As opposed to giving the existing, established oil and coal and nuclear companies subsidies (we do - to a HUGE extent).
Check your budget numbers first, fool. The US government gives huge amounts of cash to oil, coal and nuclear power - far more than we give to solar powers.
As for 'uncompetitive' solar power plants are only uncompetitive if we let people dump garbage into the air for free. Wind power is now the cheapest power - assuming we enforce existing pollution laws. Water and coal are the cheapest if we don't track pollution. If we charge every company HALF the price to clean up air pollution then Wind, Solar and Nuclear are the only competivie plants.
The question is not 'which is cheapest', but "how much are we going to charge them for the right to poison our air".
To make it even more complicated idiots in the midwest like to pollute the air and don't care that their pollution gets blown east by the wind into the East.
If you want to claim "I can live with the pollution" that's one thing. But to stand and insist "its the cheapest" is just plain STUPID.
What is this liberal elite? The dictionary says elite means superior and your context implies that you are someone that is not a liberal and dislike them.
So basically, you are saying that you personally are stupider than your opponents - AND think that when you say this you are insulting them.
Hm. Interesting strategy.
As for your claim about analysis being fraudulent and nonsenical - that is something elite arguers - whether they be conservative or liberal generally support with evidence. You have failed to do so.
Well, that at least explains why you don't consider yourself elite.
Now this is probably the most honest answer I have seen about climate change.
The thing is, there is real question about how true it is. We don't need to stop driving cars, we just need to switch to electric vehicles and then upgrade our powerplants.
This will raise the cost per mile and raise the cost of electricity, but it should be enough of a fix to let the planet recover.
While the Repbulican leaders are clearly anti-science, the real problem is that the Democrat are not really pro-science. The Democrat leaders tend to be nuetral - neither pro nor against..
Everyone complains about the anti-evolution, anti-climate of the GOP. They fail to talk about the anti-chemistry/anti-rocketry views of the Democrats. Try to build a model rocket in a liberal state. Can't go to the store and get the rocket motors - they are illegal. Afraid of fireworks, etc.
The independents aren't any better. Some anti-science views are unpolitical. Similar problems exist with anti-computer. Can't have the kids do anything fun like hack their own phones. OH no, that pisses of the media corps. Who cares if experimentation is pro-science and it teaches people to think.
Then there is the anti-vaccination crowd.
The anti-science movement is not just republican. It is an non-denominational problem. We need to start making Science a focus. Make it a priority above and beyond pollution (climate change), above and beyond 'vandalism masquerading as safety concerns' (firework laws), above and beyond cultish stupidity (lies about vaccinces), above and beyond profits for media companies.
Both of those facts are true. Neither provide ANY evidence for your ridiculous, unfounded statement that the climate is out of our control.
Here: Fact 1) The climate has changed and always will. Fact 2) We can't keep it in a solid sate (unchanging). Fact 3) Mankind directly affects the climate, and we KNOW this - we can see the Ozone hole above the poles. It was directly created by aerospray cans we created. Fact 4) Besides a static, unchanging thing, there is stomething called DYNAMIC STABILITY. Fact 5) Dynamic Stability can be achieved by careful monitoring and correcting of issues. Like say if we start pumping more C02 into the air, we can stop it.
Not saying that is what we have to do. Just saying that your logic is incredibally bad - you proved absolutely nothing but your own ignorance.
1. Teaching is not easy. Otherwise schools would have a lot bet reputation.
2. Teaching takes a lot of time.
3. Teaching takes intelligence. The smarter you are, the better you do. There is a reason why colleges try to get the smartest, most published people to teach.
4. The more you teach, the better you get. You learn things from your students, so you get better at your job.
5. Some of those things students teach you? THey have been written down. You can go to school and learn them.
So, even if you are willing to do the hard work to teach, have the time, are smart enough to do it, you still won't do as good a job as someone that has a degree in teaching and has been doing it for years.
Will no one teach? No. Some will home school. Some of them will do it because they are too stupid to realize how bad at teaching they are. You can detect these people because they fall for major anti-education cons such as intelligent-design.
Others will home school because they are unemployed, very smart, and their schools are bad. If I lived in a slum, I would home school kids.
1. Their boss demands it (in today's economy, a request counts as a demand).
2.They are a single man and want a social life. If you are married/a hermit, then you and your wife/hermit friends can avoid using the maxed out cellphone. But single men need to be able to contact women - HOWEVER the woman want to be contacted. It can be hell trying to call someone at work who wanted you to email her - or text or whatever she wanted. I am a guy so I don't know if women have it a bit easier, but I suspect not. And to check websites for addresses/times/etc.
