> fluoride not only strengthens teeth, it strengthens bone as well. a win all around.
Nice effect, but not necessarily an "all-around" good thing. Good for bones, but what does it do to OTHER tissue? Does it replace other ions in soft tissue that should not be replaced?
> If your saliva isn't PH7 you better see a doctor/dentist immediately!
You need to calm down... After googling, I read conflicting reports: one place said that Saliva should have a Ph of approximately 6.4 and another said 7.4. But it is generally not 7.0.
> Okay, folks, I really need an optimism boost. Any thoughts?
Well... You're healthy? You have a wife, and I'm guessing you love each other. That's one hell of a thing to be optimistic about. If you end up starving... well, you'll be starving with someone you love:/ Hmmm, that might not be considered "optimistic..."
> the government is neutered by the deficit
Well, if the government can't do anything, they can't take away your rights... Wait, that doesn't take any money, obviously... I don't know what there is to be optimistic about. Duke Nukem Forever?
If you don't want others using your bandwidth, get out of the Internet business.
Not only that, but if someone's traffic is going through your company, you either already sold that network access to someone (who is probably, in turn, selling access to someone else), and are making your money, or those people broke into your system and you have other ways to fight that.
> How about we keep/. the way it is, instead of trying to dumb it down?
Absolutely, and if you don't understand something, read the comments. Chances are pretty good someone else didn't understand either and asked. Or if that hasn't happened, post the question yourself. That's why the comments section is here!
No, the food people CHOOSE TO EAT isn't as good. If we all demanded good food, then companies who want to stay in business would deliver better food. Other peoples' laziness caused bad food to be the norm, but good food is there for anyone who decides to eat it. Of course, that doesn't apply to places where people are starving, but those places existed 100 years ago too.
> cancer and heart disease are more popular now.
Could also be related to the fact that we can actually detect those things now, whereas 100 years ago it was a lot of guesswork, and a lot of cancer patients were misdiagnosed as dieing from things like "old age."
> There is more misery in 2006 than there was in 1906
Maybe in the U.S., but worldwide, I seriously doubt that.
> 100 years ago, the knowledge gap was nothing like it is now
You are correct, but not in the way you mean. The knowledge gap is SMALLER today. U.S. actual quality of education has declined, but there is a much, MUCH higher percentage of children in school today -- especially females, minorities. Now for the gap, class has very little to do with it, except for the existence of private schools that can sometimes afford to pay their teachers better, sometimes not. Sometimes private schools are worse than their public counterparts, which was the case where I grew up. To put the nail in the "knowledge gap," almost any family today can afford a computer and Internet access. That tool by itself outweighs any possible difference in access to education. Whether or not someone decides to learn is the real problem.
> The gap between knowledge and class is higher than its ever been due to [...] the high cost of college education.
Wow, do you actually read what you write? Do you have any idea how many people went to college 100 years ago? 95-100% of them were pretty much rich. Now, just about anyone can get into college if they try, and can afford to go, considering the grants available, and scholarships if they worked hard enough in high school.
You talk about all these things that we don't have, like underwater housing and flying cars... But none of those things would improve anyone's quality of life in the ways you describe. Or at all. Hell, most of them are terrible ideas because they would be death traps!
> until you or some politician shows me the plan, I don't think there will be a future.
So you must wait for your senator to come wipe your ass every time you take a crap? Worldwide cataclysmic events cannot be controlled by legislation. In fact, there is very little that a politician can do, it was foolish of you to make such a ludicrous statement. Continuing that line of thought, your opinion about the future has no bearing on its reality. YOUR cynicism, lack of hope for the future, and need to have the whole thing laid out before you just to agree that we'll exist also will have no affect on reality in the future.
Also, because you think life sucks today (I agree) doesn't mean life didn't suck 100 years ago. You really need to reevaluate your historical perspective, because it is obviously skewed wildly. Pick up your old history textbook and read through it for those major events. Then go on the Internet to see what was going on in the REST of the world at that time. The problem is that history teaches you individual events, it does not give you any context to it, such as the propaganda governments were putting out at the time to scaremonger. Stop thinking about just the U.S. as the entire world. One country being worse off doesn't make the rest of the world worse off.
> Oh industries who would like this. Medical (these guys create 10x the data that nuclear physics creates)
Exactly my thoughts. Of course, I work in a hospital, so that's obvious to me... Diagnostic Imaging devices in a small hospital can easily put out a terabyte a year -- that's just images, no medical records, etc. If you move up to a larger hospital, a petabyte of storage for a PACS (picture archiving system) would be EXTREMELY valuable.
