I just wanted to sound off about the "horror" of people flying in flip-flops. Everybody should be doing it. It is dumb that security insists that you take your shoes off, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for it.
Flip-flops are the quickest way through security. Get over it. If wearing them bugs you, have a pair of shoes in your carry-on. Nothing drives me more crazy than seeing someone who is unprepared to get through security. Some guy who has a laptop in a case, wearing a big metal watch, with a big belt buckle still strapped to his waist as he tries to walk through the scanner. Security is the biggest bottleneck in the whole flying situation. Why aren't you doing everything you can to breeze through it? There are notices everywhere about what to expect!
Actually, the difference between DLC and a patch is a that a patch is supposed to fix and DLC is supposed to add. I liked the Bioware DLC for Dragons Age. It wasn't a part of the story, but it added to it.
I disagree with the grandparent's stance that aesthetic genetic engineering is morally wrong, but he is correct about bringing the rich into this. When a new feature for cars comes out (like anti-lock brakes), the high-end cars get them first. It takes a couple of years for the improvement to trickle down to the rest of us (about 10 years for ABS). Don't be mistaken, it will be the same for designer babies. In fact, I think it has already started. Substitute the word test for the word feature and you can already see the similarity between car features and babies. New tests for fetuses are being developed all the time to find defects and correct issues. There are "experiments" being done right now to "correct" babies with intersex issues.
Economic stratification is becoming an issue in the United States. The paranoid, pessimistic predictions (paranoia and pessimism doesn't automatically make a prediction improbable) see that stratification becoming more pronounced, with a deep divide between the rich and the poor. With fetal engineering, rather than talking about whether or not to get a car with a sunroof, we are talking about how many IQ points we can afford. So the wealthy will not only be richer, but they will be born far beyond what the average person could ever be. The basis of the American Dream is that anyone can make it. Fetal engineering is the death of that dream.
It will never occur to the cat that it doesn't need to kill the mouse. Vat-grown meat and vegetarianism has occurred to us. I feel that our intelligence and tool-making allows us choices.
Another take on your original question, which just occurred to me, is this: we are going to kill them and eat them. That is really awful for them, but some would argue it is a biological necessity for us to do so. They are going to die for us, so can't we do something for them, like spare them as much pain as possible?
We aren't asking you to "bow down" to us. We are making you stop hurting us. The second we can live our life "like all the heterosexuals do," we'll stop bothering you. Asshole.
Nothing pisses me of more than idiots' casual linkage of bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality and gender identity. There is nothing arbitrary about homosexuality=good, bestiality=bad. Sex needs consent. Having sex with something that cannot give consent is wrong, it is rape. Children and animals cannot consent. That makes it wrong. (It is also disgusting, but that is a cultural taboo. Taboos are not necessarily right or wrong.) Stop comparing homosexuality to bestiality.
Lol, I don't understand logic? Why would you attack me like that? It is uncalled for. Let me try again. As I tried to make clear in my previous comment, this entire comment tree has nothing to do with Watt's paper. It has nothing to do with proving or disproving the hypothesis he has set out. The original comment was an ad hominem, but made the mistake of saying that Watts was a meteorologist. The second comment pointed out the mistake. Then you stated that the correction was, in fact, an attack, when it was a correction of an attack. Not the same thing.
I am enjoying this comment (#40829841) BTW, where you accuse me of not understanding logic, while in the next breath using a false equivalence. Anthony Watts is not equivalent to James Hansen. James Hansen (from Wikipedia) "obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967."
Anthony Watts has no record of any formal education beyond high school. Here is a link to his own webpage which has no mention of education nor, when asked directly, has he stated that he has graduated from anywhere.
What is fact and what is attack? Is it the phrasing? The OP said that Anthony Watts was a meteorologist (as part of an attack that boiled down to Watts being small fry bought and paid for by the Heartland Institute). The child post, which we are debating, simply pointed out that 'meteorologist' is factually incorrect. It is a fact that Anthony Watts has record of formal science training in any field.
