And yet, when you look at the stalwarts of today's tech industry, most of them excelled, not because of their technical skills but because of their ideas. The best technical skills in the world don't mean a thing if you can't envision how to use them for something others want. Put differently, it is a lot easier to teach others to code than it is to teach them to think creatively.
Whether we knew/know about an asteroid strike doesn't change whether the strike will occur. As such, the actual likelihood of an asteroid hit is the same, either way. What has changed is our knowledge that it is going to occur.
Put differently, there are a finite number of asteroids in the solar system. If one othem is on a trajectory that will eventually impact the earth, the likelihood of an earth impact is unchanged whether we know it or not. Likewise, if none of them are on a trajectory to impact earth, the likelihood of an earth impact is unchanged whether we know it or not.
At this point in time, there are only two options - either the earth will be hit or it will never be hit. The more we know about the asteroids and their trajectories does not change those results (unless by knowing, we have a means to divert the collision, which currently, we can't).
...so yes, we know 1% of asteroids, but still - the danger now for a person to be killed by asteroid is more than 100 times less, than it was two decades ago
Actually, the danger to a person being killed by an asteroid is not changed. That won't happen until some technology is developed to deal with them. But, at least we would know the end is coming.
Civil unions would have been one option. Most of the rest of the world went that route. However, that only solves the issue of equal protection under the law. There were/are other agendas involved in this decision, which is why there is all of the talk about love and family and the two becoming greater than the whole.
As Justice Roberts stated in his dissenting opinion, it's fine to celebrate this decision, just don't celebrate the constitution for it, as the decision, as written has nothing to do with the constitution. (paraphrased)
Hardly, since it just upheld equal rights for all. That gay couples can enter into a legal contract, i.e, marriage. Until now they were denied that simply because they wanted to marry the same sex. That was clearly unconstitutional.
Then the court should have simply stated that marriage, in the eyes of the law is a legal contract that same sex couples were denied from entering into. This is a violation of the 14th amendment.
But they didn't. Instead the SCOTUS said that there is a new right called dignity and that marriage is about love and mutual respect and support of the family, yada, yadad. While I do not necessarily disagree with those sentiments, love et al is not what the court was asked to address as it is not protected under the 14th amendment.
My point being, the court, in its majority opinion, should have dealt with matters of law, not sociology.
And why should they discriminate against me being single? Granting protection to married couples only makes sense if those protections make it easier for procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate, so they should be granted no protections. If same-sex couples are being given those protections, I should be legally allowed to marry myself and have them too.
There are no benefits for ones ability to procreate -- same sex, different sex or single. There are benefits for the results of procreating and raising a child, whether biologically or through adoption. Same sex couples already have access to those protections, as do single people. (You don't have to be married to get the child tax credit, you just have to have a child).
With regards to marrying yourself, the whole issue is that marriage brings a number of rights to the spouse by law without having one spouse specifically grant them to the other. Marrying yourself to get these rights doesn't make sense, as you already have them.
"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." - Justice Kennedy
You make my point. There is no constitutional right to dignity under the law. There is a constitutional right to equal protection. I wonder, if the Boston Bomper can now appeal his case based on this new constitutional right of dignity?
The fact that I got modded down for flamebait just reinforces the notion that the issue of same-sex marriage is about something other than equal protection under the law. That is fine, but the reality is the court was supposed to address equal protection under the law, not the changing morals of society as it relates to marriage.
For the record, I'm not opposed to same sex-sex marriage. I just think the SCOTUS should stick to its intended purpose versus being a vehicle for social change. Ironically, many states already made the argument for them on how the 14th amendment was being violated. Not one of them included concepts of the expression of love (probably, because no state laws on marriage require the expression of love as a requirement). SCOTUS however has now made that part of the definition of marriage.
The problem is that if SCOTUS can define marriage one way, then in the future, it can define it a different way, depending on how public opinion changes. If they had relied on the 14th amendment argument, the burden of changing the definition would be on those wanting to change it and showing it wasn't a violation. But, then, that is not what the SCOTUS did.
While I do not necessarily disagree with you, how is the constitutionality of same sex marriage related to expanding the constitution to include a right to drugs?
And some may consider it judicial correction for failing to follow the legislative action taken on July 9, 1868.