> One must wonder why water cores don't exist in real life...
Well, perhaps the answer lies in how the planets formed to begin with. If it started off as mostly rocks and gaseous vapor (including water vapor) collecting together, the denser materials would collect towards the center of mass -- assuming the objects were collectively spinning with enough speed to create a force to draw the pieces together into a sphere/larger rock. Also, the water would remain a vapor until the solid rock nearby was cool enough for the water to condense. By that time, much material would have collected to form the core.
Keep in mind that I don't know jack about astrophysics and could be completely wrong.
It worked for me! Of course, it's not permanent if you go back to eating all the same stuff again, and I don't buy into the spiritual crap surrounding it, but I didn't eat anything for a month and I had way more energy than before (leading to more exercise, of course), and I felt great all-around. Wouldn't suggest it as a life-long choice though.
> The end result is less is accomplished and less work overall is done
less work != less accomplishment, and vice versa. People can do a shitload of work and have nothing to show for it. It does not mean they did no work. Otherwise, theoretical physicists are all worthless and don't deserve to get paid a dime, ever, unless their theories immediately pan out to working products.
First off, and most importantly, you have no clue as to what the "odds" are on something like that. Secondly, the world today is not worse off than it was 100 years ago, what makes you think it will get worse in the next hundred? And finally, how in the hell can you claim that most of us are going to be dead? That's ridiculous: the human population is still increasing, and while that may not be sustainable in the long-term, it will not create a collapse of our species, it will drop and then level off, but it won't drop to the levels that you are suggesting (at least not w/in 100 yrs).
> If we all try to help ourselves, then the best come out on top, and society functions well.
Yes, if by "society" you mean "oligarchy" and by "functions well" you mean "anyone who isn't 'the best' is dead or a slave." Actually, that's the direction we're moving in, but fortunately, a few individuals who aren't already in "the top" still can get there, although it's much more difficult.
> if we were all selfish, then we would have never banded together into tribes
No, that just makes us selfish in groups. Self-preservation is a pretty common quality among animals, and it is selfish. Not wrong, but selfish. Our preservation is increased by joining with others who have the same interest to live.
> If you prohibit it because it has nothing to do with zoning, it's not bigotry.
Bringing up bigotry is pointless (unless you are trying to avoid the real topic), then, because the topic is religious activity during a government meeting/gatherin/whatever. Nothing being discussed at any of those meetings has anything to do with religion, so attempting to support it is pointless -- unless your point is to get religion inserted serreptitiously.
> In its loosest sense, 'lack of religion' certainly is a religion
If by "loose" you mean "total fucking lie." Go buy a dictionary. Look up the word religion.
- the service and worship of God or the supernatural - commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance - a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
In case you feel like bullshitting, I'll spell it out for you: 1. "no religion" specifically excludes the first, since there is no God 2,3. self-referential: can't define "religion" when "religious" is part of the definition! Mirriam Webster sucks serious ass, but oh well. 4. Faith is the key word there. Faith is a belief without the presence of evidence. Sceince does not rely on faith, it relies on evidence. I don't believe in God because I have not seen a shred of evidence to support such a preposterous concept.
It's very simple, yet some people still spout crap like "atheism is a religion" as a troll, flamebait, or through their own feelings of uncertainty (or arrogance) in their own religion, that they must attempt to redefine others to fit in their own ignorant view of the world.
> When the tank is cold, air is ingested. It liquefies and goes into the voids. Then as the tank empties and the [air] warms up and evaporates, the resulting pressure blows the foam off.'"
If there were cracks where the air got in some cracks, why wouldn't the air escape from the same place? I can't imagine the tank goes from freezing cold to boiling hot before the frozen air thaws completely...
> the mechanism by which the foam is and was liberated
He must be a Bush supporter if he thinks liberation == complete destruction!
And finally, I heard someone on here whine about how I.D. was brought up, but I thought Griffin's answer was close to perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
> fluoride not only strengthens teeth, it strengthens bone as well. a win all around.
Nice effect, but not necessarily an "all-around" good thing. Good for bones, but what does it do to OTHER tissue? Does it replace other ions in soft tissue that should not be replaced?
> If your saliva isn't PH7 you better see a doctor/dentist immediately!
You need to calm down...
After googling, I read conflicting reports: one place said that Saliva should have a Ph of approximately 6.4 and another said 7.4. But it is generally not 7.0.
> If your prior tells you that something is impossible, then no amount of evidence can change this
My Prior tells me that, with the Ori, anything is possible!
