Native Americans and Native Hawaians aren't really related. But they both caused lots of extinctions when they arrived, and if they did less than the West it's largely because they had less capability to do anything. What makes you think either was a good steward?
You know...there's plenty of people out there needing work
And some of them will get work providing goods and services for illegal migrants. Send the illegal migrants home and there's fewer workers, but also fewer jobs. It's not immediately obvious whether this would help the unemployed or hurt them.
Last time I saw studies on this the conclusion was that the two effects cancelled out so that migration was neither particularly good or bad for unemployment. But that was a long time ago, in Australia, and included legal migration. So if someone else has more applicable studies they can quote, I'd find that interesting.
If anything you might expect less Christmas promotion in the US than in some places. The US at least has other events late in the year - Thanksgiving, Halloween - that in principle could serve as distractions to break up the Christmas takeoff run. Here in Australia we don't do either of those - or much else, Australia's really quite a boring place from the point of view of festivals - but my impression is that Christmas nonetheless starts rather later here than in the US. Anyone have a theory why?
we can consider Chihuahuas, Old English Sheepdogs and Irish Wolfhounds the same species
All dogs and wolves are, by some definitions at least, considered the same species because they can collaborate in producing a fertile descendant. Chihuahas can't mate with Great Danes, but the Chihuaha can mate with a smallish dog, which mates with a medium-sized dog, which mates with a largish dog, which mates with a Great Dane, and that's enough to make them the same species.
If we killed all the dogs in the world except the Chihuaha and the Great Dane, the survivors would be two separate species. In other words an act that reduces diversity can increase the number of species. This is one problem with using species number as a proxy for diversity. So when we say Neanderthals and humans are the same or different species, we're not really making a statement about whether they are similar or different. At least not entirely.
I have relatives in the US in a similar position [...]
If these people were to swear to defend the US they could become citizens. Then if someone demands they actually do some defending they explain they are pacifists and they'd be OK. Nobody would force them to fight because US laws on conscription etc. recognise conscientious objector status.
In other words, the arm of the US government concerned with demanding violence from its citizens (the military, etc.) doesn't mind them declining to commit acts of violence, but another arm of the government (the citizenship authorities) does mind because it feels obliged to protect the interests of the first arm. The second arm is being overly zealous, providing assistance beyond what the the first arm wants or needs, and causing unnecessary side effects in the process.
The moral of this story is that there's a bug in the citizenship procedure. Conscientious objector status ought to extend to the citizenship laws as well - someone who can prove conscientious objector status, to the same standard as demanded by a conscription board, ought to be allowed to swear a citizenship oath that does not demand defence, at least not in a violent way.
Caveat: Assuming the parent's information is all accurate.
One of the reasons for the law about shipping evidence out would be to make sure the evidence isn't lost or modified. So in this case the physicality of the data actually is relevant and the law may make sense.
not that engineers need to believe in intelligent design; but the belief that complex systems were intelligently designed isn't exactly crippling when your job is intelligently designing complex systems...
Unless a software engineer looks at the design of the human body, notices it is a kludge of spaghetti code, and decides that if God does it that way then it must be the best way to do it.
This is another point against anyone who claims NASA, and going to space in general, is a complete waste of money.
It might prove NASA has some use. But it doesn't sound like going into space was necessary for this research, so that could, in principle, still be a waste.
Australia is basically a hybrid of the British and American systems - an American structure (states, house of representatives for people generally, senate based on states) with the British model (indirectly elected executive, figurehead head of state). If you know both Britain and America then Australia holds few surprises.
A big part of this 'is it a democracy' kerfuffle stems from terminology differences. The classic American definition is that to be a democracy you need to be deciding things by town meeting or referendum, like in ancient Athens. So modern western 'democracies' are by the American definition actually republics, with only a small admixture of genuine democracy (i.e. referenda). Even Britain is a de facto republic by this definition. Whereas by the British definition these countries are representative democracies. There's a similar problem with the word 'government' - In the US this means the legislative, executive and judicial branches, whereas in the Westminster system it refers exclusively to the executive branch. The differences between the systems are smaller than they sometimes seem to be, because we are divided by a common language.