Look, I was going to argue with you, but honestly I'm tired. Every response I've given, I have sources for. You just repeat that I'm wrong and I haven't read the details. Tell me then, what am I missing?
Actually, I kind of assumed you weren't, when you said "direct deaths," trying to mean people who died during research. It didn't make sense to me. Yes, the only people to die due to direct exposure to radioactive materials were on government facilities, but, you know, working on experimental equipment, with experiments. So you were comparing experiments to what would be the nuclear equivalent of the Hoover Dam. (I can't find the right word for it, something built and run by the government to be used by the public.) IMO, I admit, IMO, a government run experimental nuclear reactor is not equivalent to a government run grid-powering nuclear reactor. That is why I included all fatalities. I would expect people to die during nuclear research, like I would during experimental airplane testing. You may disagree with my reasoning.
What are you talking about? It took me 30 secs on Google to find out that isn't true. Power plants of any stripe are dangerous to work in, there are going to be fatalities.
You know, that is an awesome idea. Make it an optional charity thing like McDonald's does. At the check-out page have a box saying "Do you want to contribute to the Amazon Education fund?" At worst, it would produce some interesting statistics about generosity.
And before I see anyone else do it, I'll bring up unions. This is why they were spread across an entire occupation. That way, no matter where a company went to hire a professional 'X', the company would have to pay the same. To offer lower prices, the company would have to focus on making their processes cheaper, rather than come up with more creative ways to screw their employees. (I say more creative, but it always comes down to more work for less pay.)
Actually, something does prevent me from using treatment when I need it. The cost. Testicular cancer treatment (I don't have it, I just need a specific example.) is around $85,000. I'm a student, I made about $10,000 last year and most of it was sunk into books, food, and housing. I'm never going to have $170,000 lying around. (double the amount because, what if it comes back? My grandmother died that way. Beat breast cancer once and it came back before she even had a chance to recover from the first bout.) You can argue that I should have that much stashed away or since I don't have that kind of money I should just lay down and die, but where are those arguments going to get you?
Actually, there is no international standard. There are several international organizations that have recommended levels, but there is no true standard. The American NRC recommends no more than 5 rems per year whereas the new standard in Japan is 25 rems. This was done by the government, so your point about TEPCO is unrelated to what I was saying. Also, if the corporately-corrupt US government says that 5 rems is dangerous, what do you think the true danger level is?
I also read an article in the July issue of Popular Science that says that right after the disaster, the Japanese government doubled the amount they listed as the "safe" amount of radiation per year. I would love it if we started switching to the micro nuke power plants, but how can we? The world governments' first reaction to a nuclear disaster is to lie and cover up.
Because I have better things to be doing. (Like posting on Slashdot.) The problem with self-reliance is that it requires you to be an expert at everything you do. Not just proficient, but an expert. If the healthcare company includes a screw-you clause and you miss it, then you are screwed. Think of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The insurance companies sold many people hurricane insurance. A lot of people lost their houses to the storm surge, which the insurance claimed was "flood damage" and, if you didn't have flood insurance, you were out of luck.
I started Googling and what I found is that some scientists have been playing with graphite and compressing it. They found that, at room temperature and high pressures, graphite goes from black to colorless and becomes very hard. They lacked the ability to determine the precise structure of the super hard carbon. They just knew it wasn't diamond.
Around the same time, some theoretical mineral physicists came up with some math that says that carbon can have any number of forms with different properties and configurations. These configurations were labeled with letters, lacking any pattern I can discern. (Maybe they labeled an initial list and then began disqualifying configurations?)
The article in the summary essentially is saying that they have linked the 2 bits of data and have determined that the super hard carbon is in fact the M carbon. Nothing I have found gives us any information on the duration of the M carbon once the pressure is removed or any properties of M carbon, except that the hardness is greater than diamond's. I guess we'll have to read the paper.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wanted to sound off about the "horror" of people flying in flip-flops. Everybody should be doing it. It is dumb that security insists that you take your shoes off, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't plan for it.
