I think taxpayer funded elections are the worst idea imaginable, because you ultimately tie the success of any candidate to a commission in government, who approves that finance. Such bodies are always politicized, and even worse, tend to favor established players and existing bodies. Nor do I think earmarks are bad.
First, I would advocate the internet model, with transparent donations. Let anyone donate any amount of money directly to their candidate of choice, and just have full disclosure over how much and who got what. If your candidate is 'Bill Gates boy', then it will be duly noted. But at the same time, if you work for Microsoft and are from that area economy, betting on 'Bill Gates boy', might well be in your interest.
Secondly, I have no problem with earmarks. Earmarks are comparatively small part of the federal budget and generally go towards pet district projects that generally do benefit the community from that district. If you don't like the way your Senator or Congressman does earmarks, don't vote for him or her.
If you want to really attack corruption in Washington, it is time to really dismantle the twin industrial complexes of defense and medicare. The defense industry is hip deep in all sorts of cosey relationships with the few mega-contractors that are left, and medicare is basically a buddy boy of the pharma industry. Any time a cut is threatened on both, we are treated to visions of [fill-in-the-blank country of origin] bombs exploding over all of our cities, or, millions of people dying because they were denied the latest $1000 a day super pill that only has marginally better efficacy than a $10 a day pill.
Sometimes, you just have to cut your risk aversion investments and focus on growth. No matter how much money we spend on security, if someone wants to bomb us, that bad, they are going to bomb us. And, people are going to die, no matter how much we spend.
It's funny, because, the most pre-eminent security guy in the USA, Bruce Schneir, who wrote THE book on cryptography, actually leaves his home WAP open so that people can squat on it. He thinks that if we all had our own open WAPS, we could all sorta squat on each other's wans, be much more effective as a society overall. Really, what this law is is an attempt to criminalize a culture of sharing.
It's really telling that Qt, a toolkit that by its very purpose has to contain wrappers providing compatibility between multiple platforms and targeted for a lower-level language, ended up being more consistent, more efficient, and easier to develop for than dotnet.
Qt is not easier to develop for in.NET period. That's just crazy talk..NET delegates are very nice.
Yes, actually. There's a ton of features in Windows at the SDK level and.NET is really designed to be a wrapper around all the different Windows services. A lot of things in Windows are rather difficult to program at the C or even the C++ level. The standard Win32 API isn't too bad to work with in C, but the windowing functions and the messages mechanism is enough to provoke tears. Really, Windows is terrible for programming in C compared to Linux, and so, at least.NET papers over all the crap.
Right off the wheel, I can think of a couple of things that are easier to do in.NET than in the native C++ in Windows. Writing services in C++ is basically torture. In.NET, services are very easy to write. In C++, cracking messages in Windows forms natively is a tad like pulling teeth. MFC is aweful and ATL/WTL are better, but, I would prefer a native C++ framework like what was done with BeOS. Still, GDI+ in C++ is pretty much the same as using GDI+ in.NET, except that.NET actually gives you more convenient handling of images and fonts. Files are much easier to work with in.NET than in C++. The Path combining classes are entirely welcome and those things are great..NET String is better than the STL string, by far, and I really like that Microsoft stole the Java idea of a StringBuilder.
Of course,.NET forms are ugly and slow. The presentation framework looks cool, but, that's now two libraries for user interface, not counting all the web stuff.
Speaking of Java... I wonder how many lines of code are in THAT framework?
Sure, but since that's a de-facto devaluation of both the dollar and Chinese currency, all other imports will increase. Like oil - why do you think crude is at $110? Partly because of low supply compared to the high international demand, but also because the dollar isn't worth as much compared to other currencies and other countries can afford to pay more for the same amount of oil on open markets.
Well no, what will happen is that other imports will decrease, and in fact, they are, as more offshore production from other industrial nations is relocated to the USA. The rest of the world still has the problem of using the USA as a dumping ground for their consumer goods. So while yes, Americans will have to live more within their means, the rest of the world, used to relying on exports to the USA to provide their rich social programs, will too.
Keep your damn guns, you may need em when China comes to repossess all your stuff..
What, we owe the Chinese US Dollars, and they aren't worth that much any more!!!
And that's sort of the whole point...
