guy that comes along 3) Claim energy density has nothing to do with "this particular challenge" 4) Claim the plane shouldn't burn fuel 5) Complain things 'whooosh' by.
AeroVironment makes craft that fly pretty well. Been doing it as long as I can remember. And the company's point, which you may indeed be missing, is to do it with minimal environmental impact.
You get full marks for your sig though. I love it.
The American money supply is basically equal to it's federal debt, currently around 13 trillion dollars. As the government borrows more money the money supply expands, the actual definition of "inflation."
What the media usually calls "inflation," though, is a general rise in prices. That phenomenon happens when our economic growth does not keep up with our money supply growth.
So prices stay under nominal control as long as economic growth keeps pace with money supply growth.
Now if you google for charts of the federal debt you will see that it grows exponentially, and we're in the part of the curve that goes virtually straight up, with no physical boundary to how high it can go.
In order for prices to stay down, we need to have economic growth continue to grow exponentially (straight up). In order to do this, we need unlimited resources and unlimited growth in the population of producers and consumers.
If you don't bake enough pies to keep an exponentially-growing money supply busy, we get "hyper-inflation" and consumers have to take wheelbarrows full of money to buy their pie.
Slashdot Mirror
If he doesn't want to leave, he isn't going to arrange a peaceful transition. If he were to leave today there would be a vacuum. If the people don't want a new dictatorship, they need to have some alternative poised to take over.
Great answer. But in Egypt today all there is are crowds demanding Mubarak leave, and if that happens, there is no "democratically elected government" waiting to fill that vacuum.
> Down with the dictators! ... what?
And up with
> The UN should be let in
By whom?
Change != good, either.
Getting used to a new look is fine, but I'm having trouble using the site.
I used to be able to set a minimum score to browse at.
I used to be able to see an overview of each thread, including subjects, first lines, and how deep the thread goes.
I used to be able to click on a comment id and view that comment. Now I end up at some ancestor comment.
This design feels like I'm looking through a cardboard tube on a foggy day. I have to actually traverse a thread post-by-post to discover what's hidden inside.
When we don't see comments unless we happen upon them while spelunking, how is anybody supposed to know whether or not they are repeating what five guys already said?
> exclusivity contracts in medical research are stupid.
I don't think that's exactly the problem. The article is about patents.
Lots of people have problems with biotech patents because it seems immoral to patent a life form.
I sympathize with that view, but in my opinion DNA is software. On patenting software I like Donald Knuth's view, that software is math and it makes no sense to patent math.
I'm with you. The "Federal Reserve" is a privately owned banking cartel, engineered by banks, for banks. The system is a collossal Ponzi scheme designed to siphon wealth off to bank owners, and (unfortunately) eventually collapse under it's own weight.
Strong claims require strong evidence, right?
1) Go to Google Images and search "federal debt". You will see charts indicating an exponential function, where we currently are in a nearly vertical rise.
2) Next google "federal deficit". This is basically the amount we are behind on our loan payments.
3) If you want some background, here's some interesting reading:
"What Has Government Done to Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard
(free download at http://mises.org/money.asp)
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin
"The Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown (I trust the history more than the recommendations)
I just hope he doesn't take it 3-D. Wouldn't work; it's a convergence vs focus thing.
That's pretty good, but the numbers might lose the target audience.
Maybe we could get the desired result with something like "Fear God Not Bombs" or "WWJD: Scan Naked, or Get Groped?"
I agree. I think the reason he doesn't reign in TSA might be that most Americans like having the illusion of security to counteract their illusion that flying is dangerous.
Until somebody figures out how to explain risk management sanity in a way that fits on a bumper sticker, I fear voters will readily sacrifice their freedom for the security facade.
> Why buy a computer with Windows when you want a computer without Windows?
Why buy an onion with skin when you don't want the skin?
> I don't expect a refund on the skin of an onion that gets peeled and promptly thrown away.
The onion skin doesn't cost $129.95 when purchased separately. Nor does the grocery store deliberately add the skin and pay Microsoft for the privilege.
Maybe, but more likely it's just a phemomenon where every degree of separation from the original research brings a more sensational (and less accurate) headline.
In this case, you have a Slashdot post about an MSN article citing a "mongabay" article citing a press release announcing the research. I see no evidence anybody in that chain actually looked at the research paper.
