But... people don't need to keep mining bitcoins in order to keep the value of bitcoins up. Much like if suddenly, there were no more diamonds to be pulled out of the ground, the price of diamonds would go up, not down.
Alpha_wolf was saying that, and it sounds like you're saying he's wrong, and then providing an argument as to why he's right.
Yeah, but the type of guy or girl who is more interested in slugs and worms than heart surgery is probably more interesting in the sack, so it's kind of a wash.
This might be impossible to currently answer, but is it very likely that one asteroid will have all the raw materials needed to make a fully functioning droid capable of doing what you're suggesting? Are asteroids that heterogeneous or would said droids require just a few materials?
You're shooting the messenger. The point is not "feel bad for me," the point is "Your government sucks. They're not making you secure or being strong on defense, which is why a lot of you voted for them in the first place. They're making you less secure. Vote for less blowhards."
Not sure his message is going to get anywhere, seems to me that most voters know how bad politics in Washington are, they just think that THEIR incumbent who they voted for is one of the good guys.
Skyrim is a poor choice of examples there. What's the mod scene for Skyrim on the consoles? Steam's DRM is only annoying if you consider it in a vaccum, but that's a stupid way to look at it. Skyrim hasn't been released without DRM, correct? Without Steam, it would have been on Origin, which is also DRM. Without either, it would have been not released on the PC at all, and you wouldn't have any mods, from what I can tell.
You're being simplistic. Steam is working to decrease the DRM you have to put up with. Without any DRM, companies would skip the PC entirely. Consoles have very, very heavy DRM obviously. If you're satisfied with GOG, that might not bother you, but in order for PC gaming not to be very close to dead, some concessions need to be made, and steam is doing a great job promoting light DRM as an alternative to the consoles.
Hmm... yes good points. A bit off topic, but flying machines too are nonsense. No expert in the field sees them happening. People have been talking about flying machines, and we've had balloons for decades, but flying contraptions didn't materialize. And they don't solve any problem really that we don't already have a solution to, but do introduce new problems, like falling. The whole idea is nonsense. It's a dead end too! Ships and trains are far too cheap to ever let flying machines even be competitive. It's old and has no real potential for ever working. It's basically a scam prepetuated by some bike builders, and it's not clear it will ever be useful for any meaningful problem.
In conclusion, you're right. There's no chance of any revolutionary computing technology coming forward, and there's no chance that humans will ever fly.
"Thankfully?" I'd LOVE to see the lawyers go after the mexican cartels. I don't know who would win, and frankly, I don't care, I just want to see carnage in one of those two camps.
This data is useful if we're going to start another science race of some kind. Maybe the "Green energy race" or the "cure cancer race." Us vs China vs the EU. It'll totally be exciting for us nerds. And major bonus: we'd get useful tech out of it like we did with the space race.
National pride hasn't disappeared. From what I hear, it's increasing in China at least. If national pride isn't harvested for something useful to all of us, then it will undoubtedly be harvested by selfish people in the military industrial complex. And we'll get nothing more out of it besides more bombs and maybe a bunch of dead people. Quite possibly a ruined economy too.
Lets not forget lawyers suing 3D printers into oblivion for medical malpractice. Hmm... perhaps we can convince those lawyers to keep big copyright from killing it first. Maybe we could do the same thing with gun manufacturers, get them to keep congress from passing laws against 3D printed guns (to immediately be applied to anything else they might want to ban) so that the gun manufacturers can sue after someone prints up one of their copyrighted guns.
Then we get the two remaining groups to somehow take each other out.
The victor from that fight will be killed by gorillas who will die off in the following winter.
Its laughable to blame the mess this country is on voters when neither party ever fields candidates that are worth voting for.
You talk of the parties as if they're NOT made up of voters. It's not a decision made in smoky rooms by shadowy men twirling their moustaches, it's people who vote in the primaries. Idiot voters voting or not voting in the primaries gets you the candidates that aren't worth voting for. Were you not paying attention to the whole tea party thing lately? That's entirely voter driven, much to the dismay of party "leaders."
