That isn't specifically true at all. It's all about whether you can reproduce, and have a surviving child more than it is about dying.
But there's an advantage to having parents and the parents of parents continuing to live on.
While older adults might not be able to reproduce, the help and assistance of older non-reproducing adults can factor into their descendent's ability to reproduce.
I work in immunology and the coevolution of host and virus to the point where it is harmless would be a Good Thing (TM).
Perhaps good in the long run, but coevolution implies the evolution of the host, too, and that requires an increase, at least temporarily, in the number of dead humans (that pesky selection part of evolution).
Alas, WW2 doesn't seem to have been about religion, and it's still the largest war in human history (and if it were split into two separate wars, they'd be the two largest wars in history).
You're just using too narrow a conception of religion, IMO.
Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism all have their true-believers. And some of them are so certain their faith is the correct one that they're willing to kill for it.
Interesting, though, that the vote happened after the election, when it was known who would control the Senate in 2015 and 2016. And interesting that those that are losing power oppose surveillance while those that are gaining it support continued surveillance.
This might suggest the possibility that each side fears the use of the NSA against them by the other side.
I'd hate to think the USA has gotten to that point but I don't think anything would surprise me now.
Why did we get away from that technology for space exploration? If you're going to spend the money to conduct a mission of this sort why limit yourself to the power provided by solar panels? It would be a pisser to have come this far only to have the mission fail because the probe can't get enough power to carry on operations.
Two reasons: fear that an accident might release plutonium dust into the atmosphere, and the relative shortage of plutonium.
It looks like the Republicans will have 54 Senators in 2015, in part, I think, to support given them by libertarians (except perhaps in Virginia where a Libertarian candidate took support from the Republican primarily).
Might this be a move by Democrats to reach out to libertarians who tend to be the strongest opponents of the surveillance of the public by government?
Who is still using these sites after all of the Silk Road 1.0 arrests? You have to be pretty dumb to risk your freedom on some stranger's computer security skills.
And not just some single stranger.
How many thousands of programmers/engineers are indirectly involved?
Can you trust the programmer of the website?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote the webserver code?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote your web browser?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote BASH?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote the rest of the OS?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote the BIOS?
Can you trust the engineers that wrote the CPU's microcode?
I once had this wild idea of trying to come up with some automated proof system that would help insure program correctness. I then looked at the huge amount of errata for Intel processors. How can one be sure one's program will even run as expected when the processor itself can't be proven correct?
The tenets of Islam are not more incompatible than the tenets or radical christs.
If you believe the Islam is your enemy then I might give you a hint: know your enemy, so you can fight him! And you will realize that Islam is a very moderate religion.
And if the numbers for lawyers and physicians are any indication, the highest software developers are probably making their money in medical software or regulatory compliance software.
I think some of the ISPs are worried that legitimate packet prioritization is going be outlawed along with other sorts of prioritization due to ignorance of technology by legislators or regulators.
I've had discussions with coworkers in IT that were very sharp but still couldn't understand why it might be beneficial to prioritize voice packets over web traffic, for example. They really believed FIFO was the only fair way to treat packets and that anything else was somehow morally wrong.
And before some people chime in and say "but that's not what we mean", let me say that's exactly what some people mean by net neutrality. Maybe it's not what you mean, but there's no guarantee that your more informed view of net neutrality is going to be made into law.
So, no studying PtoE, company fundamentals, etc. etc. Further proving that the Stock Market is almost entirely disconnected from the underlying companies. Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme.
This is true mostly for new or trendy companies in trendy spaces. Boring companies that have been around for a long time are often priced based on the future dividends they're expected to pay. They don't get any attention, though, because those that make money on speculating can't make any money by trading them. The speculators and brokers don't want people paying attention to fundamentals. Volumes would plummet so how would they make money? There would be no churn. And then they'd have to sell the million dollar Manhattan apartment where they keep their mistress.
It's similar to the difference between trading Beanie Babies (or whatever faddy collectible is popular now) and something like wheat.
The US government would have invested Social Security in the Stock Market, but they can't find a spokesperson from the financial industry you can advocate the scheme without drooling at the prospect.
The US government already invests that money by spending it and leaving a bond in its place.
And how did they invest it? Well, there are some big craters in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Bingo halls and casinos also seem to have profited.
"Conservative" means different things in different countries. It even means different things in different US states.
In the USA, "conservative" might mean an advocate of small government and reduced government power, or it might mean a pro-life social conservative looking to restrict abortion or anything in between.
If privacy is a voter's primary concern in the US, it's probably best to vote based on the individual candidate's position than on the candidate's party.
Using renewable energy to tap unrenewable energy... Seems not really enduring. Why not just use directly the renewable energy in first place?
Because oil isn't just used as energy, though it often is.
Petroleum is a miracle substance from the standpoint of its chemistry. It would be hard to imagine modern life without all the chemicals and materials petroleum makes possible.
Burning such a flexible, important substance as fuel is terribly foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
But there's an advantage to having parents and the parents of parents continuing to live on.
