Something at silly as creating an enantiomerically pure solution instead of a racemic mixture could mean the difference between morning sickness medication, and thalidomide babies.
No, it doesn't. (Hint: the enantiomerically pure solution doesn't stay that way once it gets taken up by the human body)
In my view, the fundamentalists of every religion are the correct ones. The "moderates" are wrong, because they're picking and choosing which parts of their holy texts to believe in and follow, and are ignoring others.
Find a Christian fundamentalist, slap him and see if he turns the other cheek. That'll demonstrate that your view is not correct. Then again, Christianity has its roots with someone who "picked and chosed", and emphasized following the spirit of "the Law" instead of the letter.
The fact that people use text messaging services doesn't exactly make them morons.
The fact that people apparently send hundreds or thousands of text messages per month, at completely ridiculous prices, with an information content close to that of white noise, hints at them being morons. Or just bad at adding up numbers.
When I pay a buddy to help me fix my car, that doesn't make me a moron.
However, when you pay your buddy more to fix your car than a completely new car would cost at the dealership down the street, then you're either really irrationally in love with your car... or a moron.
How can carriers continue to justify the high cost of their apparent super-premium data transmission?
It's a market economy with lots of morons as customers. As long as they find enough morons to pay their super-inflated prices, they don't have to justify anything. And if they don't find them, they just have to justify why they're not making profit in front of their shareholders.
Well, a quick google search shows that the US launched one reactor-powered satellite in 1965;
Do quick google searches also turn up data on all the classified sats up there ? The reason why the Soviet nuclear-powered sats are common knowledge is because one of them ended coming down in the wrong place...
Real geeks use Fischer-Technik. They had a full array of boolean logic blocks (at truly outrageous prices) in the early 80's, and robot kits, pneumatics, remote control, etc, long before Lego ever got around to doing such stuff. And who needs colors, anyway ? Grey and red is colorful enough.
I really doubt you'll see any RTGs on an earth-orbit satellite.
Probably not an RTG, but you may well see a real nuclear reactor on earth-orbit satellites. IIRC the Soviet Union had some satellites that were powered this way, and I'd be surprised if the US didn't.
The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
Ugh. I though US lawmakers would know a bit more about guns than their counterparts in, say, gun-deprived Europe. The above definition would classify a malfunctioning ("doubling") double-barrel shotgun as a machinegun. It's probably just a matter of minutes for any gunsmith to modify shotgun that works correctly into one that fits the above definition.
The natural decay Uranium releases thousands of Seaverts of radiation per year.
1. The unit is called "Sievert"
2. Sieverts are expressed in J/kg, i.e. energy absorbed per unit of mass. Radioactive substances cannot "release" Sieverts.
According to the linear hypothesis you will have one cancer death per 25 Seaverts uniformly distributed across a population.
Sieverts cannot be "distributed across a population", because the unit itself is already expressed in "energy per unit of mass". 1 Sv is already enough to cause symptoms of radiation poisoning, a dose of 25 Sv is lethal in a matter of days.
Right now, legalizing possession of nuclear weapons by US citizens wouldn't have any effect, since no one can afford to make or buy them.
There are people making $400M per year. That should be enough to add a nuke to the oddities collection at home... it probably makes a great conversation piece, too.
Worst case scenario is we end up paying for a system that doesn't work.
No wonder you think that the tag is overused. In this scenario, you completely underestimate the effects of law enforcement with an itchy trigger finger. It took much less than a false nuke alarm to get innocent people shot to death this way.
Terrorists target civilians deliberately, as a matter of policy.
So dropping a bomb on a target knowing that there are going to be civilian casualties is somehow better than randomly blowing up some civilians ?
A terrorist isn't going to be "punished quite severely" by his superiors (if he has any) for doing what he's supposed to be doing.
Soldiers aren't going to be punished by their superiors, either. They're going to be punished by a military court... if they are punished (big if there. That only happens if they commit truly depraved acts, just random killings don't cut it).
Terrorists will be arrested and sentenced or extradited by pretty much any civlized nation on this planet.
