In those open air markets, or with street vendors, I usually see people use their cellphones to charge credit card transactions. No local electricity source is required. Maybe that's not common where you are but it probably will be.
Before the cellphone thing, they typically had the old carbon-copy method available so they could take credit cards.
Who can carry a few groceries but can't be arsed to carry a low volume of coins and bills?
I don't tend to carry a few groceries everywhere I go.
If the clerk is too stupid I don't want them dealing with cash, I absolutely want them dealing with something with an electronic record.
I pay cash for things when there is a power outage or the Internet is down. Those things are very, very rare. It last happened last week, but the time before that was years before.
It's not stupid. You just seem to have it in your head that competition in one sphere implies increased choices in all spheres.
Consider a company with a monopoly on a good with fairly inelastic demand and no reasonable substitutions -- for instance, the world's supply of a critical raw material needed for the only known cure to a horrific disease. They can charge almost whatever they want -- hence they'll tend to increase prices. The only downward pressures are the actual amount of money available to their clients, monopoly maintenance, preventing regulation being imposed upon them, and ethical choices.
Now magically increase the competition. The former monopoly company has far less choice in their pricing.
Circles are loops -- they go both ways or else they are not circles. This is not circular because it doesn't loop back on itself.
It would be circular if you could demonstrate that having more reserves causes more spending. As it is, it looks like spending just increases, and as a result reserves increase, and...that's the end of the chain or sequence. It doesn't circle back on itself. There is presumably some external impetus for increasing spending, which itself has not been demonstrated to be circular. Perhaps wikipedia's content
I'm struggling to explain this in a way that isn't exactly the way that the AC a couple posts up complained about, but really the crux of the issue is that circular means it's circular. It does not mean "ever-increasing".
That's not particularly relevant to an analysis of humanity's clear *current* success, as is evidenced by our unchallenged presence on most of the land area of the planet (albeit at varying population densities).
The stuff is still monumentally more expensive than its competition, even with the price dropping fast, because it's new and we haven't figured out how to scale it yet. The stuff coming out of your dvd burner is not the high quality stuff, and low quality graphene is worse than non-graphene alternatives at most things.
Its use in electronics is also inhibited by the lack of bandgap, which people are looking into: http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.... It's just another material, and pricing will dictate its use vs. less effective but still perfectly viable alternatives. While its new, this has an odd chicken-and-egg supply-and-demand relationship.
No, that's way too strong. Anyone thinking the Voyage would be on sale would be deluding themselves. Anybody thinking that "all Kindles" would include the Voyage is an entirely reasonable human being with an appropriate level of reading comprehension.
Yes, he can. The only sense in which we can travel 28000 light years away in 1000 years requires that we invent time travel, at which point the phrase "in 1000 years" no longer makes sense.
It's a well-known result: FTL travel implies time travel.
Your first "fact", that there are only two biological sentences, is not actually true. Intersex is a real biological thing and is entirely separate from political movements and debates about essentialism vs. culturally-defined roles. It's relatively rare, but that's not really the point.
Interestingly, the AC's political movement may be in part responsible for changing the language to prefer the plural over just using male pronouns. But I agree it's unlikely to "fix" English's grammar to fit anything but a strict binary mapping of genders.
I think some people severely underestimate and downplay the importance of wind power inconveniences like this (and the bright blinking lights into people's windows), but there is absolutely some BS about low-frequency noise causing cancer. I've seen that distributed and it is ridiculous.
Spoiler alert: the shock is calibrated to each person to be "painful but not intolerable", and it's about 30 cents a shock for yourself or 60 cents a shock to others.
There may be an initial threshold -- my understanding is that the question would be something like:
"Would you rather be shocked 10 times and get $7 or shocked 20 times and get $9", or "Would you rather be shocked 5 times for $5 or have this chick get shocked 3 times for $4", not necessarily giving a 0 shocks = $0 option.
Follow your statements through to their logical conclusion.
