On the other hand, if you are one of the following, you can get an Android, Windows Phone, or Symbian devices:
uneducated
not affluent
unwashed
wearing a ponytail
under 21
writing a manifesto about being fed up being among the dregs of society
I remember when many of those applied to if you were a mac user...
COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT Tablets! Like a thick piece of glass with a nub on/off switch at the top...
So you're saying there will soon be a lucrative market for a case which is opaque black or white, so that you can actually get contrast and read what is on the screen? I get annoyed trying to read on my smartphones' reflective screen in sunlight, can't imagine how annoying it will be when I also have to worry about light -under- the tablet.
Except if you read that article, it does say there was fallout from it. And I'm not sure what your point is. I should be 100% opposed to police using force to stop crimes because accidents will always happen?
Methinks you're romanticizing the "rebels" here. The riots aren't about ideology or protests. "Everyone else is getting free stuff and having a good time burning stuff! Want!" is not a movement inspired by martyrs, unless you do it in a really heavy handed way. If they broadcast a webcam of these people being beaten to death by police, maybe.
Taking down people for organizing some store-burning though, no. Many of the rioters seem to be cowards who were only smashing and stealing because they assumed they could get away with it, or they were going with the crowd. I suspect a few arrests will send most of the rioters to cover.
If they forcibly break up peaceful marches and demonstrations, then sure. There are of course real issues and legitimate anger there, and the government would be wise to avoid taking a hard line with protesters who know they are doing nothing wrong. Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
According to the literature I'm finding, H1N1 is a single stranded RNA virus as are rhinoviruses. Haven't checked the others, and I should probably RTFA, but where did you get that information?
That doesn't mean that there can't be bad reprocussions to over-use of a real drug that can cure a large number of illnesses, assuming the drug works out in trials. How useful is Penicillin these days?
I seem to recall hearing that part of the problem of antibiotic resistance was when antibiotics aren't used to completion. Treating until the symptoms were largely gone, but not all the infectious agent would give that remainder a good shot at developing resistance genes and proliferating, instead of being killed off completely.
Also we hopefully won't be as cavalier about deploying these antivirals as we were when antibiotics were first discovered and we hadn't already encountered resistance. We probably could have figured it out then I suppose. Horizontal gene transfer with viruses is also different from bacterium. Bacterium can easily share plasmids that confer resistance to antibiotics, so they can share the knowledge with other bacterium. I think there's some possible gene swapping when in a host cell, but being dormant outside a host cell, a virus is going to have less chances to pass resistance genes around.
Oh, merely genetic engineering. That's all, is it? Well, that should be pretty simple.
I think it's less likely we'll come up with across the board, cancer-free genetic engineering on people who are past conception, than it is we'll come up with a treatment for HIV once you get it.
As an aside, I don't think genetic engineering immunity to HIV would be correctly called a "vaccine." If you're not training the immune system to recognize the infection and fight it itself, that's not a vaccine (though I could be wrong.) Immunization may be accurate.
Others have covered why this is not actually a problem or why it was never going to happen in the first place, but my issue with this is no solutions are proposed. It's easy to come up with potential problems, but kind of pointless if there's no solution. What would a solution even look like?
Wait until one of the options is clearly far and away better in all aspects than everything else and go with that one?
Declare by consenus that "this one" is the way to go?
Agree to elect a decision maker to decide all those old arguments?
It seems like the timescale for the first one is infinity. The second one won't happen on it's own either. The third one would be absurd and would only work until the first decision is made, at which time most people who were on the losing side of the argument would still go with gnome or unity or open office, or whatever.
I'd say pester the media for coverage on these two and explain their platform. Ron Paul himself doesn't matter, and is never going to get elected. It's the issue that needs to get attention.
Don't go hyperbolic on us. We got to elect our own government. It was presumed that we would maintain our freedoms ourselves through representatives better than the Brits were doing. Probably true. Could be doing better, we should worry less about terrorism and more about our rights, but please, keep some perspective. This is the INTERNET after all. We have standards.
It's a common perception that California is extremely liberal. This is only the case if you focus on SF, Berkley, Hollywood, and ignore the rest of the state, or are so far right that you think Fox News is -actually- fair and balanced.
...of course, since you're implying democrats hate the right to privacy, I'm guessing you do...
PS. Also worth pointing out that many people are paying more for their cell phone than they are for their computers (whether it's subsidized through the subscription or not.) How many people do you know that have cutting edge phones that are more powerful than their old mac book? They see a $200 price tag on a shiny new dual core phone and a $800 price tag on a laptop with a modest graphics card...
Their choice, since it's the market that's expanding the most rapidly. People are upgrading their phones faster than they're upgrading their computers or consoles.
Funny, but no, I meant the environmental damage from the likely coal-generated electricity needed to pump the water all that way, and the waste brine from the plant.
Just as a note, please don't judge the rest of the US based on LA. Or SF. Or NY.