US Exports are rising at twice the rate of imports. All of the financial house of cards on the economy is crap but for the first time in a long time, thanks to pro-trade, pro-low-dollar policies, manufacturing is actually coming back to the USA. Right now, exports are about 15% of GDP, which is actually higher than they have ever been in our national history, and they will continue to rise. As long as China keeps its dollar peg, every -other- country will rise radically relative to the dollar. So the USA will get the benefit of the low cost of chinese imported goods PLUS gain a manufacturing advantage over other industrialized nations.
At the end of the day, the real purpose of this bill is to enrich the trial lawyers, a key fundraising component of the Democratic Party, by giving them legal authorization to sue telecomms. If Democrats were so in favor of citizens rights, they would support lower taxes, a right to keep and bear arms, get rid of the USA PATRIOT act, and in general get rid of a lot of federal regulation. Let's not forget that it was a Democratic administration that dragged its feet on cryptography exports until a kid cracked the government permissible 40 bit key on a PC.
At the end of the day, were this bill to pass, the USA would still have the USA PATRIOT ACT, an Internal Revenue Service that already has all of the eavesdropping and police powers that the federal government could ever need, still have the patronage bank called the Dept of Homeland Security, and still have a political party that would have us believe that the more we rights and more income we cede to the government, the more freedom we will have.
Bush hasn't been a perfect pro-freedom president - government wiretaps ARE crap, but at the end of the day, Bush has been good about expanding freedom. He's expanded freedom of trade, freedom of investment, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to keep the proceeds of ones labors and investment. Those are big freedoms.
Both show how many active processes on a box? Computers don't run a single thing any more, they are already federations of dozens of concurrently running programs, both in Unix and in Windows. Multicore makes the whole desktop feel crisper and faster.
There are no Beatles songs coming to iTunes or any other online format. McCartney does not control the Beatle's catalog - EMI does and there is no deal. The story is flat out wrong, based on a rumour that was floated in the British Tabloids.
Secondly, Beatle's music is great.
Michael Stipe can call the Beatle's elevator music as much as he wants to, but, REM hasn't made a good album since before that wretched "Monster" came out, and then, all of their songs on every album before that had the same sound. The Beatles, on the other hand, went through a pop phase, and then branched out with very limited technology to make albums where all the songs on them have a unique sound. Just listen to Revolver, and compare the likes of "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Taxman" with "Got to Get You Into My Life". You just don't see mainstream bands doing that these days.
I would love to hear the song that REM did that matches Eleanor Rigby, and that's a lyric that Paul wrote... let alone John.
Evolution doesn't solve death. Evolution only guarantees organisms that will live long enough to reproduce. Let me know when you evolve resistance to being poked with pointy sticks..
Well, if you took a population of 1,000 cats, and poked them with pointy sticks, and bred them, and did that for many generations, eventually you'd wind up with a cat that had some sort of a tough shell.
he OP's example of milk and being sick is only a correlative relationship because he lacks any true mechanistic explanation for his observation and furthermore fails to demonstrate that the two things are not merely coincidental in nature.
Well, here's the thing. "Causitive explanation" is something that you are misapplying. When you say, "caustive explanation", what you really say, do you have a model to describe it?
In other words, here's where global warming skeptics always fail. They say, "oh, it can't be this or that model of GCM", but, yet, they don't have a model of their own... so any criticism they have has to be suspicious. I mean, if I say, I think GW is caused by the Sun, then I had need to have a model of my own to back that up. Of course, a skeptic was "right", then, the AGW people would have to go to the drawing board as we throw snowballs at Al Gore. However, in the normal course of events, its the build up of a model that is the useful work product of science. If you say CO2, and I say sunspots, then both of should be able to answer, what happens with 5 sunspots of this area versus CO2 of 1000ppm. (gosh 1/1000 CO2 is pretty scary eh?)
The model ultimately describes how to build a tool to manipulate something. So, the idea of a model is to be able to describe a range of events based on a smaller set of experiments, its an encoding of knowledge, such that, other people can look at that, and within the valid range of the model, expect to get the same results from the same set of experiments, consistent with what the model predicts. In the case of global warming, we are learning, what can we manipulate to change climate? In the case of our milk drinking buddy, we have to ask, well what do we need to learn, and that's where you misapply the level of detail needed for a model.
In the case of our milk drinking OP, the real question is, does drinking milk make you sick. The answer is, yes, it probably does, and for him, there's no need for a model with the detail you define. It's a simple, yes or no thing and the more he or she test drinks milk, the greater the probability that it was in fact the milk that did it. Given, furthermore, that lactose intolerance is hugely common in humanity, in fact, only some white people are actually lactose tolerant (the rest of the world isn't), the real claim that might demand a model would, why would drinking the milk from another species actually be -safe-!
