There's good evidence that there was a fairly high level of civilization in both North and South America, with all of the accompanying alliances and wars that are familiar from European history. The Inca and Aztec empires in the south, and groups like the Iroquois Confederacy in the north. The Spanish ran into the Inca, but by the time Europeans started seriously exploring the north a lot of the agricultural civilization (and population) seemed to be gone. It's a reasonable hypothesis that what explorers found in North America was just the post-apocalyptic remains of pre-contact civilizations that had been destroyed by disease. Even so, many of the larger native groups were important allies in the European wars that followed. Perhaps most famously in Canada, the Iroquois and Huron fought on opposite sides in the Seven Years' War between France and Britain.
Our impression of pre-contact American civilization as being stone age, or our romanticized notion of the peaceful noble savage are the fallacies.
No... the first nations have been around a lot longer than the Vikings. They're not the first in North America, not even by blood, as this story indicates, but they're groups of currently living people who can trace back some (somewhat arbitrary amount) of their lineage to political and cultural groups that existed at the time of first contact with Europeans.
The presence of trans fats in the study would seem to strengthen their main result: even during the study period, where people were exposed to quite a bit of trans fat, eating more fat came out as being good for you. If trans fat is harmful, which seems likely, it suggests that eating a decent amount of fat today would be even better for you.
Those don't really seem like significant limitations at all. The two you mentioned have fairly minor bearing on the main conclusion.
You can borrow money to invest it. That practice was a contributor to the great depression and strict controls were put on it afterward. But you can buy bitcoin on your credit card, which is the same thing.
If you've got $100 and you lose it you might have to go to the food bank this month. If you've got $100 and you lose $1000 you paid for with your credit card, you've got a problem that's at least a hundred times worse.
Hollywood would love you to believe that movies drive culture. It might happen sometimes, but those are probably rare, not made by Hollywood, and generally unpopular.
Hollywood movies are made to make money. They reflect culture, or at least what most of us like to think is our culture. At best they're a feedback mechanism... cultural forcing if you will.
If you want movies that drive culture and aren't motivated by profit, support your government's art granting programs and go see independent films.
True! But since we're monkeys with ten fingers we invented a decimal counting system that we all learn as children. That pairs really well with a measuring system that is ALSO base 10.
If your counting system is base 10 and your measuring system is base... um, 32? Or is it 5238? 12? Anyway, anything other than base 10, it makes everything difficult.
You could say the same about any place in the world. The "western" world is just as much east of the "eastern" world as it is west. If you live in America and you want to get to China you fly *west*.
So that we can talk about direction we specify everything relative to the (mostly) arbitrary reference of the prime meridian. That makes China east and the US west. It also makes the Antarctic have an eastern part (which is in the eastern hemisphere) and a western part (in the western hemisphere).
I'm not sure exactly what is the chicken and what is the egg, but it's quite well established that the weight of water or ice deforms the land. There's lots of geological evidence of uplift after glaciers melt, and you can see the same on a smaller scale in places like California today where groundwater depletion is causing uplift. The effect has also been linked to seismicity, so it's not that big a leap to volcanism.
Why is that? You can launch a satellite yourself. As far as I know, NASA can't actually launch one for you but there are several companies, from multiple countries, who can though. Or you could build yourself a rocket. Several amateur efforts have gotten rockets into space, and there is at least one effort going on now to get one into orbit.
If you want your own visual proof the planet is round you can get it with a high altitude weather balloon. High school students regularly launch those.
I couldn't find any totals broken down by type of test, and I don't really want to add them all up, but about 20% of US shots were atmospheric, and it looks like most of the multi-megaton bombs were atmospheric. Quite a bit more than your 10%.
"Badly contaminated" seems similarly hyperbolic. The tests were detectable, and you didn't want to be downwind of them for sure, but except in those limited areas they don't seem to have been too catastrophic. I'm not sure why you'd say a rocket disintegrating would be worse. The most likely scenario would have a completely or mostly intact reactor falling into the ocean. The container would eventually corrode, but unenriched uranium isn't anywhere near as dangerous as the products from a working reactor or fallout from a bomb. The US military likes to shoot orders of magnitude more depleted uranium around battlefields. Also, the US SAC used to have a policy of keeping many times more weapons grade uranium and plutonium continuously airborne.
