Actually, that statement is silly whichever way you turn it.
Not necessarily. I know I'm a bit of an oddball, being a slashdot subscriber, paid money for add-free comics, donated money for good causes, etc, but I can see various sources of funding for free online journals. Various tactics like not publishing them openly for a year(to those without a subscription), charging for privilage of posting, even getting grants for facilitating the spread of scientific knowledge.
You just need to build the pipes even tougher then. And just imagine the water pressure you'd get when you shower. Just remember to just lots and lots and lots of cold water with it.
Solar power, that far north, probably won't give you enough heat, especially during the winter, to make them pay themselves off in a reasonable amount of time.
Especially if you take your showers in the morning before the sun comes up. Which can mean ten oclock in the morning as far north as we are. Of course, I'm looking at it from my own, nearly as far north, state of North Dakota.
Except that it is electric powered, which means it has all the efficiency of electricity, which is low, compared to gas and oil.
I think that you mean economy, rather than efficiency. Electric is very efficient, it's just not very economical. More potential energy is wasted with gas and oil, it's just that the current price of hydrocarbons compared with electricity makes them cheaper. Make hydrocarbons ten times more costly and halve the price of electricity and the economies change.
Personally, I've been researching geothermal heat pumps for my house, because I see dead fossil hydrocarbons continually increasing above inflation. Electricity resistance might be 99% efficient, but from what I've read, heat pumps can produce 2-4 times as many BTU's for the electricty. Additionally, hot water from the system is free when you're cooling the house(it's simply running the exhaust heat through the water rather than the outside radiator).
Things to improve: better intigration with the water heater/reserve, right now it's dissassosiated with demand unless it's a dedicated unit, reducing it's usefullness.
I did some research, figures are for North Dakota Current price of electricity:.079 kw/h Current price of natural gas: $11.05 per MMBTU. Looking up on the chart from here, This yields: $23.46 per MBTU for straight electric $11.58 for high efficiency natural gas $11.76 for average air source heat pump $8.51 for high efficiency air source heat pump $6.21 for HE ground loop heat pump.
While ground loop heat pump is the most expensive system to have installed, being more economical in fuel costs than natural gas makes it a contender.
Because it's annoying to have to check propane levels every week, and to remember to pick up a spare, etc...
Having lived in europe, I too have seen resistance electic heaters that fulfill every 'advantage' listed. They're capable of adjusting heating even in low flow conditions, aren't that big, etc...
Personally, I think that I'll stick with the geothermal heatpump assisted water heater. > 100% efficieny is nice. (Note: efficiency comes because it's moving heat from elsewhere)
While the reviewers of these peer-review journals are indeed of a higher caliber and more serious nature than slashdot commenters, all of the problems you mentioned are still found in those peer reviewed journals.
They're usually just not as obvious. You still have problems with old-boy networks, personal enemies/rivals, etc. The 'karma' system is much more severe, you could say.
I did some searching to try to find the relative literacy rates, but was unable after about five minutes on google. I did find that the UN considers the US to have the highest literacy rate(99.9%) compared to China at 90.9. The US itself uses a tougher standard, which results in a 97% rate. Getting that last few percent are difficult because you start running into education for the learning disabled, blind, retarded, etc. Then there's the problem of the substantially different writing system used in China. In english and other romanion based languages, your verbal vocabulary translates into written vocabulary, once you've learned the phonetic connections.
Education, of which literacy rates are a part of, is considered essential to uplifting society, and perhaps even more importantly, as a measure of the worth of a society. This is one of the causes of the high literacy rates in Cuba. During the cold war, Cuba was subsidized by the USSR to be a model of communism. And, if nothing else, people can't read your propaganda if they can't read.
[i]Remember, "the masses" didn't recieve any real education until it was in the interests of the powerful to have educated labor and markets. Subvert education? Power created education![/i]
Agreed. It's the whole knowledge=power thing. Once leadership(or the people) realize that having a smaller slice of a much bigger pie is still better than a big slice of a small pie, improving everybody becomes a priority. Fancier cars, better healthcare, better entertainment, all requires a more educated population.
