Convince people that giving money to the homeless is "entertainment" and throw in the notion of completly random rewards of cash and prizes for giving money to the homeless, and you will have very rich "homeless" people in no time.
Humans have yet to demonstrate the ability to screw up this planet enough that for life to survive it would have to CHANGE THE GAS IT LIVES ON! in order to continue.
Antarctia is a big place, so its easy for everyone to do what they want and still get along. It also helps that Antarctica is of little strategic importance.
This partially applies to space. Space is a REALLY big place. It should be easy to share it, However, the lagrnge points are at a premium. The first ones there will have some say in how they are utilized.
Moving off world will require cooperation once in space. ALL humans up there will be quite vunerable. Long term self sustained colonialization of the Lagrange points would be likely to result in an independant nation that would see little need in cow towing to earth bound conflicts.
Guns don't kill people. People who make guns kill people.
I don't know how any rational person could agree with such a statement. This follows some recent nitwit attitude that everything is to be blamed on something other than the most responsible party. The person pulling the trigger is most responsible for the actions that ensue.
What ever happened to that premise?
Yea, hold a gun manufacturer responsible for illicit activities that are conducted with their product. and while you're at it hold car companies responsible every time someone dies because of a drunk driver. By that rationale the war on terror should have started with a cruise missile aimed at the Boeing factory instead of Bin Laden.
This is a good Idea that would also work in restaurants.
Have seating like it used to be with smoking or nonsmoking. The no-smoking symbol in the overhead could be replaced with a cell phone icon, and cell use could be allowed only in some rows.
You don't want to sit with people gabbing on a phone through most of the flight, there could be seating accommodations. It used to be a regular part of air travel to be offered seating preference.
With the number of aircraft in commercial aviation, there will be at least a couple of manufacturers of pico-cell hardware that will want the market bad enough to bear part of the burden of getting FAA approval for the equipment. These companies will likely work to develop the process to tie into existing airframes, or work with builders (Airbus and Boeing) to get the equipment designed into the aircraft systems. Several major airlines will also front part of the cost, just to be able to provide a service that at first will be exclusive to a few airlines, or airframes.
Another aspect is the revenue potential. Nothing says that having cell communications coming from or going to an aircraft in the air can't be identified as such and billed some steep fee per minute to recoup the cost of install and hardware. It could appear on a bill as an aviation roaming charge or in-flight connection fee. Balance the charge right and it will pay for itself in months. Make it a steep fee and it might discourage much of the in-flight cell use. Make it a reasonable fee and some cell providers might eat the fee to the airline to provide the service.
There are so many ways to cover the cost of In-flight cell communications that to say the cost of FAA approval will kill this, would be the same as saying that cell phones will never happen because all of those towers will need FCC approval, and someone will have to certify all of those millions of portable cell phones people will be running around with.
No No, they are drilling in the ocean, The pacific ocean will drain into the hollow core. Its realy a ploy to lower sea level and gain more land for Japan. After all, that WWII thing didn't go as they planned.
I mean this from the standpoint of being weak, sort of a pansy approach to life. There, I said it. The real problem is that the PC approach to things is that words should only have one meaning. If you use the word gay in a sentence you have to consider if it is offensive to homosexuals. Well this word has at least 3 meanings. Get over that fact. It can mean jovial and happy. It can mean homosexual. It can have its slang meaning of being childish, stupid, girlie (in the non-masculine sense. A 15 year old male playing with dolls (even if not a homosexual) is still pretty gay. Perhaps a new word should be made to replace this word in its meaning, but that concept of creating a new word because someone might be offended is also pretty gay.
"Sam Waterson: I'm Sam Waterston, of the popular TV series "Law & Order". As a senior citizen, you're probably aware of the threat robots pose. Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel. Well, now there's a company that offers coverage against the unfortunate event of robot attack, with Old Glory Insurance. Old Glory will cover you with no health check-up or age consideration. [ SUPER: Limitied Benefits First Two Years ] You need to feel safe. And that's harder and harder to do nowadays, because robots may strike at any time."
Biofuels are part of the answer
on
Filling Up On Algae
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Lets consider the real endless waste stream, Sewage. Waste water treatment plants should be set up as energy collectors. Start with anaerobic digesters to break down waste products and produce methane. The methane can be collected to fuel the plant. The waste is then generally treated with chemicals to remove solids (flocculation) and remove nutrients. The waste should be run through an algae growth facility. Normal waste water is considered a pollutant mainly because of the nutrient load. That load should be put to use.
Sure biofuels still add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but utilize carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so in the scheme of things CO2 from biofuels represent CO2 already in the system and not added to the system.
