- that's what I say. The more the merrier; when the world of patents has become large and stupid enough, it will break down because it is too unworkable, and then we can hopefully talk about a more sensible way to go about these things.
I actually don't mind paying for a good CD. But - notice the word 'good'. What is it we can buy/hear on the radio? A lot of bands that make almost the same music - it's quite simply dull. So the first thing to do is: stop mass producing things - how many boy bands, rappers, slutty middle-aged 'teenage girls' etc etc does the world need? Not that many, by the looks of things.
And instead of producing 100 million copies of a CD that is only so-so, why not sell them electronically, or have the record shop burn one when the customer want to buy it?
This would give us many advantages - not least that you would always be able to go and find that rare album only you want, which the shop never has in stock (or is out of print).
'While this may force foreign firms to lower their patent fees, some experts warn that China risks isolating itself if it creates standards that are incompatible with the rest of the world'
He, he. The truth is that they exclude the US and Europe, not that they 'isolate themselves' - don't get too big a head.
There is nothing strange about this situation. China is growing, and growing and growing - the West, and USA in particular, are in decline economically (and morally, by the looks of it); the natural consequence is that China takes the lead and we learn to follow. And I suppose it is quite natural that the former masters feel hard done by and start whining, as one can see ample evidence of in this blog; but it is still pathetic and unworthy.
'3. Show the established interests a way to make a satisfactory amount of money out of new ideas, so they'll invest in those and let the old ones wither.'
I don't think so. Big companies are less efficient at generating jobs: they are primarily geared against making money for their investors, not making jobs; thus they tend to make more efficient use of their employees, which means they employ fewer people, loosely speaking.
'But that would be giving money to corporations, which is automatically evil.'
Don't be silly. But instead of giving money to a multinational company, where it is more likely to line the pockets of the investors, give it to small innovators, who are better at creating jobs.
'... And would be healthier without the "stuff". And have a standard of living that is considerably worse than they do now'
You are contradicting yourself, I think - being healthier, isn't that what 'better standard of living' is about?
'It is likely that 80% of everyone would be perpetually unemployed'
Only if you assume that having big companies is the only way. In fact, research shows (don't remember the link) that a small company employs more people per $ than a big one, so I guess that the situation would be that there would be fewer big companies and more small ones. I mean - if a person can't find a job, wouldn't s/he be more likely to start a small business? Business does not always have to be about making billions - sometimes it is enough that you make a living.
Time? Of course we have bloody time. What you really mean 'we don't have the will'. And why not? Because it would mean having to change your habits of energy consumption. A very significant part of the produced energy and other resources is spent (wasted, if you ask me) on inessential things like entertainment, toy cars (like SUVs) and 'consumer items' we would be healthier without.
Another - possibly more important reason for the lack of will is, that the established chain of companies involved in energy production don't want to change. They haven't finished making shameless profits on fossil fuel, and having to change would cost money, plus, they would have a lot of equipment for oil- and coal production that would be of no use anymore.
We already know what to do, essentially:
1. Sustainable techniques for producing are already well known, and we would very quickly develop better methods once we relied solely one them. IOW: Just do it.
2. Cut seriously back on what we spend energy on. Does an average household really need several TVs, computers, electronic games, microwave ovens, electric can openers etc etc - or are these things just stupid luxuries? If you want to know about what is essential and what isn't, try going on a holiday with a tent (and no car!) or something. It's not a lot of hardship living without a large part of all those things.
The tent holiday example shows how little we actually need to survive - comfortably, even. So stop consuming so much unnecessary crap - the most blindingly stupid example I know of is the way our society produces 'instant rubbish': the wrappers, mostly plastic (ie. made from oil), that comes with so many things. Can you think of anything more extreme?
This is the first bit of sensible news to come out of USA for a long, long time, for several reasons:
1. 500 barrels is of course nearly nothing, but this does has the potential to become significant - see other posts.
2. The primary aim is to solve a waste problem, which this technology seems to do in a brilliant way.
3. It may also help reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. When you burn farm waste, you release CO2 into the athmosphere, true, but that's where it came from - the plants have taken CO2 out to build up carbohydrates. Contrast this with fossil fuel, where you produce CO2 that was taken out many hundred million years ago, which can only increase the levels of CO2. On top of that, when the farm waste isn't left to rot, less methane is produced, which again can make a big difference.