When someone does comes along who has principals and might be worth voting for the parties and the media quickly dispose of them one way or another before they ever reach a point they can do any damage to the status quo
Name a time when saints ever ran for office? Politics is from start to finish 100% compromise. Idealists who go into it at any level are quickly ground up and spat out. Furthermore, power does corrupt, and additionally there's an evolution there: politicianswho are willing to sell their ideals for campaign money have a natural advantage over those who don't. When voters are focused on idiotic intangible things like "Hope" or "small government" (without specifying HOW the government will get smaller), that's always going to be the case. Voters making specific demands of their politicians and voting out corruption is the only way that changes.
In other words, the media doesn't dispose of such candidates, that's merely a symptom of candidates you like failing to attract support. The media attacks everyone. The politicians like Bush who had the support of a ton of idiot voters ARE ATTACKED JUST THE SAME. The difference is that such politicians have a dedicated base of idiots who don't care how bad they are.
You can blame one party or another if you want. Personally I blame the voters. The stupid, stupid voters. An idiotic, ignorant, apathetic voter base is both necessary and sufficient to get bad politics no matter which party or ideology is in charge. Stupid cowardly voters who are willing to trade their real freedoms for fake security will get that deal from either party. Or independents for that matter. Someone will offer them that deal in order to get power. The party doesn't matter.
And frankly, I don't see how honesty matters. A thief who is stealing from me and is honest about it is only better when I can stop him. Bush et al didn't spell it out to the stupid, stupid voters in ways they understood. To me, that's still not being honest. Making an obvious lie to a child, when you know the child can't tell you're lying, that's still being dishonest.
Come on, lets not tempt fate like that! If made for TV movies have taught me anything, one of those nuclear silos out in the middle of nowhere has a circuit which has frozen somehow, and the nuke is just waiting for someone to say something to make it really ironic when it launches.
Above posters have covered how creationists are more dangerous than all that, and the "climate change won't be bad" has been extensively debated to death elsewhere.
Anti-GMO people are not going to "have their way" around the world. People in india are not going to starve to appease some Hawaian hippies.
VortexCortex wasn't appealing to his authority though. He provided reasoning beyond "listen to me, I know what I'm talking about."
I'd have to read TFA (shudder) to see if the astronomer backed up his statement, but an astronomer simply saying "This is revolutionary!" would be less convincing than what VortexCortex posted if that's all there was.
n-body calculations where n>3 are all simulations.
I was going to say, I can solve plenty of N-body calculations where N = zero.
(I think anyway. I'm a biologist not a mathologist. Maybe N = zero is a real thing that isn't simply "zero." If so, I sincerely apologize and accept my punishment.)
I think you're onto something. TFA says this was in the section of the city that was "non-elite." I guess it's human nature to want to buy silly things to make yourself look like you're higher in society than you actually feel.
Unrelated question, anyone have a reccomendation for the best fake-diamond studded case for my iphone?
If one guy breaks his leg falling from a ladder, and another breaks his leg in a car accident, does the doctor treat that broken leg differently? Preventative measures for those broken legs may be different, but the result is the same.
Not really. If you land on your leg from a ladder and get a compound fracture, that's probably your bone being compressed. If you get your leg crushed in a car accident, that's probably going to break a different way. The bone will likely need to be set differently. With crushing, I think there's a greater chance of internal bleeding, can't remember where I heard that. The specific insult will lead to a different type of injury that necessarily affects the treatment, even if they both are very similar overall (like they both require casts).
Yes, it's a fruitful avenue of research to treat different cancer types with different methods. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking for broader methods than can treat multiple different kinds of cancers based on their numerous shared characteristics.
Uh, I'm pretty sure no cancer researcher in the world is giving up on curing ALL cancers if they can. I mean, you automaticaly win the nobel prize for sure, get assured to be put on a stamp, and free drinks for the rest of your life if you "cure cancer." If you cure "just" one subtype of cancer, you probably get tenure or plenty of grant money, but you probably won't get automatically laid by saying "I'm the guy who cured multiple myeloma!" in a bar.
They're focusing on specific types because that seems far more likely than any one treatment curing all types of cancer. For instance multiple myeloma cells appear to be more on the verge of auto-cannibalizing themselves, moreso than other cancers. Researchers got them to undergo unrestrained autophagy and die, that probably won't be the case for other cancers. If it even works in patients for multiple myeloma.
The meme that "cancer is a whole spectrum of diseases" is just that, a meme. Researchers who recite that meme don't believe it literally.
