It's not like we have a perfect overview of how significantly reducing these mosquito populations will affect all other animals that feed on them (and the animals that feed on those, plants that depend on their excrement etc), just to name one potential unintended side effect. Or how it may allow other animals to largely expand their population due to reduced competition for habitats or food sources (mosquitos generally don't survive on blood, that's just what they need for procreation). Or conversely, certain nutrients no longer getting sufficiently removed from the water by mosquito larvae, resulting on too high concentrations of certain substances that then start killing other animals or plants.
We're talking about extinguishing one species of mosquito. There are thousands of species out there. They will simply expand their numbers and fill the ecological niche left empty by the death of Aedes Aegypti.
But for the sake of the argument, let's assume that your doomsday scenario does happen. Would you rather risk having children with microcephalia and no ecological imbalance? Or do you actually live somewhere that mosquitos do not proliferate, so you are actually just risking other people's children, not your own?
FYI, I do live in an area where it is full of mosquitos, and I would let the fucking bats go extinct if this is what it takes to protect my children.
Because they are not sexy enough. Seriously. The female mosquitos do not want to mate with them, so they don't make much impact.
But what I'm curious about is why don't they use the GMO mosquitos that only have male descendents. That would quickly bring the species to extinction.
The pound fluctuates against the euro, it always has done and it always will. It went from 1.3 to 1.2, but it's been 1.04 before.
That is a bit of an understatement, Gomuchul. The pound has hit 1.04€, it is true, but in the height of the 2008 crysis. If you look at the whole history of the GBP vs. EUR exchange rate, you see that the pound starts off rather valuable, decreases to about 1.5€ and stays there for some yeara, then crashes to 1.05€ in the 2008 crysis, slowly recovers to 1.5€, and then rapidly gets down to 1.2€ as the referendum gets near.
It's true that the effect is not linear, as lots od the pounds are spent in Britain itself, but still the economy is deeply integrated with the EU. I'm sure the amount of wealth lost is much larger than 8 billion pounds, even if it doean't reach 180 billion pounds.
You think that there is peace in Europe because the troops stationed in Germany and the nuclear weapons of France and the UK? Seriously? So the Germans would love to invade everyone again, and only don't do that because they fear the mighty British? You are living in a fantasy world. Wake up. Go visit Germany. Talk to them. Read about the origins of the EU, about the Coal and Steel Community. Read what Churchill thought about it.
It is common courtesy to write some text around your links, or at least make them clickable via some basic html.
But nevermind that. The point of your links is that the UK does send about 8 billion pounds to the EU every year (much less than the 18 billion claimed by the Leavers), which is true. But the question to ask is whether this is just money burned, or is it an investment that pays off. In other words, is the extra money the UK makes from being in the EU more than 8 billion an year?
Well, given that the UK's GDP is about 1800 billion pounds, and that the pounds lost about 10% of its value since the Brexit referendum, the UK is already 180 billion bounds poorer. France has immediately overtaken it as the 5th largest economy in the aftermath of the referendum. This suggests that the contribution to the EU budget is just chump change compared to the value of being in the EU.
It is not better than photovoltaic cells. It is just more compatible with our current energy infrastructure. There are billions of cars out there that run on hydrocarbons. It is way easier to give them a clean source of hydrocarbons than to scrap them and build billions of electric cars.
I wanted to pay for Game of Thrones. I really wanted. I have plenty of money and I like the show, why not? And I wanted to watch it on Sunday night rather than wait for the torrents to be available on Monday morning.
So I looked it up online, it turns out that HBO does stream it, for 15 dollars a month. A bit expensive for a single series, but whatever. I have already watched too much of it for free anyway. Ok, do they stream it live? Yep, but on US time. In the UK they show it Monday night. Ugh. So paying for it won't even let me watch it on Sunday night. Whatever, at least it will be more convenient than downloading torrents from KAT or Pirate Bay, that are constantly being DDOS'ed. So, how do I sign up? I need to use a smartphone. Weird stuff. Why I smartphone? I'm not going to watch Game of Thrones on my phone, I'm going to watch it on my computer. Ok, so they allow me to watch it on my computer after I sign up through the phone. Sigh. Ok, to Google Play, and, where is it? No HBO app. Oh, it's US only. So go fuck yourself, HBO. Back to KAT.
And this is why torrent sites will never disappear. Even people that can and want to pay for the content are forced to torrent it. Even if they manage to kill KAT, there will be other sites where I will watch the next season.
Because people are not stupid. They don't like wasting their votes.
Have you ever thought about the fact the US is the only OECD country with only two parties in parliament? You think this is because people just love the Republicans and Democrats? Or maybe because the political system makes any third party completely inviable?
Because people know that voting for a third party is just wasting their vote. Face it, without changing this insane political system there will always be only two parties in the US.