Have the DS touchscreen, and use a handsfree type kit. I use one for my cellphone all the time anyways. As long as I have a decent holder, I'll dial, then put it in the holder for the conversation. The ability to have a larger battery/talk time is a bonus.
From my reading of the article, it seems that some of his early supply was purchased eggs. Later, a law forbid that. Then, facing a shortage, a few of his assistants volunteered their eggs(to keep the project going). Denied, they proceeded to do so in secret, under false pretense.
Blame, so far? The assistants.
Hwang then found out about it. Proper procedure: Tell the truth, drag said assistant's names through the mud, ruin their careers, etc. Research is still tainted. His career might be ruined, not be able to get assistants.
What did he do? Lie, attract so much attention on himself that the assistant's who did it are almost ignored, see his career ruined. He resigns(read:retires), and goes on to live as an 'advisor'. The assistants probably keep their jobs, as he's not identifying them.
Agreed. As long as you don't go spraying it everywhere, causing runoff and the bad effects, you can use DDT very effectivly. Limited spraying around habitat entrances, impregnated curtains, etc can seriously help control malaria in countries such as those in Africa.
Countries where mosquitoes aren't an annoyance, countries where hundreds, thousands die from malaria and other mosquito vector borne diseases.
I'll go so far as to say that a corporation or institution can't be evil. The most that I'll say is that a corporation or institution, if structured wrongly, can help bring out the worst in people.
It's the people who are evil, who commit evil acts. Have corporations dumped toxic waste illegally? Yes, but there had to be somebody who said "Dump it here". That's who I'd go after. When a corporation gets sued, the corporation, not being a living being, doesn't care. The Board of directors probably doesn't care, as they're going to get their money regardless. They might loose some money in the form of bonuses, but they're pretty insulated. Who looses out? The customers when they pay the higher prices, or the investors when the stock drops.
In alot of ways this is a smarter business model than the 'squeeze' tactic. When you look at companies, it's the ones that apply the 'squeeze' model that fail left and right.
Places that concentrate on good product do fail, but they usually do so before they can establish themselves, or they attempt to expand too fast and overreach themselves. Either that or they're just plain out-competed. The trick is to produce a good product(so you keep selling units), while still turning a profit so you don't go bankrupt, and to justify the investment the investors made.
In today's world, it shouldn't be about the 5 year profit margins, it should be about the 20 year margins. More people than ever are investing for retirement, and they're in it for the long term.
It's also extremely obvious if you use anything other than the default windowsXP theme. The first thing I do on winxp is to change the theme to "classic".
"Really, now? How, exactly, does the world "keep up" with/us/? When we over-consume, does our environment magically begin to crank out more fuel? Are you suggesting the existence of a "Magic Grinder"? The reality is that as long as we're on Earth we're constrained by resources. As the population grows indefinitely we're bound to push, and eventually begin to overflow those restraints. I personally believe that the overall natural balance is not within our mastery. As we push our natural population constraints to the brink Nature will intervene with sickness, poverty (leading to sickness), and more sickness
I'll dispute this. Just look at Japan, Europe, the United States. First world nations have stopped expanding, population wise. Third world ones are, but it's the same phenonomin that we experienced generations ago. The Families there are still having the same number of kids, but, like us, the new thing is that they're surviving. It will eventually stabilize. Now if it's at your idea of a sustainable level, or mine, it doesn't matter.
Just as population is increasing, so isn't our research into more sustainable living. Our homes that are three times the size of that quaint early 1900's home actually takes less energy to heat. Never mind what happens when we really put our mind to making them energy efficient.
Oh, and I think you forgot that besides sickness(plague), there's more horsemen. Don't forget that famine and war also ride with death.
Over-consume? What is this? Going back a few centuries, 90% of humans were preoccupied with farming for the sake of their own needs. They were barely growing enough food to feed themselves! Going forward to the present day, less than 10% of the US population is responsible for feeding the other 90%. Mind you, we produce so much food that we pay farmers NOT to grow food. And even then, we give away the excess that we have to other countries in the form of foreign aid. As the population grows, we adapt the environment so that it grows more efficiently, with greater yields. Contrary to popular fiction, we are trillions of people away from having to worry about limited resources. Not that they aren't limited, but they are limited in the sense that the sun has a limited amount of fuel left to burn. We have a ways to go before we have to worry about it, and even then technology is continually advancing such that people even now are working on it.