3. They have children. My sister has one and she uses the web to keep track of her kids. Smart phones help her a lot.
4. You like music and feel no need to carry an ipod if you have a phone. This only works if your music is easily portable to your phone and back.
I am sure there are others, but work, social lives, parenting, and music are all pretty focused on the smart phone now.
Not entirely true about food. Among other things, they use an awful lot of colorants and additives to make the food look good. For example, they inject/spray carbon monoxide on/in tuna sushi to get that nice red color.
Also, the human mind is fooled by colors. Yellow = lemon, purple = grape. Give someone lemonaide dyed purple and people will swear they taste the grape.
Vulture looks like a waste - you want something up forever, use a satellite.
Chembots look like a minimal advantage.
Falcon is a cheaper rocket.
Two legged robots are needlessly complicated
Satellite recovery is a big deal - but is very hard to do.
Shrike is already doable, but has limited range which means people in danger have to be looking at a screen. No. Soldiers in battle keep their eyes peeled, not on a screen.
The CT2WS system looks like a pipe dream. If it is possible, it is not likely to be very effective
Nav is like the Shrike, only smaller.
But the landroid is doable and practical. Leave little things behind to extend the radio range of all the other devices. Throw in a microphone on them and you get a nice little spynetwork that you can access from a large distance away - safe and secure back in the base.
Oh. I did not know that.
But that still lets them do things like glue the sessame seeds onto the bun to ensure proper placement. After all, can't have two of them touching.
Well, at least if they outlaw all the pre-photoshop fakes they use.
Typically a picture of pancakes is done using motor oil because it looks like the perfect maple syrup. They add sopay water to cofee to make it look extra hot and bubbly. They stain barbecue ribs with wood stain to make it them extra juicy. They use dyed whipped crisco to make milkshakes look dense and creamy. As for milk - Elmer's glue sure takes a nice photo.
Which of course is why the pictures of food NEVER look like what they serve you. On the plus side, you wouldn't really want to eat what they took pictures of.
Your comment indicates a lack of reading comprehension skills. And a lack of intelligence.
Let me ask you a simple question:
Someone gives you a written Portuguese book.
You have a Spanish translation program.
Would you then run it through the Spanish translation program and claim you have 'translated it"?
NO OF COURSE NOT, ONLY A MORON WOULD DO THIS.
I totally agree that if you use PCR (which I have experience in - minimal, but recent), or a ligation based system (of which I have read), on an arsenic based life form then it would not work. But if you do that, and claim to have 'sequenced' it, you are a MORON. Just as if you you claimed to have translated a Portuguese book with a Spanish translation program.
Chemicals are real, solid things with real solid definitions. The idea that some total idiot would use a standard PCR or ligation based sequencing technique on a potentially arsenic based life form and then claim to have SEQUENCED the DNA is idiotic.
Everything I wrote is correct. They did NOT sequence the DNA. They ran either a PCR or ligation based protocal on the DNA sample. It came up with results that, if the theory about arsenic is correct, are false.
They were incredibly inaccurate - in the headline, the article, and the study.
Lets say their really is arsenic in that life form. It will almost certainly affect the shape of the molecule, affect RBS, affect the amino acids created, etc. etc. etc.
From that point on, you (and everyone else that does sequencing) will need to create a new protocol with differentiate from arsenic bases from phosphate bases. Sequencing will undergo a major change and NEW names will be given to the new arsenic bases and new letters will be assigned.
Again, the writers of this headline, article all did a horrible job of communication what was done.
Moronic headline strikes again.,
signed someone that is not an idiot and knows chemicals with even a single molecule difference are not given the same name.
In the third - fifth grade the kids were learning addition and subtraction, key tasks for everyone in all jobs. If you buy or sell anything, even groceries, you need and use those skills every day.
In the 8th grade, they have gone beyond + and -. Multiplication and division are still helpful, but not absolutely necessary for everyday life. By the time you get to algebra and calculus, we are teaching skills that the majority of jobs don't need.
So most of those kids were RIGHT - they did not end up using it in their job.
That said, I never thought the "you will need it to work" was a good idea. I don't need to know history to do my job but I need to know it.
Education is not about preparing you to work. That is what a trade school does. Education is about preparing you to LIVE. And math is just as important, if not more so, as history, reading, writing, etc.