I, for one, do actually believe it. And I think it's more than a meme. I think researchers who pursue a grand cure might be modern day alchemists: trying very hard to achieve a goal which is far beyond the current technology. Modern chemistry came about from alchemists. Likewise, researchers who are attemtping to cure ALL cancers can definitely make important contributions even if they don't cure all cancers, so I'm not knocking them. But I do think we'll probably cure individual cancer subtypes before theres a big overall cure.
That's a slight bit of a strawman argument. Or whatever it is when you pick the dumbest arguments made by the dumbest, loudest people one one side and write off the entire side. GMOs aren't "unhealthy," you're right. But a lot of people who are concerned about GMO are concerned first about the transgenes spreading. Resistance to glyphosphate is spreading to pests, and transgenes have contaminated other crops. Normal pollution can be cleaned up and doesn't multiply. Polluting the gene pool is much more problematic and should require MUCH higher standards.
A lot of opposition to GMO also has more to do with economics than with health issues. Specifically, I don't want anyone to have a monopoly on food. Monsanto especially, given their past behavior. GMO has a huge advantage over non-GMO, and monsanto is a dominant (if not THE dominant) player in GMO. My fear is that they're going to get us to a monoculture with major foodstocks, changing legislation around the world to fortify their position. As mentioned in the previous links, glyphosphate resistance already exists and is spreading. So we need to buy the next version from Monsanto at increased cost and decreased quality of life for farmers and everyone else.
Your last bit about "once other countries start making their own versions" is flawed I think. Monsanto has been aggressive with their patenting. Other countries aren't going to reinvent the wheel to avoid monsantos patents and still make a product which is competitive.
TLDR, I think you dislike a subset of stupid anti-GMO activists who are, sure, very annoying, but there are still important objections to GMO.
I wouldn't equate "Republican creationists thugs" with republicans.
I would say that creationists and climate change deniers are both associated with republicans the same way anti-GMOs are associated with democrats. But I'd say that creationists and climate change deniers are far, far more dangerous than anti-GMO morons.
Slashdot Mirror
But... people don't need to keep mining bitcoins in order to keep the value of bitcoins up. Much like if suddenly, there were no more diamonds to be pulled out of the ground, the price of diamonds would go up, not down.
Alpha_wolf was saying that, and it sounds like you're saying he's wrong, and then providing an argument as to why he's right.
After Jindal mocked volcano research, then a volcano erupted, I'm guessing all politicians realized they shouldnt' do such things.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at my joke there...
Yeah, but the type of guy or girl who is more interested in slugs and worms than heart surgery is probably more interesting in the sack, so it's kind of a wash.
The lesson you're implying we should learn is what? Don't make guesses as to whether something is a reasonable approach, just do it cost be damned?
Alternative Step 3: your shills are too convincing, all your investors decide they are right and pull their money.
This might be impossible to currently answer, but is it very likely that one asteroid will have all the raw materials needed to make a fully functioning droid capable of doing what you're suggesting? Are asteroids that heterogeneous or would said droids require just a few materials?
You're shooting the messenger. The point is not "feel bad for me," the point is "Your government sucks. They're not making you secure or being strong on defense, which is why a lot of you voted for them in the first place. They're making you less secure. Vote for less blowhards."
Not sure his message is going to get anywhere, seems to me that most voters know how bad politics in Washington are, they just think that THEIR incumbent who they voted for is one of the good guys.
Skyrim is a poor choice of examples there. What's the mod scene for Skyrim on the consoles? Steam's DRM is only annoying if you consider it in a vaccum, but that's a stupid way to look at it. Skyrim hasn't been released without DRM, correct? Without Steam, it would have been on Origin, which is also DRM. Without either, it would have been not released on the PC at all, and you wouldn't have any mods, from what I can tell.
You're being simplistic. Steam is working to decrease the DRM you have to put up with. Without any DRM, companies would skip the PC entirely. Consoles have very, very heavy DRM obviously. If you're satisfied with GOG, that might not bother you, but in order for PC gaming not to be very close to dead, some concessions need to be made, and steam is doing a great job promoting light DRM as an alternative to the consoles.
Hmm... yes good points. A bit off topic, but flying machines too are nonsense. No expert in the field sees them happening. People have been talking about flying machines, and we've had balloons for decades, but flying contraptions didn't materialize. And they don't solve any problem really that we don't already have a solution to, but do introduce new problems, like falling. The whole idea is nonsense. It's a dead end too! Ships and trains are far too cheap to ever let flying machines even be competitive. It's old and has no real potential for ever working. It's basically a scam prepetuated by some bike builders, and it's not clear it will ever be useful for any meaningful problem.
