I thought electrons traveled at the speed of light!
Think again. Electrons have rest mass, therefore they do not travel at the speed of light. In fact they travel really slowly in a wire, perhaps a meter per hour on a good day.
I should clarify my viewpoint about Kerry: I believe that if everyone were sufficiently informed, Kerry wouldn't be a candidate. But the reality is that the two party system ensures that either Bush or Kerry will be president next time, and I think that Kerry is the informed choice among those.
It's hardly my game and my rules, since I'm not American. If you were in Iraq under Hussein, you could either try to start a revolution or you could sit down and sulk because revolution would be playing by Hussein's rules. In the US there are currently less violent alternatives to revolution.
But yes, it's playing by the rules of someone else. Of course I can't stop you if you think that washing your hands is less of a compromise of your morals than playing by rules that others set.
Voting has side effects. Most people who decide to vote end up informing themselves, at least a little, and many end up feeling more responsible. So please vote. If the alternatives are too hopeless, spoil the ballot -- or show up at the polling station and go back home. Make an informed decision.
I will not lie and say I don't have an interest in the election; I really want to get rid of Bush, and since I'm not American I naturally can't vote. I am arrogant enough to think that if everyone were sufficiently informed there would be a Kerry majority. But I don't have a problem with siding with a loser, as long as the winner represents an informed majority. Getting more people to vote can help create that informed majority.
I will NEVER understand why both parties insist on giving us such poor choices to vote for.
Think about your ideal president. Now think of how he/she would like do in the election. Modify the imagined candidate until you're fairly sure you can get a majority to vote for him/her. Compare the modified candidate with Bush and Kerry. Break down and cry.
The difference is that the British admitted that they were building an empire, and they were pretty good at it too. The US pretends it's not making an empire (or "nation-building", as I think the term is now), and it's botching the job badly.
Not that I think the British empire was a good idea.
Have you read what Osama Bin Laden has written? He is a religious fanatic for sure, but he doesn't seem very selfish. He could after all have lived a life of luxury and power.
The US has been doing plenty of violence against innocent civilians. Including locking them up randomly in Abu Ghraib, which some did not survive. The problem isn't that the US has a terrorist problem. The problem is that everyone else has a terrorist problem named USA.
To be honest, as a non-American, the only reason I can see that Bush is still so popular is that he appeals to the "lowest common demominator" and those people that just don't give a shit about the world outside America.
I used to think the same, but now I think it is wrong. The fact is that we all live in our own perceptions of reality, and we are happy within that cocoon until the real world forces its way in rudely and breaks the illusions. For the average American, events outside the US get heavily filtered and rarely affect Americans directly, so the illusions rarely get broken. Also, having to change your world view is disturbing, so whenever such change comes it's greeted with mistrust and fear. Since they only really hear about the greater world when it disturbs them, they naturally consider it dangerous and somewhat evil.
Another reason is that most Americans, even in the upper middle class, have to worry about basic needs. Getting ill could make you lose your job permanently (the same as everywhere else), and since the employer pays health insurance, you risk ending up broke or having to go through a court battle to get the payout you thought you were guaranteed. The average American knows that whatever life style they have can quickly go away. This makes everyone work harder, and leaves them less time for contemplation or caring about the world outside their bubble. The upside is that it inspires some Americans to great achievements.
Many of the same effects can be seen in other parts of the world, of course. No place is free of ignorance and xenophobia.
You don't really have much of a choice, since the nuclear engines aren't powerful enough to liftoff on their own. And if you scale them up enough to handle the first few minutes on their own, they'll be way overengineered (and heavy) for the rest of the flight. On the other hand, if you could make them airbreathing...
Sure, but it's only for a short time. And perhaps we can find a way to manufacture LOX on Mars from water. Then the same ship could be used for both the space travel and the landings. Elite and Frontier, here we come!
I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Hiroshima. Are you saying that they got a bomb kit and built it while flying? That ought to take the boredom out of a long flight, for sure.
Anyway, you are suffering from the misconception that uranium is a problem from a radiation viewpoint. It isn't.
