How does making the handsets in China reduce the cost to ship them to American customers?
It can, actually... If the cheapest way to get an item from coast to coast is a big container ship, then having the loading done by $1/day Chinese labor can be cheaper, if the fuel costs for the slight extra distance doesn't erase it.
I pay some insane shipping costs but when I order stuff from Ebay/Chinese vendors I get it really fast and 1/5 the shipping price.
You can't compare consumer-level shipping prices against the prices large companies pay... Operation costs for all those offices, phone numbers, etc., unsorted versus presorted, pickup costs, etc.
And besides that, "the shipping price" from US or China is just an arbitrary number chosen by the retailer. Many times on eBay, I see a $20 item with $1 shipping, right next to an identical $1 item with $20 shipping from the same seller. And obviously those sellers who offer "free shipping" are still paying to ship it to you.
This is the kind of story that is fine to be left to mainstream news outlets.
Meh, it's an okay story for/. AS LONG AS we don't get 5,000 follow-up stories, several per week, about what mundane thing Balmer and the Clippers happen to be doing... Ala Steve Jobs/Apple, Elon Musk/Tesla/SpaceX, the latest mundane global warming paper, and many, many others.
Just because humans can't reach the next planet as fast as they can drive cross-country, doesn't mean it's impractical to do so. People are just spoiled on cheesy sci-fi, where jumping from system to system only takes a few hours.
How long would YOU be willing to live in a space craft, in order to set foot on another planet? Or a planet in another solar system?
Wagon trains filled with settlers typically took 6 months just to travel from the eastern US to the west, at great expense, and they never planned to return. We can get to Mars in less time than that with current technology.
And as speeds improve to significant fractions of the speed of light, with solar sails, fusion, ramjets, and whatnot, it won't be long before interstellar hops only take a few years.
"If a spaceship could average 10 percent of light speed (and decelerate at the destination, for manned missions), this would be enough to reach Proxima Centauri in forty years."
There's lots of young people who are adventurous or have low enough standards to have such a life be an improvement, who would sign-up for such a 40-year trip. From there, a few generations later, another trip can be launched to the next-closest solar system. The cycle repeating ad-nauseum.
"even the 'slow' kind [of interstellar travel] nearly within the reach of Earth technology, would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy. This is a relatively small amount of time on a geological scale, let alone a cosmological one."
And when we reach 50% of light-speed, a trip to Proxima Centauri is only a 4 year jaunt. It might be a nice place to live, with the previous settlers having developed the infrastructure needed for comfortable human habitation.
Actually I do consider correct and incorrect relative, because for the absolute you'd have to have ALL facts on the table. And we most certainly don't.
That's the kind of attitude that gets people killed. Bleeding patients with leeches isn't a good or effective treatment, no matter if you have a better theory in the wings, or not.
Any (large) known gaps are a good enough indicator that a given theory is probably going to be found inaccurate, and you should NOT depend on any predictions or recommendations offered by the theory, in any given scenario. Best to instead admit its faults, treat it with skepticism, and avoid using it for anything, entirely.
"On balance, scientists arenâ(TM)t entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly."
You're objecting to a definition of fitness/utility, or possible values of it that no one you're arguing agrees with.
No, I'm not, but those disagreeing with me can't seem to see past that.
Let's try one example to get people on-track. I specifically mentioned partner selection... Mutations that give peacocks their brilliant plumage are decidedly wasteful and disadvantageous to their own survival. There is no denying the mutation was disadvantageous to both the individual and the population.
Your reply is a pointless cop-out. I'm not talking about one species versus another, or the totality of changes. I'm talking about specific, undisputed, relatively disadvantageous mutations, that never-the-less get passed-on and cascade through populations. A fact which invalidates your previous assertion about "based on fitness/utility" being a "fact".
Not relevant to the topic. Not realistic at all. Not located with your "spear" remark. Runs contrary to you continuing to fall-back to "guns". And just another cop-out and back peddle from your previous statements.
Grizzly vs. coordinated group of humans = dead grizzly.
No, just an injured grizzly that is going to be eating quite well...Unless you've got a very big group of people... Then you'll eventually be able to kill it, but not until it decimates the first couple waves.
A.30-06 is plenty of gun for a grizzly, with proper shot placement
You're just demonstrating sheer ignorance. It won't stop one unless you get a damn lucky shot off. It's easy to aim for vitals when you're stalking prey, but ridiculously difficult when a bear suddenly charges at you from a hidden position in a nearby tree line. It's completely unrealistic, and just another demonstration of how ignorant and delusional you are.
