What gives us the right?
I think that getting a step closer to finding a cure for (pick one: arthritis, AIDS, cancer, blindness, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, etc etc etc etc) in people is worth dedicated scientific experimentation on any number of animals.
Are you suggesting that we halt all medical experiments on animals? That is animal nut-esque. I do some work occasionally with pigs that will eventually lead to much lower incidences of heart attacks for certain people. The pigs we use have to die in order for us to carry out our experiments. Im no fan of senseless murder and inducing pain in animals, but if you know anyone with a debilitating illness, you will understand why we do these experiments.
I'm not old enough to be in the workforce yet, but I imagine this is a simple economics question just like anything else. If you are assured that the job is a certain amount more interesting, with room for you to grow (promotions, pay increases, whatever), and the pay cut doesnt drastically affect your standard of living, go for it.
basically, is the pay cut so much that it would change how you live, and if so does the more interesting work make up for that?
These are almost exactly the same as the in-glass system I read about in a Mitsubishi R&D pdf a while back.
linky,
google html conversion
it uses the table for power and data transmission, and detects liquid level through electric resistance measurements.
neat stuff
your eye can percieve an infinite number of colors, there is no set number. each discrete wavelength of light carries a certain energy (KE=hf from highschool physics), and since there are an infinite number of wavelenghts, there are an infinite number of colors. Although can consciously only differentiate between maybe a few thousand colors, having trillions to work with makes images look all the more real.
so much for news... anyway
I think the next big thing will be 'real' dlp (digital light projection) sets. The limited but increasing number of theater ones can produce trillions of colors, and they can change color around 1000 times a second. For the consumer these days, one can only get a single chip system that uses a weird color wheel to translate grayscale into color. It looks good, but it kind of reminds me of those sets before color came around that came with cellophane color screens. Also, there is a weird rainbow effect sometimes with fast moving images. TI, the makers of the chip, has a pretty neat demo on their site. Essentially, the chip is just an array of millions of tiny mirrors that are capable of being toggled on or off quite fast. In 1 chip systems, which are avaliable from mitsubishi and some others, the grayscale deal is used. In 'real' three chip systems, each chip gets a primary color all to itself. The more time per second each mirror is 'on', the more of that color will appear in each pixel, = really good image. check it out.
i think you need to look more at the context in which marx wrote his works. i'll get prejudiced against because of this, but I am still in high school. I read Locke and Marx and Rousseau and Hobbs for various history classes, and I was taught to appreciate their contributions. His ideas do not translate literally into our current society, but the basic ideas of appreciating the contribution of the workers still stands. My point about nobody benefiting without the work of someone in the lower classes contributing is that regardless of at what level the freely entered transaction occurs at, the GOOD being traded has either directly or indirectly been produced by someone lower than you. Even extremely intricate devices that require extensive knowledge and eductation to create are made of materials mined by someone at a lower economic level. I didnt say that economics is a zero sum game, but it is easily described as a circular game. Every man, woman, and child plays a part, and no one part is less integral than any other.
so now hes not such a fool?
maybe you should actually read das kapital before making comments like that.
the rights and privileges you get for being an american arent paid for by number of flags waved. the government subsidation of everything from agriculture to transportation, military, the judicial system, etc etc etc, are all in place for the welfare of society, which includes certain guarentees. The original draft of the declaration of independence was worded "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property. The government's place is to provide a framework within which hard work will equal success. Capitalism, for all the good things it has done, has some problems when it comes to the work/success ratio. No man makes money without someone benefiting from those less fortunate, and often harder working. The reason taxes should be progressive is that, per unit, money means less to people as you get richer. A steel worker making 28k a year losing $200 in cash is a lot more affected in real terms than the owner of his mill losing the same amount. Tax brackets are meant to replicate real-world amounts, which a flat tax rate doesn't do. That instrusive government you are fighting is a bit bloated, but people shouldn't be starving in this country.
youre misguided. the purpose of the tax system is to fund the contextual framework that allows for success. People who have succeeded and made themselves rich arent being punished, they never would have been able to do what they did had it not been for both the lower classes and the infrastructure. Marx is misunderstood to the naive. Radical totalitarian implementations of his ideas have killed millions; dont confuse stalinism and marxism. Before the communist revolution in china, a vast majority of the people were starving to death. Look at china now.
Considering interest rates, dividend earnings from savings are negligable compared to dividend earnings from stock, which is the point of the tax. Try making money without the direct or indirect use of people poorer than yourself, then complain about progressive tax.
dont get me started on hugely regressive taxes like, lets see, sales tax. there is no question that an averge middle class family with little to no investment income got less than they deserved compared to the wealthier people. I cant fathom why anyone but the wealthy would support this guy.
