Actually, this is not a bad idea... at least on a small scale.
If sucked into a vacuum cleaner, the violence of being sucked into and probably bounced around the hose as it gets pulled in would likely break its legs and almost certainly damage its wings to the point that it would no never be able to fly again (if not actually tear one or both of them right off). After being thrust into a pile of of dust in the vacuum bag that is *extremely* dry, where it could actually pull moisture right out of the bug's body, most insects would die extremely quickly.
Of course it doesn't excuse it... if anything, it only goes to show just how much more of an idiot he was for saying it in the first place because he clearly had no idea what the heck the factoid that he attempted to regurgitate ever actually meant.
No, it's not. It will react with hydrogen to produce ammonia, for example. Helium is completely inert, and does not exist in a stable form combined with any other element.
How can you "force" someone to work? In particular, how can you force someone to work when they aren't even being paid? Wouldn't that run afoul of things like minimum wage laws? Or worse... laws prohibiting slavery?
The reason why email is not sufficient is because there's no guarantee that the person will have actually seen it by the time it matters.
Where I live, if they tried to lay off or fire a person by email, and the person came into work the next day as normal, if they claimed they had not seen, or had not received said email, by law they would still need to be paid for at least 2 hours of their shift that day.
Yeah.... that's probably how he intended his words to be taken, although I've heard rants from quite a few people not long after he said what he did because he appeared to be suggesting the other interpretation. The statistic he cited still has mathematical credibility though when you look at the raw numbers. Again, this is only owing to the relative infrequency of rape compared to voluntary copulation, and shouldn't be taken as giving his statements any credibility, only being pointed to indicate where he could have got the initial idea in the first place.
I don't think he was intending it the factual way either... I think he heard the statistic and came to his own uninformed conclusions about it. Nonetheless, as I said, I still find it interesting that there was a kernel of truth behind what he had said... even though he never meant it in that way. It's not an apology for him... if anything, this only further illustrates how stupid he was for saying it, because he didn't even understand what the heck he was talking about.
My point is, however... that he didn't make up the fact... he just misrepresented it entirely, and misunderstood its significance such that he interpreted it to mean something entirely different from what it actually meant, and in turn, he made up a baloney excuse about what he thought was the cause... but mathematically, going by the raw numbers overall, pregnancy by rape is genuinely relatively rare. It has nothing to do with women's physiology... it has everything to do with the fact that voluntary copulation is simply much more frequent than rape. He didn't word it any such way that could have legitimately meant that because, like an idiot, he didn't realize where the factoid about the relatively infrequent percentage of pregnancies that are caused by rape actually came from. That's not an apology for his remark, that's just saying where the notion came from in the first place -- which I thought was kind of interesting... even if he is a moron.
By raw numbers, yes, there are fewer pregnancies by rape, but by percentages of consensual vs. forcible sex, I'm not sure you are correct about the statistics.
Indeed. It was the former about what I was referring. Again, not to apologize for what he said, because he misinterpreted the data to mean what he wanted it to mean, but because I think it's kind of interesting to realize how on earth such a notion could have even began in somebody's brain.
Oh, I know... the guy is a complete ass for having said what he did... I just thought it was interesting that even though he was obviously speaking out of complete ignorance, one could sort of see how it is that a person could get to the place about believing that in the first place.
I know he didn't say "pregnancies due to rape were uncommon", rather I'm suggesting that his ignorant misinterpretation of the truth behind that statement could easily have been what led him to have made the statement that rapes rarely cause pregnancy in the first place.
Of course, I know that's not what he ever meant... and I'm not apologizing for what he said. I just find it interesting that there's a perfectly plausible explanation for where on earth he could have ever got the notion in the first place.
Pregnancies due to rapes *ARE* rare...when compared to the actual number of pregnancies. Of course, the moron decided to completely misinterpret that statistic as meaning that the female body must have some mechanism for, as he put it "shutting the pregnancy down", instead of looking at what's really going on. The problem is that the stand-alone statement "pregnancies due to rapes are rare" makes an implicit a-priori assumption that the rape actually happened in the first place, which is where the misinterpretation occurs.
And of course, coupled with the man's obviously complete ignorance about where the actual notion of pregancies caused by rape being uncommon would have even come from, it was a recipe for complete disaster when he said what he did. I just find interesting that in spite of the idiocy of the statement, the notion that pregancies caused by rape may be uncommon does have some mathematical validity to it.
