Same thing with the spelling bee I don't know why they allow so many Indian kids do so well in it. The prize money of $40,000 cash is so low that only Indian kids want it. They need to make the prize money higher so that American citizen kids would want to compete:/study for it too.
Why work for some fool and build their dream? Work for yourself. Especially in software, if you are a programmer there is no excuse nowadays for not being able to make money. I have made companies with little or no investment. Sitting around waiting for someone to call you up and say "hey I am so glad u are alive, here's a job because you deserve it" is not a good idea. While yeah that happens I am sure it's rare. Make your own company, run your own business quit expecting other people to pay you because the govt is forcing them to. Let's face it most companies would rather automate than hire anyone. Nowadays if you want to make something the govt makes you hire people to sit around and push buttons. I rather pay more tax than be forced to hire humans. Give them basic income from taxes instead.
It's silly to copyright APIs. Eventually we will run out of synonyms and it doesn't help the advancement of the sciences. Congress is only allowed to provide copyright and patents if it promote the arts or sciences. People seem to forget that.
From the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
If a copyright is overbroad and detrimental to progress it shouldn't be allowed.
Genes mutate all the time, the risk of a toxin being produced by random mutation is probably even worse. Most foreign genes in cells are usually destroyed by proteases or they trigger cell suicide. So just by being able to survive in the cell it already has to pass a number of tests. If it can get produced in a cell without killing it it's probably safe. I mean especially in the case of GMOs that take a gene from one species and put it in another. Stable expression across different species cell lines shows that the protein is non toxic inside the cell of two different species that is actually a remarkable thing. Anyone who has with expressing proteins knows what I am talking about.
Find me some anti-GMO scientists. Cigarettes are vey different than GMO. The clear scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Saying GMO is unsafe is like saying your toaster caught on fire therefore all electronics and the benefits they provide should be banned. We should stop acting like GMO is a big deal -- they have been around for years and if they presented a risk magically it would be documented. We know *how* tobacco causes cancer. There are known carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco smoke. For the most part, we understand what those chemicals do and how. For example we know that Nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone activates the ERK1/2 and Akt signaling pathway in cells which results in cancer. With GMO nobody can provide an explanation.
How does a GMO crop cause cancer? We know that tobacco has carcinogenic chemicals too numerous to list that induce mutations.
There is no science to backup any claims about GMO foods causing cancer or any other disease. Most of you GMO nuts refuse to learn anything about genetics, proteins, or molecular biology.
Dude artificial selection and hybridization is also doing things we don't fully understand. It's not throwing gens around haphazardly scientific understanding about biology and genetics is quite advanced. That aside, we don't understand the laws of physics fully, yet we build bridges based on mechanics. The Romans built the aqueducts using granite without even understanding the atomic theory. Just because something may present an unknown risk doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. What if Queen Isabella of Spain feared that Columbus would encounter a dragon that would have followed him back to Europe when he found America. GMO is safe. Fucking around with genetics, which happens randomly in nature anyway is safe. If it's not, then we will find out about it and make it safer.
If you think cancer is bad try starving to death from lack of food. We need GMO to make the most efficient use of land. If it does cause cancer in some people (it hasn't caused it in me yet) then we need to figure out why and fix that. I am sure the first planes humans built crashed. Heck one of the Wright brothers died in a plane crash. Today flying is one of the safest forms of transportation. Will we make mistakes with GMO, yes.. But the benefits especially long term outweigh those. If we don't have GMO the risk to human survival from resource wars and other stuff is greater. When people have enough to eat the population and economic issues will resolve.
If natural is better how come it's better to live in a man made house than a cave or a tree? If natural is better how come poisonous mushrooms, ivy, and hemlock will kill you? GMO is safe, people eat natural food and die. How did people die 100 years ago before there was any GMO? Actually if we hadn't used our instincts and brains to develop technology such as plant hybridization thousands of years ago humans would probably be extinct like most of the other species that existed on the planet. Without our ability to make things and to modify natural stuff we would be dead. GMO is safe, I have been eating GMO tomatoes and other stuff for decades and I am not dead yet. Obviously there is a way to eat GMO and not die. Just because you don't know every possible ramifications of something doesn't mean it isn't safe. You don't know every possible outcome of driving on the highway yet you do it. How can you be sure a drunk driver won't get you?