Trickle-down economics was shown to be a faliure 20 years ago, yet Bush is doing the same thing. His vow to eliminate 'double-taxation' and the estate tax show where his priorities lie. We have known that as the rich get richer, they find ways to get even richer, which doesn't include raising wages. Instead, we have CEOs who have benefitted very nicely from the recent dividend tax cuts sending jobs overseas. There is no magic amount of money that satiates people, they will always want more.
you cant seriously think that the middle-class got a fair tax cut in comparison to the upper class. The 'huge' tax cut georgie so generously put into action was mostly a cut of dividend taxes. I don't know about where you live, but in my neighborhood working class and middle class families don't have very impressive and diversified stock portfolios.
no offense to mrs. rand or mr. cox, but mr. draco would disagree with you. The DMCA doesn't involve any body parts being removed from your body, unless that sneaky trent lott snuck that in there recently, so i would hesitate to cheapen Draco's efforts by using his name so liberally to describe not-so-extreme laws. You're right, the terms aren't mutally exclusive, but unless they have reintroduced dismemberment or the rack, lets leave Draco out of this.
Great ideas arent subject to government approval, especially in the US. Yes, we do have a lot of crappy laws that were written by people who know very little about the reality of IP and are just pandering to the shmucks who sign their checks, but there isnt exactly a lack of awesome software. OSS or otherwise, there is code out there to fit almost every bill, including some very esoteric and pointless ones. I agree with the fact that acedemia would benefit from scanning text, but i dont see much of a future for good ole paper libraries. Why develop software so you can scan a page from a textbook with your nokia when you can develop a system to scan and store entire libraries, queriable from every computer on campus? I believe google is doing something like this right now at the larger american campuses. Considering the push towards digitizing everything, it seems kind of dumb to waste time interfacing a cell phone with a tome. Bic still makes millions of pens, staples still stocks paper; write citations down. Photocopiers still work too, if im not mistaken. This kinda parallels the recent story about photonic clocking. Should we pander to the current norm and keep some copper on the first few waves of pentium photorz, or not.
As far as im concerned, pandering to those who want the best of both worlds is a waste of time and resources. Either be compelled by a new technology, ditch your old crap, and get it, or dont. You bastards are slowing progress.
draconian means that the punishments are excessive. it has nothing to do with the validity of the law. you probably meant orwellian, which would make more sense considering both the recent trend in laws that crap on personal rights and the civil liberties issue that regulating a camera phone entails. I dont mean to be a dick, but lets all get a little less naive about words like and 'antisocial'. (hint: nothing to do with being shy, more to do with shooting up schools)
my point was that the reason our closest quasar is ~250 million parsecs away is that we exist. I have done loads of research into genetic mutation, and while some forms of bacertia are suprisingly good at resisting genetic desctruction from several types of radiation, it would be very unlikely that a major source of gamma radiation less than 10 kpc away would allow us to evolve the way we have. Also, the eating of the stars over a long period of time would surely shift the angular momentum of our galaxy, perhaps bringing us closer to the center, or perhaps flinging us out into empty space. who knows.
gamma radiation is one of the most important methods of genetic mutation in OUR form of biology. Indeed, had there been some major difference in the levels of radiation when all of the details and chemicals were being sorted out a few billion years ago, things could have been a lot different. Chemicals, vectering, etc are all important contributers to mutation, but theres nothing quite like gamma radiation for affecting change. If gamma radiation simply ceased to exist NOW, evolution would take a hit.
We both seem to know what we are talking about, and this is so "what if" that arguments are pointless.
you are confusing AGNs with quasars. by definition, a quasar needs to have a very high redshift, which would be somewhat difficult to pull off at ~8 kpc. Our galactic core could go active again, but it wouldnt make it a quasar.
i wasnt talking about the radiation, i was talking about the habit quasars have of eating stars. gamma radiation is vital to evolution, but being so brushed up, you knew that.
i dont apprectiate the condescending tone, there is a huge difference between the two, density. a million solar masses spread out over a vast area is less gravitationally attractive than a singularity of that mass.
we dont have a quasar at the center of out galaxy, the closest one is over 200 Mpc away. We are talking about a hypothetical situation, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
What gives us the right? I think that getting a step closer to finding a cure for (pick one: arthritis, AIDS, cancer, blindness, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, etc etc etc etc) in people is worth dedicated scientific experimentation on any number of animals. Are you suggesting that we halt all medical experiments on animals? That is animal nut-esque. I do some work occasionally with pigs that will eventually lead to much lower incidences of heart attacks for certain people. The pigs we use have to die in order for us to carry out our experiments. Im no fan of senseless murder and inducing pain in animals, but if you know anyone with a debilitating illness, you will understand why we do these experiments.