Imagine Powerplants run from biodiesel made from algae grown off of the CO2 emissions from the powerplants themselves. There might be a scale where the efficiency approaches that of photovoltaics or thermal reflector arrays. This sort of plant might be cheaper to produce that photovoltaic plants, or prove beneficial from the standpoint of pollution created during production.
You may be aware of a new technology to synch a picture with a web page to ensure it is legitimate, please click this link to download an executable to synch the picture you selected with our server to better provide you with secure transactions.
Anyone that sees this as a phishing scam, doesn't need this technology, Anyone that does need this technology is just as likely to fall for this.
Perhaps my arguments are completly false. Without access to the reasoning used in the oval office, pre rhetoric filtration, I will probally never know if attacking Iraq was a clever move or just the actions of a bumbling idiot.
As for the reasoning that another attack should be coming down the pipe to provoke an attack on Saudi Arabia, I think our actions have demonstrated that we won't be provoked in such a fashion.
As for national identity, terrorists don't need to assume a national identity. How they view themselves is irrelevent, the terrorists didn't act out of national pride, but they did attempt to use the American tendancy to attach national identity as a tool. They expected us to all say "hey these guys were Saudi, lets attack Saudi Arabia".
I have read intelligence reports that suggest that the islamic fundamentalists that are behind the terrorists attacks on the US and US property abroad (USS Cole) don't really like American involvement in the Middle East, but are really driven by internal conflict in an attempt to gain control of the islamic world. The intent was to provoke ones' strong enemy to attack a weaker enemy, but we didn't play into that hand.
We are involved in a thousand year old conflict that we probally should have done more to avoid.
The reason for an Iraq invasion is actually quite clever. It was not really about Iraqi oil. The reason the terrorists used mainly Saudis in 9/11, was an attempt to turn America against its closest ally in the Middle East, that fat oil tit, Saudi Arabia. The fundamentalist Islamic movement in the Middle East really wanted the region in chaos in an attempt to gain hold. Attacking the US in a spectacular way guaranteed our play on the field. We have no intention of carrying on a conflict on our own soil. Instead of making the move they hoped to provoke, we attacked Afghanistan. They wanted war in the Middle East, we gave it to them. The Taliban weren't making many friends in the international community at the time. Had we left it alone as only an invasion of Afghanistan we would have likely incurred another attack on US soil, in further attempt to provoke an attack on Saudi Arabia. In order to keep the war in the Middle East and not destroy our alliance with Saudi Arabia, we invaded Iraq. This allowed for some exercise of back pocket agenda to oust Saddam, but really directed all attention of the terrorists off US soil and into the Middle East. The fact that Iraq has oil, is really just gravy in the whole scheme of things. If war in the middle east was only about taking oil for the US, Kuwait would be the 51st state in the union.
OK here is a scenario for macroevolution. Consider a system of reproduction, marsupials (pouched mamals) they were once present on all of the land masses in a number of forms. Conitinental drift led to Australia being separated from the rest of the worlds' land mass. In every place that marsupials were in competition with placental mamals, the marsupials were less successful reproducing. In north america marsupials vanished (except for opossums) In Australia there were no placental mamals in competition with marsupials, the result is a continent dominated untill recently by marsupials.
Or perhaps you are looking for a broader example that led to two kinds of mamals (placental and marsupial).
In order to prove evolution you'll have to prove to me a stack of pre-conceived notions in as many disciplines.
That stack of pre-conceived notions is the result of centuries of logical argument; premise, evidence, conclusion. If a and b, then c. If d and e then f. Careers, lifetimes of work, many times all in dead ends. All to get to those "pre-concieved" notions. It pisses me off to no end to hear someone say "that's too complicated to believe, that it can't work that way, it MUST be ID"
In fact, the scientific process to get from complete ignorance of the entire world to the collective knowlege all humanity is an analog to evolution. Many lines of reasoning have been proven wrong, some remain to be proven wrong.
Hey, IDiot, Idiot, Hmmmm, "They all, believe in Intelligent Design" -- "Idiot" So thats where that term comes from!
I know its kinda trollish, and I'm going to hell and such, Oh wait, the very fact that this discussion still plagues the school system suggests that we are already there, so I guess I have nothing to worry about....
Slashdot Mirror
Convince people that giving money to the homeless is "entertainment" and throw in the notion of completly random rewards of cash and prizes for giving money to the homeless, and you will have very rich "homeless" people in no time.
Now I can finish my robot, My GIRL robot, This is goint to be the best prom ever, he he he he
That sounds like SPACE MADDNESS !!! to me...
How long before he tries to eat a bar of soap?
The kids of the future will have a new version of Cowboys and Indians, just with dots, not feathers.
Humans have yet to demonstrate the ability to screw up this planet enough that for life to survive it would have to CHANGE THE GAS IT LIVES ON! in order to continue.
