Well, if you want all possible funds going towards logistical problems rather than actual research on the intended subject area, sure, we could try that. I'll note that nothing is 100% sure: in the middle of the ocean, you could still have people stealing pathogens and releasing them for terrorism.
BSL4 labs are no joke already. We already spend a lot on the BSL4 facilities themselves, 1.2 billion in 2003 for example. The safety measures inside are considerable:
When dealing with biological hazards at this level the use of a positive pressure personnel suit, with a segregated air supply, is mandatory. The entrance and exit of a level four biolab will contain multiple showers, a vacuum room, an ultraviolet light room, and other safety precautions designed to destroy all traces of the biohazard. Multiple airlocks are employed and are electronically secured to prevent both doors opening at the same time. All air and water service going to and coming from a biosafety level 4 (or P4) lab will undergo similar decontamination procedures to eliminate the possibility of an accidental release.
Diseases that are out there in the wild, it seems stupid to suggest there's more of a risk from studying it than dealing with it if it happens. Smallpox, which has been eliminated in the wild and that we have a vaccine for, you could definitely make the case, however there would still be smallpox sources out there., it could re-emerge. There is no antiviral drug approved for smallpox. If we get wind that someone is making a smallpox bomb, or if it re-emerges naturally, we'd probably want to start testing cidofovir or some other drugs ASAP. And sticking all our labs dealing with it in the middle of the ocean is a good way to make sure that's as slow as possible.
Yeah! The motto of the UN and any world leaders should be "Hope for the best and prepare only for the best!" Because planning for the worst-case scenario is just ASKING for trouble. Who are these people with their negative thinking about the worlds food supply? Why, that's downright irresponsible to be pessimistic like that, according to "The Secret."
Sarcasm aside, I do sorta agree with you. They know it's going to be a problem. They don't really seem to be pointing fingers which would be the next step. I realize the top carbon emitting nations run the show at the UN, so even a toothless resolution telling the US and China to fucking stop tinkering with the atmosphere is never going to get anywhere, but it doesn't seem like anyone is trying. Furthermore, the UN is against the next logical step of cleaning it up. They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
So they won't make moves to prevent it and they won't make moves to allow it to be reduced. They come up with suggestions, but they're all basically "deal with the problems." For instance it encourages economic diversification in response to problems with the economy. Oh, great. Cause that's not something anyone thought to do before hand. MUCH easier than causing algal blooms in the ocean to soak up the carbon.
I'm guessing it's because they honestly believe what they are doing is necessary to keep America safe. To the point that they think lying to the people who are supposed to be overseeing them is necessary for the greater good.
Which is terrifying. Give me all the cynical, greedy, lying, corrupt asshole politicians you want. Just please, don't put zealots in power.
It's even worse than that. Cities are so vicious about this because they make so much money off of selling the rights to drive people around.
They won't call it a tax, despite the fact that the city gets money and it comes from the citizens in the form of higher costs. Worse, it specifically targets people too poor to buy their own car or chauffeur.
But the idiots who don't remotely wipe their phone increase the insurance costs to everyone, leading us back to the costs.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that handing them a kill-switch is ceding a whole lot of ground. If the government wants to track your cell phone, they already do. If they want to shut down your cell phone, I'm pretty sure they can just tell AT&T or verizon to turn it off, they'd save maybe a few hours. If they want to shut down all cell phones in an area, say one where there's a protest, I'm sure they'd have no problems shutting down the cell phone towers.
If we were talking about something the government couldn't already do, then $26 billion saved would be not worth considering to me, but they already can.
That said, I'm skeptical consumers would be $26 billion richer. I think a more sure way of making consumers richer would be to break up some telecoms, and then we wouldn't be giving the government more power.
I'd note that autism does not necessarily mean good at math any more than being tall makes you good at basketball. There are plenty of autistics who aren't rain man. Lets not confuse the two.
Also interestingly, the US was the one promoting it right after WWII.
General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe).[35][36] The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers, converted into factory ships (Hashidate Maru and Nisshin Maru), with whale catchers to once again take blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere.[35]
Wiki
If you object to the US telling you to stop eating whale meat, remember that it was the US who told you to start. Maybe start by rejecting that first order we gave you and refuse to eat whale meat?