A few will get rich by themselves and retire earlier, but the majority will trudge on.
I humbly submit that through a combination of training, incentives, and outright moderation, a person can save up enough to retire early if they want to.
If they insist on living beyond their means, or even to the limit of their means, of course they'll have to work longer.
And 'I'm sick of working' just doesn't cut it, when we're getting to the point that a person retiring at 60 has a decent chance of living, retired, for an equal amount of time as they're working. Assume average career start at 20*. That's 40 years until they're sixty, then if they live to 100, well, there you go. Up the retirement age to 70, and you're now at a 50/30 split. I'll say that this may be more the reason for the 'dual income family' than just material wants. Why are both parents working? So they both can quit working sooner. Remember, it was just a few generations ago that people usually worked until they dropped dead.
Given that today people over 50 in most positions are seen as "old" and essentially fit to be replaced by younger blood, I seriously wonder what will happen when the workplace is filled with truly fatigued sexagenarians.
Adding another decade to working will make employers consider older workers viable for longer.
Here's an idea: With the longer working term, we can play the 'mid-life crisis', maybe let them off for a couple years, then encourage them to shift to a different career. With decent amounts of savings, a paid off house, no more kids, etc, they should be able to work effectivly in an easier role. It's time to step away from the grinding 'bread-winner' job, and find a fulfilling one. My grandparents have basically gotten bored to the point that they volunteer to work in various roles. My grandfather donates time cooking at the nearby elks' lodge, raising money for charity, etc. My grandmother works as a state advocate for children and mentally handicapped. On my father's side, they keep the state rest stops clear & clean.
Heck, I'm in the military right now. I get my 20 years done, I'm young enough for another career, but I'll have that 50% retirement pay coming in. While it'll only cover the house payment, maybe the car payment as well, it's just that, rather than needing that $50,000 a year job, I can work at the $38,000/year job, and live just fine. What's this mean? It means that if I like puttering around with potted plants, I can work at the local nursury for peanuts and be happy. It means that if I get sick of my job, well, I can just quit. Heck, save the money, live well within my means, and retire at 50. Or keep working, just because if I'm not working, I'm going to be bored, and be spending money to not be bored instead of working at something I like to earn money not being bored.
Of course, I'm very much for concentrating not so much on life extension, but life improvement, sustainment. If you can keep the elderly from having fragile bones, sure, that's going to extend life as a fair number of elderly die from falls and complications from broken bones. But you're also going to keep a far larger number of elderly out of hospitals, from having to visit emergency rooms, wheelchairs, walkers, etc. Fewer ambulance trips, etc. They won't have to fear falling, can stay more physically active, leading to healthier life. Then you work on muscle deterioration, again, you keep them, and eventually yourself, out of those walkers, wheelchairs, needing special assistance. They can live better. A side effect of this is that they can work longer as well, but like I said, they can concentrate on more 'worthy' lines of work.
*I'm not including after school jobs, and averaging high school/technical/college
true, however in order to do this, they have to divide frequently. The telomeres act as a limit to this. Each division shortens them. Eventually the DNA will unravel, causing the cells undergoing uncontrolled division to essentially suicide, stopping the cancer.
For a cancer to be nasty, the Telomerase gene has to be turned on, regenerating the telomeres so the cancer has unlimited growth.
Disease might not be cured, but you might want to check out the difference in survival rates between healthy 18-30 year olds and everybody else.
Disease still kills a fair number of people each year, but the vast majority of them are the extremely young and old. Healthy young adults are amazingly hard to kill with disease.
To the point that one that can kill them is considered a BIG problem. If you have a society consisting almost entirely of the equivalent to healthy young adults, disease wouldn't be a big deal for the most part.
Of course, you're still going to have kids, but with that kind of lifespan, you should be able to isolate the kids very well if necessary. Heck, just think about how much effort we could lavish on kids if we don't need all of those nursing homes and such. Even if we were just average healthy and productive until dropping dead at 90~100. Heck, with lifespans measured in eons, I could see 'maturnity leave' stretching into the decades. Basically, when you have kids, you quit your job and work on raising them.
