To your point, that's exactly what is being implied. Apollo: the brainchild of a 'visionary' president, where everyone was just motivated and 'did it'. Obamacare: what should have been "the brainchild of a 'visionary' president" but has been dragged into the mud by the obstreperous Republicans who can't seem to understand that they're supposed to do what they're told.
They're the majority of the House, and the opposition party. It would be a broken government if their actions didn't have an impact, wouldn't it?
But it's charmingly convenient that seemingly everything this administration fucks up is Republicans' fault, isn't it? Sounds like having a conversation with my wife, in a way.
What I've never really seen discussed is that our methods of detection all rely on what are really rather astonishingly precise circumstances - ie that we as observers are exactly in the ecliptic of the target system. This system was discovered by transit-dimming, others by spectral variability implying 'wobbling' of the stellar primary. Certainly the former doesn't work if the planet doesn't actually transit the target solar disk, and I don't believe the other works for even small angle-off observers either.
So what are the odds? Even granting that we're all relatively within a galactic ecliptic, and that this presumably is at least a small factor in the bearing of all our ecliptics, that's a very long way from saying we're all sitting happily in some stellar flatland. Even our own very flat system, an outsider as close as the oort cloud would have to be *astonishingly* lucky to be in a spot where - essentially - more than one planet would eclipse the sun regularly from his/her/its viewing point. And we're doing it at distances hundreds of thousands of times further.
Given that we've already identified thousands of planets with our relatively crude methods, I can't imagine that theoretically we could expect better than a one in a thousand chance that a given target system would be 'arranged' to be something we could detect in the first place, regardless of how well-populated it is with stars?
The fact is that with the planned disaster that's Obamacare, everything is going to go south badly enough that eventually we'll be forced to scrap it and go along with a single payer system.
The theory seems tautologous? If she's arguing that of early mammals, for the non-burrowing ones snakes were the worst predator - we aren't their only descenants.
By that logic, then ALL descendants of non-burrowing mammals should have binocular vision and forward-facing eyes which is patently not true.
If she's saying that PRIMATES specifically developed forward-facing eyes to deal with snakes, that seems less supportable when forward-facing vision is more generally found across nature in predators of all sorts. That seems a less contrived explanation.
I don't doubt we have particularly good pattern-recognition circuits for snakes; they are a nasty predator for arboreal creatures. But to suggest they're the cause is nonsense.
....and assuming the point is not to punish them with the sort of pain and fear that they inflicted on their victims, why don't we just use that cow-killing boltgun thingy?
I mean, if we seriously believe that's "humane" why not?
I suspect that the difference here isn't just something trivial, but in fact something deeper and more hard-wired.
The fact is that we learn far, far more in a basic survival sense from losing than winning. We learn more about what's dangerous, what to avoid, and what can hurt us from negative experiences than from positive....ergo, what are the experiences that need to go into deep-storage? Negative ones.
To wit: strikes require firm, centralized control to take effect, because there are almost always defectors, people at the desperate end of the bell curve who will defect for personal gain.
Then again, the logic of a strike is such that either: a) it's broadly sustainable, even with a few defections, because the working conditions/pay are bad enough that improvement is generally recognized to be needed, or b) it's only sustainable with strongarm central enforcement, in which case a strike is more a matter of economic coercion than justice for the workers.
Right now cyclists seem to believe that they get the best of all worlds: - they are 'entitled' to be treated as a car, when in a lane of traffic - they get lanes dedicated to them that DO NOT meld with other traffic - they cheerfully blow lights, stop signs, and don't stop for peds "because it's so much harder to stop/start a bike" - when the road traffic is inconvenient, they ride on the sidewalk or in ped x-ings - no license/permit required - any accident, they're portrayed as the victim
and purely opinion: - a gross level of condescension, smugness, and douche-ness because they're "saving the planet" while the rest of us poor Cro-Magnons are still burning dinosaur corpses to get to work.
Ironically, I consider myself a cyclist. I ride a recumbent 10-30+ miles most weekends in the summer. Nevertheless, when I see how inconsiderate and overall selfish most bicyclists are on the roads/paths I use, I frankly hate most of them too. I'm a long-wheelbase rider so I stay out of urban areas as much as I can; I can't imagine how dangerous it must be intrinsically on a bike in the inner city, much less with the aggressive biking that I see regularly while I'm driving.
