So in other words, you believe there are "aesthetic crimes." Well, what if we don't like your lawn? According to your logic, there is no principled reason why we can't haul you away for your poor choice of garden flowers, because, "we don't want to have to see that."
Then the obvious solution is to end taxes on all personal business matters. Unless they are working out of a store front.
People are so concerned about unemployment, low wages, etc., yet think everything has to be heavily controlled by government. Allowing more small scale business to be untaxed just means more economic activity.
The government does not always have to "do something."
It is not clear that those advances occurred because of Islam. In fact, they might have occurred in spite of Islam. Don't believe everything you hear a million times.
Tsar bomba, being a test, was mostly fusion, because they didn't put in the U238 radiation casing that would have made the yield potentially 150MT, because they didn't want the insane amounts of fallout that would have produced.
Militarily deployed H-bombs are actually fusion boosted fission weapons. They are radiological weapons. That is the very ugly fact.
To make them clean would make them less powerful, as it is so easy to get another 100% or more increase in yield by just adding a casing of dirt cheap U238, that the temptation to do this has been irresistible.
Huh? Don't you think that if the thick bureaucratic and international nature of ITER was avoided by having a single country put up $15-25billion, that a working machine could be put together in 5-7 years? Ie. there is no technical reason that ITER shouldn't have been completed years ago.
It's also feasible to do battery R&D with the budget of a typical university research lab. Not so to build a test fusion reactor of the size needed to produce high Q factors (or even small ones, for that matter).
"The power companies have said they're not interested"
Would they be interested if the government no longer provided insurance and protection from liability in the event of nuclear disasters at fission plants, combined with having to pay a meaningful tax or royalty for CO2 emission, on the order of doubling the price of burning coal?
"how much money do we have to spend to change that?"
How much would private insurance for a fission plant cost? Without knowing that, the real economics of fission power forever remains in the realm of political manipulation.
For those reasons, it wouldn't surprise me if a country like China just puts one together themselves in 5 years or so from start of project, and winds up putting out all the research results ITER was supposed to yield before it ever gets turned on.
Yes. ITER isn't even expensive, considering the potential payoff. And it is likely to actually work, unlike NIF. ITER is an engineering prototype, as the physics already predicts that it will produce meaningful energy gain. This thing could have been built a decade ago already. It's purely a political will thing. Several multiples of the amount of money needed to build ITER have simply been lost (unaccounted for) in Iraq. One can only conclude that we really don't want an alternative to our present energy sources. Just think of all the global warming researcher positions that would be lost if we mastered fusion? The USA could even build a newer reactor in 5 years or so with what, 3-4% of the military budget from a single year? Fuck us. Just fuck us!
You are moving the goal posts. We are talking about Europe!
Do you assert that nearly all of the 1-1.5 million migrants and refugees who entered Europe over the past few years from Africa and the mid-East were processed through normal border crossings, had passports and/or applied for asylum on the spot, and received visas or other official government approval before entering the EU?
It's occurred to me that there is some cognitive dissonance going on:
When articles come up about H1B visas, it seems that a majority complain that it should be limited because they believe the evil tech. and software corporations just want more H1Bs so they can fire US born workers and replace them with cheaper workers.
But when the kind of people being considered to allow into the country are Mexicans who have nothing of value in Mexico so try (and do) come into the USA illegally, or random refugees, migrants, etc. from some extremely poor and/or war-torn nation, then it is considered racist to propose any sort of restrictions on their entry.
WTF?
Let's just apply the same standards from now on to all potential immigrants: If you object to letting in an arbitrary number of H1B visa applicants, you are a racist!
The risk you are hypothesising is worrisome, and I agree that it's plausible.
We are at a point now where it's impossible (thanks to the efforts of some people) to even have realistic discussions about serious adult topics. We have been getting conditioned to accept certain assumptions that are never questioned. The result of which is that the boundaries of the debate are constrained so that no meaningful ideas ever see the light of day. Worse, people are really not very creative. 99.9% of the time, all the debate about whatever topic, is just regurgitating the same tired ideas, and the same false input data. Some assumptions and manipulations of public consciousness about the immigration issues:
1. It's "racist" to not let certain people into your country.
2. There is no need to select immigrants according to the likelihood that they will contribute to the economy.
3. Illegal aliens are "undocumented immigrants." No they are not, they are in the country illegally. Therefore they are not immigrants. They are illegal aliens!
How many of the people arguing for letting anyone into the country, and for giving undocumented/illegal aliens the same access to social services, voting privileges, etc. as citizens or permanent residents always leave their front door unlocked?
Here's what the government should do with all its domestic spying data: Find all the people who advocate letting anyone into the country and giving social benefits to illegal aliens, and fine them in geometrically increasing amounts weekly until they remove all the locks from their dwellings.
