"Except noone will have a job, and there would be absolutely no government aid for our new impoverished nation."
Sorry but our economy is NOT completely dependent on the gov't (thank God). There is something called 'the private sector'. Spending less money on gov't frees up capital for the private sector. Of course there is an appropriate role for the gov't but don't make it sound like they completely drive the economy. The last time I checked the gov't was about 30% of our annual GDP (too big for my taste but that still leaves a good chunk for the private sector).
Science can only answer the 'can we question'.
The process of law making (aka public morality) is designed to answer the 'should we' question.
For instance we have the technology to import babies from China & India and butcher them for their organs but we don't. An extreme example but you get my point. If you must have an actual example then the nazi death camp experiments are a real case of unconstrained research.
Now I don't have any problem with this particular research but if someone wants to raise the issue than let's debate them in the open. I think it's trite to say that biological research is some how above the law.
No one should be complacent about a meteor hitting the Earth by saying that the last impact was 'millions of years ago'. In the recent historical past we have confirmed one such hit on Jupiter within the past 30 yrs. I believe that was a comet but I'm not sure. In any case this is an appropriate expenditure of money.
While people decry how bad energy use is by calling CO2 'pollution' (it is not, CO2 is a vital plant nutrient and harmless to animals) they ignore the ways in which it CLEANS the environment.
1. We use it to treat sewage which cleans water.
2. It allows us to conserve farm land by increasing yield/acre (fertilizer, pesticides, application, shipping, etc).
3. It increases the efficiency of commerce by decreasing shipping costs.
4. It increases economic wealth and allows us to make cleaning the environment more affordable. Both the U.S. and G.B. are much cleaner now than they were 100yrs. ago. If you are scratching out a subsistance living the last thing you care about is a cleaner env.
The best thing for the environment would be to increase per capita energy use all over the world. Care about the availability of fresh water? The main costs of water de-salinization is energy. More energy use could make fresh water an easily affordable commodity, eliminating the affects of drought. I could go on and on but please read Julian Simon instead (the ultimate resource II).
Re:theory, - Moderators what are you smoking?
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 1
This was rated a score 5? This should have been rated off topic. This is nothing more than the late Stephen Jay Gould fuming that it's a fact that evolution occured but how it occured is still theoretical (a falsifiable point but I won't argue that here). How is this related to this topic? It isn't even a coherent definition of fact vs. theory. A fact is a phenomena that can be measured or directly observed. We should leave it at that and not stretch the definition to accomodate anyone's agenda. This article is forming a theory to explain observable facts, a noble pursuit but let's just leave it at that.
The U.S. was only able to grow its economy in the 19th century by boot legging illegal copies of Charles Dickens novels. Hmmm...
Seriously if the developing world uses technology from the U.S. to grow their economies then why is it so over the top to ask for some compensation? If we had an arrangement that U.S. companies could get a fraction of the profits then everyone wins and the developing world would never pay if the technology failed them.
For instance, let's suppose Zimbabwe used genetically enhanced corn seeds and the U.S. firmed asked for 10% of the crop. If the crop fails then no payment is made, if the crop succeeds then some payment is made.
Look, we can work out the details, I'm just saying that we can find some way to encourage technology that benefits everyone and I don't think that U.S. firms are evil for wanting to make a profit if someone uses their IP to benefit themselves.
Really? But I keep hearing how the evil Dick Cheney as CEO of Halliburton was able to sell Iraq $M's of oil drilling equipment. And that was with sanctions imagine the business without sanctions!
If BIG OIL is stirring up the war then they are stupid. Below is a list of possible motives and a rational strategy to obtain it.
1. Keep iraq oil off market to drive prices up.
Rational solution: keep sanctions in place, a war will free up the oil in 6 mo's.
2. Develop Iraqi oil fields by selling them drilling and processing equipment.
Rational solution: Lift sanctions, Saddam will roll out the red carpet like he's done in the past.
It seems odd to me that BIG OIL would want more oil on the market. That would make them the only business in the world that likes competition.
If Iraq was only about getting OIL for the sake of BIG OIL then couldn't we simply lift sanctions instead of going to war? Sadly Europeans have a simplistic way of looking at things
"What makes you think that the US Government will legislate the use of biomass fuels?"
NOTHING, and it shouldn't. Once someone can produce biomass fuel more cheaply than oil it will be used. Big Oil will either switch to producing it or be driven out of business like countless other businesses have over the years.
Re:Lost bullshit education, work hard
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 1
China's policy is monstrous and unnecessary. Read Julian Simon to understand the economics of population growth.
