What can we learn from it? That users are stupid. Who the hell would fall for this? Without bothering to ask the owner when showing up?
As for Cragislist, your proposed changes would almost certainly drive away their users.
Finally, the article was pretty damn wimpy, I got more details off my local news in Boston last night. It also seems inapproriate to quote a police officer who's unclear on what constitutes a scam and lumps in prostitution. I'm surprised he didn't mention drugs either. Neither of which are necessarily a scam, both of which happen without the pseudo-anonymity afforded by the internet.
And what, exactly, would you expect as progress marches on?
This just in! Researchers develop solar cell that's exactly like what was available before they started with no improvements whatsoever!
OR
Scientists at Lucent have created solar cells so spectactularly crappy that their existence has begun to degrade the performance of existing installations.
"It would be very neat if they were cheap enough that it wouldn't really matter where you put it for it to pay for itself." One-size-fits-all thinking is a major contributor to the general crappiness of the status quo.
So what if you're calling Sven at 3:30 on Bob-gives-a-fuck-what-day? You still need some way of knowing if he's likely in bed, at work, or the pub. That is, you need to know the *local(~solar)time*
>Eh? So who else pays taxes in this big revenue flow we call government? Ah - I get it - tax the polluters! >That'll teach 'em!...until said polluters start shifting the taxation costs to the price of goods and >services. Considering that transporation will also be under the taxation gun, this means that eventually, >everything you buy Erm yeah, that's exactly the point. I never said you would miraculously end up with more money. I said the taxes should be applied to thinks we find undesirable (and therefore dissusade their creation), as opposed to of the desirable (and thereby dissuade their creation). It's not extra money, it's the same amount of money, coming from the same sources, but through different channels. This is sufficient to greatly change the signals the market is receiving and responds to.
>I think he's saying that it wouldn't happen out of necessity, but could well be an unintended consequence. >The United States (among others in the Western World) is a major food exporter. It may be a food exporter, but that's not be necessity in all foreign markets. In many cases it's a result of the IMF and World Bank's old policies requiring developing nations to convert to market/export economies and open their markets, so that they can service the bad loans offered them by the same institutions.
>That food doesn't simply transport itself, or grow in abundance because we have magical soil... it takes Correct, but you don't need to eat (fresh) fucking strawberries and nectarines in February. 'tis also a shame we gutted our rail network.
>chemistry, gasoline/diesel, and technology to grow, harvest, and ship all that food elsewhere. Now, we not Actually, no. It doesn't take chemistry. It's possible with chemistry, but it's not the only way.
>Overall, this means less food to go around, esp. as demand for biofuel grows. Errm, see, you're making the same stupid mistake they are. thinking that biofuel=ethanol from crop fermentation. That is indeed one of the stupidest things one can do. Cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel from miscellaneous wastes is far saner. Of course, it's probable that much of this material actually belongs back on the fields and not in the air; minimizing the need for "chemistry" in agriculture.
>I'm all for conservation, though I believe you're being a bit too generalistic in your stats there (e.g. >many of those "buildings" are living spaces, I believe - which complicates things by quite a bit). >Companies are already doing much to reduce energy use, if for no other reason than simple economics. No, there's not much generalizing there, that's not including the big industrial machinery in factories, but it is lighting, conditioning etc. for residential, commercial, industrial. These are fairly standard numbers for green building/high performance buildings.
Actually, you'd be appalled at how little corporations are actually doing, despite the economics of the situation. They remainly largely ignorant, and often put forth arguments such as "We're Bob's widgets, we're not in the efficiency business." The market also perverts incentivies and masks many signals (leasing vs. ownership).
Yes taxes, no not on the population. To be effective the taxes need to shift from goods (employment, services) to bads (pollution).
Right, because the US + europe = billions of people...
While it would certainly help to diminish population (growth), genocide is not necessary. There are a number of tools available including wind, conservation (buildings consume 40% of US energy, 2/3 of electricity, and their efficiency can be improved by 1/4-1/2 for no added cost [depending upon new/existing, and other parameters]), etc.