You see, the USA (or any nation) is the collective property (estate) of the people in that nation. The people are like a family. Therefore, we have a collective interest to ensure that the people who enter the country are going to preserve and/or increase the value of that estate, and not be the sort of family members that cause harm to other members of the family. This is the same thing we do when we decide who may enter and live with us in our private homes.
If we apply the same logic used about illegal aliens and refugees to the decision about whether or not to lock our doors, the conclusion is:
1. If you lock your door to keep out bad people, you are greedy and selfish for not giving other people a chance to have your stuff. So you should unlock your home.
2. If a random someone comes into your unlocked home and starts making a meal for themselves, and putting their feet up on the table while watching the (sport you don't like) game on your TV, and you call the cops to have them removed, if they happen to be brown or black then you are a racist.
There have already been extensive discussions about this, and from what I've seen starting indexing at 1 is likely to stick in Julia. Feel free to search for this matter yourself.
There is a lot more to Matlab's market than you may realize. Simulink is a big deal now. They played their cards well, and got entrenched. Something I wished Wolfram would have done better: strategize.
You are a documented traveller, so you go through normal border checkpoints.
My point is that many of the refugees are undocumented. If they simply make it onto EU soil, they will get protections and can apply for asylum. Because of very porous external borders in some EU member states, people can basically just walk in. I tried to research this further to confirm, but it's too convoluted. I'm not going to spend hours interpreting EU laws.
When you see footage of thousands of refugees, do you think they all went through a checkpoint and had their passports stamped? It is not like that.
If true, then it would be trivial for ISIS or other lunatic fringe groups to simply infiltrate the refugee flows. In fact ISIS said they would do just that. Why should we not take them at their word?
Whether or not sending terrorists in as migrants is the smartest approach, I can't say. But to say that they will be "watched, suspected, and scrutinized" is nonsense.
Don't you think there has been a trend even in 2nd wave feminism to persuade women that being a housewife was not being a team player? I think the existentialist core philosophy that started feminism was compatible with individualism, but its been downhill ever since.
If we have models that predict AGW, then why is climate engineering a bad idea compared to political means, for which there are no working predictive models at all? At least climate engineering would be science based.
The scientific method has no bias. But if you think that the human implementation of the scientific method is free from bias, then there is no helping you either. Humans don't suddenly become saints when doing science.
P.S. What I said in no way implies any particular view on AGW.
Your boss has internalized misogyny causing him to commit many unconscious grammatical microaggressions triggering traumatic stress levels in the women who read the job postings. He needs to be sent to a sensitivity training camp.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, you believe there are "aesthetic crimes." Well, what if we don't like your lawn? According to your logic, there is no principled reason why we can't haul you away for your poor choice of garden flowers, because, "we don't want to have to see that."
Then the obvious solution is to end taxes on all personal business matters. Unless they are working out of a store front.
People are so concerned about unemployment, low wages, etc., yet think everything has to be heavily controlled by government. Allowing more small scale business to be untaxed just means more economic activity.
The government does not always have to "do something."
It is not clear that those advances occurred because of Islam. In fact, they might have occurred in spite of Islam. Don't believe everything you hear a million times.
Space has H3? Where? How?
Tsar bomba, being a test, was mostly fusion, because they didn't put in the U238 radiation casing that would have made the yield potentially 150MT, because they didn't want the insane amounts of fallout that would have produced.
Militarily deployed H-bombs are actually fusion boosted fission weapons. They are radiological weapons. That is the very ugly fact.
To make them clean would make them less powerful, as it is so easy to get another 100% or more increase in yield by just adding a casing of dirt cheap U238, that the temptation to do this has been irresistible.
Huh? Don't you think that if the thick bureaucratic and international nature of ITER was avoided by having a single country put up $15-25billion, that a working machine could be put together in 5-7 years? Ie. there is no technical reason that ITER shouldn't have been completed years ago.
It's also feasible to do battery R&D with the budget of a typical university research lab. Not so to build a test fusion reactor of the size needed to produce high Q factors (or even small ones, for that matter).
"The power companies have said they're not interested"
Would they be interested if the government no longer provided insurance and protection from liability in the event of nuclear disasters at fission plants, combined with having to pay a meaningful tax or royalty for CO2 emission, on the order of doubling the price of burning coal?
"how much money do we have to spend to change that?"
How much would private insurance for a fission plant cost? Without knowing that, the real economics of fission power forever remains in the realm of political manipulation.
For those reasons, it wouldn't surprise me if a country like China just puts one together themselves in 5 years or so from start of project, and winds up putting out all the research results ITER was supposed to yield before it ever gets turned on.
Yes. ITER isn't even expensive, considering the potential payoff. And it is likely to actually work, unlike NIF. ITER is an engineering prototype, as the physics already predicts that it will produce meaningful energy gain. This thing could have been built a decade ago already. It's purely a political will thing. Several multiples of the amount of money needed to build ITER have simply been lost (unaccounted for) in Iraq. One can only conclude that we really don't want an alternative to our present energy sources. Just think of all the global warming researcher positions that would be lost if we mastered fusion? The USA could even build a newer reactor in 5 years or so with what, 3-4% of the military budget from a single year? Fuck us. Just fuck us!