1. That's a tu quoque fallacy that makes even less sense than a normal tu quoque fallacy. Just because more than one country lies doesn't make it the truth. Furthemore, Taco Cowboy is not a nation. You're assuming he's from the US and also that he endorses the US policies. That's stupid. His criticism is not hypocritical necessarily.
2. No one is saying that eating meat or wearing fur is for science, at least not in the US.
But it does make sense from an arms race standpoint: facebook and google probably have the same eyeballs right now. If facebook were to have more eyeballs than google, facebook's revenue would go up and googles down.
It also makes sense for advertising for advertising. People are talking about it and not in a "Can you BELIEVE what facebook changed now? Fuck facebook! I'm going to quit it for the rest of the day!"
Twilight of civilization? This is about a near magical device that we've made with science which can give you any answer you can think of, communicate with people on the other side of the world, and see pictures of people having sex. What about this gives you such cynicism? Yes, these are idiotic arguments, but think about the idiotic disagreements that lead to real wars in the past. Civilization sure doesn't seem to be on the downward slide.
I would think an even dispersal of heart attacks would be preferable to spiking them on one day due to hospital resources. Plus, causing heart attacks to happen sooner than they would have is also bad. If it happens six months earlier than it would have otherwise, that's six months a patient might have been able to mitigate those risk factors.
With so many people running off smartphones and computers rather than watches, I feel like we could probably soon manage to move away from a on/off switch. Have dawn in each time zone be, say, 7 AM each day, have the time adjusted between 3 and 4 AM each night, it would be, what, a few minutes difference each night at most?
I doubt we ever WOULD move to something like that. It might be amusing to see Obama propose that just to see what republicans would say about it. And aside from heart attacks, I don't really see much reason for it aside from I like more light in the evenings. But I think we definitely could do it.
That's true, but GGP only implied the founding fathers would be upset at this. They probably would be: censorship is almost always a bad idea. They wouldn't be saying "We wrote this constitution specifically to prevent this!!!" but they would be saying "That's bloody stupid." Possibly followed by some racially insensitive comments, but that's beside the point.
It is very unlikely that we will be able to use this technology for deep space travel in the near future.
FTFY. "Ever" is such a long time that making predictions about it are pretty foolish. People saying man will never walk on the moon in the 1600s may have felt safe in making that statement, but they would have been 100% wrong nonetheless.
For certain definitions of "*NON* flashy." Specifically, they may not flaunt their wealth but they definitely have it compared to the people who work for them. I suppose it's in good taste if they don't buy a platinum grill for their teeth. I suppose that matters more to some people.
It's basically google maps with a different skin, and you can report things like speedtraps and accidents. And you get points, so there's a game aspect I suppose.
That's it. It's one of those "tech" companies that seem absurdly overvalued based on how little they actually do. In no sane world would it be worth the billion google paid for it. And on top of that, although the interface for reporting stuff is designed to be as minimal as possible and they prevent you from typing and driving, there's no way it's safe to use. I've used it, so I'm a hypocrite there, but it is a driving hazard.
Citation needed on that. And with legislators addicted to zero tolerance and get tough on shirts untucked, I'm willing to bet that most of the money came with strings on it that set the problem up. "Here's ten thousand dollars... no you cannot fix the roof with it, you need a metal detector!"
To be fair, that would have described any Blockbuster store in the last 20 years. I worked at one in high school. The godfather? We had two of the trillogy. Brittney Spears' movie? Literally 40 copies.
The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts
Oh me oh my! Out of 800 members of the soft sciences, there were some anti-conservative sentiments?!? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!! (/s)
First off, that's not "hatred towards white Christian men" which is what you seemed to be trying to prove. Second, plenty of fields have biases. Go into a chamber of commerce in Arizona and take such a poll and I'm sure you'll find much more vivid hatred against liberals. And latinos. And I'd suggest that the chamber of commerce crowd weilds a lot more power than a bunch of psychologists. Yes, we're all discriminated against, but we're not all equally discriminated against.