You're overthinking it. The explanation is much simpler: Wikileaks was created and is run by English-speaking people, for whom it is much easier to make contact with sources and hackers that speak English. And the sources are going to leak from organizations in the US, because that is where they work. And the hackers are going to hack networks in the US, because these are the networks they know.
TTIP is seen in Europe as purely an economic issue.
No it isn't. It is rather political, mainly because of the insistence of the US in demanding investor-state dispute settlement, i.e., that corporations should have the right to overturn laws that threaten their profits. Besides that, there is also the European aversion to GMOs, that would be sold here if TTIP were approved.
What you are arguing against is a very common, and very wrong, way to explain how quantum computers work. It is notoriously hard to explain it concisely, but even Trudeau did better than that.
You do start by putting all the solutions of the problem in a superposition, but that in itself doesn't help, as if you just try to read it off you will get a random solution. And a random solution you could get just by running a classical computer with a random number generator.
What you have to do is make all the solutions interfere, a delicate coreography of wrong solutions cancelling each other and correct solutions being reinforced. After that you make a measurement, and get a correct solution with high probability.
All these had much lower death rates than the usual shooting sprees. Come on, the one you said was almost as bad as Pulse needed 8 attackers to kill 29 people. It is obvious that if every gun would magically disappear many lives would be saved.
You're just being facetious. Of course it is there because France wanted it. As the EU's benevolence towards the tax havens is there just because of the British. And the obsession with low inflation and deficits is there because of the Germans.
I'm afraid you are right. They are going to try to drag this crap as long as possible. And this would be a deadly blow to the EU. I hope they see this and refuse to play along.
Wow. This is an incredibly stupid design decision. I have driven several different automatic vehicles. All of them had a special position to park and reverse (at least).
They are fucking themselves over if they accept such a demand. It would be the end of the EU. And how about the business lobby in the UK, that madly wants cheap labour from Portugal and Poland?
Well, but it is not that useful to discuss is it? Brexit happened, it is no longer a hypothetical. We shall see very soon who is right. Unfortunately, we shall.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like we have a perfect overview of how significantly reducing these mosquito populations will affect all other animals that feed on them (and the animals that feed on those, plants that depend on their excrement etc), just to name one potential unintended side effect. Or how it may allow other animals to largely expand their population due to reduced competition for habitats or food sources (mosquitos generally don't survive on blood, that's just what they need for procreation). Or conversely, certain nutrients no longer getting sufficiently removed from the water by mosquito larvae, resulting on too high concentrations of certain substances that then start killing other animals or plants.
We're talking about extinguishing one species of mosquito. There are thousands of species out there. They will simply expand their numbers and fill the ecological niche left empty by the death of Aedes Aegypti.
But for the sake of the argument, let's assume that your doomsday scenario does happen. Would you rather risk having children with microcephalia and no ecological imbalance? Or do you actually live somewhere that mosquitos do not proliferate, so you are actually just risking other people's children, not your own?
FYI, I do live in an area where it is full of mosquitos, and I would let the fucking bats go extinct if this is what it takes to protect my children.
Because they are not sexy enough. Seriously. The female mosquitos do not want to mate with them, so they don't make much impact.
But what I'm curious about is why don't they use the GMO mosquitos that only have male descendents. That would quickly bring the species to extinction.
I don't see your point.
The pound fluctuates against the euro, it always has done and it always will. It went from 1.3 to 1.2, but it's been 1.04 before.
That is a bit of an understatement, Gomuchul. The pound has hit 1.04€, it is true, but in the height of the 2008 crysis. If you look at the whole history of the GBP vs. EUR exchange rate, you see that the pound starts off rather valuable, decreases to about 1.5€ and stays there for some yeara, then crashes to 1.05€ in the 2008 crysis, slowly recovers to 1.5€, and then rapidly gets down to 1.2€ as the referendum gets near.
It's true that the effect is not linear, as lots od the pounds are spent in Britain itself, but still the economy is deeply integrated with the EU. I'm sure the amount of wealth lost is much larger than 8 billion pounds, even if it doean't reach 180 billion pounds.
You think that there is peace in Europe because the troops stationed in Germany and the nuclear weapons of France and the UK? Seriously? So the Germans would love to invade everyone again, and only don't do that because they fear the mighty British? You are living in a fantasy world. Wake up. Go visit Germany. Talk to them. Read about the origins of the EU, about the Coal and Steel Community. Read what Churchill thought about it.
It is common courtesy to write some text around your links, or at least make them clickable via some basic html.
But nevermind that. The point of your links is that the UK does send about 8 billion pounds to the EU every year (much less than the 18 billion claimed by the Leavers), which is true. But the question to ask is whether this is just money burned, or is it an investment that pays off. In other words, is the extra money the UK makes from being in the EU more than 8 billion an year?
