It's not necessarily a question of changing the laws of physics, it may be a case of changing the way we do things. Unrelated example: the first attempts at powered flight aimed at creating an inherently stable flying machine, where the Wright Brothers succeeded by developing an inherently unstable flying machine. Maybe we'll find a way to better focus the neutrino beams to reduce the attenuation over distance, or maybe we'll find a better way to generate neutrinos, allowing us to send far more of them to be detected.
Of course there's always the possibility of all of this coming to nothing, but dismissing any improvement out of hand is not the thing to do.
Yes, evolution will always lead to the best chance of survival. The point is that there are multiple ways to go about surviving. Being a lone wolf and doing everything for yourself works, so does living in groups and cooperating. Over time the lone wolves and the groups will diverge into completely different species, and then their living situations will shape they way they evolve in the future.
I've often thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea to just synthesize enough for myself and a few of my closest friends. It'd be hard for me to get myself caught, and I wouldn't have to deal with any shady characters.
Of course, I never did manage to get myself hooked to anything like that, so I never put my idea into practice.
I wonder if it would be possible to mechanically eject your payload in the right direction, pushing your spaceplane into a higher orbit, and your payload into a lower orbit that will eventually decay....
Probably difficult to generate enough force to make that happen, or to accurately predict where it'd come down.
I don't even turn it on for most of the ride; why would I interfere with Words with Friends or a quiet phone call? But when someone starts screaming into their phone they discover there's no service anymore.
Had you bolded one more word, you may have discovered the point.
How do you get a job like that anyway? I kinda want to try it after seeing it come up in the news so many times. I realise that I'll be scarred after maybe a week, but it's something that I'd like to say I've done.
Of course being poor now and being poor back then are also quite different. Back then you literally worried that you might starve to death. These days you still worry about important things, but you can be fairly assured that you'll be able to get food in your belly, clothes on your back and a roof over your head.
If it's going to cost $2 every time I want to start my car, that would significantly increase the costs of running a vehicle.
I was going to make a point about the hassle of having to go get new ones when you need them, but I assume they'd start selling them at gas stations so you just pick them up when you're fueling up.
Considering you can currently be arrested for drunk driving while sleeping in your vehicle; I'd assume that having your self-driving car take you home from the bar will still run afoul of the law.
Exactly, like the old saying goes: Engineering perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.
Thank you for clarifying your point. So many people would just rant and not move forward with the discussion, and I'd like to thank you for your interest in an intelligent debate.
Here's a different way to look at it. The maximum point on the curve is the point where economic activity has dropped enough that people aren't investing any more, so the total revenue goes down. So of course, having a low tax increases economic activity, leading to higher revenue overall. The low tax rate we've had has indeed sparked some serious economic activity, but is that really a good thing? Year-on-year growth has caused people to expect serious returns on their money, which indirectly caused the risk taking behaviour seen by the banks and insurance companies, which in turn contributed to the collapse. If we had a higher tax rate, there would be less economic growth in the short term, but the long term stability would increase, and after the first crash we avoid we'd be ahead.
the laffer curve is generally assumed to exist somewhere beyond 20 percent
The laffer curve exists over the range of 0-100%, you mean the maximum is somewhere beyond 20%
A) If the maximum is indeed somewhere beyond 20%, and we're currently at 16-18%, doesn't that put us below the maximum? B) Wikipedia tells me that the maximum is closer to 70%
They generally think they're shrinking government and giving the economy a chance to grow.
That is a Republican talking point, yes, but no-one (except Ron Paul) has actually said they will reduce specific areas of the budget by enough to make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny doesn't give karma, insightful does, many people will mod a funny post insightful or informative to give the poster karma.
It's not necessarily a question of changing the laws of physics, it may be a case of changing the way we do things. Unrelated example: the first attempts at powered flight aimed at creating an inherently stable flying machine, where the Wright Brothers succeeded by developing an inherently unstable flying machine. Maybe we'll find a way to better focus the neutrino beams to reduce the attenuation over distance, or maybe we'll find a better way to generate neutrinos, allowing us to send far more of them to be detected.
Of course there's always the possibility of all of this coming to nothing, but dismissing any improvement out of hand is not the thing to do.