If marriage isn't a right, straight or gay, then a government which grants privileges only to straight marriage and not to gay marriage is unfair discrimination.
You are confused about what homeopathy means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.... Homeopathic medicine is very specifically not medicine.
You are thinking of traditional medicine. Which is, indeed, not 100% hogwash (not 0% either).
quite frankly if there is no proven harm there should be no harm in a label.
It's just arbitrary. Might as well label something as made by people with princess leia hair. I'm pretty sure there's no proven harm, but I would oppose a label for that.
Agitate for people to label things as non-GMO. That's what you really want anyway. When you go to the store for milk you don't check each liquid vessel to exclude the ones that contain traces of apple, orange, alcohol, etc.., you go for milk. If you want something that contains no GMO, then ask for no-GMO labels (and enforce truth-in-advertising laws).
Lets not forget that a large reason for GMO seeds is to increase yields by protecting plants from pests. We are already seeing super pests [ucsusa.org] that can bypass the built in GMO protection and creating a much larger threat to agriculture than existed previously.
Here is an actual point. However, labelling isn't likely to solve that, you'd have to completely ban them. I'm extremely skeptical that we are worse off, but I'm willing to hear more. So far it looks just like the same "Red Queen's Race" evolution has always provided.
Slashdot Mirror
In those open air markets, or with street vendors, I usually see people use their cellphones to charge credit card transactions. No local electricity source is required. Maybe that's not common where you are but it probably will be.
Before the cellphone thing, they typically had the old carbon-copy method available so they could take credit cards.
Who can carry a few groceries but can't be arsed to carry a low volume of coins and bills?
I don't tend to carry a few groceries everywhere I go.
If the clerk is too stupid I don't want them dealing with cash, I absolutely want them dealing with something with an electronic record.
I pay cash for things when there is a power outage or the Internet is down. Those things are very, very rare. It last happened last week, but the time before that was years before.
It's not stupid. You just seem to have it in your head that competition in one sphere implies increased choices in all spheres.
Consider a company with a monopoly on a good with fairly inelastic demand and no reasonable substitutions -- for instance, the world's supply of a critical raw material needed for the only known cure to a horrific disease. They can charge almost whatever they want -- hence they'll tend to increase prices. The only downward pressures are the actual amount of money available to their clients, monopoly maintenance, preventing regulation being imposed upon them, and ethical choices.
Now magically increase the competition. The former monopoly company has far less choice in their pricing.
Circles are loops -- they go both ways or else they are not circles. This is not circular because it doesn't loop back on itself.
It would be circular if you could demonstrate that having more reserves causes more spending. As it is, it looks like spending just increases, and as a result reserves increase, and...that's the end of the chain or sequence. It doesn't circle back on itself. There is presumably some external impetus for increasing spending, which itself has not been demonstrated to be circular. Perhaps wikipedia's content
I'm struggling to explain this in a way that isn't exactly the way that the AC a couple posts up complained about, but really the crux of the issue is that circular means it's circular. It does not mean "ever-increasing".
That's not particularly relevant to an analysis of humanity's clear *current* success, as is evidenced by our unchallenged presence on most of the land area of the planet (albeit at varying population densities).
Manufacturing at scale is a big problem
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files...
The stuff is still monumentally more expensive than its competition, even with the price dropping fast, because it's new and we haven't figured out how to scale it yet. The stuff coming out of your dvd burner is not the high quality stuff, and low quality graphene is worse than non-graphene alternatives at most things.
Its use in electronics is also inhibited by the lack of bandgap, which people are looking into: http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.... It's just another material, and pricing will dictate its use vs. less effective but still perfectly viable alternatives. While its new, this has an odd chicken-and-egg supply-and-demand relationship.
Why wouldn't you count them? I don't think this UK study had 13 year olds making AAA blockbuster games.