On the larger point of bias in the media, sure, journalists might like to call out individual republicans for corruption more than democrats. And I'll give you that journalists are more liberal, it is one of those fields. But lets remember that the country is massively skewed to the right. When it comes down to things that matter the media obeys the republicans,. They marched us into Bush's war without asking questions. They did little cheerleading for obamacare and covered all the crazy bullshit conservatives were coming up with to attack what was essentially their plan.
I'd suggest that if journalists like pointing out shit that republicans do, it's only because their consciences are bothering them for following conservative orders when it actually matters.
As she was not even a teenager at the time, that looks to me like very strong compulsion from authority figures. A normal pre-teen is not going to say "you cannot do this, it violates my rights, let me talk to my parents and a lawyer." Under this kind of pressure they'll believe the officer will throw her in jail forever, and break down.
Isn't that pretty well ingrained in the courts though? It seems like (IANAL) the courts have decided that anything the cops do to you to get you to do what they want is fine, so long as they're not actually beating you or cutting off body parts. "They told you you would be raped in the shower if you didn't confess? Well you should have known they were bluffing! They can't do that anymore! Confession stands."
One: people who make rules like these are fond of the idea that they are infallible. Admitting a policy was wrong would force them to admit they CAN be wrong, at which point they assume the students will riot and burn schools to the ground.
Two: the people who made the policies aren't going to be changed, the groupthink that led them to that point hasn't changed, they still believe in the value of the policy and think that everyone else is just ignorant and misguided as to why the policy is so necessary.
Three: Probably some idiotic notion about limiting liability. "If we admit it was wrong, someone ELSE MIGHT SUE US!" No one applies this logic to actually changing the policy or is willing to admit it's the policy that caused the lawsuit of course. It seems to be a weird quirk of groupthink that it's good to be shitty people in a half-assed attempt to limit liability.
Slashdot Mirror
BSL4 labs are no joke already. We already spend a lot on the BSL4 facilities themselves, 1.2 billion in 2003 for example. The safety measures inside are considerable:
When dealing with biological hazards at this level the use of a positive pressure personnel suit, with a segregated air supply, is mandatory. The entrance and exit of a level four biolab will contain multiple showers, a vacuum room, an ultraviolet light room, and other safety precautions designed to destroy all traces of the biohazard. Multiple airlocks are employed and are electronically secured to prevent both doors opening at the same time. All air and water service going to and coming from a biosafety level 4 (or P4) lab will undergo similar decontamination procedures to eliminate the possibility of an accidental release.
wiki
Diseases that are out there in the wild, it seems stupid to suggest there's more of a risk from studying it than dealing with it if it happens. Smallpox, which has been eliminated in the wild and that we have a vaccine for, you could definitely make the case, however there would still be smallpox sources out there., it could re-emerge. There is no antiviral drug approved for smallpox. If we get wind that someone is making a smallpox bomb, or if it re-emerges naturally, we'd probably want to start testing cidofovir or some other drugs ASAP. And sticking all our labs dealing with it in the middle of the ocean is a good way to make sure that's as slow as possible.
Yeah! The motto of the UN and any world leaders should be "Hope for the best and prepare only for the best!" Because planning for the worst-case scenario is just ASKING for trouble. Who are these people with their negative thinking about the worlds food supply? Why, that's downright irresponsible to be pessimistic like that, according to "The Secret."
Sarcasm aside, I do sorta agree with you. They know it's going to be a problem. They don't really seem to be pointing fingers which would be the next step. I realize the top carbon emitting nations run the show at the UN, so even a toothless resolution telling the US and China to fucking stop tinkering with the atmosphere is never going to get anywhere, but it doesn't seem like anyone is trying. Furthermore, the UN is against the next logical step of cleaning it up. They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.
So they won't make moves to prevent it and they won't make moves to allow it to be reduced. They come up with suggestions, but they're all basically "deal with the problems." For instance it encourages economic diversification in response to problems with the economy. Oh, great. Cause that's not something anyone thought to do before hand. MUCH easier than causing algal blooms in the ocean to soak up the carbon.