I heard on the radio not long ago where a congrassman was proposing using our taxes to pay for converterboxes for people.
Second, manufactures do NOT want warning stickers. As you say some will simply put off buying new TVs
If the manufacturer doesn't want a warning sticker, all they have to do is stick a digital tuner in the thing.
My thought was that if the.gov is going to get involved, they would have been better off to have mandated that all TV's sold would have digital tuning capability by 2004.
Why? Well, while there are certainly exceptions, I'd tend to say that most TVs only last ~ 5 years. This policy would mean that today, around 10% of the TV's in use today would be able to receive the new signals. By 2007, it'd probably be 30-40%. 80% by 2009. The price difference would quickly disappear from the joys of mass production. Instead, when I walk in to Walmart, Best Buy and such, digital tuners are the exception, not the rule. They're also more expensive.
Hmm... Seems MTBF for televisions is something like 30,000 hours. At 12 hours a day, that's almost 7 years. Still, I think that people upgrading(as opposed to replacing a broken set) would take care of much of the problem over time.
I think the idea was that the ads would play on the 'primary' screen, which is sitting turned off in the office, while the 'secondary' projector screen in the chapel area plays the slideshows.
Okay, I'm not saying you missed the point of the GP post -- I understand that you're just speaking for "those people". So would you mind answering one more argument on behalf of "them"? It's something that I've never heard an embryonic-stem-cell opponent answer, and I'm dying to hear what "they" would say. Here it is (worded in second person):
Answer, on behalf of "those people", as best as I can manage, about why they can't use the extra embryoes genereated during In Vitro Fertilization(IVF):
But, if it's not used for research it might be used by the mother to have another child, or by another woman needing a child.
but in that case, you'd have to oppose IVF treatments every bit as vehemently as abortion.
There are clinics that specialize in 'ethical' IVF treatments, where they only fertalize one egg at a time, generate and implant one embroyo at a time, etc. It averages more expensive because of significant individual failure rate of the implantations, thus requiring more time/repeat tries, but generates no extra embryos(Babies) to be thrown away/used for research.
Funny, I don't recall ever hearing of anti-abortionists picketing (or bombing) those clinics. So, is IVF okay or not? If it's not, then why aren't you opposing it to the same degree as abortion? Or if it is, then WTF is wrong with embryonic stem cells?
Ethics must be followed in all research. While we'd prefer that IVF be done in a completely ethical manner, it's providing the valuable service of allowing couples having difficulty bearing children to do so. It's a far lower target than abortion. But we fear that if the extra blasteocytes were allowed for research, that would encourage fertility clinics to overproduce./whooo. It can be tough to twist my mind into that kind of thinking.
I'll comment that I was disagreeing with the parent who thought that making the system generate extra hydrogen via electricity generated from 'regenerative' braking would be a good idea.
I retorted that you'd be better off making the truck a hybrid. Your idea for making a semi into a hybrid after the fact makes a good point. The very nature of a semi makes it easier to modify it. Extra axles, large size make finding room to install parts easier.
Given the power-weight ratios that trucks operate on, and the fact that they're at their most polluting at high power operations, adding this sort of system would help the truck pollute less, use less fuel, and accelerate quicker. A winning solution, as long as it repays for itself within a reasonable period.
There's that and there's also phage cells that'll respond to many kinds of cancer if they don't self destruct. There's a number of controls in our bodies, it actually takes a number of failures before a cancer can become large enough to be dangerous/noticable.
It's not just sharks. Most reptiles don't get it either. They've done some studies involving alligators.
As for everyone getting cancer, well, I've heard that on average everybody gets 13 cancers a year, it's just that your own immune system takes care of them before they get anywhere.
Hate to break it to you, but those people consider your blastocyst to be a living breathing baby. They like popping up pictures of 7-9 month term fetuses/babies on billboards.
Most of them don't mind harvesting 'stem cells' from any source that still results in a born baby (umbilical cords, for example).
Me, I don't care that much, but I can understand their views a bit better than most.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that statement is silly whichever way you turn it.