Artificially reducing the need to compete isn't a good strategy. First off, we are ripping off China by going into debt to buy their crap. I mean, how does it benefit China to have a pile of IOUs. I mean if they keep lending to us deadbeats its not gonna turn out well. We get our cheap iPhones and laptops and whatever and they get a pile of paper? How is that good? Germany has no tariffs on China, yet they have a trade surplus with China. Germans buy (per person) more stuff from China than we do yet they actually SELL stuff to China more than they buy. How is that possible? China buys all their industrial equipment to build their roads and factories from Germany. Why is it that we aren't selling anything useful to China? Why aren't we bothering to make anything the Chinese want?
If we force manufacturing back to the US it will make us worse off in the long term. We won't have as many things as we have today. Are you going to give up your iPhone and cheap long distance calls so that your neighbor can be on corporation sponsored welfare pressing a button over and over in a factory? Better off letting companies make products the way they want and then tax them so that you can give people welfare. It will be a win win. People get to have income without having to work plus the stuff they can buy will be cheaper.
Yes, if you are an investor or consumer or a worker with skills above that of some third worlder.
You realize that if some guy growing up in mud hut in Bangawhore India can outcompete you, that's not very good?
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the US unless we let robots do all the work. The only reason China has any jobs is because they are cheaper than robots for now.
Maybe we should ban computers and email. Think of how many people can have jobs as postal workers if we banned or at least taxed email? Every time you send an email you steal a potential mailman's job.
We have the "technology" to end hunger today. We just don't have the will. The question is, are we somehow going to improve our character by 2035? I doubt it. Probably by 2035 there will be even better technology to end hunger, yet somehow there will be more of it.
Would you be equally upset if a robot took your your job? Probably yes. I mean you should be angrier if it was a robot, I mean if it's a human at least someone's family is being fed. So if you want welfare just ask for it via taxation. If a product can be produced better without you then it's charity to keep you hired. I mean, you deserve a paycheck.. after all your existence is important. But why shouldn't that paycheck be a welfare check instead of a job. Tax the company, get your money that way instead of the lose lose proposition of a job. Use your welfare check to buy stuff the robot has made affordable for you.
You seem to think a computer can't understand probabilities and can't learn from prior mistakes. That's a false notion. If a computer keeps falling for the same trick it can adjust itself so it acts more probabilistic.
First off it's very easy to write an algorithm that lies and misinforms when optimal. Second, and this is a joke, have you ever seen a progress bar be accurate when downloading or installing something?
So basically this thing failed? I mean, if you have to replace something as major as batteries how does that count as proving a solar plane can go round the world? That's a hell of a thing. I can understand maybe replacing a bolt or two.. but swapping out the batteries that just don't sound right.
This must be Apple's hypocritical doing. How come Apple hasn't been sued for monopolistic practices? When you buy apps or movies on iTunes (legally) you are have to spend money to repurchase them if you want to switch to Android. Also there is no way to re-sell apps that you bought once you are done with it.
Conservatives will claim that the reduced labor force participation rate means the economy is so awesome that women are getting to be stay at home moms again.doesnt matter if it's false the will cite a couple of anecdotal examples and have one or two such couples paraded around like its the norm.
There is a limit to what I am willing to do in order to survive. I won't, for example, take actions to knowingly gravely harm an innocent person to save my own skin. Anyone who does so on my supposed behalf will receive my condemnation.. Not approval.
Inconvenience, maybe.. But gravely harm an innocent person.. No way.
Slashdot Mirror
Same thing with the spelling bee I don't know why they allow so many Indian kids do so well in it. The prize money of $40,000 cash is so low that only Indian kids want it. They need to make the prize money higher so that American citizen kids would want to compete:/study for it too.
