And yet, somehow I suspect that the metallurgist working for the stainless steel pipe and fitting company might object to being called a "plumbing guy".
To be fair pate de foi gras is disgusting, so even if it were cheap I doubt you'd see it being served at nascar events. Now single malt scotch... that one maybe. Highland park and coke anyone?
Wow... uhmm, you seem to know the ins and outs of a complete strangers marriage and whose fault it is based on a 3 line/. comment. My guess is you are either: psychic, a psychological genius, or projecting. Or you are said poster's wife, in which case I take it all back.
If this were any other scientific theory this wouldn't be happening. Politicians are in on this, politically deciding which evidence is valid and which is not, on both sides of the issue. The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't even strictly necessary most of the time. If this were string theory I wouldn't care. The problem is that this is being used to advocate drastic changes in public policy. Policies Al Gore supports would end factory farming and dramatically drive up energy prices. The only possible outcome of this is an immediate and severe increase in the price of food, and famine in much of the undeveloped world. It would lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths over the next several decades. If you're asking me to standby and let our politicians kill millions through famine, because the alternative is even more devastating destruction, you better have some evidence that: A) Your doomsday scenario is fairly certain B) the policy changes you suggest will definitely prevent it. While the evidence for A is getting slightly more convincing, all the evidence seems to be against B. When DDT was banned millions died of malaria, I don't want my generation being responsible for another such well meaning, naive, indirect mass murder.
APA papers that reference wikipedia? I might have to go throw up if your talking about the American Psychological Association, unless someone is doing a study on wikipedia contributers, nothing, absolutely nothing, from wikipedia should be referenced in a published paper, ever. Anything authoritative enough to get into a scientific journal needs to be peer reviewed, and sure as hell not anonymous.
What strikes me most about this is that the dolphin shape has been decided, while other details, like: what will the button actually do? where do we buy/acquire the tech? is this a good idea? are still undecided. It's like in the hitchhikers guide book where they are back in time on earth with the golgafrinchams and they are wanting to invent a wheel, and the most important decision to them is what color (colour in the book I suppose) to make it.
I'm horrendous at being able to accomplish big projects on my own, with no funding.
Pretty much everyone has that problem. If you need some entry level physics or EE or some more advanced materials science stuff maybe I'll contribute one day. Free education is possible, just like you say. At the same time I'd be sad to see the brick and mortar schools go. You can't replace being physically in the same buildings with the same labs for a lot of stuff.
Great, so now it will be a slashdot summary, or an article about an interesting lawsuit, etc. Apparently german killers haven't heard of the streisand effect.
That is no different than the tax system now. The IRS doesn't do accounting for people, but in any system where fudging some numbers in a few books will result in longer patents making a lot more money you would need auditing and oversight, not to mention processing all of the filings about R&D costs, making sure they are somewhat reasonable, endless regulations as to what constitutes an R&D cost (travel? consultants? internet bandwidth that the company might have had anyway but was also being used for the project?). All of those regulations would need enforcing. It would just be a huge can of worms.
You can argue that any political philosophy that knowingly fails to prevent something bad is enabling it. That applies to all of the constitutional protections in the US. My point was that your argument merely makes a tenuous link between libertarianism and racism, implying that this is grounds to dismiss the entire model. No working political system has ever fit entirely into any of the pigeonholes we like to discuss. A much more libertarian version of the US would be possible, while still providing some protections against discrimination. Much more liberal systems exist that provide virtually no protection like our fair housing act. See Germany and France for examples. The average "libertarian" in the US wants to get rid of most of the alphabet soup (ATF, DEA especially), lower taxes, and work toward a balanced budget and a currency that is at least partially commodity backed. Most of them come out a little more extreme than that, because it's hard to be heard otherwise. They are not, however, a bunch of backward racists, potheads, or anything else that they have been made out to be over the years.
Try as you might, you'll never separate libertarianism from racism.
Even if a libertarian isn't personally racist, they see things like the civil rights act and the fair housing act (and the associated enforcement costs) as the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, so at the very least a libertarian world view enables racism.
You could insert anything that is fashionable at the moment in the place of racism.
Example 1:
Even if a libertarian isn't personally a terrorist, they see things like warrantless wiretapping and the patriot act as the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, so at the very least a libertarian world view enables terrorism.
Anyone else want to play?
Ok, so how are we supposed to do that? In 2009 we still have finite supplies of everything, if I want a ham sandwich I can't magically produce ham by speaking "create ham", it isn't even digital where if you have one piece of ham you can make almost infinite copies without damaging the original ham or using any other parts.
Fact of the matter is MMA is one of the most safest full contact sports.
True, but I don't think he was arguing for boxing or football. There are many schools of traditional martial arts that do not include any actual contact head blows. He was probably arguing in favor of say, aikido, judo, or even karate, and MMA was simply an easy example of a full contact martial art.
The distinction between "internet", "cell phones", and "tv" gets blurrier every day. People walk around with phones that will save them money by going over voip and wifi when it's available, I haven't own a tv in years, since hulu et al made it not worth the money for cable service. Even when I did have a tv it was hooked up to a mythbox, which relied on internet service for listings.