I've wasted enough time on your fevered fantasies. Goodbye.
Of course some disadvantageous mutations are passed on in some individuals, but the theory of evolution explains how populations and not individuals change over time.
You weren't reading my comment very well. Disadvantageous mutations absolutely do get passed-on to entire populations.
The answers to the evolution question don't correlate with the answers to the other questions because it's measuring something different.
Either you're suggesting this question is the ONLY ONE in the entire test that was measuring scientific literacy... Or you're admitting what you're arguing against, and saying that this question DOESN'T measure scientific literacy. You can't have it both ways. It's either (somehow) related to the rest of the questions, or it's not.
It can't simultaneously be relevant to the topic, but have no effect on other relevant question on the topic. It's simply paradoxical.
That would seem to be an important factor in scientific literacy
An "important factor" that has NO discernible effect on anything else, is NOT an important factor, in any way.
Selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness/utility is a fact
That's stretching it. Micro-evolution has been observed on a small scale, sure, but the fitness/utility part is an assumption, not a fact. There are plenty of cases where mutations passed-on are decidedly disadvantageous... usually excused as being caused by partner selection, too small of a breeding population, or similar, but that's an assumption, too. You don't get too far until you have to leave "facts" behind, and have to go with theories as to the how and why of it all.
But it sure measures the amount of faith people want to put into "a wizard did it" as a valid explanation of something.
Not completely accepting one scientific theory, does NOT imply that you default to supernatural explanations...
Hell, how did intelligent people *LIVE* before Darwin came along? Did their heads explode when someone asked them how humans came to exist? Or was Darwin the first atheist EVER, and scientists came to exist only after he was born?
They'll be lying on the ground bleeding out from a bullet hole a few seconds after they decide to attack me.
Actually, MOST guns aren't large enough to kill a grizzly. But besides that, guns are very modern technology, and you specifically mentioned making "spears" and said:
"Take away modern technology and humans still win."
Slashdot Mirror
Robots don't need health care...
Welcome to 21st century manufacturing.
It can, actually... If the cheapest way to get an item from coast to coast is a big container ship, then having the loading done by $1/day Chinese labor can be cheaper, if the fuel costs for the slight extra distance doesn't erase it.
You can't compare consumer-level shipping prices against the prices large companies pay... Operation costs for all those offices, phone numbers, etc., unsorted versus presorted, pickup costs, etc.
And besides that, "the shipping price" from US or China is just an arbitrary number chosen by the retailer. Many times on eBay, I see a $20 item with $1 shipping, right next to an identical $1 item with $20 shipping from the same seller. And obviously those sellers who offer "free shipping" are still paying to ship it to you.
Every /. thread needs a crazy homeless guy, spouting irrelevant and incomprehensible one-liners...
Meh, it's an okay story for /. AS LONG AS we don't get 5,000 follow-up stories, several per week, about what mundane thing Balmer and the Clippers happen to be doing... Ala Steve Jobs/Apple, Elon Musk/Tesla/SpaceX, the latest mundane global warming paper, and many, many others.
Just because humans can't reach the next planet as fast as they can drive cross-country, doesn't mean it's impractical to do so. People are just spoiled on cheesy sci-fi, where jumping from system to system only takes a few hours.
How long would YOU be willing to live in a space craft, in order to set foot on another planet? Or a planet in another solar system?
Wagon trains filled with settlers typically took 6 months just to travel from the eastern US to the west, at great expense, and they never planned to return. We can get to Mars in less time than that with current technology.
And as speeds improve to significant fractions of the speed of light, with solar sails, fusion, ramjets, and whatnot, it won't be long before interstellar hops only take a few years.
"If a spaceship could average 10 percent of light speed (and decelerate at the destination, for manned missions), this would be enough to reach Proxima Centauri in forty years."
There's lots of young people who are adventurous or have low enough standards to have such a life be an improvement, who would sign-up for such a 40-year trip. From there, a few generations later, another trip can be launched to the next-closest solar system. The cycle repeating ad-nauseum.
"even the 'slow' kind [of interstellar travel] nearly within the reach of Earth technology, would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy. This is a relatively small amount of time on a geological scale, let alone a cosmological one."
