He did say "non-government", and most ISPs are licensed and ruled by governments. (I can't think of any current exceptions, though my knowledge isn't extensive, so feel free to doubt this.)
That said, he's still wrong. There are lots of local monopolies in history that have raised prices to their limit. (The limit was "if I raise prices more, too many people will start doing without.) This worked best with monopolies of things like food and water, but it's also been done with less compelling merchandise.
Yes, but the name applies to, or at least used to apply to, molecules or radicals that attach to the DNA to modify its expression. Methylation is the one I'm least unfamiliar with. It didn't apply to stuff carried along on the cell wall or in the cytoplasm.
It may not make sense to you, but that's the way it happens. Methylation of a portion of the backbone holding the codon keeps the histamines from unwrapping the code so that it can be used. These are supposed to be stripped off during meiosis, but IIRC the process doesn't always happen, which is how you get inherited epigenetic phenomena. Normally it's the process used to tell, say, a liver cell that it's not a bone marrow cell.
This process sounds more analogous to the way that mitochondria are carried in the ovum.
This is a different mechanism than epigenetic modifications of DNA (e.g. methylation of various codon sites). I'm not sure it counts as epigenetic modification at all.
Changing the name doesn't change the thing. I was permanently registered to use an absentee ballot, because one time I needed to, and I never changed it back, but I did usually drop it off at the polling place.
FWIW, I don't accept that all Democrats are honest at counting votes. I also don't accept that all Republicans are dishonest at counting votes. So the end of your first sentence is invalid for me (and calls into question any argument I can't check).
An assertion is not proof of anything, and is only evidence of one person's opinion. He quoted a study (which I didn't bother to check) and provided a (corrected) link. Admittedly I didn't follow it. This is at least the form of evidence based decision making.
This depends entirely on what is accepted as an ID, and how hard it is to get. I recently moved, and it was quite a hassle, partially because I can't drive. The new state wouldn't accept the ID from the old state, and demanded a birth certificate. And the one issued by the hospital wasn't acceptable, it had to be a government issued birth certificate. And the place where I was born raised a large number of obstacles to getting the certificate without going there. (I don't know what it would have been like if I'd gone there in person.) Eventually they issued one after paying money, waiting, filling out forms, etc.... and they never did do anything that would really check that I was who I said I was.
So. The issuing of the ID was free. The getting of it took a modest amount of money (not enough to pay for the paperwork), but a tremendous amount of bureaucratic shuffling, and didn't really prove anything anyway except that I'd gone through the bureaucratic paper shuffling.
So I'm not really impressed with the "ID requirements". They don't provide actual ID and they cause a tremendous amount of hassle. Photo + digitized fingerprints would be much better as unique IDs, or any of various other biometric markers. They should always be needed to be tested in person for any significant trust, because the "coded id" could be duplicated, so this should only be used to issue secondary ids from. And the database should never be connected to the internet, even indirectly, but the "coded id" should be matchable against any other reading.
Even so, you couldn't trust this system, because eventually there would be illicit copies made. And in a way this lack of trust is valid, because I'm certainly not the same person I was a decade ago.
Sorry, but no. Absentee ballots are a permanently available choice. Also, the paper ballots, while they exist, are read by a machine, probably the one mentioned in the article. I've never heard of the original paper ballots actually being recounted manually to check the result.
FWIW, this information is current as of July, 2018. I'm not sure of it's current state. I'm also not sure which items are county or city specific.
I've never liked hyperthreading either, but in my case it's because it didn't optimize things correctly for me. I want genuinely separate multi-processor systems that can communicate rapidly with each other. And rather than fancy instruction sets, I'd be satisfied with a 64 bit version of the z-80...plus a few to handle interprocessor communication.
OTOH, I realize that my proposed task-load is substantially different from the most common case.
You overestimate the effectiveness of examples. What is needed is that they system is repaired in such a way that these things either don't happen or are wildly unprofitable.
Not that I'm against making an example of those two bastards, just that I don't see that as even a step towards a real solution.