No, the statement "he gets sick FROM milk" is a conclusion (not a fact) based upon an anecdote or, at best, a series of repeatable but uncontrolled experiments. Because no effort has been made to disprove the null hypothesis (that that getting sick and milk are a coincidence), the best that can be said is that there is a correlative relationship.
1) The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of humanity is lactose tolerant. Or, let me put it to you this way: How many cheese dishes are on the menu at a chinese restaraunt. 2) Ingestion by itself is a pretty good control. Let's substitute milk for a poisonous plant, shall we. You and a hiker are in the woods. He eats a particular plant, and dies. Do you eat the plant, yes or no?
Alright, whatever. This is basic stuff, man. What I'm describing is simple, high-school level science material; the type of thinking that makes modern life possible. You don't have to be thankful for it. You don't even have to practice it yourself. But don't try and argue that it doesn't work
What makes modern life possible is testing. Physics is tested. Chemistry is tested. Drugs are tested. Those make modern life possible. Telling someone that they don't get sick because of drinking milk, when, in fact, the vast majority of people on the planet -do- get sick from drinking milk, is the kind of thinking that goes against what science is all about. You are using science to shield ignorance, and there's way too much of that going on these days.
The difference, if you're interested, (though your factious tone suggests that you are not) is that atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures have a known causal relationship via the undisputed.... The OP's example of milk and being sick is only a correlative relationship because he lacks any true mechanistic explanation for his observation and furthermore fails to demonstrate that the two things are not merely coincidental in nature.
Unfortunately, what you've done in this case is you've made the most important thing take a back seat - testing. IF the OP drinks milk, gets sick, then stops drinking milk, and does not get sick, and can REPEAT that process, his getting sick from drinking milk is a FACT. What you are doing is putting your own mental blinders on, not thinking that something can be factual because it disagrees with your own sense of what is, and then you use science as an excuse to do it!
Video games are the highest form of art because they have everything other media has, plus they are interactive. Y
If you put someone into a situation where a steady diet of violence is present and on some level they are going to walk away thinking that some level of violence is acceptable. I mean, if we are not allowed to make video games glorifying Fuhrer with racist praise for genocide, (just look at the terms of service regarding posting racist content for any ISP), then shouldn't it follow that video games glorifying violence might have some impact?
It seems to me that the people who don't believe the media can provoke violence or other destructive behavior are just hiding their heads in the sand in the face of common sense.
I guarantee that I could make an appointment tomorrow and probably walk out of the Drs office with some sort of happy pill or sleep med. Yet i consider myself a perfectly happy and functioning person.
Well, you might, except that your insurance company might say hey, you are a perfectly healthy and happy person, and deny you coverage!
I thought the whole deal with Vista is that it has a new driver model. Thus, its going to be some time before drivers can really be completely optimized for it.
There was a fairly conclusive study taken in Canada where the levels of a lake were maintained at a few parts per trillion of the chemicals in birth control to simulate the effects of urinating birth control. The effects were remarkable.
While there were no effects of the synthetic estrogen on tadpole growth, development and sex ratios, we did see a low incidence of males with eggs in the treated lake. After estrogen additions, one of the more predominant species of zooplankton had lower proportions of males, and females from several species of zooplankton produced fewer eggs.
Ah yes, the same expository clarity that brought us notions such as the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.
While not um, scientific, both views most certainly had some stunning political thought behind them. I mean, you have a room of people arguing whether Christ was God, if he is the son of God, and then another room of people arguing that how could the son of God be any less perfect than God himself, and suddenly some says, "why it is a big mystery, and, it is actually all of the above, plus, we'll throw in a Holy Spirit."
Slashdot Mirror
I have an earlier version ubuntu. Can I just upgrade in place?
I think taxpayer funded elections are the worst idea imaginable, because you ultimately tie the success of any candidate to a commission in government, who approves that finance. Such bodies are always politicized, and even worse, tend to favor established players and existing bodies. Nor do I think earmarks are bad.
First, I would advocate the internet model, with transparent donations. Let anyone donate any amount of money directly to their candidate of choice, and just have full disclosure over how much and who got what. If your candidate is 'Bill Gates boy', then it will be duly noted. But at the same time, if you work for Microsoft and are from that area economy, betting on 'Bill Gates boy', might well be in your interest.