Why work for some fool and build their dream? Work for yourself. Especially in software, if you are a programmer there is no excuse nowadays for not being able to make money. I have made companies with little or no investment. Sitting around waiting for someone to call you up and say "hey I am so glad u are alive, here's a job because you deserve it" is not a good idea. While yeah that happens I am sure it's rare. Make your own company, run your own business quit expecting other people to pay you because the govt is forcing them to. Let's face it most companies would rather automate than hire anyone. Nowadays if you want to make something the govt makes you hire people to sit around and push buttons. I rather pay more tax than be forced to hire humans. Give them basic income from taxes instead.
It's silly to copyright APIs. Eventually we will run out of synonyms and it doesn't help the advancement of the sciences. Congress is only allowed to provide copyright and patents if it promote the arts or sciences. People seem to forget that.
From the constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
If a copyright is overbroad and detrimental to progress it shouldn't be allowed.
Genes mutate all the time, the risk of a toxin being produced by random mutation is probably even worse. Most foreign genes in cells are usually destroyed by proteases or they trigger cell suicide. So just by being able to survive in the cell it already has to pass a number of tests. If it can get produced in a cell without killing it it's probably safe. I mean especially in the case of GMOs that take a gene from one species and put it in another. Stable expression across different species cell lines shows that the protein is non toxic inside the cell of two different species that is actually a remarkable thing. Anyone who has with expressing proteins knows what I am talking about.
Find me some anti-GMO scientists. Cigarettes are vey different than GMO. The clear scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Saying GMO is unsafe is like saying your toaster caught on fire therefore all electronics and the benefits they provide should be banned. We should stop acting like GMO is a big deal -- they have been around for years and if they presented a risk magically it would be documented. We know *how* tobacco causes cancer. There are known carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco smoke. For the most part, we understand what those chemicals do and how. For example we know that Nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone activates the ERK1/2 and Akt signaling pathway in cells which results in cancer. With GMO nobody can provide an explanation.
It's impossible to say walking outside is safe. A meteorite might hit you or a bird may sh*t on your face.
Where's that study so we can critique it?
Really I have never seen that. Usually the antiGMO freaks I have encountered are anti vaccine too. I haven't done am proper survey though.
How does a GMO crop cause cancer? We know that tobacco has carcinogenic chemicals too numerous to list that induce mutations.
There is no science to backup any claims about GMO foods causing cancer or any other disease. Most of you GMO nuts refuse to learn anything about genetics, proteins, or molecular biology.
Dude artificial selection and hybridization is also doing things we don't fully understand. It's not throwing gens around haphazardly scientific understanding about biology and genetics is quite advanced. That aside, we don't understand the laws of physics fully, yet we build bridges based on mechanics. The Romans built the aqueducts using granite without even understanding the atomic theory. Just because something may present an unknown risk doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. What if Queen Isabella of Spain feared that Columbus would encounter a dragon that would have followed him back to Europe when he found America. GMO is safe. Fucking around with genetics, which happens randomly in nature anyway is safe. If it's not, then we will find out about it and make it safer.
If you think cancer is bad try starving to death from lack of food. We need GMO to make the most efficient use of land. If it does cause cancer in some people (it hasn't caused it in me yet) then we need to figure out why and fix that. I am sure the first planes humans built crashed. Heck one of the Wright brothers died in a plane crash. Today flying is one of the safest forms of transportation. Will we make mistakes with GMO, yes .. But the benefits especially long term outweigh those. If we don't have GMO the risk to human survival from resource wars and other stuff is greater. When people have enough to eat the population and economic issues will resolve.
If natural is better how come it's better to live in a man made house than a cave or a tree? If natural is better how come poisonous mushrooms, ivy, and hemlock will kill you? GMO is safe, people eat natural food and die. How did people die 100 years ago before there was any GMO? Actually if we hadn't used our instincts and brains to develop technology such as plant hybridization thousands of years ago humans would probably be extinct like most of the other species that existed on the planet. Without our ability to make things and to modify natural stuff we would be dead. GMO is safe, I have been eating GMO tomatoes and other stuff for decades and I am not dead yet. Obviously there is a way to eat GMO and not die. Just because you don't know every possible ramifications of something doesn't mean it isn't safe. You don't know every possible outcome of driving on the highway yet you do it. How can you be sure a drunk driver won't get you?