But again, don't construe anything I've said as any attempt to apologize for his idiocy... because I know full well that he didn't intend it the way I'm presenting it... I'm just suggesting where the notion that he had could have originated in the first place.
Oh I fully doubt he had anything like that in mind either.... I'm not saying that was his *intent*... I'm saying that he could arguably be accused of not making shit up about the infrequency of pregnancy arising from rape. I have no doubt he was completely oblivious to the fact that the only reason this would be statistically true is because of the relative infrequency of actual rape compared to the frequency with which people voluntarily copulate.
Aren't we supposed to be trying to figure out ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels instead of figuring out ways to prolong such dependency?
By the way.... what's up with the new long delays that are required between postings? I used to be able to make another comment after waiting only a couple of minutes... now I have to wait 5.
I'm not saying he wasn't.... I'm only saying that his claim had a kernel of mathematical truth to it... that doesn't excuse it by any stretch.... the guy was a complete asshat for saying such a thing because he didn't even begin to give the context under which it was actually valid (and it's plainly obvious from this that he was just regurgitating a factoid that he might have heard from somewhere without actually understanding what was really being said).
It doesn't excuse for a second the BS that he made up about women's bodies "shutting down" pregnancies. I'm not making apologies for the man, I'm just saying where the entire notion could reasonably come from.
Not that Todd Akin was telling the truth, by any means, but in actuality, his statement is the result of a grossly ignorant misreading of what's really going on. I will, by the way, be assuming that by use of the word "legitimate" he was meaning something more like "genuine" and not meaning it as "acceptable" or "okay" (in the context that Akin appeared to use the term, "legitimate" rape would be where one of the two people did not want to have sex with the other at that time, where "illegitimate" rape might be, for example, copulation that may have been entirely voluntary at the time that it had occurred, but then afterwards one of the two decided that they didn't like it and convinces themselves that they never wanted it in the first place... which is not an altogether uncommon occurrence). It's worth noting that a lot of the outrage against Akin was caused by people who were taking the word "legitimate" in that context to mean some synonym of "acceptable", and it's quite natural that they should be offended by such a notion. Nonetheless, giving Akin the benefit of the doubt about the meaning of the terms, it's slightly less offensive to assume he meant "genuine", so that's what I'm doing here. To that end, it's worth noting that there is actually a grain of mathematical truth behind this claim... although lacking sufficient context, the statement is plainly outrageous.
The reason, you see, that it's really "rare" for a woman to get pregnant when she is raped is because rape, by itself, is already relatively rare compared to the frequency with which people voluntarily engage in copulative sex... at least in this society. Since pregnancy from rape demands what is already an atypical condition (involuntary sex as opposed to willful engaging of said activity), there is some "legitimate" mathematical basis for saying that pregnancy arising from rape is not common. Of course, ordinarily and without any such context to clarify what is being talked about, the statement sounds loaded, since it appears to presume the pre-occurrence of rape when assessing the frequency of pregnancy, and it's candidly obvious that Akin had absolutely no idea what he was even talking about.
Verbatim, that entire comment was *EXACTLY* what I was thinking when I saw the Slashdot headline.
If one really asking this question in sincerity, there's an indicator that something pretty damn major is already wrong, and it's not something that some cell phone is going to fix.
But they don't, as you say..."gear up for it". Because there's not enough immediate return on investment (and probably won't be until we run out of oil completely).
Solar sounds attractive but can't scale to meet the actual world energy demands primarily because the difficulties associated with distributing power great distances that would be needed if you were to try and actually use large land areas covered with solar panels to meet large scale demand, and rooftop PV is not very practical as a complete replacement for people who live more than about 45 degrees or so north or south of the equator.
If we ever developed room temperature superconducting cables, solar would have a good chance of being quite viable.... but it's not, so it isn't.
You know that it's possible to make a reactor meltdown proof, right? You rely on passive cooling systems, so that if the system ever starts to fail, the reactor shuts down and the fission will stop long before meltdown occurs. Their biggest detriment is that they are arguably less efficient, but they are still far from impractical... and there are numerous such reactors in use today in several different countries around the world. They do not, incidentally, either produce any weapons-grade material as a byproduct.
Universal health system = rationing = substandard care, waiting lists and corruption
Waiting lists I'll agree with... but what evidence do you have of the others? I live in a country with universal health care and see absolutely none of the other issues arise.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is not a bad idea... at least on a small scale.