I'm not old enough to be in the workforce yet, but I imagine this is a simple economics question just like anything else. If you are assured that the job is a certain amount more interesting, with room for you to grow (promotions, pay increases, whatever), and the pay cut doesnt drastically affect your standard of living, go for it.
basically, is the pay cut so much that it would change how you live, and if so does the more interesting work make up for that?
This is 95% a personal preference question
Dr. McCoy. Damnit, Jim. I'm a doctor, not a microscopic silicon expert
yeah i see nothing as well i think cowboyneal immunized us all.
im not so sure that you need quotes AND [sic]
i wouldnt mention it unless your post was about grammatical/spelling errors
I get that, but isn't flexibility a good thing?
Don't you mean inflexible?
These are almost exactly the same as the in-glass system I read about in a Mitsubishi R&D pdf a while back. linky, google html conversion it uses the table for power and data transmission, and detects liquid level through electric resistance measurements. neat stuff
your eye can percieve an infinite number of colors, there is no set number. each discrete wavelength of light carries a certain energy (KE=hf from highschool physics), and since there are an infinite number of wavelenghts, there are an infinite number of colors. Although can consciously only differentiate between maybe a few thousand colors, having trillions to work with makes images look all the more real.
so much for news... anyway I think the next big thing will be 'real' dlp (digital light projection) sets. The limited but increasing number of theater ones can produce trillions of colors, and they can change color around 1000 times a second. For the consumer these days, one can only get a single chip system that uses a weird color wheel to translate grayscale into color. It looks good, but it kind of reminds me of those sets before color came around that came with cellophane color screens. Also, there is a weird rainbow effect sometimes with fast moving images. TI, the makers of the chip, has a pretty neat demo on their site. Essentially, the chip is just an array of millions of tiny mirrors that are capable of being toggled on or off quite fast. In 1 chip systems, which are avaliable from mitsubishi and some others, the grayscale deal is used. In 'real' three chip systems, each chip gets a primary color all to itself. The more time per second each mirror is 'on', the more of that color will appear in each pixel, = really good image. check it out.
i think you need to look more at the context in which marx wrote his works. i'll get prejudiced against because of this, but I am still in high school. I read Locke and Marx and Rousseau and Hobbs for various history classes, and I was taught to appreciate their contributions. His ideas do not translate literally into our current society, but the basic ideas of appreciating the contribution of the workers still stands. My point about nobody benefiting without the work of someone in the lower classes contributing is that regardless of at what level the freely entered transaction occurs at, the GOOD being traded has either directly or indirectly been produced by someone lower than you. Even extremely intricate devices that require extensive knowledge and eductation to create are made of materials mined by someone at a lower economic level. I didnt say that economics is a zero sum game, but it is easily described as a circular game. Every man, woman, and child plays a part, and no one part is less integral than any other.
so now hes not such a fool? maybe you should actually read das kapital before making comments like that. the rights and privileges you get for being an american arent paid for by number of flags waved. the government subsidation of everything from agriculture to transportation, military, the judicial system, etc etc etc, are all in place for the welfare of society, which includes certain guarentees. The original draft of the declaration of independence was worded "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property. The government's place is to provide a framework within which hard work will equal success. Capitalism, for all the good things it has done, has some problems when it comes to the work/success ratio. No man makes money without someone benefiting from those less fortunate, and often harder working. The reason taxes should be progressive is that, per unit, money means less to people as you get richer. A steel worker making 28k a year losing $200 in cash is a lot more affected in real terms than the owner of his mill losing the same amount. Tax brackets are meant to replicate real-world amounts, which a flat tax rate doesn't do. That instrusive government you are fighting is a bit bloated, but people shouldn't be starving in this country.
youre misguided. the purpose of the tax system is to fund the contextual framework that allows for success. People who have succeeded and made themselves rich arent being punished, they never would have been able to do what they did had it not been for both the lower classes and the infrastructure. Marx is misunderstood to the naive. Radical totalitarian implementations of his ideas have killed millions; dont confuse stalinism and marxism. Before the communist revolution in china, a vast majority of the people were starving to death. Look at china now. Considering interest rates, dividend earnings from savings are negligable compared to dividend earnings from stock, which is the point of the tax. Try making money without the direct or indirect use of people poorer than yourself, then complain about progressive tax.
dont get me started on hugely regressive taxes like, lets see, sales tax. there is no question that an averge middle class family with little to no investment income got less than they deserved compared to the wealthier people. I cant fathom why anyone but the wealthy would support this guy.