US military personnel have been court martialed and sent to prison for misconduct, such as murder and rape.
Yeah, that usually only happens if there's a need to save face because there's enough attention from the public. And if a scapegoat is available. And if it doesn't have too big of an impact on morale.
Why? Because it's not allowed. They don't get promoted or decorated for doing it.
Shooting down civilian airliners is apparently allowed, then. But only if you're military. If you're a terrorist, it's a big no-no and any civilized country will stick you in jail if they get a hold of you.
You must be smoking some good shit.
Can't be better than yours, with your rosy view of military justice.
You don't seem too bothered by terrorists deliberately killing civilians, though.
Terrorists will get punished quite severely if they're caught. Military personnel will usually just get a slap on the wrists... if they aren't promoted/decorated for their heroic efforts. There's a bit of a discrepancy there.
The FBI are investigating the late 2007 big shootout and expect to be able to file charges if they find someone at fault.
I'd bet my money on them not finding anyone at fault.
And even if they do - they "expect" "to be able" to "file charges". That's three more big uncertainties right there. The language alone says that most likely nothing going to happen to the people involved in the incident.
Most rifle bullets don't go through walls. 5.56mm is notorious for being stopped by 2 sheets of drywall. Any professional knows this.
For a second I thought you were talking about real walls (you know, bricks, mortar, concrete), but then you mention drywall. Yeah, right, that'll probably stop BBs and maybe.22lr (if you're lucky), but won't do jack sh1t against a real rifle bullet. A.30-06 goes through a quarter of an inch of steel if necessary, do you think cardboard and plaster will provide more resistance ?
In the US - and elsewhere - most people have no clue how to help a car accident victim and any attempt by an untrained individual to help is invariably counter-productive.
Uh. In Germany, you don't get your drivers license until you show that you've taken part in a first aid class.
Where do you get your data from? According to wiki life expectancy in the US is one of the highest. Out of 191 countries the USA is listed at 29. According to WHO in 2000 the US ranked 24th. While not as high as say Japan, the US has a higher life span than most nations.
You missed the word "advanced" (it's in the subject of the OP, too). If you want to say that the US is doing better than much of the (ex-)second and third world, and are somewhere in the lower, uh, half of the first world, then yes, that's perfectly valid. It's a bit of a low standard, though. "Yeah, we're doin' better than the sh1tholes of the world, so we must be good". Way to go.
Eat right, exercise, go outside to do more than get to the car.
Yes, and that'll guarantee good health until you suddenly drop dead at the ripe old age of 98, right ?
Dream on. Yes, you can wreck your health intentionally, but doing everything right still isn't a guarantee for permanent good health. And that's why insurance is a good thing. Who's going to foot the (possibly six-figure) bill when something happens to you even though you did everything right ? The doctor ? The public ? Or are you just going to lay down and die quietly ?
And yet a lot of these preserves and stuff are near largely populated areas. Hmm.. Well if it makes sense in your world, I guess it offers a windows into how you think.
Actually... I did some research on this just to confirm that the USA is the #1 as far as first world countries go (I thought that maybe Australia, Canada or New Zealand might be contenders, too). But instead, I found this:
Pretty much all of them. Unless your going to claim a normal gas released by the act of humans breathing is something toxic, but look at who puts the most effort in it?
Um... carbon dioxide ? That's fairly toxic. Concentrations above 7% in the inhaled air will kill in a matter of minutes. That's very easy to verify and even less disputed than it being a greenhouse gas.
The US has given Europe money to help clean their shit up in the past.
For example... ?
Yep, you have different numbers then I do. Maybe a cite would be worth it.
They have done this by wrecking their economy and not growing as a population.
I hardly consider the economy over here wrecked. And about the growing thing, well, what's the government supposed to do about that ? Give people money for reproducing ? They're doing exactly that, and it's not working. And they can't exactly force people to have kids.
Ask yourself why the supposed answers that are going to fix the Problem seem to be more about giving money to poor countries then fixing the problem.
