Too big to fail?

So, right now the ratio of people who have trouble conceiving (a very delicate biological process) is 1 in 7... How do you think it will change when those 1 in 7 are now able to continue to propagate their genes into the gene pool? How many generations until natural birth will be no longer possible for most people, and we're all being born out of tubes...

Booty is i

Gag me with a spoon.

All philosophical pondering as to how science will effect the future to Hollywood movie script writers.

Whenever someone says "Rock Star" programmer, I always picture Keith Richards or Ozzie going in for a development interview...

"So... what you're looking for is a programmer who shows up late, strung out on coke, hungover, and hoping that the roadies (interns) took care of most of the work, who will likely have sex with the girl at the front desk, and will only finish a job if he has a number of people screaming 'ENCORE!' to encourage him on?"

Summarized:

The Top American Science Questions: 2012 ...

1. What policies will you be putting in place that will keep America an Innovation leader?
O - Doubling funding to key research agencies
O - Goal of 100,000 new STEM teachers (science, technology engineering math) - with the goal of 1 Million new STEM graduates

M - Raise visa caps to allow for more foreign workers
M - Offer permanent residence to foreign knowledge workers
M - Reduce taxes on corporations
M - More vigorously defend intellectual property rights abroad
M - Deregulate industry
M - Ambiguous education reform

2. Climate Change. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
O - Policies that lead to the growth of using alternative energy
O - Already limited greenhouse emissions from vehicles
O - Large investments in green energy
O - Reduce emissions within federal government
O - Reduced dependency on oil (Claim is already readuced 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, US is at a 20 year low)

M - Believes in climate change, and that human activity is a contributor, though because of "lack of scientific consensus" believes the next step is more debate / investigation
M - Believes that Obama policy will "bankrupt the coal industry" (poor guys)
M - Opposed to carbon tax or cap-and-trade systems
M - Supports government funded research on low-emission technology
M - Supports investment in nuclear power

3. What priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?
O - Strong support
O - Current level is 3% of GDP, which is higher then the level achieved during space race
O - Created Recovery Act, - $100 Billion dollars in research spending / education / training / etc. $90 Billion of which was devoted to clean energy.
* Plans to make R&D tax credit permanent

M - Strong supporter as well
M - Critical of where money gets spent, would divy it up differently
M - Does not list actual intentions

4. OHMEGERD Bird flu.
O - Chill. We got it.

M - Further investment in public health monitoring systems (?)
M - Reduced restrictions on FDA

5. Our kids suck at science. How do we fix it?
O - Educate to innovate program, 100,000 STEM teachers

M - Spending ineffective
M - Teachers unions bad
M - Wants more choice for parents as to which schools their children go to
M - Higher standards (More national tests?)

6. Energy. What policies?
O - "All of the above" energy approach (wind, solar, oil, coal, etc.)
O - Since taking office Solar / Wind production doubled
O - World leader in natural gas production (100 year supply quoted)

M - Goal energy independence within a decade
M - Allow states to make decisions regarding energy resources on federal land within their borders
M - Open Off-shore drilling
M - Energy partnership with North america NAEP
M - Use federal money for performing energy surveys
M - restore "transparency and fairness" to permitting and regulation
M - Federal money for private sector energy research

7. Food Safety?
O - Signed comprehensive food safety law reform
O - Increased FDA funding
O - Believes in Organic farming

M - Encourages more "private" participation in regulation process

8. Fresh Water.
O - Grants to water conversation projects
O - Invested in waste water treatment infrastructure

M - Modernize federal laws governing water use
M - Incentives

9. Teh webz.
O - Free / Open internet essential (Net Neutrality)
O - Supports intellectual property law, as long as it doesn't hamper freedom of expression, or undermine innovation
O - Strengthen Cybersecurity, and data confidentiality

M - Believes government should not regulate internet, but should be left to "Market forces"
M - Doesn't agree with Net Neutrality, see's it as a solution with no "problem"

10. Ocean Health.
O - Federal funding to help clean up Gulf Coast
O - Largest investment in Great Lakes (in the past 2 decades) towards cleanup
O - Money for Chesapeake bay, Everglades, etc.
O - Greater investment in monitoring fish stocks

M - Federal government has a role to play (lesser)

11. Science in Public Policy.
O - Scientific advisors appointed based on credentials, not politics or ideology
O - Improve transparency

M - Science important
M - Don't apply when not financially wise (Gave example of mercury EPA law vs Coal Industry)

12. Space.
O - Committed to protecting investment in new NASA programs
O - Extended the life of ISS
O - Goal of sending humans to an asteroid by 2025 / Mars in 2030s

M - Space important
M - Focus NASA goals
M - Partner internationally

13. Critical Natural Resources.
O - Formed coalition with Japan and others to form trade case against China for Export penalties on rare earth minerals
O - Reduce dependency, fund programs to discover alternatives

M - "Streamline" regulatory processes
M - Open Federal land
M - State rather then Federal regulation