All in all - this seems good and sensible through and through. Which makes me fear that some narrowminded and greedy idiot with too much money and power will want to kill it off.
Yeah, keep dreaming, pal. There is no such thing as a backup and recovery plan in most places. But you are right - very few jobs require creativity or more than basic problem solution skills.
To look at this from another angle, we are all living far beyond our means. Oh yes, we can sort of keep going because we can still use our 'global credit card' - fossil fuels and other resources - but it will end, probably soon. Then there will a debt to pay.
I wonder why they bother? The way things are going weapons and wars will be irrelevant soon - after all, there has to be people in order to have war.
And even if one is to be optimistic - we are going to have more pressing problems than 'American Interests' to think about, when we run out of oil, air, water and environment in general.
I see what you mean - but what I meant was more, that people will always (nearly) see themselves as 'good'. If one asked Saddam Hussein whether he sees himself as 'good' or 'evil' what do you think he would answer?
As to whether I 'would if I could': no, I don't think so. Not because I am profoundly good, I just don't think having infinite power or whatever would be all that cool. I mean, what on Earth would I want that for? I just want to have enough of what I need, and then a little bit more.
Even if any aliens were to have a concept of good and evil there's no reason why they would see things the way we do. Just look at how it is on Earth: there are people who genuinely believe it is 'good' to do things that many now believe are profoundly evil. Take the Spanish Inquisition, for example: they really believed that it was the right thing to torture suspects - give a sinner hell here, so they don't suffer so much in the next world.
In fact, I don't think there is anybody that considers himself 'evil', no matter what.
I think you've got hold of the wrong end of this one.
First of all - we're not sort of 'reacting like cavemen' in begin paranoid about paedophiles. For one thing, it is not common in primitive societies to have major qualms about the age of sexual initiation, and it isn't common to feel sexually attracted to children or to your own near relatives. This makes sense biologically: You are more likely to reproduce successfully if you mate with an adult that is not a close relative.
And what we see in Western societies is not that children are forced to grow up earlier, but that the adults are fiercely opposed to taking on adulthood. Eg. we try to look young, we try to avoid responsibility, we require instant gratification (which is why things like fast food and credit cards are such big hits). And this is exactly where the reason for the explosive growth in paedophiles: the current trends in society encourage qualities typical of psychopaths, and paedophiles are simply a special type of psychopaths.
The typical paedophile isn't just 'sexually attracted to children' - although he/she would probably claim that this is the case. Paedophiles violate children and have been known to commit incredible cruelties against children, still claiming that 'it was love'. This is the reason why society - people in general - are attacking paedophiles, not because 'we all have it inside us, and we are afraid of being found out'.
It's a funny to see that I, putting forward a balanced and informed viewpoint, am rated '1', whereas two persons, who do nothing but repeat a few, stereotypical prejudices, are rated '5, Insightful). Just goes to show, doesn't it;-) If you want a high score here, either wallow in syrupy praise of America or attack a communist.
ReTay (and Stargoat, since you say more or less the same):
First of all, I didn't say that everything China does is perfect, and I don't really care to defend their faults. Killing people is always wrong, and doubly so when they are civilians, for one thing, but apart from that - for each atrocity committed by the Chinese government, you can find one or more similar committed by eg. the American or British.
So a relative of yours has 'been there'? For two weeks? Wow, in that case she has certainly learned all there is to learn about how people in general feel about living in that horrible, horrible country! As for being followed around by armed guards - give me a break. I have personally traveled to China many times, talked to people and walked around everywhere. Not an armed guard in sight, I can tell you that, but loads of kind and open people who are not the least afraid of expressing their views, not even in the presence of my wife - who incidentally is a middle ranking Chinese official. A lot of people, especially the older generation, have lots of admiration for Mao Zedong; others think he was an idiot who messed up a lot of things; a bit like you Americans have different views on your presidents, really.