The problematic thing about Cassini was that it did an Earth flyby at just 1171km and a speed of more than 15km/s. If it had entered the atmosphere, it would likely have burned up completely due to the high speed.
In the normal case, a space probe can be constructed to withstand impact and contain the radioactive material. This was impossible in the case of Cassini, because of the Earth flyby.
I just want to clarify that it is possible to be against the chosen Cassini route without being fanatically allergic to the word "nuclear".
Actually, part of the neat thing about this rocket is that it can indeed provide thrust from the beginning. With LOX injection, around 1/3rd of the thrust comes from the nuclear engine and 2/3rd from chemical reactions. However, when the reactor is really new, it consists mostly of uranium, and uranium just isn't all that radioactive (U-235 has a half-life of 700 million years, and U-238 is at 4.5 billion years). It is not a catastrophy if a bunch of uranium is spread around. Much more was thrown around in Yugoslavia and Iraq, anyway.
Thieves are able to learn, but they evolve very slowly. Bacteria are unable to learn, but evolve very quickly. There are perhaps millions of thieves in the world, but the number of bacteria is so large that I won't even guess. Also, we have a whole range of things we can do to deter thieves, whereas with bacteria the weapons are only hygiene, immune system, and antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is evolved step-by-step in bacteria. If a bunch of bacteria are subjected to a slight amount of antibiotics, a few of them with a tiny bit of resistance can survive and multiply. Then if they are subjected to slightly more antibiotics, the most resistant again survive and multiply, Eventually they are resistant even to high doses.
Note that this process only starts when there is a low amount of antibiotics in the environment. If there was a lot it would kill them all, even the ones that are highly resistant. So please don't use stuff that exposes bacteria to low amounts. No antibiotic soaps, no antibiotic growth-enhancers, and if you are prescribed antibiotics, don't stop taking them just because you got better. Only stop when the doctor tells you to stop.
After the collapse, the Argentine economy has been growing at around 8% a year. That's what a recovery is supposed to look like. This seems to be mostly due to the fact that the Argentine government has decided to listen to everything the IMF tells them to do, and then do the exact opposite.
Re:Does this......?
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What if it was a really large dish with a lot of neurons?
I simply don't get that. Mexico and Canada seem fairly benign, all things considered, and a naval invasion would easily be stopped by a single US aircraft carrier (with escort ships, of course). Where is the threat?
It would be appropriate if experimental procedures are paid by a separate fund. They should not be forced to compete with the regular procedures for funding, since for research, you're trying to help society, not each individual patient.
Yet, despite what you believe, the US has a health care system that is twice as expensive per capita as the next most expensive, and manages despite that to not provide universal health care or better than average health outcomes.
In some countries government programs can be very effective. In the US, however, there is no tradition of that, and the mind set for effective government programs just seems to be completely absent. I think that in the US, a universal health care system could be even worse than what exists now.
Slashdot Mirror
Think again. Electrons have rest mass, therefore they do not travel at the speed of light. In fact they travel really slowly in a wire, perhaps a meter per hour on a good day.
I should clarify my viewpoint about Kerry: I believe that if everyone were sufficiently informed, Kerry wouldn't be a candidate. But the reality is that the two party system ensures that either Bush or Kerry will be president next time, and I think that Kerry is the informed choice among those.
But yes, it's playing by the rules of someone else. Of course I can't stop you if you think that washing your hands is less of a compromise of your morals than playing by rules that others set.
You can be a bad guy without being selfish. Hussein is the selfish kind.
I will not lie and say I don't have an interest in the election; I really want to get rid of Bush, and since I'm not American I naturally can't vote. I am arrogant enough to think that if everyone were sufficiently informed there would be a Kerry majority. But I don't have a problem with siding with a loser, as long as the winner represents an informed majority. Getting more people to vote can help create that informed majority.
Think about your ideal president. Now think of how he/she would like do in the election. Modify the imagined candidate until you're fairly sure you can get a majority to vote for him/her. Compare the modified candidate with Bush and Kerry. Break down and cry.
Not that I think the British empire was a good idea.
There is plenty of moral superiority for 4 more years. Alas, we can only hope for regime change.
