Problems with DNA.
1. If they don't have your DNA, they won't do a false positive. (i.e. they can't think they match you when they really don't.)
Right now, DNA is done almost exclusively when they have restricted the potential criminals to a few. Then they test those few to see who really did it. What this policy would do is to reverse that situation. Let them test EVERYONE till they find the right guy. Despite myth, DNA is rarely a 99.9999% guarantee. Often it can be as little as an 85% match. But try telling that to a jury.
2. MONEY. DNA tests are NOT free. They cost cash. As in thousands of dollars, not hundreds. To do the entire country would cost probably cost around 80 billion dollars. Generally this would not be worth it.
Is a planet in the right range common or rare. Yes, the few planets large enough for us to see are generally not there. So what? We are not a planet large enough for us to see
If it is easy for another intelligent life form to find planets with water. It might be hard to do.
If the OTHER intelligent life likes liquid water. Yes, we do. So what? One example does not = proof. Life as we Don't know it might be a lot more common than other life. We don't know they need a solvent. More importantly, even if they do need a solvent, all the experiemnts are INVALID. They were generally done at or around room temperature and 1 atmospheric pressure, not to mention a hundred other variables we assumed. I hereby propose that inside a black hole, under just the right circumstances, where known physics ceases to work and new, unknown ones do work, might be the perfect place for life to evolve. You don't know if my proposal is reasonable or unreasonable - just that we have no way TODAY to measure it. If intelligent life did evolve in it, they may have a way to get out of that black hole. We don't know the science they have.
Look, there are a ton of assumptions that physicist LOVE to make to 'prove' life is unlikely. They talk about age of stars. They talk about heavy metal content in the solar systems. They talk about water. They talk about temperature. They talk about radiation. etc. etc. But the one thing they never do is TALK ABOUT THE LIFE. Because when it comes down to it, they are physicists, not biologists and don't know crap about life. They don't understand the basic principle understood by biologists: Life evolves to fit the environment. If the environment is different, you get DIFFERENT life forms. We are organic, water based life because that is where we evolved. We have ZERO evidence to support the rather silly, self-centered beleif that water is the only type of life that could evolve. We need to explore, as in physically go to and search, a minimum of at least 20 planets before we can have any idea of where life evolves.
In house experiments on earth are worthless for that purpose. It's like trying to prove that life can't exist at the bottom of the ocean without going there and seeing the glorious worms that cluster around volcanic vents.
This isn't spam. It LOOKS like spam. But just as spam looks like a legitiamte message, but isn't, this looks like spam but isn't.
It is a message from your BOSS.
What you want to do is to force everyone, even those of us smart enough to ignore spam to take meaningless, boring classes about things we already know.
As others said, it is targetted training. It is carefully and SUPERBLY designed so that those that don't need the training are not bothered by it. But those idiots that need it, get the training.
Because: 1. Everyone needs it. So there is no one that can say "please don't spend my taxes on it, I don't want it."
2. When some people don't have it, it hurts those that do (damn shmucks don't vaccinate).
3. Because there is a HUGE and expensive infrastructure built to manage payments for it. If we need to have that kind of bureaucracy, we might as well let the government do it. Because why the government doesn't do things well, neither does the current system.
You are incorrect. The RIAA did this by changing attitudes. It used to be that copying was allowed. You could copy a tv show for all fair-use purposes.
The RIAA convinced a majority of congressman (but not citizens) that copying for perfectly reasonable legal useages could AND SHOULD be outlawed in order to prevent illegal useages.
This attitude was a major shift in perception. It has failed to gain any ground in the general public, even if it has gained legal ground. This means that nowadays most people typically violate the letter of the law, if not the spirit in daily useage. (Did you sing a song without paying the author permission? Have you done it at a karioke bar - with paying customers listening to you?)
The RIAA has done huge damage to our moral center. Like prohibition, it convinced america that it is OK to break the law, when the law is stupid. Better to have a reasonable law.
Similarly, it was not the US that caused the death of those japanese lives. They refused to surrender. TWICE.