Not necessarily. I know I'm a bit of an oddball, being a slashdot subscriber, paid money for add-free comics, donated money for good causes, etc, but I can see various sources of funding for free online journals. Various tactics like not publishing them openly for a year(to those without a subscription), charging for privilage of posting, even getting grants for facilitating the spread of scientific knowledge.
You just need to build the pipes even tougher then. And just imagine the water pressure you'd get when you shower. Just remember to just lots and lots and lots of cold water with it.
Not to mention that the very reason that they made that band unlicensed was because it's right in the sweet spot for absorbtion by water.
Put a microwave on another band and it won't work as well. Additional unlicensed band is one of the hopeful benefits of the move to digital tv.
Solar power, that far north, probably won't give you enough heat, especially during the winter, to make them pay themselves off in a reasonable amount of time.
Especially if you take your showers in the morning before the sun comes up. Which can mean ten oclock in the morning as far north as we are. Of course, I'm looking at it from my own, nearly as far north, state of North Dakota.
Except that it is electric powered, which means it has all the efficiency of electricity, which is low, compared to gas and oil.
.079 kw/h
I think that you mean economy, rather than efficiency. Electric is very efficient, it's just not very economical. More potential energy is wasted with gas and oil, it's just that the current price of hydrocarbons compared with electricity makes them cheaper. Make hydrocarbons ten times more costly and halve the price of electricity and the economies change.
Personally, I've been researching geothermal heat pumps for my house, because I see dead fossil hydrocarbons continually increasing above inflation. Electricity resistance might be 99% efficient, but from what I've read, heat pumps can produce 2-4 times as many BTU's for the electricty. Additionally, hot water from the system is free when you're cooling the house(it's simply running the exhaust heat through the water rather than the outside radiator).
Things to improve: better intigration with the water heater/reserve, right now it's dissassosiated with demand unless it's a dedicated unit, reducing it's usefullness.
I did some research, figures are for North Dakota
Current price of electricity:
Current price of natural gas: $11.05 per MMBTU.
Looking up on the chart from here,
This yields:
$23.46 per MBTU for straight electric
$11.58 for high efficiency natural gas
$11.76 for average air source heat pump
$8.51 for high efficiency air source heat pump
$6.21 for HE ground loop heat pump.
While ground loop heat pump is the most expensive system to have installed, being more economical in fuel costs than natural gas makes it a contender.
Because it's annoying to have to check propane levels every week, and to remember to pick up a spare, etc...
Having lived in europe, I too have seen resistance electic heaters that fulfill every 'advantage' listed. They're capable of adjusting heating even in low flow conditions, aren't that big, etc...
Personally, I think that I'll stick with the geothermal heatpump assisted water heater. > 100% efficieny is nice. (Note: efficiency comes because it's moving heat from elsewhere)
While the reviewers of these peer-review journals are indeed of a higher caliber and more serious nature than slashdot commenters, all of the problems you mentioned are still found in those peer reviewed journals.
They're usually just not as obvious. You still have problems with old-boy networks, personal enemies/rivals, etc. The 'karma' system is much more severe, you could say.
I did some searching to try to find the relative literacy rates, but was unable after about five minutes on google. I did find that the UN considers the US to have the highest literacy rate(99.9%) compared to China at 90.9. The US itself uses a tougher standard, which results in a 97% rate. Getting that last few percent are difficult because you start running into education for the learning disabled, blind, retarded, etc. Then there's the problem of the substantially different writing system used in China. In english and other romanion based languages, your verbal vocabulary translates into written vocabulary, once you've learned the phonetic connections.
Education, of which literacy rates are a part of, is considered essential to uplifting society, and perhaps even more importantly, as a measure of the worth of a society. This is one of the causes of the high literacy rates in Cuba. During the cold war, Cuba was subsidized by the USSR to be a model of communism. And, if nothing else, people can't read your propaganda if they can't read.
[i]Remember, "the masses" didn't recieve any real education until it was in the interests of the powerful to have educated labor and markets. Subvert education? Power created education![/i]
Agreed. It's the whole knowledge=power thing. Once leadership(or the people) realize that having a smaller slice of a much bigger pie is still better than a big slice of a small pie, improving everybody becomes a priority. Fancier cars, better healthcare, better entertainment, all requires a more educated population.