Something like 6% of the US population lives in LA, and it's our biggest city. Bit absurd to say "Don't judge us by a significant chunk of our population." The fact that our biggest city is pumping water all that way is the crown jewel example, but there are plenty of other ones. Few other cities are recycling waste water, which is why this is newsworthy. Think about how many of our citizens are convinced that individually bottled water is preferable to improving their tap water. Fracking up NY's water supply is another good example of how we're shitting where we drink.
The conspiracy theories I've heard are that estrogen-related compounds get into the water, are difficult to get out, and may be having an effect on men. A google search came up with a daily mail report and something from the pope, so I have no idea how seriously to take that notion, but it would be entertaining if Texas became more liberal.
I think it's positive they're proposing this, rather than a desalination plant on the coast and pumping the water long distances. Although drinking purified water from the ocean doesn't have the ick factor of drinking pee, it requires a lot of energy and causes much more environmental damage compared to water recycling.
What's the point of a credit rating on the US anyway? Every aspect of the economy of the US has ten gazillion news stories and analyses on it. Are there people out there considering investing in the US that just can't get much information on their own about the state of the US economy and debt?
"You know, I'm considering loaning money to this... whaddya call it... 'United states of America,' but I just don't know enough about them. How likely is it they'll say they can't pay me back in a few years? I just can't seem to find -any- information on the internet about their financial outlook. I've checked everywhere: the Economist, Newsweek, Fox news, NY times... no one seems to have any information on the US economy. Hey, maybe S&P knows whether or not it's a good investment! I mean, I clearly can't judge for myself."
If you can't judge the US's credit for yourself, what on earth are you doing considering investing?
True, it's not giving away wifi to a major metro area like New York, but the Google guys don't count as entrepreneurs that kick the establishment's ass and, er, have testicles? Because while Virgin is giving away free internet, and that's nice, Google is giving me free maps and free* e-mail that's much better than the e-mail service I had before.
I'm guessing some education funding and some scientific research funding. But don't worry, I'm sure congress will do their best to make sure only the ineffective educational programs get cut, and that the most important research projects will be adequately funded.
Oh wait..."their best" isn't really a comforting thought...
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if you are one of the following, you can get an Android, Windows Phone, or Symbian devices: uneducated not affluent unwashed wearing a ponytail under 21 writing a manifesto about being fed up being among the dregs of society
I remember when many of those applied to if you were a mac user...
Waitaminute, that's still the case!
COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT Tablets! Like a thick piece of glass with a nub on/off switch at the top...
So you're saying there will soon be a lucrative market for a case which is opaque black or white, so that you can actually get contrast and read what is on the screen? I get annoyed trying to read on my smartphones' reflective screen in sunlight, can't imagine how annoying it will be when I also have to worry about light -under- the tablet.
Except if you read that article, it does say there was fallout from it. And I'm not sure what your point is. I should be 100% opposed to police using force to stop crimes because accidents will always happen?
Methinks you're romanticizing the "rebels" here. The riots aren't about ideology or protests. "Everyone else is getting free stuff and having a good time burning stuff! Want!" is not a movement inspired by martyrs, unless you do it in a really heavy handed way. If they broadcast a webcam of these people being beaten to death by police, maybe.
Taking down people for organizing some store-burning though, no. Many of the rioters seem to be cowards who were only smashing and stealing because they assumed they could get away with it, or they were going with the crowd. I suspect a few arrests will send most of the rioters to cover.
If they forcibly break up peaceful marches and demonstrations, then sure. There are of course real issues and legitimate anger there, and the government would be wise to avoid taking a hard line with protesters who know they are doing nothing wrong. Taking a hard line against people just looking to steal TVs though will be effective. If there are similar riots here in the US with similar people involved in it, part of me hopes the police bring out the rubber bullets.
I've never heard of that before. Quite interesting.
According to the literature I'm finding, H1N1 is a single stranded RNA virus as are rhinoviruses. Haven't checked the others, and I should probably RTFA, but where did you get that information?
So then I'm right!!! :-)
I meant to say "cure." My apologies.
That doesn't mean that there can't be bad reprocussions to over-use of a real drug that can cure a large number of illnesses, assuming the drug works out in trials. How useful is Penicillin these days?
I seem to recall hearing that part of the problem of antibiotic resistance was when antibiotics aren't used to completion. Treating until the symptoms were largely gone, but not all the infectious agent would give that remainder a good shot at developing resistance genes and proliferating, instead of being killed off completely.
Also we hopefully won't be as cavalier about deploying these antivirals as we were when antibiotics were first discovered and we hadn't already encountered resistance. We probably could have figured it out then I suppose. Horizontal gene transfer with viruses is also different from bacterium. Bacterium can easily share plasmids that confer resistance to antibiotics, so they can share the knowledge with other bacterium. I think there's some possible gene swapping when in a host cell, but being dormant outside a host cell, a virus is going to have less chances to pass resistance genes around.
Oh, merely genetic engineering. That's all, is it? Well, that should be pretty simple.
I think it's less likely we'll come up with across the board, cancer-free genetic engineering on people who are past conception, than it is we'll come up with a treatment for HIV once you get it.