If sucked into a vacuum cleaner, the violence of being sucked into and probably bounced around the hose as it gets pulled in would likely break its legs and almost certainly damage its wings to the point that it would no never be able to fly again (if not actually tear one or both of them right off). After being thrust into a pile of of dust in the vacuum bag that is *extremely* dry, where it could actually pull moisture right out of the bug's body, most insects would die extremely quickly.
It's $435 for the first year, and $135 each year thereafter.
That's more than 50 times what I spend on toothbrushes in one year right now.
But it would only reduce my brushing time by about a factor between 15 and 25.
The economics are not worth it.
Of course it doesn't excuse it... if anything, it only goes to show just how much more of an idiot he was for saying it in the first place because he clearly had no idea what the heck the factoid that he attempted to regurgitate ever actually meant.
Incorrect. Helium does not chemically combine with any other element to produce a stable compound. Nitrogen exists stably in many molecular compounds.
No, it's not. It will react with hydrogen to produce ammonia, for example. Helium is completely inert, and does not exist in a stable form combined with any other element.
Nitrogen isn't inert.
How can you "force" someone to work? In particular, how can you force someone to work when they aren't even being paid? Wouldn't that run afoul of things like minimum wage laws? Or worse... laws prohibiting slavery?
The reason why email is not sufficient is because there's no guarantee that the person will have actually seen it by the time it matters.
Where I live, if they tried to lay off or fire a person by email, and the person came into work the next day as normal, if they claimed they had not seen, or had not received said email, by law they would still need to be paid for at least 2 hours of their shift that day.
Non-essential is not the same as not useful, or not productive.
They might not be able to borrow, but they also won't be able to pay back.
Care to take a while guess what happens when the government defaults on its debt?
As that's never actually happened to the USA before, I'm not sure anyone wants to find out.
Yeah.... that's probably how he intended his words to be taken, although I've heard rants from quite a few people not long after he said what he did because he appeared to be suggesting the other interpretation. The statistic he cited still has mathematical credibility though when you look at the raw numbers. Again, this is only owing to the relative infrequency of rape compared to voluntary copulation, and shouldn't be taken as giving his statements any credibility, only being pointed to indicate where he could have got the initial idea in the first place.
I don't think he was intending it the factual way either... I think he heard the statistic and came to his own uninformed conclusions about it. Nonetheless, as I said, I still find it interesting that there was a kernel of truth behind what he had said... even though he never meant it in that way. It's not an apology for him... if anything, this only further illustrates how stupid he was for saying it, because he didn't even understand what the heck he was talking about.
My point is, however... that he didn't make up the fact... he just misrepresented it entirely, and misunderstood its significance such that he interpreted it to mean something entirely different from what it actually meant, and in turn, he made up a baloney excuse about what he thought was the cause... but mathematically, going by the raw numbers overall, pregnancy by rape is genuinely relatively rare. It has nothing to do with women's physiology... it has everything to do with the fact that voluntary copulation is simply much more frequent than rape. He didn't word it any such way that could have legitimately meant that because, like an idiot, he didn't realize where the factoid about the relatively infrequent percentage of pregnancies that are caused by rape actually came from. That's not an apology for his remark, that's just saying where the notion came from in the first place -- which I thought was kind of interesting... even if he is a moron.
Indeed. It was the former about what I was referring. Again, not to apologize for what he said, because he misinterpreted the data to mean what he wanted it to mean, but because I think it's kind of interesting to realize how on earth such a notion could have even began in somebody's brain.
Oh, I know... the guy is a complete ass for having said what he did... I just thought it was interesting that even though he was obviously speaking out of complete ignorance, one could sort of see how it is that a person could get to the place about believing that in the first place.
I know he didn't say "pregnancies due to rape were uncommon", rather I'm suggesting that his ignorant misinterpretation of the truth behind that statement could easily have been what led him to have made the statement that rapes rarely cause pregnancy in the first place.
Of course, I know that's not what he ever meant... and I'm not apologizing for what he said. I just find it interesting that there's a perfectly plausible explanation for where on earth he could have ever got the notion in the first place.
Pregnancies due to rapes *ARE* rare...when compared to the actual number of pregnancies. Of course, the moron decided to completely misinterpret that statistic as meaning that the female body must have some mechanism for, as he put it "shutting the pregnancy down", instead of looking at what's really going on. The problem is that the stand-alone statement "pregnancies due to rapes are rare" makes an implicit a-priori assumption that the rape actually happened in the first place, which is where the misinterpretation occurs.
