It gave the US a huge boost in cohesion internally and status internationally.
http://particlefever.com/
I think that documentary shows aspects of your statement perfectly. Seeing aEuropean led group of international scientists cheering when the LHC is turned on for the first time after a decade of work, just sent chills (good ones) up my spine. It is how I imagine the Apollo control room in the 60's.
That could have been the US, and imo, should have been. US politicians are always talking about the US needing to be a shining example, lead the world, innovate, stay on top, etc.. yet they scrapped the supercollider in Texas (was it just conservatives?). We could have had that cheering room of international scientists led by the US, inspiring not only the world's kids, but ours as well.
As it is, I bet very few school children have seen 'Particle Fever', or were inspired or even followed the events around the LHC. If it had been in Texas instead, the news would have made a much bigger deal out of it.
Forgot to add, Portland in general is pretty much hosed, because we are "bridge town". It will quite literally cut the city in half. Every bridge is expected to fall during a moderate earthquake.
Pretty sure most of North Portland (Oregon) is in the same boat. Soft sandy soil that is going to not support anything once water bubbles up through it.
Or spot the astroturfing. 99% of the "news" stories about the deal that I've seen are basically ideological talking points and have nothing to do with the merit of the deal, and certainly nothing to do with the primary goal of the deal: to prevent Iran from building a nuke.
The last mile is always the problem. I don't think most people in the US will be able to get rid of their cars until there is something like an autonomous shuttle car that will pick you up at your house and bring you to a transit terminal. Some little tiny smart car you can call with the push of a button on a phone app.
You gotta wonder why he thought it was OK to trespass and steal switches though.
I think "abandoned warehouse" had a lot to do with it. Such abandoned industrial locations certainly were looked at as parts repositories by myself and my friends in our school days. Some of the places we scavenged where shut down 10+ years.
Man, I would have been arrested hundreds of times if I were a teenager today....we explored everything. Anything not locked or bolted down we messed with. We did get caught a few times in construction projects and abandoned buildings, but the cops just said "Hey kids, its dangerous in here, don't come back".
Do cops just default to arresting curious kids these days? Or is this story an exception?
Is it purely financial reasons for less children though?
Everyone I know that limits their family to 1-2 children has told me that they are basically just a lot of work. Lots of people say things like "I can't imagine going through the baby phase again, so difficult...". Other people tell me that environmental concerns are big on their minds when deciding whether to have more children.
If the universe is infinite, we may reach a technological level that can overcome scarcity. The only true limit is physical space.
There may be value placed on things like "real artisanal food grown on a farm, not produced in the food machine" but the food machine "crops" would be identical down to the atom. So no one can claim to "have more" of anything, when anyone can mass produce anything down to the atom at the flick of a switch (more likely the flick of a thought).
I can command my nanobots to build me a spaceship, and warp drive to my very own vacation planet, etc...
better than after another half century of government dependency and handouts.
Correlation perhaps. Causation? I have never seen a study that proves that safety nets and government assistance led to inner city poverty cycles (which bring with them drugs/crime/etc..).
There are many countries around the world with higher levels of "handouts" than the USA has, and those safety nets have not caused inner city projects, slums, or seemed to target one specific race of people.
There are likely dozens of factors involved, but I seriously doubt that government assistance is a primary cause.
Science Friday podcast last week interviewed a bumblebee expert. He said there was no evidence that bumblebees do worse in regions that use heavy pesticide vs areas out in the wild where little to no pesticide is detected. According to the guest, climate change really is the largest factor in their decline.
I think you may be referring to honeybees that are more closely related to agriculture and pesticide use.
I bet the majority of people don't know they're different things.
.
Odd. I thought that was common knowledge. It certainly is if you come from any communities involved in agriculture.
Honey bees are an entirely domesticated animal. Bred for a specific purpose. They live in man-made boxes with hundreds of thousands of other bees, and produce a ton of honey. They use that honey to keep themselves fed during the winter.
Bumblebees are wild, have much smaller hives built underground, and generally die off during the winter. They also produce no honeycombs, more like small balls of honey.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277 (1953)."
Now if we are talking corn or grain or sugar there is NO way you can get the density needed to put it in a building.
I must not be parsing your sentence correctly. Block after block of sky scrapers with each floor growing corn is way more dense than a field of corn taking up the same space. What did you mean to say?
You have a lot of good points. But lower bug pressure isn't one of them. I take my pepper plants indoors to over-winter each year, and come spring, they always end up with aphids. And they are down in my basement, with no windows. I use a grow light.