And yes, the Chinese government does a lot of good for the people: improve the education, open up the economy, improve health care, build roads and houses. But they have >1 billion people to take care of and far fewer resources to throw away on idle luxuries like several big cars per family, several computers per family, several TV sets per family, etc etc, like you have in America. Oh, but now I think about it - you guys also have a growing population of poor, who have nothing, not even the most basic medical care.
As for Tibet - whether Tibet is historically a part of China or not is actually open to discussion. It is not a given fact that Tibet does NOT belong to China. As a contrast, it is almost certain that USA do not have a historical right to occupy Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Try to compare Tibet before with Tibet now, and based on actual insight, please, and you will see that Tibet before was a cruel society where conditions were far worse than now. The distance from top to bottom in society was precipitous - the guy on top could get away with anything, rape, murder, theft, anything. The guy at the bottom would be severely punished for almost nothing. How about having your foot chopped off for a minor offence? Or your eyes gouged out? Don't tell me that THAT was better. Yes, the landowners were dispossessed, and that pissed them off. But if you were at the bottom, as most were, you wouldn't mind, I can tell you that.
And China before the revolution wasn't too much better - especially not since Britain and Japan did their best to exploit China and make the Chinese suffer. Wonder why the Chinese aren't all that trusting towards the West? Try to read up on the Opium Wars - Queen Victoria was the first big time drug dealer in the world. And China was at the receiving end; not willingly though!
You know how many mail clients display HTML mails in the preview pane? This is of course cool, if you like that kind of gimmicks, but imagine a HTML SPAM mail with a bunch of references to a child porn site. Simply by previewing you would access child pornography; the references could even be in the form of 'invisible' pictures, so you wouldn't realize, and the title could be something likely, like:
'Mail Delivery Failure:...'
Wouldn't you click on it, just to se what that might be?
Why would anybody want to send that kind of mails? Well, why would anybody send stupid SPAM or write viruses and worms? And yet it happens. And if everybody seems to access child porn, perhaps it is not so easy to catch the real criminals.
This, BTW, is yet another reason why I prefer Mozilla's Thunderbird: it allows you to simply turn off interpretation of HTML - instead you see the HTML source. Not as pretty, but not as dangerous.
Ah, yes, these evil, evil communists are so evil, and, and, downright EVIL!!
Now come on mate, everybody should really grow up a tiny bit and get rid of the cold-war tunnel vision and realize that even in a communist country they have such things as:
1. Enough freedom to suit the needs of most people. True, there are restrictions, but it is far from being as bad as the US press would have you believe.
2. A government that is actually concerned with the wellbeing of their population.
3. Government officials that can think and even add numbers. Of course they know that restrictions of any kind will upset some people; it is a matter of striking the right balance in the current situation, and in China there are a lot of people who very sceptical towards this flood of rubbish, as they perceive it, from America.
Let's try to turn this around: In America there are many people who would like cannabis to be legal, but a large section of the population is scared of what it might lead to. Those who have a bit of insight would say that this fear is not very well founded, but that is another matter - the situation right now is that cannabis is illegal and that this is considered right by many, if not most, Americans.
We have no reason to assume that this phenomenon is not what lies behind Chinese policy: that people want it that way, or aren't bothered too much by it. The same goes for many of the things that we in the West consider bad about other countries - women in burkhas and what have you. If we want to promote freedom in the world, we should at least start from the assumption that people in other cultures may choose to live differently from us.
"Okay, maybe I am being a bit silly, but, I still don't see how they can know the detector is working. I don't even know how the WIMP can make the thing "ring" once it, itself, is subject to the 1/10 degree above absolute Zero conditions."
Yes, Erick, you are being silly;-)
Temperature is a statistical measure - ie. a measure that is valid only for a large number of objects. A single particle doesn't have a temperature - and apart from that, there is no reason why a few particles out of 10^23 couldn't have a fairly high energy, even if the ensemble as a whole has a very low temperature.
Far too often do we see this kind of attitude, that a superficial glance is enough to dismiss something, and I think it is a very dangerous way to go about things. That attitude is what lies behind pollution ('Oh come on, it's not that bad...'), deforestation ('Oh come one, we do plant new trees'), terrorism ('Oh come on, people are just poor because they are lazy'), and it has also led the US into a stupid and easily avoidable war in Iraq ('Oh come on, of course he has WMDs or something').