Flip-flops are the quickest way through security. Get over it. If wearing them bugs you, have a pair of shoes in your carry-on. Nothing drives me more crazy than seeing someone who is unprepared to get through security. Some guy who has a laptop in a case, wearing a big metal watch, with a big belt buckle still strapped to his waist as he tries to walk through the scanner. Security is the biggest bottleneck in the whole flying situation. Why aren't you doing everything you can to breeze through it? There are notices everywhere about what to expect!
That is an amusing point. And you could point to the inbreeding of the old royal family as evidence that supports it.
I'm curious. What example?
Actually, the difference between DLC and a patch is a that a patch is supposed to fix and DLC is supposed to add. I liked the Bioware DLC for Dragons Age. It wasn't a part of the story, but it added to it.
I disagree with the grandparent's stance that aesthetic genetic engineering is morally wrong, but he is correct about bringing the rich into this. When a new feature for cars comes out (like anti-lock brakes), the high-end cars get them first. It takes a couple of years for the improvement to trickle down to the rest of us (about 10 years for ABS). Don't be mistaken, it will be the same for designer babies. In fact, I think it has already started. Substitute the word test for the word feature and you can already see the similarity between car features and babies. New tests for fetuses are being developed all the time to find defects and correct issues. There are "experiments" being done right now to "correct" babies with intersex issues.
Economic stratification is becoming an issue in the United States. The paranoid, pessimistic predictions (paranoia and pessimism doesn't automatically make a prediction improbable) see that stratification becoming more pronounced, with a deep divide between the rich and the poor. With fetal engineering, rather than talking about whether or not to get a car with a sunroof, we are talking about how many IQ points we can afford. So the wealthy will not only be richer, but they will be born far beyond what the average person could ever be. The basis of the American Dream is that anyone can make it. Fetal engineering is the death of that dream.
It will never occur to the cat that it doesn't need to kill the mouse. Vat-grown meat and vegetarianism has occurred to us. I feel that our intelligence and tool-making allows us choices.
Another take on your original question, which just occurred to me, is this: we are going to kill them and eat them. That is really awful for them, but some would argue it is a biological necessity for us to do so. They are going to die for us, so can't we do something for them, like spare them as much pain as possible?
Is the fact that you can legally kill an animal a indication that bestiality should be okay or is it a sign that the human race can do better?
You hurt us, you kill us. You silence us, you torture us. You deny us basic human rights.
We aren't asking you to "bow down" to us. We are making you stop hurting us. The second we can live our life "like all the heterosexuals do," we'll stop bothering you. Asshole.
Nothing pisses me of more than idiots' casual linkage of bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality and gender identity. There is nothing arbitrary about homosexuality=good, bestiality=bad. Sex needs consent. Having sex with something that cannot give consent is wrong, it is rape. Children and animals cannot consent. That makes it wrong. (It is also disgusting, but that is a cultural taboo. Taboos are not necessarily right or wrong.) Stop comparing homosexuality to bestiality.
Ouch. Now what, CubicleZombie?
Lol, I don't understand logic? Why would you attack me like that? It is uncalled for. Let me try again. As I tried to make clear in my previous comment, this entire comment tree has nothing to do with Watt's paper. It has nothing to do with proving or disproving the hypothesis he has set out. The original comment was an ad hominem, but made the mistake of saying that Watts was a meteorologist. The second comment pointed out the mistake. Then you stated that the correction was, in fact, an attack, when it was a correction of an attack. Not the same thing.
I am enjoying this comment (#40829841) BTW, where you accuse me of not understanding logic, while in the next breath using a false equivalence. Anthony Watts is not equivalent to James Hansen. James Hansen (from Wikipedia) "obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967."
Anthony Watts has no record of any formal education beyond high school. Here is a link to his own webpage which has no mention of education nor, when asked directly, has he stated that he has graduated from anywhere.
Do you really not see the difference?
D'Oh! It is supposed to say 'no record of formal science training in any field.' Sorry.
What is fact and what is attack? Is it the phrasing? The OP said that Anthony Watts was a meteorologist (as part of an attack that boiled down to Watts being small fry bought and paid for by the Heartland Institute). The child post, which we are debating, simply pointed out that 'meteorologist' is factually incorrect. It is a fact that Anthony Watts has record of formal science training in any field.
