America doesn't set the oil price. Its set by the market.
Krugman is right in that he says America can't go "bankrupt" because they print their own money. It doesn't even really make sense what bankrupt would mean. Printing money causes inflation and reduces the debt. It depends what you think is the bigger problem, the debt or what the money is worth.
It gets complicated when you can print money and fund works that increase employment.
America has a unique position, the US dollar is not going to be abandoned. It is the global currency.
The comparison between America and Japan makes no sense. There are so many differences, even now America is growing faster than almost any other western country.
Unlimited plans make no sense. It means data has no value.. which is non-sense. There is a cost to provide capacity.
Unlimited plans are a marketing tool. Its worth providing if you aren't hitting your capacity limit. Or if you are shaping traffic to avoid hitting the limit.
Unlimited plans make no sense. A discussion on the fair price of data makes sense. It gets more complex though because data grows with each subscriber but what only matters to providers is capacity. So they can keep shaping throughput while offering unlimited (or just any) data plans.
It would be better to just ban the sale of unlimited plans. If the ISP controls the throughput, then unlimited has no meaning. Once all providers are using a per MB price (combined with peoples reports of throughput) things get much more simple and more realistic.
Between the Shuttle program and the SLC program how is it 0?
Living on mars is crazy, try living in Antarctica and multiply that by 1000. The idea that people on mars could be self sufficient is a pipe dream. Maybe one day it can be done but it seems extremely hard. Every inch of mars has to be won inch by inch to live there. Its hard enough on earth.
For one, NASA can't look for life. Second, for 100-200bn dollars are humans really going to do better? I don't think its so obvious.
Whats the point? We could send dozens (more likely hundreds) of missions to titan with increasingly better probes / landers for the same cost. Titan is cold and dark, its not a place people are going to be of much use at.
The moon and mars are the only really logical places to visit. I don't buy the whole "human spaceflight inspires people". How many Apollo missions did it take before they stopped broadcasting the launch?
Since everything we know (which is not small) about physics says we cannot travel or communicate FTL I wouldn't use sci-fi shows as things that are possible if we just tried harder.
The travel time to a highly unlikely journey to another star is hundreds of thousands of years. How they are related to anyone on earth by that time is hard to imagine. Let alone the ethical problem of forcing future generations to sit around on the journey while earth is left behind. If you used some sort of suspended animation then you would remove the ethics but would have no meaningful communications with them anymore.
The notion of "possible" is rooted in life on earth. There are many things that are possible but completely impractical.
If some atoms decay at rate X and others at rate Y but have all been altered by different amounts by a constant influence so they happen to give the same values. That is what I consider perverse.
Either they are reliable because of the multiple multiple lines of agreement or there is a god playing tricks with us. The other option is terribly bad luck but the odds of that happening are so tiny its not worth considering.
If it was replicated easily then it would be a cause for a rethink but its not. It would also require new physics to explain and that by itself requires the strongest rigor before being accepted.
You are right. But I think you are ignoring the "prove" part. There is no proof. There is some studies but many contradicting studies.
If you want to overturn perhaps the successful theory that exists with poorly reproducible data, good luck. I agree it cant be dismissed without investigation but surely it is the theory that needs to do the pushing.
There is no lack of people who would look into this, and to be sure many top people have. There have been many people coming forward since to show data that doesn't exhibit this pattern. Thats a huge problem.
The burden of proof is on the claimant and its far from proven.
Slashdot Mirror
America doesn't set the oil price. Its set by the market.
Krugman is right in that he says America can't go "bankrupt" because they print their own money. It doesn't even really make sense what bankrupt would mean. Printing money causes inflation and reduces the debt. It depends what you think is the bigger problem, the debt or what the money is worth.
It gets complicated when you can print money and fund works that increase employment.
America has a unique position, the US dollar is not going to be abandoned. It is the global currency.
The comparison between America and Japan makes no sense. There are so many differences, even now America is growing faster than almost any other western country.
Unlimited plans make no sense. It means data has no value.. which is non-sense. There is a cost to provide capacity.
Unlimited plans are a marketing tool. Its worth providing if you aren't hitting your capacity limit. Or if you are shaping traffic to avoid hitting the limit.
