Yeah, even never understood the appeal of the transparent terminal window, it's the first thing I turn off. I transparent tablet is a cool SciFi gimmick but not something I would want.
Even if the robot car is 100 times less likely to be in an accident, the first time someone gets hurt by one there will be a huge outcry and a lawsuit.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Since not curing cancer results in the death of the patient, the drug companies don't have an incentive to avoid the cure. You can make that accusation for other diseases but it makes no sense for cancer. Plus there is a steady stream of new cancer patients. They might avoid some sort of preventative treatment, but if you did invent a preventative cancer vaccine you could probably sell billions of doses and there is a new stream of people being born everyday to sell to, so there is still lots of profit to e made there.
And 1 million/year is a pretty small amount of money for Google. It's also a pretty small compared to what other companies spend on advertising - for example several million dollars for a 30 second superbowl ad, and that's just a tiny percentage of the annual advertising budget of many companies.
We are only talking about the default search engine, not being forced to use a certain search engine, so everyone with clue would just change the search engine back to Google (and complain loudly on Slashdot). Only the clueless would keep using the default search engine, and those people wouldn't be switching browsers anyway (likely they're still using IE).
The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is pure feldercarb.
The rich are paying less now on the same income than they were before George W Bush - I'd call that a tax cut for the rich. What would you call it?
We also eliminated the estate tax (although it is coming back in a weakened form) which is another tax cut for the rich (especially for trust fund kids who don't need any income and therefore don't pay any income tax).
A lot of the government debt is held by the government - specifically about $2.6 trillion in the social security trust fund is invested in government bonds. Of course as the imbalance of retirees drains the trust fund we will have to find other resources to fund that debt.
Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight was ridiculously blind in this case. I really think they should have seen that one coming. All that positive thinking was based on the belief that home prices would never go down, which seems like a rather bad assumption for any economist to make, and was not based on any real analysis. Sub-prime loan defaults are not a problem if you can sell the repossessed house for enough to cover the loan, but when home prices go down you can't do that. The large number of ridiculous loans (liar loans and ARMs with huge payment jumps) were what was keeping the prices up and pretty much guaranteed a large number of defaults after a few years that would bring housing prices, and the whole system, crashing down.
Or their tendency to roll-over. Safety has to be looked at as a combination of "chances of getting in an accident" and "chances of surviving and accident". People tend to focus on the latter when choosing SUVs.
renewal of the Patriot Act, support for warrantless wiretapping, prisoners at Guantanamo who have still not been charged with any crimes, and perhaps the individual mandate for health insurance.
You have to play perfectly to make $8/hour. If you understand statistics enough to play perfectly and are focused enough to never make a mistake you can probably earn way more than $8/hour in a tech job, sit in an air conditioned room, buy your own drinks, and have plenty of money left over.
That solves the problem of a system failure that prevents the brakes from triggering. What about a failure that accidentally triggers the brakes? Unintentionally slamming on the brakes at 100 km/h could be very bad. TFA mentions this possibility, and says "more work needs to be done on avoiding false alarms."
No, if it wasn't for the opponents they would just be building cheaper boiling water reactors with fewer safety precautions, and dumping the nuclear waste in the river. Because they really don't give a shit about anything but making money, and designing a new reactor costs money, safety precautions cost money, disposing of waste properly costs money. The captains of industry have been fucking over the little guys for much longer than nuclear power has existed, and they aren't going to magically stop because of the invisible hand of the free market. The only thing that keeps them in line is government regulation and the threats of lawsuits, and the only thing that keeps the government regulators in line is lots of protests and activism.
Yes there are much better reactor designs, and yes we need them desperately, but selling the nuclear opponents into slavery will not get us there.
Chernobyl exploded - it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion, but it was sufficient to blow apart the building and throw pieces of the core everywhere. Really much worse than a nuclear bomb, since a bomb would burn more of its fuel.
And there might have been a small nuclear explosion too - there were 2 explosions, and the second might have been nuclear, although it certain isn't clear - the wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster discusses this. In any case, the damn thing exploded.
Because it wouldn't do any good - at worst they would be martyrs, and at best they would be replaced by someone else just like them. Violence is rarely the best solution, and they were elected after all, so if you want to make a change then campaign for someone else. If you can't find someone better then run for office yourself.