I'm sorry, but what is a natural density for humans?
Actually, depending on fat content, it is around that of water. A little less after death, due to gasses generated in decomposition.
Humans, SG ~ 1
Antarctia is a big place, so its easy for everyone to do what they want and still get along. It also helps that Antarctica is of little strategic importance.
This partially applies to space. Space is a REALLY big place. It should be easy to share it, However, the lagrnge points are at a premium. The first ones there will have some say in how they are utilized.
Moving off world will require cooperation once in space. ALL humans up there will be quite vunerable. Long term self sustained colonialization of the Lagrange points would be likely to result in an independant nation that would see little need in cow towing to earth bound conflicts.
Guns don't kill people. People who make guns kill people.
I don't know how any rational person could agree with such a statement. This follows some recent nitwit attitude that everything is to be blamed on something other than the most responsible party. The person pulling the trigger is most responsible for the actions that ensue.
What ever happened to that premise?
Yea, hold a gun manufacturer responsible for illicit activities that are conducted with their product. and while you're at it hold car companies responsible every time someone dies because of a drunk driver. By that rationale the war on terror should have started with a cruise missile aimed at the Boeing factory instead of Bin Laden.
Doctor Meridith, to Young Mitch, in the movie Real Genius.
One of the best ever made!
This is a good Idea that would also work in restaurants.
Have seating like it used to be with smoking or nonsmoking. The no-smoking symbol in the overhead could be replaced with a cell phone icon, and cell use could be allowed only in some rows.
You don't want to sit with people gabbing on a phone through most of the flight, there could be seating accommodations. It used to be a regular part of air travel to be offered seating preference.
With the number of aircraft in commercial aviation, there will be at least a couple of manufacturers of pico-cell hardware that will want the market bad enough to bear part of the burden of getting FAA approval for the equipment. These companies will likely work to develop the process to tie into existing airframes, or work with builders (Airbus and Boeing) to get the equipment designed into the aircraft systems. Several major airlines will also front part of the cost, just to be able to provide a service that at first will be exclusive to a few airlines, or airframes.
Another aspect is the revenue potential. Nothing says that having cell communications coming from or going to an aircraft in the air can't be identified as such and billed some steep fee per minute to recoup the cost of install and hardware. It could appear on a bill as an aviation roaming charge or in-flight connection fee. Balance the charge right and it will pay for itself in months. Make it a steep fee and it might discourage much of the in-flight cell use. Make it a reasonable fee and some cell providers might eat the fee to the airline to provide the service.
There are so many ways to cover the cost of In-flight cell communications that to say the cost of FAA approval will kill this, would be the same as saying that cell phones will never happen because all of those towers will need FCC approval, and someone will have to certify all of those millions of portable cell phones people will be running around with.
No No, they are drilling in the ocean, The pacific ocean will drain into the hollow core. Its realy a ploy to lower sea level and gain more land for Japan. After all, that WWII thing didn't go as they planned.
Political Correctness is GAY
I mean this from the standpoint of being weak, sort of a pansy approach to life.
There, I said it. The real problem is that the PC approach to things is that words should only have one meaning. If you use the word gay in a sentence you have to consider if it is offensive to homosexuals. Well this word has at least 3 meanings. Get over that fact.
It can mean jovial and happy.
It can mean homosexual.
It can have its slang meaning of being childish, stupid, girlie (in the non-masculine sense.
A 15 year old male playing with dolls (even if not a homosexual) is still pretty gay.
Perhaps a new word should be made to replace this word in its meaning, but that concept of creating a new word because someone might be offended is also pretty gay.
I'm sure there is room for some other joke about a beowolf cluster of these in Soviet Russia, but it escapes me.
"Sam Waterson: I'm Sam Waterston, of the popular TV series "Law & Order". As a senior citizen, you're probably aware of the threat robots pose. Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel. Well, now there's a company that offers coverage against the unfortunate event of robot attack, with Old Glory Insurance. Old Glory will cover you with no health check-up or age consideration. [ SUPER: Limitied Benefits First Two Years ] You need to feel safe. And that's harder and harder to do nowadays, because robots may strike at any time."
Lets consider the real endless waste stream, Sewage. Waste water treatment plants should be set up as energy collectors. Start with anaerobic digesters to break down waste products and produce methane. The methane can be collected to fuel the plant. The waste is then generally treated with chemicals to remove solids (flocculation) and remove nutrients. The waste should be run through an algae growth facility. Normal waste water is considered a pollutant mainly because of the nutrient load. That load should be put to use.
Sure biofuels still add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but utilize carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so in the scheme of things CO2 from biofuels represent CO2 already in the system and not added to the system.