So that the "rich" countries realize that Earths atmosphere is not their personal dumping ground ? Because once it costs money to do so, they might get off their asses and start working on long-term solutions ?
But after you do, then ask yourself why, if this is a global problem and it is so bad that we need to force every country to work on fixing it even though only 37 or so of the 158 countries signed on to the Kyoto protocol have emissions limits imposed on them while it is being toughed as the FIX for Global warming, but seriously, ask yourself this important question and tell me wh
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't. (Hint: the enantiomerically pure solution doesn't stay that way once it gets taken up by the human body)
Mechanical engineers build weapons.
Civil engineers build targets.
Find a Christian fundamentalist, slap him and see if he turns the other cheek. That'll demonstrate that your view is not correct. Then again, Christianity has its roots with someone who "picked and chosed", and emphasized following the spirit of "the Law" instead of the letter.
Profit happens, of course. For someone.
The fact that people apparently send hundreds or thousands of text messages per month, at completely ridiculous prices, with an information content close to that of white noise, hints at them being morons. Or just bad at adding up numbers.
When I pay a buddy to help me fix my car, that doesn't make me a moron.
However, when you pay your buddy more to fix your car than a completely new car would cost at the dealership down the street, then you're either really irrationally in love with your car
It's a market economy with lots of morons as customers. As long as they find enough morons to pay their super-inflated prices, they don't have to justify anything. And if they don't find them, they just have to justify why they're not making profit in front of their shareholders.
I've quit sending text messages years ago.
Do quick google searches also turn up data on all the classified sats up there ? The reason why the Soviet nuclear-powered sats are common knowledge is because one of them ended coming down in the wrong place
Real geeks use Fischer-Technik. They had a full array of boolean logic blocks (at truly outrageous prices) in the early 80's, and robot kits, pneumatics, remote control, etc, long before Lego ever got around to doing such stuff. And who needs colors, anyway ? Grey and red is colorful enough.
If he did, he'd probably get stuck into Gitmo for violating national security.
Probably not an RTG, but you may well see a real nuclear reactor on earth-orbit satellites. IIRC the Soviet Union had some satellites that were powered this way, and I'd be surprised if the US didn't.
And possibly whoever's standing behind (or next to, if using a shotgun) what you're pointing at.
Ugh. I though US lawmakers would know a bit more about guns than their counterparts in, say, gun-deprived Europe. The above definition would classify a malfunctioning ("doubling") double-barrel shotgun as a machinegun. It's probably just a matter of minutes for any gunsmith to modify shotgun that works correctly into one that fits the above definition.
1. The unit is called "Sievert"
2. Sieverts are expressed in J/kg, i.e. energy absorbed per unit of mass. Radioactive substances cannot "release" Sieverts.
According to the linear hypothesis you will have one cancer death per 25 Seaverts uniformly distributed across a population.
Sieverts cannot be "distributed across a population", because the unit itself is already expressed in "energy per unit of mass". 1 Sv is already enough to cause symptoms of radiation poisoning, a dose of 25 Sv is lethal in a matter of days.
There are people making $400M per year. That should be enough to add a nuke to the oddities collection at home ... it probably makes a great conversation piece, too.
No wonder you think that the tag is overused. In this scenario, you completely underestimate the effects of law enforcement with an itchy trigger finger. It took much less than a false nuke alarm to get innocent people shot to death this way.
While there are lots of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that involve radioactivity of some sort, MRI is not one of them.
With an attitude like that, you'll never make it into management. Read more Dilbert cartoons.
So dropping a bomb on a target knowing that there are going to be civilian casualties is somehow better than randomly blowing up some civilians ?
A terrorist isn't going to be "punished quite severely" by his superiors (if he has any) for doing what he's supposed to be doing.
Soldiers aren't going to be punished by their superiors, either. They're going to be punished by a military court
Terrorists will be arrested and sentenced or extradited by pretty much any civlized nation on this planet.
US military personnel have been court martialed and sent to prison for misconduct, such as murder and rape.
Yeah, that usually only happens if there's a need to save face because there's enough attention from the public. And if a scapegoat is available. And if it doesn't have too big of an impact on morale.