What distinguishes us humans from the other animals, if not our ability to think critically? Let's at least try.
'Opportunity', 'Endurance',... - it seems we are going to get a load of names on Mars that are 'inspired' by the mindset of the current administration. I wonder when we'll get such names as 'Antiabortion' and 'Upyertailpipe'.
Every time somebody comes out with a sentence containing 'DNA' and 'computer', it is immediately believed. This article is clearly very, very specualtive. Yes, somebody has created something that looks a computer when seen from a certain angle and in not too strong light. Anything that even approaches a first, simple practical application for this kind of thing is probably decades away, if indeed it ever happens. Beginning to talk about releasing a 'DNA computer' into somebody and actually attacking cancer cells is pure science fiction. The hurdles that must be overcome are staggering; before we can even contemplate something like that, we need to thoroughly understand how life works in all details - considering the speed with which research progresses now and the fact that we have only just begun to scratch the surface, I would say this is at least a couple of centuries away.
I don't think people in general appreciate just how complex the chemical processes that support life are. Believe you me, we're not talking about simple things, like eg. memorising the exact position of all grains of sand in the Sahara.
I am not surprised to find this kind of article in Nature; they have often published dubious results - they are after all a popular magazine rather than a scientific journal. Also, I think in recent years there have been a number of highly doubtful 'results' that seem to originate in Israel; this, by the way, is simply an observation, not an expression of any 'anti-semitism', in case you wondered.
It certainly does - I mean, a one shot laser that's so heavy that it will need several Saturn V rockets just to keep it from sinking into the ground. Perhaps the astronomers can use it as a gravitational lens?
Slashdot Mirror
- as well as in waste recycling, especially road kills, dead farm animals. pets etc.
Zuse Linux, obviously.... (sorry)
- that's what I say. The more the merrier; when the world of patents has become large and stupid enough, it will break down because it is too unworkable, and then we can hopefully talk about a more sensible way to go about these things.
I actually don't mind paying for a good CD. But - notice the word 'good'. What is it we can buy/hear on the radio? A lot of bands that make almost the same music - it's quite simply dull. So the first thing to do is: stop mass producing things - how many boy bands, rappers, slutty middle-aged 'teenage girls' etc etc does the world need? Not that many, by the looks of things.
And instead of producing 100 million copies of a CD that is only so-so, why not sell them electronically, or have the record shop burn one when the customer want to buy it?
This would give us many advantages - not least that you would always be able to go and find that rare album only you want, which the shop never has in stock (or is out of print).
'While this may force foreign firms to lower their patent fees, some experts warn that China risks isolating itself if it creates standards that are incompatible with the rest of the world'
He, he. The truth is that they exclude the US and Europe, not that they 'isolate themselves' - don't get too big a head.
There is nothing strange about this situation. China is growing, and growing and growing - the West, and USA in particular, are in decline economically (and morally, by the looks of it); the natural consequence is that China takes the lead and we learn to follow. And I suppose it is quite natural that the former masters feel hard done by and start whining, as one can see ample evidence of in this blog; but it is still pathetic and unworthy.
'3. Show the established interests a way to make a satisfactory amount of money out of new ideas, so they'll invest in those and let the old ones wither.'
I don't think so. Big companies are less efficient at generating jobs: they are primarily geared against making money for their investors, not making jobs; thus they tend to make more efficient use of their employees, which means they employ fewer people, loosely speaking.
'But that would be giving money to corporations, which is automatically evil.'
Don't be silly. But instead of giving money to a multinational company, where it is more likely to line the pockets of the investors, give it to small innovators, who are better at creating jobs.
'... And would be healthier without the "stuff". And have a standard of living that is considerably worse than they do now'
You are contradicting yourself, I think - being healthier, isn't that what 'better standard of living' is about?
'It is likely that 80% of everyone would be perpetually unemployed'
Only if you assume that having big companies is the only way. In fact, research shows (don't remember the link) that a small company employs more people per $ than a big one, so I guess that the situation would be that there would be fewer big companies and more small ones. I mean - if a person can't find a job, wouldn't s/he be more likely to start a small business? Business does not always have to be about making billions - sometimes it is enough that you make a living.