3d TV's failure was most certainly not a 'lack of content' and if it's perceived that way by the media mavens, then the same mistakes will be repeated.
3d failed because: - technologically not-ready-for-prime-time; wearing uncomfortable specs etc wasn't popular in theaters the FIRST go around with 3d. - people recognized it for what it was: a money-grab by hardware producers trying to re-milk the public that had already been forced to go out and buy all-new digital tvs.
Or they're performing the BASIC function of an elint organization, that is, gathering any and all intelligence on other states that they can or possible threats to the US.
You *do* know that the US has military plans for fighting any country in the world, including our friends, right?
This is for-keeps geopolitics. This is not playground tiddlywinks.
...one might point out that this bears a striking resemblance to some primitive religions that assert that their gods exist "outside of time". I mean, for something as fundamental and invisible as the linearity of cause/effect to be questioned by primitive peoples so far as to postulate beings outside of it is rather...sophisticated?
...I've always considered that: a) anything I post on the web is essentially permanent. b) emails are *basically* like writing a message on a postcard; 'private' ostensibly, but really readable by anyone that wants to.
Clearly, nobody explained "B" to the Mexican president.
I think people tend to forget that the heart of compromise is to find something that BOTH sides benefit from in a transaction. It's not just the 800lb gorilla compelling someone.
The schools/government want to promote computer education. Yes, the industry wants some nebulous increase in worker-drones some vague time in the future, but are being asked to invest resources from some very short-term balance sheets so yeah, I can see them wanting a tit-for-tat benefit in legislation today.*
*and if the government is stupid enough to agree to a deal in which they don't get much, and the industry gets more, it just shows you who's got the better negotiators.
Like Hollywood, the top tier of the gaming industry has - when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake - become rather naturally tremendously conservative. Look at the "AAA titles" out there - Cod 13, GTA 5, Madden 25....it's much like Hollywood in that they rarely risk anything on new ideas, new creations, new stories...they just re-iterate, add more polys to the models, and re-arrange the deck chairs. Even outside of these mind-numbingly similar games, other fields like MMOs are similarly afflicted: since WoW's stunning success, every putative "WoW-killer" is the SAME FUCKING GAME wrapped in different art, with a few different button-pressing methods but about as different as expansions of the same game.
But hey, the swarming masses keep buying them, so I guess it's a reasonable strategy. My answer would be no, I don't want these AAA titles to even continue, but that's a laughably feeble cry in the face of - again - hundreds of millions in (nearly) risk-free revenue.
Hell, I daresay if you're male and you've been through puberty, you pretty much come to terms with all sorts of parts of your body not being under the slightest bit of control...and hell they take over OTHER parts.
I agree with latter-quoted guy: there's a HUGE business out of exploiting the (natural) fears of new parents. I have 4 kids, and our level of paranoia on the first one was crazy.
The idea that you need to drop $100 to see if there's any likelihood that your kid will eventually contract Alzheimers is ludicrous. - there's no certainty about these numbers, it's about as reliable as the weather - even if they WERE reliable, there's no firm understanding of genetic vs environmental factors - and even if there was a firm understanding, there are no developed therapies/routines that are known to have ANY impact on long term development of the condition.
This is just marketing FUD to paranoid parents. BELIEVE ME, you're going to have about a million other far more immediate concerns getting your kids to the point where they move out on their own, and thereafter.
Personally, I'd be flipping delighted if someone could guarantee to me that my kids will live long enough for Alzheimers to be of the faintest relevance. Seriously.
Not at all. I'm saying that a capitalistic system is the best PRIMARY driver of healthcare delivery; I'm not saying that an atomized every-man-for-himself raw free market is consequently the best.
Voluntary associations of people into collectives (ie insurance pools) is a great example of smart group behavior in a free market.
It's almost like you can't continue to give away something valuable for nearly nothing.
Seriously, there are 6? 7? billion people on the planet. Not every one of them can have a heart transplant if they need one.
Limited things get rationed. It's been proven time and again that allowing people to ration things electively simply means the people who get to decide, get the things. What our world has largely decided is that money will be the determining factor. It's sad, as much of what a person earns is due to luck and circumstances beyond their control. Should a baseball player earn 100x what a teacher does simply because he was gifted with some abilities by freak chance of biology? Nevertheless, it's the fairest system we've got.