Look, I was going to argue with you, but honestly I'm tired. Every response I've given, I have sources for. You just repeat that I'm wrong and I haven't read the details. Tell me then, what am I missing?
Actually, I kind of assumed you weren't, when you said "direct deaths," trying to mean people who died during research. It didn't make sense to me. Yes, the only people to die due to direct exposure to radioactive materials were on government facilities, but, you know, working on experimental equipment, with experiments. So you were comparing experiments to what would be the nuclear equivalent of the Hoover Dam. (I can't find the right word for it, something built and run by the government to be used by the public.) IMO, I admit, IMO, a government run experimental nuclear reactor is not equivalent to a government run grid-powering nuclear reactor. That is why I included all fatalities. I would expect people to die during nuclear research, like I would during experimental airplane testing. You may disagree with my reasoning.
What are you talking about? It took me 30 secs on Google to find out that isn't true. Power plants of any stripe are dangerous to work in, there are going to be fatalities.
And what make you feel awful is you knew what was going on, had it happen to you, and you said nothing. Because you really need this job...
Without a single example to prove otherwise. LOL
You know, that is an awesome idea. Make it an optional charity thing like McDonald's does. At the check-out page have a box saying "Do you want to contribute to the Amazon Education fund?" At worst, it would produce some interesting statistics about generosity.
And before I see anyone else do it, I'll bring up unions. This is why they were spread across an entire occupation. That way, no matter where a company went to hire a professional 'X', the company would have to pay the same. To offer lower prices, the company would have to focus on making their processes cheaper, rather than come up with more creative ways to screw their employees. (I say more creative, but it always comes down to more work for less pay.)
Which is a government healthcare system...
Actually, something does prevent me from using treatment when I need it. The cost. Testicular cancer treatment (I don't have it, I just need a specific example.) is around $85,000. I'm a student, I made about $10,000 last year and most of it was sunk into books, food, and housing. I'm never going to have $170,000 lying around. (double the amount because, what if it comes back? My grandmother died that way. Beat breast cancer once and it came back before she even had a chance to recover from the first bout.) You can argue that I should have that much stashed away or since I don't have that kind of money I should just lay down and die, but where are those arguments going to get you?
Actually, there is no international standard. There are several international organizations that have recommended levels, but there is no true standard. The American NRC recommends no more than 5 rems per year whereas the new standard in Japan is 25 rems. This was done by the government, so your point about TEPCO is unrelated to what I was saying. Also, if the corporately-corrupt US government says that 5 rems is dangerous, what do you think the true danger level is?
I also read an article in the July issue of Popular Science that says that right after the disaster, the Japanese government doubled the amount they listed as the "safe" amount of radiation per year.
I would love it if we started switching to the micro nuke power plants, but how can we? The world governments' first reaction to a nuclear disaster is to lie and cover up.
Because I have better things to be doing. (Like posting on Slashdot.) The problem with self-reliance is that it requires you to be an expert at everything you do. Not just proficient, but an expert. If the healthcare company includes a screw-you clause and you miss it, then you are screwed. Think of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The insurance companies sold many people hurricane insurance. A lot of people lost their houses to the storm surge, which the insurance claimed was "flood damage" and, if you didn't have flood insurance, you were out of luck.
I started Googling and what I found is that some scientists have been playing with graphite and compressing it. They found that, at room temperature and high pressures, graphite goes from black to colorless and becomes very hard. They lacked the ability to determine the precise structure of the super hard carbon. They just knew it wasn't diamond.
Around the same time, some theoretical mineral physicists came up with some math that says that carbon can have any number of forms with different properties and configurations. These configurations were labeled with letters, lacking any pattern I can discern. (Maybe they labeled an initial list and then began disqualifying configurations?)
The article in the summary essentially is saying that they have linked the 2 bits of data and have determined that the super hard carbon is in fact the M carbon. Nothing I have found gives us any information on the duration of the M carbon once the pressure is removed or any properties of M carbon, except that the hardness is greater than diamond's. I guess we'll have to read the paper.