Or, some may consider it judicial activism since the majority opinion talks about marriage being about love and commitment, and two people becoming more than they were before, etc. To many, regardless of one's views or same-sex marriage, it seems that the majority opinion went beyond equal protection under the law.
I thought so too. I was under the impression that Mars has no spinning iron core anymore, so terraforming is all but impossible since there isn't a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar winds from stripping away any potential atmosphere beyond what is currently there. What am I missing here?
People who approve funding for DARPA (and others) aren't usually interested in the scientific reality, just the hype.
This just in: the difference between a just formed, new planet and a planet that got hot stellar matter from its central sol is much smaller than the difference between a newly formed planet and one that circles around the quiet central star for some billions of years.
And thus it is a rejuvenation, as the planet gets more similar to its primordal state than before.
Does the so called rejuvenated planet behave similar to the new planet - plate tectonics, chemistry, atmosphere, etc? Seems that to rejuvenate a planet would require more than just blasting it with stellar plasma and burning away it's surface. Just because it is now hotter so that we can detect it doesn't mean it is rejuvenated.
If I leave the electric oven on and don't notice, but turning off the light in the kitchen allows me to see the orange glow does not mean my oven is rejuvenated. So, why should essentially the same thing mean a planet is?
Just like when an obscure person becomes well-known, it doesn't make them any younger. And when your body temperature soars during cremation, you also aren't any younger.
Except that the cooling off of a planet is the primary change that comes from a planet getting older. That matters far more than any analogy with the human body which behaves rather differently than a planet. You might was well complain that someone overhauling a small engine with new oil and gaskets so it runs just like new is not rejuvenation because blood transfusions don't make a person younger (actually, nothing you do to a person actually makes them younger...).
Rejuvenation implies that the item rejuvenated is equivalent to function, performance, etc. of an earlier state. Rebuilding a small engine would be a type of rejuvenation. As for a planet, if it is rejuvenated, then not only temperature would change, but plate tectonics and other planetary systems would be, too. Your final comment actually, nothing you do to a person actually makes them younger applies to exoplanets, too.
You should look up "Other-Kin". Be prepared to laugh and cry at humanity at the same time.
Yeah. We have people identifying themselves as non-human and we have people trying to identify various non-humans (ie. chimps) as human. It is a crazy world we live in.
If race and gender aren't based on anything anymore than what the individual identifies themself as, then why should planet of origin be any different? As for being an ambassador or getting diplomatic immunity, isn't that up to the entity granting such privileges, not the one sending them?
If Elon Musk identifies himself as a martian, who are we to judge? If gender is no longer based on chromosomes and race is no longer based on ancestry, then why should one's planetary identity be based on planetary origin?
The real question is, whether the problem with artificial ingredients, is just a problem with regard to specific artificial ingredients that are just selected to mimic a specific characteristic of a natural ingredients (flavour, odour, texture, anti-biotic activity) with little regard to the other characteristics of that artificial ingredient and those other characteristics causing problems.
Would a completely artificial food, properly engineering for safe consumption and low allergen characteristics with an indigestible fibre added for digestive function be a suitable goal. Logically it could prove far safer than genetic manipulation and ever increasing levels of toxins in the environment. Rather than fake food pretending to be natural food how about actual completely engineered artificial foods. Taste is important though, as it allows active dietary control via flavour profiles, a preference for particular minerals via varying flavour preferences.
Most things that people eat are completely engineered artificial foods. Real food does not contain ingredients. An apple is an apple. An egg is an egg and a chicken leg is a chicken leg. On the other hand, if there are ingredients listed on the label, then it is already engineered and most likely artificial. It is possible to have ingredients that are all foods in and of them self. A cobb salad could be an example, but even though it might not be artificial, if you are buying it pre-packaged, it is still engineered.
Is it? That HFCS is "bad" is something that everyone "knows", despite little or no evidence. The NIH did a comprehensive review of research on fructose, and found no basis for believing that replacing other sugars with fructose leads to obesity, or is worse for you than sucrose or glucose in any way. Yes, you should try to reduce the amount of sugar in your diet, but there is no reason to single out fructose over other sugars.
You are misinterpreting the abstract you pointed to. First, the NIH did not research the link between HFCS and increased BMI (weight gain). They "reviewed" existing studies. The conclusion of the review is that it discredits the non-scientific studies that have been done in the past (both showing an increase in obesity or not) and specifically states that there is not enough scientificly valid data to reach a conclusion one way or the other. It strongly recommends that more scientific research is needed specifically targeting the effect of HFCS and increased BMI.