More people producing and consuming products creates resources, read Julian Simon, commodity prices are dropping labor prices are increasing. Sorry its a fact.
Reduced trade barriers increases competition and decreases price. Do you thing paying $4000 for a PC is a good thing?
Re:Never let the facts get in the way of a diatrib
on
Generation Wrecked
·
· Score: 1
Bottom line: If a 30 year old couple has a large house, two cars, and cable T.V. they can cut expenses. Regarding your point about wage stagnation you aren't factoring in a greatly REDUCED inflation rate brought about by competition. This has had a net positive affect on buying power. Having grown up in the 70's I can't see anyone can seriously argue that food, clothes, and electronics are less affordable today as compared to then. Regarding those dock workers they are thugs, if corp. played the same games then they would be accused of being monopoly.
So their prospects are worse then the 'great depression generation'. Let's see, the great depression lasted from about 1929 to 1943, it featured peak unemployment at 30% and killed almost 500k men being slaughtered in WW2 (World War 2 for those that don't know history). Don't even get me started on real problems they had to deal with including polio. Yeah, that was a real cake walk.
Btw I noticed that the article liked to compare the peak of the last boom (about 1998) to the peak of our current 2 year recession. That's a real apples to apples comparison. For some reason people like to moan and believe that the deck is stacked against them. The truth is that this is the best time to live in terms of real quality of life.
Hear, hear Hanno, great post. I could not have said it better. For all the people that want to restrict competition you are only driving up prices for everybody else. If U.S. quality is better then we don't have to worry about the Indians, if it isn't then why should people pay more for U.S. software development? In a free market there will always be a niche if we are clever enough to find it. We should not fear change and artificially limit competition.
See comment # 4342988, it requires a paid subscription to read it. This is/. my friend, you don't actually have to read the article before you comment on it.
science? According to the article... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/10/health/nutrition/10BROD.html?8vd the 'mainstream' scientists won't even peer review any long term study on the Atkins dieat. They just intuitively think it's bad; great scientists
About the kidneys, the article sites one two week study suggesting that a low carb diet may cause kidney stones (this doesn't require amputation in case you don't know). In any case they only measured acid levels not actual kidney stone development. Too bad there will never be any long term studies.
Since diets are a serious healpth concern there should be a comprehensive long term gov't sponsored study of the Atkins diet. Instead it is being entirely dismissed out of hand by people not even pretending to use any scientific method. My favorite quotation from the article. "Why hasn't the government tested it? One possible reason is that it is unlikely to be approved by any review committee, given what is known about the effects of animal fats and cholesterol..." Gee, that's objective.
I am an 'Atkins (actually Eades)' partisan because the diet works for me. I've lost 20lb's, feel great energy level and my blood cholesterol improved (from 3.8 LDL/HDL to 3.1). Also, my triglycerides basically dissappeared (over 70% reduction).
"The main problem is that we actually get so much wind-generated electricity during a storm that we cannot get rid of it, this unbalances the power-grid and results in voltage and frequency instabilities"
You need some type of battery system to store the excess electricity. Or you could use the extra electricity to produce hydrogen from sea water that could then either be sold or used as a fuel source to power turbines when it is needed.
"One big thing Java needs is a multi-process VM. Think about it,... Each process has its own VM.... continuing overhead of the same duplicated code running in memory for each VM."
Isn't this already in Solaris??? In Solaris when you start a program multiple times it SHARES the same executable that is already present in memory between all of the processes. The only thing that gets duplicated per process is the data and you want the data memory to be unique between JVM's.
Your comments are both off topic and incorrect. 1.The U.S. does NOT have a problem with 'overindulgence'. By importing goods we provide cash and resources to economies that need it. In a way I'd love it if the U.S. would produce all its own goods and stop buying foreign products altogether but the whining from those countries would be too much to bear. 2. The low carb diets only require a moderate increase of animal protein. Protein and fat can come from nuts, soy beans, and cheese as well as meat. Low carb diets are also high in green vegetables. 3. If the low carb diet did cause a greater consumption of meat then the U.S. would produce it more efficiently much like we did with agriculture. You really should read some Julian Simon to get a better understanding of economics and the environment.
1. 'You don't eat vegetables.' Actually, you can (and do) eat lots of green leafy vegetables like lettuce, broccoli, spinach, green beans, etc and soy beans. These are all low in NET carbohydrates. You only have to avoid corn since it is really a grain that is high in carbs. 2. 'You only lose water and have no energy.' I've lost 15 lb's of FAT and my energy level is great. My weight is now stable but I stay on the diet just for the energy.