Trickle-down economics was shown to be a faliure 20 years ago, yet Bush is doing the same thing. His vow to eliminate 'double-taxation' and the estate tax show where his priorities lie. We have known that as the rich get richer, they find ways to get even richer, which doesn't include raising wages. Instead, we have CEOs who have benefitted very nicely from the recent dividend tax cuts sending jobs overseas. There is no magic amount of money that satiates people, they will always want more.
you cant seriously think that the middle-class got a fair tax cut in comparison to the upper class. The 'huge' tax cut georgie so generously put into action was mostly a cut of dividend taxes. I don't know about where you live, but in my neighborhood working class and middle class families don't have very impressive and diversified stock portfolios.
regardless, the DMCA has neither amputation nor the death penalty in it. amputation just seems poetically justified.
no offense to mrs. rand or mr. cox, but mr. draco would disagree with you. The DMCA doesn't involve any body parts being removed from your body, unless that sneaky trent lott snuck that in there recently, so i would hesitate to cheapen Draco's efforts by using his name so liberally to describe not-so-extreme laws. You're right, the terms aren't mutally exclusive, but unless they have reintroduced dismemberment or the rack, lets leave Draco out of this.
Great ideas arent subject to government approval, especially in the US. Yes, we do have a lot of crappy laws that were written by people who know very little about the reality of IP and are just pandering to the shmucks who sign their checks, but there isnt exactly a lack of awesome software. OSS or otherwise, there is code out there to fit almost every bill, including some very esoteric and pointless ones. I agree with the fact that acedemia would benefit from scanning text, but i dont see much of a future for good ole paper libraries. Why develop software so you can scan a page from a textbook with your nokia when you can develop a system to scan and store entire libraries, queriable from every computer on campus? I believe google is doing something like this right now at the larger american campuses. Considering the push towards digitizing everything, it seems kind of dumb to waste time interfacing a cell phone with a tome. Bic still makes millions of pens, staples still stocks paper; write citations down. Photocopiers still work too, if im not mistaken. This kinda parallels the recent story about photonic clocking. Should we pander to the current norm and keep some copper on the first few waves of pentium photorz, or not. As far as im concerned, pandering to those who want the best of both worlds is a waste of time and resources. Either be compelled by a new technology, ditch your old crap, and get it, or dont. You bastards are slowing progress.
sorry, pet peeve, but:
draconian means that the punishments are excessive. it has nothing to do with the validity of the law. you probably meant orwellian, which would make more sense considering both the recent trend in laws that crap on personal rights and the civil liberties issue that regulating a camera phone entails. I dont mean to be a dick, but lets all get a little less naive about words like and 'antisocial'. (hint: nothing to do with being shy, more to do with shooting up schools)
my point was that the reason our closest quasar is ~250 million parsecs away is that we exist. I have done loads of research into genetic mutation, and while some forms of bacertia are suprisingly good at resisting genetic desctruction from several types of radiation, it would be very unlikely that a major source of gamma radiation less than 10 kpc away would allow us to evolve the way we have. Also, the eating of the stars over a long period of time would surely shift the angular momentum of our galaxy, perhaps bringing us closer to the center, or perhaps flinging us out into empty space. who knows. gamma radiation is one of the most important methods of genetic mutation in OUR form of biology. Indeed, had there been some major difference in the levels of radiation when all of the details and chemicals were being sorted out a few billion years ago, things could have been a lot different. Chemicals, vectering, etc are all important contributers to mutation, but theres nothing quite like gamma radiation for affecting change. If gamma radiation simply ceased to exist NOW, evolution would take a hit. We both seem to know what we are talking about, and this is so "what if" that arguments are pointless.
you are confusing AGNs with quasars. by definition, a quasar needs to have a very high redshift, which would be somewhat difficult to pull off at ~8 kpc. Our galactic core could go active again, but it wouldnt make it a quasar.
i wasnt talking about the radiation, i was talking about the habit quasars have of eating stars. gamma radiation is vital to evolution, but being so brushed up, you knew that.
i dont apprectiate the condescending tone, there is a huge difference between the two, density. a million solar masses spread out over a vast area is less gravitationally attractive than a singularity of that mass.
perhaps you need to brush up?
we dont have a quasar at the center of out galaxy, the closest one is over 200 Mpc away. We are talking about a hypothetical situation, it has nothing to do with evolution.