While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is.
But is there any evidence that it isn't as safe to have a 90 MPH limit on those roads as it is to have a 70 MPH limit?
It's downright blood money as speeding DOES increase fatal accidents in Nevada and there are statistics to back that up.
Except that any statistics for that are useless, because the legal speedlimit in those cases was not 90 MPH, and the other drivers on the road who were involved were not expecting 90 MPH drivers. Assuming this went through, it would be just like leaving a metro area on an expressway when the speedlimit goes from 55 to 70 - the 55 MPH drivers should know to stay the hell out of the left lane.
Licenses to drive try to ensure that everyone has a minimum skill set before getting behind the wheel and potentially killing others. That program takes a lot of manpower and resources. The licenses by comparison are really not that much.
How about a second license exam then, one that is more rigorous and does allow for 90 MPH speeds in appropriate areas?
Are you sure? I just searched and the first result is this Slashdot article which clearly says that he was an 18th century composer, right in the summary.
No it doesn't, it says he's a 20th century paint-sprayer company.
. . . was to check the graduate programs listing on the American Chemical Society website, which was broken down by division (inorganic, biochem, etc.) and listed by university. I then started checking those particular university websites for the faculty members listed by my interest, and stopped when I'd reached ten universities (about 16 faculty members). Yeah, it took me several hours before I had a list of faculty I wanted to work with, but it's not like this is a decision you want to make in 15 minutes anyway.
And if the APA doesn't have that kind of resource available, write to them - they are a professional development organization, and this is EXACTLY the kind of thing for which they exist.
If we (the highest-spending military behemoth on the planet, by a factor of ten) couldn't control Iraq (an area smaller than Texas, with a population of about 20M), how the hell is China going to invade and control us?
100,000 Iraqi deaths compared to 4700 coalition deaths? I'd say we're controlling it pretty damn well. Just because insurgents exist doesn't mean that a government isn't in nominal control - remember, we've had our fair share of terrorist attacks, but most people won't argue that the US government is in control.
Besides, the GP wasn't making a serious proposal (any more than I am). He's just pointing out how truly screwed up our spending priorities are right now. I'm sure he'd be ecstatic with, say, a 50% reduction in military spending.
And I'm not disagreeing that a reassessment of priorities is necessary. But when you ignore the whackos instead of addressing them, they just gain more power, and end up running the Glenn Beck Show.
We could cut our military spending to one-tenth of what it currently is, and we'd still be spending more than any other country.
And he suggested we cut it to one two-hundred-fortieth, which would put us right above Sudan and Hungary. A defense budget of $2B would support 100,000 full-time troops (1/15 of our current active force) at $20K a year, assuming they clothed, fed, housed, armed, and transported themselves. That's 2000 soldiers per state which would be 48 soldiers per county. China's fishing fleet could take us over with numbers like that.
I'm not going to argue that we shouldn't divert some funds from defense - I doubt the Army would miss two or three new Abrams tanks a year. But gutting the defense budget as he suggested would be irresponsible, criminal, and immoral.
I guess, in a strict sense, it is a bomb after all.
Actually, it's a bomb in a loose sense - the same definition of "bomb" that applies to popping bubble wrap or balloons, or a rectum - "A vessel which contains compressed gases."
This isn't an argument supporting the validity of "home labs." Those handheld XRFs are about $30K. I'd love to have one in MY home lab, where the most expensive equipment is a $300 distillation kit that I had to save for six months to justify.
. ..I would recommend Windows, Windows, and (not strongly) OSX.
There is no question in my mind that Windows is the way to go for chemistry software, as I've now spent almost ten years at three different universities working my way to a PhD (almost there!), and besides the occasional foray into Linux (control software for two different brands of NMR), it's been Windows all the way (and the NMR software was available for in a Windows client, also). I could post a list of all the instrumentation I've used, but trust me, it's long, probably around twenty-thirty instruments now.
From my undergrad experience:
I haven't used as much software earning my bio degree, but we mainly used statistical packages, and they all ran on Windows - the SEM (the only instrument I used in that department) ran on XP, too.
I only had a year of physics as required for the chem and bio degrees, but the physics department uses Macs for the computer labs and the classroom computers - supposedly there are a lot of interesting software packages available, which I never used. The instrumentation I had the opportunity to use (the Mossbauer spectrometer and the x-ray diffractometer) both ran on XP, though.
Then you'd better start writing all the software to control the various scientific instrumentation I use, because it all currently requires proprietary software running on the recent Microsoft OSes (that Oxford NMR actually does have a Linux client available, but the PC controlling it runs XP for ease of file transfer).
Any research relying on results produced by close-sourced software is voodoo.
Well, then 98% of published chemical research is voodoo. Companies aren't going to write open software to control the $750K spectrometer they just sold you, and to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd use software off of Sourceforge to control an investment of that type, anyway. Nd-YAG lasers don't grow on trees, unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
While libertarians tend to get all outraged about things like this, there's no evidence that it's as safe to go 90mph on those roads as it is 70mph or whatever the current limit is.
But is there any evidence that it isn't as safe to have a 90 MPH limit on those roads as it is to have a 70 MPH limit?
It's downright blood money as speeding DOES increase fatal accidents in Nevada and there are statistics to back that up.
Except that any statistics for that are useless, because the legal speedlimit in those cases was not 90 MPH, and the other drivers on the road who were involved were not expecting 90 MPH drivers. Assuming this went through, it would be just like leaving a metro area on an expressway when the speedlimit goes from 55 to 70 - the 55 MPH drivers should know to stay the hell out of the left lane.