Why? Because it's not allowed. They don't get promoted or decorated for doing it.
Shooting down civilian airliners is apparently allowed, then. But only if you're military. If you're a terrorist, it's a big no-no and any civilized country will stick you in jail if they get a hold of you.
You must be smoking some good shit.
Can't be better than yours, with your rosy view of military justice.
Terrorists will get punished quite severely if they're caught. Military personnel will usually just get a slap on the wrists
I'd bet my money on them not finding anyone at fault.
And even if they do - they "expect" "to be able" to "file charges". That's three more big uncertainties right there. The language alone says that most likely nothing going to happen to the people involved in the incident.
For a second I thought you were talking about real walls (you know, bricks, mortar, concrete), but then you mention drywall. Yeah, right, that'll probably stop BBs and maybe .22lr (if you're lucky), but won't do jack sh1t against a real rifle bullet. A .30-06 goes through a quarter of an inch of steel if necessary, do you think cardboard and plaster will provide more resistance ?
Uh. In Germany, you don't get your drivers license until you show that you've taken part in a first aid class.
You missed the word "advanced" (it's in the subject of the OP, too). If you want to say that the US is doing better than much of the (ex-)second and third world, and are somewhere in the lower, uh, half of the first world, then yes, that's perfectly valid. It's a bit of a low standard, though. "Yeah, we're doin' better than the sh1tholes of the world, so we must be good". Way to go.
Yes, and that'll guarantee good health until you suddenly drop dead at the ripe old age of 98, right ?
Dream on. Yes, you can wreck your health intentionally, but doing everything right still isn't a guarantee for permanent good health. And that's why insurance is a good thing. Who's going to foot the (possibly six-figure) bill when something happens to you even though you did everything right ? The doctor ? The public ? Or are you just going to lay down and die quietly ?
Actually ... I did some research on this just to confirm that the USA is the #1 as far as first world countries go (I thought that maybe Australia, Canada or New Zealand might be contenders, too). But instead, I found this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_are_und_pro-environment-areas-under-protection
Nationmaster is fairly accurate as far as I know.
The per-capita statistic is fairly interesting, too:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_are_und_pro_percap-areas-under-protection-per-capita
Pretty much all of them. Unless your going to claim a normal gas released by the act of humans breathing is something toxic, but look at who puts the most effort in it?
Um ... carbon dioxide ? That's fairly toxic. Concentrations above 7% in the inhaled air will kill in a matter of minutes. That's very easy to verify and even less disputed than it being a greenhouse gas.
The US has given Europe money to help clean their shit up in the past.
For example ... ?
Yep, you have different numbers then I do. Maybe a cite would be worth it.
Here, for example:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une-labor-unemployment
That these numbers aren't pulled out of someone's ass can be cross-checked:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Zeitreihen/WirtschaftAktuell/Arbeitsmarkt/Content75/arb422a,templateId=renderPrint.psml
And most of that gain seems to be attributed to a negetive population growth.
I would contest that. The people who die aren't in the unemployment statistics anymore. In fact, the number of people who do have a job has increased:
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Arbeitsmarkt/Erwerbstaetige/Tabellen/Content50/InlaenderInlandskonzept,templateId=renderPrint.psml
They have done this by wrecking their economy and not growing as a population.
I hardly consider the economy over here wrecked. And about the growing thing, well, what's the government supposed to do about that ? Give people money for reproducing ? They're doing exactly that, and it's not working. And they can't exactly force people to have kids.
Ask yourself why the supposed answers that are going to fix the Problem seem to be more about giving money to poor countries then fixing the problem.
So that the "rich" countries realize that Earths atmosphere is not their personal dumping ground ? Because once it costs money to do so, they might get off their asses and start working on long-term solutions ?
But after you do, then ask yourself why, if this is a global problem and it is so bad that we need to force every country to work on fixing it even though only 37 or so of the 158 countries signed on to the Kyoto protocol have emissions limits imposed on them while it is being toughed as the FIX for Global warming, but seriously, ask yourself this important question and tell me wh