I don't know about you, but while I'm *really* anti-patent troll, I'm also anti-patents as implemented. Patents need to be a LOT narrower, and more narrowly interpreted. And current patent law needs to be totally thrown out and replaced by something simpler, clearer, and more limited. Also the requirement for a working model needs to be reinstated, if not for the issuance of the patent, at least such that you can't claim damages for any period prior to the presentation of the working model. And patents need to be explicit enough that one skilled in the art can build a working instance from them without any other information that isn't publicly accessible. And there should be a requirement that this be provable before any damages can be collected.
I'd guess, unless it's a very strong effect, that it's because those who eat mainly organic food are also likely to do other things that they feel will act to make them healthier.
That said, one should never believe claims that some pesticide is safe "at measured levels", because you aren't exposed to just one. (One also shouldn't strongly disbelieve the claim. It's just that this is a claim where usually the only available evidence is manipulated by someone who stands to profit by selling the stuff.)
You could be right. IIRC Tungsten is relatively expensive and quite difficult to work (though they aren't dealing with metallic Tungsten).
But you could also be quite wrong.
OTOH, do note that the proposed application is heat exchangers. These aren't only used in solar power plants, and aren't used at all in photo-voltaic systems. So the title is misleading, and the application is as likely to be nuclear plants as solar plants.
That's not actually true. Wire services need to be maintained, and cell phone towers could be build to be durable. But they weren't required to be. Also there need to be more of them (and smaller cells) to allow for periods of high usage, such as after a disaster. And this also wasn't required.
Well, if you limit your coverage to areas with dense populations and no obstructions then cell phones can be cheaper to install. But there are lots of areas without current reception, and the failure modes when too many people try to use them at once are... unpleasant. (A "trunk busy" signal is a lot nicer than just no connection, which doesn't give an indication of what the problem is.)
Of course one of the reasons for cell phones being cheaper (where they're cheaper) is that you don't need as much hardware when you can count statistically on not too many people using the system at once. If you build out so that you won't ever get overwhelmed (which not even the wired connection does) it would be more expensive.
IIUC, the amount of land area available for habitation will be about the same, but it won't be in the same place, and will already be owned by someone else.
The climate change will probably not be disastrous in and of itself, but only by the way that people react to it. (OTOH, I'm not including massive extinctions that aren't human in disastrous. And I'm making a few assumptions about sea chemistry that may not be correct, and...well, lots of other caveats. But I hope you like eating jellyfish.)
Got to agree with you on that. I could probably come up with 5 bigger existential threats, and climate change, aka global warming, is only one of them because it's likely to trigger one of the others. If war, in some form, were not a plausible result it would only be a civilization ending disaster that was likely to result in a few billion deaths, and reduce the population to about 0.01% of its current level. Perhaps a bit further, as the ruined ecology wouldn't support much life, but perhaps not, also.
OTOH, it's also not entirely clear on what time scale we're talking. Different groups will be under stress at different times. Most people will be "looking out for number one" when under stress, but a few will see an opportunity to gain power by fomenting strife, and at our technical level that could lead to anything, including nuclear and biological warfare. (Just yesterday there was an article about artificially synthesized smallpox done on the cheap.)
Idiot. Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers. They did this by suppressing the more extreme projections in favor of the less extreme ones. And this information is publicly available in the articles about how they put together the reports.
It is true that they also suppressed the extremely understated projections, but their influence on mean values would have been considerably less. That's the way calculations of mean deviation work.
The IPCC has intentionally tried to be only somewhat alarmist rather than accurately reporting what the projections indicate. They hoped in this way to gain political acceptance that there was a real problem. I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. But they were trying to be cautious.
Slashdot Mirror
He did say "non-government", and most ISPs are licensed and ruled by governments. (I can't think of any current exceptions, though my knowledge isn't extensive, so feel free to doubt this.)
That said, he's still wrong. There are lots of local monopolies in history that have raised prices to their limit. (The limit was "if I raise prices more, too many people will start doing without.) This worked best with monopolies of things like food and water, but it's also been done with less compelling merchandise.
