Plenty of people do, and most of them don't have any problems coming or going or during their stay for that matter. Whenever you go to another country things can go bad. Just look at what Amanda Knox went through in Perugia, Italy if you don't believe me. At least in theory Italy being a EU country that sort of sham shouldn't have happened, and yet it did.
Or the US where TX in recent memory executed a foreign citizen who hadn't been informed of his right to contact the embassy when it was still early enough in the process to make a difference. Granted in that case he might well have been guilty, but still it doesn't lead one to the conclusion that foreign travel is without risk.
That's a tad different. During the last ice age we didn't have the ability to ship food thousands of miles and make user of the land that was now useful for agriculture. Also, we didn't have insulation and heating technology like we do today.
An ice age isn't the greatest thing ever, but life has a much better chance of coping with it effectively than the rather extreme changes in climate that we're setting off.
It's a 150 light years away, we're not talking about a few thousand years worth of developments there. We would need to get very close to the speed of light for it to take a reasonable period of time to get there. And even at half the speed of light you're looking at having to wait 300 years for the probe to get there and an additional 150 years for the first results to come back.
In the meantime you'd have a probe operating independently and being bombarded by cosmic rays. Hopefully nothing went wrong as we'd have no way of knowing what happened without a positive result.
It's generally not wise to suggest that something is outright impossible, but this is stretching credulity quite a bit.
Don't get me wrong, they're probably correct, but then again because of the location we can't verify that the results are correct and that there isn't something else going on that changes the results. One thing about science is that without verification you don't know if an as yet unknown effect or situation is going to make for an unexpected result.
Except for aliens what could they possibly have that would be cost effective for us to mine from Mars and then ship back millions of miles through space to Earth? Seriously, it would have to be something pretty phenomenal to make the cost worthwhile.
My first thought was why you would need an expensive thing to damage a really expensive thing. It's not unusual for a bird strike to take out a jet engine and Columbia was taken out by a few tiles coming loose at an in opportune time.
What's more if you run over a tack or nail chances are good that it will puncture the tire, and you can buy quite a few of those for a dollar.
Probably the same reason why things end up being left inside of patients. Accidents happen, even if it's something that should never happen because it was on the checklist.
The point is that in order to go we'd have to either have someplace for the astronauts to stay before their return visit or we'd have to make it a suicide mission. There isn't really much middle ground to be had, if there aren't plans for a return it's unlikely that there will be a return.
Or oil, never mind that it would waste an incredible amount of energy shipping it back here, the point isn't the energy benefits, the point is showing those dirty hippies who's the boss.
What it means is that if we want to return to prosperity we need to stop discriminating against younger workers so that they have a chance to progress before the expected decline sets in. And probably allow for older workers to retire younger.
Well, it would mean that, but I'm really skeptical about this sort of research and there really hasn't been enough work done to explain the what and why of the observed effect. It may very well turn out to be just as spurious as the notion that people get weaker as they age as a normal and natural part of the process. In reality it turns out to be largely a matter of not taking care of oneself when younger and allowing for one to get out of shape and stay out of shape.
7,000 British civil servants are not sufficient to establish that this is a real effect, it could just as easily be something wrong with the jobs in civil service there are cultural ones related to being British. The age, gender and nationality of the authors doesn't automatically fix possible problems with the sampling. I'm sure that the results are fairly accurate for that particular demographic, but it requires a bit of justification to generalize that beyond that cultural niche.
I'm not so sure that's really the case. It gets tough to know as such studies usually are conducted on people from the same country. It could well be the same type of reasoning that concludes that adults suck at learning new languages, even though it's common place for adults to have to learn a new one as adults in parts of Africa. I see no basis for assuming that they're smarter or dumber than we are in the US, which leads to interesting questions about what differences there may or may not be.
Also, once one gets to be older one tends to have a greater tendency not to want to learn new things as we're taught that the only value to being elderly is being experienced and experience is ultimately the enemy of learning anything too novel.
One data point does not data make, but personally I'm in my early 30s and I'm still getting smarter and at this point I can do everything I used to be able to do and then some. I get the feeling though that age is really only a dominating factor, that things like intellectual sloth, genetics, diet, exercise, sleep and such also play their roles in the matter.
