OK, then North Dakota should give up ITS share of Federal subsidies too. California gets less back from Fed on its taxes (as a fraction) than small podunk states like North Dakota. Which leaves Californa footing more than its share of the tax bill. How about North Dakota paying its share instead of sponging off of CA (and other big states)?
Personally, I would rather those who are out of work and can't find work go to school for retraining (even if that means debt) to improve their job prospects later rather than one of:
1) Sit around on the dole 2) Turn to crime 3) Commit suicide
Buying a porsche is entirely not comparable. It doesn't improve one's job prospects or provide trained labor for the market.
That said, going to an expensive degree program might be a move. There are less expensive educational options.
You nailed it. We are becoming a third world nation.
1) Huge wealth disparity between the rich elite and everyone else. (check) 2) Decreasing access to health care for the masses. (check) 3) Little social mobility. (check) 4) Decreasing access to education for the masses. (check)
A lot of people are going to school now because they can't FIND a job. How are you supposed to pay your way through school if there's no work available to help you pay?? I mean, really, how?
Not joking. This is obviously not a short-term problem, I'm wondering just how long-term of a problem it really is, and if any possible human-caused additional leakage could ever be significant compared to the natural loss rate.
I.e., does it take only a million years for the effects to be noticeable, or does it take 10 billion? If it's less than the expected habitable lifetime of the planet, then it's an interesting question.
I wonder how much of a risk this REALLY is. Would human use of H2 and the resulting loss to space from leaks even outweigh the influx of H2 from accretion? Of what leaks, what makes it into space?
And don't worry, so long as you take care of your stillsuit, it will take care of you.
You have a good point, there's statistics about a race, and then there's performance by the individual.
It may be that some ethnic groups are advantaged by genetics. Maybe not. It doesn't REALLY matter, if you look at things (in my opinion) correctly.
There's mountains of evidence that intelligence is very heritable. So therefore, if a person is intelligent, a large part of that is BY LUCK.
the point: IF YOU ARE SMART IT IS IN LARGE PART BECAUSE YOU ARE LUCKY.
How about we stop being snooty about having RAW brainpower and START repecting what people can control, meaning, HOW HARD THEY WORK, and HOW HARD THEY TRY, and HOW WELL THEY LISTEN TO THE WISDOM OF OTHERS.
That's the best way to get results for society anyway! Whoever a person is, if they're rewarded for working hard and trying hard, they'll make the MOST out of themselves. NOT if they achieve approbation for just "being smart".
I know I'm going to reward my kid for working and trying hard. As for her brains, she's got what she's got, we'll work on making the most of it!
I'm not so sure that you have it right when you say "Even if Microsoft's online division loses money, it games them recognition and sales elsewhere."
Microsoft has a near-monopoly on the operating system and office productivity. Isn't that how they make nearly all their money? How does Bing help with that?
From what I've seen, office workers are really working 4-7 hrs mostly, too.
So 75% of people work at home like they work in the office. Seems like telecommuting can be made to work well enough if you do productivity monitoring.
And heck, if you can do 8 hours of work at home in 2 hours, why not get 8 hours of pay! The key is productivity.
The "studies" you speak of have far less value than the actual experience of Switzerland. In Switzerland, addicts are under the care of doctors, hold down jobs, don't spread disease via dirty needles and pay taxes. In the USA, few are cared for by doctors, dirty needles & disease and short lifespan are the norm, they steal to support their habit, and we pay to house them in prison.
On humane arguments alone, we should de-criminalize.
Also, friends tell me that it's easier for kids to get cocaine, meth, and marijuana than tobacco. I'm not sure we'd get a "raftload" more of addicts.
And you're right, the evil bastards who're in the drug trade will still be a problem, but at least they won't be fuelled with drug money.
I haven't run through the numbers, but I think "couple meters" is probably just fine for in-system. However, I'd think that for interstellar travel, a couple of meters wouldn't do it, you'd be slowly cooked by thousands of years of cosmic rays. You could make that hundreds of meters, but then you have to find energy to move all that.