Only on slashdot or democraticunderground would this be rated "insightful".
Perhaps when we're rounding up GOP congressmen, we could ALSO arrest Democrats who refused to consider any one of the multitude of the spending bills that passed the house that WOULD have allowed the economy to run, all to protect their precious Obamacare?
Or how about a president who repeatedly promised to veto any bill that includes the Vitter amendment...the one that requires the President and Congress also to be on Obamacare?
Since batteries are electricity driven by chemical reactions, I've always wondered about the impact of cold-weather climates on electric cars - both in the short term immediate-power context, and in the longer-term cycle life of the system. I suspect that the reports of range, power output, etc are all based on relatively favorable situations.
Living in northern MN, there are several weeks if not months per year that I walk out and start my vehicle (parked outdoors) and every piece of it has to be -20C, -35C or colder. I have to imagine that body panel-batteries would be even more vulnerable to exterior temps? (Plus, frankly, there's something cheery about being warmed by the residual heat of a constant chain of explosions when it's pitch dark and -40C. How fast does an all-electric car warm up, and how much does this warmth "cost" in terms of range, etc - for a gas/diesel, it's a freebie.)
Re:Popularity of space stuff based on replies
on
Saturn In All Its Glory
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
^beat me to it.
I was simply going to post: Climate change: 8957 posts. Android app about sex: 3692 posts Republicans are poopy heads: 1244 posts Post about an absolutely stunning image from a brilliantly-designed massive probe doing amazing work in the depths of space at LEAST a light-hour away from our planet: 34 posts.
Slashdot Mirror
To your point, that's exactly what is being implied.
Apollo: the brainchild of a 'visionary' president, where everyone was just motivated and 'did it'.
Obamacare: what should have been "the brainchild of a 'visionary' president" but has been dragged into the mud by the obstreperous Republicans who can't seem to understand that they're supposed to do what they're told.
They're the majority of the House, and the opposition party. It would be a broken government if their actions didn't have an impact, wouldn't it?
But it's charmingly convenient that seemingly everything this administration fucks up is Republicans' fault, isn't it? Sounds like having a conversation with my wife, in a way.
The first model with a laser so-equipped really needs to be called the "Shark".
What I've never really seen discussed is that our methods of detection all rely on what are really rather astonishingly precise circumstances - ie that we as observers are exactly in the ecliptic of the target system.
This system was discovered by transit-dimming, others by spectral variability implying 'wobbling' of the stellar primary. Certainly the former doesn't work if the planet doesn't actually transit the target solar disk, and I don't believe the other works for even small angle-off observers either.
So what are the odds?
Even granting that we're all relatively within a galactic ecliptic, and that this presumably is at least a small factor in the bearing of all our ecliptics, that's a very long way from saying we're all sitting happily in some stellar flatland. Even our own very flat system, an outsider as close as the oort cloud would have to be *astonishingly* lucky to be in a spot where - essentially - more than one planet would eclipse the sun regularly from his/her/its viewing point. And we're doing it at distances hundreds of thousands of times further.
Given that we've already identified thousands of planets with our relatively crude methods, I can't imagine that theoretically we could expect better than a one in a thousand chance that a given target system would be 'arranged' to be something we could detect in the first place, regardless of how well-populated it is with stars?
The fact is that with the planned disaster that's Obamacare, everything is going to go south badly enough that eventually we'll be forced to scrap it and go along with a single payer system.
Game, set, match: democrats.
The theory seems tautologous?
If she's arguing that of early mammals, for the non-burrowing ones snakes were the worst predator - we aren't their only descenants.
By that logic, then ALL descendants of non-burrowing mammals should have binocular vision and forward-facing eyes which is patently not true.
If she's saying that PRIMATES specifically developed forward-facing eyes to deal with snakes, that seems less supportable when forward-facing vision is more generally found across nature in predators of all sorts. That seems a less contrived explanation.
I don't doubt we have particularly good pattern-recognition circuits for snakes; they are a nasty predator for arboreal creatures. But to suggest they're the cause is nonsense.
Aha I get it - it's Republican's fault.
Check.
....and assuming the point is not to punish them with the sort of pain and fear that they inflicted on their victims, why don't we just use that cow-killing boltgun thingy?