To promote self-confidence, get a screen with such astoundingly high resolution that the porn actors look like they have tiny genitalia, or one with much higher vertical resolution than horizontal so they look fatter than you.
If we want to change our genetic pool we no longer need to do it by selective breeding. We just go in and change it. Genetic engineering will produce the effects eugenics promised but much faster and easier. Whether that's desirable or not is a whole separate question.
Moore's Law will sort this out. Cameras and display screens are rapidly getting cheaper. If the numbers look borderline now then they should look pretty good in a few years.
If the rabbits had been spying on each other they'd have know which ones were carrying myxomatosis. Instead, anti-surveillance laws passed by pinko owslas led to lupine catastrophe. Humans should learn from their example.
I see little diff between ANY country in the modern world, today; when it comes to snooping an spying.
Then, alas, you're blind. Sure, what happens in Australia and other western countries might be sub-optimal. But to say it's as bad as what happens in China or Iran is to embrace the fallacy of the excluded middle: "A is not perfect, B is not perfect, therefore A is as bad as B." The differences include the size of the security apparatus (affecting how many people they can spy on), the existence of mechanisms for bringing the security apparatus to account (including, for instance, a free press), the process by which security people are selected and trained (affecting whether they will happily spy for bad reasons) and many others.
Thank you so much for that image. You have aided my weight-loss program at the expense of my peace of mind.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Funnily enough, my house has a market value, and I have to pay a property tax every year based on that market value. And when it goes up in value, my property tax increases.
I'm not entirely sure why stock is different.
The difference is that we know where your house is so we know which governments have the right to tax it.
But where does your stock portfolio reside? Can you stop me moving it to a tax haven?
Vickrey seems to be saying that the then-newly-elected Clinton administration is getting it all wrong, that it is failing to provide enough stimulus and the economy will suffer unless it changes its policies. But historically the Clinton years were very good ones economically. So did Clinton do what Vickrey said, or was Vickrey wrong?
While both scenarios are extremely improbable, I wonder what the odds are of being struck by an extinction level asteroid or comet vs being invaded or flat out destroyed by aliens.
We have a chance of stopping an extinction-level asteroid, if we see it with plenty of warning. Against starfaring aliens we have no realistic chance. Our best hope is to surrender, and hope their copy of To Serve Man was written by Jack Williamson rather than Damon Knight.
Since NEOs in the size range 100 - 500 m are at least an order of magnitude more frequent than km-sized objects, it seems prudent to focus mitigation planning on the smaller size range
That's not very good thinking. What if the larger ones do much more damage?
Given the political and ethical problems associated with nuclear explosive technology, this method is generally considered appropriate only in extreme circumstances in which no other current mitigation option is viable (e.g. short warning time or NEO diameter larger than 1 km).
Ethical problems? With nuking an asteroid that was going to hit the earth? What are they?
It sounds like they are letting politics drive their key engineering decisions.
The approval of an internationally recognized decision-making authority would be an essential prerequisite to the deployment of powerful explosive devices on space missions.
I think if an asteroid were actually about to hit the earth most political problems would dissolve.
Of course, a nuke isn't necessary, if you get on the rock early enough. A few tons of thrust from a chemical rocket would be good enough. Or, a chemical bomb dropped down the well that you've drilled. Nukes are sexy, but not essential.
If it's small enough, and we see it far off, all sorts of things will work. But if it's large and close we need a nuke. So we shouldn't dismiss it. By this criterion, at least, nukes are better than non-nukes. Is there any way in which nukes are worse?
Basically the nuke, set off alongside and used to deflect rather than disrupt, solves more of the problem space for any given launch mass than anything else I've heard discussed. A lot of people mock nukes but as far as I can tell they remain the natural solution and the most practical one.
Slashdot Mirror
How about random changes to the rules. "In this game, knights and bishops start switched around."
Why does it need to run its auxiliaries? Can't they take power from Southampton?
Native Americans and Native Hawaians aren't really related. But they both caused lots of extinctions when they arrived, and if they did less than the West it's largely because they had less capability to do anything. What makes you think either was a good steward?
