I do not get it. They says the TRAIL receptor triggers apoptosis, but that cancer cells inactivate it. How can they use it, then? And how can they avoid to activate TRAIL in non-cancerous cells?
European electricity costs to the end user are generally 50% higher than the US because of a 19% VAT and subsidy charges for wind and solar.
You are almost right, but it can be a little more complex, as most EU countries have multiple VAT rates for different products or service. For instance, France's VAT on electricity is 5.5% for subscription, and 20% for usage per kWh
Oops, sorry: I see other posted the same question in the meantime. Too bad one cannot cancel its own post. Perhaps I can still mod me down redundant:-)
What about entanglement? Does that means I can not entangle two particles, send one far away, change its state, and weak-read the state change on the first article so that entanglement is not lost and I can do it over and over?
Improved security models like SE Linux or now capsicum are intellectually interesting, but do they solve a real problem?
After all there are really few working exploits in the wild against up to date Linux systems, and a non up- to date system will be hacked anyway, with or without fancy security models.
Such clones do not address the point of money creation control. It is always a technical question, while it should be a political question, controlled by the citizen for the general interest. Why should money creation policy be more technical and shielded from citizen will than any other policy or law?
One could answer that central banks of developed countries are independent, so that their money creation policy is also a technical question, and the article notes that. Indeed bitcoin and friends are as undemocratic as the Euro, which is not an achievement.
What is impressive is how the characters hardly evolved since that time. The picture is not easy to read, but it seems that only 7 and 9 are different from modern characters.
That implies the central structure has to deal with all supply/demand in society, which is usually not very efficient. And moreover, the central structure ought to be democratic, otherwise it will be illegitimate.
Some communist countries have been regulating everything down to the price of a hair-cut. Such setups have merit on education or health fronts (hint: Cuba), but I would not call hair-cut price regulation a success.
After the referendum on the EU constitution in France and Netherlands, and the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, we know that EU leaders do not care about the vote cast by citizen. Why would they care about our opinions in this consultation?
The EU got so anti-democratic that the only way forward now is to dismantle it.
The idea of the tariff is that the consumer either choose a national product (no tariff, the extra cost goes to wages, is spent again, and remains in the national economy), or a foreign product (the consumer pays the tariff, giving the state some money to offset the damage done to national production. As a citizen, please control it is wisely used).
But now the national and the foreign product cost the same to the consumer, the national product may try to bring quality upwards, instead of always trying to cut costs through lower quality and lower wages. In other words, tariffs, helps moving the competition on quality instead of price.
What is the alternative? If you refuse to use tariffs to even competition from foreign workers of much lower salaries, at some tim all your jobs will be outsourced abroad. That will be a 100% reduction of purchasing power.
Asimov missed Internet. Data networks have very little presence in his books. All we have are the hyper-wave communications, but we are not told what it is used for.
This is hardly surprising. Government is supposed (please note the "supposed") to act for the general interest, which should (please note the "should") be aligned with citizen interest. Private companies work for their owner's interests, which are much less likely to align with the user's interests.
The issues here are "supposed" and "should". Obviously people do not consider yet their government as oppressive. The question is what can we do if a government turns oppressive, once we let it have those great oppression tools.
There is little chance of a positive income when bringing faith and reasoning at the same table.
It is exactly the same case that debating with pro-deregulation economists: reality already show they are wrong, but they can win a debate on the rhetorical front.
One tantalizing possibility is that as these restless bits of DNA drift throughout the genomes of human brain cells, they help create the vibrant cognitive diversity that helps humans as a species respond to changing environmental conditions, and produces extraordinary "outliers," including innovators and geniuses such as Picasso,
If you "dismember" a corporation to achieve a >15% ROI, then obviously the people buying the assets must have been convinced that there is a way to use those assets to generate higher profits.
There are always parts that are more valuable than others. Patents, real estate and machines will be sold to feed the 15% ROI, and the remaining parts will go bankrupt. This is the way they do it.
I understand this is another instance of finance destroying viable business
Investors want 15% of ROI. Any profitable business that generate less than 15% will be dismembered to extract money. Financial industry just destroy anything not profitable enough, even if it is useful to society. This is capitalism destroying itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not get it. They says the TRAIL receptor triggers apoptosis, but that cancer cells inactivate it. How can they use it, then? And how can they avoid to activate TRAIL in non-cancerous cells?
European electricity costs to the end user are generally 50% higher than the US because of a 19% VAT and subsidy charges for wind and solar.