It's probably not a good idea to build a large industry that involves launching tens of thousands of reactors, but a limited number with appropriate controls wouldn't be catastrophic, particularly dangerous or even unprecedented.
"Paying-off the original debts that created the money causes it to disappear with the debt but it provides profit in the form of interest for the banks that created the money in the first place."
If you could direct me to this bank that only makes money in interest if you pay off a loan, I would be most appreciative.
Sure you can put a lump of metal anywhere in the solar system with chemical rockets. When you've got people riding along how long it takes tends to become more of a concern.
However, they work much better for non-Hohmann transfer orbits. Or non-lowest dV Hohmann transfer orbits. There are advantages to getting to Mars more quickly. Keeping the crew alive being one of them.
The thread I replied to suggested (at a minimum) cutting diplomatic contact. Presumably that would mean reinstating sanctions, which cause extensive harm to ordinary people. Other posters suggested lots of things up to "nuke 'em."
So what's your position on three wrongs?
The US plays diplomatic hardball when it suits them. Maybe Cuba did something bad here, maybe not; the story has a lot of holes. Even if they did, perhaps we should agree that even if nations can't be nice to each other's diplomats they should try to keep the regular people out of it.
The US may not have made Angela Merkel deaf (yet). But deafening a few diplomats is pretty minor compared to a lot of the things the US has done covertly.
Slashdot Mirror
There's good evidence that there was a fairly high level of civilization in both North and South America, with all of the accompanying alliances and wars that are familiar from European history. The Inca and Aztec empires in the south, and groups like the Iroquois Confederacy in the north. The Spanish ran into the Inca, but by the time Europeans started seriously exploring the north a lot of the agricultural civilization (and population) seemed to be gone. It's a reasonable hypothesis that what explorers found in North America was just the post-apocalyptic remains of pre-contact civilizations that had been destroyed by disease. Even so, many of the larger native groups were important allies in the European wars that followed. Perhaps most famously in Canada, the Iroquois and Huron fought on opposite sides in the Seven Years' War between France and Britain.
Our impression of pre-contact American civilization as being stone age, or our romanticized notion of the peaceful noble savage are the fallacies.
No... the first nations have been around a lot longer than the Vikings. They're not the first in North America, not even by blood, as this story indicates, but they're groups of currently living people who can trace back some (somewhat arbitrary amount) of their lineage to political and cultural groups that existed at the time of first contact with Europeans.
Did you read the paper? I'm guessing no....
Even the summary is fairly well written. There are no absolute statements, just a presentation of the evidence and a fairly cautious interpretation.
Don't confuse pop-health TV and your own desire for certainty with science or what scientists are saying.
The presence of trans fats in the study would seem to strengthen their main result: even during the study period, where people were exposed to quite a bit of trans fat, eating more fat came out as being good for you. If trans fat is harmful, which seems likely, it suggests that eating a decent amount of fat today would be even better for you.
Those don't really seem like significant limitations at all. The two you mentioned have fairly minor bearing on the main conclusion.
You can borrow money to invest it. That practice was a contributor to the great depression and strict controls were put on it afterward. But you can buy bitcoin on your credit card, which is the same thing.
If you've got $100 and you lose it you might have to go to the food bank this month. If you've got $100 and you lose $1000 you paid for with your credit card, you've got a problem that's at least a hundred times worse.
"It's not about what we value more... but about how much money the public will pay for watching you do your stuff."
Uh huh.
There are a few older and more popular options for attackers with local access to disable your brakes. The most popular uses a knife.
Remotely? Well, connecting a local control bus to the internet certainly is a flaw.
Hollywood would love you to believe that movies drive culture. It might happen sometimes, but those are probably rare, not made by Hollywood, and generally unpopular.
Hollywood movies are made to make money. They reflect culture, or at least what most of us like to think is our culture. At best they're a feedback mechanism... cultural forcing if you will.
If you want movies that drive culture and aren't motivated by profit, support your government's art granting programs and go see independent films.