Have the DS touchscreen, and use a handsfree type kit. I use one for my cellphone all the time anyways. As long as I have a decent holder, I'll dial, then put it in the holder for the conversation. The ability to have a larger battery/talk time is a bonus.
From my reading of the article, it seems that some of his early supply was purchased eggs. Later, a law forbid that. Then, facing a shortage, a few of his assistants volunteered their eggs(to keep the project going). Denied, they proceeded to do so in secret, under false pretense.
Blame, so far? The assistants.
Hwang then found out about it. Proper procedure: Tell the truth, drag said assistant's names through the mud, ruin their careers, etc. Research is still tainted. His career might be ruined, not be able to get assistants.
What did he do? Lie, attract so much attention on himself that the assistant's who did it are almost ignored, see his career ruined. He resigns(read:retires), and goes on to live as an 'advisor'. The assistants probably keep their jobs, as he's not identifying them.
Ugly all around.
Agreed. As long as you don't go spraying it everywhere, causing runoff and the bad effects, you can use DDT very effectivly. Limited spraying around habitat entrances, impregnated curtains, etc can seriously help control malaria in countries such as those in Africa.
Countries where mosquitoes aren't an annoyance, countries where hundreds, thousands die from malaria and other mosquito vector borne diseases.
I'll go so far as to say that a corporation or institution can't be evil. The most that I'll say is that a corporation or institution, if structured wrongly, can help bring out the worst in people.
It's the people who are evil, who commit evil acts. Have corporations dumped toxic waste illegally? Yes, but there had to be somebody who said "Dump it here". That's who I'd go after. When a corporation gets sued, the corporation, not being a living being, doesn't care. The Board of directors probably doesn't care, as they're going to get their money regardless. They might loose some money in the form of bonuses, but they're pretty insulated. Who looses out? The customers when they pay the higher prices, or the investors when the stock drops.
In alot of ways this is a smarter business model than the 'squeeze' tactic. When you look at companies, it's the ones that apply the 'squeeze' model that fail left and right.
Places that concentrate on good product do fail, but they usually do so before they can establish themselves, or they attempt to expand too fast and overreach themselves. Either that or they're just plain out-competed. The trick is to produce a good product(so you keep selling units), while still turning a profit so you don't go bankrupt, and to justify the investment the investors made.
In today's world, it shouldn't be about the 5 year profit margins, it should be about the 20 year margins. More people than ever are investing for retirement, and they're in it for the long term.
It's also extremely obvious if you use anything other than the default windowsXP theme. The first thing I do on winxp is to change the theme to "classic".
"Really, now? How, exactly, does the world "keep up" with /us/? When we over-consume, does our environment magically begin to crank out more fuel? Are you suggesting the existence of a "Magic Grinder"? The reality is that as long as we're on Earth we're constrained by resources. As the population grows indefinitely we're bound to push, and eventually begin to overflow those restraints. I personally believe that the overall natural balance is not within our mastery. As we push our natural population constraints to the brink Nature will intervene with sickness, poverty (leading to sickness), and more sickness
I'll dispute this. Just look at Japan, Europe, the United States. First world nations have stopped expanding, population wise. Third world ones are, but it's the same phenonomin that we experienced generations ago. The Families there are still having the same number of kids, but, like us, the new thing is that they're surviving. It will eventually stabilize. Now if it's at your idea of a sustainable level, or mine, it doesn't matter.
Just as population is increasing, so isn't our research into more sustainable living. Our homes that are three times the size of that quaint early 1900's home actually takes less energy to heat. Never mind what happens when we really put our mind to making them energy efficient.
Oh, and I think you forgot that besides sickness(plague), there's more horsemen. Don't forget that famine and war also ride with death.
Over-consume? What is this? Going back a few centuries, 90% of humans were preoccupied with farming for the sake of their own needs. They were barely growing enough food to feed themselves! Going forward to the present day, less than 10% of the US population is responsible for feeding the other 90%. Mind you, we produce so much food that we pay farmers NOT to grow food. And even then, we give away the excess that we have to other countries in the form of foreign aid. As the population grows, we adapt the environment so that it grows more efficiently, with greater yields. Contrary to popular fiction, we are trillions of people away from having to worry about limited resources. Not that they aren't limited, but they are limited in the sense that the sun has a limited amount of fuel left to burn. We have a ways to go before we have to worry about it, and even then technology is continually advancing such that people even now are working on it.
