The design of the human penis, however, has followed the same route as the design of the automobile: it just gets slowly bigger over the decades as riders demand something larger with each generation.
A modern society should recognize that the almighty designer has a plan for everyone. There is no 'survival of the fittest' and nobody is going to just 'not make it'.
You're silly. Nobody is going ot physically steal your shit. They're going to hack your computer and take it while the disk is decrypted by the OS drivers.
So you think that being human and having fire automatically means that they have access to the same health care services as the rest of the world, even when they're in like Uganda carrying water back and forth several miles because running water isn't a thing and people are basically worse off than serfs?
You complain about villagers versus city folk and then continue to try to talk about how villagers have access to healthcare services like abortion clinics. The logical disconnect is amazing. If the money is/was there to give villagers access to healthcare clinics, maybe we shouldn't bother and should get them some damn running water first; you'd be amazed at the impact BATHING has on public health.
You can't have it both ways, man. Don't make the argument that Africa is "very developed," then try to keep hold on your self-righteousness with the "poor villagers are suffering why do you only care about rich city folk" argument. The logical disconnect is amazing but the trick doesn't work when someone runs a short line between both ends. (Yes, that's actually a documented logical fallacy, but I don't recall which... basically it involves making one statement, babbling for a while, then making a conflicting statement and hoping nobody notices)
While you execute your testing protocols to delay life-saving medical care for years or decades, millions of people die. But feel good about yourself because you saved hundreds of people from dying at the cost of mere millions.
It always helps, because you learn something, and you fix the problem. It's not like these people are randomly injecting gasoline and nuclear waste into people to see what happens. They've worked on the problem and engineered something; they tested it on rats; now why should it take 10 years to test it on humans, while millions of humans die, when you can maybe knock off hundreds of humans and go, "Oh, oops," and then fix the problem and still come in millions ahead?
This is economics. Your "science" is un-economical. You want to make something that seems to work and be safe, and then spend years testing it on animals, then years testing it in petri dishes, then years justifying why it should be fine, then hopefully you get approval to test it on humans. Once it looks like it's not a fatal poison and it looks like it treats the disease, we should skip all that other junk and go right to testing it on humans WHO ARE GOING TO DIE ANYWAY, because maybe we can save a lot more.
You must be terrible with money. Afraid to patch your roof for $1000, because it costs money, and next year you'll have the $6000 to replace the whole roof anyway... then the snow comes, melts, and does $80,000 of water damage to your house. How's that working out for you? Oh right, you have insurance, so you can just get someone else to pay those lost human lives and you don't have to see it, so you feel better about it--and hey, free roof, now you don't even have to pay the $6000!
Yes and I live in a region in a third world country (called the United States of America, one of the poorest nations in the world with ridiculously high debt and out of control government spending, as well as failing social services) in which people get pregnant all the time when they don't want to. Why just last week some woman was complaining she can't afford an abortion and needs one badly 'cause she skipped a period last month, although she's not sure who the father is (there's a dozen candidates).
Do they have abortion in Africa?
There are developed nations in Africa, and there are barely post-tribal nations in Africa. There's both. There's even places like Egypt, trying to show how advanced they are but really they're barely post-tribal (the giant dam Mubarak had built has destroyed Egypt's viability, making the land infertile and devastating the fish population in the Nile--but it shows they're a big, powerful, technologically advanced nation that can command Nature and cease the periodic flooding of the lands around the Nile!). There's places like Nigeria that have running water, electricity, huge concrete-and-steel buildings, and even super highways. There's also places where they barely have schools, places like Uganda where a month's pay may save up enough to buy a small portion of meat in the poor areas, where people walk 9 miles a day to collect fresh water.
Places with running water, super highways, and health care probably count less when it comes to devastating disease and birth rates.
We have a profile for a large number of victims that die from a disease. Young children, elderly, other weak people.
