And none of that suggests that there is a reliable relationship between THC or other cannabinoid levels in the blood or on the breath in a manner similar to BAC and breathalyzer . I don't think there's any claim that it's not possible to be too high to drive for at least some people.
We don't really need to have a one-size-fits-all power generation supply. Geothermal is great if you are in Iceland or certain parts of the Ring of Fire, but for the most of the world, it's not an option at all. Solar power is going to work better in places with lots of sunlight, wind power in places with lots of wind, etc.
In this context, safety and security are much more hollow. Cops kill more people than terrorists, and we are so bad at stopping terrorists that their own idiocy is more effective than throwing countless billions and manpower at it.
A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if it cannot be demonstrated that the slide down the slope isn't inevitable or at least highly likely. This progression of using terrorism and protecting children has been demonstrated to be true on numerous occasions, so it isn't a fallacy.
To anyone currently alive, an infinite universe and one with 100 billion galaxies are indistinguishable. We were previously weighing a practically infinite universe with a practically infinitesimal chance of life, but the numbers seem to have been getting better overall, and the conditions in which life can exist have also expanded considerably.
'Previously thought' has varied quite a bit over time. Since it has been thought to be 1, it's going to be quite difficult for it to be lower than it has ever been previously thought, and 1 in 10 galaxies is higher than most estimates. Skimming TFA, it seems to suggest the problem is that it can't support life if you are too close to a giant explosion in space, and that our universe isn't even in one of the 10% mentioned.
So, to recap, 90% of galaxies have big explosions that could wipe out life as we know it except for the parts of that galaxy that aren't too close to the explosions. So, what we can really gather is that most of most galaxies isn't hospitable to us.
The average amount of CO2 would be about the same, but if there were greater parity of crops between the hemispheres, there would be less of a swing. That might be advantageous if there are negative effects to a big swing such as health problems or extreme weather (although I have no idea if there are any such ill effects).
I'm not sure if any of those claims have actually reaching anything close to scientific consensus. In fact, I was of the impression that we were or are near a point at which we will have to take active steps to control greenhouse gases, never mind the greenhouse gases that 7 billion human corpses will release. You seem to be using absolutely nothing but absolutes, which is a very strong indicator that you have no clue what you are talking about.
"Why do I get the feeling that'll work just about as well as, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Probably because you aren't approaching this issue from an even remotely serious technical perspective.
Let's say that emergency VOIP is a big enough concern to warrant an exception. Why not first establish a general rule that only allows for emergency VOIP calls to be prioritized, and that any other prioritization results in the CEO of the ISP being punched in the throat?
I don't think that there are any reputable IQ tests that make use of vocabulary, so I'm not sure how accurate your assessment is. I'm not aware of any training (prior to this, anyway), that was able to produce more than a few points difference for well rested test takers that don't have severe test anxiety.
My first guess would be that because you have different sections of the brain being used together, you are essentially.getting higher throughput. If that's the case, then recent studies on psilocybin might suggest that if we were to learn to use them properly, we might be able to become much more intelligent creatures.
Nobody but the ruling class wants an authoritarian state, but getting it piecemeal is a pretty easy sell. You get something scary, like terrorists, immigrants, drugs, child porn, etc., for a foot in the door and expand from there. Temporary measures become permanent and expanded.
Oh yeah. It was arguably a good bit more overt back in that point in time. There was a lot of politics in important patents, the railroad system involved a number of military campaigns, our roads were heavily subsidized at the behest of oil companies (to the detriment of the railroad system), never mind protectionism. The state was in some cases just short of just being mercenaries.
30+ is also much more likely to have kids, and thus much susceptible to fearmongering, the go to solutionfor getting crappy and unconstitutional laws passed.
No, I'm saying that Congress and a number of our megacorps have created a symbiotic relationship to ensure the continued survival of both, and that they are so dependent upon that system that they cannot exist without each other. A lot of competition is kept at bay by a ridiculously complicated legal framework, and corporations grow fat and soft in this environment. The companies that make you think "I could do this better myself" stay in business because they legislate away all competition. Without the state protecting them, they will fall under their own overwhelming incompetence.
Corporations might have less resources to dedicate to lobbying in light of actually having to compete again, especially since the current monopolistic environment in many industries has made competence no longer a useful trait to possess.
Actually, most terrorists are probably that stupid, but so are most agents for TLAs (which is how morons like the underwear bomber managed to not get caught before they tried to attack). Gross incompetence is the lion's share of what keeps us safe from terrorists.
Regarding your question, I'm not aware of any such exploits offhand, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. That said, I'm not sure why you think getting a flash drive from China would mean it's any more risky. They are all manufactured in China anyway, and US companies are not the least bit trustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
And none of that suggests that there is a reliable relationship between THC or other cannabinoid levels in the blood or on the breath in a manner similar to BAC and breathalyzer . I don't think there's any claim that it's not possible to be too high to drive for at least some people.