Agreed.
A few will get rich by themselves and retire earlier, but the majority will trudge on.
I humbly submit that through a combination of training, incentives, and outright moderation, a person can save up enough to retire early if they want to.
If they insist on living beyond their means, or even to the limit of their means, of course they'll have to work longer.
And 'I'm sick of working' just doesn't cut it, when we're getting to the point that a person retiring at 60 has a decent chance of living, retired, for an equal amount of time as they're working. Assume average career start at 20*. That's 40 years until they're sixty, then if they live to 100, well, there you go. Up the retirement age to 70, and you're now at a 50/30 split. I'll say that this may be more the reason for the 'dual income family' than just material wants. Why are both parents working? So they both can quit working sooner. Remember, it was just a few generations ago that people usually worked until they dropped dead.
Given that today people over 50 in most positions are seen as "old" and essentially fit to be replaced by younger blood, I seriously wonder what will happen when the workplace is filled with truly fatigued sexagenarians.
Adding another decade to working will make employers consider older workers viable for longer.
Here's an idea: With the longer working term, we can play the 'mid-life crisis', maybe let them off for a couple years, then encourage them to shift to a different career. With decent amounts of savings, a paid off house, no more kids, etc, they should be able to work effectivly in an easier role. It's time to step away from the grinding 'bread-winner' job, and find a fulfilling one. My grandparents have basically gotten bored to the point that they volunteer to work in various roles. My grandfather donates time cooking at the nearby elks' lodge, raising money for charity, etc. My grandmother works as a state advocate for children and mentally handicapped. On my father's side, they keep the state rest stops clear & clean.
Heck, I'm in the military right now. I get my 20 years done, I'm young enough for another career, but I'll have that 50% retirement pay coming in. While it'll only cover the house payment, maybe the car payment as well, it's just that, rather than needing that $50,000 a year job, I can work at the $38,000/year job, and live just fine. What's this mean? It means that if I like puttering around with potted plants, I can work at the local nursury for peanuts and be happy. It means that if I get sick of my job, well, I can just quit. Heck, save the money, live well within my means, and retire at 50. Or keep working, just because if I'm not working, I'm going to be bored, and be spending money to not be bored instead of working at something I like to earn money not being bored.
Of course, I'm very much for concentrating not so much on life extension, but life improvement, sustainment. If you can keep the elderly from having fragile bones, sure, that's going to extend life as a fair number of elderly die from falls and complications from broken bones. But you're also going to keep a far larger number of elderly out of hospitals, from having to visit emergency rooms, wheelchairs, walkers, etc. Fewer ambulance trips, etc. They won't have to fear falling, can stay more physically active, leading to healthier life. Then you work on muscle deterioration, again, you keep them, and eventually yourself, out of those walkers, wheelchairs, needing special assistance. They can live better. A side effect of this is that they can work longer as well, but like I said, they can concentrate on more 'worthy' lines of work.
*I'm not including after school jobs, and averaging high school/technical/college
true, however in order to do this, they have to divide frequently. The telomeres act as a limit to this. Each division shortens them. Eventually the DNA will unravel, causing the cells undergoing uncontrolled division to essentially suicide, stopping the cancer.
For a cancer to be nasty, the Telomerase gene has to be turned on, regenerating the telomeres so the cancer has unlimited growth.
Disease might not be cured, but you might want to check out the difference in survival rates between healthy 18-30 year olds and everybody else.
Disease still kills a fair number of people each year, but the vast majority of them are the extremely young and old. Healthy young adults are amazingly hard to kill with disease.
To the point that one that can kill them is considered a BIG problem. If you have a society consisting almost entirely of the equivalent to healthy young adults, disease wouldn't be a big deal for the most part.
Of course, you're still going to have kids, but with that kind of lifespan, you should be able to isolate the kids very well if necessary. Heck, just think about how much effort we could lavish on kids if we don't need all of those nursing homes and such. Even if we were just average healthy and productive until dropping dead at 90~100. Heck, with lifespans measured in eons, I could see 'maturnity leave' stretching into the decades. Basically, when you have kids, you quit your job and work on raising them.
