That's a good point. For me it took several days the first time and maybe a couple days for any significant prescription change. I'm wondering though if the new technology won't be more troublesome for a couple reasons. First, they could make larger changes than glasses typically make. Second, if you aren't wearing the new contact lenses for most of your day, since they're not for vision correction, would we have a hard time adjusting back and forth?
As mentioned at the end of the article, I wonder about the motion sickness possible with this stuff. I remember the first time I got glasses, how unbalanced I felt and unsure if I was misjudging where I was walking.
You seem much more sure than the IAEA. Are you suggesting they're incompetent or not telling us the truth? I'm not denying they're working on weapons but I haven't seen the evidence. Evidence in this case meaning conclusions by trusted experts (not unsupported claims from an AC). But again, we would probably be working on weapons if we were in their shoes.
sqrt(2)'s brought up production of nuclear weapons. You (JoshuaZ) had a good point about the NPT in response to that. AC had a good point as well that there's no evidence of weapons production, though the charge of trying to confuse the situation falls flat given what you were responding to.
If the roles were reversed, I think the U.S. would be trying to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Imagine Iran having the huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and being the only country having used them. Imagine Iran having overthrown the U.S. democratically elected government decades earlier. Imagine that over the last decade or so, they've invaded and set up new governments in Canada and Mexico. And finally, over the last few years, the drumbeats of war have been getting louder, with prominent voices calling for bombing the U.S.
Yeah, but I keep trying to debate the litigious libertarians. Most frequently, this is related to pollution and suing whoever was responsible for whatever harm it caused. But the debate always ends before the libertarian can explain how to assign blame to polluters in any but the most cut and dry cases.
But these are not cut and dry cases. The freedom of the 'do-baders' to not immunize their children puts my child at risk. I'd like my child to be free from preventable diseases.
The anti-vax movement doesn't have the obvious economic or religious angle that some other anti-science movements have.
Does that mean those other movements may not be as based in greedy self-interest as I thought, or that the harm done by pushing anti-science in those movements is spreading to other questions of science? I'm guessing the latter.
And your example fails to account for things like magnets hidden in the apple, elevation, latitude or big Monty Python feet that come down from the sky to squash it. What of it?
I don't know what SuricouRaven meant by political conservative, but there are those that just picked or were assigned a team and want their team to win at the game of politics.
I'm no expert, but I think you're using numbers for the member stations instead of NPR itself. NPR doesn't seem to get much directly from the government. It does get programming fees from the member stations, so a portion of their direct funding does end up at NPR.
My university had a radio station and there were certainly educational reasons for it. Though it wasn't buying programming from NPR, I don't see anything wrong with that. How many financial transactions must occur before that dollar is not seen as funding something?
Writing off donations is not special to NPR. I'd be glad to get rid of those tax loopholes, but that's not usually what people mean when they say funding.
Being tax exempt, again, is not special to NPR. And since they don't generally run a profit, 34% of zero would be zero anyway. Or if they do have a small profit, that seems to get invested (I see 1% of NPR's income is from investments) until it's needed, not paid out to the owners.
But getting his prison sentence commuted is pretty close. For a guy in those circles, the $250K fine is no problem. Having it on his record is a badge of honor in neo-con circles, so that's no problem either from a social or work standpoint. What other effects will the record have? The two years probation sounds annoying.
It was a funny exaggeration by Tina Fey. Nobody thought Palin said Fey's line in my circle. We're a little more plugged in politically than the general population though, so I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought Palin actually said it. Anyone that was actually misquoting her and trying to mislead people should be ashamed.
As you say, her statement is true. But I don't think it really counts as foreign policy experience either, which was the context. I'm not sure it was worthwhile for Couric to bring up that specific statement again in the next interview, but Palin sure fumbled her response. Putin rearing his head and invading Alaskan airspace? It sounded like she was having a Red Dawn fight-the-commies fantasy.
How was that trolling? I don't recall ever getting that before. I think either an I.D. proponent got a hold of moderator points or someone clicked the wrong button.
The "mess with us" comment was supposed to be funny, but based in fact. If you reject the evolutionary evidence of the fossil record, how did that evidence get there?
Anyone have a link to those kinds of scientific predictions or trend data? So far I've only heard plausible amateur hypotheses like more energy in the atmosphere means more and stronger storms.
On one hand I see that cpu6502 suspects that our current warming spike is entirely natural.
On the other hand I see that the U.S. National Academies and the science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian, the UK, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Australian Institute of Physics and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics think cpu6502 is wrong.
Note that "sin" is not a scientific concept. The religious stuff is generally on the other side.
We've figured out that our fossil fuel burning is causing an unwanted effect on our environment. We've figured out similar things before and been able to reverse some of the damage (e.g. smog, acid rain). This one's a bigger problem.
Hopefully you understand that nobody is claiming that carbon dioxide is poisonous to humans in the concentrations discussed in climate change and you were just trying to be funny. But I think it's useful to be clear about what CO2 does. It and some other gases trap heat in the atmosphere. That phenomenon was discovered in the mid 1800s. Things like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder wouldn't work without that effect.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. For me it took several days the first time and maybe a couple days for any significant prescription change. I'm wondering though if the new technology won't be more troublesome for a couple reasons. First, they could make larger changes than glasses typically make. Second, if you aren't wearing the new contact lenses for most of your day, since they're not for vision correction, would we have a hard time adjusting back and forth?
As mentioned at the end of the article, I wonder about the motion sickness possible with this stuff. I remember the first time I got glasses, how unbalanced I felt and unsure if I was misjudging where I was walking.
