Well I does depend on how you measure pollutants. Nuclear energy produces tons and tons and tons of extremely long lived nuclear waste, it is a completely different kind of pollutant but it is a pollutant just the same.
... how a single comment has yet to say the obvious. No matter if you are pro or anti nuclear GP has just proven that obviously security measures need to be beefed up. There is absolutely no reason that a hostile, unOKed, group of people should be able to break into a nuclear power plant and have enough time to hang up a big sign in the middle of the factory and then escape.
There are Chrome equivalents of all moderately popular FF extensions. Some of them have a radically different GUI, some of them I do not like as much, but all in all there is a good selection of workable extensions.
Because basically no one has money left over at the end of the year, they cannot guaranty that every cent goes where it would of gone (you should assume that more of it shifts towards the quality artists instead of the best advertised). But when all things are said and done the same amount has been spent on luxuries and theoretically the population are also happier because they got more luxuries then they could of possibly paid for.
So everyone still contributes as much as they can possibly afford and everyone is happier because they also get as much as they want.
All in all it does kindof seem like a good way for the Swish to optimizing quality of life.
Well of course a novel play would slow them down. The reason they are so fast is because they no longer thing about the normal stuff, it is ingrained like a champion chess player. But that does not mean that they are unable to cope with the never seen before.
But market segregation is not as good for the consumer as actually competition. Right now IE is being it normal moderately incompetent competition hating self, Firefox decided to start throwing crap at its users and Chrome is the only browser that seems to have a clue about anything.
That the scientific consensus was that animals did not know anything special and all the reports of precognition of devastating events were miss-rememberences or random chance.
well a ethnic group is not quite an entire species but it is still important, It is part of the same issue. But as long as we are getting off topic someone could mention that the mosquito would not be the first genocide that the Americans enacted.
But don't they have cures for that? Sure its kills lots of people, but only the the ones no one gives a damn enough to do anything for them. There are vaccines (or at least partial ones) and there are treatments.
Well first only the only diseases that are spread anywhere I know of by mosquitoes only kill the old and infirm (people who at least have a very very good chance of dying from something very soon be it a mosquito bite or simply getting the flu). If you kill all the mosquitoes, sure the number of mosquito related deaths might become zero "saving thousands", but that would be with a similarly sized increase in all the other causes of death to the infirm.
And secondly killing the mosquitoes will likely result in the extinction or near extinction of all bug eating birds and bats, leaving the entire country open to wave upon wave of other insects.
basically to create moderators that can themselves create moderators in a never-ending fractal like pyramid.
Seems to me in a lot of situations either you would get the same, only one type of opinion is wanted, because the moderators are careful to only award that that group and revoke if they see otherwise, or simply everyone eventually becomes a moderator.
And many communities are not really geared towards knowing the other members well, sure you see lots of interesting insightful posts by people but that does not guarantee that they would make a good moderator.
I have been commenting here longer then my adult life and know of no one that I have particular reason to believe that they would be a better moderator then anyone else. And on the other hand if you simply went my insightful/professional posts well then I could compile a list of a thousand people.
"three anecdotes don't make up for published data, and the movie was biased and badly made" And I would that that is a good summery of both the article and the skeptical side of my opinion on the movie.
Specifically my common scene remark was aimed at that he constantly berates the film and B for using testimonials instead of evidence. It is a documentary, and no matter how much I disagree I acknowledged the fact that the vast majority of people like testimonials and hate graphs, numbers, and facts. But quite a lot of his "evidence" was shaky at best and it read more like a heated rant then scientific opinion, not that it does not contains scientifically valid points and evidence.
But is he not still practising? It is to dangerous to test on patients, but we will allow him to sell it to whoever is willing?
It seems that the anti B crowd skirts around the issue far more then B. From what I have heard from B, either he is lying or he has a effective treatment. But all the anti B crowd seems to say is that it should not work so we do not have to even look at any of his findings and just call him a quack. Show me some combined average of all cases he has ever treated and show me the 95% death rate that you would expect. That is really all I care about, you can nitpick about the science or the behaviour of a specific case, you can show me testimonials on both sides but really it should be easy to tell if 95% of all patients who start and follow through with his treatment die shortly afterwards or if more live then you would expect.