Citation needed
Perhaps if your posts were on topic and/or informative you'd get modded back from oblivion.
Yes, so think twice if you ever see a bear approaching you on horseback.
They used to do that, but the pirate squirrels would steal the map and go dig up the buried treasure.
> 1) Most humans can't farm; they have to learn
> it after they're born.
Good argument; I'll concede the "instinct" point.
> [ants] haven't shown a lot of intelligence in
> other ways
I don't think of the ant organism as an individual bug, I think of it as a colony. An individual ant brain is tiny, but together there's potentially distributed processing in a massively parallel system.
And ants have constructed amazing structures, under the ground and above.
> It is definitely an instinctive behavior, but the same can be said of the ants' behavior.
What's the "instinctive" distinction for? Who's to say that human farmers don't also do it instinctively? And how do we really know that ants (or squirrels) aren't in some way planning ahead?
When I ask such questions I get drummed for being stupid and not seeing the obvious. Maybe I am stupid, because I really don't see why we humans think we are so different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Every time somebody comes along with some human trait that separates us from other animals, an example of other animals doing that behavior turns up. And we just keep on moving the goalpost.
> If those scientists can be blackmailed
The plaintiffs claimed
1) to have no access to national secrets, and
2) that all scientific work at JPL is public.
> I'm not sure a country with an agency like the ...is the gold standard here.
> TSA
I'm with you there, thunderbird.
In light of [my Hungarian experience] in doesn't seem so harsh, does it?
I'm not sure former Soviet satellites are the gold standard here.
Therse background checks are stupid/wasteful because they ask the wrong questions of the wrong people. And they are invasive because the government really doesn't need to stick its nose up scientist's pants.
> They don't have to work for JPL
Are you only joking, or really implying that if they don't like the policy they should just go somewhere else?
Leaving may be great advice for minimizing their personal troubles, but it's lousy advice for fixing a paranoid and stupid bureaucracy. Some people fight evil/stupidity rather than running away from it.
Woops. I somehow thought khallow's post and arisvega's post were from the same person.
Sorry guys.
Arisvega - energy density is important for aircraft because it needs to weigh as little as possible. Batteries have about the worst energy/weight ratios you can find.
Khallow - AeroVironment doing diesel is about as likely as the NRA lobbying to ban guns.
> "Very high energy density" ... How does it apply to this
Interesting strategy. Not exactly circular, perhaps a spiral:
1) Lobby for a diesel-burning plane, asserting diesel has a higher energy density than Hydrogen
2) Get corrected by first guy that comes along
3) Claim energy density has nothing to do with "this particular challenge"
4) Claim the plane shouldn't burn fuel
5) Complain things 'whooosh' by.
AeroVironment makes craft that fly pretty well. Been doing it as long as I can remember. And the company's point, which you may indeed be missing, is to do it with minimal environmental impact.
You get full marks for your sig though. I love it.
> Thus, your situation is hopeless.
The way I'd put it is "unsustainable."
> Who do you think will turn out better
> in the long run, hmmm?
Probably you will. Congratulations in advance.
My reply was meant to address your statement that "I somehow doubt it will take that many more people to raise living standards in many places".
It takes increasing numbers of people to sustain exponential growth. Fractional Reserve economies are a race between the population and the debt.
Populations are constrained by resources. Debt has no physical constraints.
If we learn to exploit places beyond Earth, we can postpone our day of reckoning, and spoil exotic new ecosystems to boot.
But the day of reckoning will come - exponential growth can't continue forever in a finite universe.
The American money supply is basically equal to it's federal debt, currently around 13 trillion dollars. As the government borrows more money the money supply expands, the actual definition of "inflation."
What the media usually calls "inflation," though, is a general rise in prices. That phenomenon happens when our economic growth does not keep up with our money supply growth.
So prices stay under nominal control as long as economic growth keeps pace with money supply growth.
Now if you google for charts of the federal debt you will see that it grows exponentially, and we're in the part of the curve that goes virtually straight up, with no physical boundary to how high it can go.
In order for prices to stay down, we need to have economic growth continue to grow exponentially (straight up). In order to do this, we need unlimited resources and unlimited growth in the population of producers and consumers.
If you don't bake enough pies to keep an exponentially-growing money supply busy, we get "hyper-inflation" and consumers have to take wheelbarrows full of money to buy their pie.