1. That's a target date, not a commitment. If they miss it by two years, what is your recourse?
Your are changing the argument. In the post I replied to you had said, "no promise of a delivery date". The target date seems a promise of a delivery date: "expected delivery in May 2014". And what's your recourse? You could check with indiegogo.
2. Yeah, I could, couldn't I? But I only object to the commerical crowdsourced projects. If people want to ask for contributions to crowdsource something that's for the common good, I'll consider it. If they want to crowdsource a project for their own profit, where's my cut?
Your cut is to get something you want that otherwise may never see the light of day. It carries a risk like every investment.
You saw they "e" in whiskey didn't you? That means American whiskey, which mostly needs a mixer to make it palatable. Canadian whisky is tolerable, even without mixers. Scotch and Irish whisky are too good to mix and must be drunk neat -- although with ice or even a little water is OK if you want something less strong.
There are a few distillers making single malts: Balcones in Texas, Stranahan's in Colorado, McCarthy's in Oregon, St. George in California, Leviathan, which I think is also from California, Pine Barrens from New York, Hudson from New York, Triple Smoke from Kentucky and a few more.
I've attempted to do spot measurements of the rate at which drivers use cell phones while driving. My data (which is very limited, approx 200 drivers sampled, mostly in small batches) says it's between 5% and 10% for drivers in the cities where I live during daylight hours. This ONLY counts drivers who were VISIBLY holding a cell phone up to their ear. If I could see that they were not doing that, I counted them as not using a cell phone.
In my state it's illegal to dial or text while driving, but you can legally answer the phone and talk all day if you want to.
The original study that they are trying to debunk with this new bunk used better methods: direct measure of the number of accidents and direct measurements of whether the drivers were using their cell phones when they had the accidents.
And by the way, they concluded that hands-free devices are just as dangerous as the regular cell phones.
1. That's a target date, not a commitment. If they miss it by two years, what is your recourse?
Vaporware maybe, but you could say that for nearly every crowdsourced project.
2. Yeah, I could, couldn't I? But I only object to the commerical crowdsourced projects. If people want to ask for contributions to crowdsource something that's for the common good, I'll consider it. If they want to crowdsource a project for their own profit, where's my cut?
You and me both, baby. My donations are restricted to not-for-profit organizations with a charitable mission. If you give money to a for-profit company, it should be either a PURCHASE for a product that contractually must be delivered and must meet the specifications advertised or it's an INVESTMENT for which you get a share of company profits (if any).
That has already happened. Check out the prices in the produce section and compare them to the minimum wage some time. Then for a real laugh check out the prices at your local farmers' market. Poor people can't afford fresh produce anymore.
This will divide the extremists. The anti-GM Luddites will go crazy because this is arguably the most anti-organic food on the planet. The vegetarians will celebrate because they get to eat 'meat' once more without killing animals. The vegans will note that animal byproducts are still required for this process to exist at all and still turn their noses up at it.
Will brains explode with delight with the idea that humans can have their meat without killing cows and all of their related carbon emissions? Will brains explode because the lab grown meat is so expensive that only the very rich can afford it? What will the conscious do with the idea that people get to have meat at all? Will the meat connoisseur snub this lab grown meat versus a nice hamburger from cow #156? Will the greens go nuts because a carbon based food source is being replaced with a lab equivalent that will inevitably be owned by the giant food corps?
So many heads to explode, so little popcorn.
I haven't seen any information that says there is less greenhouse gas produced making this "meat." That aside, I agree that the food fight will be amusing. Not sure I'd want a Laburger just yet.
What's wrong with the other non-Japanese astronauts being "companions" for their Japanese astronauts? Since when are machines acceptable substitutes for humans in social situations?
and WTF is wrong with people? We already have plenty of robots in space. No need for any of them to talk or be humanoid. Those things just make them direct competitors for humans WHO PRESENTLY DO EVERYTHING BETTER.
Clinical trials are required to get FDA (and other government) approvals for the use of new drugs. That's not just the last 20 years. What's changed in the last 20 years is the profile and profits of the biomedical industry.
Most heart disease is caused by eating animal products (which humans aren't supposed to eat),
Depends on who's doing the supposing. Most humans suppose they will. And most scientists (all of those who aren't working from a religious or diet industry agenda) suppose humans are adapted to do so -- in some quantity or other.
...lack of exercise, and smoking.
Does this magic pill cure all of those too?
Most people want to have their cake and eat it too.
There's no meat, tobacco or lack of exercise in cake. But you forgot to mention gluten. As many a 1% of people might have trouble with cake.
Slashdot Mirror
1. That's a target date, not a commitment. If they miss it by two years, what is your recourse?
Your are changing the argument. In the post I replied to you had said, "no promise of a delivery date". The target date seems a promise of a delivery date: "expected delivery in May 2014". And what's your recourse? You could check with indiegogo.
2. Yeah, I could, couldn't I? But I only object to the commerical crowdsourced projects. If people want to ask for contributions to crowdsource something that's for the common good, I'll consider it. If they want to crowdsource a project for their own profit, where's my cut?