Well, the first 2 are the chair and vice-chair. I am guessing after that it has something to do with the way the parties assign members to the committees, which is probably alternating parties, by seniority.
Not all terrorist attacks are massacres - the attack might fail to kill anyone, but just because it failed doesn't mean it isn't a terrorist attack. And not all massacres are terrorist attacks, for the reason you explained - someone who is just a nutcase without political or religious motivation is not committing a terrorist attack. So super-set is the wrong word.
Well, you said "less evolved", and if some organism is less evolved that implies the others are more evolved. Since all life is descended from a common ancestor you could say it means everything is equally evolved - certainly everything has been evolving for the same length of time.
You can't really separate genetic fitness from the environment, and there really isn't isn't such a thing as superior or inferior genetics. Humans wiped out large predators where ever they went, so being a large predator in the era of humans is a genetically inferior trait, and in that sense wolves are genetically inferior. Being covered in thick fur might be a generically superior trait during an ice age, and it becomes a genetically inferior trait when the earth warms. It's not linear and there is no endpoint or pinnacle. Humans have the unique ability to adapt using ideas rather than genetics, this probably means we will survive just about anything and recover from any ecological disaster, which is one superior trait that probably trumps most environmental factors, but it doesn't make us "more evolved".
So don't do them. And feel free to proselytize to everyone you meet and tell them not to do them. We have freedom of speech in this country. But prohibition on alcohol didn't work, and prohibition of pot hasn't worked. It just creates organized crime and violence and prevents people from getting help because they have to hide their usage.
"Safe" is a relative term. Yes, going into space is dangerous. Yes there will be fatal accidents. Cars and airplanes have fatal accidents too. Space travel will always be more dangerous than cars or airplanes. But you can certainly be safer than the space shuttle - which is a very low bar to pass. And you can certainly be more or less safe than your competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, even never understood the appeal of the transparent terminal window, it's the first thing I turn off. I transparent tablet is a cool SciFi gimmick but not something I would want.
Even if the robot car is 100 times less likely to be in an accident, the first time someone gets hurt by one there will be a huge outcry and a lawsuit.
Since not curing cancer results in the death of the patient, the drug companies don't have an incentive to avoid the cure. You can make that accusation for other diseases but it makes no sense for cancer. Plus there is a steady stream of new cancer patients. They might avoid some sort of preventative treatment, but if you did invent a preventative cancer vaccine you could probably sell billions of doses and there is a new stream of people being born everyday to sell to, so there is still lots of profit to e made there.
Did you throw in that "* 2" just for kicks?
And 1 million/year is a pretty small amount of money for Google. It's also a pretty small compared to what other companies spend on advertising - for example several million dollars for a 30 second superbowl ad, and that's just a tiny percentage of the annual advertising budget of many companies.
change browser rather than change search engine
We are only talking about the default search engine, not being forced to use a certain search engine, so everyone with clue would just change the search engine back to Google (and complain loudly on Slashdot). Only the clueless would keep using the default search engine, and those people wouldn't be switching browsers anyway (likely they're still using IE).
The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is pure feldercarb.
The rich are paying less now on the same income than they were before George W Bush - I'd call that a tax cut for the rich. What would you call it?
We also eliminated the estate tax (although it is coming back in a weakened form) which is another tax cut for the rich (especially for trust fund kids who don't need any income and therefore don't pay any income tax).
A lot of the government debt is held by the government - specifically about $2.6 trillion in the social security trust fund is invested in government bonds. Of course as the imbalance of retirees drains the trust fund we will have to find other resources to fund that debt.
Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight was ridiculously blind in this case. I really think they should have seen that one coming. All that positive thinking was based on the belief that home prices would never go down, which seems like a rather bad assumption for any economist to make, and was not based on any real analysis. Sub-prime loan defaults are not a problem if you can sell the repossessed house for enough to cover the loan, but when home prices go down you can't do that. The large number of ridiculous loans (liar loans and ARMs with huge payment jumps) were what was keeping the prices up and pretty much guaranteed a large number of defaults after a few years that would bring housing prices, and the whole system, crashing down.