Allowing some parts of the spectrum to be unregulated is a good thing, it allows hobbiests and startups to push the envelope and do things that can't be easily pigeonholed into one of the current categories. If anything we need more unregulated spectrum. 2.4 GHz is incredibly useful for everything from wifi to model airplanes precisely because it isn't regulated. If a large chunk of the 700 MHz band were simply given to miscellaneous digital traffic or something it would be good for a lot of people.
As much as this has gone badly in the past, with sunken submarines, lost hydrogen bombs, and at least one crashed space craft I know of, I think this could be done reasonably safely. The fuel may not have to be weapons grade, and it should be possible to launch it in such a way that if something goes wrong it at the very least crashes into a place where it will do little damage (especially compared with the above mentioned accidents). The likelyhood of an accident releasing nuclear fuel can be reduced with appropriate containers. While in space radiation exposure is already very dangerously high. A nuclear reactor driven ship could actually be a benefit, since it alleviates some design limitations on weight and could therefore allow for better shielding for the passengers.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I have heard that rare earth minerals were mixed in with soils in asia because they were believed to promote crop growth, though I have no idea if it's true. I have also heard that at nuclear test sites there was a zone after the area where everything was dead, but before things were normalized, where plant growth seemed to be accelerated, and that this may be the origin of OMG GIANT BUGZ movies that blamed radiation, also no idea if that is true. If anyone has some insight I would be interested.
(You also seem to be a bit confused about the bill of rights and the constitution. The limits on government powers apply to state and local governments. It's not a limit of only federal government power).
IANAL but it's a little more complicated than that. In essence certain amendments and constitutional rights are applied to the states, while several are not. This came about through the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and is referred to as incorporation.
We already have designs of rocket engines that work great in vacuum and only require a Warp core (or fusion core, to start with) for power. The whole Solar system can be populated if you have infinite energy, especially on farther planets (their satellites, mostly.) Even if you don't want to go to space, underwater and underground cities become obvious things to build if you have energy.
A Warp Core? Do you mean a matter antimatter reactor? Warp cores are fictional devices from the star trek universe, there are hypothetical warp drives that are valid solutions to general relativity, but they require exotic matter that may not even exist in this universe. Furthermore there are other barriers to populating the solar system, such as that none of the other planets are habitable, and they are unlikely to be able to be made habitable except within domes, underground tunnels and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
ooops... wrong thread...
And yet, somehow I suspect that the metallurgist working for the stainless steel pipe and fitting company might object to being called a "plumbing guy".
To be fair pate de foi gras is disgusting, so even if it were cheap I doubt you'd see it being served at nascar events. Now single malt scotch... that one maybe. Highland park and coke anyone?
Wow... uhmm, you seem to know the ins and outs of a complete strangers marriage and whose fault it is based on a 3 line /. comment. My guess is you are either: psychic, a psychological genius, or projecting. Or you are said poster's wife, in which case I take it all back.
you think that's bad I remember seeing the ads for this cd-i title on tv: voyeur
If this were any other scientific theory this wouldn't be happening. Politicians are in on this, politically deciding which evidence is valid and which is not, on both sides of the issue. The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't even strictly necessary most of the time. If this were string theory I wouldn't care. The problem is that this is being used to advocate drastic changes in public policy. Policies Al Gore supports would end factory farming and dramatically drive up energy prices. The only possible outcome of this is an immediate and severe increase in the price of food, and famine in much of the undeveloped world. It would lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths over the next several decades. If you're asking me to standby and let our politicians kill millions through famine, because the alternative is even more devastating destruction, you better have some evidence that: A) Your doomsday scenario is fairly certain B) the policy changes you suggest will definitely prevent it. While the evidence for A is getting slightly more convincing, all the evidence seems to be against B. When DDT was banned millions died of malaria, I don't want my generation being responsible for another such well meaning, naive, indirect mass murder.
APA papers that reference wikipedia? I might have to go throw up if your talking about the American Psychological Association, unless someone is doing a study on wikipedia contributers, nothing, absolutely nothing, from wikipedia should be referenced in a published paper, ever. Anything authoritative enough to get into a scientific journal needs to be peer reviewed, and sure as hell not anonymous.
What strikes me most about this is that the dolphin shape has been decided, while other details, like: what will the button actually do? where do we buy/acquire the tech? is this a good idea? are still undecided. It's like in the hitchhikers guide book where they are back in time on earth with the golgafrinchams and they are wanting to invent a wheel, and the most important decision to them is what color (colour in the book I suppose) to make it.
Yes that is where it comes from, that's why they call it the god particle.
I'm horrendous at being able to accomplish big projects on my own, with no funding.
Pretty much everyone has that problem. If you need some entry level physics or EE or some more advanced materials science stuff maybe I'll contribute one day. Free education is possible, just like you say. At the same time I'd be sad to see the brick and mortar schools go. You can't replace being physically in the same buildings with the same labs for a lot of stuff.
Great, so now it will be a slashdot summary, or an article about an interesting lawsuit, etc. Apparently german killers haven't heard of the streisand effect.
It's similar to what has happened with Gamecube games.
