They don't work? Was there a terrorist act in Canada that the laws failed to prevent? No. We prevented the terrorist act without using laws that destroy freedom.
Remember GM crops were replacing insecticide sprays, far less bugs (earthworms, frogs, fish, etc.) are killed. Actually, the BT toxins are incredibly specific to small families of bugs. There are separate types of BT toxin for strains of caterpillars, beetles, etc. So bees would not be affected, UNLIKE previous pesticides.
The whole monarch thing is a straw man argument that misses the point. Monarch larva close enough to be exposed to a rapidly degrading, natural pesticide in pollen were going to be killed by pesticide sprays anyway, along with beneficial insects like lady bugs. Environmentally, GM crops can be a huge benefit.
Now a real concern might be the overuse of BT toxin, which would result in pest resistance. BT is one of the only effective pesticides available to organic farmers. Normally, it breaks down too quickly for bugs to develop resistance but the constant presence in GM crops creates an environment that better selects for resistance.
The very scientist who first proposed the global cooling (in his first publication) reversed that opinion several years later and published a correction. He stated that his calculations had undervalued the contribution of CO2. The media may have reacted to global cooling and global warming similarily, but the scientic community never had a significant consensus about global cooling. Note that the current belief is that we would be in a cooling period if not for greenhouse gases emitted.
And a TLD makes it easier to find, how is it a bad idea again?
What does a TLD have to do with finding porn, or anything else? Are you gong to make a list of words, append.xxx, and type them into your address bar: aardvark.xxx,.... zygote.xxx?
Why not? It's a game I already played with does_this_deviant_site_exist.com
Without patents there would be no AIDS drugs for Africa OR the first world. Not many people are willing to put up 500 million dollars without getting any advantage over the competition. They would invest in something else. Scientists need to eat too, so they would get other jobs. You would need something like government funding for all drug research.
Africa should just go the route of other nations like Brazil (or the early USA) and ignore the patents for drugs. They were never going to afford the drugs anyway, so these aren't lost sales. Since it's patented, they can see how to do it.
Patents obviously do provide incentives in some situations, just not all of them. The entire reason for the creation of the patents was that it created more innovation in society.
Quantum mechanics in biological systems are typically done with QM/MM, where the "QM" is semi-EMPIRICAL, i.e., it takes parameters. These methods and parameters were NOT designed with biological systems in mind. They were chosen to reproduce small molecule heats of formation. People have found that they work poorly for biological studies unless they are reparametrized (quite frankly, you need to know "the answer" in order to get "the answer" "right") or unless other post-priori, ad hoc corrections are applied.
By the sounds of it, you are just parameterizing yourself practically back to MM with fudged factors to allow bond-breaking etc. Are you saying QM/MM cannot be used to predict an enzyme mechanism? Is this a limit of current quantum theory or a limit because of calculation times? I'd appreciate any good recent references.
The 1918 flu was also noteworthy because people with the healthiest immune systems died fastest. The old, young and immune compromised people did not tend to die from it, unlike the typical flu.
Bike U-locks had a defect and could be picked easily with a ball point pen. Informing people helps everyone. Informing no one helps bike thieves because they are the kind of people who find out these things and inform each other about them.
Why is this difficult to understand?
As for all the "doing something you shouldn't" bullshit, it's innocent until proven guilty. When did people become so terrified of freedom.
There's been less research on both. Pharmaceutical companies have been finding it a better return on investment to advertize the drugs they have than find new ones. Also, governments have been slashing scientific research funding.
By your logic nothing would ever be cured. Besides it makes no sense. If I find a cure for cancer I can charge 10X as much as is made over the entire total treatment times and I bet the patient will still choose the cure.
Anything that lives a long time has problems with cancers, as just breathing oxygen is carcinogenic. This is also why it seems like everything causes more cancer in rats. Rats have short lifespans and do not have as many defences against cancer as longer lived species
Creating embryos for stem cell research was rejected. Using existing stem cells that were going to be destroyed anyway was stopped by Bush. If you actually cared about embryos, why not prevent fertility clinics from creating excess embryos in the first place? If you actually think about it, this stance is hypocritical. You won't stop fertility clinics from creating excess embryos (which would cost them more money) but you will insist on killing those embryos rather than possibly be used to save or improve lives. Virtually none of these embryos are adopted, but if you cared you could adopt as many as possible to save them from research. Instead, right now embryos are being incinerated as medical waste.
