I actually think that every extreme is wrong. You shouldn't let each community decide on its own path, because some of those communities are jonestown, and that's not ok for those kids. Neither should the state or federal government get the only say, because that's the hitler youth, and that's not ok. The best solution is a blended one, that allows each tier in the hierarchy of our society to determine SOME but NEVER ALL of what gets taught to kids.
And yes, I'll be perfectly happy to have THAT model applied to me when my side is not in power.
Really, I think that's a pretty obvious fact of reality in politics. No liberal is happy with Obama, but he was what was electable. Same goes for the other side... they can't elect the people who are extreme enough to make them happy. I think everyone knows this. There are lots of news stories about how politicians on both sides have to 'swing' to the left/right to get past the party primary, the 'swing harder' to the center to get elected. I'm surprised to learn anyone finds this surprising or nuanced.
It's a good thing Republicans (particularly the more conservative ones) didn't criticize those kinds of decisions, otherwise I'd look like I can recognize reality.
People have invested tons in nuclear defense. The US has made many billions of dollars worth of investments into nuclear defense, and to ensuring that a lone actor CANNOT in fact initiate a nuclear assault that could destroy all of humanity. Even an organized terrorist group with a large number of members has been unable to acquire even a single nuclear weapon.
We have a lot of very smart people working on how to prevent precisely the crazy bio engineer scenario, and I think there is reason to hope. We can track who buys the equipment, raw materials, etc. We can build detectors that detect new organisms. We can build stockpiles of antivirals, antimicrobials, etc (the difficulty of building something that will evade all of our arsenal of anti-life weapons is daunting). There are lots of ways to fight this, and there is a lot of money being poured into doing so.
That's exactly why the republicans would prefer to let African children starve to death rather than provide food aid. Some people just have a greater sense of responsibility for the suffering of others, and that is what fundamentally separates progressives from conservatives.
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
The progressive side of the argument says: look at what happens in Kansas. Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them? Their community is going to render them unemployable and dirt poor.
Maybe the best option is to have all of federal, state and local requirements, and to ensure that teaching to the federal/state standards requires no more than 1/3rd the total time for each.
By the time we have the technology for that, we'll also have smart people thinking about how to detect that, and as much as you'd like your pathogen to be both airborne and to hide in the body and kill the host instantly, that is not an easy thing to accomplish. And smarter people, coordinated in teams, will have had years to build up defenses against such a pathogen.
I think it would be ridiculous to discredit 'creating life' if 100% were original material, synthesized from raw elements. Personally, I'd probably even grant you the use of relatively complex molecules (let's say nothing over 1k atoms). But no, I wouldn't go any higher than that. You certainly can't use anything which has had its complexity increased by anything but a human and his mechanical, non-living, tools.
Redesigning the inner workings of a cell is at most 30 years away. Probably less. There are people making significant progress on this now. How far away do you think warp speed is?
You should think about investing in learning tools. Regex is a well documented, well understood, capable feature of all modern languages. How many weeks will you spend debugging / refining your thousands of if/then/else when you could trust years of testing that has been done on regex engines? Your statement reminds me of novices who avoid ?: in favor of if/else because it's 'cryptic'.
This bias on this forum is interesting. Kozar says "Tom Corbett is an asshat" and oh yeah he's Republican. He gets modded up. I say that Corbett's acts are typical of the Governor's last several years of corrupt administration..... I get modded down.
+1 for noting a Republican is corrupt -1 for noting a Democrat is corrupt
Obvious anti-R and pro-D bias on the part of Slashdot moderators.
Well duh, this is news for nerds, the mods aren't stupid.
Even better. Get the bidding war going yourself. Make it clear that the winner will be the bidder that will kickback the largest cut. Recommend their hardware to the c-level exec.
Every show I watch has at least one ad at all times at the bottom of the screen, and usually multiple ads injected contextually into the show. Might be an unfortunate show selection, but other than skipping sports I think my choices are pretty conventional.
Per the other story today, it depends on your statistics. For example, I see an advertisement 100% of the time I watch tv currently. It would be hard to increase that stat. But, of course, I could see more than the 2 or 3 ads I currently see in any given second, or they could be more intrusive, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Overpopulation is not a problem that can be solved by covering the world with wheat, soy and corn fields.
Surt it is. Just be a sneaky monsanto engineer, and put a lethal allergen into next year's wheat crop. Overpopulation problem solved!
Nope, just based in the law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_legal_in_Texas_to_marry_your_first_cousin
I actually think that every extreme is wrong. You shouldn't let each community decide on its own path, because some of those communities are jonestown, and that's not ok for those kids. Neither should the state or federal government get the only say, because that's the hitler youth, and that's not ok. The best solution is a blended one, that allows each tier in the hierarchy of our society to determine SOME but NEVER ALL of what gets taught to kids.
