When it's on the ground though, the air coming through the vents often smells like some type of exhaust, I had always guessed it was from the plane engines.
If you get rid of free trade/adopt protectionism you drag the economy down a few pegs and probably destroy at least as many jobs as you save.
I don't know squat about economics; how does that work? Seems like by preventing jobs from leaving the country, the company itself may not earn as much, but you've saved jobs within your own country. That's in my eyes, and anyone who is not a shareholder in said company and selfish, more important. Assuming that the company is going to use the money it saves to reinvest in your home country is not a sure thing to me.
Eew. Algae. What's next, a flight powered by athlete's foot? It's great that we're coming up with alternatives and it could be worse, but I'm wondering what this will make the airports and flights smell like.
1. Most of the time I would think they would not be able to get any useable organs for transplant if the body was unidentifable anyway. 2. They could and would err on the safe side and not harvest organs from John Does. I'd wager that most people who die at hospitals have identification on them. Even if most don't, it would still be more organs donated and more lives saved.
(Kind of an off-topic rant, mostly because I'm seeing a lot of responses saying "See?!? Global warming is clearly crap because it has holes, now leave my diesel-powered hummer alone")
When did people start thinking science was easy and could ever provide a simple answer to anything? At best you get vague general theories, and usually know at least a few big exceptions prior to the theory being written down. And that's when the theory applies to something that is entirely academic. When it has serious economic implications, how clear a picture do you think is going to develop?
Maybe we do need to start adding "just a theory" to evolution taught in high school, and add it to everything else taught in science as well.
It's important to point out the holes in any theory, to critique buisness practices and government regulations, and avoid the harms that global warming could bring about, but resist the temptation to think in terms of black and white on such complex issues.
I think we should make it opt-out. There would be so many more organs available for research and transplant, we could save quite a few lives.
Well one particularly stupid and annoying argument I could see some particularly stupid and annoying and coincidentally persuasive individuals making is that evil/liberal doctors would then euthanize people to harvest their organs.
Probably the more likely reason it's opt-in instead of opt-out is the inevitable greedy lawsuits that "grieving" families would pursue. "He totally had an opt out card at home in a shoebox under his bed, but they took his liver anyway! Poor Johnny wanted to be intact for the great resurection! I want 50 million dollars!"
Laws SHOULD be passed setting up an opt-out database and mandating that if you're not in that and don't have the opt-out signed on your DL, your family cannot sue for that.
Actually, live brains are sometimes used in medical research, usually embryonic. I've read papers that talk about observing human embryonic cortical development in culture. Naturally, the sources for those brains are not well publicized.
You should then spray WD-40 into it just to make sure. With the WD-40 coating the platter, you can't even run an SEM over it.
Maybe an ignorant question, has anyone EVER used SEM to get data off a hard drive? And I guess maybe a more basic question: we are talking about Scanning Electron Micrograph, right? I don't know that much about hard drives, it just seems like that would be near impossible to do.
... pull your head out of the clouds. I agree AIDS is not a reason to not go to space. But saying we need to hop the rock because of a preventable and curable disease is either insane or absurdly callous.
In California we already pay an Electronic Waste Disposal Fee whenever we purchase a new TV that varies based on the price of the TV, but was $20-30 last time I purchased one.
I know! What, are they trying to tell me that 20-30 dollars hasn't saved the environment yet?!? Not to mention if you use your TV as a club to kill a baby seal, that will be even more environmental damage not covered by the fees, AND the state will fine you for that! It's bullshit!
(Recycling of the materials of the TV is one thing, unrelated to energy consumption of the TV while in use, and killing of endangered species.)
Yet another example of the state trying to control its citizens
Crazy conspiracy theory alert. Replace citizens with energy consumption and your statement will be correct.
All it really does is hurt retailers whom are going to loose out on sales in border cities where consumers have more choice in other states
Compared to the downsides of energy overconsumption, that's a tiny risk.
So maybe people should shut up about how Californians are just a bunch of hippies and start wising up to the fact that maybe you're just jealous that California has succeeded at both economic expansion and energy efficiency.
I live in California, so it's not just jealousy. Can I call us a bunch of hippies?
Ah, I think we were having semantic issues there. Yes, a scientist would be pretty dumb to say we should NEVER go into space. I do think it's not ignorant to say we should put it on hold until we get some things sorted out first.
Such scientists would be poor representatives of Human Civilization and should reconsider their role in society.