Adoption is incredibly rare. Most embryos are just incinerated as medical waste. If Bush actually cared, he could have stopped fertility clinics from making excess embryos in the first place.
Being skeptical of global warming is somewhat legit. The science isn't very well established yet. With weather being a chaotic system, basically what's been proved is that it cannot be predicted. You are right that this is being over-hyped.
A few things to note though:
Ten years ago the debate was wether global warming existed or not. Now its wether the global warming is man-made or not. Many more climate scientists believe in global warming now, than did ten years ago.
There has basically been one very drastic change in the variables that effect climate. That is CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels.
For a sane view of enviromental issues check out Patrick Moore's page www.greenspirit.com. Remember that this is one of the founders of Greenpeace who is now so critical of it.
As for debating evolution - that's just crap. Almost no theory in science has had that level of predictive ability or evidence backing it up. It is one of the BEST estabilished theories in science. There has never been a serious bias against creationism (or ID as it evolved into once micro-evolution became too obviously established). The problem is creationism never contributes any real science.
There is still a basic limit to productivity. The methods you discuss could raise the GDP. Let's say all the students, unemployed, etc become productive enough to do all the distributing, governing, food production, etc. That lets every person currently working now devote themselves to the cause. In this case the equivalent of the GDP is devoted to the project. If the project takes more than the GDP in cost, it means after everyone gave all their effort, there will still be work to do. See?
On a personal level think of it this way. If I tell you to build a car in 5 minutes, you will not be able to regardless of how hard you try. You have a maximum productivity level.
Yes. Just like my vote (and the others who voted alike) for Nader made the Bush administration pay attention to the things I care about. Sorry. It doesn't work like that.
Bush saw bigger advantage in going the other way. With all the crap like big governments, fiscal irresponsibility, erosion of freedom, etc. you would think Republicans would turn on him. But they're afraid of 'throwing away' their votes. This lets him focus on catering to religous nutjobs etc. who would change votes. Really, how else can politician respond if they want to get into power?
If you think music is absurdly priced don't buy it. If enough people agree, then the market will reduce their prices. If you don't like the way the free market economy works, go start the revolution.
The revolution started with Napster. You may have noticed the popularity of file trading. That is a market response. Like you said, the logical response would be to lower prices or try to raise the cost of pirating by lawsuits, etc.
CDs cost much the same as they did 20 years ago. In real terms that's one hell of a price reduction. So what exactly is your point??
I'll sell you my computer from twenty years ago for the same price I paid. In real terms that's one hell of a price reduction. Are you getting ripped off? Production costs have dropped much more than inflation for certain things. 15 years ago it cost me $20 to copy a CD. Now it costs me less than a dollar.
My point is simple. If you charge $10000 per CD everyone will pirate. If you charge a quarter, no one will. Production and distribution costs for music have dropped significantly (and much more than inflation), so music COULD be produced and distributed cheaply enough for piracy to be unappealing to the vast majority and still pay artists. Pirated copies do have a 'cost' in terms of time, effort, quality, morality and legality. This is not an unwinnable battle against zero cost.
The squalid conditions of the trenches with people from around the world likely led to the development of the this flu, but that is not the reason for the large number of young people killed. This strain was more deadly to people with healthy immune systems than children and the elderly (yes, that is unusual). I forget if this was because it triggered a hyper immune response or was attacking the immune system itself.
The flu is a very rapidly mutating virus, which is why vaccines are only effective for a short time. (It's a similar problem with HIV.) In comparison, AIDS is of low danger because it is difficult to transmit. The point is that this can be a big danger if it is ignored.
The flu is a real threat. The spanish flu of 1918 killed more people than the first world war. It killed healthy young adults quickly, which is what makes it so worrying.
Many people catch the flu every year despite better hygiene. Now imagine if half of them died.