You are moving the goal posts. We are talking about Europe!
Do you assert that nearly all of the 1-1.5 million migrants and refugees who entered Europe over the past few years from Africa and the mid-East were processed through normal border crossings, had passports and/or applied for asylum on the spot, and received visas or other official government approval before entering the EU?
YES or NO?
It's occurred to me that there is some cognitive dissonance going on:
When articles come up about H1B visas, it seems that a majority complain that it should be limited because they believe the evil tech. and software corporations just want more H1Bs so they can fire US born workers and replace them with cheaper workers.
But when the kind of people being considered to allow into the country are Mexicans who have nothing of value in Mexico so try (and do) come into the USA illegally, or random refugees, migrants, etc. from some extremely poor and/or war-torn nation, then it is considered racist to propose any sort of restrictions on their entry.
WTF?
Let's just apply the same standards from now on to all potential immigrants: If you object to letting in an arbitrary number of H1B visa applicants, you are a racist!
The risk you are hypothesising is worrisome, and I agree that it's plausible.
We are at a point now where it's impossible (thanks to the efforts of some people) to even have realistic discussions about serious adult topics. We have been getting conditioned to accept certain assumptions that are never questioned. The result of which is that the boundaries of the debate are constrained so that no meaningful ideas ever see the light of day. Worse, people are really not very creative. 99.9% of the time, all the debate about whatever topic, is just regurgitating the same tired ideas, and the same false input data. Some assumptions and manipulations of public consciousness about the immigration issues:
1. It's "racist" to not let certain people into your country.
2. There is no need to select immigrants according to the likelihood that they will contribute to the economy.
3. Illegal aliens are "undocumented immigrants." No they are not, they are in the country illegally. Therefore they are not immigrants. They are illegal aliens!
How many of the people arguing for letting anyone into the country, and for giving undocumented/illegal aliens the same access to social services, voting privileges, etc. as citizens or permanent residents always leave their front door unlocked?
Here's what the government should do with all its domestic spying data: Find all the people who advocate letting anyone into the country and giving social benefits to illegal aliens, and fine them in geometrically increasing amounts weekly until they remove all the locks from their dwellings.
You see, the USA (or any nation) is the collective property (estate) of the people in that nation. The people are like a family. Therefore, we have a collective interest to ensure that the people who enter the country are going to preserve and/or increase the value of that estate, and not be the sort of family members that cause harm to other members of the family. This is the same thing we do when we decide who may enter and live with us in our private homes.
If we apply the same logic used about illegal aliens and refugees to the decision about whether or not to lock our doors, the conclusion is:
1. If you lock your door to keep out bad people, you are greedy and selfish for not giving other people a chance to have your stuff. So you should unlock your home.
2. If a random someone comes into your unlocked home and starts making a meal for themselves, and putting their feet up on the table while watching the (sport you don't like) game on your TV, and you call the cops to have them removed, if they happen to be brown or black then you are a racist.
If you assume random biases. What is the basis for that?
There have already been extensive discussions about this, and from what I've seen starting indexing at 1 is likely to stick in Julia. Feel free to search for this matter yourself.
There is a lot more to Matlab's market than you may realize. Simulink is a big deal now. They played their cards well, and got entrenched. Something I wished Wolfram would have done better: strategize.
Here's one documentary that mentions that if they make it across the border, they are "in": https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When you see footage of thousands of refugees, do you think they all went through a checkpoint and had their passports stamped? It is not like that.
If true, then it would be trivial for ISIS or other lunatic fringe groups to simply infiltrate the refugee flows. In fact ISIS said they would do just that. Why should we not take them at their word?
Whether or not sending terrorists in as migrants is the smartest approach, I can't say. But to say that they will be "watched, suspected, and scrutinized" is nonsense.
http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-P...
Don't you think there has been a trend even in 2nd wave feminism to persuade women that being a housewife was not being a team player? I think the existentialist core philosophy that started feminism was compatible with individualism, but its been downhill ever since.
If we have models that predict AGW, then why is climate engineering a bad idea compared to political means, for which there are no working predictive models at all? At least climate engineering would be science based.
I found some variables on the floor. Did you loose them?
The scientific method has no bias. But if you think that the human implementation of the scientific method is free from bias, then there is no helping you either. Humans don't suddenly become saints when doing science.
P.S. What I said in no way implies any particular view on AGW.
Feminism is collectivism. It is now a far greater danger to the freedom of individual women than any of the societal ills that it claims to rectify.
That must be very frustrating. I've always argued that this social engineering will wind up making things worse.
Your boss has internalized misogyny causing him to commit many unconscious grammatical microaggressions triggering traumatic stress levels in the women who read the job postings. He needs to be sent to a sensitivity training camp.