Given how thin the walls in my last house were, I don't think I'd like to live in one built with less materials. Sounds like a race to the bottom with things being cheap and use once then recycle rather than built to a good standard and to last for a while. It might boost the GDP, but I'd rather not live in a cardboard and polythene house.
Is there a reason for wanting to increase the economic growth of a nation other than the fact that we've all been told it's a Good Thing all our lives? Has it cleaned our air or water (when getting them dirty has added to the GDP), made a more law abiding population (when paying for the crimes add to the GDP) made a healthier or happier population (when hospital use and medication increases GDP) or a more peaceful nation (when war and other military activity adds to the GDP)?
Does just charging more (and getting people to pay it) for something increase the economic output of that thing? If so, would legalising narcotics* decrease their economic output? Does inflation mean automatic economic growth?
*assuming that legalising them would bring their street price down
Or adapt standard Slashdot units maybe?
Amount of energy released by burning 1 Library of Congress = 1 BLC
Amount of energy required to make a Volkswagen from mining the ore to finished product = 1 VW
There are some landfill sites in England that are producing electricity from the landfill gas: http://www.eco2uk.com/en/our_projects/landfill_gas.asp I don't know how much they're making from this or how much of that is from selling electricity and how much from government green grants, but there's enough money from somewhere to make it happen on admittedly fairly small scales
"Libel law is a violation of free speech and should be abolished."
So do you believe I should be allowed to email your boss and colleagues / friends / partner / newspapers / whoever else that you are a sadistic paedophile with details of your illicit sexual encounters?
If you're in America, you probably don't use oil from as far away as Iraq - there's a couple of countries to the south that you mostly buy from, with some the north. Look up "oil speculation" and "limited resource" for further information on its price (really limited or artificially like diamonds I could tell you, but considering how much is being spent to get it out of tar sands I'd expect the former)
Going after terrorists - yes (9/11 terrorists or any others), but didn't the 9/11 ones mostly come from Saudi Arabia?
Libya's definitely for oil - Britain would have to be supporting her commonwealth member Zimbabwe if she really did these things for compassionate reasons (for example), but the Iraqi oil supply was divided up between non Iraqi oil companies in discussions and agreements between European countries and America months before the invasion - not something that adds to the argument that invading was for some bits of equipment that may at some stage have been parts of WMDs or simple regime change (an admission by Tony Blair in the Chilcot enquiry).
Republicans, Democrats, Bush, Obama - even if there was once a noticeable difference it seems that now they're picking an the tiniest detail to disagree to make it seem as thought there's a difference between them
Have you read any of the recently released files or even summaries of them? Your statement that "most of these guys are dangerous" suggests not. The idea that they have "lots of info and connections" also sounds misled - why are you thinking that a random person from the Middle East who was picked up for wearing a particular watch would necessarily have means, motive and opportunity to inflict harm or know people who do? (That's just an example of how bad the reasons for selecting a lot of the individuals were - I know there are others) I'm not saying that keeping innocent people interred and interrogated for years without trial won't make them harbour a few grudges, but the "gitmo imprisonment stuff", while possibly done for good reasons, was carried out with an ineptitude and lack of forethought that would make an impulsive puppy ashamed. Now that there are about a third of the prisoners there that there were when it was at its fullest (the rest have been mostly relocated to the Middle East, Europe and America, so can you all stop this crap about no-one being willing to take them?) the remainder might be the ones most likely to be dangerous, but even they don't seem to (mostly) be looking at being tried for whatever makes them "dangerous" (media manipulated imagination, fortunately, doesn't hold any weight in a trial although it seems to be holding sway over a majority of the population and congress). Tell me what each of the "dangerous" prisoners did and I'll take you seriously, but I can always watch Fox news if I'd rather have sensation over fact
Plus, how much will it cost to maintain / replace parts against cost of maintaining Fukushima and providing the plutonium (or whatever was used there)?
Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet? Who cares what the poster says their job title is - they're not trying to use it to get your credit card number or bank details. If it's about polishing a resume - haven't we all done that? If it's a problem, surely that's for the next employer (or the poster if it results in being laughed out of interviews), not/.
Haven't tried prayer but agree with meditation and reading. Add playing (and practising) a musical instrument. Basically anything that requires attention to be focussed for a prolonged (40 minutes to an hour) period but that the mind might naturally wander away from, so you have to practise returning your focus to the relevant subject all the time. Just like any kind of exercise, it gets easier the more you do it. If focus is a real problem or you want to become a focus ninja, reduce or cut out the mind wandering distractions and take time paying attention to whatever you're doing (really take in the smell and feel of what you're cooking rather than thinking of what's on television next, that sort of thing). I bet you'll notice things you hadn't seen before. I bet you'll also find it easier to have all of your attention on any particular task AND be able to switch it all to another task just as quickly as you already do, making you a better multitasker than if you multitask by only having part of your attention on a few different things.