I heard on the radio not long ago where a congrassman was proposing using our taxes to pay for converterboxes for people.
.gov is going to get involved, they would have been better off to have mandated that all TV's sold would have digital tuning capability by 2004.
Second, manufactures do NOT want warning stickers. As you say some will simply put off buying new TVs
If the manufacturer doesn't want a warning sticker, all they have to do is stick a digital tuner in the thing.
My thought was that if the
Why? Well, while there are certainly exceptions, I'd tend to say that most TVs only last ~ 5 years. This policy would mean that today, around 10% of the TV's in use today would be able to receive the new signals. By 2007, it'd probably be 30-40%. 80% by 2009. The price difference would quickly disappear from the joys of mass production. Instead, when I walk in to Walmart, Best Buy and such, digital tuners are the exception, not the rule. They're also more expensive.
Hmm... Seems MTBF for televisions is something like 30,000 hours. At 12 hours a day, that's almost 7 years. Still, I think that people upgrading(as opposed to replacing a broken set) would take care of much of the problem over time.
I think the idea was that the ads would play on the 'primary' screen, which is sitting turned off in the office, while the 'secondary' projector screen in the chapel area plays the slideshows.
Okay, I'm not saying you missed the point of the GP post -- I understand that you're just speaking for "those people". So would you mind answering one more argument on behalf of "them"? It's something that I've never heard an embryonic-stem-cell opponent answer, and I'm dying to hear what "they" would say. Here it is (worded in second person):
/whooo.
Answer, on behalf of "those people", as best as I can manage, about why they can't use the extra embryoes genereated during In Vitro Fertilization(IVF):
But, if it's not used for research it might be used by the mother to have another child, or by another woman needing a child.
but in that case, you'd have to oppose IVF treatments every bit as vehemently as abortion.
There are clinics that specialize in 'ethical' IVF treatments, where they only fertalize one egg at a time, generate and implant one embroyo at a time, etc. It averages more expensive because of significant individual failure rate of the implantations, thus requiring more time/repeat tries, but generates no extra embryos(Babies) to be thrown away/used for research.
Funny, I don't recall ever hearing of anti-abortionists picketing (or bombing) those clinics. So, is IVF okay or not? If it's not, then why aren't you opposing it to the same degree as abortion? Or if it is, then WTF is wrong with embryonic stem cells?
Ethics must be followed in all research. While we'd prefer that IVF be done in a completely ethical manner, it's providing the valuable service of allowing couples having difficulty bearing children to do so. It's a far lower target than abortion. But we fear that if the extra blasteocytes were allowed for research, that would encourage fertility clinics to overproduce.
It can be tough to twist my mind into that kind of thinking.
I'll comment that I was disagreeing with the parent who thought that making the system generate extra hydrogen via electricity generated from 'regenerative' braking would be a good idea.
I retorted that you'd be better off making the truck a hybrid. Your idea for making a semi into a hybrid after the fact makes a good point. The very nature of a semi makes it easier to modify it. Extra axles, large size make finding room to install parts easier.
Given the power-weight ratios that trucks operate on, and the fact that they're at their most polluting at high power operations, adding this sort of system would help the truck pollute less, use less fuel, and accelerate quicker. A winning solution, as long as it repays for itself within a reasonable period.
There's that and there's also phage cells that'll respond to many kinds of cancer if they don't self destruct. There's a number of controls in our bodies, it actually takes a number of failures before a cancer can become large enough to be dangerous/noticable.
It's not just sharks. Most reptiles don't get it either. They've done some studies involving alligators.
As for everyone getting cancer, well, I've heard that on average everybody gets 13 cancers a year, it's just that your own immune system takes care of them before they get anywhere.
Hate to break it to you, but those people consider your blastocyst to be a living breathing baby. They like popping up pictures of 7-9 month term fetuses/babies on billboards.
Most of them don't mind harvesting 'stem cells' from any source that still results in a born baby (umbilical cords, for example).
Me, I don't care that much, but I can understand their views a bit better than most.