Your cut is to get something you want that otherwise may never see the light of day. It carries a risk like every investment.
There's one born every minute.
You saw they "e" in whiskey didn't you? That means American whiskey, which mostly needs a mixer to make it palatable. Canadian whisky is tolerable, even without mixers. Scotch and Irish whisky are too good to mix and must be drunk neat -- although with ice or even a little water is OK if you want something less strong.
There are a few distillers making single malts: Balcones in Texas, Stranahan's in Colorado, McCarthy's in Oregon, St. George in California, Leviathan, which I think is also from California, Pine Barrens from New York, Hudson from New York, Triple Smoke from Kentucky and a few more.
I've attempted to do spot measurements of the rate at which drivers use cell phones while driving. My data (which is very limited, approx 200 drivers sampled, mostly in small batches) says it's between 5% and 10% for drivers in the cities where I live during daylight hours. This ONLY counts drivers who were VISIBLY holding a cell phone up to their ear. If I could see that they were not doing that, I counted them as not using a cell phone.
In my state it's illegal to dial or text while driving, but you can legally answer the phone and talk all day if you want to.
We've known that since 1997.
The original study that they are trying to debunk with this new bunk used better methods: direct measure of the number of accidents and direct measurements of whether the drivers were using their cell phones when they had the accidents.
And by the way, they concluded that hands-free devices are just as dangerous as the regular cell phones.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/Human%20Factors/driver-distraction/PDF/5.PDF
The date is right there on the indiegogo page.
1. That's a target date, not a commitment. If they miss it by two years, what is your recourse?
Vaporware maybe, but you could say that for nearly every crowdsourced project.
2. Yeah, I could, couldn't I? But I only object to the commerical crowdsourced projects. If people want to ask for contributions to crowdsource something that's for the common good, I'll consider it. If they want to crowdsource a project for their own profit, where's my cut?
You and me both, baby. My donations are restricted to not-for-profit organizations with a charitable mission. If you give money to a for-profit company, it should be either a PURCHASE for a product that contractually must be delivered and must meet the specifications advertised or it's an INVESTMENT for which you get a share of company profits (if any).
When will this phone be delivered? Right now, it's vaporware with no promise of a delivery date and specifications subject to change.
If they're very old, they can't afford to waste what little time they have left hacking.
Didn't work for Snowden. He had a girlfriend. But then again he didn't do any cyber attacks.
Hasn't it always been?
They don't fit the profile of cyber attackers. Too much to lose.
Yeah, I've heard lots of second and third hand accounts, but I've never heard from anyone who's actually eaten both.
And that's why they say "who knows what would have happened?" I think not.
That has already happened. Check out the prices in the produce section and compare them to the minimum wage some time. Then for a real laugh check out the prices at your local farmers' market. Poor people can't afford fresh produce anymore.
This will divide the extremists. The anti-GM Luddites will go crazy because this is arguably the most anti-organic food on the planet. The vegetarians will celebrate because they get to eat 'meat' once more without killing animals. The vegans will note that animal byproducts are still required for this process to exist at all and still turn their noses up at it.
Will brains explode with delight with the idea that humans can have their meat without killing cows and all of their related carbon emissions? Will brains explode because the lab grown meat is so expensive that only the very rich can afford it? What will the conscious do with the idea that people get to have meat at all? Will the meat connoisseur snub this lab grown meat versus a nice hamburger from cow #156? Will the greens go nuts because a carbon based food source is being replaced with a lab equivalent that will inevitably be owned by the giant food corps?
So many heads to explode, so little popcorn.
I haven't seen any information that says there is less greenhouse gas produced making this "meat." That aside, I agree that the food fight will be amusing. Not sure I'd want a Laburger just yet.
Considering what they're doing, I find the typo strangely appropriate.
It's much closer to ape. By the way, how do you know it's like pork?
I don't think so. A long distance photo is not going to give enough detail. You'll need a high resolution photo of the key.
What's wrong with the other non-Japanese astronauts being "companions" for their Japanese astronauts? Since when are machines acceptable substitutes for humans in social situations?
and WTF is wrong with people? We already have plenty of robots in space. No need for any of them to talk or be humanoid. Those things just make them direct competitors for humans WHO PRESENTLY DO EVERYTHING BETTER.
Which in most cases is 100% OK because it's completely ineffective.
I think government funded medical research is a completely viable alternative.
Clinical trials are required to get FDA (and other government) approvals for the use of new drugs. That's not just the last 20 years. What's changed in the last 20 years is the profile and profits of the biomedical industry.
Most heart disease is caused by eating animal products (which humans aren't supposed to eat),
Depends on who's doing the supposing. Most humans suppose they will. And most scientists (all of those who aren't working from a religious or diet industry agenda) suppose humans are adapted to do so -- in some quantity or other.
...lack of exercise, and smoking.
Does this magic pill cure all of those too?
Most people want to have their cake and eat it too.
There's no meat, tobacco or lack of exercise in cake. But you forgot to mention gluten. As many a 1% of people might have trouble with cake.
Most science has always been that way.