You are clearly talking out of your ass, because you must have pulled 100 miles from some nether regions. Is it more beneficial for the environment if materials are locally sourced and produced? Usually, but it's just one of many variables, and you don't generally find optimums by focusing on a single dimension.
Only? No? end of everything? You sir, lack a sufficiently agile imagination. Society has remade itself many times before, and there's no reason it cannot do so again.
That shouldn't be as difficult solve. Just mix (or rather, run over a substrate) with the appropriate antigens to mop-up the antibodies. Probably not as cheap as just sorting and storing the right mix of natural bloods though.
Actually, you can form a reasonable argument if you flip it around, and it's been done before. Industries have been known to ask that the federal government step in with a set of central standards, instead of having to deal with a myriad of local jurisdictional regulations. This was the case with energy efficiency in appliances (e.g; refrigerators IIRC) that led to Energy Star, and there have been hints of it within the CO2 realm as well. Basically, the idea is to level the playing field, removing this dmiension of complexity allowing firms of all sizes to more readily and fairly complete.
Of course, GM and Ford could make like Honda and only sells cars that qualify under California's regulations everywhere, but then Exxon might not be happy.
I know you fucks are either trolls or think you're being "insightful" or "funny", but seriously, stop it. Biologically active carbon is part of a recirculating cycle, mineralized carbon in fossil fuels has been out of the cycle for a long time*, and adding it back in the form of CO2 is the problem NOT BREATHING. However, if you seriously think breathing is a problem, then by all means, do us all a favor and STOP. kthxbai
* And as an animal, that's a good thing. 20% atmospheric O2 is tasty.
>What exactly is an "acceptable" death rate for a "preventable" disease? Who gets to determine that figure? Pretty damn high apparently, consider heart disease, obesity, type II diabetes, etc.
>Another example is the HPV vaccine. Cervical cancer is fully preventable with routine pap smears. Blah blah blah. I'm already down on record regarding this one. HPV is not nearly as big of a deal as people are *now* making it out to be (thanks to marketing). If you want to get vaccinated for it, fine. But don't require it. Even if you are vaccinated you still have to get pap smears, though you can opt for less frequent ones. And not only is cervical cancer catchable (that's not the same as preventable), it's highly treatable.
Yes, I know that. Which is why you you instead vaccinate those whom have not had chicken pox once they reach puberty. But in the mean time, wait and see. Apparently medical workers in the UK get vaccinated if they've not developed resistance, but otherwise there is vaccination program for it.
Don't vaccinate against things for which there is no real reason to i.e; varicella (chicken pox). Stop putting triclosan, etc. in every fucking toiletry and soap under the sun.
No no, you're just misparsing. English (and other languages) have no defined order of operations for complex clauses. Is red banana juice the juice of a red banana, or banana juice which is red? The title refers to a new weapon against superbugs, not a new superbug to be used as a weapon.
>It also might explain why rodents are such good laboratory specimens. See, you're actually assuming that they are good models, whereas it's not clear that they are. Indeed, regardless of how good a model they are, they are rather used because of their size, cost and fewer objections by laity. People want to save the cute bunnies (actually lagomorphs, close cousins of the rodents), but most don't care about the white mice in the cage next to it. And some people object to being compared to monkeys, apes or pigs:-P
Commonly referred to as colorblindness i.e; being unable to perceive the whole panoply of colors a human trichromat can. There's pedantry and then there's being an ass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
Slashdot Mirror
What can we learn from it? That users are stupid. Who the hell would fall for this?
Without bothering to ask the owner when showing up?
As for Cragislist, your proposed changes would almost certainly drive away their users.
Finally, the article was pretty damn wimpy, I got more details off my local news
in Boston last night. It also seems inapproriate to quote a police officer who's unclear
on what constitutes a scam and lumps in prostitution. I'm surprised he didn't mention
drugs either. Neither of which are necessarily a scam, both of which happen without
the pseudo-anonymity afforded by the internet.
That's nothing new, go look at the SeaQuest DSV mist display.