Yes, but the name applies to, or at least used to apply to, molecules or radicals that attach to the DNA to modify its expression. Methylation is the one I'm least unfamiliar with. It didn't apply to stuff carried along on the cell wall or in the cytoplasm.
It may not make sense to you, but that's the way it happens. Methylation of a portion of the backbone holding the codon keeps the histamines from unwrapping the code so that it can be used. These are supposed to be stripped off during meiosis, but IIRC the process doesn't always happen, which is how you get inherited epigenetic phenomena. Normally it's the process used to tell, say, a liver cell that it's not a bone marrow cell.
This process sounds more analogous to the way that mitochondria are carried in the ovum.
This is a different mechanism than epigenetic modifications of DNA (e.g. methylation of various codon sites). I'm not sure it counts as epigenetic modification at all.
Changing the name doesn't change the thing. I was permanently registered to use an absentee ballot, because one time I needed to, and I never changed it back, but I did usually drop it off at the polling place.
FWIW, I don't accept that all Democrats are honest at counting votes. I also don't accept that all Republicans are dishonest at counting votes. So the end of your first sentence is invalid for me (and calls into question any argument I can't check).
The House may change, but the Senate is going to stay R, or possibly turn more R, because more D's than R's are up for reelection.
An assertion is not proof of anything, and is only evidence of one person's opinion. He quoted a study (which I didn't bother to check) and provided a (corrected) link. Admittedly I didn't follow it. This is at least the form of evidence based decision making.
You offered only your assertion.
This depends entirely on what is accepted as an ID, and how hard it is to get. I recently moved, and it was quite a hassle, partially because I can't drive. ... and they never did do anything that would really check that I was who I said I was.
The new state wouldn't accept the ID from the old state, and demanded a birth certificate. And the one issued by the hospital wasn't acceptable, it had to be a government issued birth certificate. And the place where I was born raised a large number of obstacles to getting the certificate without going there. (I don't know what it would have been like if I'd gone there in person.) Eventually they issued one after paying money, waiting, filling out forms, etc.
So. The issuing of the ID was free. The getting of it took a modest amount of money (not enough to pay for the paperwork), but a tremendous amount of bureaucratic shuffling, and didn't really prove anything anyway except that I'd gone through the bureaucratic paper shuffling.
So I'm not really impressed with the "ID requirements". They don't provide actual ID and they cause a tremendous amount of hassle. Photo + digitized fingerprints would be much better as unique IDs, or any of various other biometric markers. They should always be needed to be tested in person for any significant trust, because the "coded id" could be duplicated, so this should only be used to issue secondary ids from. And the database should never be connected to the internet, even indirectly, but the "coded id" should be matchable against any other reading.
Even so, you couldn't trust this system, because eventually there would be illicit copies made. And in a way this lack of trust is valid, because I'm certainly not the same person I was a decade ago.
Sorry, but no. Absentee ballots are a permanently available choice. Also, the paper ballots, while they exist, are read by a machine, probably the one mentioned in the article. I've never heard of the original paper ballots actually being recounted manually to check the result.
FWIW, this information is current as of July, 2018. I'm not sure of it's current state. I'm also not sure which items are county or city specific.
I've never liked hyperthreading either, but in my case it's because it didn't optimize things correctly for me. I want genuinely separate multi-processor systems that can communicate rapidly with each other. And rather than fancy instruction sets, I'd be satisfied with a 64 bit version of the z-80...plus a few to handle interprocessor communication.
OTOH, I realize that my proposed task-load is substantially different from the most common case.
While true, you might look into what happened during the SCO bankruptcy. (It's in the GrokLaw history, and should still be on line.)
You overestimate the effectiveness of examples. What is needed is that they system is repaired in such a way that these things either don't happen or are wildly unprofitable.
Not that I'm against making an example of those two bastards, just that I don't see that as even a step towards a real solution.
I don't know about you, but while I'm *really* anti-patent troll, I'm also anti-patents as implemented. Patents need to be a LOT narrower, and more narrowly interpreted. And current patent law needs to be totally thrown out and replaced by something simpler, clearer, and more limited. Also the requirement for a working model needs to be reinstated, if not for the issuance of the patent, at least such that you can't claim damages for any period prior to the presentation of the working model. And patents need to be explicit enough that one skilled in the art can build a working instance from them without any other information that isn't publicly accessible. And there should be a requirement that this be provable before any damages can be collected.