If you're tired of being fat try a low carb diet for a month. Limit yourself to
I actually follow the Eades' program of 'Protein Power' which is a modified Atkin's diet.
At least with atoms we can create and observe nuclear reactions, measure its mass, etc because we are viewing an entity that materially exists in the present. Macro-evolution by definition is a process that is too long to observe, so I wouldn't equate the two.
Btw even the cases for micro-evolution are overstated. For complex organisms they almost always involve selection of traits that are
already present in the genome and not traits that we know were caused by mutations. The only living system that has been shown to benefit
from mutations are viruses which are able to make slight adaptations but always remain single-celled organisms.
"No, macro-evolution is watching the tide for a millenium. Same thing, different time-scale."
No, macro-evolution has NOT BEEN OBSERVED, it has been assumed to have taken place. You are taking an observable process over a very small time scale and then saying that its extrapolation over an un-observable time scale is a proven fact. There are many cases where changes are either cyclic or reach a limit. In the case of macro-evolution the extrapolation is millions of times greater than the period of observation. Now this doesn't automatically make it untrue but like creation the evidence for it is entirely circumstantial. That is why it shouldn't be equated with the roundness of the earth which is entirely observable.
"Macro and micro evolution are the same ting, just over a different period of time."
Micro-evolution is watching the tide for an hour, macro-evolution is using that to believe that whole earth will be covered in water in a year.
The "original theory" is gravity.
I don't have a problem w/gravity per se. It's the theory that gravity has held the galaxies together for 10-14billion yrs, aka the big bang theory.
Galaxies would immediatly fly apart without a broadly distributed source of gravity.
How do you define 'immediately'?. I remember reading that is was on the order of 200million yrs. Which would imply that as an upper limit on its age.
Bottom Line: If dark matter is real then there should be a real way of measuring it. Currently, I see it as contrived to simply make the big bang theory work. If 90% of the universe is really comprised of dark matter then it should be causing most of the gravitational lensing of light.
Endnote: The only way that is possible is if God created the universe in a ludicrous unstable state
Well now we are into pure theology. Genesis basically states that we now have a corrupted form of creation after sin and death entered the world. Talk about stable state the original human bodies were designed to last forever, forget about galaxies falling apart after 200million yrs.
Slashdot Mirror
"Except noone will have a job, and there would be absolutely no government aid for our new impoverished nation."
Sorry but our economy is NOT completely dependent on the gov't (thank God). There is something called 'the private sector'. Spending less money on gov't frees up capital for the private sector. Of course there is an appropriate role for the gov't but don't make it sound like they completely drive the economy. The last time I checked the gov't was about 30% of our annual GDP (too big for my taste but that still leaves a good chunk for the private sector).
Science can only answer the 'can we question'.
The process of law making (aka public morality) is designed to answer the 'should we' question.
For instance we have the technology to import babies from China & India and butcher them for their organs but we don't. An extreme example but you get my point. If you must have an actual example then the nazi death camp experiments are a real case of unconstrained research.
Now I don't have any problem with this particular research but if someone wants to raise the issue than let's debate them in the open. I think it's trite to say that biological research is some how above the law.
No one should be complacent about a meteor hitting the Earth by saying that the last impact was 'millions of years ago'. In the recent historical past we have confirmed one such hit on Jupiter within the past 30 yrs. I believe that was a comet but I'm not sure. In any case this is an appropriate expenditure of money.
While people decry how bad energy use is by calling CO2 'pollution' (it is not, CO2 is a vital plant nutrient and harmless to animals) they ignore the ways in which it CLEANS the environment.
1. We use it to treat sewage which cleans water.
2. It allows us to conserve farm land by increasing yield/acre (fertilizer, pesticides, application, shipping, etc).
3. It increases the efficiency of commerce by decreasing shipping costs.
4. It increases economic wealth and allows us to make cleaning the environment more affordable. Both the U.S. and G.B. are much cleaner now than they were 100yrs. ago. If you are scratching out a subsistance living the last thing you care about is a cleaner env.
The best thing for the environment would be to increase per capita energy use all over the world. Care about the availability of fresh water? The main costs of water de-salinization is energy. More energy use could make fresh water an easily affordable commodity, eliminating the affects of drought. I could go on and on but please read Julian Simon instead (the ultimate resource II).
