Bullshit on everything but 1.

1. As I said, way too expensive.
2. Nope, that's literally impossible and is false advertising. Now I *know* they are full of shit. Even if honey weren't viscous, that would still be impossible, even with free-running water.
3. Again, bullshit.
4. Are you telling me the bees *uncap* a *capped* honey cell, take off the cap, and refill it?

Aside from not being good for the bees, there are a bunch of other problems I can think of, even assuming the whole thing isn't another crowdfunding scam (a la hoverboards and solar roadways) and works as advertised.

1. The system can't be cheap.

2. There's no way it can drain all the honey from the hive. I'd be extremely surprised if it got even 50%. Most of the honey is going to remain in the comb and stick to the tubes. There's no way you could flush that out without ruining the honey.

3. Commercial honey extraction involves multiple centrifuging and filtering steps to get a nice clear consistency. Crystal-clear honey on tap sounds dubious.

4. What happens to the hive after extraction? Bees produce honey cells and cap them with wax. This system apparently drains the honey from behind, without uncapping. Great, but then you're left with a bunch of half-full combs that the bees won't touch again. Seems like you'd have to remove the combs from the hive and uncap 'the old-fashioned way' anyway if you want the bees to keep producing.

I can't imagine this system being useful for anything other than small-scale, one-off, hobbyist honey production. And, again, that's assuming it works as advertised.

TTL? What is this, 1969?

Again, it's not the 'C' bit that needs to be reconsidered. It's the 'MOS' bit.

> After reading an account of doctors fighting to save the life of a child who was given a *teaspoon* of milk - in a controlled hospital setting - I have a new appreciation for the fear these parents have.

There is a world of difference between giving someone with milk allergy milk and getting some peanut dust or butter on someone's skin. Namely, the latter could cause you to die, but the former won't do anything except in incredibly rare circumstances.

Not all allergies are the same. Not all methods of exposure are the same. The refusal of the allergy nuts (see what I did there?) to acknowledge this fact is why they should be ignored.

And I'm sorry that you're unable to realize that protesting the rules isn't always anti-social. Sometimes it's pro-social and anti-idiocy.

With the missing word, it sounded like you were saying CMOS is the only architecture that can seriously be considered for processor chips.

It's not my fault that you can't communicate your meaning. "Eats, shoots, and leaves."

Nut allergies are mostly mass hysteria.

They were never that common, and are still not that common at all. And it's even rarer that exposing someone with a peanut allergy to a few peanuts will cause them to die. There is _zero_ justification for not allowing peanut-based foods in schools. It's mass hysteria with no basis in reality.

If I ever have a kid, I'm going to give them peanut butter sandwiches every week. FUCK the overprotective assholes.

It's trivial to make heat-resistant PCBs (solder joints are a bit harder but doable). These aren't the main issues at all. The main problems with heat are degraded computation performance, thermal cycling stress, and increased power usage.

You can't just stack cpu chips on top of one another. They'd melt and vaporize. You either have to develop really good cooling tech or ways of reducing power consumption.

One near-term solution is to stack memory (cache levels and main RAM) on the cpu chip. Memory doesn't produce that much heat so cooling would be straightforward. It would be a huge boost to speed to have memory right on top of the cpu. A few companies are working on this.

> CMOS is by far the only architecture

No it's not. Complementarity is great, but there's no requirement for it to be MOS-based. MOS is just the best choice for silicon. There are transistors using Schottky barriers and other technologies that are far better suited to InGaAs. Five minutes of googling would have revealed this and nullified your "Score 5 Interesting" argument.

No, the main issue with InGaAs is manufacturing difficulty and expense. You can buy InGaAs chips right now. It's just really expensive technology and not nearly as developed as silicon, both in terms of manufacturing steps and lithography tech.

> Firstly, their claim on their website "While complex, the Mars One Mission is feasible. The science and technology required to place humans on Mars exists today. "

Yes, as I said, wishful thinking. Fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain." There's no evidence here that people are being deliberately deceived. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

So far there's no evidence that it's an outright fraud; it's just REALLY wishful thinking. But that's almost equally bad, because when it inevitably fails it's going to hurt the space community because they will be permanently associated with failures and scams. This is why I think the onus is on the space community (The Planetary Society, the Mars Society, etc.) to quickly refute and bury Mars One as fast as possible.

Cancer cells also aggressively compete with other cells to survive and propagate, in the end destroying life. Hooray for aggression, I guess.

Testosterone has nothing to do with aggression.

This has been debunked multiple times.

Hurr durr. Warrior leader good! Thoughtful, reserved, intelligent leader bad! Vote for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho!

No, more like "I appreciate your effort, but you haven't made the right decisions and so I am going to go somewhere else. Thanks."