so you're saying jobs are more important than preventing everything on the planet from dying, and therefore we should do nothing? instead we should just keep the violins playing as the Spaceship Earth-tanic becomes uninhabitable then?
and thats not even touching the fundamentally faulty assumptions you make: -the regulations wont do any good (not true) -the regulations will lead to unemployment (not true) -the regulations will lead to higher costs (possibly true, but too generic a blanket statement to be taken at face value) -less progress (define progress) -for nothing (redundant with first assumption, still not true)
First off, the air force drones cost so much because they are high tech defense contracts and fully sized airplanes lacking only a cockpit and light years beyond anything in the article called a "drone". you're comparing a luxury equipped privately owned 747-800 personal jet with a 15th hand Piper Cub. They also are capable of fully autonomous flight. the article drones are just R/C planes with a gyro stabilized camera. the military drones are huge and will take out a house or two if they crash. the article drones would shatter and bounce off a house. and then theres the fact that most "drones" as people use them in the states dont flight at FAA controlled altitudes and so are never a danger to aircraft.
this is getting winded. short version: Mr AC is full of it.
Dangerous? Advertising? Profit? My view? that you dont know what youre talking about, and you most definitely DONT know the people involved, just another AC that be trolling.
Think about the planet you are on. You are on it's surface. It's effectively a 2D plane. But its really a surface enclosing a 3D space. And thus is your simplistic notion of "surface" imploded (pun).
No really, please dont breed. the stretches you're making make an olympic gymnast look stiff with age. it is most definitely NOT child abuse to interact with their children, to do things face to face, to learn how to really interact instead of send faceless anonymous dehumanizing texts to people. it is NOT crippling their education nor ability to function. if anything they will be better for it, because these devices are used as zombifying babysitters far too often by parents who dont want to do any actual parenting.
sister in laws family uses the ipads as baby sitters so the kids will shutup so they can keep watching TV or whatever. the kids dont even know what theyre doing, its just "ooo shiny *drool*". God forbid they actually interact with their kids.
youre kinda missing the point. you were still DOING things, you were engaged, not just vegetating. and that is the point: the prevalence of these things EVERYWHERE means theyre becoming more and more the mindnumbing babysitters, to a degree not even our parents imagined when they first started calling them the boobtube.
plus theres the factor of once you become THE guy to do it (low supply, high demand), your shop starts getting typewriters shipped in from beyond the local area.
Nope. Not even close. That isnt a better future, its a nightmare future.
building and recycling takes energy and time, and always requires some amount of new material. Recycling is never 100% recovery, and many things cannot be recycled at allonce created. Why spend 3x the amount of production energy (building it first time, recycling it, building it again) when you can jsut repair it, and only spend the production energy once? your concept of the future is fundamentally inefficient. there will always be a need for repair, and in fact becoming a fixit society again will be fundamental in getting a handle on everything, from the envirnment, to using resources efficiently, even to the economy.
yup. this mentality of throwing money at a problem til it goes away, while bad for society as a whole, is great if you know how to profit from it.
for ex: friend gave me his mower free bcause it was broken and he went out and bought a 56" riding mower to replace it (granted he has a bit of acrage now, so its not a total waste on his part), and didnt want to bother trying to fix it.
what was broken on the mower i got for free? recoil spring on the starter (cut off the bent/deformed end, abotu 8" worth, bent a new hook into it, reattached, pulls like a champ) dirty carberator (dunked in a bucket of carb cleaner for half an hour, cleaned off and reattached)
Now it starts like a brand new mower, like a horny teenager in a whorehouse, even with a half hearted lazy pull. So for the cost $10 of cleaner, and a couple hours repair, I got me a $350 mower.
who said he feared it? you're projecting an awful lot onto a man who built a successful career and shop around one area of technology and was happy as he was. why do you feel the need for him to use computers just for the purpose of using computers? that's hardly a rational reason to do something. if there is no need, why bother? you'll be luckily to be half so successful and happy with your life.
wow. a students science fair project is your proof?
i'll see your links, and raise you a rebuttal:
"In brief, the experiment was not properly controlled, not blinded, had publication bias, was misreported, had faulty statistical analysis, had bias in the methodology and relied on a cherry-picked hypothesis.
The WiFi and control group were not just different because of the presence of the routers. On the pictures in the report it can be seen that also the laptops in the WiFi group were placed quite near to the plates. It’s very likely that this had an effect on airflow and temperature around the plates and that could have an effect on germination, which has nothing to do with the presence of EM-fields.
A second experiment in which the laptops had been ‘pinging’ each other constantly did not show the dramatic difference in germination. Only the first experiment was used in the report"
No control. No blind. Bad statistics. The only repetition of the experiment showed a different result, but was not inlcuded in the report... Misreported, biased, and left out results. No peer review or professional verification (yet you're taking it as gospel fact ?!?!?!) Then there's the fact wifi towers are thousands of times more powerful..yet the crop fields they're placed in do just fine.