Time? Of course we have bloody time. What you really mean 'we don't have the will'. And why not? Because it would mean having to change your habits of energy consumption. A very significant part of the produced energy and other resources is spent (wasted, if you ask me) on inessential things like entertainment, toy cars (like SUVs) and 'consumer items' we would be healthier without.
Another - possibly more important reason for the lack of will is, that the established chain of companies involved in energy production don't want to change. They haven't finished making shameless profits on fossil fuel, and having to change would cost money, plus, they would have a lot of equipment for oil- and coal production that would be of no use anymore.
We already know what to do, essentially:
1. Sustainable techniques for producing are already well known, and we would very quickly develop better methods once we relied solely one them. IOW: Just do it.
2. Cut seriously back on what we spend energy on. Does an average household really need several TVs, computers, electronic games, microwave ovens, electric can openers etc etc - or are these things just stupid luxuries? If you want to know about what is essential and what isn't, try going on a holiday with a tent (and no car!) or something. It's not a lot of hardship living without a large part of all those things.
The tent holiday example shows how little we actually need to survive - comfortably, even. So stop consuming so much unnecessary crap - the most blindingly stupid example I know of is the way our society produces 'instant rubbish': the wrappers, mostly plastic (ie. made from oil), that comes with so many things. Can you think of anything more extreme?
This is the first bit of sensible news to come out of USA for a long, long time, for several reasons:
1. 500 barrels is of course nearly nothing, but this does has the potential to become significant - see other posts.
2. The primary aim is to solve a waste problem, which this technology seems to do in a brilliant way.
3. It may also help reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. When you burn farm waste, you release CO2 into the athmosphere, true, but that's where it came from - the plants have taken CO2 out to build up carbohydrates. Contrast this with fossil fuel, where you produce CO2 that was taken out many hundred million years ago, which can only increase the levels of CO2. On top of that, when the farm waste isn't left to rot, less methane is produced, which again can make a big difference.
All in all - this seems good and sensible through and through. Which makes me fear that some narrowminded and greedy idiot with too much money and power will want to kill it off.
Yeah, keep dreaming, pal. There is no such thing as a backup and recovery plan in most places. But you are right - very few jobs require creativity or more than basic problem solution skills.
To look at this from another angle, we are all living far beyond our means. Oh yes, we can sort of keep going because we can still use our 'global credit card' - fossil fuels and other resources - but it will end, probably soon. Then there will a debt to pay.
I wonder why they bother? The way things are going weapons and wars will be irrelevant soon - after all, there has to be people in order to have war.
And even if one is to be optimistic - we are going to have more pressing problems than 'American Interests' to think about, when we run out of oil, air, water and environment in general.
Hmmm, I wonder what role the grad student played in this....
I see what you mean - but what I meant was more, that people will always (nearly) see themselves as 'good'. If one asked Saddam Hussein whether he sees himself as 'good' or 'evil' what do you think he would answer?
As to whether I 'would if I could': no, I don't think so. Not because I am profoundly good, I just don't think having infinite power or whatever would be all that cool. I mean, what on Earth would I want that for? I just want to have enough of what I need, and then a little bit more.
Even if any aliens were to have a concept of good and evil there's no reason why they would see things the way we do. Just look at how it is on Earth: there are people who genuinely believe it is 'good' to do things that many now believe are profoundly evil. Take the Spanish Inquisition, for example: they really believed that it was the right thing to torture suspects - give a sinner hell here, so they don't suffer so much in the next world.
In fact, I don't think there is anybody that considers himself 'evil', no matter what.
'WTL is licensed under CPL'
CPL, as we all know, mean Communist Pirate License. Tells it all, really.
Any resemblance to other license acronyms is entirely accidental.
I think you've got hold of the wrong end of this one.
First of all - we're not sort of 'reacting like cavemen' in begin paranoid about paedophiles. For one thing, it is not common in primitive societies to have major qualms about the age of sexual initiation, and it isn't common to feel sexually attracted to children or to your own near relatives. This makes sense biologically: You are more likely to reproduce successfully if you mate with an adult that is not a close relative.