Of course they are sitll designing new medium format film cameras, but that's purely because the technology hasn't yet allowed for a proper full frame replacement of medium or large format cameras. That day is coming and I see no particular reason to believe that it won't come.
I've seen prints with modern equipment and they blow away pretty much anything that I ever saw previously. And there are professional printing services if you can't yourself be bothered to print them. What you seem to greatly underestimate is the cost of developing your own film. Black and white isn't so bad to do yourself, but it's really, really expensive to do your own color photos at home.
Yeah, but for how much longer? It's more challenging to create a medium or large format sensor, but it's not like the manufacturers are ignoring that market. They'll get it and when they do few people are going to want to do work in large format. I mean, it's extremely expensive to take large format photos, whereas I generally consider my equipment paid for at a rate of $1 per shot, you're taking about hundreds of dollars per shot with large format pictures.
That's a completely different thing altogether. Film slaughtered the portrait market as previous to film if you wanted your likeness recorded you had only a few options, painting, drawing or sculpture. What's more those could easily coexist with whatever came afterward.
I hate to break it to you, but film photography is on the way out. It will linger on for a while, but it just doesn't bring anything particularly compelling to the party. Even pros are going digital for the increased control and consistency that can be had from it.
I do like slide film and the various options that Fuji provides, but the fact of the matter is that there's just so little to be gained by maintaining an archaic technology that's past its prime. What's more printers and the related technology has resulted in some pretty amazing prints with relatively minimal effort.
Actually, Kodak had no problems innovating, they did however have tons of problems getting any of it to market in a way that consumers would accept. I remember a very innovative flop from them a decade back. Basically a digital camera/film hybrid which would give a preview of what was on the film at the time you took the image without developing the film.
The thing that really cost them was the time that they spent burying their digital innovations to protect their film business. I doubt very much that they would be in the state they are today if they had accepted that digital was the way of the future and looked for ways to use the digital innovations to power their future growth rather than looking for ways to protect their film business.
Nikon and Canon don't really have to do much because they both have technology for plugging the camera directly into a printer and most people with cameras are able to figure out how to change memory cards. Anybody that could change film can change a memory card, it's just that much easier.
Additionally neither Nikon nor Canon was ever drawing money on film, the technology that they're working with hasn't changed that much since the first auto focus systems went into development. Probably one of the reasons why Canon's first foray into consumer digital photography with the s10 went so well.
Yeah, but I don't have much hope for them. They fought digital tooth and nail up until relatively recently. Do you happen to remember that film camera that they were trying to market a decade or so ago which showed a preview on an LCD on the back of the camera of what was on the film? It would have been both revolutionary and useful had they come up with it a decade or two earlier, but as it was it wasn't really useful and I think it failed pretty much immediately.
The painful thing for Kodak is that they had all sorts of useful patents and innovations related to digital photography they just haven't been able to figure out how to make use of them. At this point I think the horses are out of the bag and just spilled the milk.
I disagree, games are a great time to unwind and let my problems solve themselves in the background while I'm distracted. Granted spending too much time doing that is also problematic, but gaming is something that helps a lot with critical thinking and prioritization. Plus if you choose the right game it's just like working in that patent office.
In terms of up and down this whips the hell out of what I have living in the middle of a city both in terms of bandwidth as well as cost, but the latency and likely caps are deal breakers. Which is really sad considering I live in one of the most connected cities in the country.
I find that hard to believe an economic system like that is called communism. In order for a capitalist society to exist, at least in the type that the US is, you have winners and you have losers. Most of the winners had quite a bit to start with and most of the losers didn't have much to start with.
This whole notion of upward mobility hasn't been true in at least 40 years. Sure you get some people that manage it, but the money that would have gone to making that work out is now being siphoned directly to the richest Americans.
