Yes, I'm replying to myself. That's because I'm not responding to anybody individually.
It seems, when I say "poison us" everybody immediately assumes I'm talking about near-rattlesnakes using a biologically crafted poison and delivery method to kill us. Or even near-bacteria that decide to live in our gut, killing us shortly. Nope.
What I mean is near-cow's that have meat we can't eat, or at best is pointless to do so. Near-grass that exude a covering that causes us to itch violently - and "only" give 50% of us allergic reactions bad enough to kill, but is quite tastey to the near-butterfly's who pollinate, and those near-butterfly's who think our sweat is the same thing and drop by to and wipe off some of that near-grass exudation.
A world, even one we can breath in unassisted, where we didn't co-evolve is like a world where everybody dies at the slightest hint of a peanut, and peanuts everywhere.
Most biological poisons are highly evolved and specialized. It's unlikely that any alien species would have developed poisons that target humans.
Poisons don't "target". A poison is just a compound. The liklihood of a biosphere not of Earth poisoning Earth life is extremely high. Even if that biosphere is oxygen and water based. This "alien species" that's walking around with the poison might call it "spit" or "blood" or "that crap in my eye in the morning", but its probably gonna kill us all the same.
Except no-one in their right mind would accept that. The cost of an interstellar colonisation flight would be small compared to the value of another solar system, and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species.
The economic return of interstellar colonization is zero.
The only return is darwinistic. Not all our eggs in one biological basket, and all that. However, unless we're damn sure the target system has an earth-like breathable, survivable biosphere, then we may as well stick to this system. We're not exploiting most of it at all. We -might- find an oxygen atmosphere, heated water laden, near-1g planet "nearby" (100 ly) but it's unlikely. What's nearly impossible is finding one with a biosphere that we can survive in without basically obliterating it and dropping down earth biologicals. Most things on such a planet would poison us.
Unless such a magical planet is found, exploring outside our system before serious colonization (which -could- be economically valuable) of Mars, gas giant moons, etc is a waste. On all levels.
If such a planet was found, I'd consider it proof of god.
she describes the Sonny Bono act as "the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system".
Seriously? Is this just reflexive Berkeley anti-americanism or some specific anti-americanism of her own part?
The Sonny Bono act was to bring the US into agreement with -already-existing- EU law, and is based entirely upon the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works which the "international copyright system" is based upon.
I expect more from somebody as educated as Le Guin is. Kneejerk reactionaries should be left to MSNBC and CNN.
Google operates for a profit. Your local library does not.
Probably not, but there's no reason they can't. Blockbuster operates for a profit after all. Libraries, be they book or video, work because of the inherent physicality of the work. I own 5 copies of a book, I can rent out 5 copies. Even if I charge, there's nothing an author can say about that.
It's the "e"-book that's throwing a kink in things, not either the library aspect or the profitability of it. If Google purchases e-book licenses, I fail to see why existing rules cannot apply. If an author doesn't make e-book licenses available, I'm in favor of declaring the work abandoned in the face of expanding technologies and preemptively void copyrights. Owned by Disney, Le Guin, or Susie the cook from down the street.
Corporations do not have the constitutional rights of citizens.
Nor do corporations act. People act. Those people have constitutional rights of citizens. Including the use of resources they control for political speech.
Europe suffers from dual problems. Many states, such as the UK, do not have guaranteed rights. They just assume the people in power will always protect what people (currently) perceive as rights.
Secondly, and specifically, freedom of speech doesn't exist. Try telling people, in Europe, how bad being gay is. For example. If you're not able to say things that others don't want to hear, you don't have free speech.
No, the cost of living in society is not being able to take what you want. You want that healthcare? Pay for it. No threatening somebody with violence if you don't get it.
Having the State do the threatening for you doesn't make it moral.
Consumer #2 paying less is not the reason Consumer #1 pays more. They're still making a profit on #2. However, they're -not- making a profit on Consumer #3, because he's not paying anything. They have to recover those costs.
Meaning poor people dying on the streets in front of hospitals, denied treatment.