You know...there's plenty of people out there needing work
And some of them will get work providing goods and services for illegal migrants. Send the illegal migrants home and there's fewer workers, but also fewer jobs. It's not immediately obvious whether this would help the unemployed or hurt them.
Last time I saw studies on this the conclusion was that the two effects cancelled out so that migration was neither particularly good or bad for unemployment. But that was a long time ago, in Australia, and included legal migration. So if someone else has more applicable studies they can quote, I'd find that interesting.
If anything you might expect less Christmas promotion in the US than in some places. The US at least has other events late in the year - Thanksgiving, Halloween - that in principle could serve as distractions to break up the Christmas takeoff run. Here in Australia we don't do either of those - or much else, Australia's really quite a boring place from the point of view of festivals - but my impression is that Christmas nonetheless starts rather later here than in the US. Anyone have a theory why?
I will gladly volunteer for a review of Scarlett Johansson.
The point of TFA is that some people got to paw Scar-Jo, but not take her clothes off, and then expressed opinions on her skills in bed.
"It's a metaphor." "I know it's a metaphor." -- Moneyball
we can consider Chihuahuas, Old English Sheepdogs and Irish Wolfhounds the same species
All dogs and wolves are, by some definitions at least, considered the same species because they can collaborate in producing a fertile descendant. Chihuahas can't mate with Great Danes, but the Chihuaha can mate with a smallish dog, which mates with a medium-sized dog, which mates with a largish dog, which mates with a Great Dane, and that's enough to make them the same species.
If we killed all the dogs in the world except the Chihuaha and the Great Dane, the survivors would be two separate species. In other words an act that reduces diversity can increase the number of species. This is one problem with using species number as a proxy for diversity. So when we say Neanderthals and humans are the same or different species, we're not really making a statement about whether they are similar or different. At least not entirely.
I have relatives in the US in a similar position [...]
If these people were to swear to defend the US they could become citizens. Then if someone demands they actually do some defending they explain they are pacifists and they'd be OK. Nobody would force them to fight because US laws on conscription etc. recognise conscientious objector status.
In other words, the arm of the US government concerned with demanding violence from its citizens (the military, etc.) doesn't mind them declining to commit acts of violence, but another arm of the government (the citizenship authorities) does mind because it feels obliged to protect the interests of the first arm. The second arm is being overly zealous, providing assistance beyond what the the first arm wants or needs, and causing unnecessary side effects in the process.
The moral of this story is that there's a bug in the citizenship procedure. Conscientious objector status ought to extend to the citizenship laws as well - someone who can prove conscientious objector status, to the same standard as demanded by a conscription board, ought to be allowed to swear a citizenship oath that does not demand defence, at least not in a violent way.
Caveat: Assuming the parent's information is all accurate.
One of the reasons for the law about shipping evidence out would be to make sure the evidence isn't lost or modified. So in this case the physicality of the data actually is relevant and the law may make sense.
Of course there are separate issues of privacy.
not that engineers need to believe in intelligent design; but the belief that complex systems were intelligently designed isn't exactly crippling when your job is intelligently designing complex systems...
Unless a software engineer looks at the design of the human body, notices it is a kludge of spaghetti code, and decides that if God does it that way then it must be the best way to do it.
This is another point against anyone who claims NASA, and going to space in general, is a complete waste of money.
It might prove NASA has some use. But it doesn't sound like going into space was necessary for this research, so that could, in principle, still be a waste.
Australia's I understand is different again
Australia is basically a hybrid of the British and American systems - an American structure (states, house of representatives for people generally, senate based on states) with the British model (indirectly elected executive, figurehead head of state). If you know both Britain and America then Australia holds few surprises.
A big part of this 'is it a democracy' kerfuffle stems from terminology differences. The classic American definition is that to be a democracy you need to be deciding things by town meeting or referendum, like in ancient Athens. So modern western 'democracies' are by the American definition actually republics, with only a small admixture of genuine democracy (i.e. referenda). Even Britain is a de facto republic by this definition. Whereas by the British definition these countries are representative democracies. There's a similar problem with the word 'government' - In the US this means the legislative, executive and judicial branches, whereas in the Westminster system it refers exclusively to the executive branch. The differences between the systems are smaller than they sometimes seem to be, because we are divided by a common language.