We can get stats here. Does this kill 80% of children under 5 years of age? Then we're 80% likely to do no damage; or rather, with a sample of say 100 for testing, we're likely to cause 20 deaths. A sample of 100 trials seems useful; 20 deaths seems not so great. If we're talking on the scale of tens of thousands per year, or hundreds of thousands, 20 deaths isn't a big deal. That assumes 100% ineffective treatment and 100% fatality from a bad drug, which is a large assumption; if it's 50% effective and 50% fatal, you actually get a net gain: 10 inappropriate deaths (effectiveness doesn't save those who would live anyway), 20 survivors who would live anyway (50% die from the drug, 50% of those who don't die get cured, that's 25% of 80 which is 20), overall 10 more people alive BUT this treatment is no good because it's poisonous.
If you miss totally on this 5 times, you might cause 100 deaths. Big deal, even for 1 year. If you've got a cure that's flaky, it's russian roulette with magic healing bullets alternating with the real bullets. If you eventually clear out the "kills people sometimes" part, suddenly it's worth just handing out to everybody en masse. If you actually make it highly effective from further tests... well, ok, that's just "an improvement," but we've already got something that's giving us a net return on investment in human life.
In this scenario, where a disease has a high mortality rate amongst a specific population, human testing costs very little in human lives yet allows more rapid assessment of the effects of the drug. It allows us to stop worrying about whether it's "safe" and skip the part where we spend years testing on rats and gerbils and clumps of cells in petri dishes and just bite the bullet and let a few volunteers risk it. If a few volunteers get bad juju, and we fix it, then the cost is minimal and the return is we save millions of people who would otherwise have died.
Of course, ETHICALLY, it's much more HUMAN to let millions of people die than sacrifice ten or fifteen along the way that would have probably died horribly anyway. It's just not right to let people die like that, better to let a hundred thousand times as many people die and protect your feelings of self-righteousness. Feelings of self-righteousness are far more valuable than human life.
Holy shit there's a huge logical disconnect here. You seem to be assuming family planning--people have children because they want children, rather than because they want sex and children happen. Sex is a great way for poor people to get the things they need, children just come out of women somehow afterwards. Also people have the impulse to just... have sex. Are these people really family planning, or is this all unplanned pregnancy? By saving lives, maybe we're creating an even bigger resource drain.
the hell cares? Why do we need clinical tests anyway? These people are dying; feed them a pill and if it kills them, well who gives a shit? They were gonna die horribly anyway. Back to the drawing board. And if it works, well there you go! Human testing at its finest!
And what about the damage done to the environment as a result? A species is removed, competition for a resource is reduced, another resource is made scarce, life adapts and fills the niche. Now we introduce an invasive species (resurrected extinct bird) and disrupt the environment severely?
More importantly, it will mess up the market. Nations A, B, and C can produce nuclear fuel. Nations D, E, and F figure out they can do it cheaper, and they can high-enrich the spent uranium and recycle it through their reactors and make it last 10 times... 100 times as long. D, E, and F have to buy nuclear fuel... but if they could make their own, there would be a surplus, and the value of nuclear fuel on the market would drop, meaning nations G, H, and I who simply don't want to invest in nuclear fuel can buy theirs cheap, run reactors, and then sell their waste to D, E, and F to refine and recycle for longer term use...
Can't have that. How will rich nations A, B, and C take all the poor nations' money if they have to compete fairly?
Is there chicken on the island? I like chicken. Sometimes I fail to cook it properly and it gives me a headache the next day though. Once I ate rotting ground beef raw and got a stomach ache for like 5 hours, almost cried, was painful. Fresh meat sounds good, fresh venison is probably safer than 4 week old bison... is there deer on the island?
It's the same in third. If you're doing 1100RPM in third gear and you WOT the engine trying to accelerate, you'll get a better response than in 5th (at higher speed, of course), but the car just goes "HRRRRRMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN" and rumbles at you and doesn't accelerate very fast but burns an assload of gas.
Being in the right gear is more than just being in the highest gear you can, or in the lower gears if you want to take off faster. Took me a while to learn that, but when I got it I found my car got a hell of a lot better mileage and a lot better responsiveness.
