Why would making fruit keep longer incrase the price? It would increase people's ability to store fruit, so they could shop around longer and further from home and stock up if they find a cheaper vendor, thus forcing down high-price outliers. It would reduce the chance that fruit would spoil, reducing the demand. It might increase the consumption of fruit, which could increase the price. That's all I could think of. But this would apply more to highly perishable items like milk. Fruit could always be dried, so I don't imagine consumption would increase too significantly.
A liquid, excreted from the skin when hot, whose evaporation helps to maintain an organism within a certain temperature range as well as serving to eliminate certain waste materials from the body.
This process may be, but is not necessecarily, augmented by a seperate device composed of a number of curved blades, fitted to a central hub and rotated at high speeds by an electric motor in order to create artificial air currents. some form of material support apparatus keeps the device elevated above the ground, either by providing a stand or attaching to the ceiling of the room, or by mounting the device inside some form of automotive vehicle. Also, a guard device may be used to keep sundry items from coming in contact with the blades.
How hard is it to just have the ISP act as a 'relay' in case of trouble. E-mail or letters are directed to them, and they are responsible for relaying the information if pertinent. Maybe this could be optional for a small fee. That would preserve privacy, yet still allow for people to be contacted, hunted down and shot, etc. in case it ever was required.
They have 'no call lists.' So it wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes to say that commercial solicitations through this medium would be forbidden.
Oh, come on. Everyone knows that amendments are just rough guidelines. We'll add a little footnote at the bottom of the bill of rights saying '-asterisk- unless you're a spammer.'
Well, it's not like these guys are striking to make sure that the guys who draw 'The Simpsons' get paid more. Hell, they don't even do that work in America because it would cost too much.
So just like the Simpsons... but not the Simpsons.
You can do more with a well developed cast of characters than you can with an undeveloped cast.
Unless you have a major scene change (a la Futurama) I don't exactly see the point of 'the next Simpsons.' Just introduce new characters into the current show. Or if it's going to die, making 'the next Simpsons' isn't going to save it.
Commentary on current events will be funny as long as you have good writers. If the writers fail, sequels won't save the show. It's not the name that makes things funny, after all.
We have plenty of cops. what we need are less cops on the highways looking for speeders and ticketing kids for having tassles hanging from their rear view mirrors. Though I suppose that's just one of the hassles of living in a low crime area. *sigh*
Hey, if they're video phones and you got photos from several angles, you could put organize them one after another and get the criminal to rotate like in the Matrix!
I'd like to see that wanted video in the local post office.
It's a chicken-and-the-egg thing. Freight gets priority, so if you're going passenger, your train can be delayed for hours at a time. I had a ride that was supposed to come in at 11 pm and I had to be picked up at 2 in the morning. This tends to discourage passenger traffic.
Also, keep in mind that in some places that had good public transportation like Ohio's trolley system, the system was bought out by... either GM or Ford a generation back and trashed so that people would buy cars. I don't know how much this strategy is still employeed by US auto companies.
Electric trains can break the sound barrier (plantran). Even the ones we have now can go 70 mph or so for long distances without refueling. How fast do most electric airplanes and cars go?
Because high unemployment is good for the stock market. It forces down wages which many companies believe are too high already.
There was a good piece on NPR a while back how a 'workfare' program was taking people with various computer skills and so forth and trying to get them to clean toiltes for less than minimum wage, telling them it might eventually lead to a job. It quickly became obvious it wouldn't though.
I've always wondered why they didn't just splice the genes for THC production into some food crops with hardy wild cousins - mustard or some member of the mint family- and then just let it loose in the wild as a type of prank.
Lets see the feds playing whack-a-mole.
Alternatly, I've always thought Monsanto's so called terminator genes were good inventions, used properly. Biotech companies and environmentalists both have the similar desires for biotech plants; that the 'product' does not become part of the wild gene pool. And companies have the capacity to chemically render plants unable to produce viable seed before they're planted outdoors. I wonder what the failure rate of these technologies are...