Or else they just have different priorities as far as research goes. Curing AIDS vs landing on Mars, for me and a good chunk of the world's population, AIDS comes first, I'd advocate that research grants reflect that.
Great, more government intervention in both the market and our lives; the net result will just be less choice and higher prices for TVs everywhere.
Could you support your general hypothesis (government intervention = less choice and higher prices) with past examples? As such, some readers might assume you think it's a proven fact.
Disclaimer: I'm not asking to be facetious, I haven't a clue when it comes to economics. I would tend to think that your hypothesis is wrong, but I recognize that it's entirely because I tend to side with the democratic position on most issues. That of course is no reason to assume they're right.
Actually, I find that we're generally more in favor of increased taxes or increased deficit spending to support increased funding of our research. If something needs to be cut to give us funding, we're more likely to advocate cutting MILITARY space programs, or in the event that there actually is no military space program, cutting military spending period.
We are, after all, mostly liberal elitists who hate America.
If health insurance started right away instead of 6 months to a year after he went full time (which was also not immediate) you'd be right. Sadly, that was not the case.
At least you can choose to do business with the insurance company......
That's a good option when you're positive you will never, ever get sick or injured. And the choices don't end there, you can often choose between high premiums and high denials of coverage, or even higher premiums and higher denials of coverage. If you've had a bit of the cancer previously, your choices are even better! For instance, a friend of mine got to choose to either stay with a low paying dead-end job with adequate insurance, to switch jobs and go bankrupt with COBRA, or to go without coverage and risk a recurrance that would be classified as a pre-existing condition (again bankrupcy).
Seriously, the benefits of being able to call a number and possibly get your billing straightened out faster with a private company rather than the government more than makes up for the troubles those people who are not a good investment have. They shouldn't have ever gotten sick!
Slashdot Mirror
Man, someone trying to get flamed by implying we couldn't cure death. What a jerk. Good one, mods.
When it's on the ground though, the air coming through the vents often smells like some type of exhaust, I had always guessed it was from the plane engines.
If you get rid of free trade/adopt protectionism you drag the economy down a few pegs and probably destroy at least as many jobs as you save.
I don't know squat about economics; how does that work? Seems like by preventing jobs from leaving the country, the company itself may not earn as much, but you've saved jobs within your own country. That's in my eyes, and anyone who is not a shareholder in said company and selfish, more important. Assuming that the company is going to use the money it saves to reinvest in your home country is not a sure thing to me.
Eew. Algae. What's next, a flight powered by athlete's foot? It's great that we're coming up with alternatives and it could be worse, but I'm wondering what this will make the airports and flights smell like.
1. Most of the time I would think they would not be able to get any useable organs for transplant if the body was unidentifable anyway.
2. They could and would err on the safe side and not harvest organs from John Does. I'd wager that most people who die at hospitals have identification on them. Even if most don't, it would still be more organs donated and more lives saved.
(Kind of an off-topic rant, mostly because I'm seeing a lot of responses saying "See?!? Global warming is clearly crap because it has holes, now leave my diesel-powered hummer alone")
When did people start thinking science was easy and could ever provide a simple answer to anything? At best you get vague general theories, and usually know at least a few big exceptions prior to the theory being written down. And that's when the theory applies to something that is entirely academic. When it has serious economic implications, how clear a picture do you think is going to develop?
Maybe we do need to start adding "just a theory" to evolution taught in high school, and add it to everything else taught in science as well.
It's important to point out the holes in any theory, to critique buisness practices and government regulations, and avoid the harms that global warming could bring about, but resist the temptation to think in terms of black and white on such complex issues.
I think we should make it opt-out. There would be so many more organs available for research and transplant, we could save quite a few lives.
Well one particularly stupid and annoying argument I could see some particularly stupid and annoying and coincidentally persuasive individuals making is that evil/liberal doctors would then euthanize people to harvest their organs.
Probably the more likely reason it's opt-in instead of opt-out is the inevitable greedy lawsuits that "grieving" families would pursue. "He totally had an opt out card at home in a shoebox under his bed, but they took his liver anyway! Poor Johnny wanted to be intact for the great resurection! I want 50 million dollars!"
Laws SHOULD be passed setting up an opt-out database and mandating that if you're not in that and don't have the opt-out signed on your DL, your family cannot sue for that.
Get over the fact that the universe doesn't care about you and help science!
When you put it that way... fuck the universe, I'm keeping it!
