Okay, I can agree with that. And in fact, the US and Russia have reduced their arms over the years. But I think many people are calling for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, and that's never gonna happen, that'd be like repealing the 2nd amendment.
I don't know about that. No matter how many people there are with a button to push, no *sane* person wants to have their own country obliterated into dust and glass.
The only problem with MAD is if one of those people with a button to push is actually mad, like insane. But then again such a person is also highly unlikely to cooperate with eliminating their nukes too, so.. duck and cover.
And yet in nearly 7 decades of MAD, no one has ever done so. What's the alternative, trust that others will actually do what they say and remove all nuclear capability? Every country would see that as a golden opportunity to keep some hidden by hook, nook, or crook, so that then they're the only ones in the world with nukes.. win!
Or more likely, every country would do that, so we're right back where we're started, albeit with lower numbers of warheads.
But nobody said you were supposed to be scared. Nobody said anything about sides. This is simply factual. When the US upgrades it's military capabilities, that too makes news all over the rest of the world. Same applies to every other developed country, particularly where nukes or nuclear deployment capability is concerned.
No, that's kinda the point of evolution. The species that adapted best to it's habitat - or even was already best equipped for that niche- out-survived those that didn't. Random mutations create variety in a species, those mutations which "fit" the local environment better somehow gave that particular lineage an advantage over those lineages whose mutations (or lack thereof) didn't do them as much good there.
I hate "survival of the fittest". It's not actually all that accurate for describing evolution, and it's used to excuse being a jerk so often.
It should have been "survival of the breediest". Anyway...
Many people misconstrue what Darwin meant by "fittest"; he didn't mean the most athletic or strongest, he meant the species that best fits it's habitat, or the most adaptable.
I'm missing part of a finger, but I can manage.
I could live with a limp.
But eyesight is a pretty big gamble. Yeah its small. But still higher than lottery.
That's why I opted for orthokeratology. I put my lens for one night, once every 7-ish days, and have 30/20 vision for the first 24h and then 20/20 for the rest of the week.
I used to do this. It's surprising how many people have never heard of this. The downside is of course, discomfort. It's a tad hard to sleep with a hard lens in your eye, at least, it was for me. Also, I find contacts to be a lot of hassle; including the fact that washing my hands so much leads to cracks in my fingertips in wintertime.
Still, I think maybe more people should give it a shot. If you miss a night or two, it's no big deal, which is a nice plus. If you stop wearing them at night altogether, it takes your eyes about 2 weeks to go back to their natural state.
One common technique for people who are close to or have age-induced presbyopia is to perform the surgery on only one eye, or, depending on the prescription, to apply it in different amounts. The idea is to get one eye which is good for near vision and one that is good for far vision. Sort of the same notion as bifocals, but applied directly to the eyes. Apparently the brain adjusts quickly and effectively to this and you end up feeling as though you have good vision at all ranges as long as both eyes are open.
I'm considering doing that. I'm 45 and my eyes have just begun to change. I'm still generally myopic, but so far the change just requires me to take my glasses off when doing close work. I'm going to give it a couple more years to be sure my eyes have more or less settled, then get surgery on one or both, in whatever degrees will give me the best overall visual acuity and flexibility.
If your eyes haven't actually changed yet, then it's something of a crapshoot. The idea is to adjust your vision based on guesses as to how they're going to change. That said, my optometrist says that they can make very good guesses. The only reason he's recommended that I wait is because I'm not far from the point where guessing won't be required, based on my history of general visual stability and current rate of change.
I tried that with contacts, personally I hated it. I got headaches, and it seemed more like a lose/lose than a win/win. It varies from person to person.
If you do that with LASIK, it's permanent. I'd highly recommend getting some contacts first and trying the monovision thing on a trial basis first.
It's wise to wait on LASIK til later years if presbyopia is just around the corner; for me, it's already here and settled in. My conundrum is choosing between leaving my vision as is and needing glasses for distance, or getting the LASIK and needing reading glasses. I'm hoping that such an operation might lead to a side benefit of reduced presbyopia too, but I haven't done my research on that yet.
Honestly, I don't think I've heard but a handful of americans saying that it's fine when we do it.. Pretty much everyone is up in arms over the NSA. What I hear people say - if unapologetically- is that the NSA isn't the only one doing it. And you'll probably never hear much about what the KGB does (I know that's more an equivalent to the CIA than the NSA but I'm not sure if Russia sets up their organizations like the US does).
