Crows are amazing, in that they will fashion tools out of metal parts to perform even more complex tasks. I can also imagine octopii using tools, were it not that their limbs are so much more efficient and effective than any tools they could fashion without a technical society infrastructure to rely upon.
If you actually wish to improve your daughter's fate, I suggest that you join me in working on organizing a practical effort to solve the problem by direct engineering action.
"Conspiracy" is often used to smear the target. That there is an profound overlap of personnel at managerial levels between industries being regulated and the regulating agencies is well established. Collaboration between government and industry is routine, and often lauded. Sometimes it is not in public view. Sometimes it is intentionally concealed from public view, as for example in the case of the Cheney energy task force. Calling a statement a theory does not make it more or less likely to be true. Many conspiracy theories are deeply held by putative skeptics, often in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
I do not wish to advocate a theory about the motivation of the FDA statement, but I do see a pattern of FDA behaviour emerging. (1) An Italian study demonstrates that Aspartame causes cancer in animals. The Delaney amendment prohibits the addition of chemicals known to cause cancer in animals to human food products. Donald Rumsfeld was the chairman of Searle when the FDA prohibited aspartame as a probable neurotoxin. When he became a member of the administration in power, the FDA reversed itself. Today the FDA holds that studies demonstrating a cancer link are invalid. (2) A Swedish study demonstrates what was always obvious from experience, that microwave brain exposure can cause cancer.... hypothetical unknown links to the administration may or may not exist... Today the FDA holds that studies demonstrating a cancer link are invalid.
If that hypothetical unknown link were to become a demonstrated matter of fact, then I think it would be difficult for an honest person to conclude otherwise than that the FDA was thoroughly corrupt. Whether this is a result of "conspiracy" is a legal question of little interest to me, as I am not in a possition to prosecute any such crimes. What is of interest is the corruption, which I, as a citizen of a putative representative democracy, have ultimate responsibility to address, at the polls, by education, and by activism.
I try to refute erroneous statements about me where they occur, as long as it isn't too burdensome, so I'll merely observe that I do not in any way think that cold fusion will provide an economically useful source of energy in the foreseeable future, although I do think it would be wise, as a matter of public policy, to devote perhaps 10% of the funding currently expended on tokamak fusion to further expand our understanding of the now several methods of inducing fusion at low ambient temperatures, because it is fundamental research which is certain to bear practical fruit, although perhaps not the specific fruit of economically useful room-temperature fusion.
Requirements are often mis-stated. In this case they aren't even explicitly stated: The problem is ill-posed. It is always worthwhile, when a nearby solution is cheap, while a solution that mindlessly adheres to the specific expression of the requirements is costly -- perhaps prohibitively costly -- to ask whether the cheaper solution would be satisfactory. The question cannot be asked unless the cheaper solution can get on the radar.
Why not? We have one agency conducting terrorism, and another waging war on it. Isn't spam at least as annoying as the terrorist boogeyman? If you added up all the man-years spent on spam, I'm sure it would vastly outweigh the U.S. losses in Iraq (although not the Iraqi losses, I'm equally sure).
I'm proposing to save the world. Or at least save the lives of the people who would otherwise die of the ancilliary effects of anthropogenic carbon emissions. A little encouragement could go a long way.
Um, the whole goal and purpose is to create specific ecological effects. Like saving the world. And yes, just buying the iron on the market would put (miniscule) pressure on the price. Increasing supply by operating a mine for the project would be quite feasible, at that budgetary scale. Iron mining is not rocket science, after all.
I disbelieve a faith in the market's ability to correct ecological catastrophe. More often, economic incentives to technological change are inimical to ecological gradualism. That's why I'm beating the pulpit for a direct, conscious effort to solve the problem of global warming. It would cost less than a moon shot.
better yet, have some corporation lay down the cash and fix the problem of global warming. i think that exxon-mobil alone could do it, if they had the will. check the numbers if you don't believe me.
I'm an evangelical Christian, and I seriously considered assassinating Bush during the run-up to Operation Iraqi Liberation, in order to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity. I also am urgently advocating solving the problem of global warming due to anthropogenic carbon surplus. If you can spare a billion dollars a year, please consider solving the problem. I'm more than happy to collaborate with heathens to save all of our children from malnutrition and disease.
Considering the threat to the food supply by the synergy of climate change and the end of abundant petroleum, I think nuclear war is essentially inevitable, as national leaders panic at the prospect of being removed from power by social disorder. That's why I am doing my best, as the opportunity arises, to advocate solving the problem by technical means, which appears to be both possible and economically feasible.
As an alternative to killing several billion people (probably in a war orchestrated for the purpose, or by means of a genetically tailored virus developed under the sponsorship of a wealthy person who has affection for his or her offspring), I would suggest instead just solving the problem of excess anthropogenic carbon emissions. That will result in much less disruption and destruction, and less impediment to human technological progress -- which, I would remind prospective producers of genocide, is much more likely to extend your life than will merely eliminating the competition.