Good point... I still maintain that it is theoretically possible.
Yes, evolution will always lead to the best chance of survival. The point is that there are multiple ways to go about surviving. Being a lone wolf and doing everything for yourself works, so does living in groups and cooperating. Over time the lone wolves and the groups will diverge into completely different species, and then their living situations will shape they way they evolve in the future.
Yes! Stupid people can be educated, malicious people must be avoided.
I've often thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea to just synthesize enough for myself and a few of my closest friends. It'd be hard for me to get myself caught, and I wouldn't have to deal with any shady characters.
Of course, I never did manage to get myself hooked to anything like that, so I never put my idea into practice.
I thought you may have been pointing to this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/quotes?qt0501237
I wonder if it would be possible to mechanically eject your payload in the right direction, pushing your spaceplane into a higher orbit, and your payload into a lower orbit that will eventually decay....
Probably difficult to generate enough force to make that happen, or to accurately predict where it'd come down.
I don't even turn it on for most of the ride; why would I interfere with Words with Friends or a quiet phone call? But when someone starts screaming into their phone they discover there's no service anymore.
Had you bolded one more word, you may have discovered the point.
"I answer to your Mom, and she expects you basement any minute."
That doesn't make any sense.
How do you get a job like that anyway? I kinda want to try it after seeing it come up in the news so many times. I realise that I'll be scarred after maybe a week, but it's something that I'd like to say I've done.
Or he could check out: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony
One niggle about your fun fact. If it's the most efficient method, you could hardly call it a waste.
Dud got around.
For instance if you agree at time X to sharia arbitration, then at time X+1 you leave Islam
Well, leaving Islam carries a penalty of death under Sharia, so you won't live long enough for it to be a problem.
It's not the love of money that's the root of all evil, it's the lack of money.
[Hideously paraphrased from Rich Dad Poor Dad]
Of course being poor now and being poor back then are also quite different. Back then you literally worried that you might starve to death. These days you still worry about important things, but you can be fairly assured that you'll be able to get food in your belly, clothes on your back and a roof over your head.
If it's going to cost $2 every time I want to start my car, that would significantly increase the costs of running a vehicle.
I was going to make a point about the hassle of having to go get new ones when you need them, but I assume they'd start selling them at gas stations so you just pick them up when you're fueling up.
Considering you can currently be arrested for drunk driving while sleeping in your vehicle; I'd assume that having your self-driving car take you home from the bar will still run afoul of the law.
No one's mentioned 419eater.com yet? Usually any popular site tangentially related to a story gets posted fairly quickly.
Personally I'd prefer to steal $33k from them, rather than make the pose naked with a stupid sign.
For the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilets_in_Japan#Washlet_Syndrome
You may see it that way, but the supreme court has previously ruled that many other things are interstate commerce.
Exactly, like the old saying goes: Engineering perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away.
Thank you for clarifying your point. So many people would just rant and not move forward with the discussion, and I'd like to thank you for your interest in an intelligent debate.
Here's a different way to look at it. The maximum point on the curve is the point where economic activity has dropped enough that people aren't investing any more, so the total revenue goes down. So of course, having a low tax increases economic activity, leading to higher revenue overall. The low tax rate we've had has indeed sparked some serious economic activity, but is that really a good thing? Year-on-year growth has caused people to expect serious returns on their money, which indirectly caused the risk taking behaviour seen by the banks and insurance companies, which in turn contributed to the collapse. If we had a higher tax rate, there would be less economic growth in the short term, but the long term stability would increase, and after the first crash we avoid we'd be ahead.
the laffer curve is generally assumed to exist somewhere beyond 20 percent
The laffer curve exists over the range of 0-100%, you mean the maximum is somewhere beyond 20%
A) If the maximum is indeed somewhere beyond 20%, and we're currently at 16-18%, doesn't that put us below the maximum?
B) Wikipedia tells me that the maximum is closer to 70%
They generally think they're shrinking government and giving the economy a chance to grow.
That is a Republican talking point, yes, but no-one (except Ron Paul) has actually said they will reduce specific areas of the budget by enough to make a difference.