No, that's way too strong. Anyone thinking the Voyage would be on sale would be deluding themselves. Anybody thinking that "all Kindles" would include the Voyage is an entirely reasonable human being with an appropriate level of reading comprehension.
So?
Yes, he can. The only sense in which we can travel 28000 light years away in 1000 years requires that we invent time travel, at which point the phrase "in 1000 years" no longer makes sense.
It's a well-known result: FTL travel implies time travel.
Right, he pays for it too...so he gets to play by the same shared rules.
Which, right now and for the foreseeable future, allows you to ride a motorcycle, but not always at 154mph.
The idea is to increase generation from renewables and nuclear so that you don't nead fossils.
There is a massive gap between "not 1st in absolutely everything" and "worse than everywhere else".
Your first "fact", that there are only two biological sentences, is not actually true. Intersex is a real biological thing and is entirely separate from political movements and debates about essentialism vs. culturally-defined roles. It's relatively rare, but that's not really the point.
Interestingly, the AC's political movement may be in part responsible for changing the language to prefer the plural over just using male pronouns. But I agree it's unlikely to "fix" English's grammar to fit anything but a strict binary mapping of genders.
Oh right, and nobody ever does anything that's illegal so there's no point in taking action against it.
Also stealing cars is illegal so why bother with keys?
I think some people severely underestimate and downplay the importance of wind power inconveniences like this (and the bright blinking lights into people's windows), but there is absolutely some BS about low-frequency noise causing cancer. I've seen that distributed and it is ridiculous.
The question was:
Light absolutely has mass. For what definition of mass does a photon not have mass?
People have given very standard definitions for which a photon has no mass. Asked and answered.
The fact that relativistic mass is a thing is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The article has a bit more info.
Spoiler alert: the shock is calibrated to each person to be "painful but not intolerable", and it's about 30 cents a shock for yourself or 60 cents a shock to others.
There may be an initial threshold -- my understanding is that the question would be something like:
"Would you rather be shocked 10 times and get $7 or shocked 20 times and get $9", or "Would you rather be shocked 5 times for $5 or have this chick get shocked 3 times for $4", not necessarily giving a 0 shocks = $0 option.
Well that's an irrelevant aside.
You know that it's religions that claim knowledge worth knowing that humanity that non-members do not accept as knowable.
How is it extremely unlikely? What evidence are you talking about?
It's not an intolerance of all forms of intolerance everywhere. That's a ridiculous strawman.
Your argument is like saying it's hypocritical not to eat people just because you eat potatoes.
Follow your statements through to their logical conclusion.
If marriage isn't a right, straight or gay, then a government which grants privileges only to straight marriage and not to gay marriage is unfair discrimination.
What relevance does that have?
There are laws in some places that explicitly prohibit the labeling of food items as non-GMO. Boy, does that piss me off!
See, this is a legitimate complaint. Get this fixed. Where are those laws?
You are confused about what homeopathy means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.... Homeopathic medicine is very specifically not medicine.
You are thinking of traditional medicine. Which is, indeed, not 100% hogwash (not 0% either).
quite frankly if there is no proven harm there should be no harm in a label.
It's just arbitrary. Might as well label something as made by people with princess leia hair. I'm pretty sure there's no proven harm, but I would oppose a label for that.
Agitate for people to label things as non-GMO. That's what you really want anyway. When you go to the store for milk you don't check each liquid vessel to exclude the ones that contain traces of apple, orange, alcohol, etc.., you go for milk. If you want something that contains no GMO, then ask for no-GMO labels (and enforce truth-in-advertising laws).
Lets not forget that a large reason for GMO seeds is to increase yields by protecting plants from pests. We are already seeing super pests [ucsusa.org] that can bypass the built in GMO protection and creating a much larger threat to agriculture than existed previously.
Here is an actual point. However, labelling isn't likely to solve that, you'd have to completely ban them. I'm extremely skeptical that we are worse off, but I'm willing to hear more. So far it looks just like the same "Red Queen's Race" evolution has always provided.