I'm sure it will soon. There are some potential benefits: noticing that a diabetic student is buying a frosty milkshake everyday, or that a child with seafood allergies is buying fish sticks every week, or that a morbidly obese student or builimic student are buying 5 servings of ice cream every day might all be useful to the parents and the school. And the usefulness of such information can be used to justify monitoring _all_ students.
Is it really the school's or government's responsibility to protect kids from these things? In addition, since only poor kids will qualify for free lunches, is this simply a way for the government to add to a fingerprint database to track these kids as adults? When biometrics are used for security at a place of work, you as an individual can choose to work there or not. When used at a public institution, you don't have the ability to refuse.
Bullshit. Name one city served by Amtrak that doesn't have a nearby airport.
Amtrak runs through the midwest as a bribe to midwestern congresscritters.
Except that most of those midwest states are red states and want to shut Amtrak down. If Amtrak's future depends on lobbying midwestern congressman, then they aren't doing a very good job at it. As for Amtrak cities without commercial airports, there are many, unless you consider driving 100 to 200 miles to an airport as having a nearby airport. And if they have a small regional airport, you can bet it is heavily subsidized by tax dollars in one form or another.
Which means that in a massive economic downturn, your silver is going to be just as worthless as dollars. The only reason that silver is worthwhile is because people assign a value to it. If it has no value, then it's worthless. If you can't get access to water or food and the people around you have no need for silver because they value their food/water higher than your silver, then you're kinda stuck.
And if you are one of the people with food/water and the people around you need it, your pretty much at their mercy, too. Think of all the zombie movies, even though you can actually kill people, you can't kill or defend from all of them and eventually, you, too, will be over run and without food and water.
The best solution is to stop the apocalypse before it gets that bad because if it really happens we're all screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, when you look at the stalwarts of today's tech industry, most of them excelled, not because of their technical skills but because of their ideas. The best technical skills in the world don't mean a thing if you can't envision how to use them for something others want. Put differently, it is a lot easier to teach others to code than it is to teach them to think creatively.
Whether we knew/know about an asteroid strike doesn't change whether the strike will occur. As such, the actual likelihood of an asteroid hit is the same, either way. What has changed is our knowledge that it is going to occur.
Put differently, there are a finite number of asteroids in the solar system. If one othem is on a trajectory that will eventually impact the earth, the likelihood of an earth impact is unchanged whether we know it or not. Likewise, if none of them are on a trajectory to impact earth, the likelihood of an earth impact is unchanged whether we know it or not.
At this point in time, there are only two options - either the earth will be hit or it will never be hit. The more we know about the asteroids and their trajectories does not change those results (unless by knowing, we have a means to divert the collision, which currently, we can't).
...so yes, we know 1% of asteroids, but still - the danger now for a person to be killed by asteroid is more than 100 times less, than it was two decades ago
Actually, the danger to a person being killed by an asteroid is not changed. That won't happen until some technology is developed to deal with them. But, at least we would know the end is coming.
Civil unions would have been one option. Most of the rest of the world went that route. However, that only solves the issue of equal protection under the law. There were/are other agendas involved in this decision, which is why there is all of the talk about love and family and the two becoming greater than the whole.
As Justice Roberts stated in his dissenting opinion, it's fine to celebrate this decision, just don't celebrate the constitution for it, as the decision, as written has nothing to do with the constitution. (paraphrased)
Hardly, since it just upheld equal rights for all. That gay couples can enter into a legal contract, i.e, marriage. Until now they were denied that simply because they wanted to marry the same sex. That was clearly unconstitutional.
Then the court should have simply stated that marriage, in the eyes of the law is a legal contract that same sex couples were denied from entering into. This is a violation of the 14th amendment.
But they didn't. Instead the SCOTUS said that there is a new right called dignity and that marriage is about love and mutual respect and support of the family, yada, yadad. While I do not necessarily disagree with those sentiments, love et al is not what the court was asked to address as it is not protected under the 14th amendment.
My point being, the court, in its majority opinion, should have dealt with matters of law, not sociology.