And when we reach 50% of light-speed, a trip to Proxima Centauri is only a 4 year jaunt. It might be a nice place to live, with the previous settlers having developed the infrastructure needed for comfortable human habitation.
Very eloquently said...
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
You mean I can have the same nausea at home that I have at the theatre? WHERE DO I SIGN UP???
And do you have any suggestions for replicating the sticky floors and people walking up and down the isles during the film?
Only in summer, during the daylight hours. Clouds at night unquestionably keep temperatures WARMER than it would be without them.
That's the kind of attitude that gets people killed. Bleeding patients with leeches isn't a good or effective treatment, no matter if you have a better theory in the wings, or not.
Any (large) known gaps are a good enough indicator that a given theory is probably going to be found inaccurate, and you should NOT depend on any predictions or recommendations offered by the theory, in any given scenario. Best to instead admit its faults, treat it with skepticism, and avoid using it for anything, entirely.
There is no such balancing effect. Clouds can reduce or can increase heating, both, depending on local climate and time-of-day.
Furthermore, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. You don't want more of it!
"Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a 'positive feedback' that amplifies the original warming."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"On balance, scientists arenâ(TM)t entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly."
http://www.earthobservatory.na...
"Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming effect. However, the effect varies daily and annually"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, I'm not, but those disagreeing with me can't seem to see past that.
Let's try one example to get people on-track. I specifically mentioned partner selection... Mutations that give peacocks their brilliant plumage are decidedly wasteful and disadvantageous to their own survival. There is no denying the mutation was disadvantageous to both the individual and the population.
Your reply is a pointless cop-out. I'm not talking about one species versus another, or the totality of changes. I'm talking about specific, undisputed, relatively disadvantageous mutations, that never-the-less get passed-on and cascade through populations. A fact which invalidates your previous assertion about "based on fitness/utility" being a "fact".
Not relevant to the topic. Not realistic at all. Not located with your "spear" remark. Runs contrary to you continuing to fall-back to "guns". And just another cop-out and back peddle from your previous statements.
No, just an injured grizzly that is going to be eating quite well...Unless you've got a very big group of people... Then you'll eventually be able to kill it, but not until it decimates the first couple waves.
You're just demonstrating sheer ignorance. It won't stop one unless you get a damn lucky shot off. It's easy to aim for vitals when you're stalking prey, but ridiculously difficult when a bear suddenly charges at you from a hidden position in a nearby tree line. It's completely unrealistic, and just another demonstration of how ignorant and delusional you are.
I've wasted enough time on your fevered fantasies. Goodbye.
This is a non-sequitur. A theory can be disputed and disproven, without any superior alternative theories. Correct and incorrect are NOT relative.
You weren't reading my comment very well. Disadvantageous mutations absolutely do get passed-on to entire populations.
Either you're suggesting this question is the ONLY ONE in the entire test that was measuring scientific literacy... Or you're admitting what you're arguing against, and saying that this question DOESN'T measure scientific literacy. You can't have it both ways. It's either (somehow) related to the rest of the questions, or it's not.
It can't simultaneously be relevant to the topic, but have no effect on other relevant question on the topic. It's simply paradoxical.
An "important factor" that has NO discernible effect on anything else, is NOT an important factor, in any way.
That's stretching it. Micro-evolution has been observed on a small scale, sure, but the fitness/utility part is an assumption, not a fact. There are plenty of cases where mutations passed-on are decidedly disadvantageous... usually excused as being caused by partner selection, too small of a breeding population, or similar, but that's an assumption, too. You don't get too far until you have to leave "facts" behind, and have to go with theories as to the how and why of it all.
Not completely accepting one scientific theory, does NOT imply that you default to supernatural explanations...
Hell, how did intelligent people *LIVE* before Darwin came along? Did their heads explode when someone asked them how humans came to exist? Or was Darwin the first atheist EVER, and scientists came to exist only after he was born?
Just which software would you suggest, as an alternative to spreadsheets, that works great when you mis-type the data you're analyzing?
It's not theoretical at all. The US (and UN) fought massive numbers of Chinese forces in Korea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You admit you were utterly wrong, but can't resist the urge to spin it, somehow, to make it seem like a less-idiotic statement.
Only because they felt like disabling that option after the fall of the Soviet Union. It could easily be reinstated.
Actually, MOST guns aren't large enough to kill a grizzly. But besides that, guns are very modern technology, and you specifically mentioned making "spears" and said:
"Take away modern technology and humans still win."
Problem is, they don't.