If this bothers you, then start up a charity. Or donate to one of the many existing ones. Do not force others to donate, either through taxation or forced action toward these peoples benefits. Both are akin to slavery.
The influence of insurance companies is a big reason why costs for the uninsured are so high
False, although you did list why it is so high. Give providers the ability to choose their customers - like every other marketplace - and you won't need to pay for somebody else to receive medical produt.
The biggest difference between Federal and State is that you can move to another state.
You really can't move to another country which 1) has easy entry for foreigners, equivalent to the complete lack of barrier for a US citizen to move to another state, 2) A level of freedom -guaranteed- in a restricted level of power of the gov't, such as freedom of speech (Which most of Europe does not have).
It's all perfectly well if California wants to tax people who make more than 10k at 90%. A free marketplace of ideas can embrace such an experiment - until it fails miserably. Just so long as the people afflicted should be allowed to escape. However, such a marketplace would require things that are not currently possible. Like a hands off, absolutely no bailout, approach from the Federal gov't.
"Despite having had some time to get their act together,
The oddest thing I find is the assumption that the Democrats are not beholden to corporate interest groups. When in fact, they are even moreso than Republicans.
Now, it's only fair that the tax burden be fair. Otherwise, it wouldn't be justifiable for one person to experience all the pain while others didn't have to do anything. Spreading the tax burden approximately equally is important for giving a system legitimacy, and we'd be right to oppose a system that didn't.
Epic leap, and thus epic fail.
You jump from "it's only fair to be fair" to "fair means equal pain". When in reality you mean, "fair means, I take more from thee than from he."
I say, fair means taking exactly the same from each person and only by doing so does the system have legitimacy.
Now, you may have all sorts of legitimate reasons that the gov't uses its monopoly on initiation of force to forcibly take money from its citizenry in an unfair manner. Just don't try to hand wave and call it fair. Or legitimate.
I approve of your choice to sell Apple, Google, Yahoo and other stocks that operate profitably. Your, and others of similar stances, choice to sell depresses the market price of the stock allowing people like me to buy it undervalued.
Thank you, and please keep purchasing those iPhones.
I hereby criticize you for criticizing Apple, Google, Yahoo and others for relenting to the monopoly on the initiation of force present in sovereign States such as China.
Wouldn't it be simpler not to publish deliberate and harmfull porky-pies about people?
I assume a "porky pie" is something like a "chicken pie", and I question how one publishes it. I find personally find them quite yummy, however. I've never had one made out of pork, but would be willing to try it.
Sensible libel laws are a good thing in my books.
Sure. Such things are not under discussion. UK libel laws are currently anything but sensible.
the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son
Apologies for the possible obvious question, but I Am Not A Geneticist:
This is stating, at least to me, that there is no difference (barring irrelevant for this question mutations) between the Y chromosomes of two full sibling brothers.
If this is so, how can paternity tests determine between brothers, or can they? Or even between one man and his own father.
And if it is true, then genetically its actually irrelevant. The only distinction coming from social issues (and boy howdy, there's going to be some if it's an actual question)
Not surprising at all - no one has ever died of an overdose of LSD.
False. It requires access to concentrated doses, roughly 15k mcg, but to claim "no one" is simple ignorance.
Plus add in all the people who die due to modified behavior. LSD doesn't lead to suicide (i.e., the desire for death) under its effects, but it alters perceptions so much that dangerous actions occur with actual frequency.
The problem with the "RPR" would not be the acceleration but rather, the "sudden stop at the end". Making it rugged enough to be useful after that stop would likely make it more then 10lbs, meaning that more -other- equipment has to be left behind if the robot is taken.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm replying to myself. That's because I'm not responding to anybody individually.
It seems, when I say "poison us" everybody immediately assumes I'm talking about near-rattlesnakes using a biologically crafted poison and delivery method to kill us. Or even near-bacteria that decide to live in our gut, killing us shortly. Nope.