Sorry, I'm most of the way through the first page and I haven't seen a single SG:SG1 reference, despite the word "Prior" coming up so many times.
> My mind can predict future events usually 3 month in advance.
You must be "in" with the terrorists then, since you didn't tell us about 9/11!
> Okay, folks, I really need an optimism boost. Any thoughts?
:/ Hmmm, that might not be considered "optimistic..."
Well... You're healthy? You have a wife, and I'm guessing you love each other. That's one hell of a thing to be optimistic about. If you end up starving... well, you'll be starving with someone you love
> the government is neutered by the deficit
Well, if the government can't do anything, they can't take away your rights... Wait, that doesn't take any money, obviously... I don't know what there is to be optimistic about. Duke Nukem Forever?
> The patent system was designed for rampant absurdity and routes around it.
If only that were true... and made sense.
If you don't want others using your bandwidth, get out of the Internet business.
Not only that, but if someone's traffic is going through your company, you either already sold that network access to someone (who is probably, in turn, selling access to someone else), and are making your money, or those people broke into your system and you have other ways to fight that.
> How about we keep /. the way it is, instead of trying to dumb it down?
Absolutely, and if you don't understand something, read the comments. Chances are pretty good someone else didn't understand either and asked. Or if that hasn't happened, post the question yourself. That's why the comments section is here!
> Maybe we could pass this information onto the plant life so they could benefit too.
That's genetic engineering, you blasphemer!
> The food isn't as good, as a result,
No, the food people CHOOSE TO EAT isn't as good. If we all demanded good food, then companies who want to stay in business would deliver better food. Other peoples' laziness caused bad food to be the norm, but good food is there for anyone who decides to eat it. Of course, that doesn't apply to places where people are starving, but those places existed 100 years ago too.
> cancer and heart disease are more popular now.
Could also be related to the fact that we can actually detect those things now, whereas 100 years ago it was a lot of guesswork, and a lot of cancer patients were misdiagnosed as dieing from things like "old age."
> There is more misery in 2006 than there was in 1906
Maybe in the U.S., but worldwide, I seriously doubt that.
> 100 years ago, the knowledge gap was nothing like it is now
You are correct, but not in the way you mean. The knowledge gap is SMALLER today. U.S. actual quality of education has declined, but there is a much, MUCH higher percentage of children in school today -- especially females, minorities. Now for the gap, class has very little to do with it, except for the existence of private schools that can sometimes afford to pay their teachers better, sometimes not. Sometimes private schools are worse than their public counterparts, which was the case where I grew up. To put the nail in the "knowledge gap," almost any family today can afford a computer and Internet access. That tool by itself outweighs any possible difference in access to education. Whether or not someone decides to learn is the real problem.
> The gap between knowledge and class is higher than its ever been due to [...] the high cost of college education.
Wow, do you actually read what you write? Do you have any idea how many people went to college 100 years ago? 95-100% of them were pretty much rich. Now, just about anyone can get into college if they try, and can afford to go, considering the grants available, and scholarships if they worked hard enough in high school.
You talk about all these things that we don't have, like underwater housing and flying cars... But none of those things would improve anyone's quality of life in the ways you describe. Or at all. Hell, most of them are terrible ideas because they would be death traps!
> until you or some politician shows me the plan, I don't think there will be a future.
So you must wait for your senator to come wipe your ass every time you take a crap? Worldwide cataclysmic events cannot be controlled by legislation. In fact, there is very little that a politician can do, it was foolish of you to make such a ludicrous statement. Continuing that line of thought, your opinion about the future has no bearing on its reality. YOUR cynicism, lack of hope for the future, and need to have the whole thing laid out before you just to agree that we'll exist also will have no affect on reality in the future.
Also, because you think life sucks today (I agree) doesn't mean life didn't suck 100 years ago. You really need to reevaluate your historical perspective, because it is obviously skewed wildly. Pick up your old history textbook and read through it for those major events. Then go on the Internet to see what was going on in the REST of the world at that time. The problem is that history teaches you individual events, it does not give you any context to it, such as the propaganda governments were putting out at the time to scaremonger. Stop thinking about just the U.S. as the entire world. One country being worse off doesn't make the rest of the world worse off.
> Oh industries who would like this. Medical (these guys create 10x the data that nuclear physics creates)
Exactly my thoughts. Of course, I work in a hospital, so that's obvious to me... Diagnostic Imaging devices in a small hospital can easily put out a terabyte a year -- that's just images, no medical records, etc. If you move up to a larger hospital, a petabyte of storage for a PACS (picture archiving system) would be EXTREMELY valuable.