< sarcasm@gt; For example, people that actually know math laugh at the idea of balancing the budget without raising taxes.< / sarcasm >
Half the point of this thread is that if the server is in "Butfukistan" as you said, then the US has no jurisdiction and should not legally be able to seize the server.
If the server is not under your jurisdiction then you don't have the legal right to seize the domain.
If you actually sequence the genome, then you know if their is Arsenic in it. You look at what you sequences and see if it says anything but "ATCG", because all of those letters code for nucleotides containing phosphates.
You see those letters code for very specific chemicals Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine, none of which have Arsenic.
When you change the nucleotides, you get something BESIDES ATCG. A prime example of this is RNA, a similar chemical that has no Thymine. Instead it uses Uracil which replaces Thymine (they both bind to Adenine). Uracil is basically Thymine with a CH3 replacing a single one of the Hydrogen molecules.
If you take out the Phosphorus, and put in Arsenic, you don't have A or T or C or G (or U).
Techincially whey they posted the genome sequence, as they used only A,T,C and G, they are claiming they found no arsenic.
Of course, I am sure that they are claiming that the A,T,C and G letters refer either to actual A,T,C and G OR to similar chemicals that have the Phosphorous replaced with Arsenic. But the DNA sequencing machines we use were designed to just identify real ATCG - their hypothesis is unsupported and untested.
To conclude - they ran the bacteria through standard genome sequencing and got a result that portrayed it without Arsenic. But they appear to think that their test results are wrong and the genome actually has arsenic in it - without any new evidence presented here.
What was wrong with horses? Well, they did not go as fast as cars and ate stuff even when they were not moving.
But no one knew that until they invented cars.
Do I have to mention newspapers?
Engineers don't know what is wrong with TV. And we won't know until after TV goes the way of the horse and buggy.
The people who work for TV don't want to wait. They want to create TV's replacement before it gets killed by whatever's new.
No. SMS is technically something that is built into a monthly existence of a working phone. It is NOT free, you have fallen for a myth.
Specifically, any phone that you have, even if you don't use it for anything, get no calls, make no data requests, still costs the phone company a small amount of money each month.
Your phone pings the cell tower. Those pings are where the SMS messages are kept. Each ping costs the phone company a small amount of electricity and a small amount of bandwidth.
Yes, an SMS message is the infintismal cost included in simply having a phone with no messages, but it is a cost.
It is NOT technically free, it is just the smallest possible upkeep neccessary to maintain an account.
Nope. We are clearly trying to learn how to cure simulated cancer in mice.
You see, it isn't even natural cancer they are curing in the mice. They usually create an artificial cancer by genetically engineering it into the mice, then try to cure that.
Slashdot Mirror
Check your budget numbers first, fool. The US government gives huge amounts of cash to oil, coal and nuclear power - far more than we give to solar powers.
As for 'uncompetitive' solar power plants are only uncompetitive if we let people dump garbage into the air for free. Wind power is now the cheapest power - assuming we enforce existing pollution laws. Water and coal are the cheapest if we don't track pollution. If we charge every company HALF the price to clean up air pollution then Wind, Solar and Nuclear are the only competivie plants.
The question is not 'which is cheapest', but "how much are we going to charge them for the right to poison our air".
To make it even more complicated idiots in the midwest like to pollute the air and don't care that their pollution gets blown east by the wind into the East.
If you want to claim "I can live with the pollution" that's one thing. But to stand and insist "its the cheapest" is just plain STUPID.
So basically, you are saying that you personally are stupider than your opponents - AND think that when you say this you are insulting them.
Hm. Interesting strategy.
As for your claim about analysis being fraudulent and nonsenical - that is something elite arguers - whether they be conservative or liberal generally support with evidence. You have failed to do so.
Well, that at least explains why you don't consider yourself elite.
The thing is, there is real question about how true it is. We don't need to stop driving cars, we just need to switch to electric vehicles and then upgrade our powerplants.
This will raise the cost per mile and raise the cost of electricity, but it should be enough of a fix to let the planet recover.
Every single elected president - INCLUDING Barack Obama, has a genealogy related to President George Washington.
Note I did say Elected President. Gerald Ford is (as of yet), not known to be related to George Washington.
Barck Obama is George Washington's 9th cousin, 6 times removed. Yes, this is through his white mother.
From what I can tell, the least connected elected President was Martin Van Buren - 17th cousin thrice removed.