We don't really need to have a one-size-fits-all power generation supply. Geothermal is great if you are in Iceland or certain parts of the Ring of Fire, but for the most of the world, it's not an option at all. Solar power is going to work better in places with lots of sunlight, wind power in places with lots of wind, etc.
In this context, safety and security are much more hollow. Cops kill more people than terrorists, and we are so bad at stopping terrorists that their own idiocy is more effective than throwing countless billions and manpower at it.
A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if it cannot be demonstrated that the slide down the slope isn't inevitable or at least highly likely. This progression of using terrorism and protecting children has been demonstrated to be true on numerous occasions, so it isn't a fallacy.
If you want to conquer, that is true, but if you want to defend yourself, you only need to be able to do enough damage to not be worth attacking.
To anyone currently alive, an infinite universe and one with 100 billion galaxies are indistinguishable. We were previously weighing a practically infinite universe with a practically infinitesimal chance of life, but the numbers seem to have been getting better overall, and the conditions in which life can exist have also expanded considerably.
'Previously thought' has varied quite a bit over time. Since it has been thought to be 1, it's going to be quite difficult for it to be lower than it has ever been previously thought, and 1 in 10 galaxies is higher than most estimates. Skimming TFA, it seems to suggest the problem is that it can't support life if you are too close to a giant explosion in space, and that our universe isn't even in one of the 10% mentioned.
So, to recap, 90% of galaxies have big explosions that could wipe out life as we know it except for the parts of that galaxy that aren't too close to the explosions. So, what we can really gather is that most of most galaxies isn't hospitable to us.
The average amount of CO2 would be about the same, but if there were greater parity of crops between the hemispheres, there would be less of a swing. That might be advantageous if there are negative effects to a big swing such as health problems or extreme weather (although I have no idea if there are any such ill effects).
The more productive method would probably be external oversight that actually has teeth instead of internal wrist slapping followed by a high five.
The paleo diet seems to usually be pretty ill defined, and often has no real relationship to what humans ate during that period.
I'm not sure if any of those claims have actually reaching anything close to scientific consensus. In fact, I was of the impression that we were or are near a point at which we will have to take active steps to control greenhouse gases, never mind the greenhouse gases that 7 billion human corpses will release. You seem to be using absolutely nothing but absolutes, which is a very strong indicator that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Every generation everywhere has been a generation of fucktards, the internet just makes it more transparent.
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
"Why do I get the feeling that'll work just about as well as, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Probably because you aren't approaching this issue from an even remotely serious technical perspective.
Let's say that emergency VOIP is a big enough concern to warrant an exception. Why not first establish a general rule that only allows for emergency VOIP calls to be prioritized, and that any other prioritization results in the CEO of the ISP being punched in the throat?
I don't think that there are any reputable IQ tests that make use of vocabulary, so I'm not sure how accurate your assessment is. I'm not aware of any training (prior to this, anyway), that was able to produce more than a few points difference for well rested test takers that don't have severe test anxiety.
My first guess would be that because you have different sections of the brain being used together, you are essentially.getting higher throughput. If that's the case, then recent studies on psilocybin might suggest that if we were to learn to use them properly, we might be able to become much more intelligent creatures.
Nobody but the ruling class wants an authoritarian state, but getting it piecemeal is a pretty easy sell. You get something scary, like terrorists, immigrants, drugs, child porn, etc., for a foot in the door and expand from there. Temporary measures become permanent and expanded.
Oh yeah. It was arguably a good bit more overt back in that point in time. There was a lot of politics in important patents, the railroad system involved a number of military campaigns, our roads were heavily subsidized at the behest of oil companies (to the detriment of the railroad system), never mind protectionism. The state was in some cases just short of just being mercenaries.
I think the usage of 'statist' here is a nice way of saying authoritarian, which tastes about the same regardless of the flavor.
30+ is also much more likely to have kids, and thus much susceptible to fearmongering, the go to solutionfor getting crappy and unconstitutional laws passed.
No, I'm saying that Congress and a number of our megacorps have created a symbiotic relationship to ensure the continued survival of both, and that they are so dependent upon that system that they cannot exist without each other. A lot of competition is kept at bay by a ridiculously complicated legal framework, and corporations grow fat and soft in this environment. The companies that make you think "I could do this better myself" stay in business because they legislate away all competition. Without the state protecting them, they will fall under their own overwhelming incompetence.
Corporations might have less resources to dedicate to lobbying in light of actually having to compete again, especially since the current monopolistic environment in many industries has made competence no longer a useful trait to possess.
Actually, most terrorists are probably that stupid, but so are most agents for TLAs (which is how morons like the underwear bomber managed to not get caught before they tried to attack). Gross incompetence is the lion's share of what keeps us safe from terrorists.
Regarding your question, I'm not aware of any such exploits offhand, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. That said, I'm not sure why you think getting a flash drive from China would mean it's any more risky. They are all manufactured in China anyway, and US companies are not the least bit trustworthy.
This is coming from a university with a big football team. That would explain quite a bit.