Still, Google may have a presence in India but it's not an Indian company, per se.
At this rate, it seems like someday in the future we may have to deal with possibility that being on the Internet is like being a celebrity: no expectation of privacy.
Yes actually, I do expect there to be some sympathy. Because everyone bitches when the NSA does it. Every other country does it's sharing of spying too, let's not be naive. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. This was clearly wrong, they targeted another country's corporation, and one that has a huge impact on the Internet, worldwide.
It's only fair that you either get to protest when every and any country pulls something like this, or not at all.
Ugh, not that thing. Close, but there are differences. I had a Leap motion, it broke after a year. But in any case, it never quite worked out that well, and suffered almost as badly from gorilla arm syndrome as a touch screen. I was disappointed with it. It's also difficult to perform small, sensitive movements with your hands in the air hovering over the sensor, despite the fact that LEAP has high definition scanning.
My first thought was this was too similar and just as futile, but on further reflection, maybe not.. if you can just rest your arm on the desktop surface like you would for using a mouse, and not have to aim your fingers anywhere specific this might be comfortable and useful enough to be the "mouse killer" HID developers have been hoping for.
I propose severe punishment for blueg3. He has to read every single comment in today's threads. That should be sufficient. Then he'll learn to properly maintain angst and cynicism with a healthy portion of peer bias.
That's an arrogant point of view. Who are you to judge who's an idiot? And MSNBC is certainly no less biased, and both CBS and NBC have been caught either lying (Dan Rather) or editing/doctoring tapes (as in the Trayvon Martin case).
All the news media are becoming cartoonish extravagances of yellow journalism, but it's trite when when someone feels they must proselytize their bias by attacking selective news sources when news sources weren't a prior part of the conversation; besides, it's just a leftish mantra to be parrotted, no actual thought required. Fox News is not as bad as the strawman lefties make it out to be, but because it gives "those other guys" a strong voice, and it's popular in the face of it's competition, it must be attacked at all costs and at every available opportunity. It just smacks of desperation.
People have been saying that SS is going to be gone before they retire for years, and the danger is real; under Bush, no one challenged that claim, but now suddenly it's just derp?
Being proven wrong is a good thing in science. The more we prove wrong, the better supported our remaining hypotheses become. We need more people who come up with falsifiable theories that fit our current knowledge, so we can narrow things down further.
But yeah, the sensationalism is not doing science any favors. I cringe when I see Morgan "We only use ten percent of our brain" Freeman present Michio Kaku yet again.
Are you referring to that movie with Scarlett Johansson? Yeah, I cringed bigtime when I heard that bullshit 10% premise trotted out once again; and worse, so many kids idolize Morgan Freeman (apparent via the memes and comments on sites like memedroid), that a good number of them are likely going to believe this hook line and sinker just because he's in the movie and seems to be confused with something of an authority due to his hosting Through the Wormhole.
As another pointed out, rehabilitation is pretty much a joke, (especially for the people stupidly incarcerated for minor drug offenses, then they get exposed to far worse behaviors); which just leaves punishment. And increasingly it seems, activist hippies on the far left don't seem to see much difference between justice/punishment and revenge, (typically in capital punishment cases), so this might be a future option.
What I mean by that remark: take the death penalty for example; if we execute a murderer, the counterargument goes that it makes us somehow just as bad as the murderer (despite the fact he's not an innocent like his victims were). Yet, if we lock up someone like Ariel Castro in a high security prison, (the guy who imprisoned several teenager girls in his basement and regularly raped them), you don't hear the same argument, though it's essentially the same logic, a case of doing to the perpetrator what he did to his victims, only the rape would come (ostensibly) from other inmates.
This may be a good compromise.
You're thinking in terms of terrestrial temperatures. As gravity and friction do their thing as the elements clump together, the temperature rises -pardon the pun- astronomically.
I have to agree. This makes slashdot sound like a bunch of One Direction groupies. Woz is a good dude and all, but seriously, no need to gush like a teenage girl.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I can agree with that. And in fact, the US and Russia have reduced their arms over the years. But I think many people are calling for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, and that's never gonna happen, that'd be like repealing the 2nd amendment.
