GMOs might have looked like a good idea in the 1970s. Now everyone with a clue about agriculture knows we don't need them.
Right. Except for the teeny tiny fact that anyone who knows anything about agriculture actually says the exact opposite of that. Otherwise you're 100% correct!
So what happens if you create sterile conditions for crops, as a way to control insects?
You get your "certified organic" label because you're literally torching the earth with propane instead of planting friendly alternatives like BT corn.
I can, and have, use(d) my credit card to pay for a 35 cent item. Do you think it would cost me more or less than 35 cents to do the same with BTC? What's the cutoff? I paid and walked out of the store in about a minute. How long would a merchant be waiting on a BTC tx to go through before allowing me to take said item?
If you used coinbase to make the transaction, it would be instant and wouldn't cost you a penny.
If you were stupid enough to try and use the block chain for it... well, you're probably the kind of guy who swats flies with a sledgehammer.
Now when the US restores its internet connection to China, how would that be reconciled within the network?
That's no different than intentionally trying to pull a "50% attack". The largest network would "win". In your scenario all transactions made on the smaller half of the network after the outage would essentially be rolled back / cease to exist.
Were you trying to say something about that outcome, or were you under the impression that nobody had considered such a scenario?
BTC has a fixed fee per transaction. If you buy something for Ã1, the fee is going to be in excess of 100%. The fee is only as low as you describe if you make huge transfers.
That's not at all how that works. Technically there's no requirement for you to pay a transaction fee at all; certainly the transactions I was making back in 2015 were all done without any fees whatsoever. So no, there is absolutely not a "fixed fee per transaction".
In practice you do have to pay a fee these days because miners prefer transactions which pay the largest fee. When transaction volume is low this means your transaction may get processed quickly even if you pay a tiny fee, or even no fee at all. When transaction volume is high it means that low-fee transactions will get shunted to the back of the queue, and may take days to process.
This is effectively a problem with network capacity. If the bitcoin network were capable of processing more transactions then smaller fees would be the norm. That's partly what these changes are meant to address. However even at this point in time the fees are generally not unreasonable.
and its business model is taking away the positives of what Whole Foods did.
There's nothing positive about what Whole Foods did. It was an immoral corporation like any other, selling overpriced crap to gullible rubes. The kinds of morons who think that buying a couple asparagus stems in a bottle of water for $6 will somehow make them healthier.
Whatever Amazon does with Whole Foods can only be an improvement.
It depends on the use case; for hobbyist projects I agree that the Pi is better, but for the scenario he presented the Odroid would be much better. I've used both, depending on my need.
In that case you're far better off buying an Odroid C2 or many of the other low-cost SOCs out there. Much better performance for roughly the same cost.
The portion containing "move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies" are deemed to be not-for-civilian-consumption, and have been redacted accordingly.
Remember folks; if the data is missing, it's because the conspirators hid it. And if the data directly contradicts your hypothesis, it's clearly fake data planted by the conspirators!!!1!
How the fuck is it a "Mars rocket" if it's only doing short flights? It's like calling my '77 Toyota pick-up a "Formula One car" because I can drive it in an oval in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
Nah, it's more like calling your penis a "sexual organ" even though it never gets used for that.
In my experience the social chat app is often broken, and even when it works it's flooded with nonsense, pointless jabber, and heated but vacuous arguments about politics and conspiracy theories. I deleted my account years ago and have been much happier since then.
Plus, yelling "your a fagot" when you get shot doesn't help much, and neither does tebagging downed enemies.
On the other hand, teabagging the jackass who fell asleep on watch is a time honoured tradition. So maybe the military isn't THAT much different than gaming...
If you're a first world citizen with a university education, you're well off in my book. Perhaps our definitions differ. You're probably right in that they wouldn't see themselves as well off, but that's got more to do with their myopia than with reality.
In either case, they're certainly nowhere near "poor", which is what I was trying to explain. I apologise if my language was insufficiently precise.
You cannot have a soldier freeze up in combat because of the sheer level of violence evolving around him.
We can have it, and we do have it. Nobody can predict how they will react in a real firefight. No amount of prep and training can ensure that you'll be able to function at all, or to what extent your normal behaviour will be degraded. True desensitisation only really happens after you've survived enough firefights to have real experience... and even then, there have been plenty of combat veterans who lose it in later engagements.