Imagine Powerplants run from biodiesel made from algae grown off of the CO2 emissions from the powerplants themselves. There might be a scale where the efficiency approaches that of photovoltaics or thermal reflector arrays. This sort of plant might be cheaper to produce that photovoltaic plants, or prove beneficial from the standpoint of pollution created during production.
How did you ever cash your paycheck?
Did it say "nameless company" on it or was it a payroll check with a blank spot where the company name would be?
Had to say it...
Dear valued ebay customer,
You may be aware of a new technology to synch a picture with a web page to ensure it is legitimate, please click this link to download an executable to synch the picture you selected with our server to better provide you with secure transactions.
Anyone that sees this as a phishing scam, doesn't need this technology, Anyone that does need this technology is just as likely to fall for this.
Perhaps my arguments are completly false. Without access to the reasoning used in the oval office, pre rhetoric filtration, I will probally never know if attacking Iraq was a clever move or just the actions of a bumbling idiot.
As for the reasoning that another attack should be coming down the pipe to provoke an attack on Saudi Arabia, I think our actions have demonstrated that we won't be provoked in such a fashion.
As for national identity, terrorists don't need to assume a national identity. How they view themselves is irrelevent, the terrorists didn't act out of national pride, but they did attempt to use the American tendancy to attach national identity as a tool. They expected us to all say "hey these guys were Saudi, lets attack Saudi Arabia".
I have read intelligence reports that suggest that the islamic fundamentalists that are behind the terrorists attacks on the US and US property abroad (USS Cole) don't really like American involvement in the Middle East, but are really driven by internal conflict in an attempt to gain control of the islamic world. The intent was to provoke ones' strong enemy to attack a weaker enemy, but we didn't play into that hand.
We are involved in a thousand year old conflict that we probally should have done more to avoid.
The reason for an Iraq invasion is actually quite clever. It was not really about Iraqi oil. The reason the terrorists used mainly Saudis in 9/11, was an attempt to turn America against its closest ally in the Middle East, that fat oil tit, Saudi Arabia. The fundamentalist Islamic movement in the Middle East really wanted the region in chaos in an attempt to gain hold. Attacking the US in a spectacular way guaranteed our play on the field. We have no intention of carrying on a conflict on our own soil. Instead of making the move they hoped to provoke, we attacked Afghanistan. They wanted war in the Middle East, we gave it to them. The Taliban weren't making many friends in the international community at the time. Had we left it alone as only an invasion of Afghanistan we would have likely incurred another attack on US soil, in further attempt to provoke an attack on Saudi Arabia. In order to keep the war in the Middle East and not destroy our alliance with Saudi Arabia, we invaded Iraq. This allowed for some exercise of back pocket agenda to oust Saddam, but really directed all attention of the terrorists off US soil and into the Middle East. The fact that Iraq has oil, is really just gravy in the whole scheme of things. If war in the middle east was only about taking oil for the US, Kuwait would be the 51st state in the union.
now how about macroevolution...
OK here is a scenario for macroevolution. Consider a system of reproduction, marsupials (pouched mamals) they were once present on all of the land masses in a number of forms. Conitinental drift led to Australia being separated from the rest of the worlds' land mass. In every place that marsupials were in competition with placental mamals, the marsupials were less successful reproducing. In north america marsupials vanished (except for opossums) In Australia there were no placental mamals in competition with marsupials, the result is a continent dominated untill recently by marsupials.
Or perhaps you are looking for a broader example that led to two kinds of mamals (placental and marsupial).
In order to prove evolution you'll have to prove to me a stack of pre-conceived notions in as many disciplines.
.02
That stack of pre-conceived notions is the result of centuries of logical argument; premise, evidence, conclusion.
If a and b, then c. If d and e then f.
Careers, lifetimes of work, many times all in dead ends. All to get to those "pre-concieved" notions. It pisses me off to no end to hear someone say "that's too complicated to believe, that it can't work that way, it MUST be ID"
In fact, the scientific process to get from complete ignorance of the entire world to the collective knowlege all humanity is an analog to evolution. Many lines of reasoning have been proven wrong, some remain to be proven wrong.
just my
what intelligent designer would design us so that we used the same tube for both respiration and eating?
Yea, and who put a sewer line in a recreational area!?
Boeing and Lockheed did really cool stuff when they were in the same boat.
Lets hope SpaceX is able to pull something good off before they are bought by Boeing or Lockheed.
IDium
IDius
IDiot
Hey, IDiot,
Idiot, Hmmmm, "They all, believe in Intelligent Design" -- "Idiot"
So thats where that term comes from!
I know its kinda trollish, and I'm going to hell and such, Oh wait, the very fact that this discussion still plagues the school system suggests that we are already there, so I guess I have nothing to worry about....