And I hate the Cobalt, but it's not so terrible with a manual transmission (I imagine it torque steers even worse than the auto, though). That car can tear off from a standing start. The automatic, however, is like dropping an engine half the size in. It likes to peg at 6250RPM all the time, stays in high gear a lot, and will shift to high gear if you ease off the gas a bit. Once I came out of a toll facing a hill, floored it to get to 60mph... between 30 and 60 it sat in 4th (the auto is 4 speed), pegged at 6250RPM, for 17 seconds before finally deciding to downshift. Burned a lot of gas just to churn around transmission fluid. It's like that: the tach spikes, straight to 3000 normally, and the car just rolls off nice and easy.
The auto in the Cobalt is retarded, by the way. I couldn't drive on the highway with it; in heavy traffic it's impossible to control my car's speed. Cruise, accelerate, or stop, end of story. So when I'm in the middle lane at 60mph and the right lane is going 70 for some retarded reason... no dice. With the stick, I just pop down to third gear, put my car precisely where I want, signal, slide into an opening, and hit the gas to match speeds.. Ttry that in the auto, you'll get rear ended--I did it once and my car actually continued to drop speed while I had it floored and pegged redline, stuck in high gear... it shifted up as soon as I backed off the gas, after moving up to meet the opening I wanted to go into.
I don't drive automatics. I drove automatics for 7 years, then took a $10,000 loss selling off a car I just bought and finally bought one with a manual. The first car I bought (my parents gave me the first one I had, which was auto) my parents made me buy with my own money, but I had to get them to cosign the loan. Since I couldn't buy the car without a cosigner, they leveraged me into buying an auto when I wanted a stick shift. Fought me for signing off to trade the damn thing in too, but I got me a stick. Then I had to learn to drive it, that was fun. Stalled a few times.
Don't know who makes Outback, but Audi and Subaru both have the best AWD of all time. Subaru is actually kicking ass. I drive a Mazda, I tend to light rail, I bicycle less now because I'm lazy but I envy a Trek 2.3 Apex.
While officials hoped gasoline consumption would fall by 2.2%, actual savings are estimated at between 0.5% and 1%.
2.2%?! So for 100mpg, you'd gain 2.2mpg?! Dude, I get 22mpg in the city, but I modified my driving (I have a stick shift) to drive with a lot more power (sharp acceleration, first gear straight to 6000RPM and then second up to the speed limit if it's above 30mph; third gear when climbing a hill so the engine doesn't stress and strain under load at 1000RPM) but also a lot more riding the momentum (I'll go to 5th to maintain speed on a downgrade, 4th downhill, let gravity turn the engine so the fuel system stops feeding it)... I get around 26mpg usually, but I've been up to 34mpg, all city driving, in hilly terrain.
My 34mpg Cobalt manual never got over 24mpg even on the highway and I can beat that in a Mazda 3S with a bigger engine and a stick shift, with more power. The trick here is to not drive around in 4th/5th all the time, flooring it while the engine just hangs at 1000-1200RPM, humming out low pitched farting noises while it burns tons of gas but can't find the torque to actually get the engine turning any faster. If the engine's straining, get off it. If you're riding down a hill, go high gear and let gravity turn your engine. I even run high-octane gasoline to clean the engine--that stuff doesn't burn quite as well as low-octane stuff, you might take a 1% gas mileage hit, but stuff like Shell V-Power primarily supplies extra detergents to help clean up the engine more than actual "power".
Stupid automatics lose so much churning the torque converter too. 2% lol...try 10%-30%.
Actually 2 has already happened. Mercedes-Benz invented a big ass SUV with a frame based on the skeletal structure of a box fish, and managed to get some 85mpg out of it combined on plain old petrol. It needs 1/3 as much steel to supply the same amount of structural integrity (safety in a collision); has better aerodynamic drag numbers in practice than a Porsche 911 (so does a box fish--in water); and is ugly as hell, just like any good SUV, although a tad more stylish I suppose. Handling is excellent, too.
Slashdot Mirror
The design of the human penis, however, has followed the same route as the design of the automobile: it just gets slowly bigger over the decades as riders demand something larger with each generation.
A modern society should recognize that the almighty designer has a plan for everyone. There is no 'survival of the fittest' and nobody is going to just 'not make it'.