In conclusion, you're right. There's no chance of any revolutionary computing technology coming forward, and there's no chance that humans will ever fly.
"Thankfully?" I'd LOVE to see the lawyers go after the mexican cartels. I don't know who would win, and frankly, I don't care, I just want to see carnage in one of those two camps.
This data is useful if we're going to start another science race of some kind. Maybe the "Green energy race" or the "cure cancer race." Us vs China vs the EU. It'll totally be exciting for us nerds. And major bonus: we'd get useful tech out of it like we did with the space race.
National pride hasn't disappeared. From what I hear, it's increasing in China at least. If national pride isn't harvested for something useful to all of us, then it will undoubtedly be harvested by selfish people in the military industrial complex. And we'll get nothing more out of it besides more bombs and maybe a bunch of dead people. Quite possibly a ruined economy too.
Lets not forget lawyers suing 3D printers into oblivion for medical malpractice. Hmm... perhaps we can convince those lawyers to keep big copyright from killing it first. Maybe we could do the same thing with gun manufacturers, get them to keep congress from passing laws against 3D printed guns (to immediately be applied to anything else they might want to ban) so that the gun manufacturers can sue after someone prints up one of their copyrighted guns.
Then we get the two remaining groups to somehow take each other out.
The victor from that fight will be killed by gorillas who will die off in the following winter.
Its laughable to blame the mess this country is on voters when neither party ever fields candidates that are worth voting for.
You talk of the parties as if they're NOT made up of voters. It's not a decision made in smoky rooms by shadowy men twirling their moustaches, it's people who vote in the primaries. Idiot voters voting or not voting in the primaries gets you the candidates that aren't worth voting for. Were you not paying attention to the whole tea party thing lately? That's entirely voter driven, much to the dismay of party "leaders."
When someone does comes along who has principals and might be worth voting for the parties and the media quickly dispose of them one way or another before they ever reach a point they can do any damage to the status quo
Name a time when saints ever ran for office? Politics is from start to finish 100% compromise. Idealists who go into it at any level are quickly ground up and spat out. Furthermore, power does corrupt, and additionally there's an evolution there: politicianswho are willing to sell their ideals for campaign money have a natural advantage over those who don't. When voters are focused on idiotic intangible things like "Hope" or "small government" (without specifying HOW the government will get smaller), that's always going to be the case. Voters making specific demands of their politicians and voting out corruption is the only way that changes.
In other words, the media doesn't dispose of such candidates, that's merely a symptom of candidates you like failing to attract support. The media attacks everyone. The politicians like Bush who had the support of a ton of idiot voters ARE ATTACKED JUST THE SAME. The difference is that such politicians have a dedicated base of idiots who don't care how bad they are.
You can blame one party or another if you want. Personally I blame the voters. The stupid, stupid voters. An idiotic, ignorant, apathetic voter base is both necessary and sufficient to get bad politics no matter which party or ideology is in charge. Stupid cowardly voters who are willing to trade their real freedoms for fake security will get that deal from either party. Or independents for that matter. Someone will offer them that deal in order to get power. The party doesn't matter.
And frankly, I don't see how honesty matters. A thief who is stealing from me and is honest about it is only better when I can stop him. Bush et al didn't spell it out to the stupid, stupid voters in ways they understood. To me, that's still not being honest. Making an obvious lie to a child, when you know the child can't tell you're lying, that's still being dishonest.
Come on, lets not tempt fate like that! If made for TV movies have taught me anything, one of those nuclear silos out in the middle of nowhere has a circuit which has frozen somehow, and the nuke is just waiting for someone to say something to make it really ironic when it launches.
Above posters have covered how creationists are more dangerous than all that, and the "climate change won't be bad" has been extensively debated to death elsewhere.
Anti-GMO people are not going to "have their way" around the world. People in india are not going to starve to appease some Hawaian hippies.
I dunno, do car analogies count as discussions of gadgets?
I'd also argue that knowing your audience and communicating on their terms is a better approach than not.
VortexCortex wasn't appealing to his authority though. He provided reasoning beyond "listen to me, I know what I'm talking about."