What a strange car analogy
That is no different than the tax system now. The IRS doesn't do accounting for people, but in any system where fudging some numbers in a few books will result in longer patents making a lot more money you would need auditing and oversight, not to mention processing all of the filings about R&D costs, making sure they are somewhat reasonable, endless regulations as to what constitutes an R&D cost (travel? consultants? internet bandwidth that the company might have had anyway but was also being used for the project?). All of those regulations would need enforcing. It would just be a huge can of worms.
The primary issue I see with this is the huge record keeping and auditing overhead. The USPTO would end up making the IRS look efficient.
Turning off the internet will likely become necessary because of the basilisks.
You can argue that any political philosophy that knowingly fails to prevent something bad is enabling it. That applies to all of the constitutional protections in the US. My point was that your argument merely makes a tenuous link between libertarianism and racism, implying that this is grounds to dismiss the entire model. No working political system has ever fit entirely into any of the pigeonholes we like to discuss. A much more libertarian version of the US would be possible, while still providing some protections against discrimination. Much more liberal systems exist that provide virtually no protection like our fair housing act. See Germany and France for examples. The average "libertarian" in the US wants to get rid of most of the alphabet soup (ATF, DEA especially), lower taxes, and work toward a balanced budget and a currency that is at least partially commodity backed. Most of them come out a little more extreme than that, because it's hard to be heard otherwise. They are not, however, a bunch of backward racists, potheads, or anything else that they have been made out to be over the years.
Try as you might, you'll never separate libertarianism from racism.
Even if a libertarian isn't personally racist, they see things like the civil rights act and the fair housing act (and the associated enforcement costs) as the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, so at the very least a libertarian world view enables racism.
You could insert anything that is fashionable at the moment in the place of racism. Example 1: Even if a libertarian isn't personally a terrorist, they see things like warrantless wiretapping and the patriot act as the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong, so at the very least a libertarian world view enables terrorism. Anyone else want to play?
Ok, so how are we supposed to do that? In 2009 we still have finite supplies of everything, if I want a ham sandwich I can't magically produce ham by speaking "create ham", it isn't even digital where if you have one piece of ham you can make almost infinite copies without damaging the original ham or using any other parts.
Did you try "sudo create ham"?
Fact of the matter is MMA is one of the most safest full contact sports.
True, but I don't think he was arguing for boxing or football. There are many schools of traditional martial arts that do not include any actual contact head blows. He was probably arguing in favor of say, aikido, judo, or even karate, and MMA was simply an easy example of a full contact martial art.
The distinction between "internet", "cell phones", and "tv" gets blurrier every day. People walk around with phones that will save them money by going over voip and wifi when it's available, I haven't own a tv in years, since hulu et al made it not worth the money for cable service. Even when I did have a tv it was hooked up to a mythbox, which relied on internet service for listings. Allowing some parts of the spectrum to be unregulated is a good thing, it allows hobbiests and startups to push the envelope and do things that can't be easily pigeonholed into one of the current categories. If anything we need more unregulated spectrum. 2.4 GHz is incredibly useful for everything from wifi to model airplanes precisely because it isn't regulated. If a large chunk of the 700 MHz band were simply given to miscellaneous digital traffic or something it would be good for a lot of people.
As much as this has gone badly in the past, with sunken submarines, lost hydrogen bombs, and at least one crashed space craft I know of, I think this could be done reasonably safely. The fuel may not have to be weapons grade, and it should be possible to launch it in such a way that if something goes wrong it at the very least crashes into a place where it will do little damage (especially compared with the above mentioned accidents). The likelyhood of an accident releasing nuclear fuel can be reduced with appropriate containers. While in space radiation exposure is already very dangerously high. A nuclear reactor driven ship could actually be a benefit, since it alleviates some design limitations on weight and could therefore allow for better shielding for the passengers.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I have heard that rare earth minerals were mixed in with soils in asia because they were believed to promote crop growth, though I have no idea if it's true. I have also heard that at nuclear test sites there was a zone after the area where everything was dead, but before things were normalized, where plant growth seemed to be accelerated, and that this may be the origin of OMG GIANT BUGZ movies that blamed radiation, also no idea if that is true. If anyone has some insight I would be interested.
(You also seem to be a bit confused about the bill of rights and the constitution. The limits on government powers apply to state and local governments. It's not a limit of only federal government power).
IANAL but it's a little more complicated than that. In essence certain amendments and constitutional rights are applied to the states, while several are not. This came about through the interpretation of the 14th amendment, and is referred to as incorporation.
We already have designs of rocket engines that work great in vacuum and only require a Warp core (or fusion core, to start with) for power. The whole Solar system can be populated if you have infinite energy, especially on farther planets (their satellites, mostly.) Even if you don't want to go to space, underwater and underground cities become obvious things to build if you have energy.
A Warp Core? Do you mean a matter antimatter reactor? Warp cores are fictional devices from the star trek universe, there are hypothetical warp drives that are valid solutions to general relativity, but they require exotic matter that may not even exist in this universe. Furthermore there are other barriers to populating the solar system, such as that none of the other planets are habitable, and they are unlikely to be able to be made habitable except within domes, underground tunnels and the like.