14. What actions would you support to enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health, and in what circumstances should exemptions be allowed?
O - Obamacare
O - Doesn't mention anything about enforcement

M - Improve manufactoring
M - Effective use, for outbreak preventing vaccines, take steps to ensure most Americans are vaccinated.
M - Robust R&D

I totally agree... While I believe that everyone has a responsibility to examine the moral beliefs of their society and come up with their own code, I certainly can understand individuals that want a guidebook, and for the purveyors of such guidebooks, I appreciate when they are able to adjust the rulings based on changes in society. The Catholic church has the same dogmatic law, and through the Pope can make changes as well, but at the same time, they don't move at the speed of our society and the changes in it, and often then end up with a moral code that doesn't match that of the time.

I also find it fascinating that such a nit-picky discussion on verbiage can have such wide reaching, but otherwise ridiculous impact on the lives of strict church-goers. :)

The myth that I had heard which lead me to the Soda / Caffeine answer, was that since the LDS has "active" prophets they can get the daily version of the word of god... meaning that any time the corporation of the Morman Church desires they can update dogma (see changing stance on polygamy), and as far as I know that part was true. The myth that I heard (and busted on myself thanks to this thread and snopes) was that Soda had come down as being "Okay", partially because the Morman church had an ownership in Pepsi Co. Which was a fun story to latch on to, but untrue - http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp

Actually actually... While frowned upon Soda is okay:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021026175515/http://templehill.com/soda_caffeine.html

As long as you don't heat it up in the microwave first. God hates it when it's warm.

Personally I never let myself be exposed to a camera or video lens. It steals your soul. Also... It adds about 10 lbs and I'm sensitive about that sort of thing. Nobody wants a fat soul.

I'm afraid this is truly useless.

In a regular transaction, you exchange USD for Services. Credit card is a little more complicated, in that USD is given for services, but there is another transaction involved, where you exchange your credit for USD, and then later pay USD to reduce your debt. Sounds like this credit card service adds two more transactions to that same flow, without removing any transactions. The Retailer gets USD from the credit card company and you get Services or goods, The credit card company holds a debt for you (probably in USD because BC changes so much), and then you pay an exchange BitCoins for USD, and that exchange gives those BitCoins to the credit card company (Who in the long run, will just need to turn it back in to USD in order to pay off the vendors).

Cash Transaction = 0% overhead
Credit Card Transaction = Credit Fee + Retailer Credit Card Fee
BitCoin Credit card transaction = Credit Fee + Retail Credit Card Fee + Exchange rate fee (x2? Depends on whether or not they trust BC enough to leave it lying around)

The only way BitCoin's "Dream" can be realized is when retailers start accepting bit coins. At which point there needs to be a credit card where retailers can accept your bitcoins as payment (and not US Dollars), to avoid any extra exchanges, and ideally this would be somewhat ubiquitous.

Shit.

Voldemort.

Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse.

It won't rain today.

Fuck.

I'll report tomorrow on whether or not I survive the day.

From Obama Podcast http://obamaspeeches.com/076-Network-Neutrality-Obama-Podcast.htm (Transcript below) :

TOPIC: Technology
June 8, 2006
Network Neutrality
Snowe and Dorgan's legislation to protect network neutrality
Complete Transcript
Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama and today is Thursday, June 8th, 2006.

The topic today is net neutrality. The internet today is an open platform where the demand for websites and services dictates success. You've got barriers to entry that are low and equal for all comers. And it's because the internet is a neutral platform that I can put on this podcast and transmit it over the internet without having to go through some corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship. I don't have to pay a special charge. But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes.

Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for website creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. If there were four or more competitive providers of broadband service to every home, then cable and telephone companies would not be able to create a bidding war for access to the high-speed lanes. But here's the problem. More than 99 percent of households get their broadband services from either cable or a telephone company.

So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality. In the House, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee reached different conclusions on network neutrality. Judiciary Committee members voted to protect net neutrality and commerce voted with the Bells and cable. That debate is going to hit the House floor this Friday. In the Senate, Senators Snowe and Dorgan are leading the fight for net neutrality and I've joined in that effort. Senator Inouye, the ranking Democrat of the Commerce Committee, has joined us in this effort as well and he's working with Senator Stevens to put strong network neutrality into any Senate bill that comes before us. There is widespread support among consumer groups, leading academics and the most innovative internet companies, including Google and Yahoo, in favor of net neutrality. And part of the reason for that is companies like Google and Yahoo might never have gotten started had they not been in a position to easily access the internet and do so on the same terms as the big corporate companies that were interested in making money on the internet.

I know if you are listening to this podcast that you are going to take an intense interest in this issue as well. Congress is going to need to hear your voice because the Bell and cable companies are going to be dedicating millions of dollars to defeating network neutrality. So I'll keep you updated on this important issue and I look forward to talking to you guys again next week. Bye-bye.