Tools like the vacuum cleaner and washing machine were supposed to give us all more leisure time - it looks like we're not very good at using it well - yet. There would be some who would want to be creative with their robot and others who just want to make the most money possible with theirs (maybe a form of creativity? I don't think so, but others might). With sufficient technology, here's a possibility of what could be done (not my work): http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Nakedness will be on a "high pedestal" as long as it is culturally accepted or expected that we wear clothes for most activities (like going outdoors, even if this is minimal clothing in the summer). We'd need to start by changing the law on how acceptable public nudity is before we can hope to change people's views on their own and others' nakedness. This would have to be followed by a change in a lot of people's perception that nakedness is a sexual thing - an event (http://news.scotsman.com/nakedrambler/Naked-Rambler-locked-up-.3689718.jp) involving someone who doesn't want to wear clothes and was repeatedly arrested because of this demonstrated that many people think that the natural state is in some way threatening (radio phone ins revealed opinions that the guy was someone who we needed to be protected from - for not wearing clothes).
As for me - I think that we ought to have a choice of whether to wear clothes or not - which means a choice of whether to be seen naked (I have curtains on my the windows of my house). I won't be flying from airports with these scanners
If that were the case, I don't see how countries with the death penalty can have many capital crimes, but they seem to have the most. Punishment is only a deterrent for those who think they'll get caught and most people who commit crimes think they'll get away with it. Extremely hard punishment might be a good way to discourage reoffending (my impression is that it isn't such a bad place if you're likely to be hanging out with criminal types anyway), but that would have to be backed up with a very strong "we caught you once, we'll catch you again" message, which seems to be currently lacking
Slashdot Mirror
Given how thin the walls in my last house were, I don't think I'd like to live in one built with less materials. Sounds like a race to the bottom with things being cheap and use once then recycle rather than built to a good standard and to last for a while. It might boost the GDP, but I'd rather not live in a cardboard and polythene house.
Is there a reason for wanting to increase the economic growth of a nation other than the fact that we've all been told it's a Good Thing all our lives? Has it cleaned our air or water (when getting them dirty has added to the GDP), made a more law abiding population (when paying for the crimes add to the GDP) made a healthier or happier population (when hospital use and medication increases GDP) or a more peaceful nation (when war and other military activity adds to the GDP)?
Does just charging more (and getting people to pay it) for something increase the economic output of that thing? If so, would legalising narcotics* decrease their economic output? Does inflation mean automatic economic growth?
*assuming that legalising them would bring their street price down
So does this disprove the greenhouse effect and radiative heat transfer will continue to vary as T^4 regardless of what we put in the atmosphere?
I'm not saying I know the cost saving for pv solar panels, but the Daily Mail is hardly a good source of reliable information
Or adapt standard Slashdot units maybe? Amount of energy released by burning 1 Library of Congress = 1 BLC Amount of energy required to make a Volkswagen from mining the ore to finished product = 1 VW
There are some landfill sites in England that are producing electricity from the landfill gas: http://www.eco2uk.com/en/our_projects/landfill_gas.asp I don't know how much they're making from this or how much of that is from selling electricity and how much from government green grants, but there's enough money from somewhere to make it happen on admittedly fairly small scales
Hold stick near centre of its length. Moisten pointed end in mouth. Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion.
welcome outside
Wonko the Sane
It will guarantee a two-tiered Internet.
A. Internet for people who know what they're doing
B. Everyone else.
B. Everyone else - you mean we'll be going back to the AOL days?
"Libel law is a violation of free speech and should be abolished."
So do you believe I should be allowed to email your boss and colleagues / friends / partner / newspapers / whoever else that you are a sadistic paedophile with details of your illicit sexual encounters?
What do you want it to do that you think it doesn't?
Nah - the commenter means wearing Casio F-91W watches. I'm getting one as soon as these 5-star resorts become compulsory for anyone caught wearing one
Start here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html for the British interest when it looked like America and one or two other countries would get all the oil and continue with your own research.
If you're in America, you probably don't use oil from as far away as Iraq - there's a couple of countries to the south that you mostly buy from, with some the north. Look up "oil speculation" and "limited resource" for further information on its price (really limited or artificially like diamonds I could tell you, but considering how much is being spent to get it out of tar sands I'd expect the former)
You think they're reading much Kafka in gitmo?
Mod points to that man
Pigs flying
Rocking horse shit
Politicians keeping election promises
Going after terrorists - yes (9/11 terrorists or any others), but didn't the 9/11 ones mostly come from Saudi Arabia?
Libya's definitely for oil - Britain would have to be supporting her commonwealth member Zimbabwe if she really did these things for compassionate reasons (for example), but the Iraqi oil supply was divided up between non Iraqi oil companies in discussions and agreements between European countries and America months before the invasion - not something that adds to the argument that invading was for some bits of equipment that may at some stage have been parts of WMDs or simple regime change (an admission by Tony Blair in the Chilcot enquiry).