And why should they discriminate against me being single? Granting protection to married couples only makes sense if those protections make it easier for procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate, so they should be granted no protections. If same-sex couples are being given those protections, I should be legally allowed to marry myself and have them too.
There are no benefits for ones ability to procreate -- same sex, different sex or single. There are benefits for the results of procreating and raising a child, whether biologically or through adoption.
Same sex couples already have access to those protections, as do single people. (You don't have to be married to get the child tax credit, you just have to have a child).
With regards to marrying yourself, the whole issue is that marriage brings a number of rights to the spouse by law without having one spouse specifically grant them to the other. Marrying yourself to get these rights doesn't make sense, as you already have them.
From the decision:
"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." - Justice Kennedy
You make my point. There is no constitutional right to dignity under the law. There is a constitutional right to equal protection. I wonder, if the Boston Bomper can now appeal his case based on this new constitutional right of dignity?
The fact that I got modded down for flamebait just reinforces the notion that the issue of same-sex marriage is about something other than equal protection under the law. That is fine, but the reality is the court was supposed to address equal protection under the law, not the changing morals of society as it relates to marriage.
For the record, I'm not opposed to same sex-sex marriage. I just think the SCOTUS should stick to its intended purpose versus being a vehicle for social change. Ironically, many states already made the argument for them on how the 14th amendment was being violated. Not one of them included concepts of the expression of love (probably, because no state laws on marriage require the expression of love as a requirement). SCOTUS however has now made that part of the definition of marriage.
The problem is that if SCOTUS can define marriage one way, then in the future, it can define it a different way, depending on how public opinion changes. If they had relied on the 14th amendment argument, the burden of changing the definition would be on those wanting to change it and showing it wasn't a violation. But, then, that is not what the SCOTUS did.
While I do not necessarily disagree with you, how is the constitutionality of same sex marriage related to expanding the constitution to include a right to drugs?
And some may consider it judicial correction for failing to follow the legislative action taken on July 9, 1868.
Or, some may consider it judicial activism since the majority opinion talks about marriage being about love and commitment, and two people becoming more than they were before, etc. To many, regardless of one's views or same-sex marriage, it seems that the majority opinion went beyond equal protection under the law.
I thought so too. I was under the impression that Mars has no spinning iron core anymore, so terraforming is all but impossible since there isn't a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar winds from stripping away any potential atmosphere beyond what is currently there. What am I missing here?
People who approve funding for DARPA (and others) aren't usually interested in the scientific reality, just the hype.
If that's true, we won't have to worry about the trivial climate heating we are experiencing now. We will be toast!
That will never happen. Congress will pass a bill not allowing it.
This just in: the difference between a just formed, new planet and a planet that got hot stellar matter from its central sol is much smaller than the difference between a newly formed planet and one that circles around the quiet central star for some billions of years.
And thus it is a rejuvenation, as the planet gets more similar to its primordal state than before.
Does the so called rejuvenated planet behave similar to the new planet - plate tectonics, chemistry, atmosphere, etc? Seems that to rejuvenate a planet would require more than just blasting it with stellar plasma and burning away it's surface. Just because it is now hotter so that we can detect it doesn't mean it is rejuvenated.
If I leave the electric oven on and don't notice, but turning off the light in the kitchen allows me to see the orange glow does not mean my oven is rejuvenated. So, why should essentially the same thing mean a planet is?
Just like when an obscure person becomes well-known, it doesn't make them any younger. And when your body temperature soars during cremation, you also aren't any younger.
Except that the cooling off of a planet is the primary change that comes from a planet getting older. That matters far more than any analogy with the human body which behaves rather differently than a planet. You might was well complain that someone overhauling a small engine with new oil and gaskets so it runs just like new is not rejuvenation because blood transfusions don't make a person younger (actually, nothing you do to a person actually makes them younger...).
Rejuvenation implies that the item rejuvenated is equivalent to function, performance, etc. of an earlier state. Rebuilding a small engine would be a type of rejuvenation. As for a planet, if it is rejuvenated, then not only temperature would change, but plate tectonics and other planetary systems would be, too. Your final comment actually, nothing you do to a person actually makes them younger applies to exoplanets, too.
You should look up "Other-Kin". Be prepared to laugh and cry at humanity at the same time.
Yeah. We have people identifying themselves as non-human and we have people trying to identify various non-humans (ie. chimps) as human. It is a crazy world we live in.
