Because there is a lot to do before it even gets to the point of 'unleashing them' Also unleashing them means no controls, so it gets hard to say which worked. And then they are often target for specific cancers and so on. You don go "Hay, this working in this one lab under these condition, lets give it to people.
You know what else kills cancer in the lag? heating it to 1000c. Maybe we should unleash that?
not more illegal then meth. Idiot. It has some supposed medicinal benefits. Mostly appetite related. It doesn't cure anything. I should note that when ti goes to vote people shoot it down.
That said, I am all for it's legalization. Its simple stupid and hypocritical for it to be illegal. Sadly a lot of voters still have the Reagan mind set.
ONce again, a poster ranting aganr pharmacutical companies overlooks the big picture. Money.
Legalizing it would mean medical dosing. It would mean needing to sell a tightly controlled plants, it would mean control. It would mean not spending money on drugs for similar effect, it wuld mean patenting ways to grow and genetically manipulate plants. Did you know that if you take a pill whose chemical comes from a plant, you coudl trace that pill all the way back to the fields where is was grown? often to the very plant.
That process would allow pot to be a profit for them. And then there is non medical legalization. Who do you think would profit from that? Tobacco companies.
So, It's in too very powerful industries best interest for it to be legal.
It;s not legal because the 'moral majority' says its bad and immoral. And that gets fed through the largest and most controlling organization of all: Religion.
If you would look at the the math and the plan you would see that it doesn't actually 'screw' future generations. It is in no way a ponzi scheme..but man, that certainly is an emotional scare word! so it must be right!
I pretty sure 18months after '29 the market was lower . And 18 months after 40, and 18moth after 2006. If you invested in 98, ou just now getting back. so that's 14 years of.. nothing. You could have stuffed the money in you mattress and be right where you where. Or put in int a 1% interest saving account and be better off.
Anyways, those are 2010 numbers for Americans. how many American dies last year do to war? a few hundred? how many american where killed in an act of genocide? I'm thinking 0
Frankly I would put people who died in wars of 2010 under self inflicted. Hey, they signed up to go kill people in hostile environments.
Had they been conscripted, then you would start to have a point.
"s nothing to suggest that human population growth will be any different," you mean besides the fact that there is always an effort to stop that?
"are all kinds of things that suggest that the human population is rapidly approaching the crash point" yeah, I've been hearing that song my whole life.
5 Billion people! we will all starve. 6 billion people! the world can hold that many people. 7 billion people! clearly we are all going to crash.
Had you actually read Malthus, you would understand that the man himself didn't even think it would be apocalyptic.
The C*O of the first company to put a cancer cure on the market will be 10's, if not 100's of millions of dollars. Unless you propose the people at the top are so kind they would be happy to let the next CEO, or some other company make the money.
"50 years ago the U.S. could put a man into space. Today it can't." and 60 years ago we couldn't. What;s tyiour point? It hasn't been a goal. If congress said 'Go to the moon' we would be there in less then 10 years.
"50 years ago the U.S. was at the forefront of particle physics. Today it isn't. Because other countries are spending money and our competitive.
"50 years ago the U.S. started development of 3 different spacecraft on 5 different man rated rockets over a 7 year span." because they had money and were told to develop a space program.
"50 years ago the U.S. had a plane capable of traveling at Mach 3.35. Today it doesn't. this is just false.
While there is a need for concern, and for people like you to take action and be involved regularly, the issues you mention are a result of 'going backwards'.
If launch detection n is a concern, we have better stealth capabilities. We have a plan that can deploy bombs at supersonic speeds, and stealth. Not that it matter. What happen after it detonates? every country will know, and there would be serious issues. so, again, putting weapons in space is stupid. You can't maintain it, you don't have complete control over it, and if it deorbits you have a political and military nightmare. Plus it's not large enough to hit all the enemies launch capabilities. SO they will still retaliate.
A don't even pretend to lecture me on Project Thor. which, by the way, would be 6.1 meters long, not 2 meters. And a 2 meters, even if it was lead, would be about 225Kg worth of energy. And you would only have a few of them. Awfully expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
In order for it to be an issue, you will need a tidal wave to damage/remove the back up generators.
So, to answer your question, nothing. On the plus side, they will allows to start restoring electricity very quickly.
Yes..but not much. More important is the debris that gets spewed out with a solar flare.
The Mayans are still around, dumb ass.
the same way I know a rock isn't sentient. It exhibits no evidence of sentience.
Maybe if it just took out satellites carrying television signals?
THAT would wake people up.
He said in an article about solar flares.
well as close as you can without actually trying.
Big bang theory. Dumb jokes insulting smart people while pandering to people under the illusion that if they are a geek, they are therefor smart.
No, thanks to scientists for all there hard wok and innovative thinking. Thanks to the politicians who push to fund research.
Human are awesome.