Thing is, what would be the point of interstellar travel anyway? Any reachable systems would have to be terraformed to be habitable, probably taking thousands of years (or more?), and it'd be really quite challenging to set up a biome that people could live in. However, if we're solid state, all you need is the raw materials + energy + bootstrap mining/manufacturing and you've migrated your society.
Let's face it, people aren't very good for survival in space.
We can't take much radiation, we can't take low G, we must have air, food, water we can't take low temperature (or high!) we don't live long enough to get anywhere in one lifetime at attainable speeds
Space is just irrevocably hostile to human life as we are now.
If we weren't meat-bags anymore, but rather something more durable, say, solid state based on silicon, we'd be way better adapted for space. Yes, we'll be very different, but the galaxy will be ours.
Do you REALLY think someone is going to invade us and risk nuclear retaliation? I mean, REALLY?
Flip side, with our large military, do you REALLY think we're going to invade Russia? China? Or even India or Pakistan or North Korea? They're all nuclear armed, we're not going to touch them.
The reason for the large military is to project force elsewhere, not self defense.
While the CDC doesn't think that there'll actually be a zombie apocalypse, they do recognize that some really bad scenerios involving contagious disease could happen, and the effect on society could come to resemble that of a zombie apocalypse.
Instead of biting you to infect you, someone coughs on you instead, either way you end up dead.
And the CDC is arguably more important than the US Military, and neglected. Which is REALLY a bigger threat to us, the military power of any foreign adversary, or a highly contagious disease that knows no borders?
At this point I'd like to remind everyone that 44,000 of us die every year from antibiotic resistant germs. Exactly how many of us died in 9/11? 3000? And yet we spend trillions on our military, and... HOW MUCH, on new antibiotic development???
You make it sound so simple. Are you familiar with the Biosphere 2 experiment? They attempted to set up an enclosed self-sustaining environment. They had problems keeping the oxygen balanced. They had wild fluctions of carbon dioxide. Their ecology didn't end up working as planned, with several of their original species being wiped out, and some unintended species coming to domination.
IN THEORY, a self-sustaining colony on Antarctica is "easy", but I bet we would try 10x before we got it right.
You're right about it NOT being a good comparison though. Antarctica is WAY easier than Mars ever could be. MUCH easier to get suitable raw materials and a nuke plant in operation, as you say, right here on Earth, rather than on Mars, and you wouldn't have the hassle of having a closed system for air.
My original point remains: Mars is about as "habitable" as a rock is "edible." In fact, I'd argue that Mars is only marginally better to live on than an asteroid: either way you'd need a fully enclosed habitat. Mars is only better in these ways, it has gravity, and easier access to raw materials.
We do not even have a self-sustaining colony on Antarctica, which is warmer than mars, and has unlimited air and water. Our colonies on Antarctica are nowhere near self-sustaining. Mars is colder than Antarctica, water is scarce, and there's NO oxygen and barely any atmosphere.
In other words, calling Mars "habitable" is like calling rocks "edible". The rocks might become edible if you ground them down to dust, added plants, and then ate the plants.
Given that you've got what you've got from your genes, I, as a parent, am going to mostly praise my child for trying hard and "working smart" rather than just BEING smart.
After all, you can't get a brain transplant, but you CAN work hard to make the most of what you've got.
China isn't a communist state. When they started introducing market reforms to make their economy more efficient the veil was torn away.
Instead, China is an authoriarian state, the rulers of which will do anything to extend/maintain their power, and impose the cost on their population without giving their population a say.
There may still be a pretense that the ruling ideology is communism, but that's all it is. In fact, the ruling ideology is the continued and growing power of the elite.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, then North Dakota should give up ITS share of Federal subsidies too. California gets less back from Fed on its taxes (as a fraction) than small podunk states like North Dakota. Which leaves Californa footing more than its share of the tax bill. How about North Dakota paying its share instead of sponging off of CA (and other big states)?
--PM
Personally, I would rather those who are out of work and can't find work go to school for retraining (even if that means debt) to improve their job prospects later rather than one of:
1) Sit around on the dole
2) Turn to crime
3) Commit suicide
Buying a porsche is entirely not comparable. It doesn't improve one's job prospects or provide trained labor for the market.
That said, going to an expensive degree program might be a move. There are less expensive educational options.
