The mere concept of 'artificial' is a fabrication, and we have a number of ways that our lives have objectively improved. Also, there was a lot of awful stuff 50 years ago, including leaded fuel.
Congratulations, you've just moved everything to a black market, contributing to violent crime. You've also greatly wounded innovation, which means that we've wasted even more resources. We don't have the kind of resources or knowledge needed to do that without it turning into a huge clusterfuck.
You do realize that men and women have significant differences in their biology, right? What may be ideal for women's health may not be ideal for men's health. Also, the goal doesn't appear to be extending lifespan so much as improving quality of life.
The kind of Frankenstein that is otherwise similar to their parents except for having functional mitochondrial DNA instead of the flawed mDNA of the mother.
Yes, if harsh punishment doesn't work, just be harsher. You do realize that it's actually quite costly for the government to just kill somebody, moreso than life and prison, right? And just so you know, if that were changed, then all hell would break loose, because that means that due process is out the window. perhaps you should give the notion of community service preference, since even if it does nothing to combat crime, it actually potentially has some positive effects.
If harsher sentencing doesn't reduce recidivism, then it's not solving a problem, and because of added costs for longer incarceration, is actually worse. The war on drugs is a perfect example. People don't use less drugs, people sentenced to drug offenses commit more serious crimes, and are less likely to be able to become contributing members of society even if they want to. Also, you might want to keep in mind that the 'message' you send may be that you are tyrant that should be destroyed, which I would say is usually the message when someone wants to 'send a message.' Perhaps you should look to a model other than the Tarkin Doctrine.
Yes, the government agencies fighting it have resorted to illegal and immoral means (GItmo, domestic NSA snooping) but that doesn't mean the threat is imaginary.
It also doesn't mean that the threat is real, that the methods employed are effective, or that the treatment isn't worse than the disease. If you actually want to stop militant Islam, decimating the military and shutting down most of our TLAs would be some of the best steps to take. Giving less of a shit about terrorism would also be helpful, and as terrorism's effects are basically entirely psychological.
The motivations of corporations are typically a bit simpler and can often be compatible with the interests of the people. In a nutshell, corporations just want to make money, while governments want to have control. Corporations can make money from mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. However, the control so often sought by those in government doesn't tend to have an alternative. The fact that corporations generally can't assault, arrest, or kill me is a pretty big difference.
However, the real villain is the amalgamation of both into a single entity, which we effectively have in a lot of cases. Governments are used as muscle for corporations, and corporations are used to get around the restrictions on government, creating an unstoppable monster.
The Constitution has a clause limiting the funding of an army to no more than two years. A standing army was something feared more than a king. If you want to bitch about staying true to the Constitution, defund the military entirely. It would probably do wonders for us.
You are correct, but no branch of government seems to acknowledge that governments have no inherent rights, and outside of the occasional bone thrown by SCOTUS, the limitations set forth in the Constitution are all ignored.
Actually, it's largely a matter of striking at the end of the early adopter phase or the beginning of the early majority phase. From a commercial perspective, you're correct that it's practically nothing, but from an engineering perspective, it's not that big of a change. Changes in market and marketing are important, but/. should be able to separate the technical and commercial aspects better.
What do you do about all the lost ticket revenue when you stop having traffic violations?
Downsize the department and let the cops that are let go do something productive.
How do police react when they lose the ability to use a traffic stop as an excuse to find drugs in cars?
Not harass as many people.
How do you fund roads with a gas tax when cars become more fuel efficient and eventually switch to electricity (often generated at home with solar panels)?
Use other taxes. Granted, all of these solutions may be poorly received by some people, but they are very clearly the correct answer to all of these questions.
Except moderate alcohol use is better for your health (at least as an adult) than being a teetotaler, and we've got a pretty big body of evidence to support it.
Vaccinations don't work for everybody, but herd immunity can keep them safe. By not vaccinating, herd immunity is lowered, allowing the virus to spread increases the likelihood of a different strain that doesn't respond to vaccinations. However, if we were to get widespread enough vaccination to eradicate common human-bourne-only diseases, then we could get to the point where most vaccinations are no longer needed.
Yeah, the only part about it that resembles DRM to me is the fact that the data stream is encrypted. Presumably, the purposes of that are privacy and/or preventing MiTM attacks. In practice, DRM has usually done the opposite of that.
I don't think it's a matter of eating too much food as it having too much of our food be low nutrition or otherwise inappropriate food. If your body wants fat, and you cram it full of sugar, you aren't going to be filled, and you will shove your face through much more of it than your body needs in the process. Ironically, trying to eat healthy or trying to get others to eat healthy can be a big cause of this because it results in fighting and suppressing the urges of the body to meet its own needs.
We keep hearing about how bad sitting is for your health, but usually don't have much on the specific details. There's the sedentary element, which would be taken care of by exercise, but there's also apparent negative factors. However, not much research seems to try and nail down the specifics. Are people who are not in static positions, or bounce their leg not subject to these health effects? If so, it could be that a lot of children are naturally fighting for their health, much to the chagrin of strict teachers.
Also, do any of the negative effects apply, other than perhaps bone stress inherent to putting weight, to someone very active while sitting, such as a drummer?
Due to the biological differences inherent to men and women, the ideal reproductive strategies are different for men and women, with the tl;dr version of it being quantity and quality respectively. Quantity requires more persistence than nuance compared to determining quality.