I mean, if we seriously believe that's "humane" why not?
I suspect that the difference here isn't just something trivial, but in fact something deeper and more hard-wired.
The fact is that we learn far, far more in a basic survival sense from losing than winning. We learn more about what's dangerous, what to avoid, and what can hurt us from negative experiences than from positive....ergo, what are the experiences that need to go into deep-storage? Negative ones.
We're programmed to remember bad stuff.
To wit: strikes require firm, centralized control to take effect, because there are almost always defectors, people at the desperate end of the bell curve who will defect for personal gain.
Then again, the logic of a strike is such that either:
a) it's broadly sustainable, even with a few defections, because the working conditions/pay are bad enough that improvement is generally recognized to be needed, or
b) it's only sustainable with strongarm central enforcement, in which case a strike is more a matter of economic coercion than justice for the workers.
Right now cyclists seem to believe that they get the best of all worlds:
- they are 'entitled' to be treated as a car, when in a lane of traffic
- they get lanes dedicated to them that DO NOT meld with other traffic
- they cheerfully blow lights, stop signs, and don't stop for peds "because it's so much harder to stop/start a bike"
- when the road traffic is inconvenient, they ride on the sidewalk or in ped x-ings
- no license/permit required
- any accident, they're portrayed as the victim
and purely opinion:
- a gross level of condescension, smugness, and douche-ness because they're "saving the planet" while the rest of us poor Cro-Magnons are still burning dinosaur corpses to get to work.
Ironically, I consider myself a cyclist. I ride a recumbent 10-30+ miles most weekends in the summer. Nevertheless, when I see how inconsiderate and overall selfish most bicyclists are on the roads/paths I use, I frankly hate most of them too. I'm a long-wheelbase rider so I stay out of urban areas as much as I can; I can't imagine how dangerous it must be intrinsically on a bike in the inner city, much less with the aggressive biking that I see regularly while I'm driving.
3d TV's failure was most certainly not a 'lack of content' and if it's perceived that way by the media mavens, then the same mistakes will be repeated.
3d failed because:
- technologically not-ready-for-prime-time; wearing uncomfortable specs etc wasn't popular in theaters the FIRST go around with 3d.
- people recognized it for what it was: a money-grab by hardware producers trying to re-milk the public that had already been forced to go out and buy all-new digital tvs.
Clearly, B is STILL true if you don't control email servers at both ends, self evidently.
Are you the President of Mexico?
Or they're performing the BASIC function of an elint organization, that is, gathering any and all intelligence on other states that they can or possible threats to the US.
You *do* know that the US has military plans for fighting any country in the world, including our friends, right?
This is for-keeps geopolitics. This is not playground tiddlywinks.
...one might point out that this bears a striking resemblance to some primitive religions that assert that their gods exist "outside of time". I mean, for something as fundamental and invisible as the linearity of cause/effect to be questioned by primitive peoples so far as to postulate beings outside of it is rather...sophisticated?
...that the NSA managed to intercept more calls of French citizens.... ...than the French government.
...I've always considered that:
a) anything I post on the web is essentially permanent.
b) emails are *basically* like writing a message on a postcard; 'private' ostensibly, but really readable by anyone that wants to.
Clearly, nobody explained "B" to the Mexican president.
I think people tend to forget that the heart of compromise is to find something that BOTH sides benefit from in a transaction. It's not just the 800lb gorilla compelling someone.
The schools/government want to promote computer education.
Yes, the industry wants some nebulous increase in worker-drones some vague time in the future, but are being asked to invest resources from some very short-term balance sheets so yeah, I can see them wanting a tit-for-tat benefit in legislation today.*
*and if the government is stupid enough to agree to a deal in which they don't get much, and the industry gets more, it just shows you who's got the better negotiators.
...they're just "more".
Like Hollywood, the top tier of the gaming industry has - when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake - become rather naturally tremendously conservative. Look at the "AAA titles" out there - Cod 13, GTA 5, Madden 25....it's much like Hollywood in that they rarely risk anything on new ideas, new creations, new stories...they just re-iterate, add more polys to the models, and re-arrange the deck chairs. Even outside of these mind-numbingly similar games, other fields like MMOs are similarly afflicted: since WoW's stunning success, every putative "WoW-killer" is the SAME FUCKING GAME wrapped in different art, with a few different button-pressing methods but about as different as expansions of the same game.