This was rated a score 5? This should have been rated off topic. This is nothing more than the late Stephen Jay Gould fuming that it's a fact that evolution occured but how it occured is still theoretical (a falsifiable point but I won't argue that here). How is this related to this topic? It isn't even a coherent definition of fact vs. theory. A fact is a phenomena that can be measured or directly observed. We should leave it at that and not stretch the definition to accomodate anyone's agenda. This article is forming a theory to explain observable facts, a noble pursuit but let's just leave it at that.
The U.S. was only able to grow its economy in the 19th century by boot legging illegal copies of Charles Dickens novels. Hmmm...
Seriously if the developing world uses technology from the U.S. to grow their economies then why is it so over the top to ask for some compensation? If we had an arrangement that U.S. companies could get a fraction of the profits then everyone wins and the developing world would never pay if the technology failed them.
For instance, let's suppose Zimbabwe used genetically enhanced corn seeds and the U.S. firmed asked for 10% of the crop. If the crop fails then no payment is made, if the crop succeeds then some payment is made.
Look, we can work out the details, I'm just saying that we can find some way to encourage technology that benefits everyone and I don't think that U.S. firms are evil for wanting to make a profit if someone uses their IP to benefit themselves.
Really? But I keep hearing how the evil Dick Cheney as CEO of Halliburton was able to sell Iraq $M's of oil drilling equipment. And that was with sanctions imagine the business without sanctions!
If BIG OIL is stirring up the war then they are stupid. Below is a list of possible motives and a rational strategy to obtain it.
1. Keep iraq oil off market to drive prices up.
Rational solution: keep sanctions in place, a war will free up the oil in 6 mo's.
2. Develop Iraqi oil fields by selling them drilling and processing equipment.
Rational solution: Lift sanctions, Saddam will roll out the red carpet like he's done in the past.
It seems odd to me that BIG OIL would want more oil on the market. That would make them the only business in the world that likes competition.
If Iraq was only about getting OIL for the sake of BIG OIL then couldn't we simply lift sanctions instead of going to war? Sadly Europeans have a simplistic way of looking at things
"What makes you think that the US Government will legislate the use of biomass fuels?"
NOTHING, and it shouldn't. Once someone can produce biomass fuel more cheaply than oil it will be used. Big Oil will either switch to producing it or be driven out of business like countless other businesses have over the years.
China's policy is monstrous and unnecessary. Read Julian Simon to understand the economics of population growth.
More people producing and consuming products creates resources, read Julian Simon, commodity prices are dropping labor prices are increasing. Sorry its a fact. Reduced trade barriers increases competition and decreases price. Do you thing paying $4000 for a PC is a good thing?
Bottom line: If a 30 year old couple has a large house, two cars, and cable T.V. they can cut expenses. Regarding your point about wage stagnation you aren't factoring in a greatly REDUCED inflation rate brought about by competition. This has had a net positive affect on buying power. Having grown up in the 70's I can't see anyone can seriously argue that food, clothes, and electronics are less affordable today as compared to then. Regarding those dock workers they are thugs, if corp. played the same games then they would be accused of being monopoly.
So their prospects are worse then the 'great depression generation'. Let's see, the great depression lasted from about 1929 to 1943, it featured peak unemployment at 30% and killed almost 500k men being slaughtered in WW2 (World War 2 for those that don't know history). Don't even get me started on real problems they had to deal with including polio. Yeah, that was a real cake walk.
Btw I noticed that the article liked to compare the peak of the last boom (about 1998) to the peak of our current 2 year recession. That's a real apples to apples comparison. For some reason people like to moan and believe that the deck is stacked against them. The truth is that this is the best time to live in terms of real quality of life.
Hear, hear Hanno, great post. I could not have said it better. For all the people that want to restrict competition you are only driving up prices for everybody else. If U.S. quality is better then we don't have to worry about the Indians, if it isn't then why should people pay more for U.S. software development? In a free market there will always be a niche if we are clever enough to find it. We should not fear change and artificially limit competition.
See comment # 4342988, it requires a paid subscription to read it. This is /. my friend, you don't actually have to read the article before you comment on it.
science? According to the article ... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/10/health/nutrition /10BROD.html?8vd the 'mainstream' scientists won't even peer review any long term study on the Atkins dieat. They just intuitively think it's bad; great scientists
About the kidneys, the article sites one two week study suggesting that a low carb diet may cause kidney stones (this doesn't require amputation in case you don't know). In any case they only measured acid levels not actual kidney stone development. Too bad there will never be any long term studies.
Since diets are a serious healpth concern there should be a comprehensive long term gov't sponsored study of the Atkins diet. Instead it is being entirely dismissed out of hand by people not even pretending to use any scientific method. My favorite quotation from the article. ..." Gee, that's objective.