No, I'm not satisfied. Your links are worthless. And you're still proof that low user numbers are meaningless.
ya mist droplets floating around in microgravity. thats exactly what they need on a space station... no.
Look, most plants simply dont even know how to grow without gravity being present, and the simplest solution is for any actual space farm to be given spin, however slight. so then, rather than using a mister/atomizer (too much energy for droplet size) you can simply run drip lines or semi-permeable hoses through a "soil" medium, for simple and efficient watering. therefore, soil, also being needful for optimum growth for most plants, would hardly be "uneccesary" mass. PLUS soil then also allows a medium for the dispoal and composting of the biowastes on board as well....oh which also just happens to benefit the space farm module by supplying fertilizer, so they dont need to bring any of that along either. soil, or an equivlent engineered product, actually makes a lot of sense.
gardens are laid out by square footage. given that they probably dont want their plants floating in balls of soil in the middle of the room....they would be secured to the wall or floor of the module. you said yourself "tethered to the floor"... well thats exactly what happens with plants.
also, quibbling over units used for a phrase uttered to illustrrate a concept rather than an actual measurement is silly.
wrong. there are plenty of free markets. they particularly exist where innovation and competition is strong. lacking those pressures (and a couple others, like regulation) they eventually devolve. but that does not negate the existence of free markets.
there's also plenty of natural monopoly markets. to say its all one or the other is silly and ignorant.
therefore its important to note that health care (are we still on that topic?) is NOT a free market.
its about as free a market as a man putting a gun to your head saying "your money or your life" is a "free choice"... in fact that's exactly what health care is, because your options are a) pay up, or b) die. So health care is not a free market, it is inherently a coercive market. its not like you're gonna say "no thanks, thats too much, im gonna shop around before i get my life saved" *.
*although it should be noted that Americans have the highest rate of individuals NOT receiving the care they need, and its because the system has an inherent but invisible rationing system based on cost. so think on that before you say "but they ration health care".... cause we do too, you just dont see it, and even so they all have MUCH better rates of people getting the care they need, with better outcomes, for less money.
Slashdot Mirror
Usage of the word Phablet shall be grounds for immediate incineration.
You thought of that, but not of Psychohistory?
Hari Seldon would be very disappointed in /. today.
and heres where you lose the last remaining shred of credibilty you may have had, however slight.
He said the same thing everyone else has said, in simpler terms and not as nicely as the others.
You can stop posting now, your opinions, having no basis in reality or logic, are invalid and not even worth discussing.
so you're saying jobs are more important than preventing everything on the planet from dying, and therefore we should do nothing?
instead we should just keep the violins playing as the Spaceship Earth-tanic becomes uninhabitable then?
and thats not even touching the fundamentally faulty assumptions you make:
-the regulations wont do any good (not true)
-the regulations will lead to unemployment (not true)
-the regulations will lead to higher costs (possibly true, but too generic a blanket statement to be taken at face value)
-less progress (define progress)
-for nothing (redundant with first assumption, still not true)
First off, the air force drones cost so much because they are high tech defense contracts and fully sized airplanes lacking only a cockpit and light years beyond anything in the article called a "drone". you're comparing a luxury equipped privately owned 747-800 personal jet with a 15th hand Piper Cub. They also are capable of fully autonomous flight. the article drones are just R/C planes with a gyro stabilized camera. the military drones are huge and will take out a house or two if they crash. the article drones would shatter and bounce off a house. and then theres the fact that most "drones" as people use them in the states dont flight at FAA controlled altitudes and so are never a danger to aircraft.
this is getting winded. short version: Mr AC is full of it.
Dangerous?
Advertising?
Profit?
My view? that you dont know what youre talking about, and you most definitely DONT know the people involved, just another AC that be trolling.
A surface is 2 dimensional by definition.
Think about the planet you are on.
You are on it's surface. It's effectively a 2D plane.
But its really a surface enclosing a 3D space.
And thus is your simplistic notion of "surface" imploded (pun).
No really, please dont breed. the stretches you're making make an olympic gymnast look stiff with age.
it is most definitely NOT child abuse to interact with their children, to do things face to face, to learn how to really interact instead of send faceless anonymous dehumanizing texts to people. it is NOT crippling their education nor ability to function. if anything they will be better for it, because these devices are used as zombifying babysitters far too often by parents who dont want to do any actual parenting.
please dont breed.
sister in laws family uses the ipads as baby sitters so the kids will shutup so they can keep watching TV or whatever. the kids dont even know what theyre doing, its just "ooo shiny *drool*". God forbid they actually interact with their kids.
youre kinda missing the point.
you were still DOING things, you were engaged, not just vegetating.
and that is the point: the prevalence of these things EVERYWHERE means theyre becoming more and more the mindnumbing babysitters, to a degree not even our parents imagined when they first started calling them the boobtube.
"No, we really mean it this time!"
Nope. Not even close.
plus theres the factor of once you become THE guy to do it (low supply, high demand), your shop starts getting typewriters shipped in from beyond the local area.
