One could argue that the mistake was to force people to use the coin when the people of Canada clearly preferred the bill.
People dislike change. But once the change has happened they get used to the new thing. This is certainly true with changing bills to coins. I've experienced the process twice in two countries where I've lived.
Pandering to people's fear of change, when the replacement has many advantages - that would be the mistake.
Notes are always removed from circulation. When they get torn and dirty and thin and pass through a bank. Then they passed to the government and incinerated.
So the mistake was to keep on issuing new dollar bills. Had the government simply started supplying new coins instead, the changeover would have happened gradually and inevitably. The stores can only offer bills as change if they actually have them in the cash register.
Coins are easier to fake, you generally need a metal that's roughly the same weight as the original and plate it to be the right colour, and then get stamping.
No, there are other also characteristics that modern coin mechs test for. It's electromagnetic properties. Some even photograph the coin and do image processing.
Slugs aren't nearly so easy to make as they once were.
BTW, AOL provided nearly all the Internet access for normal people for many years, something government never addressed.
Internet ACCESS. There'd be nothing for AOL to have provided access to were it not for the government. Oh and BTW, Al Gore had a large part to play in that.:-)
There's an equivalence here. The government won't be the once manufacturing the batteries for consumers. They are the ones who will make them possible by funding the fundamental research.
All that's needed is something as energy dense as gasoline. And whilst that can and occasionally does release it's energy all at once in a catastrophic way, it's been more than worth it up to now.
A battery as energy dense as gasoline probably won't be any more dangerous than gasoline. And may very well be less so.
Its easy to give a Ted Talk, its a lot harder to offer up a practical idea. (Just look at how many TED talks are nothing but TED Talks).
I've watched most of them, and very few of them "are nothing but TED Talks". Most are talks about stuff that's already happening in the real world. Though typically on a scale that's still small enough that most people haven't heard about it.
Let me ask the obvious question. Was creation being taught in biology up until the new Law?
No evolution was and is, in virtually every high school in the UK. This is a specific intervention for a new class of schools called "free schools", which take government money but don't otherwise follow the normal curriculum. Obviously they are popular with religious people that want to indoctrinate their children. And perhaps some of them have been teaching creationism instead of evolution.
Of course, if you can't come up with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, then you can't even start the science game.
That phrase is the only scientifically sounding one you know, isn't it. Contrastingly, Michael Mann for example is a real scientist.
"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)." http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html
Over the full 20 years dummy. 20 years is short, 10 years is stupid.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998.
You just don't learn, do you? 1998 was a local maxima, so in 2009, you thought could say "the last 10 years data shows cooling." But now of course you can't say that, because the last 10 years data doesn't start on a local maxima. The last 10 years data doesn't show cooling at all, but rising.*
So now you want to cherry pick the last 12/13 years, again starting with the local maxima of 1998. Which shows you blatantly to be cherry picking. 12/13 years? What kind of period is that to choose?
You're a cherry picking fraud and you just helped me to made it obvious to everyone. Thanks for playing.
(*Of course no one with shred of integrity would be trying to use 10 years, when for climate trends you need more like 30 years to start to lose the year to year noise. Hence my point about your stupid splitting of a 20 year graph of ocean levels into 2 10 year trends.)
Explain scientifically:
1. Where does love come from?
2. Where does hate come from?
3. Why are most people on the earth religious?
We're talking about things that science "can't address". All of these things are things that are under scientific study. i.e. They are being addressed.
That we don't know everything about those particular topics does not put them out of the realm of science. They are absolutely scientifically studyable.
Interestingly the answer to all three of your questions will be derived from evolution. All three were either advantageous to survival or reproduction, or came as a byproduct of something that was. That's why the mutations that led in the direction of those things were successful, and those genes prospered.
Which helps to show why evolution is an important topic that kids should be taught. It answers most "why" questions with regard to animal (and human) physiology and behaviour.
Without specifying who "the scientists" are. I might know less than Richard Lindzen, for example, but I certainly know more than Michael Mann:)
Bingo! Your fakery revealed to the world.
The nice thing about science is that it can be played without credentials
So you're playing it as an amateur, without the qualifications of... for example Michael Mann. (A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998))
I honestly can't imagine leaving school without knowing about evolution. It's pretty core knowledge. How much of an idiot would someone look as an adult if they didn't know what evolution was?
Most introductory biology courses focus on the mechanics of organisms, and while learning about evolution can be helpful there, I don't see it as being required.
Define introductory. In the UK it's always been taught to 14-15 year olds for at least the last 30 years to my knowledge. It's not the first thing you learn in biology, but it's certainly something that you learn before mandatory schooling comes to an end.
Slashdot Mirror
The USA manages a single currency across it's 50 states. There's no reason why Europe can't. It's the F word that's required... federalisation.
You're easily confused. Most people don't have a problem with coins.
People dump worthless coins in jars. In the UK, people don't chuck their pound coins in jars, nor in Europe do they chuck their Euros in jars.
One could argue that the mistake was to force people to use the coin when the people of Canada clearly preferred the bill.
People dislike change. But once the change has happened they get used to the new thing. This is certainly true with changing bills to coins. I've experienced the process twice in two countries where I've lived.
Pandering to people's fear of change, when the replacement has many advantages - that would be the mistake.
Notes are always removed from circulation. When they get torn and dirty and thin and pass through a bank. Then they passed to the government and incinerated.
So the mistake was to keep on issuing new dollar bills. Had the government simply started supplying new coins instead, the changeover would have happened gradually and inevitably. The stores can only offer bills as change if they actually have them in the cash register.