Are you sure it was "donating your body" and not "paying the mafia to take a dead body away?"
Edit: shouldn't have said "usually embryonic." What I meant was that was the only time I had run across live human brain tissue in use.
Actually, live brains are sometimes used in medical research, usually embryonic. I've read papers that talk about observing human embryonic cortical development in culture. Naturally, the sources for those brains are not well publicized.
You should then spray WD-40 into it just to make sure. With the WD-40 coating the platter, you can't even run an SEM over it.
Maybe an ignorant question, has anyone EVER used SEM to get data off a hard drive? And I guess maybe a more basic question: we are talking about Scanning Electron Micrograph, right? I don't know that much about hard drives, it just seems like that would be near impossible to do.
Why am I paying taxes again?
Because if they were begging on the street corner and starving you'd probably be whining about that instead.
... pull your head out of the clouds. I agree AIDS is not a reason to not go to space. But saying we need to hop the rock because of a preventable and curable disease is either insane or absurdly callous.
...An industry would look a state like CA that wants to foist stupid regulations upon them STRAIGHT in the eye and tell them to "go suck it".
Won't someone PLEEZE think of the industries?!?
In California we already pay an Electronic Waste Disposal Fee whenever we purchase a new TV that varies based on the price of the TV, but was $20-30 last time I purchased one.
I know! What, are they trying to tell me that 20-30 dollars hasn't saved the environment yet?!? Not to mention if you use your TV as a club to kill a baby seal, that will be even more environmental damage not covered by the fees, AND the state will fine you for that! It's bullshit!
(Recycling of the materials of the TV is one thing, unrelated to energy consumption of the TV while in use, and killing of endangered species.)
Yet another example of the state trying to control its citizens
Crazy conspiracy theory alert. Replace citizens with energy consumption and your statement will be correct.
All it really does is hurt retailers whom are going to loose out on sales in border cities where consumers have more choice in other states
Compared to the downsides of energy overconsumption, that's a tiny risk.
So maybe people should shut up about how Californians are just a bunch of hippies and start wising up to the fact that maybe you're just jealous that California has succeeded at both economic expansion and energy efficiency.
I live in California, so it's not just jealousy. Can I call us a bunch of hippies?
Ah, I think we were having semantic issues there. Yes, a scientist would be pretty dumb to say we should NEVER go into space. I do think it's not ignorant to say we should put it on hold until we get some things sorted out first.
Such scientists would be poor representatives of Human Civilization and should reconsider their role in society.
Or else they just have different priorities as far as research goes. Curing AIDS vs landing on Mars, for me and a good chunk of the world's population, AIDS comes first, I'd advocate that research grants reflect that.
Great, more government intervention in both the market and our lives; the net result will just be less choice and higher prices for TVs everywhere.
Could you support your general hypothesis (government intervention = less choice and higher prices) with past examples? As such, some readers might assume you think it's a proven fact.
Disclaimer: I'm not asking to be facetious, I haven't a clue when it comes to economics. I would tend to think that your hypothesis is wrong, but I recognize that it's entirely because I tend to side with the democratic position on most issues. That of course is no reason to assume they're right.
Actually, I find that we're generally more in favor of increased taxes or increased deficit spending to support increased funding of our research. If something needs to be cut to give us funding, we're more likely to advocate cutting MILITARY space programs, or in the event that there actually is no military space program, cutting military spending period.
We are, after all, mostly liberal elitists who hate America.
Uh... would that be a bad thing or a good thing? Since this would presumably be specific to advertising, it's not exactly doublespeak.
If health insurance started right away instead of 6 months to a year after he went full time (which was also not immediate) you'd be right. Sadly, that was not the case.
At least you can choose to do business with the insurance company......
That's a good option when you're positive you will never, ever get sick or injured. And the choices don't end there, you can often choose between high premiums and high denials of coverage, or even higher premiums and higher denials of coverage. If you've had a bit of the cancer previously, your choices are even better! For instance, a friend of mine got to choose to either stay with a low paying dead-end job with adequate insurance, to switch jobs and go bankrupt with COBRA, or to go without coverage and risk a recurrance that would be classified as a pre-existing condition (again bankrupcy).
Seriously, the benefits of being able to call a number and possibly get your billing straightened out faster with a private company rather than the government more than makes up for the troubles those people who are not a good investment have. They shouldn't have ever gotten sick!
Wait, maybe HE is joking now, in which case you would be a hypocrite!