The first question that anyone interested in economics, enviornment... anything really.... should ask is, "What is the optimal populaiton for the country or the planet?" To accomplish anything of value, you at least have to know if the optimal population is higher or lower than the current population.
If our goal is the best life for human beings, the optimal number is clearly less than "standing room only" for population density. Based on resource depletion, current pollution, and the massive extinction event we are currently experiencing for other species, I would think the optimum is considerably less than the current population.
The US standard of living has, on average, not improved since the 1970s and has decreased in the last 5 years. Economic growth is not the goal. Per captta economic growth is the relevant value.
Eventually we have to come into a natural balance so that each child born is replacing a person who has died. The longer we wait to start moving to that balance, the more painful the process will be.
Google doesn't necessarily care who provides the fast internet service to it's online customers. They aren't going to make their money from selling internet infrastructure. Google is just as happy if ATT builds the cables. However, that could change if net neutrality is knocked down.
All of the references cited in the OA are about other people characterizing McCarthy's position. I have not seen any direct quote from her that indicates an opposition to the principle of vaccines or the efficacy of all vaccines. She is misguided in insisting that vaccines cause autism, but that is not the same thing as being against vaccination in general.
I think she is wrong to connect vaccines to autism. But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant. Her general position that she is not against vaccines in general but only against un-safe vaccines is a valid position. Why bother nit-picking nuances or perceived contradictions in wording. It's all irrelevant. The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer? All else is nonsense.
Research Triangle Park (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) is a larger tech hub than Austin. And the cost of living is lower as well. Don't know about average salaries.
This would not be the first time distorted maps have been used for a political purpose. There is no reason use the Mercator projection on world maps except to make the northern hemisphere countries look much larger than those in Africa and South America near the equator. (Hint: Africa is enormous but is often shown as smaller than North America)
Exactly! A whining 5 year old in the back seat is more distracting than an image on Glass. You can't test every possible behavior before it is allowed in a car. The law should be that every driver is RESPONSIBLE for paying attention to the road. If I am being distracted by Glass, I have a duty to turn it off.
Why do you limit this to technology? What study has shown that it is safe to drive while eating a Big Mac? Are you going to test every possible behavior before it is allowed in a car? What about holding hands while driving? What about having kids in the back seat? Isn't that a distraction? I bet google glass is less distracting than a 5 year old in the back seat who is whining constantly.
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally. I might be more distracted while driving by a Big Mac or a cigarette than by an image out of my field of view on Glass. This is too subjective a judgement to be made by politicians through the legislative process.
The important date is not when the actionable behavior took place (1994) or then the anti-trust action began (1998). The important question is "when was justice done?" and the only possible answer is NOT YET. Microsoft stole all it's online market share from the inventor of the browser, Netscape. The only reasonable justice would be to return their online market share to what it was in 1994. I think that was about 20%, if we are being charitable to M$. So M$ should have been banned from selling any product that accessed the internet until thier total market share returned to 20%. That has not happened... yet.
The internet is an inherently chaotic system with most of the computing power on the edges and very weak central controls. This is by design because it creates a stable, robust network. Individuals (first from universities) swarmed the internet in an explosion of creativity. They were followed by corporations as the net was opened to commercial activity. Government was late to the game and is only now coming to grips with how to use the internet for monitoring citizens.
As individuals moved online, there was certainly an increase in freedom to communicate. But now that "total information awareness " is upon us, we are less free. And in a way that's more dangerous than it was in 1984 because, at least until very recently, we did not know how limited our freedom was.
If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices.:)
The OP talked about women. The title moves that to "young" women. So as you seek to remove gender bias you add age bias? How about getting everyone interested in open source. And if there are obstacles that apply only to young women, then you can focus just on them.
Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree. So this DEA "parallel construction" is not only a subversion of the intent of the law but is actually a conspriacy to subvert justice. The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.
Your premise that funding for US education is higher than everyone else is simply false. Look at the Scandinavian countries and their level of per student funding.
Why would you tie CS education to visas for those who will compete with those same students receiving that education? Think about that. When we have a barely adequate supply of home-grown talent, will the visa numbers be reduced? If so, funding for education will also be cut, returning us to the days of insufficient education.! If CS education is important to our society (and it is) then it should be funded on its own merits. This is a rich country that is constantly pretending to be poor. If there is a lack of funding, it's because taxes on the wealthy have been cut and cut again. For example, if capital gains were taxed as regular income, we would have no problem funding education in this country.
They want to criticize Snowden for not being more selctive in his release of information? But he offered discuss with the NSA what releases might compromise US security. They refused to talk with him. Now they say he released more than the minimum necessary to demonstrate that the NSA was breaking the law. What is a respecatble whistle-blower to do?
The word socialism gets tossed around carelessly by right wing pols who don't know what it is. To them it's just a nasty thing you say when liberals like me want to redistribute a little wealth. But real socialism, as meant by Karl Marx, is defined as "the ownership of the means of production by the state". Domestic spending on public education or health care is NOT socialism. But government assumption of corporate shares is the real thing. In our system of economics, corporations are not people and governments do not own the means of production.
Slashdot Mirror
The usual explanation is that large, active brains use lots of energy, which in some environments is better spent gathering bananas.
... is to the A112 virus. But you knew that.
The first question that anyone interested in economics, enviornment... anything really.... should ask is, "What is the optimal populaiton for the country or the planet?" To accomplish anything of value, you at least have to know if the optimal population is higher or lower than the current population.
If our goal is the best life for human beings, the optimal number is clearly less than "standing room only" for population density. Based on resource depletion, current pollution, and the massive extinction event we are currently experiencing for other species, I would think the optimum is considerably less than the current population.