And of course, coupled with the man's obviously complete ignorance about where the actual notion of pregancies caused by rape being uncommon would have even come from, it was a recipe for complete disaster when he said what he did. I just find interesting that in spite of the idiocy of the statement, the notion that pregancies caused by rape may be uncommon does have some mathematical validity to it.
But again, don't construe anything I've said as any attempt to apologize for his idiocy... because I know full well that he didn't intend it the way I'm presenting it... I'm just suggesting where the notion that he had could have originated in the first place.
Oh I fully doubt he had anything like that in mind either.... I'm not saying that was his *intent*... I'm saying that he could arguably be accused of not making shit up about the infrequency of pregnancy arising from rape. I have no doubt he was completely oblivious to the fact that the only reason this would be statistically true is because of the relative infrequency of actual rape compared to the frequency with which people voluntarily copulate.
Aren't we supposed to be trying to figure out ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels instead of figuring out ways to prolong such dependency?
By the way.... what's up with the new long delays that are required between postings? I used to be able to make another comment after waiting only a couple of minutes... now I have to wait 5.
It doesn't excuse for a second the BS that he made up about women's bodies "shutting down" pregnancies. I'm not making apologies for the man, I'm just saying where the entire notion could reasonably come from.
Not that Todd Akin was telling the truth, by any means, but in actuality, his statement is the result of a grossly ignorant misreading of what's really going on. I will, by the way, be assuming that by use of the word "legitimate" he was meaning something more like "genuine" and not meaning it as "acceptable" or "okay" (in the context that Akin appeared to use the term, "legitimate" rape would be where one of the two people did not want to have sex with the other at that time, where "illegitimate" rape might be, for example, copulation that may have been entirely voluntary at the time that it had occurred, but then afterwards one of the two decided that they didn't like it and convinces themselves that they never wanted it in the first place... which is not an altogether uncommon occurrence). It's worth noting that a lot of the outrage against Akin was caused by people who were taking the word "legitimate" in that context to mean some synonym of "acceptable", and it's quite natural that they should be offended by such a notion. Nonetheless, giving Akin the benefit of the doubt about the meaning of the terms, it's slightly less offensive to assume he meant "genuine", so that's what I'm doing here. To that end, it's worth noting that there is actually a grain of mathematical truth behind this claim... although lacking sufficient context, the statement is plainly outrageous.
The reason, you see, that it's really "rare" for a woman to get pregnant when she is raped is because rape, by itself, is already relatively rare compared to the frequency with which people voluntarily engage in copulative sex... at least in this society. Since pregnancy from rape demands what is already an atypical condition (involuntary sex as opposed to willful engaging of said activity), there is some "legitimate" mathematical basis for saying that pregnancy arising from rape is not common. Of course, ordinarily and without any such context to clarify what is being talked about, the statement sounds loaded, since it appears to presume the pre-occurrence of rape when assessing the frequency of pregnancy, and it's candidly obvious that Akin had absolutely no idea what he was even talking about.
Verbatim, that entire comment was *EXACTLY* what I was thinking when I saw the Slashdot headline.
If one really asking this question in sincerity, there's an indicator that something pretty damn major is already wrong, and it's not something that some cell phone is going to fix.
They do. It is. It can... easily.
But they don't, as you say..."gear up for it". Because there's not enough immediate return on investment (and probably won't be until we run out of oil completely).
Solar sounds attractive but can't scale to meet the actual world energy demands primarily because the difficulties associated with distributing power great distances that would be needed if you were to try and actually use large land areas covered with solar panels to meet large scale demand, and rooftop PV is not very practical as a complete replacement for people who live more than about 45 degrees or so north or south of the equator.
If we ever developed room temperature superconducting cables, solar would have a good chance of being quite viable.... but it's not, so it isn't.
You know that it's possible to make a reactor meltdown proof, right? You rely on passive cooling systems, so that if the system ever starts to fail, the reactor shuts down and the fission will stop long before meltdown occurs. Their biggest detriment is that they are arguably less efficient, but they are still far from impractical... and there are numerous such reactors in use today in several different countries around the world. They do not, incidentally, either produce any weapons-grade material as a byproduct.
Waiting lists I'll agree with... but what evidence do you have of the others? I live in a country with universal health care and see absolutely none of the other issues arise.