If race and gender aren't based on anything anymore than what the individual identifies themself as, then why should planet of origin be any different? As for being an ambassador or getting diplomatic immunity, isn't that up to the entity granting such privileges, not the one sending them?
If Elon Musk identifies himself as a martian, who are we to judge? If gender is no longer based on chromosomes and race is no longer based on ancestry, then why should one's planetary identity be based on planetary origin?
The real question is, whether the problem with artificial ingredients, is just a problem with regard to specific artificial ingredients that are just selected to mimic a specific characteristic of a natural ingredients (flavour, odour, texture, anti-biotic activity) with little regard to the other characteristics of that artificial ingredient and those other characteristics causing problems.
Would a completely artificial food, properly engineering for safe consumption and low allergen characteristics with an indigestible fibre added for digestive function be a suitable goal. Logically it could prove far safer than genetic manipulation and ever increasing levels of toxins in the environment. Rather than fake food pretending to be natural food how about actual completely engineered artificial foods. Taste is important though, as it allows active dietary control via flavour profiles, a preference for particular minerals via varying flavour preferences.
Most things that people eat are completely engineered artificial foods. Real food does not contain ingredients. An apple is an apple. An egg is an egg and a chicken leg is a chicken leg. On the other hand, if there are ingredients listed on the label, then it is already engineered and most likely artificial. It is possible to have ingredients that are all foods in and of them self. A cobb salad could be an example, but even though it might not be artificial, if you are buying it pre-packaged, it is still engineered.
Is it? That HFCS is "bad" is something that everyone "knows", despite little or no evidence. The NIH did a comprehensive review of research on fructose, and found no basis for believing that replacing other sugars with fructose leads to obesity, or is worse for you than sucrose or glucose in any way. Yes, you should try to reduce the amount of sugar in your diet, but there is no reason to single out fructose over other sugars.
You are misinterpreting the abstract you pointed to. First, the NIH did not research the link between HFCS and increased BMI (weight gain). They "reviewed" existing studies. The conclusion of the review is that it discredits the non-scientific studies that have been done in the past (both showing an increase in obesity or not) and specifically states that there is not enough scientificly valid data to reach a conclusion one way or the other. It strongly recommends that more scientific research is needed specifically targeting the effect of HFCS and increased BMI.
who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?
Everyone, after the government mandates it be in place in all new automobiles.
And that is different than the US Congress declaring climate change doesn't exist?
I'm sure it will soon. There are some potential benefits: noticing that a diabetic student is buying a frosty milkshake everyday, or that a child with seafood allergies is buying fish sticks every week, or that a morbidly obese student or builimic student are buying 5 servings of ice cream every day might all be useful to the parents and the school. And the usefulness of such information can be used to justify monitoring _all_ students.
Is it really the school's or government's responsibility to protect kids from these things? In addition, since only poor kids will qualify for free lunches, is this simply a way for the government to add to a fingerprint database to track these kids as adults? When biometrics are used for security at a place of work, you as an individual can choose to work there or not. When used at a public institution, you don't have the ability to refuse.
Shouldn't we first determine if nuclear weapons would even be effective against a NEO before asking if we should keep them on hand?
Bullshit. Name one city served by Amtrak that doesn't have a nearby airport.
Amtrak runs through the midwest as a bribe to midwestern congresscritters.
Except that most of those midwest states are red states and want to shut Amtrak down. If Amtrak's future depends on lobbying midwestern congressman, then they aren't doing a very good job at it. As for Amtrak cities without commercial airports, there are many, unless you consider driving 100 to 200 miles to an airport as having a nearby airport. And if they have a small regional airport, you can bet it is heavily subsidized by tax dollars in one form or another.
Which means that in a massive economic downturn, your silver is going to be just as worthless as dollars. The only reason that silver is worthwhile is because people assign a value to it. If it has no value, then it's worthless. If you can't get access to water or food and the people around you have no need for silver because they value their food/water higher than your silver, then you're kinda stuck.
And if you are one of the people with food/water and the people around you need it, your pretty much at their mercy, too. Think of all the zombie movies, even though you can actually kill people, you can't kill or defend from all of them and eventually, you, too, will be over run and without food and water.
The best solution is to stop the apocalypse before it gets that bad because if it really happens we're all screwed.