I suppose it would be possible if you built it like a chip factory: air tight doors with increased indoor air pressure, all venting has fine screens, all people have to change clothes to enter the grow room, etc.. pretty expensive setup.
I think one other great point for indoor growing is as a means to eliminate food deserts in city centers and/or just to let city people learn to garden and learn to enjoy fresh food. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846 Community gardens, shared space, or even rented space, would be great for some buildings. Think if a sky scraper turned a floor or two floors into indoor growing areas. They could sell the products, or rent the space to the city or people, etc..
Also, as population rises, growing in towers may end up complimenting traditional farming. The sears tower is 4,560,217 ft, which amounts to about 9 acres of possible farming surface. But that is only the floor space. I bet each floor could hold multiple racks. tomatoes, 2 racks. Corn, one rack, potatoes, 6 racks, etc..
This stuff on the other hand, doesn't need pesticides or anything
Indoor growing almost always has bug infestations, just like growing outside. Bugs find ways in, through vents, on people, etc.. and once inside they breed like crazy with usually very few predators to counter them.
I take my pepper plants indoor during the winters. Come spring, aphid always find a way inside. I usually buy lady bugs, but another grower might use pesticide.
I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed
That is completely untrue. Sure, some organic farmers do the whole crop rotation thing, planting stuff like clover in place of a food crop in a certain plot every other year, but that isn't how most people producing organic products do it. Most of them just use organic counter-parts to things like pesticide and fertilizer and nothing else changes. No extra land, no major differences in methods, etc.. For instance, http://www.bridgetownorganics.com/ . I'm selling that right now to farms that used to be non-organic, but wanted certain fields to be certified organic, so they replaced their non-organic sources of N with our product (not sure what they used for pesticide).
It is a logically consistent reaction to your comment.
Making certain guns illegal, or certain acts with guns illegal, does "just allows you to punish the criminal once they are caught". It also means the market is smaller for gun X. Even if criminals have access to assault rifle X, there will be less of them around than if they were legal. It takes time though. Criminals will continue to posses them until caught or worn out.
But I agree with you in general, laws alone are not going to stop the absurdly high levels of gun violence in the US. It is a very complicated issue. I think it is a combination of the following that needs to be addressed: 1) we need higher levels of social services (mentally ill, poor people feeling desperate, safety nets, giving people public works jobs rather than turning to selling drugs, etc... ). 2) We need to lower the income inequality in the US. Our poor are *really* poor. We have huge problems with poverty cycles in inner cities. Huge wealth inequality also goes hand and hand with lower social mobility (usually) and in the case of the US, we do have very low social mobility. Once poor, you tend to stay poor. 3). The availability of guns. Guns should have longer waiting periods, more in depth background checks, etc.. it works in other countries. And if polling is too be believed, most gun owners in the US favor increases in lots of different types of new regulations. It would work here, but it wouldn't happen over night. It would take a generation until some of the guns in the black markets cycled out due to wear/seizure. 4). etc..
That will never be possible. What is possible, is interfaces using a consistent design pattern and logic when making changes. That, unfortunately, doesn't happen as often as it should.
Often it isn't change for change sakes, but stats about the audience behavior, combined with usability testing, reveals that 'audience X' (where X can be 'people between the ages of y and z' or 'new users' or 'existing users', etc.. ) finds it much easier to find 'button z' when it is moved to location 'a'.
The problem is that any change you make will always annoy at least one of your audience types. But if 10 audience types are made happier instantly, while 7 audience types are just annoyed for a period time, the call is often on the side of redesign.
Yeah, but it's not like you just give up and stop using a computer when Google plays "where's the send button now?" with gmail.
Or when Slashdot plays the "what do I click to read the comments" game?
10+ insightful. Getting to comments on a site whose main purpose is comments should A) never be buried 2 clicks into the site, and B) hovering over username should indicate what happens when you click username. Especially for someone new to the site, why would they expect to find any of the stuff under username when clicking username, if it doesn't tell you anything about the link? This must be impossible for blind people using screen readers to use.
Slashdot Mirror
It gave the US a huge boost in cohesion internally and status internationally.
http://particlefever.com/
I think that documentary shows aspects of your statement perfectly. Seeing aEuropean led group of international scientists cheering when the LHC is turned on for the first time after a decade of work, just sent chills (good ones) up my spine. It is how I imagine the Apollo control room in the 60's.
