It's not about the queen needing a special chamber, but if you let her move freely about the hive, then the cells filled with honey will be mixed with those occupied by her brood (eggs/larva). Since beekeepers don't want that, there is usually a 'barrier' inside the hive, that prevents the queen from accessing the part intended for later harvesting.
You still have to get the honey out of them combs, preferably in a non-destructive fashion. Centrifuge is out, until you get some mighty tolerant bees. You could probably press the combs, but that would also destroy them, and opening the hive on a regular basis would not make your living room a very pleasant place to be. (even smoked bees will still start flying around once you move a few combs, and once the hive is closed they'll have nowhere to go, resulting in annoyed bees flying all over the apartment.
My question is if bees can even survive a winter if their hive is kept warm. I though the low temperatures during winter were what enabled the workers to survive so much longer then their normal 'summer' lifetime.
I don't think there is any way to 'force' a hive to stay put, but there is also not all that much that you need to do to persuade them to stay - some panes full of brood might help, since the bees will feel a need to care for them, but if you get unlucky they might fly away, or you get lucky and every hive you catch this way will remain.
There is an opening in the front, and bees are quite good at providing airflow though their hives - they stand on the ground and beat their wings to move air in the desired direction.
The bigger question is how you get the honey but not the eggs/larva. While probably not inedible, honey with all the extra 'protein' would be quite disgusting.
From what i know just sticking a swarm into an empty hive will work well enough - you just need to get yourself a swarm from a local bee keeper (can't wait for all the lawsuits from people stung by agitated bees).
Trying to exterminate your neighbors and take their land? Applies to Israel as well as most of their neighbors.
Nuclear weapons? Israel has them, Iran wants them - not much of a difference.
Oppression? I again don't see much difference between Israel and their neighbors. Sure Israel is a democracy - as long as you are Jewish, with laws being passed to ban Muslim political parties. And what can you call their treatment of the Palestinians other then oppression?
You speak a lot about UN plans for the region, but how many Arab states in the region had veto power for those plans?
When Israel was announced, were the Arabs still living in the region given the right to vote on the issue? Given the right to be represented in the government? Just like the Jewish immigrants, many of them might have only been living there for a few decades, but why does that give them fewer rights then those of the immigrants?
They were there first? Don't their own histories record that they 'evicted' other tribes from the region when they moved in? So why not have them move back to Egypt - that was their home too? Also, aren't Palestinians close genetic relatives of the Israelies - the people who stayed put instead of emigrating all those thousands of years ago - so what gives the people who LEFT more right to the land then the people who remained?
And what if we applied your logic to the rest of the world? The population of Europe has changed quite a bit since Roman times, as has the population of the Americas and Australia. Should those regions also be given back to the 'original' populations?
a) Would it? There wouldn't be all that many more transactions then there are now, and the banks and credit card companies seem to be handling them just fine. As for oversight, all you need is a common format that all the banks have to use, then have them forward the information to the IRS.
c) Have the law effect anyone that ever wants to do business in the US. So sure, you can have a shell corporation - but if it buys anything for you that transaction will be on record. And since a US citizen will be obligated to report all of their personal transactions it won't matter if they are overseas or back home - if they don't report them they go to jail.
d)So they steal your identity, buy pot, then the credit card company yanks the money back into your account. And the criminals gets wacked by their dealer. Darwin at work.
e)Ever heard about civil forfeiture? Sure you can rob a house, but what then? Pawn shops suddenly have a record of every person that sold them anything, since there is no way to pay them other then a credit transfer - so the money can again be taken back from the criminals - unless the person selling can prove they legally bought the item from another person - which can again be traced. And if a person wants to use the item from themselves - sure it can work, until someone notices they have item X which they never paid for, and makes an anonymous call to the police. Envy can be a great motivator.
f) It's not very hard now either.
And how is that different then what we have now? If a person with enough money wants to know something about you, they will. And no amount of privacy laws are able to do anything about it.
Would it really be so bad if the government could trace all of your transactions, as long as this information would also be made public. Taxes could actually be collected from everyone, even people rich enough to afford an army of lawyers.
Sure you loose some privacy, but it's not like the government can't find out anything they want about you right now, it just takes some focus. And if you're worried about what your neighbors might think about your Playboy subscription, just remember that you'll also be able to check how much they spent on furry porn in the last year with just a few clicks of the mouse. Society might get a lot more tolerant once everyone's vices are exposed.
But just think what it would mean for political honesty, if EVERY contribution could be traced back to it's source. And if you could just go online and check who paid for your representatives last 'working lunch'.
Most crime would fade away - what is all of that stuff you stole, if you can't sell it or even let people know you have it.
So what exactly changed so much in the real world, that those 5 minutes were so important? Did all of the worlds corporations suddenly declare they were bankrupt?