Training does help, but it's not a panacea.
Thats why they train and train and train. So that muscle memory and detachment allow the combatant to remain engaged during the conflict.
That muscle memory and detachment is exactly what you don't get from video games. It doesn't do us a lot of good to have a squad of soldiers repeatedly making the WASD motion in the middle of a battle.
You also don't get the stress, which is a crucial part of basic infantry training as well as realistic field training exercises. Anyone can point and shoot a gun in a video game; being able to move, communicate, respond to commands, and actively seek out people who are trying to kill you in an insanely hectic and stressful environment... that's a whole different world. You're not going to get that from video games until we perfect the Holodeck.
Yes, they did. And as the article you linked to states, it was developed:
to train U.S. Marines for "decision making skills, particularly when live training time and opportunities were limited."
Which is what I said. Video games and more complex simulators were developed and used for their logistical and fiscal advantages, rather than because they're a particularly good way to train. They don't replace actual training, they augment it.
Even when used in these ways, it's not like the USMC just had guys running around blindly mowing down whatever popped up; they trained as teams under the same command structure as they would in the field, and emphasised things like fire control, target identification, team movement, etc. The key point was to practice every skill other than actually putting the bullet onto the target; that was secondary.
When I was in we did dry-training for that kind of stuff. You could practice "house clearing" with just a team of guys with no ammo (and sometimes even no weapons), in a parking lot with a floor plan marked out with rope. I guarantee that training was more useful than "marine Doom", which is why we did that instead of playing video games.
Slashdot Mirror
Killing bugs isn't a good thing.
You're right, mass starvation is a good thing. We need a good famine or two to kill off the idiots who don't understand the value of pest control.
GMOs might have looked like a good idea in the 1970s.
Now everyone with a clue about agriculture knows we don't need them.
Right. Except for the teeny tiny fact that anyone who knows anything about agriculture actually says the exact opposite of that. Otherwise you're 100% correct!
So what happens if you create sterile conditions for crops, as a way to control insects?
You get your "certified organic" label because you're literally torching the earth with propane instead of planting friendly alternatives like BT corn.
explain how it is that corn that kills bugs isn't poisonous?
Explain how chocolate which kills dogs isn't poisonous?
Equate to large tumors in mice
NEWSFLASH: Rats bred specifically to develop tumours tend to develop tumours. This groundbreaking revaluation brought to you by "Dr" Seralini.
I can, and have, use(d) my credit card to pay for a 35 cent item. Do you think it would cost me more or less than 35 cents to do the same with BTC? What's the cutoff? I paid and walked out of the store in about a minute. How long would a merchant be waiting on a BTC tx to go through before allowing me to take said item?
If you used coinbase to make the transaction, it would be instant and wouldn't cost you a penny.
If you were stupid enough to try and use the block chain for it ... well, you're probably the kind of guy who swats flies with a sledgehammer.
Now when the US restores its internet connection to China, how would that be reconciled within the network?
That's no different than intentionally trying to pull a "50% attack". The largest network would "win". In your scenario all transactions made on the smaller half of the network after the outage would essentially be rolled back / cease to exist.
Were you trying to say something about that outcome, or were you under the impression that nobody had considered such a scenario?
BTC has a fixed fee per transaction. If you buy something for Ã1, the fee is going to be in excess of 100%. The fee is only as low as you describe if you make huge transfers.
That's not at all how that works. Technically there's no requirement for you to pay a transaction fee at all; certainly the transactions I was making back in 2015 were all done without any fees whatsoever. So no, there is absolutely not a "fixed fee per transaction".
In practice you do have to pay a fee these days because miners prefer transactions which pay the largest fee. When transaction volume is low this means your transaction may get processed quickly even if you pay a tiny fee, or even no fee at all. When transaction volume is high it means that low-fee transactions will get shunted to the back of the queue, and may take days to process.
This is effectively a problem with network capacity. If the bitcoin network were capable of processing more transactions then smaller fees would be the norm. That's partly what these changes are meant to address. However even at this point in time the fees are generally not unreasonable.
And how did him not being president prevent him from fighting, exactly?
and its business model is taking away the positives of what Whole Foods did.
There's nothing positive about what Whole Foods did. It was an immoral corporation like any other, selling overpriced crap to gullible rubes. The kinds of morons who think that buying a couple asparagus stems in a bottle of water for $6 will somehow make them healthier.