What I mean is near-cow's that have meat we can't eat, or at best is pointless to do so. Near-grass that exude a covering that causes us to itch violently - and "only" give 50% of us allergic reactions bad enough to kill, but is quite tastey to the near-butterfly's who pollinate, and those near-butterfly's who think our sweat is the same thing and drop by to and wipe off some of that near-grass exudation.
A world, even one we can breath in unassisted, where we didn't co-evolve is like a world where everybody dies at the slightest hint of a peanut, and peanuts everywhere.
Most biological poisons are highly evolved and specialized. It's unlikely that any alien species would have developed poisons that target humans.
Poisons don't "target". A poison is just a compound. The liklihood of a biosphere not of Earth poisoning Earth life is extremely high. Even if that biosphere is oxygen and water based. This "alien species" that's walking around with the poison might call it "spit" or "blood" or "that crap in my eye in the morning", but its probably gonna kill us all the same.
Except no-one in their right mind would accept that. The cost of an interstellar colonisation flight would be small compared to the value of another solar system, and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species.
The economic return of interstellar colonization is zero.
The only return is darwinistic. Not all our eggs in one biological basket, and all that. However, unless we're damn sure the target system has an earth-like breathable, survivable biosphere, then we may as well stick to this system. We're not exploiting most of it at all. We -might- find an oxygen atmosphere, heated water laden, near-1g planet "nearby" (100 ly) but it's unlikely. What's nearly impossible is finding one with a biosphere that we can survive in without basically obliterating it and dropping down earth biologicals. Most things on such a planet would poison us.
Unless such a magical planet is found, exploring outside our system before serious colonization (which -could- be economically valuable) of Mars, gas giant moons, etc is a waste. On all levels.
If such a planet was found, I'd consider it proof of god.
she describes the Sonny Bono act as "the recent excessive extension of copyright term by the U.S.A, which has imperilled the international copyright system".
Seriously? Is this just reflexive Berkeley anti-americanism or some specific anti-americanism of her own part?
The Sonny Bono act was to bring the US into agreement with -already-existing- EU law, and is based entirely upon the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works which the "international copyright system" is based upon.
I expect more from somebody as educated as Le Guin is. Kneejerk reactionaries should be left to MSNBC and CNN.
Google operates for a profit. Your local library does not.
Probably not, but there's no reason they can't. Blockbuster operates for a profit after all. Libraries, be they book or video, work because of the inherent physicality of the work. I own 5 copies of a book, I can rent out 5 copies. Even if I charge, there's nothing an author can say about that.
It's the "e"-book that's throwing a kink in things, not either the library aspect or the profitability of it. If Google purchases e-book licenses, I fail to see why existing rules cannot apply. If an author doesn't make e-book licenses available, I'm in favor of declaring the work abandoned in the face of expanding technologies and preemptively void copyrights. Owned by Disney, Le Guin, or Susie the cook from down the street.
Yes I'm quite aware of the treaty of Lisbon. My statements stand. Rights inherent in humankind are not protected or observed by the gov'ts of the EU.
Corporations do not have the constitutional rights of citizens.
Nor do corporations act. People act. Those people have constitutional rights of citizens. Including the use of resources they control for political speech.
I reject your claim that society can enslave its citizenry.
Europe suffers from dual problems. Many states, such as the UK, do not have guaranteed rights. They just assume the people in power will always protect what people (currently) perceive as rights.
Secondly, and specifically, freedom of speech doesn't exist. Try telling people, in Europe, how bad being gay is. For example. If you're not able to say things that others don't want to hear, you don't have free speech.
The cost of living in a society is paying for it. Try not paying your rent and watch how fast you'll be kicked out. With violence if needed.
Right! Healthcare is no different. Pay for it or be denied.
No, the cost of living in society is not being able to take what you want. You want that healthcare? Pay for it. No threatening somebody with violence if you don't get it.
Having the State do the threatening for you doesn't make it moral.
Consumer #2 paying less is not the reason Consumer #1 pays more. They're still making a profit on #2. However, they're -not- making a profit on Consumer #3, because he's not paying anything. They have to recover those costs.
Meaning poor people dying on the streets in front of hospitals, denied treatment.
