IANAP, but I don't think money is the problem. The gov spends a lot of research dollars on fusion research. I mean basically we're saying create conditions in the interior of the sun in a controlled, sustained fashion, and then draw power from it.
It may be that it's just really, really hard to do. Eventually, these really, really hard things fall to human ingenuity, but it takes time as much or more than it takes money.
I tried the Atkins diet about two years ago, for about a year. The results?
I lost about 40 pounds in the first six months. Of this, I put about 15 back on over the next six, for a net 1 year loss of 25 pounds. Additionally, my cholesterol dropped about 10% (I don't remember the numbers, unfortunately). I also stopped getting migraine headaches (probably due to a food allergy to something cut out by the diet).
So why in the world did I leave the diet? Several reasons, but mostly because I found it absolutely impossible to get out of the plateau I was in. No matter how strictly I adhered to the diet, my weight remained the same.
I'm now pursuing a low-cal diet in combination with a pretty heavy workout schedule. I think the reality may be that metabolisms are extremely complex systems, and aside from out and out starvation, there's no one simple approach to losing weight.
You probably know this, but the full Adams quote is:
Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell. -- John Adams, quoted from Charles Francis Adams, ed., Works of John Adams (1856), vol. X, p. 254
Uh, imagine the long term goals of the United States, circa 1902, and you'll realize the folly of that statement.
Geez, even circa 1982 would seem ridiculous nowadays. Cold war, no real PC's, much less the Internet, stagflation...
Here's the real thing: government isn't "us". We are "us". The government is just a thing that we keep around as a referee to keep each other from behaving like savages.
Let's say that the museum is successful in cloning the Thylacine. What happens next? Would they plan to try to reintroduce a population into the wild?
It seems to me that after 70 years, the ecosystem will have adjusted to the extinction of the thylacine, i.e., it will have reached a thylacine-free equilibrium. Won't the reintroduction of the thylacine, with the accompanying aid that a repopulation effort would undoubtedly have, displace existing species? Wouldn't they be introducing what is now an alien species to a stable ecosystem?
On the other hand, if this is just a one-shot, what's the point? I can kind of see it if it's supposed to be a technological proof of concept type of thing, I suppose.
The bottom line here is that the whole repopulation of extinct species involves a degree of complexity with which man is not currently equipped(nor likely to be equipped in the near future). Not that EVER stops humans from imposing their ideas on things...
Whenever I hear someone go off half-cocked regarding the tribunals, I ask several questions:
1. How would handle the problem of reciprocity against testifying witnesses?
2. How would you handle the damage done to our intelligence gathering apparatus when the identities of the witnesses are revealed?
3. How would you plan to subpoena witnesses when they are likely to be foreign nationals and indeed, are likely to be penalty of perjury?
The realistic answer to all of this is if we adhere to the constitutional process of citizen trial, the prosecution simply not occur. The offenders would have to go free...
Probability of a mod up on a post supporting military tribunals on Slashdot? 0%.
I wonder what portion of electricity consumption is dedicated to lighting? Probably a small number, maybe 2-3%, but then consider the reduced heat coming from the lights, which will reduce cooling costs.
Of course, you would probably see your heating costs rise slightly as well. One interesting thing in economics is economic / technological thresholds; small changes suddenly unleash tectonic changes just because some small thing that was economically prohibitive before crossed that 1% difference in cost that makes it feasible. I wonder what it might be here...
Uh...how many of us are contractors? I'm going to go see the movie opening day, but I won't be billing for it. I imagine that the proportion of contractors is much higher in IT...
Obviously, that won't have the same impact. I'll probably make up the hours somewhere else in the week.
The older I get, the last confidence I have in the ability of "authority"...
What a load of crap. I'm so sick of hearing how well informed about world events the rest of the world is compared to Americans.
You would have us believe that, say, the French, they trot down to the library and research world culture out of some sense of moral nobility?
If some other culture has a greater awareness of world events and culture, it's because it relates more directly to their existence. Conversely, if the United States doesn't, perhaps it's because we live across two fricking oceans from the rest of the world. Surprise! The average American knows more about Canada and Mexico than Bosnia! Who would have seen that coming!
I've traveled quite a bit abroad and met some wonderful people. I will tell you this: the rest of the world doesn't spend a tenth as much time self-analyzing and criticizing as America does.