As or the civilian deaths, they did worse in Nanking. Germany did worse to all of Europe, the British did worse to all of Dresden. When Russian counter-invaded Germany, they left a trail of rape. In WWII, military technology and ethics were both a lot less advanced. The US did the best it could, certainly BETTER than Germany, Japan, and Britain did. Russia came out the best when it comes to how people treated their enemy countries (they made up in evilness by treating their own people poorly). But the US was in no way unusually bad. They were in fact relatively good.
How do you know that sense is not common? Some idiot says "obviously" when it is not true.
The law does not care about scarce. It cares about money. When you are paying, YOU get legal rights that you don't get when you are being paid. Also, when you are applying you are often under 18, which gives you even more legal benefits. If all universities have the fine print, then you can argue it is monopolistic. If other don't, then it is fine print than it was false advertising not to make clear.
Most importantly, REAL lawyers and REAL employees of a law firm know that the law is not cut and dried. This is the kind of thing that likely has not been tried before, and as such no one really knows what the judge will say. More importantly, Law varies from state to state, particularly for contracts. Who will win this kind of lawsuit will depend a lot upon which state the university is in and which state the student was in when they applied.
While you may arrogantly believe that the organization has all the rights, this is a lie fostered by the fact that they have the money to pay lawyers. You ARE paying them, you are often a minor when you applied, the university has additional obligations that corporations don't.
Most importantly, they don't pay you, you pay them.
You EMPOLY them. They are YOUR vendor.
While it is not unreasonable for a corporation to force employees to sign over patent rights it IS unreasonable for a VENDOR to require a corporation to sign over patent rights to what the corporation comes up with.
Similarly, it is totally OUT of line for a University to force anyone to sign over rights. Refuse to sign such a piece of paper. If they insist, point out that they already accepted you and you turned down other offers to go to them. As such, their legal position is scanty if best. If they continue to be obstiante, get a court gag order preventing them from black-balling you at other universities then sue them to allow admission.
If you don't have the guts to do all of this work then honestly, you don't have the guts to take your patentable idea and make money off of it.
Profit is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.
A space fountain is similar to a space elevator except:
1. There is no physical track. The "ribbon"consists solely of ions being flung vertically up by a cyclotron. You ride up it by magnetically grabbing on to the stream of ions. Vehicles have to be relatively small to ride the stream of ions up. I.E. Yo ride up in an SUV sized vehicle, not a 747 sized vehicle.
2. In the lower area, you build a sealed tower to keep air out.
3. On top of the fountain is a gigantic magnetic U, catching the ions and returning them back to earth. This becomes a base for a space station.
4. We can actually afford to build one now.
5. If power is cut to the cyclotron, the existing ions keep the hole thing powered up for hours, possibly days. The only real problem would be a terrorist/military attack on the base unit. Put it in a no-fly zone, near a nuclear power plant.
6. As we increase the technology, we can build a second cyclotron in space to increase security.
I think the "no one is even aware of" is one of the fears that will block this idea. Americans don't trust the government. PARTICULARLY if they are trying to do something that that "no one is even aware of".
Convincing people to let the government/power agency to bury "nuclear" ANYTHING near a town is like a huge red flag to conservationsists and the 'anti-establishement' people.
Remember, there are still people out there that think powerlines cause cancer, and that vaccinations cause autism, despite scientific evidence.
Nuclear uis a huge red button. I don't think this option is politically viable except in rare circumstances.
I can see it working for small islands and other population centers that are far away/cut off from other population centers. If you are talking about a largish island that has no power supply on it, then it might work. Or an Alaskan town far from everywhere else.
But I can't see someone putting one of these things say in the middle of NYC, Los Angelos, or even on Long Island
So, instead of using a tax that punishes people that buy wastefull, polluting, gas guzzlers, he instead wants to create one that invades everyone's privacy? To appease idiots that object to paying a reasonable amount (about 1/2 what the europeans pay) for gasoline?
Look, you want to buy something that guzzles gasolien, fine with me. But you ARE costing the rest of us assets. You are helping the Arabs, using up a valuable and limited resource, and polluting my air. All I ask is that you PAY for what you are doing - i.e. a gas tax.
Yes this will help those that spend more money to buy non-gas based vehicles. So what - they DESERVE to pay less per mile. They invested in technology that benefits all of us. Often they paid thousands of dollars for the right to do this.
What next, charging a tax on nicotine patches because 'it's not fair to the ciggarette smokers'?
I was so hoping that they turned honest and revealed some errors.
Never trust someone that refuses to admit they were wrong. If you can't recognize when you are wrong, you don't know when you are right.
Specifically, the realization that in randomly selected groups, different songs would go blockbuster.
I wonder to what exten that works?
Specifically, I think that there are two kinds of blockbusters: "Best of the Rest" and "SUPERIOR". It's kind of like comparing Harry Potter to Twilight. No insult to Twilight, it did a great job making it, but frankly ten years from now, Twilight might be one of those 'hard trivia' questions, while everyone over the age of 20 will STILL remember the basic plot of Harry Potter.
I bet that that the 'SUPERIOR' stuff would have made it to block buster status in all of the randomly selected groups. It is only if we don't have something clealry superior and worthy of being the best seller do we get blockbusters that vary acroos groups.
Totally wrong.
Personal liberty has always been a LIBERTARIAN ideal. Neither liberals nor conservatives philosophy dealt with it.
The Republican party and many conservative have for a long time spread lies claiming to be a 'libertarian-light', while spreading lies about what Liberals think. Both sets of propaganda are false.
Look up the definition of Conservative and Liberal in a dictionary.
Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Libertarian: a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
---------
If you look at Libertarian party platform you will find: 1. In favor of legalized abortion. 2. In favor of gay marriage.
Both of these ideals are PERSONAL LIBERTY ideals that the conservative movement is against. That is the test of a principle - when stuff is on the line, how do you vote. If you are not in favor of something when it counts, then your claims about valuing it are worthless.
Do you know that:
1. Animals have a sense of humor? It may only be slapstick, but they will do things like wake you up by farting in your face. Moreover, they do it for no particular reason (i.e. not when they are mad at you). Pet Ducth-ovens are not fun.
2. Many Animals besides primates and dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror. Crows in particular are known to do this.
I have altered our Deal. Pray I don't alter it further.
Advantages of doing it: Distribution companies that own old stuff get more money.
Disadvantages of doing it: People that created and sold stuff get ripped off. (I.E. You were a young musician that sold rights to a piece to a company for 50 years. You now have to pay that company to perform it. You were looking forward to the time when you could legally perform it again without paying someone else but now are SCREWED.)
While I generally agree that 'clean coal' doesn't work and that non-production waste ethanol creation is foolish, I disagree with the basic premise of this article.
The problem is it is NOT comparing everything in one area. It uses multiple different measures, including pollution, cost, etc.
But when you that kind of study it requires you to make judgments about which is more important. These are value judgments, NOT scientific ones. Basically all this study does is tell you what a few scientists at Stanford want, not what is true or factual.
P.S. While ethanol as done in US is stupid, Ethanol as done in South America makes sense. They take all the production waste from agricultural and make ethanol from it. That would be the leaves, etc. the things we don't eat. In the US on the other hand they put the stuff we actually EAT into the pot. South American plan makes sense, but the US version does not..
I won't add, the insensitive clod, because I am being serious, and not making a joke.
But more importantly, copyrights don't last forever. I myself love classical music. The only music I own consists of recordings that are OUT of any reasonable copyright. The composers have been dead for 100's of years. Quite a bit of it consists of performances that were recorded MORE than 50 years ago (I.E. records from the 1950's.)
You think I should continue to pay for some teenager's moronic insistence on lissing to near naked dancers pretend to sing?
We DO not what life is.
It is a complex, self-replicating pattern, that consumes energy.
Short, sweet and to the point. Negates fire (not complex), allows Virus (most basic thing that people think might be life.)
Re:Dealing with the pro-anti-bush switch
on
Censorship By Glut
·
· Score: 1
The study may have been done like that, but the ARTICLE was talking about a good ranking system and business model. I have clue, but as you should have already been told:
READ THE ARTICLE!
Slashdot Mirror
Problems with DNA. 1. If they don't have your DNA, they won't do a false positive. (i.e. they can't think they match you when they really don't.) Right now, DNA is done almost exclusively when they have restricted the potential criminals to a few. Then they test those few to see who really did it. What this policy would do is to reverse that situation. Let them test EVERYONE till they find the right guy. Despite myth, DNA is rarely a 99.9999% guarantee. Often it can be as little as an 85% match. But try telling that to a jury. 2. MONEY. DNA tests are NOT free. They cost cash. As in thousands of dollars, not hundreds. To do the entire country would cost probably cost around 80 billion dollars. Generally this would not be worth it.
Is a planet in the right range common or rare. Yes, the few planets large enough for us to see are generally not there. So what? We are not a planet large enough for us to see
If it is easy for another intelligent life form to find planets with water. It might be hard to do.
If the OTHER intelligent life likes liquid water. Yes, we do. So what? One example does not = proof. Life as we Don't know it might be a lot more common than other life. We don't know they need a solvent. More importantly, even if they do need a solvent, all the experiemnts are INVALID. They were generally done at or around room temperature and 1 atmospheric pressure, not to mention a hundred other variables we assumed. I hereby propose that inside a black hole, under just the right circumstances, where known physics ceases to work and new, unknown ones do work, might be the perfect place for life to evolve. You don't know if my proposal is reasonable or unreasonable - just that we have no way TODAY to measure it. If intelligent life did evolve in it, they may have a way to get out of that black hole. We don't know the science they have.
Look, there are a ton of assumptions that physicist LOVE to make to 'prove' life is unlikely. They talk about age of stars. They talk about heavy metal content in the solar systems. They talk about water. They talk about temperature. They talk about radiation. etc. etc. But the one thing they never do is TALK ABOUT THE LIFE. Because when it comes down to it, they are physicists, not biologists and don't know crap about life. They don't understand the basic principle understood by biologists: Life evolves to fit the environment. If the environment is different, you get DIFFERENT life forms. We are organic, water based life because that is where we evolved. We have ZERO evidence to support the rather silly, self-centered beleif that water is the only type of life that could evolve. We need to explore, as in physically go to and search, a minimum of at least 20 planets before we can have any idea of where life evolves.
In house experiments on earth are worthless for that purpose. It's like trying to prove that life can't exist at the bottom of the ocean without going there and seeing the glorious worms that cluster around volcanic vents.
Try again, with "Why would they come here?"
How would they know to come here? What makes you think there is anything special or more importantly, noticeable about us to attract attention.
This isn't spam. It LOOKS like spam. But just as spam looks like a legitiamte message, but isn't, this looks like spam but isn't. It is a message from your BOSS. What you want to do is to force everyone, even those of us smart enough to ignore spam to take meaningless, boring classes about things we already know. As others said, it is targetted training. It is carefully and SUPERBLY designed so that those that don't need the training are not bothered by it. But those idiots that need it, get the training.
Self Contained Underwater Breathing Aparatus.
It was air tight, contained an airsupply, and was powered by my moving my legs.
2. When some people don't have it, it hurts those that do (damn shmucks don't vaccinate).
3. Because there is a HUGE and expensive infrastructure built to manage payments for it. If we need to have that kind of bureaucracy, we might as well let the government do it. Because why the government doesn't do things well, neither does the current system.
You are incorrect. The RIAA did this by changing attitudes. It used to be that copying was allowed. You could copy a tv show for all fair-use purposes. The RIAA convinced a majority of congressman (but not citizens) that copying for perfectly reasonable legal useages could AND SHOULD be outlawed in order to prevent illegal useages. This attitude was a major shift in perception. It has failed to gain any ground in the general public, even if it has gained legal ground. This means that nowadays most people typically violate the letter of the law, if not the spirit in daily useage. (Did you sing a song without paying the author permission? Have you done it at a karioke bar - with paying customers listening to you?) The RIAA has done huge damage to our moral center. Like prohibition, it convinced america that it is OK to break the law, when the law is stupid. Better to have a reasonable law.
Similarly, it was not the US that caused the death of those japanese lives. They refused to surrender. TWICE. As or the civilian deaths, they did worse in Nanking. Germany did worse to all of Europe, the British did worse to all of Dresden. When Russian counter-invaded Germany, they left a trail of rape. In WWII, military technology and ethics were both a lot less advanced. The US did the best it could, certainly BETTER than Germany, Japan, and Britain did. Russia came out the best when it comes to how people treated their enemy countries (they made up in evilness by treating their own people poorly). But the US was in no way unusually bad. They were in fact relatively good.
How do you know that sense is not common? Some idiot says "obviously" when it is not true. The law does not care about scarce. It cares about money. When you are paying, YOU get legal rights that you don't get when you are being paid. Also, when you are applying you are often under 18, which gives you even more legal benefits. If all universities have the fine print, then you can argue it is monopolistic. If other don't, then it is fine print than it was false advertising not to make clear. Most importantly, REAL lawyers and REAL employees of a law firm know that the law is not cut and dried. This is the kind of thing that likely has not been tried before, and as such no one really knows what the judge will say. More importantly, Law varies from state to state, particularly for contracts. Who will win this kind of lawsuit will depend a lot upon which state the university is in and which state the student was in when they applied. While you may arrogantly believe that the organization has all the rights, this is a lie fostered by the fact that they have the money to pay lawyers. You ARE paying them, you are often a minor when you applied, the university has additional obligations that corporations don't.
No one is forced o ride. If idiots refuse to go, that is just one more advantage of going up into space.
Most importantly, they don't pay you, you pay them. You EMPOLY them. They are YOUR vendor. While it is not unreasonable for a corporation to force employees to sign over patent rights it IS unreasonable for a VENDOR to require a corporation to sign over patent rights to what the corporation comes up with. Similarly, it is totally OUT of line for a University to force anyone to sign over rights. Refuse to sign such a piece of paper. If they insist, point out that they already accepted you and you turned down other offers to go to them. As such, their legal position is scanty if best. If they continue to be obstiante, get a court gag order preventing them from black-balling you at other universities then sue them to allow admission. If you don't have the guts to do all of this work then honestly, you don't have the guts to take your patentable idea and make money off of it. Profit is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.
1. There is no physical track. The "ribbon"consists solely of ions being flung vertically up by a cyclotron. You ride up it by magnetically grabbing on to the stream of ions. Vehicles have to be relatively small to ride the stream of ions up. I.E. Yo ride up in an SUV sized vehicle, not a 747 sized vehicle.
2. In the lower area, you build a sealed tower to keep air out.
3. On top of the fountain is a gigantic magnetic U, catching the ions and returning them back to earth. This becomes a base for a space station.
4. We can actually afford to build one now.
5. If power is cut to the cyclotron, the existing ions keep the hole thing powered up for hours, possibly days. The only real problem would be a terrorist/military attack on the base unit. Put it in a no-fly zone, near a nuclear power plant.
6. As we increase the technology, we can build a second cyclotron in space to increase security.
I think the "no one is even aware of" is one of the fears that will block this idea. Americans don't trust the government. PARTICULARLY if they are trying to do something that that "no one is even aware of".
Remember, there are still people out there that think powerlines cause cancer, and that vaccinations cause autism, despite scientific evidence.
Nuclear uis a huge red button. I don't think this option is politically viable except in rare circumstances.
I can see it working for small islands and other population centers that are far away/cut off from other population centers. If you are talking about a largish island that has no power supply on it, then it might work. Or an Alaskan town far from everywhere else.
But I can't see someone putting one of these things say in the middle of NYC, Los Angelos, or even on Long Island
Look, you want to buy something that guzzles gasolien, fine with me. But you ARE costing the rest of us assets. You are helping the Arabs, using up a valuable and limited resource, and polluting my air. All I ask is that you PAY for what you are doing - i.e. a gas tax.
Yes this will help those that spend more money to buy non-gas based vehicles. So what - they DESERVE to pay less per mile. They invested in technology that benefits all of us. Often they paid thousands of dollars for the right to do this.
What next, charging a tax on nicotine patches because 'it's not fair to the ciggarette smokers'?
I was so hoping that they turned honest and revealed some errors. Never trust someone that refuses to admit they were wrong. If you can't recognize when you are wrong, you don't know when you are right.
I wonder to what exten that works?
Specifically, I think that there are two kinds of blockbusters: "Best of the Rest" and "SUPERIOR". It's kind of like comparing Harry Potter to Twilight. No insult to Twilight, it did a great job making it, but frankly ten years from now, Twilight might be one of those 'hard trivia' questions, while everyone over the age of 20 will STILL remember the basic plot of Harry Potter.
I bet that that the 'SUPERIOR' stuff would have made it to block buster status in all of the randomly selected groups. It is only if we don't have something clealry superior and worthy of being the best seller do we get blockbusters that vary acroos groups.
Totally wrong. Personal liberty has always been a LIBERTARIAN ideal. Neither liberals nor conservatives philosophy dealt with it. The Republican party and many conservative have for a long time spread lies claiming to be a 'libertarian-light', while spreading lies about what Liberals think. Both sets of propaganda are false. Look up the definition of Conservative and Liberal in a dictionary. Conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. Liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. Libertarian: a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. --------- If you look at Libertarian party platform you will find: 1. In favor of legalized abortion. 2. In favor of gay marriage. Both of these ideals are PERSONAL LIBERTY ideals that the conservative movement is against. That is the test of a principle - when stuff is on the line, how do you vote. If you are not in favor of something when it counts, then your claims about valuing it are worthless.
Because typically the right wing thinks that national security is worth giving up some personal liberty (except when it comes to personal guns).
Do you know that: 1. Animals have a sense of humor? It may only be slapstick, but they will do things like wake you up by farting in your face. Moreover, they do it for no particular reason (i.e. not when they are mad at you). Pet Ducth-ovens are not fun. 2. Many Animals besides primates and dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror. Crows in particular are known to do this.
Advantages of doing it: Distribution companies that own old stuff get more money. Disadvantages of doing it: People that created and sold stuff get ripped off. (I.E. You were a young musician that sold rights to a piece to a company for 50 years. You now have to pay that company to perform it. You were looking forward to the time when you could legally perform it again without paying someone else but now are SCREWED.)
The problem is it is NOT comparing everything in one area. It uses multiple different measures, including pollution, cost, etc.
But when you that kind of study it requires you to make judgments about which is more important. These are value judgments, NOT scientific ones. Basically all this study does is tell you what a few scientists at Stanford want, not what is true or factual.
P.S. While ethanol as done in US is stupid, Ethanol as done in South America makes sense. They take all the production waste from agricultural and make ethanol from it. That would be the leaves, etc. the things we don't eat. In the US on the other hand they put the stuff we actually EAT into the pot. South American plan makes sense, but the US version does not..
I won't add, the insensitive clod, because I am being serious, and not making a joke.
But more importantly, copyrights don't last forever. I myself love classical music. The only music I own consists of recordings that are OUT of any reasonable copyright. The composers have been dead for 100's of years. Quite a bit of it consists of performances that were recorded MORE than 50 years ago (I.E. records from the 1950's.)
You think I should continue to pay for some teenager's moronic insistence on lissing to near naked dancers pretend to sing?
We DO not what life is. It is a complex, self-replicating pattern, that consumes energy. Short, sweet and to the point. Negates fire (not complex), allows Virus (most basic thing that people think might be life.)
The study may have been done like that, but the ARTICLE was talking about a good ranking system and business model. I have clue, but as you should have already been told: READ THE ARTICLE!