Only if you think they aren't intentionally lying.
Well, I've got an account with them, but I'm OK with never logging into it again.
I'd guess, unless it's a very strong effect, that it's because those who eat mainly organic food are also likely to do other things that they feel will act to make them healthier.
That said, one should never believe claims that some pesticide is safe "at measured levels", because you aren't exposed to just one. (One also shouldn't strongly disbelieve the claim. It's just that this is a claim where usually the only available evidence is manipulated by someone who stands to profit by selling the stuff.)
You also need to manage expectations, and eliminate the nausea caused by the semicircular canals not reflection the visual field.
I agree that eventually VR will be dominant, but there's far yet to go.
No. The heat exchangers aren't usually near the core of the reactor, so only get relatively low levels of radiation.
You could be right. IIRC Tungsten is relatively expensive and quite difficult to work (though they aren't dealing with metallic Tungsten).
But you could also be quite wrong.
OTOH, do note that the proposed application is heat exchangers. These aren't only used in solar power plants, and aren't used at all in photo-voltaic systems. So the title is misleading, and the application is as likely to be nuclear plants as solar plants.
Yeah, I remember that. It could handle choosing columns from a table if you told it which column ahead of time.
That doesn't prove this is the same kind of thing, but PR flacks aren't any more moderate now than then, so it could well be.
That's not actually true. Wire services need to be maintained, and cell phone towers could be build to be durable. But they weren't required to be. Also there need to be more of them (and smaller cells) to allow for periods of high usage, such as after a disaster. And this also wasn't required.
Well, if you limit your coverage to areas with dense populations and no obstructions then cell phones can be cheaper to install. But there are lots of areas without current reception, and the failure modes when too many people try to use them at once are ... unpleasant. (A "trunk busy" signal is a lot nicer than just no connection, which doesn't give an indication of what the problem is.)
Of course one of the reasons for cell phones being cheaper (where they're cheaper) is that you don't need as much hardware when you can count statistically on not too many people using the system at once. If you build out so that you won't ever get overwhelmed (which not even the wired connection does) it would be more expensive.
IIUC, the amount of land area available for habitation will be about the same, but it won't be in the same place, and will already be owned by someone else.
The climate change will probably not be disastrous in and of itself, but only by the way that people react to it. (OTOH, I'm not including massive extinctions that aren't human in disastrous. And I'm making a few assumptions about sea chemistry that may not be correct, and...well, lots of other caveats. But I hope you like eating jellyfish.)
Got to agree with you on that. I could probably come up with 5 bigger existential threats, and climate change, aka global warming, is only one of them because it's likely to trigger one of the others. If war, in some form, were not a plausible result it would only be a civilization ending disaster that was likely to result in a few billion deaths, and reduce the population to about 0.01% of its current level. Perhaps a bit further, as the ruined ecology wouldn't support much life, but perhaps not, also.
OTOH, it's also not entirely clear on what time scale we're talking. Different groups will be under stress at different times. Most people will be "looking out for number one" when under stress, but a few will see an opportunity to gain power by fomenting strife, and at our technical level that could lead to anything, including nuclear and biological warfare. (Just yesterday there was an article about artificially synthesized smallpox done on the cheap.)
Idiot. Every single IPCC report has understated the danger because they didn't want to be accused of being scare mongers. They did this by suppressing the more extreme projections in favor of the less extreme ones. And this information is publicly available in the articles about how they put together the reports.
It is true that they also suppressed the extremely understated projections, but their influence on mean values would have been considerably less. That's the way calculations of mean deviation work.
The IPCC has intentionally tried to be only somewhat alarmist rather than accurately reporting what the projections indicate. They hoped in this way to gain political acceptance that there was a real problem. I feel this strategy has backfired, with many claiming that they're alarmist anyway, and most just ignoring them. But they were trying to be cautious.