Republicans, Democrats, Bush, Obama - even if there was once a noticeable difference it seems that now they're picking an the tiniest detail to disagree to make it seem as thought there's a difference between them
Have you read any of the recently released files or even summaries of them? Your statement that "most of these guys are dangerous" suggests not. The idea that they have "lots of info and connections" also sounds misled - why are you thinking that a random person from the Middle East who was picked up for wearing a particular watch would necessarily have means, motive and opportunity to inflict harm or know people who do? (That's just an example of how bad the reasons for selecting a lot of the individuals were - I know there are others) I'm not saying that keeping innocent people interred and interrogated for years without trial won't make them harbour a few grudges, but the "gitmo imprisonment stuff", while possibly done for good reasons, was carried out with an ineptitude and lack of forethought that would make an impulsive puppy ashamed. Now that there are about a third of the prisoners there that there were when it was at its fullest (the rest have been mostly relocated to the Middle East, Europe and America, so can you all stop this crap about no-one being willing to take them?) the remainder might be the ones most likely to be dangerous, but even they don't seem to (mostly) be looking at being tried for whatever makes them "dangerous" (media manipulated imagination, fortunately, doesn't hold any weight in a trial although it seems to be holding sway over a majority of the population and congress). Tell me what each of the "dangerous" prisoners did and I'll take you seriously, but I can always watch Fox news if I'd rather have sensation over fact
Plus, how much will it cost to maintain / replace parts against cost of maintaining Fukushima and providing the plutonium (or whatever was used there)?
Think of slashdot button
...
Make slashdot button
Profit
Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet? Who cares what the poster says their job title is - they're not trying to use it to get your credit card number or bank details. If it's about polishing a resume - haven't we all done that? If it's a problem, surely that's for the next employer (or the poster if it results in being laughed out of interviews), not /.
I agree, but learn and practise in a quiet place first
Haven't tried prayer but agree with meditation and reading. Add playing (and practising) a musical instrument. Basically anything that requires attention to be focussed for a prolonged (40 minutes to an hour) period but that the mind might naturally wander away from, so you have to practise returning your focus to the relevant subject all the time. Just like any kind of exercise, it gets easier the more you do it. If focus is a real problem or you want to become a focus ninja, reduce or cut out the mind wandering distractions and take time paying attention to whatever you're doing (really take in the smell and feel of what you're cooking rather than thinking of what's on television next, that sort of thing). I bet you'll notice things you hadn't seen before. I bet you'll also find it easier to have all of your attention on any particular task AND be able to switch it all to another task just as quickly as you already do, making you a better multitasker than if you multitask by only having part of your attention on a few different things.
Tools like the vacuum cleaner and washing machine were supposed to give us all more leisure time - it looks like we're not very good at using it well - yet. There would be some who would want to be creative with their robot and others who just want to make the most money possible with theirs (maybe a form of creativity? I don't think so, but others might). With sufficient technology, here's a possibility of what could be done (not my work): http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
The past decade has been relatively safe for flying: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/nate_silver_on.html and the scanners won't necessarily improve the security we already have: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/german_tv_on_th.html. It's a bit of security theatre that at best is inconvenient and at worst is highly intrusive while probably making very little difference to the safety of passengers or those on the ground.
Nakedness will be on a "high pedestal" as long as it is culturally accepted or expected that we wear clothes for most activities (like going outdoors, even if this is minimal clothing in the summer). We'd need to start by changing the law on how acceptable public nudity is before we can hope to change people's views on their own and others' nakedness. This would have to be followed by a change in a lot of people's perception that nakedness is a sexual thing - an event (http://news.scotsman.com/nakedrambler/Naked-Rambler-locked-up-.3689718.jp) involving someone who doesn't want to wear clothes and was repeatedly arrested because of this demonstrated that many people think that the natural state is in some way threatening (radio phone ins revealed opinions that the guy was someone who we needed to be protected from - for not wearing clothes).
As for me - I think that we ought to have a choice of whether to wear clothes or not - which means a choice of whether to be seen naked (I have curtains on my the windows of my house). I won't be flying from airports with these scanners
If that were the case, I don't see how countries with the death penalty can have many capital crimes, but they seem to have the most. Punishment is only a deterrent for those who think they'll get caught and most people who commit crimes think they'll get away with it. Extremely hard punishment might be a good way to discourage reoffending (my impression is that it isn't such a bad place if you're likely to be hanging out with criminal types anyway), but that would have to be backed up with a very strong "we caught you once, we'll catch you again" message, which seems to be currently lacking
Because the pen is mightier than the sword.
Because the pen is mightier than the sword.
"Under a benevolent master" - do you see much benevolence?