> One must wonder why water cores don't exist in real life...
Well, perhaps the answer lies in how the planets formed to begin with. If it started off as mostly rocks and gaseous vapor (including water vapor) collecting together, the denser materials would collect towards the center of mass -- assuming the objects were collectively spinning with enough speed to create a force to draw the pieces together into a sphere/larger rock. Also, the water would remain a vapor until the solid rock nearby was cool enough for the water to condense. By that time, much material would have collected to form the core.
Keep in mind that I don't know jack about astrophysics and could be completely wrong.
> I know GameSpot posted a blurb about it in their rumor section
Is this what you're referring to?
"If [former Nintendo president and major stockholder] Yamauchi calls, I'll pick up the line immediately"
Although the company is based in Russia, they DO have a U.S. office...
> Do you think it's rigged in any manner?
I didn't see the show, and assuming it didn't contain any extreme measures, I'd guess they chose the contestants VERY carefully.
It worked for me! Of course, it's not permanent if you go back to eating all the same stuff again, and I don't buy into the spiritual crap surrounding it, but I didn't eat anything for a month and I had way more energy than before (leading to more exercise, of course), and I felt great all-around. Wouldn't suggest it as a life-long choice though.
> The end result is less is accomplished and less work overall is done
less work != less accomplishment, and vice versa. People can do a shitload of work and have nothing to show for it. It does not mean they did no work. Otherwise, theoretical physicists are all worthless and don't deserve to get paid a dime, ever, unless their theories immediately pan out to working products.
That is simply not the case.
> most of us wont survive, its just the odds
First off, and most importantly, you have no clue as to what the "odds" are on something like that.
Secondly, the world today is not worse off than it was 100 years ago, what makes you think it will get worse in the next hundred?
And finally, how in the hell can you claim that most of us are going to be dead? That's ridiculous: the human population is still increasing, and while that may not be sustainable in the long-term, it will not create a collapse of our species, it will drop and then level off, but it won't drop to the levels that you are suggesting (at least not w/in 100 yrs).
> If we all try to help ourselves, then the best come out on top, and society functions well.
Yes, if by "society" you mean "oligarchy" and by "functions well" you mean "anyone who isn't 'the best' is dead or a slave." Actually, that's the direction we're moving in, but fortunately, a few individuals who aren't already in "the top" still can get there, although it's much more difficult.
> if we were all selfish, then we would have never banded together into tribes
No, that just makes us selfish in groups. Self-preservation is a pretty common quality among animals, and it is selfish. Not wrong, but selfish. Our preservation is increased by joining with others who have the same interest to live.
> If you prohibit it because it has nothing to do with zoning, it's not bigotry.
Bringing up bigotry is pointless (unless you are trying to avoid the real topic), then, because the topic is religious activity during a government meeting/gatherin/whatever. Nothing being discussed at any of those meetings has anything to do with religion, so attempting to support it is pointless -- unless your point is to get religion inserted serreptitiously.
You are really giving your religion a bad name with idiocy like that which you have shown here.
> In its loosest sense, 'lack of religion' certainly is a religion
If by "loose" you mean "total fucking lie." Go buy a dictionary. Look up the word religion.
- the service and worship of God or the supernatural
- commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
- a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
In case you feel like bullshitting, I'll spell it out for you:
1. "no religion" specifically excludes the first, since there is no God
2,3. self-referential: can't define "religion" when "religious" is part of the definition! Mirriam Webster sucks serious ass, but oh well.
4. Faith is the key word there. Faith is a belief without the presence of evidence. Sceince does not rely on faith, it relies on evidence. I don't believe in God because I have not seen a shred of evidence to support such a preposterous concept.
It's very simple, yet some people still spout crap like "atheism is a religion" as a troll, flamebait, or through their own feelings of uncertainty (or arrogance) in their own religion, that they must attempt to redefine others to fit in their own ignorant view of the world.
> When the tank is cold, air is ingested. It liquefies and goes into the voids. Then as the tank empties and the [air] warms up and evaporates, the resulting pressure blows the foam off.'"
If there were cracks where the air got in some cracks, why wouldn't the air escape from the same place? I can't imagine the tank goes from freezing cold to boiling hot before the frozen air thaws completely...
> the mechanism by which the foam is and was liberated
He must be a Bush supporter if he thinks liberation == complete destruction!
And finally, I heard someone on here whine about how I.D. was brought up, but I thought Griffin's answer was close to perfect.
Umm, hello, before the first 6 days, NOTHING existed (supposedly).