And what we see in Western societies is not that children are forced to grow up earlier, but that the adults are fiercely opposed to taking on adulthood. Eg. we try to look young, we try to avoid responsibility, we require instant gratification (which is why things like fast food and credit cards are such big hits). And this is exactly where the reason for the explosive growth in paedophiles: the current trends in society encourage qualities typical of psychopaths, and paedophiles are simply a special type of psychopaths.
The typical paedophile isn't just 'sexually attracted to children' - although he/she would probably claim that this is the case. Paedophiles violate children and have been known to commit incredible cruelties against children, still claiming that 'it was love'. This is the reason why society - people in general - are attacking paedophiles, not because 'we all have it inside us, and we are afraid of being found out'.
It's a funny to see that I, putting forward a balanced and informed viewpoint, am rated '1', whereas two persons, who do nothing but repeat a few, stereotypical prejudices, are rated '5, Insightful). Just goes to show, doesn't it ;-) If you want a high score here, either wallow in syrupy praise of America or attack a communist.
ReTay (and Stargoat, since you say more or less the same):
First of all, I didn't say that everything China does is perfect, and I don't really care to defend their faults. Killing people is always wrong, and doubly so when they are civilians, for one thing, but apart from that - for each atrocity committed by the Chinese government, you can find one or more similar committed by eg. the American or British.
So a relative of yours has 'been there'? For two weeks? Wow, in that case she has certainly learned all there is to learn about how people in general feel about living in that horrible, horrible country! As for being followed around by armed guards - give me a break. I have personally traveled to China many times, talked to people and walked around everywhere. Not an armed guard in sight, I can tell you that, but loads of kind and open people who are not the least afraid of expressing their views, not even in the presence of my wife - who incidentally is a middle ranking Chinese official. A lot of people, especially the older generation, have lots of admiration for Mao Zedong; others think he was an idiot who messed up a lot of things; a bit like you Americans have different views on your presidents, really.
And yes, the Chinese government does a lot of good for the people: improve the education, open up the economy, improve health care, build roads and houses. But they have >1 billion people to take care of and far fewer resources to throw away on idle luxuries like several big cars per family, several computers per family, several TV sets per family, etc etc, like you have in America. Oh, but now I think about it - you guys also have a growing population of poor, who have nothing, not even the most basic medical care.
As for Tibet - whether Tibet is historically a part of China or not is actually open to discussion. It is not a given fact that Tibet does NOT belong to China. As a contrast, it is almost certain that USA do not have a historical right to occupy Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Try to compare Tibet before with Tibet now, and based on actual insight, please, and you will see that Tibet before was a cruel society where conditions were far worse than now. The distance from top to bottom in society was precipitous - the guy on top could get away with anything, rape, murder, theft, anything. The guy at the bottom would be severely punished for almost nothing. How about having your foot chopped off for a minor offence? Or your eyes gouged out? Don't tell me that THAT was better. Yes, the landowners were dispossessed, and that pissed them off. But if you were at the bottom, as most were, you wouldn't mind, I can tell you that.
And China before the revolution wasn't too much better - especially not since Britain and Japan did their best to exploit China and make the Chinese suffer. Wonder why the Chinese aren't all that trusting towards the West? Try to read up on the Opium Wars - Queen Victoria was the first big time drug dealer in the world. And China was at the receiving end; not willingly though!
You know how many mail clients display HTML mails in the preview pane? This is of course cool, if you like that kind of gimmicks, but imagine a HTML SPAM mail with a bunch of references to a child porn site. Simply by previewing you would access child pornography; the references could even be in the form of 'invisible' pictures, so you wouldn't realize, and the title could be something likely, like:
...'
'Mail Delivery Failure:
Wouldn't you click on it, just to se what that might be?
Why would anybody want to send that kind of mails? Well, why would anybody send stupid SPAM or write viruses and worms? And yet it happens. And if everybody seems to access child porn, perhaps it is not so easy to catch the real criminals.