That's easy, just become a henchman, there's significant room for promotion as the evil genius keeps offing his #2 and chances are there's all manner of laboratory equipment to get used to when you're using it to fry secret agents.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of people do, and most of them don't have any problems coming or going or during their stay for that matter. Whenever you go to another country things can go bad. Just look at what Amanda Knox went through in Perugia, Italy if you don't believe me. At least in theory Italy being a EU country that sort of sham shouldn't have happened, and yet it did.
Or the US where TX in recent memory executed a foreign citizen who hadn't been informed of his right to contact the embassy when it was still early enough in the process to make a difference. Granted in that case he might well have been guilty, but still it doesn't lead one to the conclusion that foreign travel is without risk.
That's a tad different. During the last ice age we didn't have the ability to ship food thousands of miles and make user of the land that was now useful for agriculture. Also, we didn't have insulation and heating technology like we do today.
An ice age isn't the greatest thing ever, but life has a much better chance of coping with it effectively than the rather extreme changes in climate that we're setting off.
It's a 150 light years away, we're not talking about a few thousand years worth of developments there. We would need to get very close to the speed of light for it to take a reasonable period of time to get there. And even at half the speed of light you're looking at having to wait 300 years for the probe to get there and an additional 150 years for the first results to come back.
In the meantime you'd have a probe operating independently and being bombarded by cosmic rays. Hopefully nothing went wrong as we'd have no way of knowing what happened without a positive result.
It's generally not wise to suggest that something is outright impossible, but this is stretching credulity quite a bit.
Don't get me wrong, they're probably correct, but then again because of the location we can't verify that the results are correct and that there isn't something else going on that changes the results. One thing about science is that without verification you don't know if an as yet unknown effect or situation is going to make for an unexpected result.
Except for aliens what could they possibly have that would be cost effective for us to mine from Mars and then ship back millions of miles through space to Earth? Seriously, it would have to be something pretty phenomenal to make the cost worthwhile.
it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.
My first thought was why you would need an expensive thing to damage a really expensive thing. It's not unusual for a bird strike to take out a jet engine and Columbia was taken out by a few tiles coming loose at an in opportune time.
What's more if you run over a tack or nail chances are good that it will puncture the tire, and you can buy quite a few of those for a dollar.
Probably the same reason why things end up being left inside of patients. Accidents happen, even if it's something that should never happen because it was on the checklist.
The point is that in order to go we'd have to either have someplace for the astronauts to stay before their return visit or we'd have to make it a suicide mission. There isn't really much middle ground to be had, if there aren't plans for a return it's unlikely that there will be a return.
Or oil, never mind that it would waste an incredible amount of energy shipping it back here, the point isn't the energy benefits, the point is showing those dirty hippies who's the boss.
What it means is that if we want to return to prosperity we need to stop discriminating against younger workers so that they have a chance to progress before the expected decline sets in. And probably allow for older workers to retire younger.
Well, it would mean that, but I'm really skeptical about this sort of research and there really hasn't been enough work done to explain the what and why of the observed effect. It may very well turn out to be just as spurious as the notion that people get weaker as they age as a normal and natural part of the process. In reality it turns out to be largely a matter of not taking care of oneself when younger and allowing for one to get out of shape and stay out of shape.
7,000 British civil servants are not sufficient to establish that this is a real effect, it could just as easily be something wrong with the jobs in civil service there are cultural ones related to being British. The age, gender and nationality of the authors doesn't automatically fix possible problems with the sampling. I'm sure that the results are fairly accurate for that particular demographic, but it requires a bit of justification to generalize that beyond that cultural niche.
I'm not so sure that's really the case. It gets tough to know as such studies usually are conducted on people from the same country. It could well be the same type of reasoning that concludes that adults suck at learning new languages, even though it's common place for adults to have to learn a new one as adults in parts of Africa. I see no basis for assuming that they're smarter or dumber than we are in the US, which leads to interesting questions about what differences there may or may not be.
Also, once one gets to be older one tends to have a greater tendency not to want to learn new things as we're taught that the only value to being elderly is being experienced and experience is ultimately the enemy of learning anything too novel.
One data point does not data make, but personally I'm in my early 30s and I'm still getting smarter and at this point I can do everything I used to be able to do and then some. I get the feeling though that age is really only a dominating factor, that things like intellectual sloth, genetics, diet, exercise, sleep and such also play their roles in the matter.
