Plus all that free anal rape and unending abuse by the mentally disturbed. Sounds like HEAVEN!
I say we just send anyone convicted of a crime to the chair and be done with it. Better yet, maybe we can get Mr. Bonestripper from "Nothing But Trouble" built, and let that handle them all, nice and quick, without any need for appeals.
No one can do that that quickly when woke from a dead sleep. You don't know what you are talking about.
That is, unless you keep the key for the trigger lock in the lock, in which case you are equally negligent. Even then, it would take you at least a minute to do it by feel. If you had to hunt for the key, your whole family would be massacred before you could even get the damn thing unlocked.
I keep a loaded gun right next to my bed with no locks, or any other stupid crap, as has every member of my family for at least three generations (although my grandmother kept a shotgun under the bed rather than a handgun on or in the nightstand). The rest are locked away normally. Children are not allowed into my bedroom at all, and unsupervised children are not allowed in the house.
The people in the article were clearly irresponsible, but to label all gunowners who actually use their guns for self defense as such is just stupid.
Heh, you think that crap is working well, eh? Well, with half of Europe on the verge of going bankrupt (including core EU members Italy and FRANCE!), I hope they had a good time squandering their savings, because they are about to get a hard dose of austerity. The Scandinavians have done well only because they have lots of energy resources, the same reason Chavez hasn't found himself standing on a pile of rubble that used to be a functioning country YET. Of course, the US is just as bad, having spent our way into oblivion on various social programs, and fascist bailouts (I say fascist because they have effectively merged bailed out corporations with the state). The last I heard, the Scandenavians were beginning to transfer back to a capitalist system, but that is going to be hard going.
Yup, we're all going to hell. I hope you've got gold, silver, a stockpile of vital supplies, and/or a marketable skill that will be of value in a third world nation. If you live in the US or Europe, that is exactly where you will be within the next 20 years.
Maybe, but just a bit more will make the world a better place (assuming those models are correct--I don't think they are, as the effect of CO2 on atmospheric heat capacity is net negative when you include atmospheric H2O in your equations), opening up more direct shipping lanes (ie reducing fuel needed for transportation), opening huge swaths of farmland in Canada and Siberia, increasing rainfall in numerous places.
Remember, civilization THRIVED during the Medieval Warm Period, and just barely hung on during the Little Ice Age.
The planet would have to reach a level of heat never before seen on the surface of the planet to make life worse for us than it is now. The real problem is if the Earth COOLS, which has been shown throughout history to coincide with civilization collapse as agricultural production shuts down. THAT is not fun.
Hmm, all that, as opposed to modern hierarchical, war-like, misogynistic, and rigidly bound by social mores that make Victorians look like libertines african farming communities?
Good job on making things up. You apparently have someone convinced.
You see, they have infiltrated the Federal Government. The same crazies (yes, just like in the movie) just happened to get control of places like California and Detroit first. This is not an R or a D problem. Both parties are infected. They talk freedom and civil liberties while they are in the minority, but as soon as they get into power, they start stripping them away at a faster and faster pace, until the whole damn world either cuts them loose, or the whole world collapses back into the Dark Ages.
These are different. Bugs can not develop resistance to this type of antimicrobial because the kill mechanism is direct oxidation, targeted toward a specific protein expressed on the surface of the bug. We can target a protein that contributes to virulence, or find one that can't change easily (many surface proteins are incapable of changing, but can't be easily read by the body's immune system--we don't have that problem).
Further, ours are extraordinarily cheap. Minus regulatory and approval costs, we could make enough to supply the world with a hundred years worth for any given bug for about $200,000, which includes the development costs. It takes us between 2-8 months to develop any given drug. Compliance and regulation increase the costs by 2-3 orders of magnitude, and do it for each and every iteration. They also kill at least 10 years, sometimes as much as 20, before we see any money back.
I'm a scientist, not a business man. It's the business men that stop me from spending more of my time on drug design. They stop me because there is no profit in it, at least not until they can manage to raise enough money to push it through clinical trials. They haven't focused on it yet because we are a small group, and we have made a lot of headway with medical devices that use the same technology to block biofilm growth on the surface.
Take a look at our website, selenbio.com, especially under "Applications" to see where we cured colorectal cancer in mice years ago, but never pursued because of regulatory roadblocks. If you come to one of the lead scientist's talks, you can see the design of the molecule that neutralizes HIV (animal trials were blown away by Katrina, we hope to restart them within the next year).
This class is different, because it is designed to specifically attack those structures on the surface of the bacterium that make them pathogenic. Their evolution is guided toward one in which they do not harm people.
We can also target basic proteins on the surface that can't be changed at all (motifs that are found in ALL strains of a given species). "immunity" in this case would force them to literally evolve into a new species.