Besides, the flu can live in other animals like birds and swine. The virus can spread through these carriers, then infect and kill people. As it has done before.
Seriously, I wonder if there could be evidence of organisms tolerant of saltier conditions if all that ice left the remaining water saltier.
The oceans have been getting saltier, as rain disolves more salt and washes it into the oceans. This was the time that multicelled organisms first appeared. Blood is about as salty as the oceans were at the time, from this heritage.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't work? Was there a terrorist act in Canada that the laws failed to prevent?
No. We prevented the terrorist act without using laws that destroy freedom.
Remember GM crops were replacing insecticide sprays, far less bugs (earthworms, frogs, fish, etc.) are killed. Actually, the BT toxins are incredibly specific to small families of bugs. There are separate types of BT toxin for strains of caterpillars, beetles, etc. So bees would not be affected, UNLIKE previous pesticides.
The whole monarch thing is a straw man argument that misses the point. Monarch larva close enough to be exposed to a rapidly degrading, natural pesticide in pollen were going to be killed by pesticide sprays anyway, along with beneficial insects like lady bugs. Environmentally, GM crops can be a huge benefit.
Now a real concern might be the overuse of BT toxin, which would result in pest resistance. BT is one of the only effective pesticides available to organic farmers. Normally, it breaks down too quickly for bugs to develop resistance but the constant presence in GM crops creates an environment that better selects for resistance.
It's a similar problem here in British Columbia with pine beetles destroying all the forest. Normally they're numbers were controlled by cold winters.
The very scientist who first proposed the global cooling (in his first publication) reversed that opinion several years later and published a correction. He stated that his calculations had undervalued the contribution of CO2. The media may have reacted to global cooling and global warming similarily, but the scientic community never had a significant consensus about global cooling. Note that the current belief is that we would be in a cooling period if not for greenhouse gases emitted.
What does a TLD have to do with finding porn, or anything else? Are you gong to make a list of words, append .xxx, and type them into your address bar: aardvark.xxx,.... zygote.xxx?
Why not? It's a game I already played with does_this_deviant_site_exist.comWithout patents there would be no AIDS drugs for Africa OR the first world. Not many people are willing to put up 500 million dollars without getting any advantage over the competition. They would invest in something else. Scientists need to eat too, so they would get other jobs. You would need something like government funding for all drug research.
Africa should just go the route of other nations like Brazil (or the early USA) and ignore the patents for drugs. They were never going to afford the drugs anyway, so these aren't lost sales. Since it's patented, they can see how to do it.
Patents obviously do provide incentives in some situations, just not all of them. The entire reason for the creation of the patents was that it created more innovation in society.
By the sounds of it, you are just parameterizing yourself practically back to MM with fudged factors to allow bond-breaking etc. Are you saying QM/MM cannot be used to predict an enzyme mechanism? Is this a limit of current quantum theory or a limit because of calculation times? I'd appreciate any good recent references.
The 1918 flu was also noteworthy because people with the healthiest immune systems died fastest. The old, young and immune compromised people did not tend to die from it, unlike the typical flu.
Bike U-locks had a defect and could be picked easily with a ball point pen. Informing people helps everyone. Informing no one helps bike thieves because they are the kind of people who find out these things and inform each other about them.
Why is this difficult to understand?
As for all the "doing something you shouldn't" bullshit, it's innocent until proven guilty. When did people become so terrified of freedom.
There's been less research on both. Pharmaceutical companies have been finding it a better return on investment to advertize the drugs they have than find new ones. Also, governments have been slashing scientific research funding.
By your logic nothing would ever be cured. Besides it makes no sense. If I find a cure for cancer I can charge 10X as much as is made over the entire total treatment times and I bet the patient will still choose the cure.