That could have been the US, and imo, should have been. US politicians are always talking about the US needing to be a shining example, lead the world, innovate, stay on top, etc.. yet they scrapped the supercollider in Texas (was it just conservatives?). We could have had that cheering room of international scientists led by the US, inspiring not only the world's kids, but ours as well.
As it is, I bet very few school children have seen 'Particle Fever', or were inspired or even followed the events around the LHC. If it had been in Texas instead, the news would have made a much bigger deal out of it.
Forgot to add, Portland in general is pretty much hosed, because we are "bridge town". It will quite literally cut the city in half. Every bridge is expected to fall during a moderate earthquake.
Pretty sure most of North Portland (Oregon) is in the same boat. Soft sandy soil that is going to not support anything once water bubbles up through it.
Or spot the astroturfing. 99% of the "news" stories about the deal that I've seen are basically ideological talking points and have nothing to do with the merit of the deal, and certainly nothing to do with the primary goal of the deal: to prevent Iran from building a nuke.
and nothing drops me off at the front door
The last mile is always the problem. I don't think most people in the US will be able to get rid of their cars until there is something like an autonomous shuttle car that will pick you up at your house and bring you to a transit terminal. Some little tiny smart car you can call with the push of a button on a phone app.
Heck, isn't it still legal to buy black powder for hunting?
I made plenty of bombs when I was a kid.
Ditto. I'm glad I grew up pre-9/11.
You gotta wonder why he thought it was OK to trespass and steal switches though.
I think "abandoned warehouse" had a lot to do with it. Such abandoned industrial locations certainly were looked at as parts repositories by myself and my friends in our school days. Some of the places we scavenged where shut down 10+ years.
Man, I would have been arrested hundreds of times if I were a teenager today....we explored everything. Anything not locked or bolted down we messed with. We did get caught a few times in construction projects and abandoned buildings, but the cops just said "Hey kids, its dangerous in here, don't come back".
Do cops just default to arresting curious kids these days? Or is this story an exception?
Diverse means different than "the average" or "the status quo". In the work place, white male is the norm, the status quo.
Diverse isn't "anti" anything.... diverse is the correct word when someone or some thing isn't like the average someone or average some thing.
You are confusing communism with socialism.
Varying degrees of socialism have been used successfully around the world for hundreds of years. See Norway, France, Britain, the USA, etc..
Is it purely financial reasons for less children though?
Everyone I know that limits their family to 1-2 children has told me that they are basically just a lot of work. Lots of people say things like "I can't imagine going through the baby phase again, so difficult...". Other people tell me that environmental concerns are big on their minds when deciding whether to have more children.
If the universe is infinite, we may reach a technological level that can overcome scarcity. The only true limit is physical space.
There may be value placed on things like "real artisanal food grown on a farm, not produced in the food machine" but the food machine "crops" would be identical down to the atom. So no one can claim to "have more" of anything, when anyone can mass produce anything down to the atom at the flick of a switch (more likely the flick of a thought).
I can command my nanobots to build me a spaceship, and warp drive to my very own vacation planet, etc...
Think 10,000+ years from now.
better than after another half century of government dependency and handouts.
Correlation perhaps. Causation? I have never seen a study that proves that safety nets and government assistance led to inner city poverty cycles (which bring with them drugs/crime/etc..).
There are many countries around the world with higher levels of "handouts" than the USA has, and those safety nets have not caused inner city projects, slums, or seemed to target one specific race of people.
There are likely dozens of factors involved, but I seriously doubt that government assistance is a primary cause.
pusillanimous
Science Friday podcast last week interviewed a bumblebee expert. He said there was no evidence that bumblebees do worse in regions that use heavy pesticide vs areas out in the wild where little to no pesticide is detected. According to the guest, climate change really is the largest factor in their decline.
I think you may be referring to honeybees that are more closely related to agriculture and pesticide use.
I bet the majority of people don't know they're different things.
.
Odd. I thought that was common knowledge. It certainly is if you come from any communities involved in agriculture.
Honey bees are an entirely domesticated animal. Bred for a specific purpose. They live in man-made boxes with hundreds of thousands of other bees, and produce a ton of honey. They use that honey to keep themselves fed during the winter.
Bumblebees are wild, have much smaller hives built underground, and generally die off during the winter. They also produce no honeycombs, more like small balls of honey.
Oblig
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L.
Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277
(1953)."
Now if we are talking corn or grain or sugar there is NO way you can get the density needed to put it in a building.
I must not be parsing your sentence correctly. Block after block of sky scrapers with each floor growing corn is way more dense than a field of corn taking up the same space. What did you mean to say?