He has some interesting insights and seemed to know what he was talking about but just goes on and on (I must of read about 1000 words of name calling before I even got to when he was trying to provide scientific evidence) and used way to much "evidence" against B that is really only evidence if you are willing to ignore common sense.
So they are taking the domains and blacklisting them. Good luck for the next guy who buys these domains, what a way to ruin a business, buy a domain that is court ordered not to appear in any social networking or search.
Watched that movie, but I am not sure that anything said in it is a lie or the truth. I do know that he at least seemed moderately legit, and normally it is quite easy to spot the frauds. And one of the most convincing arguments I can come up with for him being legit is that there are a lot of better/easier/saver/less ethically horrible then to doom people to death from cancer for the relatively tiny amount of money he charges for his treatment.
From that argument alone I would have to say I believe that he believes that his cure works. He is just way to obviously smart to not be able to make so much more with less risk with another fraud, so the only real reason to do this would be if it works (or at least he thinks it works), or he enjoys watching cancer patients die. But of all the cancer cures I have heard about this is one of the less reputable sounding.
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism" But only real educated criticise. Not criticise coming form people who know nothing about medicine or your proposed treatment. I admit I have not read the original article, but unless I am missing my guess this is just some stupid high schooler who is criticising doctors. Ignoring that in general the medical community does not agree with this guy I imagine that any medical center would sue when confronted with ignorant bloggers copying and recopying each other and, irregardless to the effectiveness of the procedure, probably changing know facts in the process.
Criticise is part of science, criticism from your peers, not random people/high schoolers. That is like saying that these evolutionary biologists are not being very scientific when they do not respond/sue fundamentalist Christians who badger and criticize them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I does depend on how you measure pollutants. Nuclear energy produces tons and tons and tons of extremely long lived nuclear waste, it is a completely different kind of pollutant but it is a pollutant just the same.
... how a single comment has yet to say the obvious.
No matter if you are pro or anti nuclear GP has just proven that obviously security measures need to be beefed up. There is absolutely no reason that a hostile, unOKed, group of people should be able to break into a nuclear power plant and have enough time to hang up a big sign in the middle of the factory and then escape.
If FF switches over to Bing it will hurt its market share.
There are Chrome equivalents of all moderately popular FF extensions.
Some of them have a radically different GUI, some of them I do not like as much, but all in all there is a good selection of workable extensions.
Because basically no one has money left over at the end of the year, they cannot guaranty that every cent goes where it would of gone (you should assume that more of it shifts towards the quality artists instead of the best advertised). But when all things are said and done the same amount has been spent on luxuries and theoretically the population are also happier because they got more luxuries then they could of possibly paid for.
So everyone still contributes as much as they can possibly afford and everyone is happier because they also get as much as they want.
All in all it does kindof seem like a good way for the Swish to optimizing quality of life.
Well of course a novel play would slow them down. The reason they are so fast is because they no longer thing about the normal stuff, it is ingrained like a champion chess player. But that does not mean that they are unable to cope with the never seen before.
But market segregation is not as good for the consumer as actually competition.
Right now IE is being it normal moderately incompetent competition hating self, Firefox decided to start throwing crap at its users and Chrome is the only browser that seems to have a clue about anything.
That the scientific consensus was that animals did not know anything special and all the reports of precognition of devastating events were miss-rememberences or random chance.
But they could slow down the transition to green for the other side to prevent collisions.
well a ethnic group is not quite an entire species but it is still important, It is part of the same issue.
But as long as we are getting off topic someone could mention that the mosquito would not be the first genocide that the Americans enacted.
Youth is a infirmity...
And for example we do have treatments and partial vaccines for malaria.
We have cures and partial vaccines for malaria. It only exists because no ones gives a damn for those people.
But don't they have cures for that? Sure its kills lots of people, but only the the ones no one gives a damn enough to do anything for them.
There are vaccines (or at least partial ones) and there are treatments.
Well first only the only diseases that are spread anywhere I know of by mosquitoes only kill the old and infirm (people who at least have a very very good chance of dying from something very soon be it a mosquito bite or simply getting the flu).