Government hires retards, clinically lazy, and psychotic. When I worked at a government agency it was pretty insane.
You're silly. Nobody is going ot physically steal your shit. They're going to hack your computer and take it while the disk is decrypted by the OS drivers.
So you think that being human and having fire automatically means that they have access to the same health care services as the rest of the world, even when they're in like Uganda carrying water back and forth several miles because running water isn't a thing and people are basically worse off than serfs?
You complain about villagers versus city folk and then continue to try to talk about how villagers have access to healthcare services like abortion clinics. The logical disconnect is amazing. If the money is/was there to give villagers access to healthcare clinics, maybe we shouldn't bother and should get them some damn running water first; you'd be amazed at the impact BATHING has on public health.
You can't have it both ways, man. Don't make the argument that Africa is "very developed," then try to keep hold on your self-righteousness with the "poor villagers are suffering why do you only care about rich city folk" argument. The logical disconnect is amazing but the trick doesn't work when someone runs a short line between both ends. (Yes, that's actually a documented logical fallacy, but I don't recall which ... basically it involves making one statement, babbling for a while, then making a conflicting statement and hoping nobody notices)
The bigger problem is they can look into the DNA to see if you have the gay DNA.
While you execute your testing protocols to delay life-saving medical care for years or decades, millions of people die. But feel good about yourself because you saved hundreds of people from dying at the cost of mere millions.
It always helps, because you learn something, and you fix the problem. It's not like these people are randomly injecting gasoline and nuclear waste into people to see what happens. They've worked on the problem and engineered something; they tested it on rats; now why should it take 10 years to test it on humans, while millions of humans die, when you can maybe knock off hundreds of humans and go, "Oh, oops," and then fix the problem and still come in millions ahead?
This is economics. Your "science" is un-economical. You want to make something that seems to work and be safe, and then spend years testing it on animals, then years testing it in petri dishes, then years justifying why it should be fine, then hopefully you get approval to test it on humans. Once it looks like it's not a fatal poison and it looks like it treats the disease, we should skip all that other junk and go right to testing it on humans WHO ARE GOING TO DIE ANYWAY, because maybe we can save a lot more.
You must be terrible with money. Afraid to patch your roof for $1000, because it costs money, and next year you'll have the $6000 to replace the whole roof anyway... then the snow comes, melts, and does $80,000 of water damage to your house. How's that working out for you? Oh right, you have insurance, so you can just get someone else to pay those lost human lives and you don't have to see it, so you feel better about it--and hey, free roof, now you don't even have to pay the $6000!
Yes and I live in a region in a third world country (called the United States of America, one of the poorest nations in the world with ridiculously high debt and out of control government spending, as well as failing social services) in which people get pregnant all the time when they don't want to. Why just last week some woman was complaining she can't afford an abortion and needs one badly 'cause she skipped a period last month, although she's not sure who the father is (there's a dozen candidates).
Do they have abortion in Africa?
There are developed nations in Africa, and there are barely post-tribal nations in Africa. There's both. There's even places like Egypt, trying to show how advanced they are but really they're barely post-tribal (the giant dam Mubarak had built has destroyed Egypt's viability, making the land infertile and devastating the fish population in the Nile--but it shows they're a big, powerful, technologically advanced nation that can command Nature and cease the periodic flooding of the lands around the Nile!). There's places like Nigeria that have running water, electricity, huge concrete-and-steel buildings, and even super highways. There's also places where they barely have schools, places like Uganda where a month's pay may save up enough to buy a small portion of meat in the poor areas, where people walk 9 miles a day to collect fresh water.
Places with running water, super highways, and health care probably count less when it comes to devastating disease and birth rates.
We have a profile for a large number of victims that die from a disease. Young children, elderly, other weak people.