Have you read what Osama Bin Laden has written? He is a religious fanatic for sure, but he doesn't seem very selfish. He could after all have lived a life of luxury and power.
The US has been doing plenty of violence against innocent civilians. Including locking them up randomly in Abu Ghraib, which some did not survive. The problem isn't that the US has a terrorist problem. The problem is that everyone else has a terrorist problem named USA.
I used to think the same, but now I think it is wrong. The fact is that we all live in our own perceptions of reality, and we are happy within that cocoon until the real world forces its way in rudely and breaks the illusions. For the average American, events outside the US get heavily filtered and rarely affect Americans directly, so the illusions rarely get broken. Also, having to change your world view is disturbing, so whenever such change comes it's greeted with mistrust and fear. Since they only really hear about the greater world when it disturbs them, they naturally consider it dangerous and somewhat evil.
Another reason is that most Americans, even in the upper middle class, have to worry about basic needs. Getting ill could make you lose your job permanently (the same as everywhere else), and since the employer pays health insurance, you risk ending up broke or having to go through a court battle to get the payout you thought you were guaranteed. The average American knows that whatever life style they have can quickly go away. This makes everyone work harder, and leaves them less time for contemplation or caring about the world outside their bubble. The upside is that it inspires some Americans to great achievements.
Many of the same effects can be seen in other parts of the world, of course. No place is free of ignorance and xenophobia.
You don't really have much of a choice, since the nuclear engines aren't powerful enough to liftoff on their own. And if you scale them up enough to handle the first few minutes on their own, they'll be way overengineered (and heavy) for the rest of the flight. On the other hand, if you could make them airbreathing...
Sure, but it's only for a short time. And perhaps we can find a way to manufacture LOX on Mars from water. Then the same ship could be used for both the space travel and the landings. Elite and Frontier, here we come!
Anyway, you are suffering from the misconception that uranium is a problem from a radiation viewpoint. It isn't.
If they just spread a bit of uranium around, what is the problem? The US does that liberally in Yugoslavia and Iraq.
In the normal case, a space probe can be constructed to withstand impact and contain the radioactive material. This was impossible in the case of Cassini, because of the Earth flyby.
I just want to clarify that it is possible to be against the chosen Cassini route without being fanatically allergic to the word "nuclear".
Actually, part of the neat thing about this rocket is that it can indeed provide thrust from the beginning. With LOX injection, around 1/3rd of the thrust comes from the nuclear engine and 2/3rd from chemical reactions. However, when the reactor is really new, it consists mostly of uranium, and uranium just isn't all that radioactive (U-235 has a half-life of 700 million years, and U-238 is at 4.5 billion years). It is not a catastrophy if a bunch of uranium is spread around. Much more was thrown around in Yugoslavia and Iraq, anyway.
Note that this process only starts when there is a low amount of antibiotics in the environment. If there was a lot it would kill them all, even the ones that are highly resistant. So please don't use stuff that exposes bacteria to low amounts. No antibiotic soaps, no antibiotic growth-enhancers, and if you are prescribed antibiotics, don't stop taking them just because you got better. Only stop when the doctor tells you to stop.
After the collapse, the Argentine economy has been growing at around 8% a year. That's what a recovery is supposed to look like. This seems to be mostly due to the fact that the Argentine government has decided to listen to everything the IMF tells them to do, and then do the exact opposite.
What if it was a really large dish with a lot of neurons?
Why does that make it less creepy?
I simply don't get that. Mexico and Canada seem fairly benign, all things considered, and a naval invasion would easily be stopped by a single US aircraft carrier (with escort ships, of course). Where is the threat?
It would be appropriate if experimental procedures are paid by a separate fund. They should not be forced to compete with the regular procedures for funding, since for research, you're trying to help society, not each individual patient.
In some countries government programs can be very effective. In the US, however, there is no tradition of that, and the mind set for effective government programs just seems to be completely absent. I think that in the US, a universal health care system could be even worse than what exists now.
The point is that heavy armour did the job. Not information technology. Yet some try to replace the former with the latter.