My sound card is hooked up to an AV receiver that I used to drive my 5.1 home theater speaker setup (Energy CB-20s and CB-10s, if you're curious). It works pretty well, but there a is a downside, which is that the digital processing in receivers creates audio lag. If you're really sensitive to lip sync, you might want to consider other options. I haven't found a modern receiver without lag yet, but I haven't looked very hard.
Ask the economics professor who beat House Majority Leader Mitch Cantor in Virginia. The professor spent less than $100,000.
So you're saying a primary election costs approximately what a house does.
Your idea of what constitutes "large amounts of money" is seriously out of whack. Probably because elections have involved astronomical amounts of money for so long.
Claiming that ignorance can be fixed by continued ignorance from a different party is a fools prospect.
I'm not sure what ignorance you're talking about here. How are people going to be unaware that they've had a chip implanted under their skin that stops them from getting pregnant?
There are simply too many nefarious purposes for this type of technology.
But again, functionally, the birth control application isn't much different from a Depo-Provera shot or an IUD. The differences are A) it lasts somewhat longer, and B) you can turn it off without removing it.
If some dystopia decides that fertility is a reward, this technology allows that very easily.
We don't need to fantasize about what hypothetical dystopias might do -- we have an existing one to look at. In China, there are existing technologies that already do what you're talking about. They are backed up by fines and other punishments. Outside of China, trying to force surgery on an entire population is a risky move that could easily provoke a popular uprising. China spent decades under a Stalinist dictatorship before enacting the One Child Policy, and as such they are a pretty extreme case.
If another dystopia decides that soldiers should rape women but don't want pregnancy as a result, well, this allows that as well.
Do you know how hormonal contraception normally works? It doesn't take effect right away. You'd something high-dosage like a morning after pill or shot. Subcutaneous chips are designed to release low dosages over long periods of time.
Also, why would someone who's okay with institutionalized rape be worried about their victims getting pregnant?
I don't understand why you're more worried weird hypothetical dystopias than the kinds of evil that are already happening.
So yeah, solar is a great way to REDUCE the demand on your base sources during lunch time. Kind of like regenerative braking REDUCES the demand on the engine. Neither is, or ever can be, a primary energy source.
Only if you can't do math. The earth intercepts 173,000 terawatts of solar power, permanently. The US currently runs plants producing 16 terawatts. So if we can manage to hog 0.009% of the Sun's output, we can replace every power plant of every type.
Not 1%. Not 1 tenth of 1%. Just a little less than 1 one hundredth of 1% of the solar power hitting the Earth.
14% of the Earth's surface area is desert. It isn't impossible to be 100% solar. Just expensive.
In 1969 my dad worked for McDonnell Douglas,
His home cost 21,000 dollars. Slightly more the 1 years wages.
In today's money. you would need to make 500K a year for that same house to only be slightly less then the cost of the house.
And I mean the same damn house.
Thank you for that. It's nice to see hard numbers make the damn "you spend too much" people shut the hell up.
I'll even chime in with my own numbers. For 3 years, I spent $55 more per month that you couldn't spend in 1970, on Internet service. I had no phone service and drove an average of 10 miles per month. No, not a typo. Per month. No car payment, same as you. Driving what is now a 13 year old car. I had you beat by several thousand dollars per year. So how come I ain't rich?
Oh right. Because I labor.
And neither side seems to have any conception of the problems entailed in delivering an adequate supply of essentials and luxuries to 10 billion human beings later in this century. Much less any willingness to work at developing realistic solutions to the numerous problems that will be encountered.
I dunno about that. Last I checked you can't throw a chair around here without hitting somebody willing to tell you about liquid flouride thorium reactors. That same thrown chair is likely to ricochet into someone who can quote the 173,000 terawatts of solar radiation hitting the earth.
There's at least some thought being put into the energy requirements of 10 billion humans.
For the rest, that sounds about right, if a little hyperbolic. What astonishes me is you're modded above 2. The defenders of GCMs usually have mod points.
Sorry, perhaps I was unclear. I was responding specifically to your statement about family planning, not to the device described in the article. As for the device, it seems to be targeted at areas where people don't have good access to medicine (probably Sub-Saharan Africa), and things like regular birth control prescriptions or Depo-Provera shots aren't practical.
One could conceivably use this for forced birth control, but I don't see how it improves on forced sterilization or IUD insertion. Forced birth control is used to stop women from ever having children again, not to control fertility timing. Even in China they seem to rely more on fines and forced abortions than contraceptives. Also, lowering birth rates tends to make people wealthier and give them more free time, so if you want to keep your population poor and uneducated, forced birth control seems like a bad idea. And of course, outside of China and (apparently) Uzbekistan, it's forced pregnancy that's the problem, not forced birth control. I'd be more worried about this tech being used for psychiatric medications than birth control.
An international coalition of governments, companies, philanthropies, and nonprofits recently committed to providing family planning to 120 million more women in the world by 2020.