I'm guessing it's because they honestly believe what they are doing is necessary to keep America safe. To the point that they think lying to the people who are supposed to be overseeing them is necessary for the greater good.
Which is terrifying. Give me all the cynical, greedy, lying, corrupt asshole politicians you want. Just please, don't put zealots in power.
It's even worse than that. Cities are so vicious about this because they make so much money off of selling the rights to drive people around.
They won't call it a tax, despite the fact that the city gets money and it comes from the citizens in the form of higher costs. Worse, it specifically targets people too poor to buy their own car or chauffeur.
But the idiots who don't remotely wipe their phone increase the insurance costs to everyone, leading us back to the costs.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that handing them a kill-switch is ceding a whole lot of ground. If the government wants to track your cell phone, they already do. If they want to shut down your cell phone, I'm pretty sure they can just tell AT&T or verizon to turn it off, they'd save maybe a few hours. If they want to shut down all cell phones in an area, say one where there's a protest, I'm sure they'd have no problems shutting down the cell phone towers.
If we were talking about something the government couldn't already do, then $26 billion saved would be not worth considering to me, but they already can.
That said, I'm skeptical consumers would be $26 billion richer. I think a more sure way of making consumers richer would be to break up some telecoms, and then we wouldn't be giving the government more power.
The linked articles do mention that as a possibility, but we shouldn't just assume that is the one and only cause of it. It doesn't explain why pollution appears to increase the risk within the same age groups. If it were simply that we were better at diagnosing it now then we were, the rates of polluted areas would be the same as less polluted areas.
I'd note that autism does not necessarily mean good at math any more than being tall makes you good at basketball. There are plenty of autistics who aren't rain man. Lets not confuse the two.
Oops. The wiki link
General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the USA and Europe).[35][36] The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers, converted into factory ships (Hashidate Maru and Nisshin Maru), with whale catchers to once again take blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere.[35]
Wiki If you object to the US telling you to stop eating whale meat, remember that it was the US who told you to start. Maybe start by rejecting that first order we gave you and refuse to eat whale meat?
1. That's a tu quoque fallacy that makes even less sense than a normal tu quoque fallacy. Just because more than one country lies doesn't make it the truth. Furthemore, Taco Cowboy is not a nation. You're assuming he's from the US and also that he endorses the US policies. That's stupid. His criticism is not hypocritical necessarily.
2. No one is saying that eating meat or wearing fur is for science, at least not in the US.
But it does make sense from an arms race standpoint: facebook and google probably have the same eyeballs right now. If facebook were to have more eyeballs than google, facebook's revenue would go up and googles down.
It also makes sense for advertising for advertising. People are talking about it and not in a "Can you BELIEVE what facebook changed now? Fuck facebook! I'm going to quit it for the rest of the day!"
Twilight of civilization? This is about a near magical device that we've made with science which can give you any answer you can think of, communicate with people on the other side of the world, and see pictures of people having sex. What about this gives you such cynicism? Yes, these are idiotic arguments, but think about the idiotic disagreements that lead to real wars in the past. Civilization sure doesn't seem to be on the downward slide.
I would think an even dispersal of heart attacks would be preferable to spiking them on one day due to hospital resources. Plus, causing heart attacks to happen sooner than they would have is also bad. If it happens six months earlier than it would have otherwise, that's six months a patient might have been able to mitigate those risk factors.
With so many people running off smartphones and computers rather than watches, I feel like we could probably soon manage to move away from a on/off switch. Have dawn in each time zone be, say, 7 AM each day, have the time adjusted between 3 and 4 AM each night, it would be, what, a few minutes difference each night at most?
I doubt we ever WOULD move to something like that. It might be amusing to see Obama propose that just to see what republicans would say about it. And aside from heart attacks, I don't really see much reason for it aside from I like more light in the evenings. But I think we definitely could do it.
That's true, but GGP only implied the founding fathers would be upset at this. They probably would be: censorship is almost always a bad idea. They wouldn't be saying "We wrote this constitution specifically to prevent this!!!" but they would be saying "That's bloody stupid." Possibly followed by some racially insensitive comments, but that's beside the point.