I'd have to read TFA (shudder) to see if the astronomer backed up his statement, but an astronomer simply saying "This is revolutionary!" would be less convincing than what VortexCortex posted if that's all there was.
n-body calculations where n>3 are all simulations.
I was going to say, I can solve plenty of N-body calculations where N = zero.
(I think anyway. I'm a biologist not a mathologist. Maybe N = zero is a real thing that isn't simply "zero." If so, I sincerely apologize and accept my punishment.)
I think you're onto something. TFA says this was in the section of the city that was "non-elite." I guess it's human nature to want to buy silly things to make yourself look like you're higher in society than you actually feel.
Unrelated question, anyone have a reccomendation for the best fake-diamond studded case for my iphone?
Well okay, that's one simple albeit impossible way to slow down monsanto, but there's still the first point to consider.
If one guy breaks his leg falling from a ladder, and another breaks his leg in a car accident, does the doctor treat that broken leg differently? Preventative measures for those broken legs may be different, but the result is the same.
Not really. If you land on your leg from a ladder and get a compound fracture, that's probably your bone being compressed. If you get your leg crushed in a car accident, that's probably going to break a different way. The bone will likely need to be set differently. With crushing, I think there's a greater chance of internal bleeding, can't remember where I heard that. The specific insult will lead to a different type of injury that necessarily affects the treatment, even if they both are very similar overall (like they both require casts).
Yes, it's a fruitful avenue of research to treat different cancer types with different methods. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking for broader methods than can treat multiple different kinds of cancers based on their numerous shared characteristics.
Uh, I'm pretty sure no cancer researcher in the world is giving up on curing ALL cancers if they can. I mean, you automaticaly win the nobel prize for sure, get assured to be put on a stamp, and free drinks for the rest of your life if you "cure cancer." If you cure "just" one subtype of cancer, you probably get tenure or plenty of grant money, but you probably won't get automatically laid by saying "I'm the guy who cured multiple myeloma!" in a bar.
They're focusing on specific types because that seems far more likely than any one treatment curing all types of cancer. For instance multiple myeloma cells appear to be more on the verge of auto-cannibalizing themselves, moreso than other cancers. Researchers got them to undergo unrestrained autophagy and die, that probably won't be the case for other cancers. If it even works in patients for multiple myeloma.
The meme that "cancer is a whole spectrum of diseases" is just that, a meme. Researchers who recite that meme don't believe it literally.
I, for one, do actually believe it. And I think it's more than a meme. I think researchers who pursue a grand cure might be modern day alchemists: trying very hard to achieve a goal which is far beyond the current technology. Modern chemistry came about from alchemists. Likewise, researchers who are attemtping to cure ALL cancers can definitely make important contributions even if they don't cure all cancers, so I'm not knocking them. But I do think we'll probably cure individual cancer subtypes before theres a big overall cure.
That's a slight bit of a strawman argument. Or whatever it is when you pick the dumbest arguments made by the dumbest, loudest people one one side and write off the entire side. GMOs aren't "unhealthy," you're right. But a lot of people who are concerned about GMO are concerned first about the transgenes spreading. Resistance to glyphosphate is spreading to pests, and transgenes have contaminated other crops. Normal pollution can be cleaned up and doesn't multiply. Polluting the gene pool is much more problematic and should require MUCH higher standards.
A lot of opposition to GMO also has more to do with economics than with health issues. Specifically, I don't want anyone to have a monopoly on food. Monsanto especially, given their past behavior. GMO has a huge advantage over non-GMO, and monsanto is a dominant (if not THE dominant) player in GMO. My fear is that they're going to get us to a monoculture with major foodstocks, changing legislation around the world to fortify their position. As mentioned in the previous links, glyphosphate resistance already exists and is spreading. So we need to buy the next version from Monsanto at increased cost and decreased quality of life for farmers and everyone else.
Your last bit about "once other countries start making their own versions" is flawed I think. Monsanto has been aggressive with their patenting. Other countries aren't going to reinvent the wheel to avoid monsantos patents and still make a product which is competitive.
TLDR, I think you dislike a subset of stupid anti-GMO activists who are, sure, very annoying, but there are still important objections to GMO.
I wouldn't equate "Republican creationists thugs" with republicans.
I would say that creationists and climate change deniers are both associated with republicans the same way anti-GMOs are associated with democrats. But I'd say that creationists and climate change deniers are far, far more dangerous than anti-GMO morons.