We can get stats here. Does this kill 80% of children under 5 years of age? Then we're 80% likely to do no damage; or rather, with a sample of say 100 for testing, we're likely to cause 20 deaths. A sample of 100 trials seems useful; 20 deaths seems not so great. If we're talking on the scale of tens of thousands per year, or hundreds of thousands, 20 deaths isn't a big deal. That assumes 100% ineffective treatment and 100% fatality from a bad drug, which is a large assumption; if it's 50% effective and 50% fatal, you actually get a net gain: 10 inappropriate deaths (effectiveness doesn't save those who would live anyway), 20 survivors who would live anyway (50% die from the drug, 50% of those who don't die get cured, that's 25% of 80 which is 20), overall 10 more people alive BUT this treatment is no good because it's poisonous.
If you miss totally on this 5 times, you might cause 100 deaths. Big deal, even for 1 year. If you've got a cure that's flaky, it's russian roulette with magic healing bullets alternating with the real bullets. If you eventually clear out the "kills people sometimes" part, suddenly it's worth just handing out to everybody en masse. If you actually make it highly effective from further tests ... well, ok, that's just "an improvement," but we've already got something that's giving us a net return on investment in human life.
In this scenario, where a disease has a high mortality rate amongst a specific population, human testing costs very little in human lives yet allows more rapid assessment of the effects of the drug. It allows us to stop worrying about whether it's "safe" and skip the part where we spend years testing on rats and gerbils and clumps of cells in petri dishes and just bite the bullet and let a few volunteers risk it. If a few volunteers get bad juju, and we fix it, then the cost is minimal and the return is we save millions of people who would otherwise have died.
Of course, ETHICALLY, it's much more HUMAN to let millions of people die than sacrifice ten or fifteen along the way that would have probably died horribly anyway. It's just not right to let people die like that, better to let a hundred thousand times as many people die and protect your feelings of self-righteousness. Feelings of self-righteousness are far more valuable than human life.
Holy shit there's a huge logical disconnect here. You seem to be assuming family planning--people have children because they want children, rather than because they want sex and children happen. Sex is a great way for poor people to get the things they need, children just come out of women somehow afterwards. Also people have the impulse to just ... have sex. Are these people really family planning, or is this all unplanned pregnancy? By saving lives, maybe we're creating an even bigger resource drain.
the hell cares? Why do we need clinical tests anyway? These people are dying; feed them a pill and if it kills them, well who gives a shit? They were gonna die horribly anyway. Back to the drawing board. And if it works, well there you go! Human testing at its finest!
And what about the damage done to the environment as a result? A species is removed, competition for a resource is reduced, another resource is made scarce, life adapts and fills the niche. Now we introduce an invasive species (resurrected extinct bird) and disrupt the environment severely?
In Gnome Shell you just tap the top left corner with the mouse pointer to switch workspaces and get an Expos'e view of your windows....
Unity is a train wreck but Gnome Shell seems to be dead on.
More importantly, it will mess up the market. Nations A, B, and C can produce nuclear fuel. Nations D, E, and F figure out they can do it cheaper, and they can high-enrich the spent uranium and recycle it through their reactors and make it last 10 times... 100 times as long. D, E, and F have to buy nuclear fuel ... but if they could make their own, there would be a surplus, and the value of nuclear fuel on the market would drop, meaning nations G, H, and I who simply don't want to invest in nuclear fuel can buy theirs cheap, run reactors, and then sell their waste to D, E, and F to refine and recycle for longer term use...
Can't have that. How will rich nations A, B, and C take all the poor nations' money if they have to compete fairly?
How do you fuck that much in one day without your dick falling off?
Da that. My memory must be skewed, or the press report I read ages ago was skewed.
Is there chicken on the island? I like chicken. Sometimes I fail to cook it properly and it gives me a headache the next day though. Once I ate rotting ground beef raw and got a stomach ache for like 5 hours, almost cried, was painful. Fresh meat sounds good, fresh venison is probably safer than 4 week old bison... is there deer on the island?
It's the same in third. If you're doing 1100RPM in third gear and you WOT the engine trying to accelerate, you'll get a better response than in 5th (at higher speed, of course), but the car just goes "HRRRRRMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNN" and rumbles at you and doesn't accelerate very fast but burns an assload of gas.
Being in the right gear is more than just being in the highest gear you can, or in the lower gears if you want to take off faster. Took me a while to learn that, but when I got it I found my car got a hell of a lot better mileage and a lot better responsiveness.
