There is no way to tell what ingredients will do to an individual. I love peanuts, they are a cheap source or protein for me. They also cause massive allergic reactions and death for some people.
So just make sure if something has peanuts in it that it's labeled.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
When I started in Engineering some of my friends decided to become contractors. They would typically make about twice my pay when they had work. The temp agencies they worked for took a cut and provides the benefits like health insurance. Of course this was 20 years ago so it was easy to find a cheap high deductible policy before they were banned.
Back 20 years ago 3 or 4 people would buy a hose or large apartment together and split the rent with each taking a bedroom. It was way cheaper than 3 or 4 single apartments and you would share the common space. Does that still exist?
Those costs are due to the same factors described above. First if you breed fuel you have much much less waste. And when you decommission a reactor it's only a big deal because people are afraid for no reason. Bundle it up and store it. The technical costs are not that much. It's the legal and regulatory costs.
Well I mean you don't want to stop CO2 emissions. If you let it go too low all life dies. In fact the industrial revolution probably saved the planet from mass extinction. The pre-industrial level was 280 ppm but the lowest it was during a recent glaciation at 180 ppm. It looks like with the Earth cooling volcanic activity is decreasing which releases less CO2. Crop plants start dying at around 150 ppm and really thrive at 2000 ppm which is why greenhouses use CO2 generators because the plants will use up the CO2 quickly. Luckily, humans came along and started burning fossil fuels so prevent the next ice age.
The just flat our refuse all evidence, even with the worst case scenarios accidents at Chernobyl and Fukashima, the millions of lives saved by using nuclear power. And this is with the handicap their efforts have wrought by preventing the adoption of new designs and technology to the point where we are planning on running reactors until they are 80 years old. Imagine if we were on 6th or 7th generation reactors? Imagine if we were allowed to use breeder reactors? Nobody would be talking about using fossil fuels for electricity production.
All deaths and harm from side effects could be eliminated if we banned all drugs. But then there would be more deaths and misery due to diseases left untreated. I still see a role for the FDA where they would still test and publish results. But it would ultimately be up to the patient to decide what compounds to take. I personally don't take drugs that haven't been around for 50 years. But I'm relatively healthy. If I had some nasty cancer or infection that wasn't responding to established drugs I would be more and more likely to try newer and riskier drugs.
I don't see the logic behind rewarding irresponsible people when they irresponsibly have children and expecting the kids to somehow turn out responsible. If someone is temporarily poor that's one thing. But if you are a single mom without a job and no prospect of ever having work or a husband the right thing to do if you can't afford the child is to give it up for adoption so it can be raised by responsible people. That way nobody has kids they can't afford just to get a bigger check and those that are infertile but responsible can easily get kids.
No. You still have the choice of only taking drugs that have proven effective in double blind studies. Just like I don't take supplements because I haven't seen the data showing effectiveness. But it would solve problems like in this article. You could develop your new antibiotic. Most people would take the proven ones until they didn't work. Now instead of hundreds of thousands of people dying they could try these new ones. They are given back their freedom to control what goes in their body.
The burden in drug companies is too high. Biology is too complex. If peanuts were a drug they wouldn't get approved because too many people have bad reactions, but they are perfectly safe for others.
All a drug company should need to do is disclose what the drug contains and be liable for fraud if it deviates from this.
We have this argument in the mechanical world. The act of creating something is called design. This is the act of conceiving of something and bringing it into reality. Engineering is the act of using science and math to predict if the design will work before it's tested. My reasoning for this distinction is that very little time is spent in engineering education learning how to design, but the majority is spent on analysis.
For example, if you are building a bridge or airplane you need engineering because it's not realistic to build something that "looks" right, and then test it and hope it works. But, if you are building a hand held tool or consumer product, where if it failed during testing nobody would get hurt, it may be good enough to design, build, and test it without engineering.
I'm not familiar enough with software development to know if engineering by this definition is involved.
My main calipers and micrometer are Starrett analogs. I like not having to replace the battery or having the value jump if your battery is low. I bought them for myself when I graduated college about 20 years ago. They cost about $400 today.
The passengers on the 4th plane on 9/11 are the first. Planes are done. Crews and Passengers were taught to cooperate with hijackers. That's all over. To stop 9/11 all that would have been required is a declaration not to cooperate with terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way to tell what ingredients will do to an individual. I love peanuts, they are a cheap source or protein for me. They also cause massive allergic reactions and death for some people.
So just make sure if something has peanuts in it that it's labeled.
You could also live in the polar craters of Mercury.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
When I started in Engineering some of my friends decided to become contractors. They would typically make about twice my pay when they had work. The temp agencies they worked for took a cut and provides the benefits like health insurance. Of course this was 20 years ago so it was easy to find a cheap high deductible policy before they were banned.