Also, President William Henry Harrison was related by marraige, not by blood.
my source
Everyone complains about the anti-evolution, anti-climate of the GOP. They fail to talk about the anti-chemistry/anti-rocketry views of the Democrats. Try to build a model rocket in a liberal state. Can't go to the store and get the rocket motors - they are illegal. Afraid of fireworks, etc.
The independents aren't any better. Some anti-science views are unpolitical. Similar problems exist with anti-computer. Can't have the kids do anything fun like hack their own phones. OH no, that pisses of the media corps. Who cares if experimentation is pro-science and it teaches people to think.
Then there is the anti-vaccination crowd.
The anti-science movement is not just republican. It is an non-denominational problem. We need to start making Science a focus. Make it a priority above and beyond pollution (climate change), above and beyond 'vandalism masquerading as safety concerns' (firework laws), above and beyond cultish stupidity (lies about vaccinces), above and beyond profits for media companies.
Here: Fact 1) The climate has changed and always will. Fact 2) We can't keep it in a solid sate (unchanging). Fact 3) Mankind directly affects the climate, and we KNOW this - we can see the Ozone hole above the poles. It was directly created by aerospray cans we created. Fact 4) Besides a static, unchanging thing, there is stomething called DYNAMIC STABILITY. Fact 5) Dynamic Stability can be achieved by careful monitoring and correcting of issues. Like say if we start pumping more C02 into the air, we can stop it.
Not saying that is what we have to do. Just saying that your logic is incredibally bad - you proved absolutely nothing but your own ignorance.
2. Teaching takes a lot of time.
3. Teaching takes intelligence. The smarter you are, the better you do. There is a reason why colleges try to get the smartest, most published people to teach.
4. The more you teach, the better you get. You learn things from your students, so you get better at your job.
5. Some of those things students teach you? THey have been written down. You can go to school and learn them.
So, even if you are willing to do the hard work to teach, have the time, are smart enough to do it, you still won't do as good a job as someone that has a degree in teaching and has been doing it for years.
Will no one teach? No. Some will home school. Some of them will do it because they are too stupid to realize how bad at teaching they are. You can detect these people because they fall for major anti-education cons such as intelligent-design.
Others will home school because they are unemployed, very smart, and their schools are bad. If I lived in a slum, I would home school kids.
For 100k you get car brands that average people can't buy i.e. toys.
2.They are a single man and want a social life. If you are married/a hermit, then you and your wife/hermit friends can avoid using the maxed out cellphone. But single men need to be able to contact women - HOWEVER the woman want to be contacted. It can be hell trying to call someone at work who wanted you to email her - or text or whatever she wanted. I am a guy so I don't know if women have it a bit easier, but I suspect not. And to check websites for addresses/times/etc.
3. They have children. My sister has one and she uses the web to keep track of her kids. Smart phones help her a lot.
4. You like music and feel no need to carry an ipod if you have a phone. This only works if your music is easily portable to your phone and back.
I am sure there are others, but work, social lives, parenting, and music are all pretty focused on the smart phone now.
Also, the human mind is fooled by colors. Yellow = lemon, purple = grape. Give someone lemonaide dyed purple and people will swear they taste the grape.
Vulture looks like a waste - you want something up forever, use a satellite.
Chembots look like a minimal advantage.
Falcon is a cheaper rocket.
Two legged robots are needlessly complicated
Satellite recovery is a big deal - but is very hard to do.
Shrike is already doable, but has limited range which means people in danger have to be looking at a screen. No. Soldiers in battle keep their eyes peeled, not on a screen.
The CT2WS system looks like a pipe dream. If it is possible, it is not likely to be very effective
Nav is like the Shrike, only smaller.
But the landroid is doable and practical. Leave little things behind to extend the radio range of all the other devices. Throw in a microphone on them and you get a nice little spynetwork that you can access from a large distance away - safe and secure back in the base.
Oh. I did not know that. But that still lets them do things like glue the sessame seeds onto the bun to ensure proper placement. After all, can't have two of them touching.
Which of course is why the pictures of food NEVER look like what they serve you. On the plus side, you wouldn't really want to eat what they took pictures of.
Let me ask you a simple question:
Someone gives you a written Portuguese book.
You have a Spanish translation program.
Would you then run it through the Spanish translation program and claim you have 'translated it"?
NO OF COURSE NOT, ONLY A MORON WOULD DO THIS.