I'm not so concerned about whether we'll terraform mars. Mars has less gravity than earth and has trouble holding on to lighter gasses.
the below is taken from http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphe re.htm l There's a chart that goes with it, but the lameness filter made me delete it
Here is a comparison of the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus and Mars. I list the number of molecules per m2 of surface area of the planet in each planet's atmosphere relative to the total number of molecules per m2 in Earth's atmosphere.
The question is; considering earth has a lot more microbes living on it, and under more diverse conditions, it seems likely that bacteria here will have had more chance to have evolved than any martian organisms, which are likely to be fairly homogenous as most extremophiles are. (small mutations cause death in the organism before they can drift to be somthing more beneficial).
I don't think we can terraform Mars without increasing it's mass, but one of mars's moons (Phoebos) is very close. If it were chipped off peice by peice, maybe we could increase martian gravity to the point where it could hold an atmosphere. Not a viable solution for our lifetimes, or for overpopulation at any time considering the material costs of a trip to Mars. But the more humans existing in relative prosperity, the more research that can be done and the faster technology will advance. If there's one thing Mars could export to the Earth, it would be information.
People point to Venus, not Mars, as an example of extreme global warming. Venus is closest of all planets to the size of earth, though much hotter because it is closer to the sun and has a thick layer of greenhouse gasses.
Mars is the way it is because the planet doesn't have suffficent gravity to hold an atmosphere.
Granted, outside of destroying a planetful of valuable scientific information, there isn't a lot of stuff on mars that we could 'screw up.' Mars may have bacteria somwhere, but I don't expect too much more than that.
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~basri/astro10/lectur es/lec06.html Mars is the planet with the most Earth-like environment. Although 1.5 AU from the Sun, the temperature can rise to livable ranges, though it is mostly very cold. The interior of Mars likely has a core and mantle, and there used to be substantial volcanic activity. The lack of tectonic plates meant that volcanic hot spots stayed put, giving rise to the Solar Systems largest volcano (Olympus Mons). Early on Mars had a much thicker atmosphere, and there is good evidence that there was running and standing water on its surface for a while (less than a billion years). This includes what look like ancient river beds and outflow channels. There is still some frozen water in the Martian polar caps, and likely below the surface. Because of its smaller mass, Mars could not hang onto the atmosphere very well, and the current surface pressure is only 0.007 that of Earth. Like Venus, what is left of the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.
Why does the gaming industry need a new revolution?
Warcraft III was evolutionary enough to be entertaining. It developed the notion of 'heros gaining experience' for realtime strategy games and all the aspects that went with that. It improved upon the AI. It introduced multi-angle 3d to realtime strategy as far as I know.
Besides, how often has the publishing industry put out 'a new type of book.' Npt too often.
But unless there's some benefit or call for a 'revolutionary' type of game, 'evolutionary' improvements can keep things entertaining for a decade.
Besides, the advantage of 'sequel' games is that people can pick them up quickly and play them with their friends without a huge learning curve. They just need to learn the particulars of the current game. Too much 'revolution' kills the market because it takes too long for many people to learn to play the new game. This means fewer multi-player games, removing a big incentive for folks to buy and a particular game.
I used to test games for Turbo Graphix. I kept telling them they should focus their efforts of making one or two good multi-player games. With the possible exception of bomber man, and dungeon explorer, they never did.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would making fruit keep longer incrase the price? It would increase people's ability to store fruit, so they could shop around longer and further from home and stock up if they find a cheaper vendor, thus forcing down high-price outliers. It would reduce the chance that fruit would spoil, reducing the demand. It might increase the consumption of fruit, which could increase the price. That's all I could think of. But this would apply more to highly perishable items like milk. Fruit could always be dried, so I don't imagine consumption would increase too significantly.
speeling misteak detected
Not by me, they aint.
patent 454,845,474,734
A liquid, excreted from the skin when hot, whose evaporation helps to maintain an organism within a certain temperature range as well as serving to eliminate certain waste materials from the body.
