The pesticides in the plants we eat now other than the GMOs have had a thousand years of human testing
Most of that 1000 years, the testing wasn't very well done. People may have gotten cancer from certain plants without realizing that a certain plant was to blame. Our modern analysis methods can do more in a few years that in the 1000 years before that.
The climate was ideal for growing almonds for a long time. Ripping the trees out at the first big drought could be a mistake. If the drought finally breaks the next year, your trees will be gone, and it will take 5 years before new trees are producing a good amount of fruit.
Just because the average man and average woman have differences doesn't mean certain men and certain women don't have the exact same motivations, interests, etc. It is not optimal to treat all women the same just because on average they are different than men
No, I think we should let each person be free to pursue whatever education and career they like, and remove as many barriers as possible. But if that leads to women being over-represented in nursing, and men in garbage collection, and both groups are happy with what they're doing, then we don't have a problem that needs fixing.
Do you happen to know what type of radioactive material is in those barrels?
According to the article, it's a variety of materials, and they name Pu-239 as one of the more dangerous ones, because of its 24000 year half life.
Generally, products with short half lives are not a big risk because they'll be gone quickly, before the contamination reaches us. Products with extremely long half-lives are also not a big risk because they don't emit much radiation. Pu-239 has an intermediate half life, which makes it radiate fairly high levels, for quite a bit of time. However, Pu-239 is an alpha emitter, and alpha radiation doesn't penetrate very far, especially not in the water. The only way that Pu-239 poses a risk is by ingestion, and really only if the amount is high enough. Since the crap is heavy, and covered by 2600 feet of water, I don't think there's a risk of it washing ashore in grains big enough to pose a danger.
Funny how you went from "not all" to "likely to be less than 50% genetic" to "slightly genetic differences".
Of course there are also sociological factors, but these are a reaction to genetic differences. It makes sense to reinforce the natural differences for optimal performance as a group.
It seems awfully counterproductive to dig two holes, and take carbon (coal) out of one hole and put other carbon (wood) in the other one. Instead, you could just burn the wood, and dig up a little less coal.
I wasn't expecting anything up to this point, but both the article and summary do a good job of raising the expectations, by using terms as "game changing breakthrough". It may be a breakthrough, but it's not changing any games just yet.
So to become a chess grandmaster you need to spend vast amounts of time around other chess players, who are mostly male, learning and improving.
You need two things: a talent for chess, plus a endless motivation to spend all your time pursuing a boring and useless skill, for the sole purpose of showing that you're the best.
A special school won't help, because they'll still be discouraged from going to this school in the first place. It only makes the problem worse, because the school doesn't teach anything else.
Wow so your son wants to go to an all girls school? So he's gay or something?
A boy in my daughter's elementary class wanted to go to a ballet school, even though it was dominated by girls. I don't think he's gay. But I admire your open and welcoming attitude to kids with a different orientation.
With this approach, the Berkeley team achieved a solar energy conversion efficiency of up to 0.38-percent for about 200 hours under simulated sunlight, which is about the same as that of a leaf.
That's lousy. It may be a breakthrough for this particular field, but compared to regular PV panels, it sucks. It would be much smarter to keep the carbon in the ground, and set up more photovoltaics instead.
I know there's a difference in men and women, and that this difference is genetic. This means that men and women have different interests, different ways of solving problems, different ways to communicate with others.
Of course, plenty of people try to deny that, and try to fix a problem that doesn't need to be fixed.
None of that negates the fact that girls aren't as interested in these subjects in the first place. Obviously, the smaller group of girls that are interested end up in a boy dominated class, and later, in a men dominated workplace. Boys interested in 'girly' things, don't easily get accepted either, neither by other boys, or girls.
But if that negative behavior towards minority groups is the problem, you don't solve it by segregation. After the girls finish their happy girls-only STEM school, and the boys go their boys-only STEM school, they'll still meet each other in the work place, where you'll still have the same problems as you do now. Probably worse, because they haven't gotten any time to get used to each other, and there are no teachers around to correct their behavior.
There are no men-only chess tournaments, but some are women-only. There are also Woman Grand Master and Woman International Master titles, and there's a separate world championship for women.
are we also suggesting that they think harder now?
Not harder, but differently. And this is not "now". It's been like that forever.
Slashdot Mirror
The leak rate is tiny, right?
You would hope so, but both helium and hydrogen escape fairly rapidly through many common materials.
The reality is that Elon Musk is able to do a good job, because he can destroy two or three recovery barges in a row
The biggest reason is that he really wants to do a good job, because it's his own money and reputation.
If a contractor overruns his budget, and the result is that he gets a bigger budget, where's the motivation to do a good job ?
The pesticides in the plants we eat now other than the GMOs have had a thousand years of human testing
Most of that 1000 years, the testing wasn't very well done. People may have gotten cancer from certain plants without realizing that a certain plant was to blame. Our modern analysis methods can do more in a few years that in the 1000 years before that.