If you dropped the regulations, the new class of designer antimicrobials that my company is developing would be on the market right now. They are designed such that immunity to them would make the resultant bug non-pathogenic.
Sadly, government regulations and the money that it takes to over come them have forced us to shift our attention to other applications for our technology.
Yes, computer models are used elsewhere IN CONJUNCTION with empirical observation. Climate scientists screw around with the models to make them match their own pre-conceived ideas of how it should be, which is why they failed to predict the "pause" in the warming trend of the last 15 years, rather predicting skyrocketing temperatures.
Sure there are some open data sources, but most of them are closed and obfuscated. They don't allow anyone they don't like to have access. This is unscientific. I know, as I have had to open up data sources to people I don't like as well. The difference is that I don't try to get their papers blackballed from industry publications. I let the data do the talking, and I don't throw away my original measurements for God's sake. I've got original measurements going back to my first day as a chemist file away neatly in a lab book, and I have filing cabinets in my lab with data going back 50 years. NEVER THROW AWAY DATA.
Show me the algos. I haven't seen any.
You're right, NASA doesn't do real science. They waste money on stupid crap like circle-jerk space stations and unworkable launch systems, and wind up outsourcing to private industry anyways, rather than exploring, like they are supposed to. They USED to do real science, but now all they do is play politics, but at least they aren't asking that we plunge our civilization into darkness to prevent some future catastrophe that may or may not be coming, with any attempts to stop it having no chance of success by their own admission. When you are funded by a government organization that is ITSELF BIASED, then your research is indeed questionable, but if you have all of your data available for review, along with all of the steps you took to reach your conclusion, then and only then is your funding source irrelevant. But when you get your funding from a biased agency, AND you keep your data and methods secret, then you aren't doing science. Period. You are just generating propaganda. Whether it turns out to be true or not. When you stray from the scientific method and corrupt the peer review system as the climatologists have, there is no way to derive meaningful conclusions. You might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
They do not make is less efficiently. We pay for huge amounts of regulatory bureaucracy to keep us free from ourselves.
Considering we now have at least one non-productive government worker for every private sector worker, and a large number of private sector workers who deal with regulatory compliance, our inefficiency is simply stunning. This is why our industrial base has disappeared.
This is the best analogy I've seen for climate science. I myself am a scientist, and any branch of science that relies on computer models, closed source data sources, closed source algorithms, and funding from politicians isn't a branch of science at all. It's a branch of Goldman Sachs!
They also forget to include the carbon cost of creating the more expensive machine. Generally, the cost of a thing is roughly proportional to the energy input that it takes to make it, including everything from the metal to the electricity used to light the homes of the workers to, as you alluded to, the costs of running the bank that made the loan. If it saves money over the long run (including all operating and maintenance costs), then it is more likely to be "greener". If it breaks down all the time, as these appear to, then you have a situation where you have made a huge outlay, consumed HUGE amounts of power, and put HUGE amounts of pollutants into the air, all for nothing.
It seems to me that adult women with small tits would stimulate pedophiles about as much as a man with his genitalia cut off would stimulate heterosexual men.
The size of the breasts is far from the only difference between a child and an adult female. To claim otherwise is, well, par for the course for overbearing, intrusive governments.
Sure, so it was just a coincidence that massive wars, which had been happening about once every twenty years for the last two hundred years in Europe (which expanded around the globe for the last two), just happened to end suddenly when nuclear weapons were developed? You think Russia didn't want to just roll over Europe with it's huge masses of tanks?
And just how many nuclear wars have we had since they were developed? It's been 65 years. If we were going to have one, we would have had it by now. Now everyone knows that war with a nuclear armed nation is a death sentence not only for any armies they send over the border, but likely for huge masses of its own citizenry.
If you make nuclear weapons obsolete, you reopen the door to global total war that was closed at Nagasaki. If nukes can't penetrate the defenses of warring nations, they will be free to send armies across their borders.
Or did you think the world suddenly became more civilized after WWII ended?
I wonder if it's easier to add gas to a planet's atmosphere, or to remove it? If removal is simpler, then Venus could well be a better target. You're not going to be going outside on Mars in shorts and a respirator any time soon, but it might be possible on Venus.
Slashdot Mirror
That is so totally close to saying "No first chances".
No need for a bunch of government thugs to come in and take away his constitutional rights over a momentary lapse of safety, no matter how tragic.
Restrictions on gun ownership for felons is meant to prevent violent crimes, not as a means to prevent people from acting irresponsibly.
Well, enjoy being mugged, beaten, and possibly gay-raped and murdered. Being a good little defenseless citizen will do that to ya.
Plus all that free anal rape and unending abuse by the mentally disturbed. Sounds like HEAVEN!