Of course they are sitll designing new medium format film cameras, but that's purely because the technology hasn't yet allowed for a proper full frame replacement of medium or large format cameras. That day is coming and I see no particular reason to believe that it won't come.
I've seen prints with modern equipment and they blow away pretty much anything that I ever saw previously. And there are professional printing services if you can't yourself be bothered to print them. What you seem to greatly underestimate is the cost of developing your own film. Black and white isn't so bad to do yourself, but it's really, really expensive to do your own color photos at home.
Yeah, but for how much longer? It's more challenging to create a medium or large format sensor, but it's not like the manufacturers are ignoring that market. They'll get it and when they do few people are going to want to do work in large format. I mean, it's extremely expensive to take large format photos, whereas I generally consider my equipment paid for at a rate of $1 per shot, you're taking about hundreds of dollars per shot with large format pictures.
That's a completely different thing altogether. Film slaughtered the portrait market as previous to film if you wanted your likeness recorded you had only a few options, painting, drawing or sculpture. What's more those could easily coexist with whatever came afterward.
I hate to break it to you, but film photography is on the way out. It will linger on for a while, but it just doesn't bring anything particularly compelling to the party. Even pros are going digital for the increased control and consistency that can be had from it.
I do like slide film and the various options that Fuji provides, but the fact of the matter is that there's just so little to be gained by maintaining an archaic technology that's past its prime. What's more printers and the related technology has resulted in some pretty amazing prints with relatively minimal effort.
Actually, Kodak had no problems innovating, they did however have tons of problems getting any of it to market in a way that consumers would accept. I remember a very innovative flop from them a decade back. Basically a digital camera/film hybrid which would give a preview of what was on the film at the time you took the image without developing the film.
The thing that really cost them was the time that they spent burying their digital innovations to protect their film business. I doubt very much that they would be in the state they are today if they had accepted that digital was the way of the future and looked for ways to use the digital innovations to power their future growth rather than looking for ways to protect their film business.
Nikon and Canon don't really have to do much because they both have technology for plugging the camera directly into a printer and most people with cameras are able to figure out how to change memory cards. Anybody that could change film can change a memory card, it's just that much easier.
Additionally neither Nikon nor Canon was ever drawing money on film, the technology that they're working with hasn't changed that much since the first auto focus systems went into development. Probably one of the reasons why Canon's first foray into consumer digital photography with the s10 went so well.
Yeah, but I don't have much hope for them. They fought digital tooth and nail up until relatively recently. Do you happen to remember that film camera that they were trying to market a decade or so ago which showed a preview on an LCD on the back of the camera of what was on the film? It would have been both revolutionary and useful had they come up with it a decade or two earlier, but as it was it wasn't really useful and I think it failed pretty much immediately.
The painful thing for Kodak is that they had all sorts of useful patents and innovations related to digital photography they just haven't been able to figure out how to make use of them. At this point I think the horses are out of the bag and just spilled the milk.
I disagree, games are a great time to unwind and let my problems solve themselves in the background while I'm distracted. Granted spending too much time doing that is also problematic, but gaming is something that helps a lot with critical thinking and prioritization. Plus if you choose the right game it's just like working in that patent office.
In terms of up and down this whips the hell out of what I have living in the middle of a city both in terms of bandwidth as well as cost, but the latency and likely caps are deal breakers. Which is really sad considering I live in one of the most connected cities in the country.
You mean other than ergonomics and durability. Which are quite significant if you think about it.
I find that hard to believe an economic system like that is called communism. In order for a capitalist society to exist, at least in the type that the US is, you have winners and you have losers. Most of the winners had quite a bit to start with and most of the losers didn't have much to start with.
This whole notion of upward mobility hasn't been true in at least 40 years. Sure you get some people that manage it, but the money that would have gone to making that work out is now being siphoned directly to the richest Americans.
That's easy, just become a henchman, there's significant room for promotion as the evil genius keeps offing his #2 and chances are there's all manner of laboratory equipment to get used to when you're using it to fry secret agents.