This process may be, but is not necessecarily, augmented by a seperate device composed of a number of curved blades, fitted to a central hub and rotated at high speeds by an electric motor in order to create artificial air currents. some form of material support apparatus keeps the device elevated above the ground, either by providing a stand or attaching to the ceiling of the room, or by mounting the device inside some form of automotive vehicle. Also, a guard device may be used to keep sundry items from coming in contact with the blades.
How hard is it to just have the ISP act as a 'relay' in case of trouble. E-mail or letters are directed to them, and they are responsible for relaying the information if pertinent. Maybe this could be optional for a small fee. That would preserve privacy, yet still allow for people to be contacted, hunted down and shot, etc. in case it ever was required.
They have 'no call lists.' So it wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes to say that commercial solicitations through this medium would be forbidden.
Or am I missing somthing.
Oh, come on. Everyone knows that amendments are just rough guidelines. We'll add a little footnote at the bottom of the bill of rights saying '-asterisk- unless you're a spammer.'
I'll avoid any costume design that requires vaseline, thanks.
Well, it's not like these guys are striking to make sure that the guys who draw 'The Simpsons' get paid more. Hell, they don't even do that work in America because it would cost too much.
So just like the Simpsons... but not the Simpsons.
You can do more with a well developed cast of characters than you can with an undeveloped cast.
Unless you have a major scene change (a la Futurama) I don't exactly see the point of 'the next Simpsons.' Just introduce new characters into the current show. Or if it's going to die, making 'the next Simpsons' isn't going to save it.
Commentary on current events will be funny as long as you have good writers. If the writers fail, sequels won't save the show. It's not the name that makes things funny, after all.
I wouldn't play unless I could meet random strangers at odd hours.
We have plenty of cops. what we need are less cops on the highways looking for speeders and ticketing kids for having tassles hanging from their rear view mirrors. Though I suppose that's just one of the hassles of living in a low crime area. *sigh*
...When geeks attack?
Hey, if they're video phones and you got photos from several angles, you could put organize them one after another and get the criminal to rotate like in the Matrix!
I'd like to see that wanted video in the local post office.
http://www.eff.org/
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
has redone their pages for April Fools.
Worth reading.
It's a chicken-and-the-egg thing. Freight gets priority, so if you're going passenger, your train can be delayed for hours at a time. I had a ride that was supposed to come in at 11 pm and I had to be picked up at 2 in the morning. This tends to discourage passenger traffic.
Also, keep in mind that in some places that had good public transportation like Ohio's trolley system, the system was bought out by... either GM or Ford a generation back and trashed so that people would buy cars. I don't know how much this strategy is still employeed by US auto companies.
Electric trains can break the sound barrier (plantran). Even the ones we have now can go 70 mph or so for long distances without refueling. How fast do most electric airplanes and cars go?
Because high unemployment is good for the stock market. It forces down wages which many companies believe are too high already.
There was a good piece on NPR a while back how a 'workfare' program was taking people with various computer skills and so forth and trying to get them to clean toiltes for less than minimum wage, telling them it might eventually lead to a job. It quickly became obvious it wouldn't though.
a condom in a shipment of corn flakes would cause a problem
I think it'd work better in a shipment of lucky charms.
I've always wondered why they didn't just splice the genes for THC production into some food crops with hardy wild cousins - mustard or some member of the mint family- and then just let it loose in the wild as a type of prank.
Lets see the feds playing whack-a-mole.
Alternatly, I've always thought Monsanto's so called terminator genes were good inventions, used properly. Biotech companies and environmentalists both have the similar desires for biotech plants; that the 'product' does not become part of the wild gene pool. And companies have the capacity to chemically render plants unable to produce viable seed before they're planted outdoors. I wonder what the failure rate of these technologies are...