I realize that this thread is long dead, but we have a good discussion going on here...
I absolutely agree witn you about it being wrong to let someone starve to death. What this means is that we share common values and morality. We both believe that there is a duty (to the poor in some people's belief, to God in mine) to take care of the less fortunate. This is a very different thing, in a society, than having laws restricting violence or protecting property. The former emerges from moral values, the latter from a Socratic-type social contract.
I really do believe that people should help the less fortunate. I don't believe that they should be forced too. I think, ironically, that the poor would be far better off without the forced help, in the following ways:
1. Poorly performing aid would lose funding to better performing aid. Currently the only mechanism for this is democracy, which is terribly lacking in enforcing efficiency in comparison to the free market.
2. There is a poisonous attitude that exists because of forced help: my taxes pay for that. This KILLS volunteerism. Like you said, nothing says beliefs equal actions. Forced help conceals the reality that we must take care of each other.
3. Much of aid to the poor is spiritual masturbation: aid given to make the giver feel good and with no real help to fix the problem that got the recipient in trouble in the first place. Weather disasters, earthquakes, fine. When we're talking genuine poverty, we'd better be talking training programs or else what's the point?
4. Government breaks your legs, and then gives you crutches. How many fewer people would be poor without confiscatory taxation?
Slashdot Mirror
Ununnilium is down to 106 from 100 on news of scientific misconduct...
I think the fact that you find kernel hackers entertaining explains the disconnect...
It's not. It's indicating an error, and saying "if you want to see the error, you need modify the web.config file to look like this."
Homeboy needs to set up a default error page...
That's easy for us (western hemisphere assumption here) to say. You might have a harder time convincing South Korea.
IANAP, but I don't think money is the problem. The gov spends a lot of research dollars on fusion research. I mean basically we're saying create conditions in the interior of the sun in a controlled, sustained fashion, and then draw power from it.
It may be that it's just really, really hard to do. Eventually, these really, really hard things fall to human ingenuity, but it takes time as much or more than it takes money.
I tried the Atkins diet about two years ago, for about a year. The results?
I lost about 40 pounds in the first six months. Of this, I put about 15 back on over the next six, for a net 1 year loss of 25 pounds. Additionally, my cholesterol dropped about 10% (I don't remember the numbers, unfortunately). I also stopped getting migraine headaches (probably due to a food allergy to something cut out by the diet).
So why in the world did I leave the diet? Several reasons, but mostly because I found it absolutely impossible to get out of the plateau I was in. No matter how strictly I adhered to the diet, my weight remained the same.
I'm now pursuing a low-cal diet in combination with a pretty heavy workout schedule. I think the reality may be that metabolisms are extremely complex systems, and aside from out and out starvation, there's no one simple approach to losing weight.
Though surely the Rock can save us from the Undertaker's evil plan...
What you're saying is generally true, but you're overlooking the benefit of the cheaper production cost...
This lowered cost is a form of wealth. More importantly, it is a REAL form of wealth, as opposed to an artifically inflated wage.
Seems like the killer app for this would be for undercover bugging...
I've got news for you; when it targets 95% usage, that IS THE STANDARD...
Uh, dude, you're always paid less than you're worth to the company. Otherwise, why bother?
You probably know this, but the full Adams quote is:
Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.
-- John Adams, quoted from Charles Francis Adams, ed., Works of John Adams (1856), vol. X, p. 254
Do have a conscience about it? I used to until..
So...you're admitting that you're wrong? Fine. But don't expect a lot of moral credibility in talking about others...
Uh, imagine the long term goals of the United States, circa 1902, and you'll realize the folly of that statement.
Geez, even circa 1982 would seem ridiculous nowadays. Cold war, no real PC's, much less the Internet, stagflation...
Here's the real thing: government isn't "us". We are "us". The government is just a thing that we keep around as a referee to keep each other from behaving like savages.
Entire United States furrows its brow quizzically, and then forgets this story...
Let's say that the museum is successful in cloning the Thylacine. What happens next? Would they plan to try to reintroduce a population into the wild?
It seems to me that after 70 years, the ecosystem will have adjusted to the extinction of the thylacine, i.e., it will have reached a thylacine-free equilibrium. Won't the reintroduction of the thylacine, with the accompanying aid that a repopulation effort would undoubtedly have, displace existing species? Wouldn't they be introducing what is now an alien species to a stable ecosystem?