Secondly, I have no problem with earmarks. Earmarks are comparatively small part of the federal budget and generally go towards pet district projects that generally do benefit the community from that district. If you don't like the way your Senator or Congressman does earmarks, don't vote for him or her.
If you want to really attack corruption in Washington, it is time to really dismantle the twin industrial complexes of defense and medicare. The defense industry is hip deep in all sorts of cosey relationships with the few mega-contractors that are left, and medicare is basically a buddy boy of the pharma industry. Any time a cut is threatened on both, we are treated to visions of [fill-in-the-blank country of origin] bombs exploding over all of our cities, or, millions of people dying because they were denied the latest $1000 a day super pill that only has marginally better efficacy than a $10 a day pill.
Sometimes, you just have to cut your risk aversion investments and focus on growth. No matter how much money we spend on security, if someone wants to bomb us, that bad, they are going to bomb us. And, people are going to die, no matter how much we spend.
So let's cap medicare and cut defense.
I think that the term "redneck" is offensive
I am white, and a redneck, and I have the plastic testicals on my Dodge Truck.... It's like black people calling each other the you know what word.
It's funny, because, the most pre-eminent security guy in the USA, Bruce Schneir, who wrote THE book on cryptography, actually leaves his home WAP open so that people can squat on it. He thinks that if we all had our own open WAPS, we could all sorta squat on each other's wans, be much more effective as a society overall. Really, what this law is is an attempt to criminalize a culture of sharing.
It's really telling that Qt, a toolkit that by its very purpose has to contain wrappers providing compatibility between multiple platforms and targeted for a lower-level language, ended up being more consistent, more efficient, and easier to develop for than dotnet.
.NET period. That's just crazy talk. .NET delegates are very nice.
Qt is not easier to develop for in
Simplicity? Internal logic?
.NET is really designed to be a wrapper around all the different Windows services. A lot of things in Windows are rather difficult to program at the C or even the C++ level. The standard Win32 API isn't too bad to work with in C, but the windowing functions and the messages mechanism is enough to provoke tears. Really, Windows is terrible for programming in C compared to Linux, and so, at least .NET papers over all the crap.
.NET than in the native C++ in Windows. Writing services in C++ is basically torture. In .NET, services are very easy to write. In C++, cracking messages in Windows forms natively is a tad like pulling teeth. MFC is aweful and ATL/WTL are better, but, I would prefer a native C++ framework like what was done with BeOS. Still, GDI+ in C++ is pretty much the same as using GDI+ in .NET, except that .NET actually gives you more convenient handling of images and fonts. Files are much easier to work with in .NET than in C++. The Path combining classes are entirely welcome and those things are great. .NET String is better than the STL string, by far, and I really like that Microsoft stole the Java idea of a StringBuilder.
.NET forms are ugly and slow. The presentation framework looks cool, but, that's now two libraries for user interface, not counting all the web stuff.
Yes, actually. There's a ton of features in Windows at the SDK level and
Right off the wheel, I can think of a couple of things that are easier to do in
Of course,
Speaking of Java... I wonder how many lines of code are in THAT framework?
So that's not abstracted at all ... you have merely created an unneccessary object for use in this one situation
It's also not clear what the range means. Is it inclusive of the end datetime, or exclusive?
Sure, but since that's a de-facto devaluation of both the dollar and Chinese currency, all other imports will increase. Like oil - why do you think crude is at $110? Partly because of low supply compared to the high international demand, but also because the dollar isn't worth as much compared to other currencies and other countries can afford to pay more for the same amount of oil on open markets.
Well no, what will happen is that other imports will decrease, and in fact, they are, as more offshore production from other industrial nations is relocated to the USA. The rest of the world still has the problem of using the USA as a dumping ground for their consumer goods. So while yes, Americans will have to live more within their means, the rest of the world, used to relying on exports to the USA to provide their rich social programs, will too.
My notebook is WAY more powerful than the original Cray XMP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_X-MP
Keep your damn guns, you may need em when China comes to repossess all your stuff..
What, we owe the Chinese US Dollars, and they aren't worth that much any more!!!
And that's sort of the whole point...