I totally agree that if you use PCR (which I have experience in - minimal, but recent), or a ligation based system (of which I have read), on an arsenic based life form then it would not work. But if you do that, and claim to have 'sequenced' it, you are a MORON. Just as if you you claimed to have translated a Portuguese book with a Spanish translation program.
Chemicals are real, solid things with real solid definitions. The idea that some total idiot would use a standard PCR or ligation based sequencing technique on a potentially arsenic based life form and then claim to have SEQUENCED the DNA is idiotic.
Everything I wrote is correct. They did NOT sequence the DNA. They ran either a PCR or ligation based protocal on the DNA sample. It came up with results that, if the theory about arsenic is correct, are false.
They were incredibly inaccurate - in the headline, the article, and the study.
Lets say their really is arsenic in that life form. It will almost certainly affect the shape of the molecule, affect RBS, affect the amino acids created, etc. etc. etc.
From that point on, you (and everyone else that does sequencing) will need to create a new protocol with differentiate from arsenic bases from phosphate bases. Sequencing will undergo a major change and NEW names will be given to the new arsenic bases and new letters will be assigned.
Again, the writers of this headline, article all did a horrible job of communication what was done. Moronic headline strikes again., signed someone that is not an idiot and knows chemicals with even a single molecule difference are not given the same name.
In the 8th grade, they have gone beyond + and -. Multiplication and division are still helpful, but not absolutely necessary for everyday life. By the time you get to algebra and calculus, we are teaching skills that the majority of jobs don't need.
So most of those kids were RIGHT - they did not end up using it in their job.
That said, I never thought the "you will need it to work" was a good idea. I don't need to know history to do my job but I need to know it.
Education is not about preparing you to work. That is what a trade school does. Education is about preparing you to LIVE. And math is just as important, if not more so, as history, reading, writing, etc.
< sarcasm@gt; For example, people that actually know math laugh at the idea of balancing the budget without raising taxes.< / sarcasm >
If the server is not under your jurisdiction then you don't have the legal right to seize the domain.
You see those letters code for very specific chemicals Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine, none of which have Arsenic.
When you change the nucleotides, you get something BESIDES ATCG. A prime example of this is RNA, a similar chemical that has no Thymine. Instead it uses Uracil which replaces Thymine (they both bind to Adenine). Uracil is basically Thymine with a CH3 replacing a single one of the Hydrogen molecules.
If you take out the Phosphorus, and put in Arsenic, you don't have A or T or C or G (or U).
Techincially whey they posted the genome sequence, as they used only A,T,C and G, they are claiming they found no arsenic.
Of course, I am sure that they are claiming that the A,T,C and G letters refer either to actual A,T,C and G OR to similar chemicals that have the Phosphorous replaced with Arsenic. But the DNA sequencing machines we use were designed to just identify real ATCG - their hypothesis is unsupported and untested.
To conclude - they ran the bacteria through standard genome sequencing and got a result that portrayed it without Arsenic. But they appear to think that their test results are wrong and the genome actually has arsenic in it - without any new evidence presented here.
This software seems in-effective to me.
Because Savage and Huneman worked as professional special effects artists before they started in Mythbusters.
That is what made them professionals. Support your claims.
Back when they used cannonballs in war, they used to fire "ground balls". The balls would bounce along on the ground, moving rather slowly.
Ineveitably some newbie would see it and try to stop it with his foot.
The next day they call those newbies "Stumpie" .
Do I have to mention newspapers?
Engineers don't know what is wrong with TV. And we won't know until after TV goes the way of the horse and buggy.
The people who work for TV don't want to wait. They want to create TV's replacement before it gets killed by whatever's new.
No. SMS is technically something that is built into a monthly existence of a working phone. It is NOT free, you have fallen for a myth. Specifically, any phone that you have, even if you don't use it for anything, get no calls, make no data requests, still costs the phone company a small amount of money each month. Your phone pings the cell tower. Those pings are where the SMS messages are kept. Each ping costs the phone company a small amount of electricity and a small amount of bandwidth. Yes, an SMS message is the infintismal cost included in simply having a phone with no messages, but it is a cost. It is NOT technically free, it is just the smallest possible upkeep neccessary to maintain an account.
Nope. We are clearly trying to learn how to cure simulated cancer in mice. You see, it isn't even natural cancer they are curing in the mice. They usually create an artificial cancer by genetically engineering it into the mice, then try to cure that.
Those look to me like tracks left in the ground by unmanned vehicles. Straight lines, random-ish changes, slighty dusty.
Soap is pretty finiky when it comes to temperature as well as the ratio.