And I hate the Cobalt, but it's not so terrible with a manual transmission (I imagine it torque steers even worse than the auto, though). That car can tear off from a standing start. The automatic, however, is like dropping an engine half the size in. It likes to peg at 6250RPM all the time, stays in high gear a lot, and will shift to high gear if you ease off the gas a bit. Once I came out of a toll facing a hill, floored it to get to 60mph... between 30 and 60 it sat in 4th (the auto is 4 speed), pegged at 6250RPM, for 17 seconds before finally deciding to downshift. Burned a lot of gas just to churn around transmission fluid. It's like that: the tach spikes, straight to 3000 normally, and the car just rolls off nice and easy.
The auto in the Cobalt is retarded, by the way. I couldn't drive on the highway with it; in heavy traffic it's impossible to control my car's speed. Cruise, accelerate, or stop, end of story. So when I'm in the middle lane at 60mph and the right lane is going 70 for some retarded reason ... no dice. With the stick, I just pop down to third gear, put my car precisely where I want, signal, slide into an opening, and hit the gas to match speeds.. Ttry that in the auto, you'll get rear ended--I did it once and my car actually continued to drop speed while I had it floored and pegged redline, stuck in high gear... it shifted up as soon as I backed off the gas, after moving up to meet the opening I wanted to go into.
I don't drive automatics. I drove automatics for 7 years, then took a $10,000 loss selling off a car I just bought and finally bought one with a manual. The first car I bought (my parents gave me the first one I had, which was auto) my parents made me buy with my own money, but I had to get them to cosign the loan. Since I couldn't buy the car without a cosigner, they leveraged me into buying an auto when I wanted a stick shift. Fought me for signing off to trade the damn thing in too, but I got me a stick. Then I had to learn to drive it, that was fun. Stalled a few times.
Don't know who makes Outback, but Audi and Subaru both have the best AWD of all time. Subaru is actually kicking ass. I drive a Mazda, I tend to light rail, I bicycle less now because I'm lazy but I envy a Trek 2.3 Apex.
While officials hoped gasoline consumption would fall by 2.2%, actual savings are estimated at between 0.5% and 1%.
2.2%?! So for 100mpg, you'd gain 2.2mpg?! Dude, I get 22mpg in the city, but I modified my driving (I have a stick shift) to drive with a lot more power (sharp acceleration, first gear straight to 6000RPM and then second up to the speed limit if it's above 30mph; third gear when climbing a hill so the engine doesn't stress and strain under load at 1000RPM) but also a lot more riding the momentum (I'll go to 5th to maintain speed on a downgrade, 4th downhill, let gravity turn the engine so the fuel system stops feeding it) ... I get around 26mpg usually, but I've been up to 34mpg, all city driving, in hilly terrain.
My 34mpg Cobalt manual never got over 24mpg even on the highway and I can beat that in a Mazda 3S with a bigger engine and a stick shift, with more power. The trick here is to not drive around in 4th/5th all the time, flooring it while the engine just hangs at 1000-1200RPM, humming out low pitched farting noises while it burns tons of gas but can't find the torque to actually get the engine turning any faster. If the engine's straining, get off it. If you're riding down a hill, go high gear and let gravity turn your engine. I even run high-octane gasoline to clean the engine--that stuff doesn't burn quite as well as low-octane stuff, you might take a 1% gas mileage hit, but stuff like Shell V-Power primarily supplies extra detergents to help clean up the engine more than actual "power".
Stupid automatics lose so much churning the torque converter too. 2% lol.. .try 10%-30%.
Actually 2 has already happened. Mercedes-Benz invented a big ass SUV with a frame based on the skeletal structure of a box fish, and managed to get some 85mpg out of it combined on plain old petrol. It needs 1/3 as much steel to supply the same amount of structural integrity (safety in a collision); has better aerodynamic drag numbers in practice than a Porsche 911 (so does a box fish--in water); and is ugly as hell, just like any good SUV, although a tad more stylish I suppose. Handling is excellent, too.
You drive a Volvo, don't you?
/I will be in an accident, so I must have a safe car