This, BTW, is yet another reason why I prefer Mozilla's Thunderbird: it allows you to simply turn off interpretation of HTML - instead you see the HTML source. Not as pretty, but not as dangerous.
Ah, yes, these evil, evil communists are so evil, and, and, downright EVIL!!
Now come on mate, everybody should really grow up a tiny bit and get rid of the cold-war tunnel vision and realize that even in a communist country they have such things as:
1. Enough freedom to suit the needs of most people. True, there are restrictions, but it is far from being as bad as the US press would have you believe.
2. A government that is actually concerned with the wellbeing of their population.
3. Government officials that can think and even add numbers. Of course they know that restrictions of any kind will upset some people; it is a matter of striking the right balance in the current situation, and in China there are a lot of people who very sceptical towards this flood of rubbish, as they perceive it, from America.
Let's try to turn this around: In America there are many people who would like cannabis to be legal, but a large section of the population is scared of what it might lead to. Those who have a bit of insight would say that this fear is not very well founded, but that is another matter - the situation right now is that cannabis is illegal and that this is considered right by many, if not most, Americans.
We have no reason to assume that this phenomenon is not what lies behind Chinese policy: that people want it that way, or aren't bothered too much by it. The same goes for many of the things that we in the West consider bad about other countries - women in burkhas and what have you. If we want to promote freedom in the world, we should at least start from the assumption that people in other cultures may choose to live differently from us.
"Okay, maybe I am being a bit silly, but, I still don't see how they can know the detector is working. I don't even know how the WIMP can make the thing "ring" once it, itself, is subject to the 1/10 degree above absolute Zero conditions."
;-)
...'), deforestation ('Oh come one, we do plant new trees'), terrorism ('Oh come on, people are just poor because they are lazy'), and it has also led the US into a stupid and easily avoidable war in Iraq ('Oh come on, of course he has WMDs or something').
Yes, Erick, you are being silly
Temperature is a statistical measure - ie. a measure that is valid only for a large number of objects. A single particle doesn't have a temperature - and apart from that, there is no reason why a few particles out of 10^23 couldn't have a fairly high energy, even if the ensemble as a whole has a very low temperature.
Far too often do we see this kind of attitude, that a superficial glance is enough to dismiss something, and I think it is a very dangerous way to go about things. That attitude is what lies behind pollution ('Oh come on, it's not that bad
What distinguishes us humans from the other animals, if not our ability to think critically? Let's at least try.
'Opportunity', 'Endurance', ... - it seems we are going to get a load of names on Mars that are 'inspired' by the mindset of the current administration. I wonder when we'll get such names as 'Antiabortion' and 'Upyertailpipe'.
Oh, come on, fellows...
Every time somebody comes out with a sentence containing 'DNA' and 'computer', it is immediately believed. This article is clearly very, very specualtive. Yes, somebody has created something that looks a computer when seen from a certain angle and in not too strong light. Anything that even approaches a first, simple practical application for this kind of thing is probably decades away, if indeed it ever happens. Beginning to talk about releasing a 'DNA computer' into somebody and actually attacking cancer cells is pure science fiction. The hurdles that must be overcome are staggering; before we can even contemplate something like that, we need to thoroughly understand how life works in all details - considering the speed with which research progresses now and the fact that we have only just begun to scratch the surface, I would say this is at least a couple of centuries away.
I don't think people in general appreciate just how complex the chemical processes that support life are. Believe you me, we're not talking about simple things, like eg. memorising the exact position of all grains of sand in the Sahara.
I am not surprised to find this kind of article in Nature; they have often published dubious results - they are after all a popular magazine rather than a scientific journal. Also, I think in recent years there have been a number of highly doubtful 'results' that seem to originate in Israel; this, by the way, is simply an observation, not an expression of any 'anti-semitism', in case you wondered.
'This certainly changes everything.'
It certainly does - I mean, a one shot laser that's so heavy that it will need several Saturn V rockets just to keep it from sinking into the ground. Perhaps the astronomers can use it as a gravitational lens?
'This would be very bad for the Internet.'
Why is that? Nobody has forbidden the user to install media player if they wish to - or indeed if they have any opinion about the matter.
- as if that was anything. Balder the Asa had 9.