While older adults might not be able to reproduce, the help and assistance of older non-reproducing adults can factor into their descendent's ability to reproduce.
Perhaps good in the long run, but coevolution implies the evolution of the host, too, and that requires an increase, at least temporarily, in the number of dead humans (that pesky selection part of evolution).
Interesting, though, that the vote happened after the election, when it was known who would control the Senate in 2015 and 2016. And interesting that those that are losing power oppose surveillance while those that are gaining it support continued surveillance.
This might suggest the possibility that each side fears the use of the NSA against them by the other side.
I'd hate to think the USA has gotten to that point but I don't think anything would surprise me now.
Two reasons: fear that an accident might release plutonium dust into the atmosphere, and the relative shortage of plutonium.
It looks like the Republicans will have 54 Senators in 2015, in part, I think, to support given them by libertarians (except perhaps in Virginia where a Libertarian candidate took support from the Republican primarily).
Might this be a move by Democrats to reach out to libertarians who tend to be the strongest opponents of the surveillance of the public by government?
Not every interesting program property that one wishes to prove can be transformed into an example of the halting problem.
And not just some single stranger.
How many thousands of programmers/engineers are indirectly involved?
Can you trust the programmer of the website?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote the webserver code?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote your web browser?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote BASH?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote the rest of the OS?
Can you trust the programmers that wrote the BIOS?
Can you trust the engineers that wrote the CPU's microcode?
I once had this wild idea of trying to come up with some automated proof system that would help insure program correctness. I then looked at the huge amount of errata for Intel processors. How can one be sure one's program will even run as expected when the processor itself can't be proven correct?
January 2001 was the first time since 1957 that the Republicans controlled both congress and the presidency.
They had about 8 months of a sane world before 9/11 happened.
The fact that lobbying is talked about so openly disgust me, at least in my country the politicians try to hide their corruption.
Oh, grow up.
Lobbying isn't corruption.
Corruption is pretending lobbying doesn't exist.
The Republican majority in the House is 1/2 of 1/3rd of the government.
They're hardly "in charge".
Remote Sensing Systems (which uses satellite data) shows that there's been 0.123K of warming per decade since 1980.
I was thinking about the press.
There's no way a journalist can crank out story after story unless they're completely unaware that they don't know what they're talking about.
Any doubts in their own understanding would stop dead their fingers on their keyboards.
You're either a fool or a liar.
And if the numbers for lawyers and physicians are any indication, the highest software developers are probably making their money in medical software or regulatory compliance software.
Or it has preservatives that kill those organisms that would otherwise kill the fungi.
Excellent. Thanks for the link.
COMMENTARY: Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola
Is there no difference in your view between the physical might of the state and the abstract might of economic power?
I think some of the ISPs are worried that legitimate packet prioritization is going be outlawed along with other sorts of prioritization due to ignorance of technology by legislators or regulators.
I've had discussions with coworkers in IT that were very sharp but still couldn't understand why it might be beneficial to prioritize voice packets over web traffic, for example. They really believed FIFO was the only fair way to treat packets and that anything else was somehow morally wrong.
And before some people chime in and say "but that's not what we mean", let me say that's exactly what some people mean by net neutrality. Maybe it's not what you mean, but there's no guarantee that your more informed view of net neutrality is going to be made into law.
The Soviet Union had a certain amount of Democracy, too.
The trouble comes when you try to use "the people's" resources to challenge the current power democratically.
Want to use the people's radio station to argue against the current regime, for example?
Sorry, but duly elected representatives of the people don't believe that's the best use of the people's property.
And by the way, the duly elected representatives of the people think your share of the people's food should be reduced.
That's how you get a one-party democratic state.
This is true mostly for new or trendy companies in trendy spaces. Boring companies that have been around for a long time are often priced based on the future dividends they're expected to pay. They don't get any attention, though, because those that make money on speculating can't make any money by trading them. The speculators and brokers don't want people paying attention to fundamentals. Volumes would plummet so how would they make money? There would be no churn. And then they'd have to sell the million dollar Manhattan apartment where they keep their mistress.
It's similar to the difference between trading Beanie Babies (or whatever faddy collectible is popular now) and something like wheat.
The US government already invests that money by spending it and leaving a bond in its place.
And how did they invest it? Well, there are some big craters in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Bingo halls and casinos also seem to have profited.
He seems to have intuited this.
"Conservative" means different things in different countries. It even means different things in different US states.
In the USA, "conservative" might mean an advocate of small government and reduced government power, or it might mean a pro-life social conservative looking to restrict abortion or anything in between.
If privacy is a voter's primary concern in the US, it's probably best to vote based on the individual candidate's position than on the candidate's party.
A non-tenured adjunct lecturer became President of the USA, so there's that, too.
Openings are rare, though.
Because oil isn't just used as energy, though it often is.
Petroleum is a miracle substance from the standpoint of its chemistry. It would be hard to imagine modern life without all the chemicals and materials petroleum makes possible.
Burning such a flexible, important substance as fuel is terribly foolish.