Artificially reducing the need to compete isn't a good strategy. First off, we are ripping off China by going into debt to buy their crap. I mean, how does it benefit China to have a pile of IOUs. I mean if they keep lending to us deadbeats its not gonna turn out well. We get our cheap iPhones and laptops and whatever and they get a pile of paper? How is that good?
Germany has no tariffs on China, yet they have a trade surplus with China. Germans buy (per person) more stuff from China than we do yet they actually SELL stuff to China more than they buy. How is that possible? China buys all their industrial equipment to build their roads and factories from Germany. Why is it that we aren't selling anything useful to China? Why aren't we bothering to make anything the Chinese want?
If we force manufacturing back to the US it will make us worse off in the long term. We won't have as many things as we have today. Are you going to give up your iPhone and cheap long distance calls so that your neighbor can be on corporation sponsored welfare pressing a button over and over in a factory? Better off letting companies make products the way they want and then tax them so that you can give people welfare. It will be a win win. People get to have income without having to work plus the stuff they can buy will be cheaper.
Yes, if you are an investor or consumer or a worker with skills above that of some third worlder.
You realize that if some guy growing up in mud hut in Bangawhore India can outcompete you, that's not very good?
Manufacturing isn't coming back to the US unless we let robots do all the work. The only reason China has any jobs is because they are cheaper than robots for now.
Maybe we should ban computers and email. Think of how many people can have jobs as postal workers if we banned or at least taxed email? Every time you send an email you steal a potential mailman's job.
We have the "technology" to end hunger today. We just don't have the will. The question is, are we somehow going to improve our character by 2035? I doubt it. Probably by 2035 there will be even better technology to end hunger, yet somehow there will be more of it.
Would you be equally upset if a robot took your your job? Probably yes. I mean you should be angrier if it was a robot, I mean if it's a human at least someone's family is being fed. So if you want welfare just ask for it via taxation. If a product can be produced better without you then it's charity to keep you hired. I mean, you deserve a paycheck .. after all your existence is important. But why shouldn't that paycheck be a welfare check instead of a job. Tax the company, get your money that way instead of the lose lose proposition of a job. Use your welfare check to buy stuff the robot has made affordable for you.
How would a human be any better than a computer at that dice cheating? A human would get caught just as easily as a computer.
You seem to think a computer can't understand probabilities and can't learn from prior mistakes. That's a false notion. If a computer keeps falling for the same trick it can adjust itself so it acts more probabilistic.
First off it's very easy to write an algorithm that lies and misinforms when optimal. Second, and this is a joke, have you ever seen a progress bar be accurate when downloading or installing something?
So basically this thing failed? I mean, if you have to replace something as major as batteries how does that count as proving a solar plane can go round the world? That's a hell of a thing. I can understand maybe replacing a bolt or two .. but swapping out the batteries that just don't sound right.
This must be Apple's hypocritical doing. How come Apple hasn't been sued for monopolistic practices? When you buy apps or movies on iTunes (legally) you are have to spend money to repurchase them if you want to switch to Android. Also there is no way to re-sell apps that you bought once you are done with it.
Conservatives will claim that the reduced labor force participation rate means the economy is so awesome that women are getting to be stay at home moms again.doesnt matter if it's false the will cite a couple of anecdotal examples and have one or two such couples paraded around like its the norm.
There is a limit to what I am willing to do in order to survive. I won't, for example, take actions to knowingly gravely harm an innocent person to save my own skin. Anyone who does so on my supposed behalf will receive my condemnation .. Not approval.
Inconvenience, maybe .. But gravely harm an innocent person .. No way.
then it's cool for someone to videotape you naked and having sex? If you have nothing to hide why any concern about that?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these.