We are mining our own. The problem is that it takes 10ish years to get rare earth processing facilities into place. In the mean time, it's a monopoly market, and China is operating as such.
No they haven't. A regular car's design cycle is 3ish years from inception to production, and a new line/style takes 4-5. If automated cars were 5 years off in the past, they'd already have started designs. You could make an argument for 10 or whatever, but that's not really a prediction I've seen much. You're basically just a liar.
I know this will sound like shilling, but all I can give is my personal assurances that I have no connection to the site.
Shapeways.com is cool. I realized long ago that I won't personally 3d print very many items, and there are still economies of scale to 3d printing, even if a lot less than manufacturing. So shapeways has multiple varieties of 3d printer, and numerous materials of varying pricing, and open source models other users have printed you can use or modify and use. As a user, you only see the software(blender) and the finished product when it's shipped to you. Actually OWNING a 3d printer doesn't appeal to me much, but there are a couple things I'm working on to (eventually, some day) print.
You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.
Oh, then you missed one of the best things about windows 7. You can press the windows key, type a bit of the name of the program or document you want, press enter, and it's ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD at finding the right thing. I pin my favorite things, firefox, windows explorer, visual studio, command shell, and can very easily get the rest when I want it.
Because I've seen how the insides of an insurance company works. The one that essentially has a monopoly in my state for reasons that aren't quite clear.
I can't tell if you're just trying to dogpile with my comment or provoke an argument with me. I think the word "Socialism" is so poorly defined, I never really use it, except in discussions of how others have used it.
The penalty comes in the form of a tax, which can be deducted in full if you have insurance. Two options, one of which is a tax. It's functionally not any different from the fact that the government deducts mortgage payments from your income tax. You can buy a house, giving into the evil housing industry, or you can not, and pay a higher tax rate.
The majority of the country, however, wanted every single major provision of the legislation. The hate is more of a result of a concerted PR campaign. Many Americans, like myself, wanted something better, more efficient, and more forward-thinking in scope, but that was "double socialism" or some such.
Well, fundamentally, you'd have to blame American fear of socialism. In a more "what really could go wrong" sense, politicians(and to be fair, economists too) were scared of what would happen if they unmade an entire industry in a matter of a few years.
I'm already taxed for not having a mortgage, not producing "clean" coal, not having children, and numerous other things that we as a culture have decided should be incentivized. The former two items in your list would be a clear violation of the first amendment, which this case did not rest on, whereas the third would be constitutional(but also kind of silly).
Threatening to deny states funding unequally is almost certainly a violation of article 1, section 9, and I wish the supreme court would go further with prohibiting that kind of language.
Slashdot Mirror
We are mining our own. The problem is that it takes 10ish years to get rare earth processing facilities into place. In the mean time, it's a monopoly market, and China is operating as such.
They sell low cost consumer goods by manipulating exchange rates.
They don't see low cost raw materials by manipulating supply.
Both sides function as pro-Chinese manufacturing, anti-US manufacturing.
Yep, because a military strike into a first world country would do so much for Assad's position.
No they haven't.
A regular car's design cycle is 3ish years from inception to production, and a new line/style takes 4-5. If automated cars were 5 years off in the past, they'd already have started designs. You could make an argument for 10 or whatever, but that's not really a prediction I've seen much. You're basically just a liar.
Does that mean Windows Firefox users are ostensibly safe? I don't know what library firefox uses for xml parsing.
This still is a long way from complex superstructures like kidneys and lungs, but it's a promising development.
Well, as long as you buy from the remaining duopoly of router manufacturers.
I know this will sound like shilling, but all I can give is my personal assurances that I have no connection to the site.
Shapeways.com is cool. I realized long ago that I won't personally 3d print very many items, and there are still economies of scale to 3d printing, even if a lot less than manufacturing. So shapeways has multiple varieties of 3d printer, and numerous materials of varying pricing, and open source models other users have printed you can use or modify and use. As a user, you only see the software(blender) and the finished product when it's shipped to you. Actually OWNING a 3d printer doesn't appeal to me much, but there are a couple things I'm working on to (eventually, some day) print.
You're ignoring that pharmacological companies operate on high-margin stuff. As in, if you can grow it in your back yard, they can't have a 1000% markup on products sold.
I meant that syntax has improved in quality since C to the extent that C itself is a bare minimum of language quality.
1. No it isn't
2. Not really
3. C is increasingly a bad structure for languages, as improvements come in
I think it's all just hot air.
Yes, I can see that your petty desires are exactly the same as minimizing pain and suffering caused by illness and injury. Sure.
If it wasn't for their loathing of things like UI-multitasking, I'd be ok with it.
Oh, then you missed one of the best things about windows 7. You can press the windows key, type a bit of the name of the program or document you want, press enter, and it's ACTUALLY PRETTY GOOD at finding the right thing. I pin my favorite things, firefox, windows explorer, visual studio, command shell, and can very easily get the rest when I want it.
Yes, that's what I was saying, why does your tone sound like you are disagreeing with me?
Because I've seen how the insides of an insurance company works. The one that essentially has a monopoly in my state for reasons that aren't quite clear.
I can't tell if you're just trying to dogpile with my comment or provoke an argument with me. I think the word "Socialism" is so poorly defined, I never really use it, except in discussions of how others have used it.
That's the part I meant, but I guess it's kind of got a simpler interpretation too. Hmm.
The penalty comes in the form of a tax, which can be deducted in full if you have insurance. Two options, one of which is a tax. It's functionally not any different from the fact that the government deducts mortgage payments from your income tax. You can buy a house, giving into the evil housing industry, or you can not, and pay a higher tax rate.
Ta-da.
The majority of the country, however, wanted every single major provision of the legislation. The hate is more of a result of a concerted PR campaign. Many Americans, like myself, wanted something better, more efficient, and more forward-thinking in scope, but that was "double socialism" or some such.
Well, fundamentally, you'd have to blame American fear of socialism. In a more "what really could go wrong" sense, politicians(and to be fair, economists too) were scared of what would happen if they unmade an entire industry in a matter of a few years.
I'm already taxed for not having a mortgage, not producing "clean" coal, not having children, and numerous other things that we as a culture have decided should be incentivized. The former two items in your list would be a clear violation of the first amendment, which this case did not rest on, whereas the third would be constitutional(but also kind of silly).
Threatening to deny states funding unequally is almost certainly a violation of article 1, section 9, and I wish the supreme court would go further with prohibiting that kind of language.
Centuries later, scientists figure out what actually happened using careful observation. Number of times this has happened: too many to count.