Of course those Governments, companies, and philanthropists know best how you should plan a family. Considering how the top
"Family planning" is a euphemism for sex education and contraceptive access. Large parts of the world do not provide any sex ed to women at all, even basic stuff like giving them a heads-up before blood starts coming out of their vaginas. Even in the developed world there are many teenagers and young adults whose parents either don't know enough to help, don't want to help, or provide false information when it comes to sex. Family planning services give women the information and tools they need to make their own decisions. Oppression by elites in this context involves keeping women ignorant and afraid so they don't question traditional, patriarchal ideas. Family planning services are the opposite of oppression.
Who's popularity is often due to their personality that makes their program popular.
Have you ever heard John Carmack talk? He's an übernerd, with some verbal tics that are just maddening. He talks about nerdy things to nerdy people. He's the polar opposite of "popular". Only 10% of the population can understand what he's talking about, let alone care what he's talking about.
And he's one of the world's greatest living programmers. It has nothing to do with personality, and everything to do with ability.
Ladies and Gentlemen, office/IT/tech work does not mean you don't have to WORK! and no, you are not harder workers than the rest of the world or more innovative or more irreplacable. Get off your asses!, > 2 hrs of real work a day is NOT asking too much. Crist, walk around and all you see is facebook or amazon accounts on people's machines.
Your cries for harder work are falling on deaf ears because your company has fouled up too many times.
"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
In other words, your management has made stupid choices, repeatedly, then insisted their workers "work hard" to clean up the mess, then failed to exhibit any gratitude whatsoever for excess hours put in (illegally uncompensated, in some states). What you're seeing around you now is the end result of years of poor management. The people who like to work have long since moved on. What you have left are the people who can't be bothered to find a better managed position.
I see this in my current position. I actually have the best manager on the floor, as far as paying attention to what is happening now, paying attention to what's coming, and modifying plans in advance to aim for a different project when the customer for the first project experiences a delay. A coworker who was hired the same day I was works for a different manager. He can go two or three weeks at a time with literally nothing to do. His manager made no contingency plans. His manager paid no attention to possible delays outside of his control. So there he sits, on Facebook (or the moral equivalent). Nor can I blame him. There are too many people and too many moving parts for him to just randomly strike out on his own. He would end up working at cross-purposes with the other poorly managed people around him, and nobody likes throwing away work. So why work, let alone work hard?
Me, I'm on Slashdot tonight because I'm at the end of a project cycle. I've done releases of two products to QA, determined that a release of a third product doesn't need to happen (which was somehow missed by everybody else involved) and now I'm waiting on the last of the test results, poised to take care of any trailing problems. I'll be working on the next thing in a matter of days.
I really liked Colorado the three years I lived there, but I can tell I don't want to work for your company. You suffer from dysfunctional tech management. I could generalize that a bit. You, like so many other American companies, suffer from dysfunctional management.
Ladies and Gentlemen, management work does not mean you don't have to WORK! and no, you are not harder workers than the rest of the world or more innovative or more irreplacable. Get off your asses!, > 2 hrs of real work a day is NOT asking too much.
If they determine that the company they are employed in has reached maturity and will start sliding towards dissolution, then they adjust their priorities to 1) Maximize profits, 2) cut costs, 3) Extend profitability. This turns their business into a cash cow that gets milked, taken over, disassembled, and outsourced.
That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The company wouldn't be "sliding towards dissolution" if these management-out-of-a-book idiots hadn't gutted the company's core skills.
People like to talk about sustainability a lot in ecological terms. Why do we never hear about it in business terms? Oh right. Because balance is hard to achieve and maintain. If you're an idiot chasing the latest fad in your glossy management magazine, you haven't got a prayer of finding and maintaining a profitable balance for any length of time, so you firmly believe that businesses have only two states: on the way up or on the way down. There is a third choice. Too bad American management is too incompetent to take that path.
It will be changed real soon now and some low level guy will be let go.
Hollywood is not in NZ and NZ doesn't get paid royalties on all those movies filmed in NZ, so they could give a rat's ass about forcing their own ISPs to jump through Hollywood hoops. Quite the opposite, in fact. Region locked downloads are illegal in NZ, so this change isn't just intentional, it's mandatory. (For some interpretation of mandatory compliance with the law.)
SpaceX built a new rocket engine and two new rockets, and actually launched them into space, for about the same amount of money as NASA spent putting a dummy upper stage on top of a shuttle SRB and launching it into the ocean.
NASA's activities look more and more like Best Korea...
...nor are liquid fueled stages normally test-fired either before launch.
SpaceX liquid fueled first stages are 100% test-fired before launch. It's called a hold-down system. The engines are throttled up to full thrust and all systems must check out, while firing, before the clamps are released. If something is off, the engines shut down.
That actually took NASA's commentator by surprise during one of the early Falcon 9 launches. Engines reached full thrust, commentator says "Lift off!" and the rocket didn't move. Shut down instead. There was a problem with one of the engines. They fixed it and launched it later.
And since the United Space Alliance...
They weren't quite that cute with the acronym. It's United Launch Alliance. ULA. And until SpaceX, it was an illegal monopoly. But of course no one is going to enforce that...