Back 20 years ago 3 or 4 people would buy a hose or large apartment together and split the rent with each taking a bedroom. It was way cheaper than 3 or 4 single apartments and you would share the common space. Does that still exist?
You misspelled communism.
People voluntarily taking a risk with their own money with the hopes of a return is the definition of "the market".
Just saw this article.
https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...
It's these types of advances that would have happened a lot sooner had the anti-nuke crowd not slowed things down so severely.
Those costs are due to the same factors described above. First if you breed fuel you have much much less waste. And when you decommission a reactor it's only a big deal because people are afraid for no reason. Bundle it up and store it. The technical costs are not that much. It's the legal and regulatory costs.
Well I mean you don't want to stop CO2 emissions. If you let it go too low all life dies. In fact the industrial revolution probably saved the planet from mass extinction. The pre-industrial level was 280 ppm but the lowest it was during a recent glaciation at 180 ppm. It looks like with the Earth cooling volcanic activity is decreasing which releases less CO2. Crop plants start dying at around 150 ppm and really thrive at 2000 ppm which is why greenhouses use CO2 generators because the plants will use up the CO2 quickly. Luckily, humans came along and started burning fossil fuels so prevent the next ice age.
The just flat our refuse all evidence, even with the worst case scenarios accidents at Chernobyl and Fukashima, the millions of lives saved by using nuclear power. And this is with the handicap their efforts have wrought by preventing the adoption of new designs and technology to the point where we are planning on running reactors until they are 80 years old. Imagine if we were on 6th or 7th generation reactors? Imagine if we were allowed to use breeder reactors? Nobody would be talking about using fossil fuels for electricity production.
All deaths and harm from side effects could be eliminated if we banned all drugs. But then there would be more deaths and misery due to diseases left untreated. I still see a role for the FDA where they would still test and publish results. But it would ultimately be up to the patient to decide what compounds to take. I personally don't take drugs that haven't been around for 50 years. But I'm relatively healthy. If I had some nasty cancer or infection that wasn't responding to established drugs I would be more and more likely to try newer and riskier drugs.
Nature already polluted all of this sand with oil. All the oil companies are doing is removing the oil leaving nice clean sand behind.
I don't see the logic behind rewarding irresponsible people when they irresponsibly have children and expecting the kids to somehow turn out responsible. If someone is temporarily poor that's one thing. But if you are a single mom without a job and no prospect of ever having work or a husband the right thing to do if you can't afford the child is to give it up for adoption so it can be raised by responsible people. That way nobody has kids they can't afford just to get a bigger check and those that are infertile but responsible can easily get kids.
Use this.
https://code.google.com/p/line...
No. You still have the choice of only taking drugs that have proven effective in double blind studies. Just like I don't take supplements because I haven't seen the data showing effectiveness. But it would solve problems like in this article. You could develop your new antibiotic. Most people would take the proven ones until they didn't work. Now instead of hundreds of thousands of people dying they could try these new ones. They are given back their freedom to control what goes in their body.
And the best part is my tax money isn't wasted on regulating voluntary action between a concenting adults.
But you are just fine with all of the helpful drugs that never get made?
How is a drug maker to know if you are going to have a bad reaction? Should you be able to sue Jif if you are allergic to peanuts?
The burden in drug companies is too high. Biology is too complex. If peanuts were a drug they wouldn't get approved because too many people have bad reactions, but they are perfectly safe for others.
All a drug company should need to do is disclose what the drug contains and be liable for fraud if it deviates from this.
We have this argument in the mechanical world. The act of creating something is called design. This is the act of conceiving of something and bringing it into reality. Engineering is the act of using science and math to predict if the design will work before it's tested. My reasoning for this distinction is that very little time is spent in engineering education learning how to design, but the majority is spent on analysis.
For example, if you are building a bridge or airplane you need engineering because it's not realistic to build something that "looks" right, and then test it and hope it works. But, if you are building a hand held tool or consumer product, where if it failed during testing nobody would get hurt, it may be good enough to design, build, and test it without engineering.
I'm not familiar enough with software development to know if engineering by this definition is involved.
In the US it is only required to state the number of people in your house for purposes of allocating representatives to the House.
Since when has evidence mattered to socialists? If a couple hundred million dead hasn't convinced them I don't think a long form will.
My main calipers and micrometer are Starrett analogs. I like not having to replace the battery or having the value jump if your battery is low. I bought them for myself when I graduated college about 20 years ago. They cost about $400 today.
The glass cracked on an impact tester. Steel dents.
That depends on the steel. High strength steels have yield strengths very close to their ultimate strengths and tend to crack and not dent.
The passengers on the 4th plane on 9/11 are the first. Planes are done. Crews and Passengers were taught to cooperate with hijackers. That's all over. To stop 9/11 all that would have been required is a declaration not to cooperate with terrorists.