Except in Antarctica, where 100% of the screens are 1600x900.
Can you clarify this? Does it include non-US bases?
To promote self-confidence, get a screen with such astoundingly high resolution that the porn actors look like they have tiny genitalia, or one with much higher vertical resolution than horizontal so they look fatter than you.
If we want to change our genetic pool we no longer need to do it by selective breeding. We just go in and change it. Genetic engineering will produce the effects eugenics promised but much faster and easier. Whether that's desirable or not is a whole separate question.
Moore's Law will sort this out. Cameras and display screens are rapidly getting cheaper. If the numbers look borderline now then they should look pretty good in a few years.
Rabbits!
If the rabbits had been spying on each other they'd have know which ones were carrying myxomatosis. Instead, anti-surveillance laws passed by pinko owslas led to lupine catastrophe. Humans should learn from their example.
I see little diff between ANY country in the modern world, today; when it comes to snooping an spying.
Then, alas, you're blind. Sure, what happens in Australia and other western countries might be sub-optimal. But to say it's as bad as what happens in China or Iran is to embrace the fallacy of the excluded middle: "A is not perfect, B is not perfect, therefore A is as bad as B." The differences include the size of the security apparatus (affecting how many people they can spy on), the existence of mechanisms for bringing the security apparatus to account (including, for instance, a free press), the process by which security people are selected and trained (affecting whether they will happily spy for bad reasons) and many others.
a short-order cook cannot work from the toilet
Thank you so much for that image. You have aided my weight-loss program at the expense of my peace of mind.
Funnily enough, my house has a market value, and I have to pay a property tax every year based on that market value. And when it goes up in value, my property tax increases.
I'm not entirely sure why stock is different.
The difference is that we know where your house is so we know which governments have the right to tax it.
But where does your stock portfolio reside? Can you stop me moving it to a tax haven?
How can something that doesn't exist create something?
This is going to get into a discussion about quantum mechanics, I can feel it.
Wouldn't acausal loops and time travel be more appropriate?
see e.g. here
Vickrey seems to be saying that the then-newly-elected Clinton administration is getting it all wrong, that it is failing to provide enough stimulus and the economy will suffer unless it changes its policies. But historically the Clinton years were very good ones economically. So did Clinton do what Vickrey said, or was Vickrey wrong?
While both scenarios are extremely improbable, I wonder what the odds are of being struck by an extinction level asteroid or comet vs being invaded or flat out destroyed by aliens.
We have a chance of stopping an extinction-level asteroid, if we see it with plenty of warning. Against starfaring aliens we have no realistic chance. Our best hope is to surrender, and hope their copy of To Serve Man was written by Jack Williamson rather than Damon Knight.
Since NEOs in the size range 100 - 500 m are at least an order of magnitude more frequent than km-sized objects, it seems prudent to focus mitigation planning on the smaller size range
That's not very good thinking. What if the larger ones do much more damage?
Given the political and ethical problems associated with nuclear explosive technology, this method is generally considered appropriate only in extreme circumstances in which no other current mitigation option is viable (e.g. short warning time or NEO diameter larger than 1 km).
Ethical problems? With nuking an asteroid that was going to hit the earth? What are they?
It sounds like they are letting politics drive their key engineering decisions.
The approval of an internationally recognized decision-making authority would be an essential prerequisite to the deployment of powerful explosive devices on space missions.
I think if an asteroid were actually about to hit the earth most political problems would dissolve.
Of course, a nuke isn't necessary, if you get on the rock early enough. A few tons of thrust from a chemical rocket would be good enough. Or, a chemical bomb dropped down the well that you've drilled. Nukes are sexy, but not essential.
If it's small enough, and we see it far off, all sorts of things will work. But if it's large and close we need a nuke. So we shouldn't dismiss it. By this criterion, at least, nukes are better than non-nukes. Is there any way in which nukes are worse?
Basically the nuke, set off alongside and used to deflect rather than disrupt, solves more of the problem space for any given launch mass than anything else I've heard discussed. A lot of people mock nukes but as far as I can tell they remain the natural solution and the most practical one.