Why would somewhere else in the solar system be better then Earth? All the reasons you give for earth becoming uninhabitable in the future are problems that already exist everywhere else. Even taking into account ice ages, super volcanoes, climate change, atmosphere and ocean depletion and whatever else the earth is still the easiest place to maintain a habitable environment for us. If we had the technology to create a habitable environmental elsewhere then we could maintain one on earth with the same technologies at a far smaller cost.
Agree with you on the lack of benefits of the scanners. As far as the safety. As someone who works in radiation safety, can you elaborate some more. Conventional wisdom on radiation safety is that the dangers are cumulative, but that's clearly not really the case. Maybe for long term risks like cancer, but clearly in the short term, higher intensity is more dangerous. For an extreme example, consider em radiation in the 560 to 490 nm wavelengths. Exposure is, as far as anyone has ever studied, virtually harmless. An entire lifetime's exposure adds 0% to cancer risk as far as I know. However, take a person's average exposure over the course of a month and give it to them in a tenth of a second. The cancer risk is still 0%, but that's only because the person has just been utterly vaporized.
What exactly are you trying to get at? Unless I missed something I'm pretty sure these scanners haven't vaporizing or burned anyone, so there are not short terms risks to speak of. Long term cumulative effects are the only area of concern.
Because "widely adopted" is a moving target. RIM was a huge market player at one point, as was Palm. Same thing can happen to Android and ios. Maybe people will get tired of privacy violations via Google....
If Android uses got tired of Google's influence on Android, that is still no motive to move to iOS. There are already plenty of popular Android releases based on Android Open Source Project which give you total control over how much Google is in your phone.
So those who are predicting a dramatic climate change lose either way, and the deniers will win either way. Sounds like a a great bet, where do I sign up?
2-3GB per day! You're using something like 50x the data of the normal user, you should be happy they are giving you a plan at all, they are probably losing a lot of money on you.
The difference is the whole point of diagnostic ultrasound is to diagnose people. Get it? It's right there in the name. If you are untrained and diagnosing things that is dangerous, and if you are using a big expensive machine to diagnose people instead of just looking at them it is more dangerous because the machine may give you unwarranted credibility.
What, our members of congress aren't out of touch enough for you? They aren't a security threat, but I don't want them insulated from the effects of the laws they pass either. If the TSA makes travel difficult for regular people it should make travel for them difficult too.
There is exactly zero evidence, for example, that diagnostic ultrasound carries any risks, but there are still limitations on its use (you can buy your own unit but can't use it on people unless you're a trained, insured, highly paid professional.)
The risk of some untrained people using diagnostic ultrasound is that they may tell someone with cancer that they don't see anything to worry about.
The point is you sound like a partisan hack accusing Democrats of using a line most commonly associated with the right wing.
And the reason why the "death panels" rhetoric is bs is not because there won't be a board of actuaries deciding what will be covered by a government insurance plane, it's bs because these same "death panels" already exist in private insurance plans. Or do you really think private insurance will cover a $100k treatment for a 90 year old cancer patient with only a 5% chance of success?
Agnostics overlap the group of theists too. There are plenty of thoughtful religious people who while holding certain beliefs about God, still admit that they don't and can't know for sure if their beliefs are correct.
I wouldn't be so sure the scientific consensus was every as strong as 97% for a flat earth. Among the ancient Greeks there was a lot of disagreement over the shape of the earth but by the time early attempts were made to measure the earth the spherical earth theory was already widely accepted.
Sure, among primitive people the flat earth idea was probably close to unanimous but it would be dishonest to call what they were doing science.
Regardless, even if we assume that at one point 97% of scientists believed something to be true which was eventually proven wrong, how often does that happen? It is a very rare situation for sure. If 97% of the most knowledgeable people in a field agree on something, I'd put my money on them being right every time.
If they target biochemical that aren't critical to humans then they aren't poisons in any relevant way. Obviously they are poisonous to the bacteria they target, that's the whole point!
The difference between anything and poison comes down to dosage, including water. That is not a useful point. The real distinction is that useful drugs have a dosage where they are effective without being poisonous.
A key exception to this is the Nexus line, which aren't allowed to have any bloatware AFAIK due to contractual reasons. Google intends them as developer phones, so they want them to be as vanilla of an Android experience as possible.
I guess the definition of bloatware is subjective. Apps on my Nexus that many consider to be bloatware include Twitter, Facebook, Amazon MP3 Store, Google Books, and Google Goggles.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would somewhere else in the solar system be better then Earth? All the reasons you give for earth becoming uninhabitable in the future are problems that already exist everywhere else. Even taking into account ice ages, super volcanoes, climate change, atmosphere and ocean depletion and whatever else the earth is still the easiest place to maintain a habitable environment for us. If we had the technology to create a habitable environmental elsewhere then we could maintain one on earth with the same technologies at a far smaller cost.