Licenses to drive try to ensure that everyone has a minimum skill set before getting behind the wheel and potentially killing others. That program takes a lot of manpower and resources. The licenses by comparison are really not that much.
How about a second license exam then, one that is more rigorous and does allow for 90 MPH speeds in appropriate areas?
And later, when you begin to find romance again, do not force your kids to call her "mom." Nobody will ever replace mom.
Unless they clone her.
Twice.
For a threesome.
As in, "Sit in front of the turbines, flapping a big feather fan to generate more electricity?" Great idea!
Are you sure? I just searched and the first result is this Slashdot article which clearly says that he was an 18th century composer, right in the summary.
No it doesn't, it says he's a 20th century paint-sprayer company.
. . . was to check the graduate programs listing on the American Chemical Society website, which was broken down by division (inorganic, biochem, etc.) and listed by university. I then started checking those particular university websites for the faculty members listed by my interest, and stopped when I'd reached ten universities (about 16 faculty members). Yeah, it took me several hours before I had a list of faculty I wanted to work with, but it's not like this is a decision you want to make in 15 minutes anyway.
And if the APA doesn't have that kind of resource available, write to them - they are a professional development organization, and this is EXACTLY the kind of thing for which they exist.
If we (the highest-spending military behemoth on the planet, by a factor of ten) couldn't control Iraq (an area smaller than Texas, with a population of about 20M), how the hell is China going to invade and control us?
100,000 Iraqi deaths compared to 4700 coalition deaths? I'd say we're controlling it pretty damn well. Just because insurgents exist doesn't mean that a government isn't in nominal control - remember, we've had our fair share of terrorist attacks, but most people won't argue that the US government is in control.
Besides, the GP wasn't making a serious proposal (any more than I am). He's just pointing out how truly screwed up our spending priorities are right now. I'm sure he'd be ecstatic with, say, a 50% reduction in military spending.
And I'm not disagreeing that a reassessment of priorities is necessary. But when you ignore the whackos instead of addressing them, they just gain more power, and end up running the Glenn Beck Show.
We could cut our military spending to one-tenth of what it currently is, and we'd still be spending more than any other country.
And he suggested we cut it to one two-hundred-fortieth, which would put us right above Sudan and Hungary. A defense budget of $2B would support 100,000 full-time troops (1/15 of our current active force) at $20K a year, assuming they clothed, fed, housed, armed, and transported themselves. That's 2000 soldiers per state which would be 48 soldiers per county. China's fishing fleet could take us over with numbers like that.
I'm not going to argue that we shouldn't divert some funds from defense - I doubt the Army would miss two or three new Abrams tanks a year. But gutting the defense budget as he suggested would be irresponsible, criminal, and immoral.
Now imagine how well off we'd be if we spent 480 billion per year on solar power, and only 2 billion on foreign wars.
Good point. Our new Chinese overlords would let us all sit in lounge chairs and enjoy our free electricity all day long!
I guess, in a strict sense, it is a bomb after all.
Actually, it's a bomb in a loose sense - the same definition of "bomb" that applies to popping bubble wrap or balloons, or a rectum - "A vessel which contains compressed gases."
at least sony usually adds new functionality with each ps3 update
Since when is bricking considered new functionality?
I thought so, too. I know lots of people who still use duct tape for that kind of work.
Which is why we are filling the Gulf of America with oil for them!
And speakers.
. . . the "Like" button to click for this story?
If he was drunk it would record exactly what it would record if he was sober.
Well, except for an increase in swaying.
Pricing for that particular model actually is similar to car rentals, but is only done by the whole month, and it's about $700 (at least from Thermo).
Because I wanted to make a hundred milliliters of hooch at a time, right?
This isn't an argument supporting the validity of "home labs." Those handheld XRFs are about $30K. I'd love to have one in MY home lab, where the most expensive equipment is a $300 distillation kit that I had to save for six months to justify.
. . . the real question is, how much do XTREEM GAMERZ play?
Wow, typing that just made me want to punch myself.
industry and politics will conspire to do what's profitable, not what's good policy.
Then as a member of a democracy it's your job to make sure that such behavior is not profitable, and good policy is.
By voting from the rooftops!
. . . she should be fired for being dumb enough to add her boss and/or coworkers as friends. Seriously, how have people not learned this yet?!
What if you use scientific equipment that connects through PCI/PCI-E expansion cards or serial ports? Wouldn't that cause. . . problems. . . on a Mac?
. . .I would recommend Windows, Windows, and (not strongly) OSX.
There is no question in my mind that Windows is the way to go for chemistry software, as I've now spent almost ten years at three different universities working my way to a PhD (almost there!), and besides the occasional foray into Linux (control software for two different brands of NMR), it's been Windows all the way (and the NMR software was available for in a Windows client, also). I could post a list of all the instrumentation I've used, but trust me, it's long, probably around twenty-thirty instruments now.
From my undergrad experience:
I haven't used as much software earning my bio degree, but we mainly used statistical packages, and they all ran on Windows - the SEM (the only instrument I used in that department) ran on XP, too.
I only had a year of physics as required for the chem and bio degrees, but the physics department uses Macs for the computer labs and the classroom computers - supposedly there are a lot of interesting software packages available, which I never used. The instrumentation I had the opportunity to use (the Mossbauer spectrometer and the x-ray diffractometer) both ran on XP, though.
Any research relying on results produced by close-sourced software is voodoo.
Well, then 98% of published chemical research is voodoo. Companies aren't going to write open software to control the $750K spectrometer they just sold you, and to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd use software off of Sourceforge to control an investment of that type, anyway. Nd-YAG lasers don't grow on trees, unfortunately.