Saying people were 'desperate to sell' just highlights one of the problems of the stock market - it's not about the performance of the corporations, just their second by second stock prices.
So why should the people support a stock market like that? Why not implement a 10% tax on any stock trades where you keep the stock for less then a few days?
Great idea. Just imagine all of those lazy 10 year old brats being kicked out of their homes when their parents die in an accident.
Now if this tax only applied after a million or so, it could be a good idea.
Of course it would also be completely impossible to implement with all those offshore tax shelters. Who needs to officialy inherit something, when they have access to all those Swiss bank accounts.
Just make it a really small tax. For example, a person will barely notice a 0.1% tax if they make a few transactions per day. But if they trade 100 times per minute, those taxes will start building up.
Does that mean God deserves to go to hell? Since he did not save the 'others' from hell, did not save them from this 'prison' and welcome them into his home?
Why can't there be any evidence of a creator? Couldn't the creator leave us clues to his/hers/its existence? For example the stars could be arranged to spell out 'GOD WAS HERE' in the sky (yes, in English, as well as any other language you can think of).
The first thing they should prohibit is patents on application of existing technology.
For example, why allow a patent on unlocking your phone with a gesture? Patenting a system that detects gestures, that i can understand, as long as you are the first to implement it. But why allow an application patent? What's next? A patent on manned spaceflight to Mars? We know how to put a man in space, and we know how to get things to Mars, but no one has done both together! Quick, let's patent it.
The problem is that you don't know which management to sue. The one that started the suit? The one that was in power in the middle, or the one that was in command when the suit was thrown out?
The better way to handle this would be to eliminate the limited liability of a corporation. Make the stockholders liable for any debts not covered by the bankruptcy sell-off, but at the same time make the management liable for any liabilities not disclosed in a quarterly report.
Doing this would fix so many things. The management would suddenly have a big incentive to tell the truth to their stockholders, while the stock traders would have to look at more then just the stock price history.
Slashdot Mirror
Why give the assets to the stock holders? Confiscate them as a fine.
It's not about the queen needing a special chamber, but if you let her move freely about the hive, then the cells filled with honey will be mixed with those occupied by her brood (eggs/larva). Since beekeepers don't want that, there is usually a 'barrier' inside the hive, that prevents the queen from accessing the part intended for later harvesting.
What happens when the hive is ready to swarm, and the old queen can't leave?
You still have to get the honey out of them combs, preferably in a non-destructive fashion. Centrifuge is out, until you get some mighty tolerant bees. You could probably press the combs, but that would also destroy them, and opening the hive on a regular basis would not make your living room a very pleasant place to be. (even smoked bees will still start flying around once you move a few combs, and once the hive is closed they'll have nowhere to go, resulting in annoyed bees flying all over the apartment.
My question is if bees can even survive a winter if their hive is kept warm. I though the low temperatures during winter were what enabled the workers to survive so much longer then their normal 'summer' lifetime.
I don't think there is any way to 'force' a hive to stay put, but there is also not all that much that you need to do to persuade them to stay - some panes full of brood might help, since the bees will feel a need to care for them, but if you get unlucky they might fly away, or you get lucky and every hive you catch this way will remain.
There is an opening in the front, and bees are quite good at providing airflow though their hives - they stand on the ground and beat their wings to move air in the desired direction.
The bigger question is how you get the honey but not the eggs/larva. While probably not inedible, honey with all the extra 'protein' would be quite disgusting.
From what i know just sticking a swarm into an empty hive will work well enough - you just need to get yourself a swarm from a local bee keeper (can't wait for all the lawsuits from people stung by agitated bees).
You might want to re-check your maps. Gaza is not part of Israel, they just have a blocade set up.
Depends on your definition of 'rational'.
Trying to exterminate your neighbors and take their land? Applies to Israel as well as most of their neighbors.
Nuclear weapons? Israel has them, Iran wants them - not much of a difference.
Oppression? I again don't see much difference between Israel and their neighbors. Sure Israel is a democracy - as long as you are Jewish, with laws being passed to ban Muslim political parties. And what can you call their treatment of the Palestinians other then oppression?
You speak a lot about UN plans for the region, but how many Arab states in the region had veto power for those plans?
When Israel was announced, were the Arabs still living in the region given the right to vote on the issue? Given the right to be represented in the government? Just like the Jewish immigrants, many of them might have only been living there for a few decades, but why does that give them fewer rights then those of the immigrants?
They were there first? Don't their own histories record that they 'evicted' other tribes from the region when they moved in? So why not have them move back to Egypt - that was their home too? Also, aren't Palestinians close genetic relatives of the Israelies - the people who stayed put instead of emigrating all those thousands of years ago - so what gives the people who LEFT more right to the land then the people who remained?