The US standard of living has, on average, not improved since the 1970s and has decreased in the last 5 years. Economic growth is not the goal. Per captta economic growth is the relevant value.
Eventually we have to come into a natural balance so that each child born is replacing a person who has died. The longer we wait to start moving to that balance, the more painful the process will be.
Google doesn't necessarily care who provides the fast internet service to it's online customers. They aren't going to make their money from selling internet infrastructure. Google is just as happy if ATT builds the cables. However, that could change if net neutrality is knocked down.
All of the references cited in the OA are about other people characterizing McCarthy's position. I have not seen any direct quote from her that indicates an opposition to the principle of vaccines or the efficacy of all vaccines. She is misguided in insisting that vaccines cause autism, but that is not the same thing as being against vaccination in general.
I think she is wrong to connect vaccines to autism. But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant. Her general position that she is not against vaccines in general but only against un-safe vaccines is a valid position. Why bother nit-picking nuances or perceived contradictions in wording. It's all irrelevant. The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer? All else is nonsense.
He is one quater through his term. And he is through playing nice.
Leia directs this to Wilhuff Tarkin, not Lord Vader. Tarkin is a Grand Moff of the Galactic Empire and is in charge of the Death Star.
So the quote is:
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Princess Leia
Research Triangle Park (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) is a larger tech hub than Austin. And the cost of living is lower as well. Don't know about average salaries.
Since LTS distributions are supported for 5 years, why would Gnome only be supported for 2 years?
And all that oil would be outside the EU then.
This would not be the first time distorted maps have been used for a political purpose. There is no reason use the Mercator projection on world maps except to make the northern hemisphere countries look much larger than those in Africa and South America near the equator. (Hint: Africa is enormous but is often shown as smaller than North America)
Exactly! A whining 5 year old in the back seat is more distracting than an image on Glass. You can't test every possible behavior before it is allowed in a car. The law should be that every driver is RESPONSIBLE for paying attention to the road. If I am being distracted by Glass, I have a duty to turn it off.
Why do you limit this to technology? What study has shown that it is safe to drive while eating a Big Mac? Are you going to test every possible behavior before it is allowed in a car? What about holding hands while driving? What about having kids in the back seat? Isn't that a distraction? I bet google glass is less distracting than a 5 year old in the back seat who is whining constantly.
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally. I might be more distracted while driving by a Big Mac or a cigarette than by an image out of my field of view on Glass. This is too subjective a judgement to be made by politicians through the legislative process.
The important date is not when the actionable behavior took place (1994) or then the anti-trust action began (1998). The important question is "when was justice done?" and the only possible answer is NOT YET. Microsoft stole all it's online market share from the inventor of the browser, Netscape. The only reasonable justice would be to return their online market share to what it was in 1994. I think that was about 20%, if we are being charitable to M$. So M$ should have been banned from selling any product that accessed the internet until thier total market share returned to 20%. That has not happened... yet.
The internet is an inherently chaotic system with most of the computing power on the edges and very weak central controls. This is by design because it creates a stable, robust network. Individuals (first from universities) swarmed the internet in an explosion of creativity. They were followed by corporations as the net was opened to commercial activity. Government was late to the game and is only now coming to grips with how to use the internet for monitoring citizens.
As individuals moved online, there was certainly an increase in freedom to communicate. But now that "total information awareness " is upon us, we are less free. And in a way that's more dangerous than it was in 1984 because, at least until very recently, we did not know how limited our freedom was.
If there is a problem with voice calls bothering other people on a plane, why does the airline provide phones built into the seats. How does that differ from me using my cell phone? Oh yeah, I have to pay the airline to use their phone.
And does this new law ban calls from the airline owed phones? Well, thay ARE voice calls, and the airline phones are moving at 600 MPH so I guess that qualifies them as mobile divices. :)
The OP talked about women. The title moves that to "young" women. So as you seek to remove gender bias you add age bias? How about getting everyone interested in open source. And if there are obstacles that apply only to young women, then you can focus just on them.
Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree. So this DEA "parallel construction" is not only a subversion of the intent of the law but is actually a conspriacy to subvert justice. The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.
Mitrial valve replacements often use pig tissue. Jessie Helms had one. :) As long as it's not in a germ line cell (inheritable) it does NOT matter.
Your premise that funding for US education is higher than everyone else is simply false. Look at the Scandinavian countries and their level of per student funding.
Why would you tie CS education to visas for those who will compete with those same students receiving that education? Think about that. When we have a barely adequate supply of home-grown talent, will the visa numbers be reduced? If so, funding for education will also be cut, returning us to the days of insufficient education.! If CS education is important to our society (and it is) then it should be funded on its own merits. This is a rich country that is constantly pretending to be poor. If there is a lack of funding, it's because taxes on the wealthy have been cut and cut again. For example, if capital gains were taxed as regular income, we would have no problem funding education in this country.
They want to criticize Snowden for not being more selctive in his release of information? But he offered discuss with the NSA what releases might compromise US security. They refused to talk with him. Now they say he released more than the minimum necessary to demonstrate that the NSA was breaking the law. What is a respecatble whistle-blower to do?
The word socialism gets tossed around carelessly by right wing pols who don't know what it is. To them it's just a nasty thing you say when liberals like me want to redistribute a little wealth. But real socialism, as meant by Karl Marx, is defined as "the ownership of the means of production by the state". Domestic spending on public education or health care is NOT socialism. But government assumption of corporate shares is the real thing. In our system of economics, corporations are not people and governments do not own the means of production.