And yes, I'll be perfectly happy to have THAT model applied to me when my side is not in power.
Really, I think that's a pretty obvious fact of reality in politics. No liberal is happy with Obama, but he was what was electable. Same goes for the other side ... they can't elect the people who are extreme enough to make them happy. I think everyone knows this. There are lots of news stories about how politicians on both sides have to 'swing' to the left/right to get past the party primary, the 'swing harder' to the center to get elected. I'm surprised to learn anyone finds this surprising or nuanced.
If the if/else is nested a hundred deep to emulate the capabilities of the regex ... potentially quite a while.
I differentiate between what the majority (of social conservatives) want and what the electable do.
When you make aid in dollars, that's a problem. When you make it in food, at worst it spoils, but hopefully someone eats.
It's a good thing Republicans (particularly the more conservative ones) didn't criticize those kinds of decisions, otherwise I'd look like I can recognize reality.
People have invested tons in nuclear defense. The US has made many billions of dollars worth of investments into nuclear defense, and to ensuring that a lone actor CANNOT in fact initiate a nuclear assault that could destroy all of humanity. Even an organized terrorist group with a large number of members has been unable to acquire even a single nuclear weapon.
We have a lot of very smart people working on how to prevent precisely the crazy bio engineer scenario, and I think there is reason to hope. We can track who buys the equipment, raw materials, etc. We can build detectors that detect new organisms. We can build stockpiles of antivirals, antimicrobials, etc (the difficulty of building something that will evade all of our arsenal of anti-life weapons is daunting). There are lots of ways to fight this, and there is a lot of money being poured into doing so.
That's exactly why the republicans would prefer to let African children starve to death rather than provide food aid. Some people just have a greater sense of responsibility for the suffering of others, and that is what fundamentally separates progressives from conservatives.
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
I always assumed inbred was reserved for the inbred, e.g. people who marry their cousins and have lots of genetic defects as a result, like Texans.
The progressive side of the argument says: look at what happens in Kansas. Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them? Their community is going to render them unemployable and dirt poor.
Maybe the best option is to have all of federal, state and local requirements, and to ensure that teaching to the federal/state standards requires no more than 1/3rd the total time for each.
By the time we have the technology for that, we'll also have smart people thinking about how to detect that, and as much as you'd like your pathogen to be both airborne and to hide in the body and kill the host instantly, that is not an easy thing to accomplish. And smarter people, coordinated in teams, will have had years to build up defenses against such a pathogen.
I think it would be ridiculous to discredit 'creating life' if 100% were original material, synthesized from raw elements. Personally, I'd probably even grant you the use of relatively complex molecules (let's say nothing over 1k atoms).
But no, I wouldn't go any higher than that. You certainly can't use anything which has had its complexity increased by anything but a human and his mechanical, non-living, tools.
Redesigning the inner workings of a cell is at most 30 years away. Probably less. There are people making significant progress on this now. How far away do you think warp speed is?
That has to be the +5 funniest thing I've read in a month. Thank you, I just about fell out of my chair.
You should think about investing in learning tools. Regex is a well documented, well understood, capable feature of all modern languages. How many weeks will you spend debugging / refining your thousands of if/then/else when you could trust years of testing that has been done on regex engines? Your statement reminds me of novices who avoid ?: in favor of if/else because it's 'cryptic'.
You might be somewhat off on that timeline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor#MRCA_of_all_living_humans
>>> (Score:3, Insightful)
This bias on this forum is interesting. Kozar says "Tom Corbett is an asshat" and oh yeah he's Republican. He gets modded up. I say that Corbett's acts are typical of the Governor's last several years of corrupt administration..... I get modded down.
+1 for noting a Republican is corrupt
-1 for noting a Democrat is corrupt
Obvious anti-R and pro-D bias on the part of Slashdot moderators.
Well duh, this is news for nerds, the mods aren't stupid.
Even better. Get the bidding war going yourself. Make it clear that the winner will be the bidder that will kickback the largest cut. Recommend their hardware to the c-level exec.
Every show I watch has at least one ad at all times at the bottom of the screen, and usually multiple ads injected contextually into the show. Might be an unfortunate show selection, but other than skipping sports I think my choices are pretty conventional.
Per the other story today, it depends on your statistics. For example, I see an advertisement 100% of the time I watch tv currently. It would be hard to increase that stat. But, of course, I could see more than the 2 or 3 ads I currently see in any given second, or they could be more intrusive, etc.
But their inherent goodness which causes their countenances to be beautiful makes them able to resist temptation.
I don't know if that was unintentionally stupid or intentionally funny.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/butte