Whatever Amazon does with Whole Foods can only be an improvement.
It depends on the use case; for hobbyist projects I agree that the Pi is better, but for the scenario he presented the Odroid would be much better. I've used both, depending on my need.
In that case you're far better off buying an Odroid C2 or many of the other low-cost SOCs out there. Much better performance for roughly the same cost.
I would, for lower power consumption and heat.
That's ass backwards. All else being equal, a more modern CPU will generally produce less heat and use less power when given the same task.
I see the Counterstrike crowd has migrated to Slashdot.
But I clearly can tell from the difficult time at first the pilot had at first locking on that the object was moving fast and did not have any wings.
I clearly can tell that you pulled that conclusion out of your ass.
The portion containing "move/bank/turn at a rate that exceeds current flight technologies" are deemed to be not-for-civilian-consumption, and have been redacted accordingly.
Remember folks; if the data is missing, it's because the conspirators hid it. And if the data directly contradicts your hypothesis, it's clearly fake data planted by the conspirators!!!1!
How the fuck is it a "Mars rocket" if it's only doing short flights? It's like calling my '77 Toyota pick-up a "Formula One car" because I can drive it in an oval in the Wal-Mart parking lot.
Nah, it's more like calling your penis a "sexual organ" even though it never gets used for that.
I would definitely go to that restaurant!
Well you could try, but it's a little hard to get to. It's called The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
In my experience the social chat app is often broken, and even when it works it's flooded with nonsense, pointless jabber, and heated but vacuous arguments about politics and conspiracy theories. I deleted my account years ago and have been much happier since then.
Why? Is NTFS really that shit?
In a word, yes.
ReFS is supposed to be their new and modern replacement for NTFS, but who knows when that will go mainstream, or whether it will be much better.
Plus, yelling "your a fagot" when you get shot doesn't help much, and neither does tebagging downed enemies.
On the other hand, teabagging the jackass who fell asleep on watch is a time honoured tradition. So maybe the military isn't THAT much different than gaming ...
If you're a first world citizen with a university education, you're well off in my book. Perhaps our definitions differ. You're probably right in that they wouldn't see themselves as well off, but that's got more to do with their myopia than with reality.
In either case, they're certainly nowhere near "poor", which is what I was trying to explain. I apologise if my language was insufficiently precise.
You cannot have a soldier freeze up in combat because of the sheer level of violence evolving around him.
We can have it, and we do have it. Nobody can predict how they will react in a real firefight. No amount of prep and training can ensure that you'll be able to function at all, or to what extent your normal behaviour will be degraded. True desensitisation only really happens after you've survived enough firefights to have real experience ... and even then, there have been plenty of combat veterans who lose it in later engagements.
Training does help, but it's not a panacea.
Thats why they train and train and train. So that muscle memory and detachment allow the combatant to remain engaged during the conflict.
That muscle memory and detachment is exactly what you don't get from video games. It doesn't do us a lot of good to have a squad of soldiers repeatedly making the WASD motion in the middle of a battle.
You also don't get the stress, which is a crucial part of basic infantry training as well as realistic field training exercises. Anyone can point and shoot a gun in a video game; being able to move, communicate, respond to commands, and actively seek out people who are trying to kill you in an insanely hectic and stressful environment ... that's a whole different world. You're not going to get that from video games until we perfect the Holodeck.
They're called "students", "professors", and "artists living with their parents".
USMC used doom
Yes, they did. And as the article you linked to states, it was developed:
to train U.S. Marines for "decision making skills, particularly when live training time and opportunities were limited."
Which is what I said. Video games and more complex simulators were developed and used for their logistical and fiscal advantages, rather than because they're a particularly good way to train. They don't replace actual training, they augment it.
Even when used in these ways, it's not like the USMC just had guys running around blindly mowing down whatever popped up; they trained as teams under the same command structure as they would in the field, and emphasised things like fire control, target identification, team movement, etc. The key point was to practice every skill other than actually putting the bullet onto the target; that was secondary.
When I was in we did dry-training for that kind of stuff. You could practice "house clearing" with just a team of guys with no ammo (and sometimes even no weapons), in a parking lot with a floor plan marked out with rope. I guarantee that training was more useful than "marine Doom", which is why we did that instead of playing video games.