--PM
You nailed it. We are becoming a third world nation.
1) Huge wealth disparity between the rich elite and everyone else. (check)
2) Decreasing access to health care for the masses. (check)
3) Little social mobility. (check)
4) Decreasing access to education for the masses. (check)
--PM
A lot of people are going to school now because they can't FIND a job. How are you supposed to pay your way through school if there's no work available to help you pay?? I mean, really, how?
--PM
Not joking. This is obviously not a short-term problem, I'm wondering just how long-term of a problem it really is, and if any possible human-caused additional leakage could ever be significant compared to the natural loss rate.
I.e., does it take only a million years for the effects to be noticeable, or does it take 10 billion? If it's less than the expected habitable lifetime of the planet, then it's an interesting question.
--PM
I wonder how much of a risk this REALLY is. Would human use of H2 and the resulting loss to space from leaks even outweigh the influx of H2 from accretion? Of what leaks, what makes it into space?
And don't worry, so long as you take care of your stillsuit, it will take care of you.
--PM
Just nail through the case and through the platters.
--PM
You have a good point, there's statistics about a race, and then there's performance by the individual.
It may be that some ethnic groups are advantaged by genetics. Maybe not. It doesn't REALLY matter, if you look at things (in my opinion) correctly.
There's mountains of evidence that intelligence is very heritable. So therefore, if a person is intelligent, a large part of that is BY LUCK.
the point: IF YOU ARE SMART IT IS IN LARGE PART BECAUSE YOU ARE LUCKY.
How about we stop being snooty about having RAW brainpower and START repecting what people can control, meaning, HOW HARD THEY WORK, and HOW HARD THEY TRY, and HOW WELL THEY LISTEN TO THE WISDOM OF OTHERS.
That's the best way to get results for society anyway! Whoever a person is, if they're rewarded for working hard and trying hard, they'll make the MOST out of themselves. NOT if they achieve approbation for just "being smart".
I know I'm going to reward my kid for working and trying hard. As for her brains, she's got what she's got, we'll work on making the most of it!
--PM
I'm not so sure that you have it right when you say "Even if Microsoft's online division loses money, it games them recognition and sales elsewhere."
Microsoft has a near-monopoly on the operating system and office productivity. Isn't that how they make nearly all their money? How does Bing help with that?
From what I've seen, office workers are really working 4-7 hrs mostly, too.
So 75% of people work at home like they work in the office. Seems like telecommuting can be made to work well enough if you do productivity monitoring.
And heck, if you can do 8 hours of work at home in 2 hours, why not get 8 hours of pay! The key is productivity.
--PM
In fact, I looked it up, Wikipedia has the ISS in a 53 degree inclination orbit. I can't make heads-or-tails of what I'm seeing in the video either.
It certainly isn't going pole-to-pole, though.
Hello,
The "studies" you speak of have far less value than the actual experience of Switzerland. In Switzerland, addicts are under the care of doctors, hold down jobs, don't spread disease via dirty needles and pay taxes. In the USA, few are cared for by doctors, dirty needles & disease and short lifespan are the norm, they steal to support their habit, and we pay to house them in prison.
On humane arguments alone, we should de-criminalize.
Also, friends tell me that it's easier for kids to get cocaine, meth, and marijuana than tobacco. I'm not sure we'd get a "raftload" more of addicts.
And you're right, the evil bastards who're in the drug trade will still be a problem, but at least they won't be fuelled with drug money.
--PM
I haven't run through the numbers, but I think "couple meters" is probably just fine for in-system. However, I'd think that for interstellar travel, a couple of meters wouldn't do it, you'd be slowly cooked by thousands of years of cosmic rays. You could make that hundreds of meters, but then you have to find energy to move all that.
Thing is, what would be the point of interstellar travel anyway? Any reachable systems would have to be terraformed to be habitable, probably taking thousands of years (or more?), and it'd be really quite challenging to set up a biome that people could live in. However, if we're solid state, all you need is the raw materials + energy + bootstrap mining/manufacturing and you've migrated your society.
--PM
Let's face it, people aren't very good for survival in space.