I say we just send anyone convicted of a crime to the chair and be done with it. Better yet, maybe we can get Mr. Bonestripper from "Nothing But Trouble" built, and let that handle them all, nice and quick, without any need for appeals.
No one can do that that quickly when woke from a dead sleep. You don't know what you are talking about.
That is, unless you keep the key for the trigger lock in the lock, in which case you are equally negligent. Even then, it would take you at least a minute to do it by feel. If you had to hunt for the key, your whole family would be massacred before you could even get the damn thing unlocked.
I keep a loaded gun right next to my bed with no locks, or any other stupid crap, as has every member of my family for at least three generations (although my grandmother kept a shotgun under the bed rather than a handgun on or in the nightstand). The rest are locked away normally. Children are not allowed into my bedroom at all, and unsupervised children are not allowed in the house.
The people in the article were clearly irresponsible, but to label all gunowners who actually use their guns for self defense as such is just stupid.
Heh, you think that crap is working well, eh? Well, with half of Europe on the verge of going bankrupt (including core EU members Italy and FRANCE!), I hope they had a good time squandering their savings, because they are about to get a hard dose of austerity. The Scandinavians have done well only because they have lots of energy resources, the same reason Chavez hasn't found himself standing on a pile of rubble that used to be a functioning country YET. Of course, the US is just as bad, having spent our way into oblivion on various social programs, and fascist bailouts (I say fascist because they have effectively merged bailed out corporations with the state). The last I heard, the Scandenavians were beginning to transfer back to a capitalist system, but that is going to be hard going.
Yup, we're all going to hell. I hope you've got gold, silver, a stockpile of vital supplies, and/or a marketable skill that will be of value in a third world nation. If you live in the US or Europe, that is exactly where you will be within the next 20 years.
FOR ME TO POOP ON! But seriously, this is awesome. I want one for my cabin.
Dirt poor and dead people produce less CO2 ;)
Maybe, but just a bit more will make the world a better place (assuming those models are correct--I don't think they are, as the effect of CO2 on atmospheric heat capacity is net negative when you include atmospheric H2O in your equations), opening up more direct shipping lanes (ie reducing fuel needed for transportation), opening huge swaths of farmland in Canada and Siberia, increasing rainfall in numerous places.
Remember, civilization THRIVED during the Medieval Warm Period, and just barely hung on during the Little Ice Age.
The planet would have to reach a level of heat never before seen on the surface of the planet to make life worse for us than it is now. The real problem is if the Earth COOLS, which has been shown throughout history to coincide with civilization collapse as agricultural production shuts down. THAT is not fun.
Yoda uses completely different grammar, yet we are able to understand him. For the most part, it wouldn't be a problem.
Hmm, all that, as opposed to modern hierarchical, war-like, misogynistic, and rigidly bound by social mores that make Victorians look like libertines african farming communities?
Good job on making things up. You apparently have someone convinced.
Sweet, if that's the case, let's just print a hundred trillion dollars for everyone!
It worked in Zimbabwe, it can work here!
Better watch out, because you're next.
You see, they have infiltrated the Federal Government. The same crazies (yes, just like in the movie) just happened to get control of places like California and Detroit first. This is not an R or a D problem. Both parties are infected. They talk freedom and civil liberties while they are in the minority, but as soon as they get into power, they start stripping them away at a faster and faster pace, until the whole damn world either cuts them loose, or the whole world collapses back into the Dark Ages.
No, Somalia is a great example of local governance run amok. What to you call a sheriff with absolute authority? A warlord.
These are different. Bugs can not develop resistance to this type of antimicrobial because the kill mechanism is direct oxidation, targeted toward a specific protein expressed on the surface of the bug. We can target a protein that contributes to virulence, or find one that can't change easily (many surface proteins are incapable of changing, but can't be easily read by the body's immune system--we don't have that problem).
Further, ours are extraordinarily cheap. Minus regulatory and approval costs, we could make enough to supply the world with a hundred years worth for any given bug for about $200,000, which includes the development costs. It takes us between 2-8 months to develop any given drug. Compliance and regulation increase the costs by 2-3 orders of magnitude, and do it for each and every iteration. They also kill at least 10 years, sometimes as much as 20, before we see any money back.
I'm a scientist, not a business man. It's the business men that stop me from spending more of my time on drug design. They stop me because there is no profit in it, at least not until they can manage to raise enough money to push it through clinical trials. They haven't focused on it yet because we are a small group, and we have made a lot of headway with medical devices that use the same technology to block biofilm growth on the surface.