And what, exactly, would you expect as progress marches on?
This just in! Researchers develop solar cell that's exactly like
what was available before they started with no improvements
whatsoever!
OR
Scientists at Lucent have created solar cells so spectactularly
crappy that their existence has begun to degrade the performance
of existing installations.
"It would be very neat if they were cheap enough that it wouldn't really matter where you put it for it to pay for itself."
One-size-fits-all thinking is a major contributor to the general crappiness of the status quo.
So what if you're calling Sven at 3:30 on Bob-gives-a-fuck-what-day?
You still need some way of knowing if he's likely in bed, at work, or the pub.
That is, you need to know the *local(~solar)time*
>Eh? So who else pays taxes in this big revenue flow we call government? Ah - I get it - tax the polluters! ...until said polluters start shifting the taxation costs to the price of goods and
>That'll teach 'em!
>services. Considering that transporation will also be under the taxation gun, this means that eventually,
>everything you buy
Erm yeah, that's exactly the point. I never said you would miraculously end up with more money.
I said the taxes should be applied to thinks we find undesirable (and therefore dissusade their creation),
as opposed to of the desirable (and thereby dissuade their creation). It's not extra money, it's the same
amount of money, coming from the same sources, but through different channels. This is sufficient to greatly
change the signals the market is receiving and responds to.
>I think he's saying that it wouldn't happen out of necessity, but could well be an unintended consequence.
>The United States (among others in the Western World) is a major food exporter.
It may be a food exporter, but that's not be necessity in all foreign markets. In many cases it's a result
of the IMF and World Bank's old policies requiring developing nations to convert to market/export economies
and open their markets, so that they can service the bad loans offered them by the same institutions.
>That food doesn't simply transport itself, or grow in abundance because we have magical soil... it takes
Correct, but you don't need to eat (fresh) fucking strawberries and nectarines in February. 'tis also a
shame we gutted our rail network.
>chemistry, gasoline/diesel, and technology to grow, harvest, and ship all that food elsewhere. Now, we not
Actually, no. It doesn't take chemistry. It's possible with chemistry, but it's not the only way.
>Overall, this means less food to go around, esp. as demand for biofuel grows.
Errm, see, you're making the same stupid mistake they are. thinking that biofuel=ethanol from crop
fermentation. That is indeed one of the stupidest things one can do. Cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel from
miscellaneous wastes is far saner. Of course, it's probable that much of this material actually belongs
back on the fields and not in the air; minimizing the need for "chemistry" in agriculture.
>I'm all for conservation, though I believe you're being a bit too generalistic in your stats there (e.g.
>many of those "buildings" are living spaces, I believe - which complicates things by quite a bit).
>Companies are already doing much to reduce energy use, if for no other reason than simple economics.
No, there's not much generalizing there, that's not including the big industrial machinery in factories,
but it is lighting, conditioning etc. for residential, commercial, industrial. These are fairly standard
numbers for green building/high performance buildings.
Actually, you'd be appalled at how little corporations are actually doing, despite the economics of the
situation. They remainly largely ignorant, and often put forth arguments such as "We're Bob's widgets,
we're not in the efficiency business." The market also perverts incentivies and masks many signals (leasing
vs. ownership).
Yes taxes, no not on the population. To be effective the taxes need to shift from goods
(employment, services) to bads (pollution).
Right, because the US + europe = billions of people...
While it would certainly help to diminish population (growth), genocide is not necessary.
There are a number of tools available including wind, conservation (buildings consume
40% of US energy, 2/3 of electricity, and their efficiency can be improved by 1/4-1/2 for
no added cost [depending upon new/existing, and other parameters]), etc.
You are clearly talking out of your ass, because you must have pulled 100 miles from some
nether regions. Is it more beneficial for the environment if materials are locally sourced
and produced? Usually, but it's just one of many variables, and you don't generally find
optimums by focusing on a single dimension.
Only? No? end of everything? You sir, lack a sufficiently agile imagination.
Society has remade itself many times before, and there's no reason it cannot do so again.