Yes yes. Them too.
They need a 'posting at 3 am but still want the +1 karma bonus' checkbox.
When our ancestors realize how much we've fucked up their planet, they will use their superior technology to travel back in time and kill us.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
You, my friend, have never driven in Pittsburgh.
I'm not so concerned about whether we'll terraform mars. Mars has less gravity than earth and has trouble holding on to lighter gasses.
e re.htm l
the below is taken from
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosph
There's a chart that goes with it, but the lameness filter made me delete it
Here is a comparison of the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus and Mars. I list the number of molecules per m2 of surface area of the planet in each planet's atmosphere relative to the total number of molecules per m2 in Earth's atmosphere.
The question is; considering earth has a lot more microbes living on it, and under more diverse conditions, it seems likely that bacteria here will have had more chance to have evolved than any martian organisms, which are likely to be fairly homogenous as most extremophiles are. (small mutations cause death in the organism before they can drift to be somthing more beneficial).
I don't think we can terraform Mars without increasing it's mass, but one of mars's moons (Phoebos) is very close. If it were chipped off peice by peice, maybe we could increase martian gravity to the point where it could hold an atmosphere. Not a viable solution for our lifetimes, or for overpopulation at any time considering the material costs of a trip to Mars.
But the more humans existing in relative prosperity, the more research that can be done and the faster technology will advance. If there's one thing Mars could export to the Earth, it would be information.
People point to Venus, not Mars, as an example of extreme global warming. Venus is closest of all planets to the size of earth, though much hotter because it is closer to the sun and has a thick layer of greenhouse gasses.
r es /lec06.html
Mars is the way it is because the planet doesn't have suffficent gravity to hold an atmosphere.
Granted, outside of destroying a planetful of valuable scientific information, there isn't a lot of stuff on mars that we could 'screw up.' Mars may have bacteria somwhere, but I don't expect too much more than that.
http://astron.berkeley.edu/~basri/astro10/lectu
Mars is the planet with the most Earth-like environment. Although 1.5 AU from the Sun, the temperature can rise to livable ranges, though it is mostly very cold. The interior of Mars likely has a core and mantle, and there used to be substantial volcanic activity. The lack of tectonic plates meant that volcanic hot spots stayed put, giving rise to the Solar Systems largest volcano (Olympus Mons). Early on Mars had a much thicker atmosphere, and there is good evidence that there was running and standing water on its surface for a while (less than a billion years). This includes what look like ancient river beds and outflow channels. There is still some frozen water in the Martian polar caps, and likely below the surface. Because of its smaller mass, Mars could not hang onto the atmosphere very well, and the current surface pressure is only 0.007 that of Earth. Like Venus, what is left of the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.
Why does the gaming industry need a new revolution?
Warcraft III was evolutionary enough to be entertaining. It developed the notion of 'heros gaining experience' for realtime strategy games and all the aspects that went with that. It improved upon the AI. It introduced multi-angle 3d to realtime strategy as far as I know.
Besides, how often has the publishing industry put out 'a new type of book.' Npt too often.
But unless there's some benefit or call for a 'revolutionary' type of game, 'evolutionary' improvements can keep things entertaining for a decade.
Besides, the advantage of 'sequel' games is that people can pick them up quickly and play them with their friends without a huge learning curve. They just need to learn the particulars of the current game. Too much 'revolution' kills the market because it takes too long for many people to learn to play the new game. This means fewer multi-player games, removing a big incentive for folks to buy and a particular game.
I used to test games for Turbo Graphix. I kept telling them they should focus their efforts of making one or two good multi-player games.
With the possible exception of bomber man, and dungeon explorer, they never did.
if there is only good left in the universe then wont religion be redundant!
Nope. In that case it would be the only morally acceptable excuse for getting drunk.
I can see the "Post Anonymously" option, but where do I find the "Post Humously" option?
I could tell you. But then I'd have to kill you.