If this bothers you, then start up a charity. Or donate to one of the many existing ones. Do not force others to donate, either through taxation or forced action toward these peoples benefits. Both are akin to slavery.
The influence of insurance companies is a big reason why costs for the uninsured are so high
False, although you did list why it is so high. Give providers the ability to choose their customers - like every other marketplace - and you won't need to pay for somebody else to receive medical produt.
The biggest difference between Federal and State is that you can move to another state.
You really can't move to another country which 1) has easy entry for foreigners, equivalent to the complete lack of barrier for a US citizen to move to another state, 2) A level of freedom -guaranteed- in a restricted level of power of the gov't, such as freedom of speech (Which most of Europe does not have).
It's all perfectly well if California wants to tax people who make more than 10k at 90%. A free marketplace of ideas can embrace such an experiment - until it fails miserably. Just so long as the people afflicted should be allowed to escape. However, such a marketplace would require things that are not currently possible. Like a hands off, absolutely no bailout, approach from the Federal gov't.
Nobody forces you to buy their product. You're perfectly free to pay cash up front as needed for any medical procedure.
Oh but wait! The Democrats intend exactly that.
"Despite having had some time to get their act together,
The oddest thing I find is the assumption that the Democrats are not beholden to corporate interest groups. When in fact, they are even moreso than Republicans.
Now, it's only fair that the tax burden be fair. Otherwise, it wouldn't be justifiable for one person to experience all the pain while others didn't have to do anything. Spreading the tax burden approximately equally is important for giving a system legitimacy, and we'd be right to oppose a system that didn't.
Epic leap, and thus epic fail.
You jump from "it's only fair to be fair" to "fair means equal pain". When in reality you mean, "fair means, I take more from thee than from he."
I say, fair means taking exactly the same from each person and only by doing so does the system have legitimacy.
Now, you may have all sorts of legitimate reasons that the gov't uses its monopoly on initiation of force to forcibly take money from its citizenry in an unfair manner. Just don't try to hand wave and call it fair. Or legitimate.
I approve of your choice to sell Apple, Google, Yahoo and other stocks that operate profitably. Your, and others of similar stances, choice to sell depresses the market price of the stock allowing people like me to buy it undervalued.
Thank you, and please keep purchasing those iPhones.
I hereby criticize you for criticizing Apple, Google, Yahoo and others for relenting to the monopoly on the initiation of force present in sovereign States such as China.
Uhm. Too bad? Time, and technology, marches on and what you prefer really doesn't come into consideration.
Wouldn't it be simpler not to publish deliberate and harmfull porky-pies about people?
I assume a "porky pie" is something like a "chicken pie", and I question how one publishes it. I find personally find them quite yummy, however. I've never had one made out of pork, but would be willing to try it.
Sensible libel laws are a good thing in my books.
Sure. Such things are not under discussion. UK libel laws are currently anything but sensible.
the Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son
Apologies for the possible obvious question, but I Am Not A Geneticist:
This is stating, at least to me, that there is no difference (barring irrelevant for this question mutations) between the Y chromosomes of two full sibling brothers.
If this is so, how can paternity tests determine between brothers, or can they? Or even between one man and his own father.
And if it is true, then genetically its actually irrelevant. The only distinction coming from social issues (and boy howdy, there's going to be some if it's an actual question)
Find me a single documented case where a coroner has ever determined somebody died of an LSD overdose.
Yawn. You won't find "Cocaine overdose" either. You will find deaths caused by heart failure in both cases of LSD and cocaine overdose.
Not surprising at all - no one has ever died of an overdose of LSD.
False. It requires access to concentrated doses, roughly 15k mcg, but to claim "no one" is simple ignorance.
Plus add in all the people who die due to modified behavior. LSD doesn't lead to suicide (i.e., the desire for death) under its effects, but it alters perceptions so much that dangerous actions occur with actual frequency.
The problem with the "RPR" would not be the acceleration but rather, the "sudden stop at the end". Making it rugged enough to be useful after that stop would likely make it more then 10lbs, meaning that more -other- equipment has to be left behind if the robot is taken.