That shouldn't be as difficult solve. Just mix (or rather, run over a substrate)
with the appropriate antigens to mop-up the antibodies. Probably not as cheap
as just sorting and storing the right mix of natural bloods though.
You've completely missed the point, which is that this kind of thing can be in compliance
with a reasonable of the commerce lause.
Actually, you can form a reasonable argument if you flip it around, and it's been done
before. Industries have been known to ask that the federal government step in with a set
of central standards, instead of having to deal with a myriad of local jurisdictional
regulations. This was the case with energy efficiency in appliances (e.g; refrigerators
IIRC) that led to Energy Star, and there have been hints of it within the CO2 realm as
well. Basically, the idea is to level the playing field, removing this dmiension of
complexity allowing firms of all sizes to more readily and fairly complete.
Of course, GM and Ford could make like Honda and only sells cars that qualify under
California's regulations everywhere, but then Exxon might not be happy.
I know you fucks are either trolls or think you're being "insightful" or "funny", but seriously,
stop it. Biologically active carbon is part of a recirculating cycle, mineralized carbon in fossil
fuels has been out of the cycle for a long time*, and adding it back in the form of CO2 is the
problem NOT BREATHING. However, if you seriously think breathing is a problem, then by all means,
do us all a favor and STOP. kthxbai
* And as an animal, that's a good thing. 20% atmospheric O2 is tasty.
Specifically, while ignoring the chap across from you who's the gall to also be eating your biscuits.
It's not half a solution, more like 97% of one (look at how fucking rare Rh- is)
Not naive, just not a native English speaker.
The name is onomatopoeia for the sound of opening a carbonated drink.
That's neither here nor there, but hey, makes sure they get up to date on tetanus too, eh?
Sorry, herd immunity.
Well, you could get vaccinated to avoid propagating the virus: hard immunity.
Yes. Vaccines aren't foolproof but more, importantly there are several dozen
variants of HPV and the vaccines are only for 4 or 5 of them.
See wikipedia for more detail.
>What exactly is an "acceptable" death rate for a "preventable" disease? Who gets to determine that figure?
Pretty damn high apparently, consider heart disease, obesity, type II diabetes, etc.
>Another example is the HPV vaccine. Cervical cancer is fully preventable with routine pap smears.
Blah blah blah. I'm already down on record regarding this one. HPV is not nearly as big of a deal as people
are *now* making it out to be (thanks to marketing). If you want to get vaccinated for it, fine. But don't
require it. Even if you are vaccinated you still have to get pap smears, though you can opt for less frequent
ones. And not only is cervical cancer catchable (that's not the same as preventable), it's highly treatable.
Yes, I know that. Which is why you you instead vaccinate those whom have not had chicken pox once
they reach puberty. But in the mean time, wait and see. Apparently medical workers in the UK get
vaccinated if they've not developed resistance, but otherwise there is vaccination program for it.
Okay, fine maam. Just have your pharmacist fill this prescription for Obecal-P.
Take two and call me in the morning.
Don't vaccinate against things for which there is no real reason to i.e; varicella (chicken pox).
Stop putting triclosan, etc. in every fucking toiletry and soap under the sun.
No no, you're just misparsing. English (and other languages) have no defined order of operations
for complex clauses. Is red banana juice the juice of a red banana, or banana juice which is red?
The title refers to a new weapon against superbugs, not a new superbug to be used as a weapon.
>It also might explain why rodents are such good laboratory specimens. :-P
See, you're actually assuming that they are good models, whereas it's not clear that they are.
Indeed, regardless of how good a model they are, they are rather used because of their size,
cost and fewer objections by laity. People want to save the cute bunnies (actually lagomorphs,
close cousins of the rodents), but most don't care about the white mice in the cage next to it.
And some people object to being compared to monkeys, apes or pigs
You cannot see color because your retina isn't sensitive enough,
specifically the cones. For a related problem, see reading in moonlight.
Commonly referred to as colorblindness i.e; being unable to perceive the whole panoply
of colors a human trichromat can. There's pedantry and then there's being an ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness