I am more interested in the testing of the hypothetical drug that duplicates the result of having the smart gene.
Note, I personally would hypothesize that such a drug would NOT work in adults, but instead would have to be given to children, something we are much less likely to agree to do. Mainly because I think intelligence has more to do with how your neurons are organized rather than what chemicals are in your blood.
You appear to believe me when I said there would be a large market for it, but prefaced your agreement with me with an unsupported comment that it would cause strife.
How? Why? People upset that others used their color? That sounds like complaining, not strife.
Note I assume that the process would be cheap enough for middle class people to purchase.
they want to screw with our minds? Worse - with fear?
You can't like start with getting rid of diabetic tendencies? Or even give us the power to choose our own skin color? One sure way to end racism in the US at least (of course we would probably have to change hair type as well).
Right now, ISP act in a manner very similar to phone, cable, gas and water providers.
The real question is whether or not they are more like a road.
Roads are very different, because:
1. Government and emergency agencies use them to provide services (police, fire, national guard, ambulances) to every single person.
2. Everyone needs them and uses them, even if you don't have a car (people ride bikes and walk on roads/sidewalks created as part of the road building process - you can't cut across other people's property, that is called trespassing).
Those are the two essential characteristics that make roads different from cable, land lines, gas, electric, water, etc.
But government agencies do not need to use the internet to provide services. (Ignoring half-serious joke about the NSA here) If you don't have internet access, the government is not substantially prevented from serving your emergency needs.
Similarly, not everyone needs to use the internet. We all may WANT to use the internet, but it is totally possible to live without it, at least currently.
So I see no reason for the government to treat the internet like a road.
I read it. No results, just claims. Unsupported by facts. There is no such thing as a pain detection device. If such a thing existed, it would be used in lawsuits over soft tissue damage (i.e. whiplash or any other pain & suffering legal cases).
Idiots measured a couple of hormone levels, declared them 'stress hormones', then declared that pain and stress were equivalent, then declared themselves the winner.
Not real science, just journalistic claptrap designed to sell web clicks.
Ignoring the Republic vs Empire issue, the core article is at heart foolish.
The professor did not make that claim that concreted contributed to the end of the Republic/Empire. Instead she claimed that the use of Concrete demonstrated a psychological weakness - arrogance and that that weakness caused the end of Rome.
At heart, it is a "They became rich, fat and spoiled" argument. Never that convincing, as I have seen many rich, fat, spoiled people go on to do amazing things.
The thing is if you are rich, fat, spoiled and talented, then people call you smart and ignore the rich, fat and spoiled part.
If you aren't talented, then people talk about the rich, fat and spoiled part.
I will stop taking money to subsidize solar, if you stop taking money to subsidize oil AND force coal to pay for the cleanup of their own messes, instead of forcing the US government to pay to clean up their messes.
As for why the higher electric bill, they sell the electricity back at the same price they charge us for it. It is NOT a premium price, it is the same price. We are not forcing you to pay a higher electric bill, you can go get your own solar panel as well.
The main problem you and the energy companies refuse to recognize is that the real problem is not the work-arounds we have created to encourage solar energy, it is how the electrical utilities have been jack asses about trying to get higher prices, rather than embracing solar power.
There are several intelligent electrical utilities that do the following:
1) Get a multi-year contract with home owners.
2) That lets them install the Utility owned solar panel on your home.
3)Charge you a reduced rate (in exchange for letting them put the solar panels on your home), for all electricity generated by the solar panel.
4)They get to keep any extra electricity their panels make.
The real question is why ALL utility companies in high sun areas don't do this. Mainly because of idiots being in charge.
The current problems you complain about are all the fault of the utilities - and the government's attempt to get them to stop acting like morons is not to blame for the problems they created.
A bunch of you foolishly think humans are supposed to eat this. So you foolishly think it needs an outer layer.
The point of making it edible is not so that humans can eat it, but instead so that after we finish drinking from it we can throw it on the ground and let birds, dogs, bus, etc eat it.
No outer layer needed.
That said, this concept still needs a lot more work before it goes into production
You have misunderstood the real advantage of the bottle. You don't package it, you let it collect bacteria and garbage.
People don't eat the bottle. Dogs, birds, bugs, rats, squirrels, etc. eat the bottle.
It's not about feeding people, it's about preventing a ton of non-degradable plastic from filling up our land fills.,
As for shelf life, you keep it in the refrigerator at a convenience store. There may be a small shelf life problem, but it greatly solves the garbage dump life problem.
You are egocentrical. Your basic assumption is that all people's taste buds are the same. Not true. Just like some people can see color, and others are colorblind (and a few rare people can see into the ultraviolet range), taste buds differ as well.
Some people like foods I hate. Among other things there are a multitude of genetic differences among humans that affect what food tastes like to you.
Prime example is the "Supertaster" gene (wikipedia it). 35% of women and 15% of men have it. If you have it you can detect the chemicals PROP and PTC. If you don't you can't. Those people that have the gene are much more sensitive to bitter tastes, most often found in toxic plant alkaloids. A multitude of plants, including coffee, tea, soy, olives all taste radically different to those people.
In other words, just because you personally like a food does not mean other people do.
Specifically all those people who don't switch to your silly diet? They are not being picky, instead you tried to feed them crap that tastes literally like shit to them, and they refused to eat it.
Just because you personally were born with tastesbuds that are genetically insensitive and incapable of tasting the difference between meat and non-meat does not mean the rest of us can't.
Coal mining has destroyed more land than Nuclear ever did, caused more tumors than nuclear ever has, and left more radioactive waste than nuclear ever has.
Honestly, there have been remarkable few deaths from nuclear power plants - and none in the US. Not a single one.
Hydroelectric dams however have killed people in the US - mainly through a huge wall of water overflowing the dam, flooding and killing people. Hydroelectric dams ALSO destroy salmon ecosystems, preventing salmons from mating.
In addition, every single damn leaves large areas of land unsuable to humans by flooding it with water.
You are at heart, wrong, about everything you said.
You made a bad assumption. Specifically that humans will eat the bottle.
Merely having an edible bottle - and allowing dogs, birds, rats, cockroaches, etc. to eat the bottle - would solve a lot of the problem - the landspace and pollution that disposing of said bottle takes.
You are incorrectly confabulating broadcasting with content producing.
It is not "content producers" that people don't want because guess what it isn't the content producers that are suing Aereo.
Instead it is the over the air broadcasters that are suing and no one wants them. They are not all the producers and not all of them produce content
Back before we had internet, cable TV, and satellite TV, actual over the air broadcasting made sense. But not any more.
People do want the content - which is why content producers will continue to exist. People do NOT want to receive it by broadcast, which is why people want Aereo to take that junk off the air and put it on wires.
Yes it is true that the broadcasters used to be wealthy and therefore bought up most (but not all) of the content producers. Now the broadcasters are going the way of the Buggy Whip. They may be able to survive as content producers, but only if they stop trying to marry their content production to their horrible, stupid delivery system that few people want and is only be propped up by out-dated laws.
If they insist on sending their wonderful content out on horrible radiowaves, then they will have to do so a week after they offer them to cable operators (just like Hulu does with Hulu prime.). You want the stuff right away, pay for it. If you don't care, wait for for it.
Some idiot decided that it was reasonable for people that broadcast their programing over the air for free to then charge other people to retransmit it.
It was a bad law in the first place, poorly written, which let the networks charge money to cable people when their entire original business was charging advertisers and giving their stuff away for free.
Suddenly you let them charge others for their stuff that they agreed to give away for free originally and this caused the problems.
Aero are not doing anything wrong. The people doing wrong things are the over the air free TV networks that are charging.
The real truth is that the over the air for free model is OUTDATED - just like the buggy whips. I know of nobody actually using the radio waves. They only work in small areas and are only profitable if there is a large population. But in those areas you get so much more from cable TV.
In areas with less population, the over the air broadcasters are not profitable.
The asteroid impacts detected are almost all air bursts and they have no radiation. So almost no damage is being done. A better description would be to compare it to lightning strikes, not nuclear bombs.
It's not like we are getting city sized destruction on a regularly basis, it's like we are getting thunderstorm type events on a regularly basis.
The real danger would be for things signifcantly larger that hit ground, rather than the upper atmosphere.
You have made a bad definition of wealth. The major problem is you have fallen for the common mistake fo measuring wealth by income. A single, healthy childless 21 year old women making $100,000/year is wealthy. A married 50 year old women, with 1 grand child, 4 children, 2 in college, and a husband with dementia is not wealthy.
The real way to measure wealth is how Forbes does it - not income, but by net worth.
If your net worth is over 2 million, you are wealthy. If your net worth is more than your age in thousands, you are middle class. Otherwise, you are poor. I don't care if you make $300,000 a year, if your net worth is negative,you are poor.
A prime example of this is Donald Trump. The man has never been poor, even when his income was negative. Why? Because his assets always far exceeded his debt, even when he was losing money hand over fist.
By my definition, quite a few people are poor that think they are wealthy - particularly musicians and sports stars that make millions but save nothing.
Really very very simple. Pass a simple law that says no contract can invalidate your right to use - unless 1) both you and your lawyer has signed said contract - and each parties lawyer can have no connection whatsoever to the other party, their lawyer, etc and also 2) Said contract was negotiated by both parties, rather than designed by one party and the other was required to accept it as is.
Slashdot Mirror
Note, I personally would hypothesize that such a drug would NOT work in adults, but instead would have to be given to children, something we are much less likely to agree to do. Mainly because I think intelligence has more to do with how your neurons are organized rather than what chemicals are in your blood.
You appear to believe me when I said there would be a large market for it, but prefaced your agreement with me with an unsupported comment that it would cause strife. How? Why? People upset that others used their color? That sounds like complaining, not strife. Note I assume that the process would be cheap enough for middle class people to purchase.
they want to screw with our minds? Worse - with fear? You can't like start with getting rid of diabetic tendencies? Or even give us the power to choose our own skin color? One sure way to end racism in the US at least (of course we would probably have to change hair type as well).
Actually no it was not answered in the original TFA. They updated it. People have a tendency to do that when they do a poor job on the internet.
Now, if it was a movie theater, I could see someone jamming cell phones. But on a road? Why?
Was he using an over-powered machine and doing it by mistake? Was he just insane?
Old software does have an advantage in that it is more thoroughly bug tested. But that's about it.
The real question is whether or not they are more like a road.
Roads are very different, because:
1. Government and emergency agencies use them to provide services (police, fire, national guard, ambulances) to every single person.
2. Everyone needs them and uses them, even if you don't have a car (people ride bikes and walk on roads/sidewalks created as part of the road building process - you can't cut across other people's property, that is called trespassing).
Those are the two essential characteristics that make roads different from cable, land lines, gas, electric, water, etc.
But government agencies do not need to use the internet to provide services. (Ignoring half-serious joke about the NSA here) If you don't have internet access, the government is not substantially prevented from serving your emergency needs.
Similarly, not everyone needs to use the internet. We all may WANT to use the internet, but it is totally possible to live without it, at least currently.
So I see no reason for the government to treat the internet like a road.
Idiots measured a couple of hormone levels, declared them 'stress hormones', then declared that pain and stress were equivalent, then declared themselves the winner.
Not real science, just journalistic claptrap designed to sell web clicks.
Same thing happens in the school yard - "No I ain' t crying, I just got some dust in my eye".
This is a psychological trick to avoid showing pain, not a biochemical trick to reduce pain.
Should have been bugs. Spelling simstake :D
The professor did not make that claim that concreted contributed to the end of the Republic/Empire. Instead she claimed that the use of Concrete demonstrated a psychological weakness - arrogance and that that weakness caused the end of Rome.
At heart, it is a "They became rich, fat and spoiled" argument. Never that convincing, as I have seen many rich, fat, spoiled people go on to do amazing things.
The thing is if you are rich, fat, spoiled and talented, then people call you smart and ignore the rich, fat and spoiled part.
If you aren't talented, then people talk about the rich, fat and spoiled part.
As for why the higher electric bill, they sell the electricity back at the same price they charge us for it. It is NOT a premium price, it is the same price. We are not forcing you to pay a higher electric bill, you can go get your own solar panel as well.
The main problem you and the energy companies refuse to recognize is that the real problem is not the work-arounds we have created to encourage solar energy, it is how the electrical utilities have been jack asses about trying to get higher prices, rather than embracing solar power.
There are several intelligent electrical utilities that do the following:
1) Get a multi-year contract with home owners.
2) That lets them install the Utility owned solar panel on your home.
3)Charge you a reduced rate (in exchange for letting them put the solar panels on your home), for all electricity generated by the solar panel.
4)They get to keep any extra electricity their panels make.
The real question is why ALL utility companies in high sun areas don't do this. Mainly because of idiots being in charge.
The current problems you complain about are all the fault of the utilities - and the government's attempt to get them to stop acting like morons is not to blame for the problems they created.
The point of making it edible is not so that humans can eat it, but instead so that after we finish drinking from it we can throw it on the ground and let birds, dogs, bus, etc eat it. No outer layer needed.
That said, this concept still needs a lot more work before it goes into production
People don't eat the bottle. Dogs, birds, bugs, rats, squirrels, etc. eat the bottle.
It's not about feeding people, it's about preventing a ton of non-degradable plastic from filling up our land fills.,
As for shelf life, you keep it in the refrigerator at a convenience store. There may be a small shelf life problem, but it greatly solves the garbage dump life problem.
Still not great, but a lot more than a week.
Some people like foods I hate. Among other things there are a multitude of genetic differences among humans that affect what food tastes like to you.
Prime example is the "Supertaster" gene (wikipedia it). 35% of women and 15% of men have it. If you have it you can detect the chemicals PROP and PTC. If you don't you can't. Those people that have the gene are much more sensitive to bitter tastes, most often found in toxic plant alkaloids. A multitude of plants, including coffee, tea, soy, olives all taste radically different to those people.
In other words, just because you personally like a food does not mean other people do.
Specifically all those people who don't switch to your silly diet? They are not being picky, instead you tried to feed them crap that tastes literally like shit to them, and they refused to eat it.
Just because you personally were born with tastesbuds that are genetically insensitive and incapable of tasting the difference between meat and non-meat does not mean the rest of us can't.
Hydroelectric dams however have killed people in the US - mainly through a huge wall of water overflowing the dam, flooding and killing people. Hydroelectric dams ALSO destroy salmon ecosystems, preventing salmons from mating.
In addition, every single damn leaves large areas of land unsuable to humans by flooding it with water.
You are at heart, wrong, about everything you said.
You made a bad assumption. Specifically that humans will eat the bottle. Merely having an edible bottle - and allowing dogs, birds, rats, cockroaches, etc. to eat the bottle - would solve a lot of the problem - the landspace and pollution that disposing of said bottle takes.
Also, this appears to be no different than the standard cookie behavior of google, etc.
The over the air broadcasters also add advertising. Aeroe does not.
It is not "content producers" that people don't want because guess what it isn't the content producers that are suing Aereo.
Instead it is the over the air broadcasters that are suing and no one wants them. They are not all the producers and not all of them produce content Back before we had internet, cable TV, and satellite TV, actual over the air broadcasting made sense. But not any more.
People do want the content - which is why content producers will continue to exist. People do NOT want to receive it by broadcast, which is why people want Aereo to take that junk off the air and put it on wires.
Yes it is true that the broadcasters used to be wealthy and therefore bought up most (but not all) of the content producers. Now the broadcasters are going the way of the Buggy Whip. They may be able to survive as content producers, but only if they stop trying to marry their content production to their horrible, stupid delivery system that few people want and is only be propped up by out-dated laws.
If they insist on sending their wonderful content out on horrible radiowaves, then they will have to do so a week after they offer them to cable operators (just like Hulu does with Hulu prime.). You want the stuff right away, pay for it. If you don't care, wait for for it.
It was a bad law in the first place, poorly written, which let the networks charge money to cable people when their entire original business was charging advertisers and giving their stuff away for free.
Suddenly you let them charge others for their stuff that they agreed to give away for free originally and this caused the problems.
Aero are not doing anything wrong. The people doing wrong things are the over the air free TV networks that are charging.
The real truth is that the over the air for free model is OUTDATED - just like the buggy whips. I know of nobody actually using the radio waves. They only work in small areas and are only profitable if there is a large population. But in those areas you get so much more from cable TV.
In areas with less population, the over the air broadcasters are not profitable.
It's not like we are getting city sized destruction on a regularly basis, it's like we are getting thunderstorm type events on a regularly basis.
The real danger would be for things signifcantly larger that hit ground, rather than the upper atmosphere.
The real way to measure wealth is how Forbes does it - not income, but by net worth.
If your net worth is over 2 million, you are wealthy. If your net worth is more than your age in thousands, you are middle class. Otherwise, you are poor. I don't care if you make $300,000 a year, if your net worth is negative,you are poor.
A prime example of this is Donald Trump. The man has never been poor, even when his income was negative. Why? Because his assets always far exceeded his debt, even when he was losing money hand over fist.
By my definition, quite a few people are poor that think they are wealthy - particularly musicians and sports stars that make millions but save nothing.
Really very very simple. Pass a simple law that says no contract can invalidate your right to use - unless 1) both you and your lawyer has signed said contract - and each parties lawyer can have no connection whatsoever to the other party, their lawyer, etc and also 2) Said contract was negotiated by both parties, rather than designed by one party and the other was required to accept it as is.