US Exports are rising at twice the rate of imports. All of the financial house of cards on the economy is crap but for the first time in a long time, thanks to pro-trade, pro-low-dollar policies, manufacturing is actually coming back to the USA. Right now, exports are about 15% of GDP, which is actually higher than they have ever been in our national history, and they will continue to rise. As long as China keeps its dollar peg, every -other- country will rise radically relative to the dollar. So the USA will get the benefit of the low cost of chinese imported goods PLUS gain a manufacturing advantage over other industrialized nations.
At the end of the day, the real purpose of this bill is to enrich the trial lawyers, a key fundraising component of the Democratic Party, by giving them legal authorization to sue telecomms. If Democrats were so in favor of citizens rights, they would support lower taxes, a right to keep and bear arms, get rid of the USA PATRIOT act, and in general get rid of a lot of federal regulation. Let's not forget that it was a Democratic administration that dragged its feet on cryptography exports until a kid cracked the government permissible 40 bit key on a PC.
At the end of the day, were this bill to pass, the USA would still have the USA PATRIOT ACT, an Internal Revenue Service that already has all of the eavesdropping and police powers that the federal government could ever need, still have the patronage bank called the Dept of Homeland Security, and still have a political party that would have us believe that the more we rights and more income we cede to the government, the more freedom we will have.
Bush hasn't been a perfect pro-freedom president - government wiretaps ARE crap, but at the end of the day, Bush has been good about expanding freedom. He's expanded freedom of trade, freedom of investment, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to keep the proceeds of ones labors and investment. Those are big freedoms.
Then I would like a piece of the pie. I mean, all of that content entitles the writers to some of that dough, I would think.
Both show how many active processes on a box? Computers don't run a single thing any more, they are already federations of dozens of concurrently running programs, both in Unix and in Windows. Multicore makes the whole desktop feel crisper and faster.
There are no Beatles songs coming to iTunes or any other online format. McCartney does not control the Beatle's catalog - EMI does and there is no deal. The story is flat out wrong, based on a rumour that was floated in the British Tabloids.
Secondly, Beatle's music is great.
Michael Stipe can call the Beatle's elevator music as much as he wants to, but, REM hasn't made a good album since before that wretched "Monster" came out, and then, all of their songs on every album before that had the same sound. The Beatles, on the other hand, went through a pop phase, and then branched out with very limited technology to make albums where all the songs on them have a unique sound. Just listen to Revolver, and compare the likes of "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Taxman" with "Got to Get You Into My Life". You just don't see mainstream bands doing that these days.
I would love to hear the song that REM did that matches Eleanor Rigby, and that's a lyric that Paul wrote... let alone John.
Evolution doesn't solve death. Evolution only guarantees organisms that will live long enough to reproduce. Let me know when you evolve resistance to being poked with pointy sticks..
Well, if you took a population of 1,000 cats, and poked them with pointy sticks, and bred them, and did that for many generations, eventually you'd wind up with a cat that had some sort of a tough shell.
Lactose intolerance, that is, the symptoms from consuming lactose, is mostly a myth.
Wikipedia would disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
Also note how early European nations scoffed at the idea of third world recipients having problems digesting food aid based on milk products.
he OP's example of milk and being sick is only a correlative relationship because he lacks any true mechanistic explanation for his observation and furthermore fails to demonstrate that the two things are not merely coincidental in nature.
Well, here's the thing. "Causitive explanation" is something that you are misapplying. When you say, "caustive explanation", what you really say, do you have a model to describe it?
In other words, here's where global warming skeptics always fail. They say, "oh, it can't be this or that model of GCM", but, yet, they don't have a model of their own... so any criticism they have has to be suspicious. I mean, if I say, I think GW is caused by the Sun, then I had need to have a model of my own to back that up. Of course, a skeptic was "right", then, the AGW people would have to go to the drawing board as we throw snowballs at Al Gore. However, in the normal course of events, its the build up of a model that is the useful work product of science. If you say CO2, and I say sunspots, then both of should be able to answer, what happens with 5 sunspots of this area versus CO2 of 1000ppm. (gosh 1/1000 CO2 is pretty scary eh?)
The model ultimately describes how to build a tool to manipulate something. So, the idea of a model is to be able to describe a range of events based on a smaller set of experiments, its an encoding of knowledge, such that, other people can look at that, and within the valid range of the model, expect to get the same results from the same set of experiments, consistent with what the model predicts. In the case of global warming, we are learning, what can we manipulate to change climate? In the case of our milk drinking buddy, we have to ask, well what do we need to learn, and that's where you misapply the level of detail needed for a model.