Unlimited plans make no sense. A discussion on the fair price of data makes sense. It gets more complex though because data grows with each subscriber but what only matters to providers is capacity. So they can keep shaping throughput while offering unlimited (or just any) data plans.
It would be better to just ban the sale of unlimited plans. If the ISP controls the throughput, then unlimited has no meaning. Once all providers are using a per MB price (combined with peoples reports of throughput) things get much more simple and more realistic.
I love the options, government or corporations. So.. we should have individuals running nuclear power?
Oh maybe its the "existing" clause.. because any new government or corporation would be different for some unknown reason.
Between the Shuttle program and the SLC program how is it 0?
Living on mars is crazy, try living in Antarctica and multiply that by 1000. The idea that people on mars could be self sufficient is a pipe dream. Maybe one day it can be done but it seems extremely hard. Every inch of mars has to be won inch by inch to live there. Its hard enough on earth.
For one, NASA can't look for life. Second, for 100-200bn dollars are humans really going to do better? I don't think its so obvious.
Whats the point? We could send dozens (more likely hundreds) of missions to titan with increasingly better probes / landers for the same cost. Titan is cold and dark, its not a place people are going to be of much use at.
The moon and mars are the only really logical places to visit. I don't buy the whole "human spaceflight inspires people". How many Apollo missions did it take before they stopped broadcasting the launch?
Since everything we know (which is not small) about physics says we cannot travel or communicate FTL I wouldn't use sci-fi shows as things that are possible if we just tried harder.
The travel time to a highly unlikely journey to another star is hundreds of thousands of years. How they are related to anyone on earth by that time is hard to imagine. Let alone the ethical problem of forcing future generations to sit around on the journey while earth is left behind. If you used some sort of suspended animation then you would remove the ethics but would have no meaningful communications with them anymore.
The notion of "possible" is rooted in life on earth. There are many things that are possible but completely impractical.
NASA is forbidden by congress to fund the search for ET.
Palin for 2012!
this isnt that crazy.
As a nerd I this seems like the best way to spend a trillion dollars but its hardly the craziest thing this guy has said.
Experiments have been done. They don't match these findings. (http://www.nist.gov/mml/analytical/14c_091410.cfm)
Surface photons will still beat anything but I think its the neutrons and protons that are the bigger risk.
Before the heavier particles or lighter but more interacting particles (photons) get to us.
If some atoms decay at rate X and others at rate Y but have all been altered by different amounts by a constant influence so they happen to give the same values. That is what I consider perverse.
Either they are reliable because of the multiple multiple lines of agreement or there is a god playing tricks with us. The other option is terribly bad luck but the odds of that happening are so tiny its not worth considering.
There are lots, this is how we (roughly) confirmed the properties of neutrinos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector
They are extremely hard to study due to the fact they barely interact with baryonic matter. Trillions are passing through us every second.
There are many nonsupporting papers for this.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071 (there are many more but you can find yourself if you are interested)
If it was replicated easily then it would be a cause for a rethink but its not. It would also require new physics to explain and that by itself requires the strongest rigor before being accepted.
You make it sound like my opinion. Not the weight of scientific opinion.
The study of the natural world isn't decided by the best yo-mamma joke.
They use atoms, I believe that justifies the name Atomic.
You are right. But I think you are ignoring the "prove" part. There is no proof. There is some studies but many contradicting studies.
If you want to overturn perhaps the successful theory that exists with poorly reproducible data, good luck. I agree it cant be dismissed without investigation but surely it is the theory that needs to do the pushing.
They are called solar panels, or more generally most of the life on earth.
The key though is that is beta decay. A process that neutrinos don't participate in.
Non replicable data also not really science.
There is no lack of people who would look into this, and to be sure many top people have. There have been many people coming forward since to show data that doesn't exhibit this pattern. Thats a huge problem.
The burden of proof is on the claimant and its far from proven.
There is almost no cross section for a neutrino (or antineutrino) and a neutron to interact. For that matter any particle.
They only interact via the weak force which is orders of magnitude smaller than the electromagnetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction
We have many different radiometric forms of dating that all agree well.
It would require a perverse alteration to them all to keep agreeing with each other after all this time.
Thats why we are so confident in the age of the earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Ill pretend this theory isn't completely nuts and say that it wouldn't have a huge effect. The observed change is tiny. Far below the margin of error.