But hey, the swarming masses keep buying them, so I guess it's a reasonable strategy. My answer would be no, I don't want these AAA titles to even continue, but that's a laughably feeble cry in the face of - again - hundreds of millions in (nearly) risk-free revenue.
Of course, you don't have control over your heart ANYWAY (which, Darwin decided long ago, is probably the best way).
Seriously, I can raise your pulse rate and blood pressure or heart rate remotely:
(for those attracted to boobs!): http://acidcow.com/pics/20131017/gifs_01.gif (pg-13) or http://www.everyjoe.com/wp-content/gallery/bouncing-breasts/bouncing-boobs-gif-17.gif (pg-13 since acidcow is down? but really, the first one is better)
(for those attracted to !boobs): http://25.media.tumblr.com/46b3d32d263012017bfc5c0ba3855997/tumblr_msk9sei9vj1rgbkzjo1_500.gif (g-rated)
See how easy that was?
Hell, I daresay if you're male and you've been through puberty, you pretty much come to terms with all sorts of parts of your body not being under the slightest bit of control...and hell they take over OTHER parts.
I agree with latter-quoted guy: there's a HUGE business out of exploiting the (natural) fears of new parents. I have 4 kids, and our level of paranoia on the first one was crazy.
The idea that you need to drop $100 to see if there's any likelihood that your kid will eventually contract Alzheimers is ludicrous.
- there's no certainty about these numbers, it's about as reliable as the weather
- even if they WERE reliable, there's no firm understanding of genetic vs environmental factors
- and even if there was a firm understanding, there are no developed therapies/routines that are known to have ANY impact on long term development of the condition.
This is just marketing FUD to paranoid parents. BELIEVE ME, you're going to have about a million other far more immediate concerns getting your kids to the point where they move out on their own, and thereafter.
Personally, I'd be flipping delighted if someone could guarantee to me that my kids will live long enough for Alzheimers to be of the faintest relevance. Seriously.
Not at all. I'm saying that a capitalistic system is the best PRIMARY driver of healthcare delivery; I'm not saying that an atomized every-man-for-himself raw free market is consequently the best.
Voluntary associations of people into collectives (ie insurance pools) is a great example of smart group behavior in a free market.
It's almost like you can't continue to give away something valuable for nearly nothing.
Seriously, there are 6? 7? billion people on the planet.
Not every one of them can have a heart transplant if they need one.
Limited things get rationed.
It's been proven time and again that allowing people to ration things electively simply means the people who get to decide, get the things.
What our world has largely decided is that money will be the determining factor. It's sad, as much of what a person earns is due to luck and circumstances beyond their control. Should a baseball player earn 100x what a teacher does simply because he was gifted with some abilities by freak chance of biology?
Nevertheless, it's the fairest system we've got.
Only on slashdot or democraticunderground would this be rated "insightful".
Perhaps when we're rounding up GOP congressmen, we could ALSO arrest Democrats who refused to consider any one of the multitude of the spending bills that passed the house that WOULD have allowed the economy to run, all to protect their precious Obamacare?
Or how about a president who repeatedly promised to veto any bill that includes the Vitter amendment...the one that requires the President and Congress also to be on Obamacare?
Since batteries are electricity driven by chemical reactions, I've always wondered about the impact of cold-weather climates on electric cars - both in the short term immediate-power context, and in the longer-term cycle life of the system. I suspect that the reports of range, power output, etc are all based on relatively favorable situations.
Living in northern MN, there are several weeks if not months per year that I walk out and start my vehicle (parked outdoors) and every piece of it has to be -20C, -35C or colder. I have to imagine that body panel-batteries would be even more vulnerable to exterior temps? (Plus, frankly, there's something cheery about being warmed by the residual heat of a constant chain of explosions when it's pitch dark and -40C. How fast does an all-electric car warm up, and how much does this warmth "cost" in terms of range, etc - for a gas/diesel, it's a freebie.)
^beat me to it.
I was simply going to post:
Climate change: 8957 posts.
Android app about sex: 3692 posts
Republicans are poopy heads: 1244 posts
Post about an absolutely stunning image from a brilliantly-designed massive probe doing amazing work in the depths of space at LEAST a light-hour away from our planet: 34 posts.