Because there is a lot to do before it even gets to the point of 'unleashing them' Also unleashing them means no controls, so it gets hard to say which worked. And then they are often target for specific cancers and so on.
You don go "Hay, this working in this one lab under these condition, lets give it to people.
You know what else kills cancer in the lag? heating it to 1000c. Maybe we should unleash that?
Science generally moves at 1 baby step at a time.
not more illegal then meth. Idiot.
It has some supposed medicinal benefits. Mostly appetite related. It doesn't cure anything.
I should note that when ti goes to vote people shoot it down.
That said, I am all for it's legalization. Its simple stupid and hypocritical for it to be illegal. Sadly a lot of voters still have the Reagan mind set.
ONce again, a poster ranting aganr pharmacutical companies overlooks the big picture. Money.
Legalizing it would mean medical dosing. It would mean needing to sell a tightly controlled plants, it would mean control. It would mean not spending money on drugs for similar effect, it wuld mean patenting ways to grow and genetically manipulate plants.
Did you know that if you take a pill whose chemical comes from a plant, you coudl trace that pill all the way back to the fields where is was grown? often to the very plant.
That process would allow pot to be a profit for them.
And then there is non medical legalization. Who do you think would profit from that? Tobacco companies.
So, It's in too very powerful industries best interest for it to be legal.
It;s not legal because the 'moral majority' says its bad and immoral. And that gets fed through the largest and most controlling organization of all: Religion.
If you would look at the the math and the plan you would see that it doesn't actually 'screw' future generations. It is in no way a ponzi scheme..but man, that certainly is an emotional scare word! so it must be right!
I pretty sure 18months after '29 the market was lower . And 18 months after 40, and 18moth after 2006.
If you invested in 98, ou just now getting back. so that's 14 years of.. nothing. You could have stuffed the money in you mattress and be right where you where. Or put in int a 1% interest saving account and be better off.
Stats are from the past? you don't say.
Anyways, those are 2010 numbers for Americans. how many American dies last year do to war? a few hundred? how many american where killed in an act of genocide? I'm thinking 0
Frankly I would put people who died in wars of 2010 under self inflicted. Hey, they signed up to go kill people in hostile environments.
Had they been conscripted, then you would start to have a point.
"s nothing to suggest that human population growth will be any different,"
you mean besides the fact that there is always an effort to stop that?
"are all kinds of things that suggest that the human population is rapidly approaching the crash point"
yeah, I've been hearing that song my whole life.
5 Billion people! we will all starve. 6 billion people! the world can hold that many people. 7 billion people! clearly we are all going to crash.
Had you actually read Malthus, you would understand that the man himself didn't even think it would be apocalyptic.
That's.. DR. Doom to you~
Is it different then the non smokers who get cancer, and other illness, from second hand smoke?
no, they like to make money.
The C*O of the first company to put a cancer cure on the market will be 10's, if not 100's of millions of dollars.
Unless you propose the people at the top are so kind they would be happy to let the next CEO, or some other company make the money.
then we will finally have a world where Brains are a valued resource.b
Boo-YAH!
No it did not.
Unless there was some centralized global distribution system for annotation on a newton that I was unaware of.
their expectations where based on what Apple told them. The Newton was a marketing flop.
"50 years ago the U.S. could put a man into space. Today it can't."
and 60 years ago we couldn't. What;s tyiour point? It hasn't been a goal. If congress said 'Go to the moon' we would be there in less then 10 years.
"50 years ago the U.S. was at the forefront of particle physics. Today it isn't.
Because other countries are spending money and our competitive.
"50 years ago the U.S. started development of 3 different spacecraft on 5 different man rated rockets over a 7 year span."
because they had money and were told to develop a space program.
"50 years ago the U.S. had a plane capable of traveling at Mach 3.35. Today it doesn't.
this is just false.
While there is a need for concern, and for people like you to take action and be involved regularly, the issues you mention are a result of 'going backwards'.
Already did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e7DEw70LVWs
Now if I can find away to swap it's case with my friends toaster case. heh.
So how would you do tests?
Conspiracies happen*, but you kind of need proof of you allegations.
*see Tobacco companies.
I saw Jay Leno bomb once..it was hilarious.
If launch detection n is a concern, we have better stealth capabilities. We have a plan that can deploy bombs at supersonic speeds, and stealth. Not that it matter. What happen after it detonates? every country will know, and there would be serious issues.
so, again, putting weapons in space is stupid. You can't maintain it, you don't have complete control over it, and if it deorbits you have a political and military nightmare.
Plus it's not large enough to hit all the enemies launch capabilities. SO they will still retaliate.
A don't even pretend to lecture me on Project Thor. which, by the way, would be 6.1 meters long, not 2 meters.
And a 2 meters, even if it was lead, would be about 225Kg worth of energy. And you would only have a few of them. Awfully expensive.
I like the drop it on the Moon, or mars, solution.