There's nothing "safe" about cutting emissions. Much of the food we eat could not be produced or delivered without substantial emissions using currently economic technologies. Waiting for economic technologies to change is a losing proposition. The only feasible solution is to directly address the problem by fixing carbon.
However, the rich are much more likely to survive climatic upheaval than are the poor. Still, I wouldn't go waging a pre-emptive strike on the Riviera just yet. All it would take is one wealthy donor to resolve the problem of global warming due to anthropogenic carbon surplus.
I would hardly consider it inevitable, since it is technically and economically feasible to fix enough carbon to offset anthropogenic sources. Assuming that you can raise one billion dollars a year for the purpose, that is.
You don't need to change your lifestyle in order to solve the problem of global warming. You just need to find a way to spend about 17 cents per living human per day. Check my numbers if you don't believe me.
I would not trouble with governments. The task of resolving global warming can be managed by private initiative. I estimate the total cost at $US 1 billion annually, at this link.
Not such a bad idea, actually. Touch sensitivity of the human breast is quite high. I suspect one could read with improved speed due to the size of the sensor array. I propose an experiment involving cute blind girls and a library after hours. Does that one need to go by the human subjects committee?
Experimental surgery is research. The restriction is a restriction on the performance of experimental medical procedures on human subjects. It was made in a legislative/bureaucratic dance of corruption which used the spectre of Dr. Mengele to give drug companies protection from liability for poisoning people during drug trials, and it is detrimental to both protecting experimental subjects and the progress of medical research.
Were it true, Japanese people would be insane. Since they are not, I conclude that it isn't true. Kanji are not used as a matter of mere tradition. They were introduced with literacy, from China, where the written language is purely ideographic. Kana came much later, and were originally simplified forms of common hanzi selected for phonetic significance. This was a great boon to the written language, since it disambiguated texts, especially with regard to the grammatical role of particles. Etymology and tradition are very distinct ideas, related only in as much as they are historical processes. English spelling seems to me a ridiculously high price to pay for mere tradition, but if anyone tries to correct the spelling, they are ridiculed and marginalized. English spelling is retained in part for purposes of exercising power over other people. There are no cherished traditions of spelling 'night' rather than 'nite' or 'through' rather than 'thru'. There is institutional and social inertia, in part because English spelling helps to keep people down, and reduce competition for social place. Without English spelling, some dyslexic genius could take my job.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he also meant termite mounds.
Crows are amazing, in that they will fashion tools out of metal parts to perform even more complex tasks. I can also imagine octopii using tools, were it not that their limbs are so much more efficient and effective than any tools they could fashion without a technical society infrastructure to rely upon.
If you actually wish to improve your daughter's fate, I suggest that you join me in working on organizing a practical effort to solve the problem by direct engineering action.
"Conspiracy" is often used to smear the target. That there is an profound overlap of personnel at managerial levels between industries being regulated and the regulating agencies is well established. Collaboration between government and industry is routine, and often lauded. Sometimes it is not in public view. Sometimes it is intentionally concealed from public view, as for example in the case of the Cheney energy task force. Calling a statement a theory does not make it more or less likely to be true. Many conspiracy theories are deeply held by putative skeptics, often in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
... hypothetical unknown links to the administration may or may not exist ... Today the FDA holds that studies demonstrating a cancer link are invalid.
I do not wish to advocate a theory about the motivation of the FDA statement, but I do see a pattern of FDA behaviour emerging. (1) An Italian study demonstrates that Aspartame causes cancer in animals. The Delaney amendment prohibits the addition of chemicals known to cause cancer in animals to human food products. Donald Rumsfeld was the chairman of Searle when the FDA prohibited aspartame as a probable neurotoxin. When he became a member of the administration in power, the FDA reversed itself. Today the FDA holds that studies demonstrating a cancer link are invalid. (2) A Swedish study demonstrates what was always obvious from experience, that microwave brain exposure can cause cancer.
If that hypothetical unknown link were to become a demonstrated matter of fact, then I think it would be difficult for an honest person to conclude otherwise than that the FDA was thoroughly corrupt. Whether this is a result of "conspiracy" is a legal question of little interest to me, as I am not in a possition to prosecute any such crimes. What is of interest is the corruption, which I, as a citizen of a putative representative democracy, have ultimate responsibility to address, at the polls, by education, and by activism.
I try to refute erroneous statements about me where they occur, as long as it isn't too burdensome, so I'll merely observe that I do not in any way think that cold fusion will provide an economically useful source of energy in the foreseeable future, although I do think it would be wise, as a matter of public policy, to devote perhaps 10% of the funding currently expended on tokamak fusion to further expand our understanding of the now several methods of inducing fusion at low ambient temperatures, because it is fundamental research which is certain to bear practical fruit, although perhaps not the specific fruit of economically useful room-temperature fusion.
Requirements are often mis-stated. In this case they aren't even explicitly stated: The problem is ill-posed. It is always worthwhile, when a nearby solution is cheap, while a solution that mindlessly adheres to the specific expression of the requirements is costly -- perhaps prohibitively costly -- to ask whether the cheaper solution would be satisfactory. The question cannot be asked unless the cheaper solution can get on the radar.