We can't take much radiation,
we can't take low G,
we must have air, food, water
we can't take low temperature (or high!)
we don't live long enough to get anywhere in one lifetime at attainable speeds
Space is just irrevocably hostile to human life as we are now.
If we weren't meat-bags anymore, but rather something more durable, say, solid state based on silicon, we'd be way better adapted for space. Yes, we'll be very different, but the galaxy will be ours.
--PM
Seems like Congress has set a splendid example for the country!
NEVER compromise, NEVER listen to reason, NEVER allow the rich to lose a dime for the benefit of the middle or lower class?
--PeterM
Take away the smiley. That is exactly what Canada should do.
--PM
She may not have one, but she can get as many as she wants.
Sir,
Do you REALLY think someone is going to invade us and risk nuclear retaliation? I mean, REALLY?
Flip side, with our large military, do you REALLY think we're going to invade Russia? China? Or even India or Pakistan or North Korea? They're all nuclear armed, we're not going to touch them.
The reason for the large military is to project force elsewhere, not self defense.
--PeterM
While the CDC doesn't think that there'll actually be a zombie apocalypse, they do recognize that some really bad scenerios involving contagious disease could happen, and the effect on society could come to resemble that of a zombie apocalypse.
Instead of biting you to infect you, someone coughs on you instead, either way you end up dead.
And the CDC is arguably more important than the US Military, and neglected. Which is REALLY a bigger threat to us, the military power of any foreign adversary, or a highly contagious disease that knows no borders?
At this point I'd like to remind everyone that 44,000 of us die every year from antibiotic resistant germs. Exactly how many of us died in 9/11? 3000? And yet we spend trillions on our military, and... HOW MUCH, on new antibiotic development???
--PeterM
Sir,
You make it sound so simple. Are you familiar with the Biosphere 2 experiment? They attempted to set up an enclosed self-sustaining environment. They had problems keeping the oxygen balanced. They had wild fluctions of carbon dioxide. Their ecology didn't end up working as planned, with several of their original species being wiped out, and some unintended species coming to domination.
IN THEORY, a self-sustaining colony on Antarctica is "easy", but I bet we would try 10x before we got it right.
You're right about it NOT being a good comparison though. Antarctica is WAY easier than Mars ever could be. MUCH easier to get suitable raw materials and a nuke plant in operation, as you say, right here on Earth, rather than on Mars, and you wouldn't have the hassle of having a closed system for air.
My original point remains: Mars is about as "habitable" as a rock is "edible." In fact, I'd argue that Mars is only marginally better to live on than an asteroid: either way you'd need a fully enclosed habitat. Mars is only better in these ways, it has gravity, and easier access to raw materials.
--PeterM
Sir,
We do not even have a self-sustaining colony on Antarctica, which is warmer than mars, and has unlimited air and water. Our colonies on Antarctica are nowhere near self-sustaining. Mars is colder than Antarctica, water is scarce, and there's NO oxygen and barely any atmosphere.
In other words, calling Mars "habitable" is like calling rocks "edible". The rocks might become edible if you ground them down to dust, added plants, and then ate the plants.
--PeterM
I have 16 virtual desktops and two monitors. If the two monitors even make me .5% more productive, the 2nd pays for itself.
The virtual desktops are useful for keeping long-term projects exactly where I left them and ease time-slicing between projects.
You might think I have 72M pixels to use.
Best,
--PM
And data entry gloves.
Call me when I can wear it on my hip, see 3200x1600 resolution, and "wiggle my fingers" to type. I.e., it reads my gestures.
And when it has 16 hours of life, at least.
--PeterM
Given that you've got what you've got from your genes, I, as a parent, am going to mostly praise my child for trying hard and "working smart" rather than just BEING smart.
After all, you can't get a brain transplant, but you CAN work hard to make the most of what you've got.
--PeterM
China isn't a communist state. When they started introducing market reforms to make their economy more efficient the veil was torn away.
Instead, China is an authoriarian state, the rulers of which will do anything to extend/maintain their power, and impose the cost on their population without giving their population a say.
There may still be a pretense that the ruling ideology is communism, but that's all it is. In fact, the ruling ideology is the continued and growing power of the elite.
--PM