I don't know about that. No matter how many people there are with a button to push, no *sane* person wants to have their own country obliterated into dust and glass.
The only problem with MAD is if one of those people with a button to push is actually mad, like insane. But then again such a person is also highly unlikely to cooperate with eliminating their nukes too, so.. duck and cover.
While you're more than likely right, some of the guys on here probably are from NASA themselves.
And yet in nearly 7 decades of MAD, no one has ever done so. What's the alternative, trust that others will actually do what they say and remove all nuclear capability? Every country would see that as a golden opportunity to keep some hidden by hook, nook, or crook, so that then they're the only ones in the world with nukes.. win!
Or more likely, every country would do that, so we're right back where we're started, albeit with lower numbers of warheads.
But nobody said you were supposed to be scared. Nobody said anything about sides. This is simply factual. When the US upgrades it's military capabilities, that too makes news all over the rest of the world. Same applies to every other developed country, particularly where nukes or nuclear deployment capability is concerned.
No, that's kinda the point of evolution. The species that adapted best to it's habitat - or even was already best equipped for that niche- out-survived those that didn't. Random mutations create variety in a species, those mutations which "fit" the local environment better somehow gave that particular lineage an advantage over those lineages whose mutations (or lack thereof) didn't do them as much good there.
I wonder if PETA had anything to do with this article.
I hate "survival of the fittest". It's not actually all that accurate for describing evolution, and it's used to excuse being a jerk so often.
It should have been "survival of the breediest". Anyway...
Many people misconstrue what Darwin meant by "fittest"; he didn't mean the most athletic or strongest, he meant the species that best fits it's habitat, or the most adaptable.
I'm trying to imagine a deep, chest rumbling, fear inducing, "BOKKKKK"
Nope.
Fuck off and die, troll. 7 billion people on the planet, we don't need your type. Besides, you're wrong.
I'm missing part of a finger, but I can manage. I could live with a limp. But eyesight is a pretty big gamble. Yeah its small. But still higher than lottery.
That's why I opted for orthokeratology. I put my lens for one night, once every 7-ish days, and have 30/20 vision for the first 24h and then 20/20 for the rest of the week.
I used to do this. It's surprising how many people have never heard of this. The downside is of course, discomfort. It's a tad hard to sleep with a hard lens in your eye, at least, it was for me. Also, I find contacts to be a lot of hassle; including the fact that washing my hands so much leads to cracks in my fingertips in wintertime.
Still, I think maybe more people should give it a shot. If you miss a night or two, it's no big deal, which is a nice plus. If you stop wearing them at night altogether, it takes your eyes about 2 weeks to go back to their natural state.
One common technique for people who are close to or have age-induced presbyopia is to perform the surgery on only one eye, or, depending on the prescription, to apply it in different amounts. The idea is to get one eye which is good for near vision and one that is good for far vision. Sort of the same notion as bifocals, but applied directly to the eyes. Apparently the brain adjusts quickly and effectively to this and you end up feeling as though you have good vision at all ranges as long as both eyes are open.
I'm considering doing that. I'm 45 and my eyes have just begun to change. I'm still generally myopic, but so far the change just requires me to take my glasses off when doing close work. I'm going to give it a couple more years to be sure my eyes have more or less settled, then get surgery on one or both, in whatever degrees will give me the best overall visual acuity and flexibility.
If your eyes haven't actually changed yet, then it's something of a crapshoot. The idea is to adjust your vision based on guesses as to how they're going to change. That said, my optometrist says that they can make very good guesses. The only reason he's recommended that I wait is because I'm not far from the point where guessing won't be required, based on my history of general visual stability and current rate of change.
I tried that with contacts, personally I hated it. I got headaches, and it seemed more like a lose/lose than a win/win. It varies from person to person.
If you do that with LASIK, it's permanent. I'd highly recommend getting some contacts first and trying the monovision thing on a trial basis first.
It's wise to wait on LASIK til later years if presbyopia is just around the corner; for me, it's already here and settled in. My conundrum is choosing between leaving my vision as is and needing glasses for distance, or getting the LASIK and needing reading glasses. I'm hoping that such an operation might lead to a side benefit of reduced presbyopia too, but I haven't done my research on that yet.
