They can't drive half an hour to another store? Or buy it online? Or have it special-ordered to the store on the base? Really? I don't agree with the premise this is being done with, but I can understand it. Remember, military bases have people other than just military on them, such as children whose friends or family have died. And those who will be inconvenienced will find a solution to this tiny problem.
None of that is to say that there is any sort of manufacturing oversight, claims testing (particularly in the diet and erectile dysfunction areas) or that a natural random soup of chemicals is somehow automatically safer than an intelligently purpose crafted solution.
Well, you'd think that, but there's one thing that biological processes are big on, and that is important in the realm of pharmaceuticals - handedness. Most chemical processes have no preference for handedness, but biologicals do. This is one of the aspects of invert sugar. Many of the chemicals we use as drugs have side effects that are linked to the other-handed version of the active ingredient. If your process makes even amounts of the active ingredient and the one that causes side-effects, it may have no worth as a drug. If, on the other hand, you can get 90% of the resultant chemicals to be the correct hand, it may be very valuable. Sepracor made their money doing just that.
By your logic: Anything that isn't a complete success is a complete failure. As for your example, numerous lives have been saved due to cancer research, and survival rates continue to improve because of that research. You would have been better off using fusion research for your comparison.
But this just bypasses the whole issue at hand, which is ethics. Once upon a time, the idea of cutting up a human cadaver was considered morally reprehensible, was illegal, and all the rest. Doing the same to an animal cadaver was fine. Now, while medical students routinely perform dissections of human cadavers, and this is accepted, people are still offended by the idea of desecrating bodies (as they should be IMO). There are those who find medical testing on live animals to be unethical, while there are those who accept that as beneficial and necessary to advancing our knowledge, but don't agree with testing on live animals for things such as cosmetics. It's not so surprising that some people would have differing ethical values that you in this, or any other, circumstance.
Remember, there are people who have different opinions about experimenting on living people, consent, etc. If you think they should respect your foolish, conservative notions* in those areas, perhaps you should put some thought in the value of respecting those who are more conservative than yourself.
*Assuming you're against experimenting on living humans in general, although possibly with caveats, and that you're against experimenting on people without their consent.
The same way a car with the steering wheel on the left is more usable than one with the steering wheel on the right - because more people are used to it.
Absolutely, but always at a loss. That's not an energy source, it's an energy sink, also known as a battery. Ultimately, there are three places you can get energy: nuclear power (fission or fusion), solar (specialized subset of nuclear), and gravitational. Everything we use for power comes from one of those three. Hydro and oil are concentrated solar, tidal is a combination of solar and gravitational, and nuclear is pretty obvious. Any method to produce hydrogen is going to be an energy sink from one of those.
Also worth noting, even if something bad happens with hydrogen, the hydrogen is shortly no longer an issue. Gasoline can burn for days given the right circumstances and no attempts to put it out. Even without those criteria, it can burn for hours. Unless in a VERY enclosed space, or continuing to feed more hydrogen into the mix, this simply won't happen with hydrogen. And that's the only good thing I can say about hydrogen as a transportation fuel in it's current state.
First, I'll assume you mean unarmed martial arts. If there is hardware involved, I'm sure it's gotten better. Second, steroids and stimulants. It's not pretty, but it's true.
Name a sport where this isn't the case. The only one I can think of is the shot-put. Now I'll wait for someone with more interest in that one to tell me why I'm wrong.
Then I guess production isn't the problem, is it? I'd recommend collecting helium from a sequestered source on earth (I hear oil is a good one). Of course, with our short-sighted corporations, they'd rather throw away a distinctly finite resource than collect it and refuse to sell it at a loss. Prices will rise soon enough.
Personally, if I were in the government and wanted to put a stop to Wikileaks I wouldn't bother with that though. You'd simply find Assange in an ally with a bullet in the back of his head.
You (and other posters previously) are missing the point. If you want to get rid of someone with a powerful idea, killing him makes him a martyr. That's the last thing you want. It raises publicity, gets more people interested in what he was doing, and probably starts multiple people doing what he was doing before you killed him. So you take one problem and make many bigger problems. And if you handle the new problems the same way, the attention increases dramatically. The proper way to defuse an individual like Assange is to reduce their credibility, make them into a pariah, and then dispose of them in an embarrassing/shameful way. Maybe that's what we're seeing now, or it could be any other thing. Celebrities get stalkers; maybe Assange just got his first one. If this was something orchestrated by one government or another, it seems to have been a pretty clumsy attempt.
I don't care which category my co-worker falls into, so long as he does his job well and is reasonably easy to work with. Your intolerance for those who are dissimilar to you is no more worthy of commendation than the exact same intolerance exercised by one who is dissimilar to you.
Which is why Outlook decided to ignore my clicking of the date picker dropdown until such time as I restarted it. I said "do A" and it said "Go fuck yourself". But what do you expect from a teenager? Face it, we have so many interactions already happening on a computer that we wave our hands in the air and say "time for a reboot" instead of actually trying to figure out what is really happening. I'm not saying that Microsoft is paving the way for AI, but I think as complexity grows, unintended behaviour starts to creep in, and we start to get to the point where AI can just start happening, at a very rudimentary level. Toss in some fuzzy logic and circuits that return mostly the same result, and the possibility for something outside of the scope of a modern computer starts to be possible. It's not exactly my idea, James P. Hogan has similar thoughts.