On the other hand, if this is just a one-shot, what's the point? I can kind of see it if it's supposed to be a technological proof of concept type of thing, I suppose.
The bottom line here is that the whole repopulation of extinct species involves a degree of complexity with which man is not currently equipped(nor likely to be equipped in the near future). Not that EVER stops humans from imposing their ideas on things...
Blah, blah, blah, the world isn't perfect, so we shouldn't explore space, blah, blah, blah, evil corporations, blah, blah, blah...
Uh, based on the last few Mars mission, one thing that humans could do is land...
Whenever I hear someone go off half-cocked regarding the tribunals, I ask several questions:
1. How would handle the problem of reciprocity against testifying witnesses?
2. How would you handle the damage done to our intelligence gathering apparatus when the identities of the witnesses are revealed?
3. How would you plan to subpoena witnesses when they are likely to be foreign nationals and indeed, are likely to be penalty of perjury?
The realistic answer to all of this is if we adhere to the constitutional process of citizen trial, the prosecution simply not occur. The offenders would have to go free...
Probability of a mod up on a post supporting military tribunals on Slashdot? 0%.
Hmm...America has massive ocean frontage. We have massive energy usage, too, so I don't know how that balances out.
Wave energy is a less intuitive approach to this problem; for a even less intuitive approach think tides...
I wonder what portion of electricity consumption is dedicated to lighting? Probably a small number, maybe 2-3%, but then consider the reduced heat coming from the lights, which will reduce cooling costs.
Of course, you would probably see your heating costs rise slightly as well. One interesting thing in economics is economic / technological thresholds; small changes suddenly unleash tectonic changes just because some small thing that was economically prohibitive before crossed that 1% difference in cost that makes it feasible. I wonder what it might be here...
I will not be lectured on ignorance by someone who can't use capital letters or punctuation marks....
Oh...and it's "EITHER"
I can see it now: Munchausen's by proxy.
What? Nobody needs healing? Daddy needs his next level advancement...
[HACK]
Uh...how many of us are contractors? I'm going to go see the movie opening day, but I won't be billing for it. I imagine that the proportion of contractors is much higher in IT...
Obviously, that won't have the same impact. I'll probably make up the hours somewhere else in the week.
The older I get, the last confidence I have in the ability of "authority"...
What a load of crap. I'm so sick of hearing how well informed about world events the rest of the world is compared to Americans.
You would have us believe that, say, the French, they trot down to the library and research world culture out of some sense of moral nobility?
If some other culture has a greater awareness of world events and culture, it's because it relates more directly to their existence. Conversely, if the United States doesn't, perhaps it's because we live across two fricking oceans from the rest of the world. Surprise! The average American knows more about Canada and Mexico than Bosnia! Who would have seen that coming!
I've traveled quite a bit abroad and met some wonderful people. I will tell you this: the rest of the world doesn't spend a tenth as much time self-analyzing and criticizing as America does.
I realize that this thread is long dead, but we have a good discussion going on here...
I absolutely agree witn you about it being wrong to let someone starve to death. What this means is that we share common values and morality. We both believe that there is a duty (to the poor in some people's belief, to God in mine) to take care of the less fortunate. This is a very different thing, in a society, than having laws restricting violence or protecting property. The former emerges from moral values, the latter from a Socratic-type social contract.
I really do believe that people should help the less fortunate. I don't believe that they should be forced too. I think, ironically, that the poor would be far better off without the forced help, in the following ways:
1. Poorly performing aid would lose funding to better performing aid. Currently the only mechanism for this is democracy, which is terribly lacking in enforcing efficiency in comparison to the free market.
2. There is a poisonous attitude that exists because of forced help: my taxes pay for that. This KILLS volunteerism. Like you said, nothing says beliefs equal actions. Forced help conceals the reality that we must take care of each other.
3. Much of aid to the poor is spiritual masturbation: aid given to make the giver feel good and with no real help to fix the problem that got the recipient in trouble in the first place. Weather disasters, earthquakes, fine. When we're talking genuine poverty, we'd better be talking training programs or else what's the point?
4. Government breaks your legs, and then gives you crutches. How many fewer people would be poor without confiscatory taxation?