In the case of our milk drinking OP, the real question is, does drinking milk make you sick. The answer is, yes, it probably does, and for him, there's no need for a model with the detail you define. It's a simple, yes or no thing and the more he or she test drinks milk, the greater the probability that it was in fact the milk that did it. Given, furthermore, that lactose intolerance is hugely common in humanity, in fact, only some white people are actually lactose tolerant (the rest of the world isn't), the real claim that might demand a model would, why would drinking the milk from another species actually be -safe-!
No, the statement "he gets sick FROM milk" is a conclusion (not a fact) based upon an anecdote or, at best, a series of repeatable but uncontrolled experiments. Because no effort has been made to disprove the null hypothesis (that that getting sick and milk are a coincidence), the best that can be said is that there is a correlative relationship.
1) The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of humanity is lactose tolerant. Or, let me put it to you this way: How many cheese dishes are on the menu at a chinese restaraunt.
2) Ingestion by itself is a pretty good control. Let's substitute milk for a poisonous plant, shall we. You and a hiker are in the woods. He eats a particular plant, and dies. Do you eat the plant, yes or no?
Alright, whatever. This is basic stuff, man. What I'm describing is simple, high-school level science material; the type of thinking that makes modern life possible. You don't have to be thankful for it. You don't even have to practice it yourself. But don't try and argue that it doesn't work
What makes modern life possible is testing. Physics is tested. Chemistry is tested. Drugs are tested. Those make modern life possible. Telling someone that they don't get sick because of drinking milk, when, in fact, the vast majority of people on the planet -do- get sick from drinking milk, is the kind of thinking that goes against what science is all about. You are using science to shield ignorance, and there's way too much of that going on these days.
The difference, if you're interested, (though your factious tone suggests that you are not) is that atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures have a known causal relationship via the undisputed .... The OP's example of milk and being sick is only a correlative relationship because he lacks any true mechanistic explanation for his observation and furthermore fails to demonstrate that the two things are not merely coincidental in nature.
Unfortunately, what you've done in this case is you've made the most important thing take a back seat - testing. IF the OP drinks milk, gets sick, then stops drinking milk, and does not get sick, and can REPEAT that process, his getting sick from drinking milk is a FACT. What you are doing is putting your own mental blinders on, not thinking that something can be factual because it disagrees with your own sense of what is, and then you use science as an excuse to do it!
Even assuming you're telling the truth, "Correlation is not Causation".
Kinda like CO2 vs global temperature?
Bottom line is, in today's science: "Correlation is not causation, when we think it isn't."
Video games are the highest form of art because they have everything other media has, plus they are interactive. Y
If you put someone into a situation where a steady diet of violence is present and on some level they are going to walk away thinking that some level of violence is acceptable. I mean, if we are not allowed to make video games glorifying Fuhrer with racist praise for genocide, (just look at the terms of service regarding posting racist content for any ISP), then shouldn't it follow that video games glorifying violence might have some impact?
It seems to me that the people who don't believe the media can provoke violence or other destructive behavior are just hiding their heads in the sand in the face of common sense.
I guarantee that I could make an appointment tomorrow and probably walk out of the Drs office with some sort of happy pill or sleep med. Yet i consider myself a perfectly happy and functioning person.
Well, you might, except that your insurance company might say hey, you are a perfectly healthy and happy person, and deny you coverage!
I thought the whole deal with Vista is that it has a new driver model. Thus, its going to be some time before drivers can really be completely optimized for it.
There was a fairly conclusive study taken in Canada where the levels of a lake were maintained at a few parts per trillion of the chemicals in birth control to simulate the effects of urinating birth control. The effects were remarkable.
While there were no effects of the synthetic estrogen on tadpole growth, development and sex ratios, we did see a low incidence of males with eggs in the treated lake. After estrogen additions, one of the more predominant species of zooplankton had lower proportions of males, and females from several species of zooplankton produced fewer eggs.
The entire study is here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/finance/tsri-irst/proj/endocrin/tsri-94_e.html
Ah yes, the same expository clarity that brought us notions such as the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.
While not um, scientific, both views most certainly had some stunning political thought behind them. I mean, you have a room of people arguing whether Christ was God, if he is the son of God, and then another room of people arguing that how could the son of God be any less perfect than God himself, and suddenly some says, "why it is a big mystery, and, it is actually all of the above, plus, we'll throw in a Holy Spirit."
Pure genius, I'd say.