Honestly, I don't think I've heard but a handful of americans saying that it's fine when we do it.. Pretty much everyone is up in arms over the NSA. What I hear people say - if unapologetically- is that the NSA isn't the only one doing it. And you'll probably never hear much about what the KGB does (I know that's more an equivalent to the CIA than the NSA but I'm not sure if Russia sets up their organizations like the US does).
Still, Google may have a presence in India but it's not an Indian company, per se.
At this rate, it seems like someday in the future we may have to deal with possibility that being on the Internet is like being a celebrity: no expectation of privacy.
Yes actually, I do expect there to be some sympathy. Because everyone bitches when the NSA does it. Every other country does it's sharing of spying too, let's not be naive. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. This was clearly wrong, they targeted another country's corporation, and one that has a huge impact on the Internet, worldwide.
It's only fair that you either get to protest when every and any country pulls something like this, or not at all.
No, clearly he is superior.
Ugh, not that thing. Close, but there are differences. I had a Leap motion, it broke after a year. But in any case, it never quite worked out that well, and suffered almost as badly from gorilla arm syndrome as a touch screen. I was disappointed with it. It's also difficult to perform small, sensitive movements with your hands in the air hovering over the sensor, despite the fact that LEAP has high definition scanning.
My first thought was this was too similar and just as futile, but on further reflection, maybe not.. if you can just rest your arm on the desktop surface like you would for using a mouse, and not have to aim your fingers anywhere specific this might be comfortable and useful enough to be the "mouse killer" HID developers have been hoping for.
What could go wrong?
I propose severe punishment for blueg3. He has to read every single comment in today's threads. That should be sufficient. Then he'll learn to properly maintain angst and cynicism with a healthy portion of peer bias.
That's an arrogant point of view. Who are you to judge who's an idiot? And MSNBC is certainly no less biased, and both CBS and NBC have been caught either lying (Dan Rather) or editing/doctoring tapes (as in the Trayvon Martin case).
All the news media are becoming cartoonish extravagances of yellow journalism, but it's trite when when someone feels they must proselytize their bias by attacking selective news sources when news sources weren't a prior part of the conversation; besides, it's just a leftish mantra to be parrotted, no actual thought required. Fox News is not as bad as the strawman lefties make it out to be, but because it gives "those other guys" a strong voice, and it's popular in the face of it's competition, it must be attacked at all costs and at every available opportunity. It just smacks of desperation.
People have been saying that SS is going to be gone before they retire for years, and the danger is real; under Bush, no one challenged that claim, but now suddenly it's just derp?
How trite, another "faux news" comment
Them and a hundred other media sources.
Being proven wrong is a good thing in science. The more we prove wrong, the better supported our remaining hypotheses become. We need more people who come up with falsifiable theories that fit our current knowledge, so we can narrow things down further.
But yeah, the sensationalism is not doing science any favors. I cringe when I see Morgan "We only use ten percent of our brain" Freeman present Michio Kaku yet again.
Are you referring to that movie with Scarlett Johansson? Yeah, I cringed bigtime when I heard that bullshit 10% premise trotted out once again; and worse, so many kids idolize Morgan Freeman (apparent via the memes and comments on sites like memedroid), that a good number of them are likely going to believe this hook line and sinker just because he's in the movie and seems to be confused with something of an authority due to his hosting Through the Wormhole.
As another pointed out, rehabilitation is pretty much a joke, (especially for the people stupidly incarcerated for minor drug offenses, then they get exposed to far worse behaviors); which just leaves punishment. And increasingly it seems, activist hippies on the far left don't seem to see much difference between justice/punishment and revenge, (typically in capital punishment cases), so this might be a future option.
What I mean by that remark: take the death penalty for example; if we execute a murderer, the counterargument goes that it makes us somehow just as bad as the murderer (despite the fact he's not an innocent like his victims were). Yet, if we lock up someone like Ariel Castro in a high security prison, (the guy who imprisoned several teenager girls in his basement and regularly raped them), you don't hear the same argument, though it's essentially the same logic, a case of doing to the perpetrator what he did to his victims, only the rape would come (ostensibly) from other inmates.
This may be a good compromise.
You're thinking in terms of terrestrial temperatures. As gravity and friction do their thing as the elements clump together, the temperature rises -pardon the pun- astronomically.
I have to agree. This makes slashdot sound like a bunch of One Direction groupies. Woz is a good dude and all, but seriously, no need to gush like a teenage girl.