I 'm not certain about the numbers involved, but I'm happy to see the government doing what I believe it should: promoting things that are good for us that we wouldn't otherwise get. By that I mean buffering the long-term payoff on things that cost too much for the market to provide now.
Google should just buy the USPS. Then they'd have everyone's name and address, could mount cameras on the carrier's heads for mapping and insert advertising into each batch of mail.
Actually, that's what the USPS should do to raise some cash: sell us out to advertisers. It's not like I don't just throw away 95% of whats in the box anyway. Sifting past a few more dead trees wouldn't really be hard.
"...colonies of eukaryotic cells in which cellular cooperation was fairly rudimentary, consisting of networks of adhering cells exchanging information chemically, and forming self-organized assemblages with only a moderate division of labor. These proto-metazoans were effectively small, loosely-knit ecosystems that fell short of the complex organization and regulation we associate with most modern metazoans. In short, proto-metazoans, which we dub Metazoans 1.0, were tumor-like neoplasms."
Just because it has wheels, fenders, an engine, a steering wheel, etc doesn't make a car and a truck equivalent.
I couldn't agree more. There are so many examples of how the system is broken, how the government, whose stated job is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", has remorselessly abandoned the people it was elected to govern.
I can't believe there isn't more uproar about this, and yet I know why there isn't, at least for me: I feel completely powerless to affect any change (which is they way he wants it).
But as bad as this is, I don't know that there's anything inherently better. From a programming perspective, we need to make a system that fails gracefully, that defaults to protecting the user.
It turns out the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to which you refer aren't really equivalent to embryonic stem cells (ESC). This paper (with which I'm not affiliated) illustrates the point quite clearly. They also show that the epigenetic memory can, to some extent, be erased by drugs, but there are still significant differences between those treated cells and true ESCs.
I'm not especially a fan of either pot or hookers, but it seems like the system you've described is working well in Amsterdam. Unless I'm missing something, society hasn't collapsed or been taken over by hooligans. I could understand the reluctance if no one else had tried it, but come on. The experiment is working.
Why is it such a preposterous suggestion in the US?
To answer my own question, I think because it's been ingrained that both are bad on moral grounds, so even if it's not that bad for you, it's damnable nonetheless.
Not to mention the boatloads of money that people make off fighting these perpetual wars...
Slashdot Mirror
I 'm not certain about the numbers involved, but I'm happy to see the government doing what I believe it should: promoting things that are good for us that we wouldn't otherwise get. By that I mean buffering the long-term payoff on things that cost too much for the market to provide now.
Google should just buy the USPS. Then they'd have everyone's name and address, could mount cameras on the carrier's heads for mapping and insert advertising into each batch of mail.
Actually, that's what the USPS should do to raise some cash: sell us out to advertisers. It's not like I don't just throw away 95% of whats in the box anyway. Sifting past a few more dead trees wouldn't really be hard.
"...colonies of eukaryotic cells in which cellular cooperation was fairly rudimentary, consisting of networks of adhering cells exchanging information chemically, and forming self-organized assemblages with only a moderate division of labor. These proto-metazoans were effectively small, loosely-knit ecosystems that fell short of the complex organization and regulation we associate with most modern metazoans. In short, proto-metazoans, which we dub Metazoans 1.0, were tumor-like neoplasms." Just because it has wheels, fenders, an engine, a steering wheel, etc doesn't make a car and a truck equivalent.
I thought TFA was going to talk about automotive enthusiasts reprogramming their cars' chips and the lack of cheap hardware/software for doing so.
Guess I need new glasses.
I can't believe all the Ghost doubt. I've seen it myself, more than once. And I'm not crazy. Well, maybe Swayze crazy...
I couldn't agree more. There are so many examples of how the system is broken, how the government, whose stated job is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", has remorselessly abandoned the people it was elected to govern.
I can't believe there isn't more uproar about this, and yet I know why there isn't, at least for me: I feel completely powerless to affect any change (which is they way he wants it).
But as bad as this is, I don't know that there's anything inherently better. From a programming perspective, we need to make a system that fails gracefully, that defaults to protecting the user.
It turns out the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to which you refer aren't really equivalent to embryonic stem cells (ESC). This paper (with which I'm not affiliated) illustrates the point quite clearly. They also show that the epigenetic memory can, to some extent, be erased by drugs, but there are still significant differences between those treated cells and true ESCs.
I'm not especially a fan of either pot or hookers, but it seems like the system you've described is working well in Amsterdam. Unless I'm missing something, society hasn't collapsed or been taken over by hooligans. I could understand the reluctance if no one else had tried it, but come on. The experiment is working.
Why is it such a preposterous suggestion in the US?
To answer my own question, I think because it's been ingrained that both are bad on moral grounds, so even if it's not that bad for you, it's damnable nonetheless. Not to mention the boatloads of money that people make off fighting these perpetual wars...