You are almost right, but it can be a little more complex, as most EU countries have multiple VAT rates for different products or service. For instance, France's VAT on electricity is 5.5% for subscription, and 20% for usage per kWh
The problem is that this is not science: the theory does not predict anything, and no experience can be done to test it.
In other words, this is faith. Faith is not bad, but there is always something wrong when you confuse it with science.
Oops, sorry: I see other posted the same question in the meantime. Too bad one cannot cancel its own post. Perhaps I can still mod me down redundant :-)
What about entanglement? Does that means I can not entangle two particles, send one far away, change its state, and weak-read the state change on the first article so that entanglement is not lost and I can do it over and over?
Are you sure nobody has invested any dollar on it yet?
I wonder if that one will crash before or after the student load bubble.
Improved security models like SE Linux or now capsicum are intellectually interesting, but do they solve a real problem?
After all there are really few working exploits in the wild against up to date Linux systems, and a non up- to date system will be hacked anyway, with or without fancy security models.
Some of us have been looking for the singularity : when will computer intelligence outpace us and innovate faster than us.
Here we are: some algorithm will decide humans are a threat to peace and will eliminate us all, then innovate faster than us will be easy.
But here, it is an arm, not a leg.
How movements of this artificial limb are controlled?
Such clones do not address the point of money creation control. It is always a technical question, while it should be a political question, controlled by the citizen for the general interest. Why should money creation policy be more technical and shielded from citizen will than any other policy or law?
One could answer that central banks of developed countries are independent, so that their money creation policy is also a technical question, and the article notes that. Indeed bitcoin and friends are as undemocratic as the Euro, which is not an achievement.
What is impressive is how the characters hardly evolved since that time. The picture is not easy to read, but it seems that only 7 and 9 are different from modern characters.
That implies the central structure has to deal with all supply/demand in society, which is usually not very efficient. And moreover, the central structure ought to be democratic, otherwise it will be illegitimate.
Some communist countries have been regulating everything down to the price of a hair-cut. Such setups have merit on education or health fronts (hint: Cuba), but I would not call hair-cut price regulation a success.
After the referendum on the EU constitution in France and Netherlands, and the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, we know that EU leaders do not care about the vote cast by citizen. Why would they care about our opinions in this consultation?
The EU got so anti-democratic that the only way forward now is to dismantle it.
The idea of the tariff is that the consumer either choose a national product (no tariff, the extra cost goes to wages, is spent again, and remains in the national economy), or a foreign product (the consumer pays the tariff, giving the state some money to offset the damage done to national production. As a citizen, please control it is wisely used).
But now the national and the foreign product cost the same to the consumer, the national product may try to bring quality upwards, instead of always trying to cut costs through lower quality and lower wages. In other words, tariffs, helps moving the competition on quality instead of price.
What is the alternative? If you refuse to use tariffs to even competition from foreign workers of much lower salaries, at some tim all your jobs will be outsourced abroad. That will be a 100% reduction of purchasing power.
We now have two ships locked in ice, many helicopter trips... who pays for all that mess?
Asimov missed Internet. Data networks have very little presence in his books. All we have are the hyper-wave communications, but we are not told what it is used for.
This is hardly surprising. Government is supposed (please note the "supposed") to act for the general interest, which should (please note the "should") be aligned with citizen interest. Private companies work for their owner's interests, which are much less likely to align with the user's interests.
The issues here are "supposed" and "should". Obviously people do not consider yet their government as oppressive. The question is what can we do if a government turns oppressive, once we let it have those great oppression tools.
There is little chance of a positive income when bringing faith and reasoning at the same table.
It is exactly the same case that debating with pro-deregulation economists: reality already show they are wrong, but they can win a debate on the rhetorical front.
TFA says
One tantalizing possibility is that as these restless bits of DNA drift throughout the genomes of human brain cells, they help create the vibrant cognitive diversity that helps humans as a species respond to changing environmental conditions, and produces extraordinary "outliers," including innovators and geniuses such as Picasso,
But didn't they observe the same thing on mices?
All this is power struggle between religions, but where is faith? What is a Unix user supposed to believe in?
If you "dismember" a corporation to achieve a >15% ROI, then obviously the people buying the assets must have been convinced that there is a way to use those assets to generate higher profits.
There are always parts that are more valuable than others. Patents, real estate and machines will be sold to feed the 15% ROI, and the remaining parts will go bankrupt. This is the way they do it.
I understand this is another instance of finance destroying viable business
Investors want 15% of ROI. Any profitable business that generate less than 15% will be dismembered to extract money. Financial industry just destroy anything not profitable enough, even if it is useful to society. This is capitalism destroying itself.