Because all of Slashdot's ageing reactionaries will come and comment on it, making ad impressions as they go.
So: money.
True! But since we're monkeys with ten fingers we invented a decimal counting system that we all learn as children. That pairs really well with a measuring system that is ALSO base 10.
If your counting system is base 10 and your measuring system is base... um, 32? Or is it 5238? 12? Anyway, anything other than base 10, it makes everything difficult.
You could say the same about any place in the world. The "western" world is just as much east of the "eastern" world as it is west. If you live in America and you want to get to China you fly *west*.
So that we can talk about direction we specify everything relative to the (mostly) arbitrary reference of the prime meridian. That makes China east and the US west. It also makes the Antarctic have an eastern part (which is in the eastern hemisphere) and a western part (in the western hemisphere).
I'm not sure exactly what is the chicken and what is the egg, but it's quite well established that the weight of water or ice deforms the land. There's lots of geological evidence of uplift after glaciers melt, and you can see the same on a smaller scale in places like California today where groundwater depletion is causing uplift. The effect has also been linked to seismicity, so it's not that big a leap to volcanism.
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
Why is that? You can launch a satellite yourself. As far as I know, NASA can't actually launch one for you but there are several companies, from multiple countries, who can though. Or you could build yourself a rocket. Several amateur efforts have gotten rockets into space, and there is at least one effort going on now to get one into orbit.
If you want your own visual proof the planet is round you can get it with a high altitude weather balloon. High school students regularly launch those.
OMG 22 MB/s! Is this satire someone marked as insightful?
I couldn't find any totals broken down by type of test, and I don't really want to add them all up, but about 20% of US shots were atmospheric, and it looks like most of the multi-megaton bombs were atmospheric. Quite a bit more than your 10%.
"Badly contaminated" seems similarly hyperbolic. The tests were detectable, and you didn't want to be downwind of them for sure, but except in those limited areas they don't seem to have been too catastrophic. I'm not sure why you'd say a rocket disintegrating would be worse. The most likely scenario would have a completely or mostly intact reactor falling into the ocean. The container would eventually corrode, but unenriched uranium isn't anywhere near as dangerous as the products from a working reactor or fallout from a bomb. The US military likes to shoot orders of magnitude more depleted uranium around battlefields. Also, the US SAC used to have a policy of keeping many times more weapons grade uranium and plutonium continuously airborne.
It's probably not a good idea to build a large industry that involves launching tens of thousands of reactors, but a limited number with appropriate controls wouldn't be catastrophic, particularly dangerous or even unprecedented.
The one I replied to? Saw it, thanks.
Or a 1985 Niven/Pournelle science fiction novel.
You know the US alone has fired off about 10,000 Hiroshima equivalents worth of nuclear bombs in testing right?
"Paying-off the original debts that created the money causes it to disappear with the debt but it provides profit in the form of interest for the banks that created the money in the first place."
If you could direct me to this bank that only makes money in interest if you pay off a loan, I would be most appreciative.
Sure you can put a lump of metal anywhere in the solar system with chemical rockets. When you've got people riding along how long it takes tends to become more of a concern.
However, they work much better for non-Hohmann transfer orbits. Or non-lowest dV Hohmann transfer orbits. There are advantages to getting to Mars more quickly. Keeping the crew alive being one of them.
The thread I replied to suggested (at a minimum) cutting diplomatic contact. Presumably that would mean reinstating sanctions, which cause extensive harm to ordinary people. Other posters suggested lots of things up to "nuke 'em."
So what's your position on three wrongs?
The US plays diplomatic hardball when it suits them. Maybe Cuba did something bad here, maybe not; the story has a lot of holes. Even if they did, perhaps we should agree that even if nations can't be nice to each other's diplomats they should try to keep the regular people out of it.
The US may not have made Angela Merkel deaf (yet). But deafening a few diplomats is pretty minor compared to a lot of the things the US has done covertly.
A particular kind of photography called "the selfie" accounts for about forty percent of them alone.
You're right on the second part though, all those apps want access for reasons other than photography.
Curious. Where does the water go?