Slashdot Mirror
The mere concept of 'artificial' is a fabrication, and we have a number of ways that our lives have objectively improved. Also, there was a lot of awful stuff 50 years ago, including leaded fuel.
Congratulations, you've just moved everything to a black market, contributing to violent crime. You've also greatly wounded innovation, which means that we've wasted even more resources. We don't have the kind of resources or knowledge needed to do that without it turning into a huge clusterfuck.
You do realize that men and women have significant differences in their biology, right? What may be ideal for women's health may not be ideal for men's health. Also, the goal doesn't appear to be extending lifespan so much as improving quality of life.
The kind of Frankenstein that is otherwise similar to their parents except for having functional mitochondrial DNA instead of the flawed mDNA of the mother.
Yes, if harsh punishment doesn't work, just be harsher. You do realize that it's actually quite costly for the government to just kill somebody, moreso than life and prison, right? And just so you know, if that were changed, then all hell would break loose, because that means that due process is out the window. perhaps you should give the notion of community service preference, since even if it does nothing to combat crime, it actually potentially has some positive effects.
If harsher sentencing doesn't reduce recidivism, then it's not solving a problem, and because of added costs for longer incarceration, is actually worse. The war on drugs is a perfect example. People don't use less drugs, people sentenced to drug offenses commit more serious crimes, and are less likely to be able to become contributing members of society even if they want to. Also, you might want to keep in mind that the 'message' you send may be that you are tyrant that should be destroyed, which I would say is usually the message when someone wants to 'send a message.' Perhaps you should look to a model other than the Tarkin Doctrine.
That's what came to my mind as well. Certainly seems fishy.
Is there actually? If it doesn't actually do anything to solve the problem, it's worse for everyone but prison contractors.
It also doesn't mean that the threat is real, that the methods employed are effective, or that the treatment isn't worse than the disease. If you actually want to stop militant Islam, decimating the military and shutting down most of our TLAs would be some of the best steps to take. Giving less of a shit about terrorism would also be helpful, and as terrorism's effects are basically entirely psychological.
The motivations of corporations are typically a bit simpler and can often be compatible with the interests of the people. In a nutshell, corporations just want to make money, while governments want to have control. Corporations can make money from mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. However, the control so often sought by those in government doesn't tend to have an alternative. The fact that corporations generally can't assault, arrest, or kill me is a pretty big difference.
However, the real villain is the amalgamation of both into a single entity, which we effectively have in a lot of cases. Governments are used as muscle for corporations, and corporations are used to get around the restrictions on government, creating an unstoppable monster.
I don't think the underlying concepts have been superseded by anything generally recognized as more legitimate. The principles are pretty solid.
The Constitution has a clause limiting the funding of an army to no more than two years. A standing army was something feared more than a king. If you want to bitch about staying true to the Constitution, defund the military entirely. It would probably do wonders for us.
You are correct, but no branch of government seems to acknowledge that governments have no inherent rights, and outside of the occasional bone thrown by SCOTUS, the limitations set forth in the Constitution are all ignored.
In other news, grass is green, and the sky is blue. An opinion poll, Pew or otherwise, being shitty and unreliable is the case more often than not.
Actually, it's largely a matter of striking at the end of the early adopter phase or the beginning of the early majority phase. From a commercial perspective, you're correct that it's practically nothing, but from an engineering perspective, it's not that big of a change. Changes in market and marketing are important, but /. should be able to separate the technical and commercial aspects better.
Downsize the department and let the cops that are let go do something productive.
Not harass as many people.
Use other taxes. Granted, all of these solutions may be poorly received by some people, but they are very clearly the correct answer to all of these questions.
Except moderate alcohol use is better for your health (at least as an adult) than being a teetotaler, and we've got a pretty big body of evidence to support it.
It doesn't make it false, either.
Vaccinations don't work for everybody, but herd immunity can keep them safe. By not vaccinating, herd immunity is lowered, allowing the virus to spread increases the likelihood of a different strain that doesn't respond to vaccinations. However, if we were to get widespread enough vaccination to eradicate common human-bourne-only diseases, then we could get to the point where most vaccinations are no longer needed.
Yeah, the only part about it that resembles DRM to me is the fact that the data stream is encrypted. Presumably, the purposes of that are privacy and/or preventing MiTM attacks. In practice, DRM has usually done the opposite of that.
I don't think it's a matter of eating too much food as it having too much of our food be low nutrition or otherwise inappropriate food. If your body wants fat, and you cram it full of sugar, you aren't going to be filled, and you will shove your face through much more of it than your body needs in the process. Ironically, trying to eat healthy or trying to get others to eat healthy can be a big cause of this because it results in fighting and suppressing the urges of the body to meet its own needs.
We keep hearing about how bad sitting is for your health, but usually don't have much on the specific details. There's the sedentary element, which would be taken care of by exercise, but there's also apparent negative factors. However, not much research seems to try and nail down the specifics. Are people who are not in static positions, or bounce their leg not subject to these health effects? If so, it could be that a lot of children are naturally fighting for their health, much to the chagrin of strict teachers.
Also, do any of the negative effects apply, other than perhaps bone stress inherent to putting weight, to someone very active while sitting, such as a drummer?
Due to the biological differences inherent to men and women, the ideal reproductive strategies are different for men and women, with the tl;dr version of it being quantity and quality respectively. Quantity requires more persistence than nuance compared to determining quality.
According to Slashdot, Betty White is a terrorist?
The Guardian had a huge trove of documents, and most of them haven't come out yet.