"Why hasn't the government tested it? One possible reason is that it is unlikely to be approved by any review committee, given what is known about the effects of animal fats and cholesterol
I am an 'Atkins (actually Eades)' partisan because the diet works for me. I've lost 20lb's, feel great energy level and my blood cholesterol improved (from 3.8 LDL/HDL to 3.1). Also, my triglycerides basically dissappeared (over 70% reduction).
"The main problem is that we actually get so much wind-generated electricity during a storm that we cannot get rid of it, this unbalances the power-grid and results in voltage and frequency instabilities"
You need some type of battery system to store the excess electricity. Or you could use the extra electricity to produce hydrogen from sea water that could then either be sold or used as a fuel source to power turbines when it is needed.
"One big thing Java needs is a multi-process VM. Think about it, ... Each process has its own VM. ... continuing overhead of the same duplicated code running in memory for each VM."
Isn't this already in Solaris???
In Solaris when you start a program multiple times it SHARES the same executable that is already present in memory between all of the processes. The only thing that gets duplicated per process is the data and you want the data memory to be unique between JVM's.
Your comments are both off topic and incorrect.
1.The U.S. does NOT have a problem with 'overindulgence'. By importing goods we provide cash and resources to economies that need it. In a way I'd love it if the U.S. would produce all its own goods and stop buying foreign products altogether but the whining from those countries would be too much to bear.
2. The low carb diets only require a moderate increase of animal protein. Protein and fat can come from nuts, soy beans, and cheese as well as meat. Low carb diets are also high in green vegetables.
3. If the low carb diet did cause a greater consumption of meat then the U.S. would produce it more efficiently much like we did with agriculture. You really should read some Julian Simon to get a better understanding of economics and the environment.
Limit yourself to about 30 grams of carbohydrates a day. Of course you should do your own DD.
1. 'You don't eat vegetables.'
Actually, you can (and do) eat lots of green leafy vegetables like lettuce, broccoli, spinach, green beans, etc and soy beans. These are all low in NET carbohydrates. You only have to avoid corn since it is really a grain that is high in carbs.
2. 'You only lose water and have no energy.'
I've lost 15 lb's of FAT and my energy level is great. My weight is now stable but I stay on the diet just for the energy.
If you're tired of being fat try a low carb diet for a month. Limit yourself to I actually follow the Eades' program of 'Protein Power' which is a modified Atkin's diet.
At least with atoms we can create and observe nuclear reactions, measure its mass, etc because we are viewing an entity that materially exists in the present. Macro-evolution by definition is a process that is too long to observe, so I wouldn't equate the two.
Btw even the cases for micro-evolution are overstated. For complex organisms they almost always involve selection of traits that are already present in the genome and not traits that we know were caused by mutations. The only living system that has been shown to benefit from mutations are viruses which are able to make slight adaptations but always remain single-celled organisms.
"No, macro-evolution is watching the tide for a millenium. Same thing, different time-scale."
No, macro-evolution has NOT BEEN OBSERVED, it has been assumed to have taken place. You are taking an observable process over a very small time scale and then saying that its extrapolation over an un-observable time scale is a proven fact. There are many cases where changes are either cyclic or reach a limit. In the case of macro-evolution the extrapolation is millions of times greater than the period of observation. Now this doesn't automatically make it untrue but like creation the evidence for it is entirely circumstantial. That is why it shouldn't be equated with the roundness of the earth which is entirely observable.
"Macro and micro evolution are the same ting, just over a different period of time." Micro-evolution is watching the tide for an hour, macro-evolution is using that to believe that whole earth will be covered in water in a year.
The "original theory" is gravity.
I don't have a problem w/gravity per se. It's the theory that gravity has held the galaxies together for 10-14billion yrs, aka the big bang theory.
Galaxies would immediatly fly apart without a broadly distributed source of gravity.
How do you define 'immediately'?. I remember reading that is was on the order of 200million yrs. Which would imply that as an upper limit on its age.
Bottom Line:
If dark matter is real then there should be a real way of measuring it. Currently, I see it as contrived to simply make the big bang theory work. If 90% of the universe is really comprised of dark matter then it should be causing most of the gravitational lensing of light.
Endnote:
The only way that is possible is if God created the universe in a ludicrous unstable state
Well now we are into pure theology. Genesis basically states that we now have a corrupted form of creation after sin and death entered the world. Talk about stable state the original human bodies were designed to last forever, forget about galaxies falling apart after 200million yrs.