The main character is dealing with the side effects of medical age reversal. The youth have determined that the rate of medical advancements will increase lifespans at the same rate they are aging.
Many scientists today refuse to let facts get in the way of their theories.
That is a complete myth and would be irrelevant even if it were true. Regardless on what your hypothesis is, in science you present evidence for or against it. Others can verify your claims. That is why, in science, frauds are eventually exposed, unlike virtually anything else. This is also why science has such a strong reputation.
By the way, you are confusing the difference between a hypothesis, a scientific theory and the layman theory.
Putting that issue aside, the question then becomes, what is that cost? Any price you put on it is simply made up.
Actually its quite simple. The cost of sequestering the carbon dioxide produced along with the energy. (Which could fluctuate with market/technology). In other words, the extra cost should be the same cost to clean up the extra pollution produced. Otherwise the polluter is being subsidized by a price paid by others.
Say you compare bio-diesel with regular diesel, bio-diesel would be expected to cost more in dollars because it involved removing CO2 from the atomosphere. To be comparable with regular diesel you would have to include the cost of removing the CO2. That would be an exact and non-arbitrary price, since the CO2 pollution causes the damage.
We just don't like where these numbers lead and no one wants to penalize their country by acting responsible while everyone else just pollutes the world to their economic advantage.
If so... it's an improvement.... but the requirement that the entrepreneur front, essentially 39% of the funds, to raise less than $100K.. would appear to be unduly burdensome. The requirement for a CPA audit would also appear to be unduly burdensome.
The person raising this money, should have a less-expensive option: that does not require losing a significant amount of their funding. And they should have an option of disclosing that no audit has been or will be performed.
They do: and that option is to raise funds from friends and family.
As long as they don't use a website to gather the funds in an organized manner. Say a bunch of small investments from a large group of friends over a large, geographic area.
Individuals who find innovative ways to use these new technologies can become very wealthy.
Are you sure? The article seems to be give specific examples of how established industries are using the US system to stifle new companies that are being innovative and more efficient. Now which theory agrees more with class-mobility decreasing rather than increasing. Class mobility is probably the greatest indication of how much importance a society is placing on talent and effort instead of inherited positions and wealth.
While at the hospital, I asked a nurse if she had seen Guillain-Barré syndrome from the Yellow Fever vaccine. She said that this was the first time she had seen it from the Yellow Fever vaccine but they see regularly caused by the Flu vaccine.
I am cautious with other vaccine also--weighing the benefit against the know effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Knowing the about, I would say that BMO is ignorant of the science of vaccines and his comments are only his opinions. Autism is not the only affliction to be concerned with.
The parent is probably classic anti-vaccine logic. The flu itself causes Guillain-Barré at a much, much greater rate than the vaccine. An extra 1 in 100000 people who got the swine flu shot in 1976 developed Guillain-Barré. And since no real direct mechanism can be found, that still might be correlation and not causation.
As for settling for bachelors-level jobs, CS is a very different world from science where work experience matters much more than degrees. But a bachelors in CS and 2 years work experience is probably worth as much as your PhD. Demand does not really match difficulty of the degree, but how replaceable you are.
My background is fairly similar, but I skipped out at the Masters level to work in industry. In science, PhD really would help get an interview though. HR would have screened out my resume through official channels...
By every medical or fact based study, marijuana, shrooms and LSD are among the safest drugs ever known. Psilocybin and LSD are completely non-habit forming; as in they are much, much less addictive coffee.
Meth is not some new drug. It was the typical biker 'speed'. And there were many years when the US was producing massive quantities of amphetamines for prescription use.
The vast majority of heroin users are not addicts, but occasional users. Similar to how the vast majority of people who drink are not alcoholics. The brain damage levels of alcoholics are incredible and much more severe what a cocaine addict has. (I am not advocating cocaine use; the heart attack rate is very high.)
The medical facts are a VERY different story than is portrayed and then there are problems like the complete lack of evidence prohibition reduced alcoholism. Alcoholics made sure to get a dealer.
Easy economic solution - only freely trade with places/products matching your moral standards and add tariffs otherwise. Similar how to sell a car to the US you need meet US safety standards, not whatever the safety standards are in their country. Or how we simply do not trade items made with slave labor. There are countries that would be fine with slavery, but it would eliminate the export market of their goods.
Okay, it will not be that easy. Especially with this strange notion that companies will pass their savings on to the consumer by lowering the cost of the product, instead of continuing to charge what customers will pay and keeping the extra profits like any good capitalist. Anyway the point is you only need to worry about changing what your country does and the rest of the world will change just to do business with you. Well for a large country with a big consumer base like the US at least.
Produce? I can have a garden, or again, buy local.
Why would you buy local (assuming it is not cheaper)?
Please see http://www.mises.org/books/defending.pdf, chapter 23 - The Importer
Importers make the economy grow.
Because his ethical goal is environmental, not economic. Shipping is subsidized in a sense as environmental costs are not properly counted into the price. The environmental cost lowers the productivity of the world. If the shipping company were doing something like capturing carbon released and adding the extra cost to the produce, then your argument is valid (from a CO2 perspective at least).
Certain morals have value to people and they're willing to spend money on them, like spending more on local or fair trade produce or even wasting money advertising against gay marriage. That is capitalism. Of course for capitalism to function, consumers require accurate information and that doesn't just magically happen...
Wow, can't avoid forums for a week? Can't do something else for a WHOLE WEEK? It must be somebody else's fault! You can get books 1-4 as a set for $20 right now ($10 second hand on ebay). Who needs to wait hours for one single episode when you can read at your leisure any time?
You want my impulse buy money? No? Well then STFU.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