You seem much more sure than the IAEA. Are you suggesting they're incompetent or not telling us the truth? I'm not denying they're working on weapons but I haven't seen the evidence. Evidence in this case meaning conclusions by trusted experts (not unsupported claims from an AC). But again, we would probably be working on weapons if we were in their shoes.
sqrt(2)'s brought up production of nuclear weapons.
You (JoshuaZ) had a good point about the NPT in response to that.
AC had a good point as well that there's no evidence of weapons production, though the charge of trying to confuse the situation falls flat given what you were responding to.
If the roles were reversed, I think the U.S. would be trying to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Imagine Iran having the huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and being the only country having used them. Imagine Iran having overthrown the U.S. democratically elected government decades earlier. Imagine that over the last decade or so, they've invaded and set up new governments in Canada and Mexico. And finally, over the last few years, the drumbeats of war have been getting louder, with prominent voices calling for bombing the U.S.
The same MEK that's on the U.S. terror list, and yet openly supported by several high ranking figures in national politics.
Yeah, but I keep trying to debate the litigious libertarians. Most frequently, this is related to pollution and suing whoever was responsible for whatever harm it caused. But the debate always ends before the libertarian can explain how to assign blame to polluters in any but the most cut and dry cases.
the government/medical complex is partially responsible by requiring so many vaccinations.
So the G/MC should pick a few diseases that get to spread unchecked?
But these are not cut and dry cases. The freedom of the 'do-baders' to not immunize their children puts my child at risk. I'd like my child to be free from preventable diseases.
The anti-vax movement doesn't have the obvious economic or religious angle that some other anti-science movements have.
Does that mean those other movements may not be as based in greedy self-interest as I thought, or that the harm done by pushing anti-science in those movements is spreading to other questions of science? I'm guessing the latter.
And your example fails to account for things like magnets hidden in the apple, elevation, latitude or big Monty Python feet that come down from the sky to squash it. What of it?
I guess geology, archeology and paleontology are untestable non-sciences until we invent time machines then...
Either that or invent the shovel!
I don't know what SuricouRaven meant by political conservative, but there are those that just picked or were assigned a team and want their team to win at the game of politics.
I'm no expert, but I think you're using numbers for the member stations instead of NPR itself. NPR doesn't seem to get much directly from the government. It does get programming fees from the member stations, so a portion of their direct funding does end up at NPR.
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
My university had a radio station and there were certainly educational reasons for it. Though it wasn't buying programming from NPR, I don't see anything wrong with that. How many financial transactions must occur before that dollar is not seen as funding something?
Writing off donations is not special to NPR. I'd be glad to get rid of those tax loopholes, but that's not usually what people mean when they say funding.
Being tax exempt, again, is not special to NPR. And since they don't generally run a profit, 34% of zero would be zero anyway. Or if they do have a small profit, that seems to get invested (I see 1% of NPR's income is from investments) until it's needed, not paid out to the owners.
Glad others voted it up. Good comment.
But getting his prison sentence commuted is pretty close. For a guy in those circles, the $250K fine is no problem. Having it on his record is a badge of honor in neo-con circles, so that's no problem either from a social or work standpoint. What other effects will the record have? The two years probation sounds annoying.
It was a funny exaggeration by Tina Fey. Nobody thought Palin said Fey's line in my circle. We're a little more plugged in politically than the general population though, so I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought Palin actually said it. Anyone that was actually misquoting her and trying to mislead people should be ashamed.
As you say, her statement is true. But I don't think it really counts as foreign policy experience either, which was the context. I'm not sure it was worthwhile for Couric to bring up that specific statement again in the next interview, but Palin sure fumbled her response. Putin rearing his head and invading Alaskan airspace? It sounded like she was having a Red Dawn fight-the-commies fantasy.
You could also think either he or she was out of town and they were connecting virtually while separated physically.
How was that trolling? I don't recall ever getting that before. I think either an I.D. proponent got a hold of moderator points or someone clicked the wrong button.
The "mess with us" comment was supposed to be funny, but based in fact. If you reject the evolutionary evidence of the fossil record, how did that evidence get there?
If you want to make that case, citing Sturgeon's Law doesn't help your case, since it implies 90% of the current rules of human society are crap.
Yes, it is.
Anyone have a link to those kinds of scientific predictions or trend data? So far I've only heard plausible amateur hypotheses like more energy in the atmosphere means more and stronger storms.
Hmmmmmmmm...who to trust?
On one hand I see that cpu6502 suspects that our current warming spike is entirely natural.
On the other hand I see that the U.S. National Academies and the science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian, the UK, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Australian Institute of Physics and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics think cpu6502 is wrong.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/american-physical-society.pdf
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.pdf
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memorandas/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf
http://planet3.org/2012/03/11/a-brief-guide-to-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/
Well of course it's always that way. Nobody knowingly picks the stupid side of a debate.
In this case, we have science on one side and science deniers on the other. I'm going with the science.
Note that "sin" is not a scientific concept. The religious stuff is generally on the other side.
We've figured out that our fossil fuel burning is causing an unwanted effect on our environment. We've figured out similar things before and been able to reverse some of the damage (e.g. smog, acid rain). This one's a bigger problem.
Hopefully you understand that nobody is claiming that carbon dioxide is poisonous to humans in the concentrations discussed in climate change and you were just trying to be funny. But I think it's useful to be clear about what CO2 does. It and some other gases trap heat in the atmosphere. That phenomenon was discovered in the mid 1800s. Things like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Atmospheric Infrared Sounder wouldn't work without that effect.
A good link covering that and more: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Note that globally, 10 of the warmest years occurred in the last 12.