You have a lot of good points. But lower bug pressure isn't one of them. I take my pepper plants indoors to over-winter each year, and come spring, they always end up with aphids. And they are down in my basement, with no windows. I use a grow light.
I suppose it would be possible if you built it like a chip factory: air tight doors with increased indoor air pressure, all venting has fine screens, all people have to change clothes to enter the grow room, etc.. pretty expensive setup.
I think one other great point for indoor growing is as a means to eliminate food deserts in city centers and/or just to let city people learn to garden and learn to enjoy fresh food. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846 Community gardens, shared space, or even rented space, would be great for some buildings. Think if a sky scraper turned a floor or two floors into indoor growing areas. They could sell the products, or rent the space to the city or people, etc..
Also, as population rises, growing in towers may end up complimenting traditional farming. The sears tower is 4,560,217 ft, which amounts to about 9 acres of possible farming surface. But that is only the floor space. I bet each floor could hold multiple racks. tomatoes, 2 racks. Corn, one rack, potatoes, 6 racks, etc..
This stuff on the other hand, doesn't need pesticides or anything
Indoor growing almost always has bug infestations, just like growing outside. Bugs find ways in, through vents, on people, etc.. and once inside they breed like crazy with usually very few predators to counter them.
I take my pepper plants indoor during the winters. Come spring, aphid always find a way inside. I usually buy lady bugs, but another grower might use pesticide.
I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed
That is completely untrue. Sure, some organic farmers do the whole crop rotation thing, planting stuff like clover in place of a food crop in a certain plot every other year, but that isn't how most people producing organic products do it. Most of them just use organic counter-parts to things like pesticide and fertilizer and nothing else changes. No extra land, no major differences in methods, etc.. For instance, http://www.bridgetownorganics.com/ . I'm selling that right now to farms that used to be non-organic, but wanted certain fields to be certified organic, so they replaced their non-organic sources of N with our product (not sure what they used for pesticide).
It is a logically consistent reaction to your comment.
Making certain guns illegal, or certain acts with guns illegal, does "just allows you to punish the criminal once they are caught". It also means the market is smaller for gun X. Even if criminals have access to assault rifle X, there will be less of them around than if they were legal. It takes time though. Criminals will continue to posses them until caught or worn out.
But I agree with you in general, laws alone are not going to stop the absurdly high levels of gun violence in the US. It is a very complicated issue. I think it is a combination of the following that needs to be addressed: 1) we need higher levels of social services (mentally ill, poor people feeling desperate, safety nets, giving people public works jobs rather than turning to selling drugs, etc... ). 2) We need to lower the income inequality in the US. Our poor are *really* poor. We have huge problems with poverty cycles in inner cities. Huge wealth inequality also goes hand and hand with lower social mobility (usually) and in the case of the US, we do have very low social mobility. Once poor, you tend to stay poor. 3). The availability of guns. Guns should have longer waiting periods, more in depth background checks, etc.. it works in other countries. And if polling is too be believed, most gun owners in the US favor increases in lots of different types of new regulations. It would work here, but it wouldn't happen over night. It would take a generation until some of the guns in the black markets cycled out due to wear/seizure. 4). etc..
You need interfaces that NEVER change.
That will never be possible. What is possible, is interfaces using a consistent design pattern and logic when making changes. That, unfortunately, doesn't happen as often as it should.
Often it isn't change for change sakes, but stats about the audience behavior, combined with usability testing, reveals that 'audience X' (where X can be 'people between the ages of y and z' or 'new users' or 'existing users', etc.. ) finds it much easier to find 'button z' when it is moved to location 'a'.
The problem is that any change you make will always annoy at least one of your audience types. But if 10 audience types are made happier instantly, while 7 audience types are just annoyed for a period time, the call is often on the side of redesign.
Yeah, but it's not like you just give up and stop using a computer when Google plays "where's the send button now?" with gmail.
Or when Slashdot plays the "what do I click to read the comments" game?
10+ insightful. Getting to comments on a site whose main purpose is comments should A) never be buried 2 clicks into the site, and B) hovering over username should indicate what happens when you click username. Especially for someone new to the site, why would they expect to find any of the stuff under username when clicking username, if it doesn't tell you anything about the link? This must be impossible for blind people using screen readers to use.
That's amazingly insightful.
Not really...
UI is the saddle, the stirrups, and the reigns.
UX is the feeling you get being able to ride the horse, and rope your cattle.
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2012/06/ui-vs-ux-whats-the-difference/