Even if some ratings were affected by bribes it doesn't mean that all rating changes are the results of bribes.
Or their tendency to roll-over. Safety has to be looked at as a combination of "chances of getting in an accident" and "chances of surviving and accident". People tend to focus on the latter when choosing SUVs.
renewal of the Patriot Act, support for warrantless wiretapping, prisoners at Guantanamo who have still not been charged with any crimes, and perhaps the individual mandate for health insurance.
27 people with the Teela Brown luck gene, except it has the large magnitude but lacks a stable direction.
You have to play perfectly to make $8/hour. If you understand statistics enough to play perfectly and are focused enough to never make a mistake you can probably earn way more than $8/hour in a tech job, sit in an air conditioned room, buy your own drinks, and have plenty of money left over.
That solves the problem of a system failure that prevents the brakes from triggering. What about a failure that accidentally triggers the brakes? Unintentionally slamming on the brakes at 100 km/h could be very bad. TFA mentions this possibility, and says "more work needs to be done on avoiding false alarms."
No, if it wasn't for the opponents they would just be building cheaper boiling water reactors with fewer safety precautions, and dumping the nuclear waste in the river. Because they really don't give a shit about anything but making money, and designing a new reactor costs money, safety precautions cost money, disposing of waste properly costs money. The captains of industry have been fucking over the little guys for much longer than nuclear power has existed, and they aren't going to magically stop because of the invisible hand of the free market. The only thing that keeps them in line is government regulation and the threats of lawsuits, and the only thing that keeps the government regulators in line is lots of protests and activism.
Yes there are much better reactor designs, and yes we need them desperately, but selling the nuclear opponents into slavery will not get us there.
Chernobyl exploded - it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion, but it was sufficient to blow apart the building and throw pieces of the core everywhere. Really much worse than a nuclear bomb, since a bomb would burn more of its fuel.
And there might have been a small nuclear explosion too - there were 2 explosions, and the second might have been nuclear, although it certain isn't clear - the wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster discusses this. In any case, the damn thing exploded.
Because it wouldn't do any good - at worst they would be martyrs, and at best they would be replaced by someone else just like them. Violence is rarely the best solution, and they were elected after all, so if you want to make a change then campaign for someone else. If you can't find someone better then run for office yourself.
Well, the first 2 are the chair and vice-chair. I am guessing after that it has something to do with the way the parties assign members to the committees, which is probably alternating parties, by seniority.
Not all terrorist attacks are massacres - the attack might fail to kill anyone, but just because it failed doesn't mean it isn't a terrorist attack. And not all massacres are terrorist attacks, for the reason you explained - someone who is just a nutcase without political or religious motivation is not committing a terrorist attack. So super-set is the wrong word.
Well, you said "less evolved", and if some organism is less evolved that implies the others are more evolved. Since all life is descended from a common ancestor you could say it means everything is equally evolved - certainly everything has been evolving for the same length of time.
what criteria are you using to determine "exceptional" or "superior" or "more evolved"?
You can't really separate genetic fitness from the environment, and there really isn't isn't such a thing as superior or inferior genetics. Humans wiped out large predators where ever they went, so being a large predator in the era of humans is a genetically inferior trait, and in that sense wolves are genetically inferior. Being covered in thick fur might be a generically superior trait during an ice age, and it becomes a genetically inferior trait when the earth warms. It's not linear and there is no endpoint or pinnacle. Humans have the unique ability to adapt using ideas rather than genetics, this probably means we will survive just about anything and recover from any ecological disaster, which is one superior trait that probably trumps most environmental factors, but it doesn't make us "more evolved".
Most grammar nazis I know assume that language never changes but it doesn't make them right.
So don't do them. And feel free to proselytize to everyone you meet and tell them not to do them. We have freedom of speech in this country. But prohibition on alcohol didn't work, and prohibition of pot hasn't worked. It just creates organized crime and violence and prevents people from getting help because they have to hide their usage.
"Safe" is a relative term. Yes, going into space is dangerous. Yes there will be fatal accidents. Cars and airplanes have fatal accidents too. Space travel will always be more dangerous than cars or airplanes. But you can certainly be safer than the space shuttle - which is a very low bar to pass. And you can certainly be more or less safe than your competitors.