If you kill all the mosquitoes, sure the number of mosquito related deaths might become zero "saving thousands", but that would be with a similarly sized increase in all the other causes of death to the infirm.
And secondly killing the mosquitoes will likely result in the extinction or near extinction of all bug eating birds and bats, leaving the entire country open to wave upon wave of other insects.
You would think that some organization like the UN would step in and tell the US that genocide of an entire species is not a good thing.
basically to create moderators that can themselves create moderators in a never-ending fractal like pyramid.
Seems to me in a lot of situations either you would get the same, only one type of opinion is wanted, because the moderators are careful to only award that that group and revoke if they see otherwise, or simply everyone eventually becomes a moderator.
And many communities are not really geared towards knowing the other members well, sure you see lots of interesting insightful posts by people but that does not guarantee that they would make a good moderator.
I have been commenting here longer then my adult life and know of no one that I have particular reason to believe that they would be a better moderator then anyone else. And on the other hand if you simply went my insightful/professional posts well then I could compile a list of a thousand people.
That would make sense, unfortunately I do not see many human who strive to improve anything.
"three anecdotes don't make up for published data, and the movie was biased and badly made"
And I would that that is a good summery of both the article and the skeptical side of my opinion on the movie.
Specifically my common scene remark was aimed at that he constantly berates the film and B for using testimonials instead of evidence.
It is a documentary, and no matter how much I disagree I acknowledged the fact that the vast majority of people like testimonials and hate graphs, numbers, and facts.
But quite a lot of his "evidence" was shaky at best and it read more like a heated rant then scientific opinion, not that it does not contains scientifically valid points and evidence.
But is he not still practising?
It is to dangerous to test on patients, but we will allow him to sell it to whoever is willing?
It seems that the anti B crowd skirts around the issue far more then B.
From what I have heard from B, either he is lying or he has a effective treatment.
But all the anti B crowd seems to say is that it should not work so we do not have to even look at any of his findings and just call him a quack. Show me some combined average of all cases he has ever treated and show me the 95% death rate that you would expect.
That is really all I care about, you can nitpick about the science or the behaviour of a specific case, you can show me testimonials on both sides but really it should be easy to tell if 95% of all patients who start and follow through with his treatment die shortly afterwards or if more live then you would expect.
He has some interesting insights and seemed to know what he was talking about but just goes on and on (I must of read about 1000 words of name calling before I even got to when he was trying to provide scientific evidence) and used way to much "evidence" against B that is really only evidence if you are willing to ignore common sense.
So they are taking the domains and blacklisting them.
Good luck for the next guy who buys these domains, what a way to ruin a business, buy a domain that is court ordered not to appear in any social networking or search.
Watched that movie, but I am not sure that anything said in it is a lie or the truth.
I do know that he at least seemed moderately legit, and normally it is quite easy to spot the frauds.
And one of the most convincing arguments I can come up with for him being legit is that there are a lot of better/easier/saver/less ethically horrible then to doom people to death from cancer for the relatively tiny amount of money he charges for his treatment.
From that argument alone I would have to say I believe that he believes that his cure works. He is just way to obviously smart to not be able to make so much more with less risk with another fraud, so the only real reason to do this would be if it works (or at least he thinks it works), or he enjoys watching cancer patients die.
But of all the cancer cures I have heard about this is one of the less reputable sounding.
"That’s because real science thrives on criticism"
But only real educated criticise. Not criticise coming form people who know nothing about medicine or your proposed treatment.
I admit I have not read the original article, but unless I am missing my guess this is just some stupid high schooler who is criticising doctors.
Ignoring that in general the medical community does not agree with this guy I imagine that any medical center would sue when confronted with ignorant bloggers copying and recopying each other and, irregardless to the effectiveness of the procedure, probably changing know facts in the process.
Criticise is part of science, criticism from your peers, not random people/high schoolers.
That is like saying that these evolutionary biologists are not being very scientific when they do not respond/sue fundamentalist Christians who badger and criticize them.
Well they said that they have already controlled the temperature to be the same in each test.
So either their methods are hopelessly flawed or this result doe snot have to do with heat.
Or the C/C+ program that has to be shut down every 30 minutes so that it does not take over all of your RAM with its massive memory leak.