Well, given that the UK's GDP is about 1800 billion pounds, and that the pounds lost about 10% of its value since the Brexit referendum, the UK is already 180 billion bounds poorer. France has immediately overtaken it as the 5th largest economy in the aftermath of the referendum. This suggests that the contribution to the EU budget is just chump change compared to the value of being in the EU.
Are you being sarcastic? Or do you really believe that Britain is losing money with the EU? Oh boy you are in for some cognitive dissonance.
It is not better than photovoltaic cells. It is just more compatible with our current energy infrastructure. There are billions of cars out there that run on hydrocarbons. It is way easier to give them a clean source of hydrocarbons than to scrap them and build billions of electric cars.
I wanted to pay for Game of Thrones. I really wanted. I have plenty of money and I like the show, why not? And I wanted to watch it on Sunday night rather than wait for the torrents to be available on Monday morning.
So I looked it up online, it turns out that HBO does stream it, for 15 dollars a month. A bit expensive for a single series, but whatever. I have already watched too much of it for free anyway. Ok, do they stream it live? Yep, but on US time. In the UK they show it Monday night. Ugh. So paying for it won't even let me watch it on Sunday night. Whatever, at least it will be more convenient than downloading torrents from KAT or Pirate Bay, that are constantly being DDOS'ed. So, how do I sign up? I need to use a smartphone. Weird stuff. Why I smartphone? I'm not going to watch Game of Thrones on my phone, I'm going to watch it on my computer. Ok, so they allow me to watch it on my computer after I sign up through the phone. Sigh. Ok, to Google Play, and, where is it? No HBO app. Oh, it's US only. So go fuck yourself, HBO. Back to KAT.
And this is why torrent sites will never disappear. Even people that can and want to pay for the content are forced to torrent it. Even if they manage to kill KAT, there will be other sites where I will watch the next season.
Because people are not stupid. They don't like wasting their votes.
Have you ever thought about the fact the US is the only OECD country with only two parties in parliament? You think this is because people just love the Republicans and Democrats? Or maybe because the political system makes any third party completely inviable?
Because people know that voting for a third party is just wasting their vote. Face it, without changing this insane political system there will always be only two parties in the US.
You're overthinking it. The explanation is much simpler: Wikileaks was created and is run by English-speaking people, for whom it is much easier to make contact with sources and hackers that speak English. And the sources are going to leak from organizations in the US, because that is where they work. And the hackers are going to hack networks in the US, because these are the networks they know.
There is massive public opposition to the TTP and TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic.
To be honest Europeans don't really care about the TTP, they just really dislike the TTIP.
TTIP is seen in Europe as purely an economic issue.
No it isn't. It is rather political, mainly because of the insistence of the US in demanding investor-state dispute settlement, i.e., that corporations should have the right to overturn laws that threaten their profits. Besides that, there is also the European aversion to GMOs, that would be sold here if TTIP were approved.
Yep =)
What you are arguing against is a very common, and very wrong, way to explain how quantum computers work. It is notoriously hard to explain it concisely, but even Trudeau did better than that.
You do start by putting all the solutions of the problem in a superposition, but that in itself doesn't help, as if you just try to read it off you will get a random solution. And a random solution you could get just by running a classical computer with a random number generator.
What you have to do is make all the solutions interfere, a delicate coreography of wrong solutions cancelling each other and correct solutions being reinforced. After that you make a measurement, and get a correct solution with high probability.
Arguing about semantics? I'm arguing that guns are deadlier than knifes.
All these had much lower death rates than the usual shooting sprees. Come on, the one you said was almost as bad as Pulse needed 8 attackers to kill 29 people. It is obvious that if every gun would magically disappear many lives would be saved.
You might find it harder to commit mass murder with knives or baseball bats.
You're just being facetious. Of course it is there because France wanted it. As the EU's benevolence towards the tax havens is there just because of the British. And the obsession with low inflation and deficits is there because of the Germans.
Wow. That was fast. Merkel will not play along.
I'm afraid you are right. They are going to try to drag this crap as long as possible. And this would be a deadly blow to the EU. I hope they see this and refuse to play along.
Wow. This is an incredibly stupid design decision. I have driven several different automatic vehicles. All of them had a special position to park and reverse (at least).
They are fucking themselves over if they accept such a demand. It would be the end of the EU. And how about the business lobby in the UK, that madly wants cheap labour from Portugal and Poland?
Well, but it is not that useful to discuss is it? Brexit happened, it is no longer a hypothetical. We shall see very soon who is right. Unfortunately, we shall.
You seriously think that the EU will let the UK have access to the single market without accepting immigration? You are delusional.
He asked for it, and the EU said no. Not a chance. Not even countries outside the EU (Norway and Switzerland) get to opt out of freedom of movement.
I, as an EU citizen, think it is better to have the UK out than to lose freedom of movement.