Coins are easier to fake, you generally need a metal that's roughly the same weight as the original and plate it to be the right colour, and then get stamping.
No, there are other also characteristics that modern coin mechs test for. It's electromagnetic properties. Some even photograph the coin and do image processing.
Slugs aren't nearly so easy to make as they once were.
It's a global financial crisis, not a euro-zone financial crisis.
The Euro has made for some extra hurt, but it didn't cause the financial crisis.
(Can we call it a depression yet?)
Slashdot is largely populated by libertarian goons these days, rather than geeks.
BTW, AOL provided nearly all the Internet access for normal people for many years, something government never addressed.
Internet ACCESS. There'd be nothing for AOL to have provided access to were it not for the government. Oh and BTW, Al Gore had a large part to play in that. :-)
There's an equivalence here. The government won't be the once manufacturing the batteries for consumers. They are the ones who will make them possible by funding the fundamental research.
Your assurance means nothing to me. This guy on the other hand seems to know what he's talking about:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3286503&cid=42150187
"The free market is pretty crap at research." I disagree based on the discussions of innovations here on Slashdot and similar sites.
Basic research, and development of innovative products are different things.
This plan, as laid out, smells like "Workfare for Scientists".
Public money spent on having scientists do science is money well spent.
Many companies have spent more than $120M and not achieved a doubling in capacity.
If the private sector has failed, that's a good reason to do public sector research.
Public sector money gave us the internet. Private sector gave us AOL and MSN. Whatever happened to those?
Public sector gave us a man on the moon. Now 40 years later, it's seen as an achievement for a private company to get into space.
The public sector is far better at the big multi-year stuff than the private sector.
All that's needed is something as energy dense as gasoline. And whilst that can and occasionally does release it's energy all at once in a catastrophic way, it's been more than worth it up to now.
A battery as energy dense as gasoline probably won't be any more dangerous than gasoline. And may very well be less so.
Its easy to give a Ted Talk, its a lot harder to offer up a practical idea. (Just look at how many TED talks are nothing but TED Talks).
I've watched most of them, and very few of them "are nothing but TED Talks". Most are talks about stuff that's already happening in the real world. Though typically on a scale that's still small enough that most people haven't heard about it.
Right. 5 years to develop 5X cheaper and 5X more energy dense? How gullible are you?
AC in 1962: "Right. 10 years to develop develop a rocket ship to land a man on the moon and return him? How gullible are you?"
What makes you believe that is not capable of being studied by science. Every other form of human behaviour is.
Let me ask the obvious question. Was creation being taught in biology up until the new Law?
No evolution was and is, in virtually every high school in the UK. This is a specific intervention for a new class of schools called "free schools", which take government money but don't otherwise follow the normal curriculum. Obviously they are popular with religious people that want to indoctrinate their children. And perhaps some of them have been teaching creationism instead of evolution.
Of course, if you can't come up with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, then you can't even start the science game.
That phrase is the only scientifically sounding one you know, isn't it. Contrastingly, Michael Mann for example is a real scientist.
You need to learn what climate is:
"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)."
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html
Over the full 20 years dummy. 20 years is short, 10 years is stupid.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998.
You just don't learn, do you? 1998 was a local maxima, so in 2009, you thought could say "the last 10 years data shows cooling." But now of course you can't say that, because the last 10 years data doesn't start on a local maxima. The last 10 years data doesn't show cooling at all, but rising.*
So now you want to cherry pick the last 12/13 years, again starting with the local maxima of 1998. Which shows you blatantly to be cherry picking. 12/13 years? What kind of period is that to choose?
You're a cherry picking fraud and you just helped me to made it obvious to everyone. Thanks for playing.
(*Of course no one with shred of integrity would be trying to use 10 years, when for climate trends you need more like 30 years to start to lose the year to year noise. Hence my point about your stupid splitting of a 20 year graph of ocean levels into 2 10 year trends.)
Explain scientifically:
1. Where does love come from?
2. Where does hate come from?
3. Why are most people on the earth religious?
We're talking about things that science "can't address". All of these things are things that are under scientific study. i.e. They are being addressed.
That we don't know everything about those particular topics does not put them out of the realm of science. They are absolutely scientifically studyable.
Interestingly the answer to all three of your questions will be derived from evolution. All three were either advantageous to survival or reproduction, or came as a byproduct of something that was. That's why the mutations that led in the direction of those things were successful, and those genes prospered.
Which helps to show why evolution is an important topic that kids should be taught. It answers most "why" questions with regard to animal (and human) physiology and behaviour.
Do you really believe that degrees make someone *right*?
I believe that your lack of degrees make you unqualified.
That wouldn't matter much were you not also a crank. For example:
Michael Mann is a fraud, and is unable to divorce his desire to be *right* with his responsibility to be *scientific*. Shame on him.
Without specifying who "the scientists" are. I might know less than Richard Lindzen, for example, but I certainly know more than Michael Mann :)
Bingo! Your fakery revealed to the world.
The nice thing about science is that it can be played without credentials
So you're playing it as an amateur, without the qualifications of... for example Michael Mann. (A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998))
I honestly can't imagine leaving school without knowing about evolution. It's pretty core knowledge. How much of an idiot would someone look as an adult if they didn't know what evolution was?
Most introductory biology courses focus on the mechanics of organisms, and while learning about evolution can be helpful there, I don't see it as being required.
Define introductory. In the UK it's always been taught to 14-15 year olds for at least the last 30 years to my knowledge. It's not the first thing you learn in biology, but it's certainly something that you learn before mandatory schooling comes to an end.