The climate was ideal for growing almonds for a long time. Ripping the trees out at the first big drought could be a mistake. If the drought finally breaks the next year, your trees will be gone, and it will take 5 years before new trees are producing a good amount of fruit.
Pipelines are horrendously inefficient for transfer of fluids except when the alternative is manual batch shipping.
Or when the pipes run down...
They don't have Steve Jobs any more. He would have kicked and screamed that the product wasn't good enough.
Just because the average man and average woman have differences doesn't mean certain men and certain women don't have the exact same motivations, interests, etc. It is not optimal to treat all women the same just because on average they are different than men
No, I think we should let each person be free to pursue whatever education and career they like, and remove as many barriers as possible. But if that leads to women being over-represented in nursing, and men in garbage collection, and both groups are happy with what they're doing, then we don't have a problem that needs fixing.
This isn't discrimination at all, it's providing facilities for each gender that are suited to them.
That would be the case if they also build a STEM school for boys right next to the one for girls.
Do you happen to know what type of radioactive material is in those barrels?
According to the article, it's a variety of materials, and they name Pu-239 as one of the more dangerous ones, because of its 24000 year half life.
Generally, products with short half lives are not a big risk because they'll be gone quickly, before the contamination reaches us. Products with extremely long half-lives are also not a big risk because they don't emit much radiation. Pu-239 has an intermediate half life, which makes it radiate fairly high levels, for quite a bit of time. However, Pu-239 is an alpha emitter, and alpha radiation doesn't penetrate very far, especially not in the water. The only way that Pu-239 poses a risk is by ingestion, and really only if the amount is high enough. Since the crap is heavy, and covered by 2600 feet of water, I don't think there's a risk of it washing ashore in grains big enough to pose a danger.
Funny how you went from "not all" to "likely to be less than 50% genetic" to "slightly genetic differences".
Of course there are also sociological factors, but these are a reaction to genetic differences. It makes sense to reinforce the natural differences for optimal performance as a group.
Is there a good reason to think that it will pose a risk to future generations ?
We don't have a hole, and we don't have much excess wood. The holes we get from mining coal are typically filled with the overburden.
It seems awfully counterproductive to dig two holes, and take carbon (coal) out of one hole and put other carbon (wood) in the other one. Instead, you could just burn the wood, and dig up a little less coal.
Wow! With your half-thought-out idea you have overturned their entire field of research!
What idea ? It was just a question.
I wasn't expecting anything up to this point, but both the article and summary do a good job of raising the expectations, by using terms as "game changing breakthrough". It may be a breakthrough, but it's not changing any games just yet.
So to become a chess grandmaster you need to spend vast amounts of time around other chess players, who are mostly male, learning and improving.
You need two things: a talent for chess, plus a endless motivation to spend all your time pursuing a boring and useless skill, for the sole purpose of showing that you're the best.
A special school won't help, because they'll still be discouraged from going to this school in the first place. It only makes the problem worse, because the school doesn't teach anything else.
Wow so your son wants to go to an all girls school? So he's gay or something?
A boy in my daughter's elementary class wanted to go to a ballet school, even though it was dominated by girls. I don't think he's gay. But I admire your open and welcoming attitude to kids with a different orientation.
With this approach, the Berkeley team achieved a solar energy conversion efficiency of up to 0.38-percent for about 200 hours under simulated sunlight, which is about the same as that of a leaf.
That's lousy. It may be a breakthrough for this particular field, but compared to regular PV panels, it sucks. It would be much smarter to keep the carbon in the ground, and set up more photovoltaics instead.
yet no one ever correlates the increase to deforestation of rain forests.
They do. Deforestation is a well known part of the CO2 problem. But fossil fuels are a bigger part.
I know there's a difference in men and women, and that this difference is genetic. This means that men and women have different interests, different ways of solving problems, different ways to communicate with others.
Of course, plenty of people try to deny that, and try to fix a problem that doesn't need to be fixed.
None of that negates the fact that girls aren't as interested in these subjects in the first place. Obviously, the smaller group of girls that are interested end up in a boy dominated class, and later, in a men dominated workplace. Boys interested in 'girly' things, don't easily get accepted either, neither by other boys, or girls.
But if that negative behavior towards minority groups is the problem, you don't solve it by segregation. After the girls finish their happy girls-only STEM school, and the boys go their boys-only STEM school, they'll still meet each other in the work place, where you'll still have the same problems as you do now. Probably worse, because they haven't gotten any time to get used to each other, and there are no teachers around to correct their behavior.
It is harming them if they are put off a career in a STEM field by some easily-corrected nonsense.
What nonsense ? And if it's easily corrected, then why isn't that done ?
Like saying "lets separate men and women's chess"
There are no men-only chess tournaments, but some are women-only. There are also Woman Grand Master and Woman International Master titles, and there's a separate world championship for women.
are we also suggesting that they think harder now?
Not harder, but differently. And this is not "now". It's been like that forever.
They are building a school for boys that address their weak areas too
I think it would be smarter to focus on the strong areas. It's better to excel in one job, than to be average in everything.