The rules against collusion simply set up a even playing field that enhance the free market, by setting an initial state from which to compete.
Yeah, if it weren't for that pesky human element, the free market would be wonderful. It reminds me of an old quote. "In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it’s the other way around." The magical "free market" is no better than the other two at getting rid of flaws in human nature (it really is just a subset of capitalism), and is as willfully ignorant of the nature of human greed as communism is, just in the other direction. I like the ideal of the free market as much as I like the ideal of anarchy. They both work so well - except for all those jerks out there, [sarcasm]of which I am clearly not one[/sarcasm].
I don't think I've ever Godwin'd a thread before, but here goes. IIRC, Hitler threw out the idea of jets because he wanted better bombers, and those first jets just didn't have the capacity/range required.
To use a car analogy, this is no different than with cars. When they first came out, they were difficult to use and maintain. Now they're easy enough for everyone to use, but you need specialists to maintain them for the most part, and there are still those who put in the extra effort to know intimately how their cars work.
So...what you're saying is it takes more skill to win the game with more of your pieces. Which means you'd be a better player than someone who needs to get rid of those pieces first. Which means the margin of victory would be a good predictor of future outcomes? Am I right?
Or, to put it another way. If a model is derived that accurately represents previous behaviour, and accurately predicts future behaviour, then the model is reasonably accurate. You're not liking it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Well, this is just like sound. If you record in stereo, you can do some pretty cool things, and easily reduce to mono. It's hard and messy to produce stereo from mono sound. With stereoscopic movies, they can easily be planned for mono, and shown as such. But IMO more information is never a bad thing.
The key problem is that at $15,000, if your monthly electrical bill is $150, you need 100 months to pay for itself, which is about 8 years. If an investment doesn't pay for itself in 3 to 5 years, it's a poor monetary investment. At that point, simple economics is not a selling point, and you will have to sell the product on another real or perceived benefit, such as reduced grid dependence.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't drive half an hour to another store? Or buy it online? Or have it special-ordered to the store on the base? Really?
I don't agree with the premise this is being done with, but I can understand it. Remember, military bases have people other than just military on them, such as children whose friends or family have died. And those who will be inconvenienced will find a solution to this tiny problem.
None of that is to say that there is any sort of manufacturing oversight, claims testing (particularly in the diet and erectile dysfunction areas) or that a natural random soup of chemicals is somehow automatically safer than an intelligently purpose crafted solution.
Well, you'd think that, but there's one thing that biological processes are big on, and that is important in the realm of pharmaceuticals - handedness. Most chemical processes have no preference for handedness, but biologicals do. This is one of the aspects of invert sugar.
Many of the chemicals we use as drugs have side effects that are linked to the other-handed version of the active ingredient. If your process makes even amounts of the active ingredient and the one that causes side-effects, it may have no worth as a drug. If, on the other hand, you can get 90% of the resultant chemicals to be the correct hand, it may be very valuable. Sepracor made their money doing just that.
By your logic:
Anything that isn't a complete success is a complete failure. As for your example, numerous lives have been saved due to cancer research, and survival rates continue to improve because of that research. You would have been better off using fusion research for your comparison.
But this just bypasses the whole issue at hand, which is ethics. Once upon a time, the idea of cutting up a human cadaver was considered morally reprehensible, was illegal, and all the rest. Doing the same to an animal cadaver was fine. Now, while medical students routinely perform dissections of human cadavers, and this is accepted, people are still offended by the idea of desecrating bodies (as they should be IMO). There are those who find medical testing on live animals to be unethical, while there are those who accept that as beneficial and necessary to advancing our knowledge, but don't agree with testing on live animals for things such as cosmetics. It's not so surprising that some people would have differing ethical values that you in this, or any other, circumstance.
Remember, there are people who have different opinions about experimenting on living people, consent, etc. If you think they should respect your foolish, conservative notions* in those areas, perhaps you should put some thought in the value of respecting those who are more conservative than yourself.
*Assuming you're against experimenting on living humans in general, although possibly with caveats, and that you're against experimenting on people without their consent.
Yet no one stops to think that moving to the suburbs and having kids is a huge contributor to the demand for resources.
Absolutely! If the world would just stop having kids for one generation, this whole problem would clear up!
Exactly how is Windows more usable than GNOME?
The same way a car with the steering wheel on the left is more usable than one with the steering wheel on the right - because more people are used to it.
Absolutely, but always at a loss. That's not an energy source, it's an energy sink, also known as a battery.
Ultimately, there are three places you can get energy: nuclear power (fission or fusion), solar (specialized subset of nuclear), and gravitational. Everything we use for power comes from one of those three. Hydro and oil are concentrated solar, tidal is a combination of solar and gravitational, and nuclear is pretty obvious. Any method to produce hydrogen is going to be an energy sink from one of those.