Take a look at our website, selenbio.com, especially under "Applications" to see where we cured colorectal cancer in mice years ago, but never pursued because of regulatory roadblocks. If you come to one of the lead scientist's talks, you can see the design of the molecule that neutralizes HIV (animal trials were blown away by Katrina, we hope to restart them within the next year).
This class is different, because it is designed to specifically attack those structures on the surface of the bacterium that make them pathogenic. Their evolution is guided toward one in which they do not harm people.
We can also target basic proteins on the surface that can't be changed at all (motifs that are found in ALL strains of a given species). "immunity" in this case would force them to literally evolve into a new species.
If you dropped the regulations, the new class of designer antimicrobials that my company is developing would be on the market right now. They are designed such that immunity to them would make the resultant bug non-pathogenic.
Sadly, government regulations and the money that it takes to over come them have forced us to shift our attention to other applications for our technology.
Yes, computer models are used elsewhere IN CONJUNCTION with empirical observation. Climate scientists screw around with the models to make them match their own pre-conceived ideas of how it should be, which is why they failed to predict the "pause" in the warming trend of the last 15 years, rather predicting skyrocketing temperatures.
Sure there are some open data sources, but most of them are closed and obfuscated. They don't allow anyone they don't like to have access. This is unscientific. I know, as I have had to open up data sources to people I don't like as well. The difference is that I don't try to get their papers blackballed from industry publications. I let the data do the talking, and I don't throw away my original measurements for God's sake. I've got original measurements going back to my first day as a chemist file away neatly in a lab book, and I have filing cabinets in my lab with data going back 50 years. NEVER THROW AWAY DATA.
Show me the algos. I haven't seen any.
You're right, NASA doesn't do real science. They waste money on stupid crap like circle-jerk space stations and unworkable launch systems, and wind up outsourcing to private industry anyways, rather than exploring, like they are supposed to. They USED to do real science, but now all they do is play politics, but at least they aren't asking that we plunge our civilization into darkness to prevent some future catastrophe that may or may not be coming, with any attempts to stop it having no chance of success by their own admission. When you are funded by a government organization that is ITSELF BIASED, then your research is indeed questionable, but if you have all of your data available for review, along with all of the steps you took to reach your conclusion, then and only then is your funding source irrelevant. But when you get your funding from a biased agency, AND you keep your data and methods secret, then you aren't doing science. Period. You are just generating propaganda. Whether it turns out to be true or not. When you stray from the scientific method and corrupt the peer review system as the climatologists have, there is no way to derive meaningful conclusions. You might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
They do not make is less efficiently. We pay for huge amounts of regulatory bureaucracy to keep us free from ourselves.
Considering we now have at least one non-productive government worker for every private sector worker, and a large number of private sector workers who deal with regulatory compliance, our inefficiency is simply stunning. This is why our industrial base has disappeared.
Mod parent up.
This is the best analogy I've seen for climate science. I myself am a scientist, and any branch of science that relies on computer models, closed source data sources, closed source algorithms, and funding from politicians isn't a branch of science at all. It's a branch of Goldman Sachs!
They also forget to include the carbon cost of creating the more expensive machine. Generally, the cost of a thing is roughly proportional to the energy input that it takes to make it, including everything from the metal to the electricity used to light the homes of the workers to, as you alluded to, the costs of running the bank that made the loan. If it saves money over the long run (including all operating and maintenance costs), then it is more likely to be "greener". If it breaks down all the time, as these appear to, then you have a situation where you have made a huge outlay, consumed HUGE amounts of power, and put HUGE amounts of pollutants into the air, all for nothing.
It seems to me that adult women with small tits would stimulate pedophiles about as much as a man with his genitalia cut off would stimulate heterosexual men.
The size of the breasts is far from the only difference between a child and an adult female. To claim otherwise is, well, par for the course for overbearing, intrusive governments.
Sure, so it was just a coincidence that massive wars, which had been happening about once every twenty years for the last two hundred years in Europe (which expanded around the globe for the last two), just happened to end suddenly when nuclear weapons were developed? You think Russia didn't want to just roll over Europe with it's huge masses of tanks?
And just how many nuclear wars have we had since they were developed? It's been 65 years. If we were going to have one, we would have had it by now. Now everyone knows that war with a nuclear armed nation is a death sentence not only for any armies they send over the border, but likely for huge masses of its own citizenry.
It's called logic. It's not that difficult.
If you make nuclear weapons obsolete, you reopen the door to global total war that was closed at Nagasaki. If nukes can't penetrate the defenses of warring nations, they will be free to send armies across their borders.
Or did you think the world suddenly became more civilized after WWII ended?
I wonder if it's easier to add gas to a planet's atmosphere, or to remove it? If removal is simpler, then Venus could well be a better target. You're not going to be going outside on Mars in shorts and a respirator any time soon, but it might be possible on Venus.