A good point. I'll gladly switch to converting tungsten then, about 1000 times more common, and a factor of 10 cheaper than Osmium. Only requires adding two more atoms.
That actually supports my point. It's grossly overpriced based on an economic premise (rarity) which is easily falsified with a minor improvement in technology.
I was thinking deuterium atoms. I hadn't looked up the neutron counts, though. Stable gold is 79P 118N, Osmium is 76P, and abundant in 112N-114N. So presumably you'd take 114N, and look to add 3P, 4N, so call that 2 deuterium and 1 tritium.
Like pretty much everything else, the value of diamonds is what the market says it is. Gold, for example, is grossly overpriced considering that Osmium can be had for about a third the price, and requires the addition of only 6 atoms to transform to Gold. Given a relatively trivial breakthrough in technology the price of gold will drop 2/3rds in a day.
I'd say the greatest concern is probably how you get there. Unless you are near there now, you'll have to travel, and that's when you'll face a ton of risk from other survivalists who will be thinking about how useful your stuff might be, as they likewise travel to a variety of destinations.
I hate to break it to you, but this country has probably more like 5-10 million die-hard survivalists, if by die-hard you mean those who have not already built a bunker in a remote location, and will be taking action after things are already bad.
You're misunderstanding my point. My point is exactly that Libertarians don't go to 100%. They draw a line around things that harm another person. But that's all the rest are doing, they just disagree about where the line is, or what the definition of 'harms another person' is.
Or to spell it out another way, the elitists 'stand for principle' comment is what was wrong with the parent's claims. Both sides are absolutely equally standing for principle.
Well, if you believe that government restrictions are never effective it's going to be hard to have a meaningful discussion. I think at least 95% of people would disagree with that assessment based on their personal experiences.
Yes, that's what I'd prefer. We don't need to devolve into a police state to battle this tiny risk.
For comparison, being able to drive our own cars affords us a freedom of mobility. But at a cost of roughly 10 9/11s worth of killings per year. Time to give up our freedom to drive?
And if not, why should we give up even more important freedoms to achieve a smaller reduction in death?
Only the bridge issue has any chance of being defeated by these means, and only because it's hard to build explosives capable of knocking out a bridge without buying detectable items.
The other two are close to impossible to stop.
Personally, I'd rather live with the risk than oppress everyone in a vain effort to eliminate that risk.
How about we be fair to the other side and say that they'd like government restrictions to be effective, and that their position is equally self consistent. Unlimited liberty = anarchy. Not even the Paul's seem to be in favor of that. They want government restriction just like the rest of us, just less than the rest of us. It's all about defining just where the government needs to intervene to protect us from each other. Almost everyone, as one example, and one I assume the Rands would support, favor the government having laws and police to prevent murder.
Slashdot Mirror
A good point. I'll gladly switch to converting tungsten then, about 1000 times more common, and a factor of 10 cheaper than Osmium. Only requires adding two more atoms.
That actually supports my point. It's grossly overpriced based on an economic premise (rarity) which is easily falsified with a minor improvement in technology.
I was thinking deuterium atoms. I hadn't looked up the neutron counts, though. Stable gold is 79P 118N, Osmium is 76P, and abundant in 112N-114N. So presumably you'd take 114N, and look to add 3P, 4N, so call that 2 deuterium and 1 tritium.
It's five years because that creates a sense of urgency for angel investors to get in on the ground floor.
Like pretty much everything else, the value of diamonds is what the market says it is. Gold, for example, is grossly overpriced considering that Osmium can be had for about a third the price, and requires the addition of only 6 atoms to transform to Gold. Given a relatively trivial breakthrough in technology the price of gold will drop 2/3rds in a day.
Dwarfism is an unpleasant condition indeed.
Taxes paid for the infrastructure that made Google's business possible. More so than most companies, Google owes their very existence to taxation.
That could be the case, but I'm not sure I'd count on things behaving as well on the way down as they did on the way up.
That's obviously untrue. They can and do literally intervene to prevent murders, and also deter murders from happening by their mere presence.
I'd say the greatest concern is probably how you get there. Unless you are near there now, you'll have to travel, and that's when you'll face a ton of risk from other survivalists who will be thinking about how useful your stuff might be, as they likewise travel to a variety of destinations.
Giving government greater capabilities seems unlikely to deter them from sponsoring terrorists.
I'd rate the government going out of control as a far more imminent threat. Terrorists kill way less people than government every year.
I hate to break it to you, but this country has probably more like 5-10 million die-hard survivalists, if by die-hard you mean those who have not already built a bunker in a remote location, and will be taking action after things are already bad.
You're misunderstanding my point. My point is exactly that Libertarians don't go to 100%. They draw a line around things that harm another person. But that's all the rest are doing, they just disagree about where the line is, or what the definition of 'harms another person' is.
Or to spell it out another way, the elitists 'stand for principle' comment is what was wrong with the parent's claims. Both sides are absolutely equally standing for principle.
Well, if you believe that government restrictions are never effective it's going to be hard to have a meaningful discussion. I think at least 95% of people would disagree with that assessment based on their personal experiences.
I think the point is that to implement this in the USA, it would obviously be necessary to pass a further bill making open source software illegal.
Yes, that's what I'd prefer. We don't need to devolve into a police state to battle this tiny risk.
For comparison, being able to drive our own cars affords us a freedom of mobility. But at a cost of roughly 10 9/11s worth of killings per year. Time to give up our freedom to drive?
And if not, why should we give up even more important freedoms to achieve a smaller reduction in death?
Only the bridge issue has any chance of being defeated by these means, and only because it's hard to build explosives capable of knocking out a bridge without buying detectable items.
The other two are close to impossible to stop.
Personally, I'd rather live with the risk than oppress everyone in a vain effort to eliminate that risk.
If only we had a representative democracy, I bet this wouldn't be a problem.
How about we be fair to the other side and say that they'd like government restrictions to be effective, and that their position is equally self consistent. Unlimited liberty = anarchy. Not even the Paul's seem to be in favor of that. They want government restriction just like the rest of us, just less than the rest of us. It's all about defining just where the government needs to intervene to protect us from each other. Almost everyone, as one example, and one I assume the Rands would support, favor the government having laws and police to prevent murder.
That would have been outright wrong, as ~= is pretty universally used to mean approximately equals.
But if it IS privatized, that means a private company can hire strippers to do the job. And I can choose to use that airline/airport.
I read the definition you provided and the link, and I don't understand how the sky is evidence for the existence of God.
Indeed, atheism has as little support in science as theism. Agnosticism is the only scientific viewpoint.
But if you're into HPC, this is not the card for you. You want a 685/695 which won't be released until 1st quarter next year.