It is very unlikely that we will be able to use this technology for deep space travel in the near future.
FTFY. "Ever" is such a long time that making predictions about it are pretty foolish. People saying man will never walk on the moon in the 1600s may have felt safe in making that statement, but they would have been 100% wrong nonetheless.
For certain definitions of "*NON* flashy." Specifically, they may not flaunt their wealth but they definitely have it compared to the people who work for them. I suppose it's in good taste if they don't buy a platinum grill for their teeth. I suppose that matters more to some people.
Just to be clear, I wasn't the one making fun of the source there, I only requested a citation. I didn't look into the citations yet.
What? I did mention incident reporting. In that very sentence you were responding to. A comma doesn't mean "stop reading here."
It's basically google maps with a different skin, and you can report things like speedtraps and accidents. And you get points, so there's a game aspect I suppose.
That's it. It's one of those "tech" companies that seem absurdly overvalued based on how little they actually do. In no sane world would it be worth the billion google paid for it. And on top of that, although the interface for reporting stuff is designed to be as minimal as possible and they prevent you from typing and driving, there's no way it's safe to use. I've used it, so I'm a hypocrite there, but it is a driving hazard.
Google owns waze.
Citation needed on that. And with legislators addicted to zero tolerance and get tough on shirts untucked, I'm willing to bet that most of the money came with strings on it that set the problem up. "Here's ten thousand dollars... no you cannot fix the roof with it, you need a metal detector!"
To be fair, that would have described any Blockbuster store in the last 20 years. I worked at one in high school. The godfather? We had two of the trillogy. Brittney Spears' movie? Literally 40 copies.
The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts
Oh me oh my! Out of 800 members of the soft sciences, there were some anti-conservative sentiments?!? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!! (/s)
First off, that's not "hatred towards white Christian men" which is what you seemed to be trying to prove. Second, plenty of fields have biases. Go into a chamber of commerce in Arizona and take such a poll and I'm sure you'll find much more vivid hatred against liberals. And latinos. And I'd suggest that the chamber of commerce crowd weilds a lot more power than a bunch of psychologists. Yes, we're all discriminated against, but we're not all equally discriminated against.
On the larger point of bias in the media, sure, journalists might like to call out individual republicans for corruption more than democrats. And I'll give you that journalists are more liberal, it is one of those fields. But lets remember that the country is massively skewed to the right. When it comes down to things that matter the media obeys the republicans,. They marched us into Bush's war without asking questions. They did little cheerleading for obamacare and covered all the crazy bullshit conservatives were coming up with to attack what was essentially their plan.
I'd suggest that if journalists like pointing out shit that republicans do, it's only because their consciences are bothering them for following conservative orders when it actually matters.
As she was not even a teenager at the time, that looks to me like very strong compulsion from authority figures. A normal pre-teen is not going to say "you cannot do this, it violates my rights, let me talk to my parents and a lawyer." Under this kind of pressure they'll believe the officer will throw her in jail forever, and break down.
Isn't that pretty well ingrained in the courts though? It seems like (IANAL) the courts have decided that anything the cops do to you to get you to do what they want is fine, so long as they're not actually beating you or cutting off body parts. "They told you you would be raped in the shower if you didn't confess? Well you should have known they were bluffing! They can't do that anymore! Confession stands."
Three reasons I'm guessing:
One: people who make rules like these are fond of the idea that they are infallible. Admitting a policy was wrong would force them to admit they CAN be wrong, at which point they assume the students will riot and burn schools to the ground.
Two: the people who made the policies aren't going to be changed, the groupthink that led them to that point hasn't changed, they still believe in the value of the policy and think that everyone else is just ignorant and misguided as to why the policy is so necessary.
Three: Probably some idiotic notion about limiting liability. "If we admit it was wrong, someone ELSE MIGHT SUE US!" No one applies this logic to actually changing the policy or is willing to admit it's the policy that caused the lawsuit of course. It seems to be a weird quirk of groupthink that it's good to be shitty people in a half-assed attempt to limit liability.