Agree with you on the lack of benefits of the scanners. As far as the safety. As someone who works in radiation safety, can you elaborate some more. Conventional wisdom on radiation safety is that the dangers are cumulative, but that's clearly not really the case. Maybe for long term risks like cancer, but clearly in the short term, higher intensity is more dangerous. For an extreme example, consider em radiation in the 560 to 490 nm wavelengths. Exposure is, as far as anyone has ever studied, virtually harmless. An entire lifetime's exposure adds 0% to cancer risk as far as I know. However, take a person's average exposure over the course of a month and give it to them in a tenth of a second. The cancer risk is still 0%, but that's only because the person has just been utterly vaporized.
What exactly are you trying to get at? Unless I missed something I'm pretty sure these scanners haven't vaporizing or burned anyone, so there are not short terms risks to speak of. Long term cumulative effects are the only area of concern.
They suck quite a bit less though. T-Mobile is the closest we have to a decent cell provider in the states.
You are missing that the remaining liquid in the bottle evaporates, replacing the gas that left the bottle.
Because "widely adopted" is a moving target. RIM was a huge market player at one point, as was Palm. Same thing can happen to Android and ios. Maybe people will get tired of privacy violations via Google....
If Android uses got tired of Google's influence on Android, that is still no motive to move to iOS. There are already plenty of popular Android releases based on Android Open Source Project which give you total control over how much Google is in your phone.
So those who are predicting a dramatic climate change lose either way, and the deniers will win either way. Sounds like a a great bet, where do I sign up?
Because obviously they wouldn't have anyone willing to pay that rate. Is that supposed to be a trick question?
Don't be coy, what is this mythic country?
2-3GB per day! You're using something like 50x the data of the normal user, you should be happy they are giving you a plan at all, they are probably losing a lot of money on you.
The difference is the whole point of diagnostic ultrasound is to diagnose people. Get it? It's right there in the name. If you are untrained and diagnosing things that is dangerous, and if you are using a big expensive machine to diagnose people instead of just looking at them it is more dangerous because the machine may give you unwarranted credibility.
What, our members of congress aren't out of touch enough for you? They aren't a security threat, but I don't want them insulated from the effects of the laws they pass either. If the TSA makes travel difficult for regular people it should make travel for them difficult too.
There is exactly zero evidence, for example, that diagnostic ultrasound carries any risks, but there are still limitations on its use (you can buy your own unit but can't use it on people unless you're a trained, insured, highly paid professional.)
The risk of some untrained people using diagnostic ultrasound is that they may tell someone with cancer that they don't see anything to worry about.
The point is you sound like a partisan hack accusing Democrats of using a line most commonly associated with the right wing.
And the reason why the "death panels" rhetoric is bs is not because there won't be a board of actuaries deciding what will be covered by a government insurance plane, it's bs because these same "death panels" already exist in private insurance plans. Or do you really think private insurance will cover a $100k treatment for a 90 year old cancer patient with only a 5% chance of success?
"Death panels" doesn't ring a bell to you? It was Palin and her ilk spreading those accusations.
Agnostics overlap the group of theists too. There are plenty of thoughtful religious people who while holding certain beliefs about God, still admit that they don't and can't know for sure if their beliefs are correct.
Even worse, there are over 26 million pages for "tcp bugs" and yet somehow we all manage to use it without much trouble.
I wouldn't be so sure the scientific consensus was every as strong as 97% for a flat earth. Among the ancient Greeks there was a lot of disagreement over the shape of the earth but by the time early attempts were made to measure the earth the spherical earth theory was already widely accepted.
Sure, among primitive people the flat earth idea was probably close to unanimous but it would be dishonest to call what they were doing science.
Regardless, even if we assume that at one point 97% of scientists believed something to be true which was eventually proven wrong, how often does that happen? It is a very rare situation for sure. If 97% of the most knowledgeable people in a field agree on something, I'd put my money on them being right every time.
Actually TOOL got the idea for Aenema from a Bill Hicks routine about Arizona Bay.
If they target biochemical that aren't critical to humans then they aren't poisons in any relevant way. Obviously they are poisonous to the bacteria they target, that's the whole point!
The difference between anything and poison comes down to dosage, including water. That is not a useful point. The real distinction is that useful drugs have a dosage where they are effective without being poisonous.
WTH? If the drug kills people then it's not an antibiotic, it's just a poison.
All viruses are drug-resistant, the conversation is about bacteria.
A key exception to this is the Nexus line, which aren't allowed to have any bloatware AFAIK due to contractual reasons. Google intends them as developer phones, so they want them to be as vanilla of an Android experience as possible.
I guess the definition of bloatware is subjective. Apps on my Nexus that many consider to be bloatware include Twitter, Facebook, Amazon MP3 Store, Google Books, and Google Goggles.
Try living in southern California. Horribly mispronounced street names is just something some of us have to live with.
There are too many people out there who fail to acknowledge they are responsible for any consequences.
Such as corporations that profit off of harmful products?