As an aside, I don't think genetic engineering immunity to HIV would be correctly called a "vaccine." If you're not training the immune system to recognize the infection and fight it itself, that's not a vaccine (though I could be wrong.) Immunization may be accurate.
Others have covered why this is not actually a problem or why it was never going to happen in the first place, but my issue with this is no solutions are proposed. It's easy to come up with potential problems, but kind of pointless if there's no solution. What would a solution even look like?
Wait until one of the options is clearly far and away better in all aspects than everything else and go with that one?
Declare by consenus that "this one" is the way to go?
Agree to elect a decision maker to decide all those old arguments?
It seems like the timescale for the first one is infinity. The second one won't happen on it's own either. The third one would be absurd and would only work until the first decision is made, at which time most people who were on the losing side of the argument would still go with gnome or unity or open office, or whatever.
I'd say pester the media for coverage on these two and explain their platform. Ron Paul himself doesn't matter, and is never going to get elected. It's the issue that needs to get attention.
run-of-the-mill personal homicide massively dwarf terrorism
Oh god! Now there are MURDEROUS MIDGET TERRORISTS!!! We'll never be able to stop them! All our scanners are for people of normal heights!
... ah, good point, the one group of people more incompetent at lawmaking than our elected reps are, of course, ourselves directly.
One of these days, I'm going to start a referendum to prevent any further referendums.
It seems like 1776 had been a wasted effort.
Don't go hyperbolic on us. We got to elect our own government. It was presumed that we would maintain our freedoms ourselves through representatives better than the Brits were doing. Probably true. Could be doing better, we should worry less about terrorism and more about our rights, but please, keep some perspective. This is the INTERNET after all. We have standards.
It's a common perception that California is extremely liberal. This is only the case if you focus on SF, Berkley, Hollywood, and ignore the rest of the state, or are so far right that you think Fox News is -actually- fair and balanced.
...of course, since you're implying democrats hate the right to privacy, I'm guessing you do...
Arrest != Conviction
Law enforcement and legislators haven't been able to see the distinction for a long time. It's a wonder we still have courts.
PS. Also worth pointing out that many people are paying more for their cell phone than they are for their computers (whether it's subsidized through the subscription or not.) How many people do you know that have cutting edge phones that are more powerful than their old mac book? They see a $200 price tag on a shiny new dual core phone and a $800 price tag on a laptop with a modest graphics card...
Their choice, since it's the market that's expanding the most rapidly. People are upgrading their phones faster than they're upgrading their computers or consoles.
Funny, but no, I meant the environmental damage from the likely coal-generated electricity needed to pump the water all that way, and the waste brine from the plant.
Just as a note, please don't judge the rest of the US based on LA. Or SF. Or NY.
Something like 6% of the US population lives in LA, and it's our biggest city. Bit absurd to say "Don't judge us by a significant chunk of our population." The fact that our biggest city is pumping water all that way is the crown jewel example, but there are plenty of other ones. Few other cities are recycling waste water, which is why this is newsworthy. Think about how many of our citizens are convinced that individually bottled water is preferable to improving their tap water. Fracking up NY's water supply is another good example of how we're shitting where we drink.
The conspiracy theories I've heard are that estrogen-related compounds get into the water, are difficult to get out, and may be having an effect on men. A google search came up with a daily mail report and something from the pope, so I have no idea how seriously to take that notion, but it would be entertaining if Texas became more liberal.
I think it's positive they're proposing this, rather than a desalination plant on the coast and pumping the water long distances. Although drinking purified water from the ocean doesn't have the ick factor of drinking pee, it requires a lot of energy and causes much more environmental damage compared to water recycling.
What's the point of a credit rating on the US anyway? Every aspect of the economy of the US has ten gazillion news stories and analyses on it. Are there people out there considering investing in the US that just can't get much information on their own about the state of the US economy and debt?
"You know, I'm considering loaning money to this... whaddya call it... 'United states of America,' but I just don't know enough about them. How likely is it they'll say they can't pay me back in a few years? I just can't seem to find -any- information on the internet about their financial outlook. I've checked everywhere: the Economist, Newsweek, Fox news, NY times... no one seems to have any information on the US economy. Hey, maybe S&P knows whether or not it's a good investment! I mean, I clearly can't judge for myself."
If you can't judge the US's credit for yourself, what on earth are you doing considering investing?
We have different definitions of "free." I think of free as "I don't have to give them money, which I don't have much of, to use their service."
I'm well aware of their targeted advertising, which is what you're referring to. That don't make it any less free.
What happened to the USA that WE don't seem to have many people like this anymore?
We do.
True, it's not giving away wifi to a major metro area like New York, but the Google guys don't count as entrepreneurs that kick the establishment's ass and, er, have testicles? Because while Virgin is giving away free internet, and that's nice, Google is giving me free maps and free* e-mail that's much better than the e-mail service I had before.
I'm guessing some education funding and some scientific research funding. But don't worry, I'm sure congress will do their best to make sure only the ineffective educational programs get cut, and that the most important research projects will be adequately funded.
Oh wait..."their best" isn't really a comforting thought...