Why not? We have one agency conducting terrorism, and another waging war on it. Isn't spam at least as annoying as the terrorist boogeyman? If you added up all the man-years spent on spam, I'm sure it would vastly outweigh the U.S. losses in Iraq (although not the Iraqi losses, I'm equally sure).
I'm proposing to save the world. Or at least save the lives of the people who would otherwise die of the ancilliary effects of anthropogenic carbon emissions. A little encouragement could go a long way.
Only on slashdot does proposing a concrete, feasible, and constructive solution to a terrible problem constitute a troll. Whatever.
Um, the whole goal and purpose is to create specific ecological effects. Like saving the world. And yes, just buying the iron on the market would put (miniscule) pressure on the price. Increasing supply by operating a mine for the project would be quite feasible, at that budgetary scale. Iron mining is not rocket science, after all.
Better yet, sanction India and China and Brazil. However, supressing the economic growth of disadvantaged societies is a cruelly selfish thing to do. Better still, just solve the problem, and forego the necessity of sanctioning or waging war on anybody.
I disbelieve a faith in the market's ability to correct ecological catastrophe. More often, economic incentives to technological change are inimical to ecological gradualism. That's why I'm beating the pulpit for a direct, conscious effort to solve the problem of global warming. It would cost less than a moon shot.
better yet, have some corporation lay down the cash and fix the problem of global warming. i think that exxon-mobil alone could do it, if they had the will. check the numbers if you don't believe me.
I'm an evangelical Christian, and I seriously considered assassinating Bush during the run-up to Operation Iraqi Liberation, in order to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I also am urgently advocating solving the problem of global warming due to anthropogenic carbon surplus. If you can spare a billion dollars a year, please consider solving the problem. I'm more than happy to collaborate with heathens to save all of our children from malnutrition and disease.
Considering the threat to the food supply by the synergy of climate change and the end of abundant petroleum, I think nuclear war is essentially inevitable, as national leaders panic at the prospect of being removed from power by social disorder. That's why I am doing my best, as the opportunity arises, to advocate solving the problem by technical means, which appears to be both possible and economically feasible.
As an alternative to killing several billion people (probably in a war orchestrated for the purpose, or by means of a genetically tailored virus developed under the sponsorship of a wealthy person who has affection for his or her offspring), I would suggest instead just solving the problem of excess anthropogenic carbon emissions. That will result in much less disruption and destruction, and less impediment to human technological progress -- which, I would remind prospective producers of genocide, is much more likely to extend your life than will merely eliminating the competition.
There's nothing "safe" about cutting emissions. Much of the food we eat could not be produced or delivered without substantial emissions using currently economic technologies. Waiting for economic technologies to change is a losing proposition. The only feasible solution is to directly address the problem by fixing carbon.
However, the rich are much more likely to survive climatic upheaval than are the poor. Still, I wouldn't go waging a pre-emptive strike on the Riviera just yet. All it would take is one wealthy donor to resolve the problem of global warming due to anthropogenic carbon surplus.
I would hardly consider it inevitable, since it is technically and economically feasible to fix enough carbon to offset anthropogenic sources. Assuming that you can raise one billion dollars a year for the purpose, that is.
You don't need to change your lifestyle in order to solve the problem of global warming. You just need to find a way to spend about 17 cents per living human per day. Check my numbers if you don't believe me.
I would not trouble with governments. The task of resolving global warming can be managed by private initiative. I estimate the total cost at $US 1 billion annually, at this link.
"... in braille ..."
Not such a bad idea, actually. Touch sensitivity of the human breast is quite high. I suspect one could read with improved speed due to the size of the sensor array. I propose an experiment involving cute blind girls and a library after hours. Does that one need to go by the human subjects committee?
Experimental surgery is research. The restriction is a restriction on the performance of experimental medical procedures on human subjects. It was made in a legislative/bureaucratic dance of corruption which used the spectre of Dr. Mengele to give drug companies protection from liability for poisoning people during drug trials, and it is detrimental to both protecting experimental subjects and the progress of medical research.
What does it matter? If he's talking to VCs, he's fucked anyhow.
Were it true, Japanese people would be insane. Since they are not, I conclude that it isn't true. Kanji are not used as a matter of mere tradition. They were introduced with literacy, from China, where the written language is purely ideographic. Kana came much later, and were originally simplified forms of common hanzi selected for phonetic significance. This was a great boon to the written language, since it disambiguated texts, especially with regard to the grammatical role of particles. Etymology and tradition are very distinct ideas, related only in as much as they are historical processes. English spelling seems to me a ridiculously high price to pay for mere tradition, but if anyone tries to correct the spelling, they are ridiculed and marginalized. English spelling is retained in part for purposes of exercising power over other people. There are no cherished traditions of spelling 'night' rather than 'nite' or 'through' rather than 'thru'. There is institutional and social inertia, in part because English spelling helps to keep people down, and reduce competition for social place. Without English spelling, some dyslexic genius could take my job.
So you're telling me that I need a 12 year-old Japanese girlfriend?
Wow, Slashdot really is a distinct culture.