Nope. Not even close. That isnt a better future, its a nightmare future.
building and recycling takes energy and time, and always requires some amount of new material. Recycling is never 100% recovery, and many things cannot be recycled at allonce created. Why spend 3x the amount of production energy (building it first time, recycling it, building it again) when you can jsut repair it, and only spend the production energy once? your concept of the future is fundamentally inefficient. there will always be a need for repair, and in fact becoming a fixit society again will be fundamental in getting a handle on everything, from the envirnment, to using resources efficiently, even to the economy.
also, most stuff can be repaired. just hop on a fixer forum, or even just google around.
yup. this mentality of throwing money at a problem til it goes away, while bad for society as a whole, is great if you know how to profit from it.
for ex: friend gave me his mower free bcause it was broken and he went out and bought a 56" riding mower to replace it (granted he has a bit of acrage now, so its not a total waste on his part), and didnt want to bother trying to fix it.
what was broken on the mower i got for free?
recoil spring on the starter (cut off the bent/deformed end, abotu 8" worth, bent a new hook into it, reattached, pulls like a champ)
dirty carberator (dunked in a bucket of carb cleaner for half an hour, cleaned off and reattached)
Now it starts like a brand new mower, like a horny teenager in a whorehouse, even with a half hearted lazy pull.
So for the cost $10 of cleaner, and a couple hours repair, I got me a $350 mower.
who said he feared it? you're projecting an awful lot onto a man who built a successful career and shop around one area of technology and was happy as he was.
why do you feel the need for him to use computers just for the purpose of using computers? that's hardly a rational reason to do something. if there is no need, why bother? you'll be luckily to be half so successful and happy with your life.
I thought they all peacefully coexisted and everyone ate plants, not each other?
hell, forget charging. think about what theyll do if wireless power transmission (no more batteries) becomes commonplace?
wow. a students science fair project is your proof?
i'll see your links, and raise you a rebuttal:
"In brief, the experiment was not properly controlled, not blinded, had publication bias, was misreported, had faulty statistical analysis, had bias in the methodology and relied on a cherry-picked hypothesis.
The WiFi and control group were not just different because of the presence of the routers. On the pictures in the report it can be seen that also the laptops in the WiFi group were placed quite near to the plates. It’s very likely that this had an effect on airflow and temperature around the plates and that could have an effect on germination, which has nothing to do with the presence of EM-fields.
A second experiment in which the laptops had been ‘pinging’ each other constantly did not show the dramatic difference in germination. Only the first experiment was used in the report"
No control.
No blind.
Bad statistics.
The only repetition of the experiment showed a different result, but was not inlcuded in the report...
Misreported, biased, and left out results.
No peer review or professional verification (yet you're taking it as gospel fact ?!?!?!)
Then there's the fact wifi towers are thousands of times more powerful..yet the crop fields they're placed in do just fine.
No, I'm not satisfied.
Your links are worthless.
And you're still proof that low user numbers are meaningless.
yes. just replace the workhorse program that's been plugging away for years without any problems just because its old and no longer *shiny*
ya mist droplets floating around in microgravity. thats exactly what they need on a space station ...
no.
Look, most plants simply dont even know how to grow without gravity being present, and the simplest solution is for any actual space farm to be given spin, however slight. so then, rather than using a mister/atomizer (too much energy for droplet size) you can simply run drip lines or semi-permeable hoses through a "soil" medium, for simple and efficient watering. therefore, soil, also being needful for optimum growth for most plants, would hardly be "uneccesary" mass. PLUS soil then also allows a medium for the dispoal and composting of the biowastes on board as well....oh which also just happens to benefit the space farm module by supplying fertilizer, so they dont need to bring any of that along either. soil, or an equivlent engineered product, actually makes a lot of sense.
gardens are laid out by square footage. ... well thats exactly what happens with plants.
given that they probably dont want their plants floating in balls of soil in the middle of the room....they would be secured to the wall or floor of the module.
you said yourself "tethered to the floor"
also, quibbling over units used for a phrase uttered to illustrrate a concept rather than an actual measurement is silly.
wrong. there are plenty of free markets. they particularly exist where innovation and competition is strong. lacking those pressures (and a couple others, like regulation) they eventually devolve. but that does not negate the existence of free markets.
there's also plenty of natural monopoly markets. to say its all one or the other is silly and ignorant.
therefore its important to note that health care (are we still on that topic?) is NOT a free market.
its about as free a market as a man putting a gun to your head saying "your money or your life" is a "free choice"... in fact that's exactly what health care is, because your options are a) pay up, or b) die. So health care is not a free market, it is inherently a coercive market. its not like you're gonna say "no thanks, thats too much, im gonna shop around before i get my life saved" *.
*although it should be noted that Americans have the highest rate of individuals NOT receiving the care they need, and its because the system has an inherent but invisible rationing system based on cost. so think on that before you say "but they ration health care".... cause we do too, you just dont see it, and even so they all have MUCH better rates of people getting the care they need, with better outcomes, for less money.