Anything that lives a long time has problems with cancers, as just breathing oxygen is carcinogenic. This is also why it seems like everything causes more cancer in rats. Rats have short lifespans and do not have as many defences against cancer as longer lived species
Creating embryos for stem cell research was rejected. Using existing stem cells that were going to be destroyed anyway was stopped by Bush. If you actually cared about embryos, why not prevent fertility clinics from creating excess embryos in the first place? If you actually think about it, this stance is hypocritical. You won't stop fertility clinics from creating excess embryos (which would cost them more money) but you will insist on killing those embryos rather than possibly be used to save or improve lives. Virtually none of these embryos are adopted, but if you cared you could adopt as many as possible to save them from research. Instead, right now embryos are being incinerated as medical waste.
Far too many executed "murderers" were later proven innocent.
Adoption is incredibly rare. Most embryos are just incinerated as medical waste. If Bush actually cared, he could have stopped fertility clinics from making excess embryos in the first place.
As I understand it, post secondary education has been completely free for the past 200 years.
www.greenspirit.com
Being skeptical of global warming is somewhat legit. The science isn't very well established yet. With weather being a chaotic system, basically what's been proved is that it cannot be predicted. You are right that this is being over-hyped.
A few things to note though:
Ten years ago the debate was wether global warming existed or not. Now its wether the global warming is man-made or not. Many more climate scientists believe in global warming now, than did ten years ago.
There has basically been one very drastic change in the variables that effect climate. That is CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels.
For a sane view of enviromental issues check out Patrick Moore's page www.greenspirit.com. Remember that this is one of the founders of Greenpeace who is now so critical of it.
As for debating evolution - that's just crap. Almost no theory in science has had that level of predictive ability or evidence backing it up. It is one of the BEST estabilished theories in science. There has never been a serious bias against creationism (or ID as it evolved into once micro-evolution became too obviously established). The problem is creationism never contributes any real science.
Strange logic given that mophine, heroine, cocain and meth-amphetamine can be legally prescribed. Or more, no logic all show.
There is still a basic limit to productivity. The methods you discuss could raise the GDP. Let's say all the students, unemployed, etc become productive enough to do all the distributing, governing, food production, etc. That lets every person currently working now devote themselves to the cause. In this case the equivalent of the GDP is devoted to the project. If the project takes more than the GDP in cost, it means after everyone gave all their effort, there will still be work to do. See? On a personal level think of it this way. If I tell you to build a car in 5 minutes, you will not be able to regardless of how hard you try. You have a maximum productivity level.
Bush saw bigger advantage in going the other way. With all the crap like big governments, fiscal irresponsibility, erosion of freedom, etc. you would think Republicans would turn on him. But they're afraid of 'throwing away' their votes. This lets him focus on catering to religous nutjobs etc. who would change votes. Really, how else can politician respond if they want to get into power?
The revolution started with Napster. You may have noticed the popularity of file trading. That is a market response. Like you said, the logical response would be to lower prices or try to raise the cost of pirating by lawsuits, etc.
CDs cost much the same as they did 20 years ago. In real terms that's one hell of a price reduction. So what exactly is your point??
I'll sell you my computer from twenty years ago for the same price I paid. In real terms that's one hell of a price reduction. Are you getting ripped off? Production costs have dropped much more than inflation for certain things. 15 years ago it cost me $20 to copy a CD. Now it costs me less than a dollar.
My point is simple. If you charge $10000 per CD everyone will pirate. If you charge a quarter, no one will. Production and distribution costs for music have dropped significantly (and much more than inflation), so music COULD be produced and distributed cheaply enough for piracy to be unappealing to the vast majority and still pay artists. Pirated copies do have a 'cost' in terms of time, effort, quality, morality and legality. This is not an unwinnable battle against zero cost.
The flu is a very rapidly mutating virus, which is why vaccines are only effective for a short time. (It's a similar problem with HIV.) In comparison, AIDS is of low danger because it is difficult to transmit. The point is that this can be a big danger if it is ignored.
The look different, act different and have different abilities. They are a separate species but closely related. Like coyotes and wolves.
Many people catch the flu every year despite better hygiene. Now imagine if half of them died.
Besides, the flu can live in other animals like birds and swine. The virus can spread through these carriers, then infect and kill people. As it has done before.
The oceans have been getting saltier, as rain disolves more salt and washes it into the oceans. This was the time that multicelled organisms first appeared. Blood is about as salty as the oceans were at the time, from this heritage.