And what if we applied your logic to the rest of the world? The population of Europe has changed quite a bit since Roman times, as has the population of the Americas and Australia. Should those regions also be given back to the 'original' populations?
If the Palestinians deserve to be collectively punished for their support of the killing of innocents, what makes the rest of the world any different?
Many nations support, or at least do not condemn the actions of the Israeli government. Therefore, they should be collectively punished.
And I think the number of civilian casualties from Palestinian terrorists is still lower then the number of Palestinian civilians killed in reprisal.
a) Would it? There wouldn't be all that many more transactions then there are now, and the banks and credit card companies seem to be handling them just fine. As for oversight, all you need is a common format that all the banks have to use, then have them forward the information to the IRS.
c) Have the law effect anyone that ever wants to do business in the US. So sure, you can have a shell corporation - but if it buys anything for you that transaction will be on record. And since a US citizen will be obligated to report all of their personal transactions it won't matter if they are overseas or back home - if they don't report them they go to jail.
d)So they steal your identity, buy pot, then the credit card company yanks the money back into your account. And the criminals gets wacked by their dealer. Darwin at work.
e)Ever heard about civil forfeiture? Sure you can rob a house, but what then? Pawn shops suddenly have a record of every person that sold them anything, since there is no way to pay them other then a credit transfer - so the money can again be taken back from the criminals - unless the person selling can prove they legally bought the item from another person - which can again be traced.
And if a person wants to use the item from themselves - sure it can work, until someone notices they have item X which they never paid for, and makes an anonymous call to the police. Envy can be a great motivator.
f) It's not very hard now either.
And how is that different then what we have now? If a person with enough money wants to know something about you, they will. And no amount of privacy laws are able to do anything about it.
Would it really be so bad if the government could trace all of your transactions, as long as this information would also be made public. Taxes could actually be collected from everyone, even people rich enough to afford an army of lawyers.
Sure you loose some privacy, but it's not like the government can't find out anything they want about you right now, it just takes some focus. And if you're worried about what your neighbors might think about your Playboy subscription, just remember that you'll also be able to check how much they spent on furry porn in the last year with just a few clicks of the mouse. Society might get a lot more tolerant once everyone's vices are exposed.
But just think what it would mean for political honesty, if EVERY contribution could be traced back to it's source. And if you could just go online and check who paid for your representatives last 'working lunch'.
Most crime would fade away - what is all of that stuff you stole, if you can't sell it or even let people know you have it.
So what exactly changed so much in the real world, that those 5 minutes were so important? Did all of the worlds corporations suddenly declare they were bankrupt?
Saying people were 'desperate to sell' just highlights one of the problems of the stock market - it's not about the performance of the corporations, just their second by second stock prices.
So why should the people support a stock market like that? Why not implement a 10% tax on any stock trades where you keep the stock for less then a few days?
Great idea. Just imagine all of those lazy 10 year old brats being kicked out of their homes when their parents die in an accident.
Now if this tax only applied after a million or so, it could be a good idea.
Of course it would also be completely impossible to implement with all those offshore tax shelters. Who needs to officialy inherit something, when they have access to all those Swiss bank accounts.
Just make it a really small tax. For example, a person will barely notice a 0.1% tax if they make a few transactions per day. But if they trade 100 times per minute, those taxes will start building up.
You should ask yourself: How many people that feel the same way your wife did are there? And how many of them DON'T die suddenly?
Does that mean God deserves to go to hell? Since he did not save the 'others' from hell, did not save them from this 'prison' and welcome them into his home?
Why can't there be any evidence of a creator? Couldn't the creator leave us clues to his/hers/its existence? For example the stars could be arranged to spell out 'GOD WAS HERE' in the sky (yes, in English, as well as any other language you can think of).
The first thing they should prohibit is patents on application of existing technology.
For example, why allow a patent on unlocking your phone with a gesture? Patenting a system that detects gestures, that i can understand, as long as you are the first to implement it. But why allow an application patent? What's next? A patent on manned spaceflight to Mars? We know how to put a man in space, and we know how to get things to Mars, but no one has done both together! Quick, let's patent it.
The problem is that you don't know which management to sue. The one that started the suit? The one that was in power in the middle, or the one that was in command when the suit was thrown out?
The better way to handle this would be to eliminate the limited liability of a corporation. Make the stockholders liable for any debts not covered by the bankruptcy sell-off, but at the same time make the management liable for any liabilities not disclosed in a quarterly report.
Doing this would fix so many things. The management would suddenly have a big incentive to tell the truth to their stockholders, while the stock traders would have to look at more then just the stock price history.
Why not also prohibit housing loans? The price of houses is fueled by the availability of loans. Prohibit them and everything will be just fine.