Also worth noting, even if something bad happens with hydrogen, the hydrogen is shortly no longer an issue. Gasoline can burn for days given the right circumstances and no attempts to put it out. Even without those criteria, it can burn for hours. Unless in a VERY enclosed space, or continuing to feed more hydrogen into the mix, this simply won't happen with hydrogen. And that's the only good thing I can say about hydrogen as a transportation fuel in it's current state.
Microsoft has defaulted to "easy" mode (run everything), which also happens to be the most trusting and dangerous mode you could get.
So that's why the Easy Button is red...
First, I'll assume you mean unarmed martial arts. If there is hardware involved, I'm sure it's gotten better.
Second, steroids and stimulants. It's not pretty, but it's true.
Name a sport where this isn't the case. The only one I can think of is the shot-put. Now I'll wait for someone with more interest in that one to tell me why I'm wrong.
Then I guess production isn't the problem, is it? I'd recommend collecting helium from a sequestered source on earth (I hear oil is a good one). Of course, with our short-sighted corporations, they'd rather throw away a distinctly finite resource than collect it and refuse to sell it at a loss. Prices will rise soon enough.
Almost all the helium in the universe?
Personally, if I were in the government and wanted to put a stop to Wikileaks I wouldn't bother with that though. You'd simply find Assange in an ally with a bullet in the back of his head.
You (and other posters previously) are missing the point. If you want to get rid of someone with a powerful idea, killing him makes him a martyr. That's the last thing you want. It raises publicity, gets more people interested in what he was doing, and probably starts multiple people doing what he was doing before you killed him. So you take one problem and make many bigger problems. And if you handle the new problems the same way, the attention increases dramatically.
The proper way to defuse an individual like Assange is to reduce their credibility, make them into a pariah, and then dispose of them in an embarrassing/shameful way. Maybe that's what we're seeing now, or it could be any other thing. Celebrities get stalkers; maybe Assange just got his first one. If this was something orchestrated by one government or another, it seems to have been a pretty clumsy attempt.
I don't care which category my co-worker falls into, so long as he does his job well and is reasonably easy to work with.
Your intolerance for those who are dissimilar to you is no more worthy of commendation than the exact same intolerance exercised by one who is dissimilar to you.
Which is why Outlook decided to ignore my clicking of the date picker dropdown until such time as I restarted it. I said "do A" and it said "Go fuck yourself". But what do you expect from a teenager?
Face it, we have so many interactions already happening on a computer that we wave our hands in the air and say "time for a reboot" instead of actually trying to figure out what is really happening. I'm not saying that Microsoft is paving the way for AI, but I think as complexity grows, unintended behaviour starts to creep in, and we start to get to the point where AI can just start happening, at a very rudimentary level. Toss in some fuzzy logic and circuits that return mostly the same result, and the possibility for something outside of the scope of a modern computer starts to be possible.
It's not exactly my idea, James P. Hogan has similar thoughts.
...so this is Social Security?
I think once you get the joke, it won't be so bothersome.
Ah, so linguists make worse jokes than mathematicians?
The rules against collusion simply set up a even playing field that enhance the free market, by setting an initial state from which to compete.
Yeah, if it weren't for that pesky human element, the free market would be wonderful. It reminds me of an old quote. "In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it’s the other way around." The magical "free market" is no better than the other two at getting rid of flaws in human nature (it really is just a subset of capitalism), and is as willfully ignorant of the nature of human greed as communism is, just in the other direction.
I like the ideal of the free market as much as I like the ideal of anarchy. They both work so well - except for all those jerks out there, [sarcasm]of which I am clearly not one[/sarcasm].
I don't think I've ever Godwin'd a thread before, but here goes.
IIRC, Hitler threw out the idea of jets because he wanted better bombers, and those first jets just didn't have the capacity/range required.
To use a car analogy, this is no different than with cars. When they first came out, they were difficult to use and maintain. Now they're easy enough for everyone to use, but you need specialists to maintain them for the most part, and there are still those who put in the extra effort to know intimately how their cars work.
Three words: Roundup Ready Canola.
So...what you're saying is it takes more skill to win the game with more of your pieces. Which means you'd be a better player than someone who needs to get rid of those pieces first. Which means the margin of victory would be a good predictor of future outcomes? Am I right?
Or, to put it another way. If a model is derived that accurately represents previous behaviour, and accurately predicts future behaviour, then the model is reasonably accurate. You're not liking it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Well, this is just like sound. If you record in stereo, you can do some pretty cool things, and easily reduce to mono. It's hard and messy to produce stereo from mono sound.
With stereoscopic movies, they can easily be planned for mono, and shown as such. But IMO more information is never a bad thing.
The fact that the iPhone holds it own so well with so few models against all the Android phones is quite a feat.
Yep, they sure are doing well, what with one hand tied behind their back. But, who tied their hand behind their back?
The key problem is that at $15,000, if your monthly electrical bill is $150, you need 100 months to pay for itself, which is about 8 years. If an investment doesn't pay for itself in 3 to 5 years, it's a poor monetary investment. At that point, simple economics is not a selling point, and you will have to sell the product on another real or perceived benefit, such as reduced grid dependence.