|
|
>I have an old laptop sitting around that I have run some clean up tools on and I'm still not quite ready to put it up on Freecycle.
I don't understand this. Just run DBAN or some other safe-erase program. Are you afraid of magic forensics which can recover overwritten data?
So he put a funny looking chassis on a car, basically. Why do we care? Is Slashdot gonna cover every boring cosplay forum post as well now?
Am I the only one who has grown cautious of putting electronics on my ear, in close contact, for many hours of the day? We'll either end up with a super AI or WiFi headaches...
No. That tired old "remark" is not clever either. The aim of terrorism is to intimidate the government of a country into giving concessions, not to give nosy, bored coffee shop employees an excuse to make a fuss.
This is a case of you buying a Core i5 and Intel saying "here is exactly what you paid for, and by the way, if you ever decide you should have bought a Core i7 instead, we can magically teleport one into your computer for just $50".
Well if they can afford selling me an i7 for the price of an i5, even though I might never unlock, why don't they just go ahead and do so? I don't understand, is there a reason why processor must cost a certain amount of money, even if all the expenses going into making them are less?
If indeed the company runs out of low end processors, and starts selling crippled high end ones, why bother crippling them? Just sell the high end unit for the low end units price, hell call it a sale or limited time offer or whatever. Won't more people buy an i7 than an i5 if they were the same price? It's not like they're stuck with it later either, I don't think Intel is seriously unable to say, "sorry guys, our stocks are properly balanced now, back to the usual prices".
I am talking about the security of your assets, not your person. Managing a large sum of money takes effort (and usually money). You can't just stuff a bunch of millions under a mattress. You could buy gold, and even then it is not a perfectly safe investment, but that won't maximize your income. Then there's also figuring out where to keep that gold.
You are assuming income and/or funds are linearly related to security under some definition of it. This is not necessarily true. It is correct that having more money gives you more ability to deal with potential threats to your security. In this way increasing money leads to increasing security. However, greater funds tend to attract greater threats and take more substantial effort to protect and maintain. This is why rich people do not lead completely stress free lives. There are more stressful and less stressful ways to make money, but I would suspect that if risk is proportional to income then it is impossible to eliminate some degree of stress from the act of increasing income.
It is possible that the particulars of the relations are such that up to a point, security benefits from extra money outweigh the cost incurred by having to manage those additional assets, after which increasing your money does not increase your happiness (limit of the difference is +0) or decreases it (e.g. happiness goes up with x^2 and stress cost with x^3). If so, it is possible that this point is $75k.
That suggests the question of boundless economical growth is at all possible, for example with corporations. Although huge, profitable corporations do exist, I think it is true that ultimately any market is finite- same as and because of the people on the planet, and the resources on it are finite, hence there is a diminishing returns acting on the agent. But is it possible that the diminishing returns become comprised largely of the security expenditures? Or, what about countries? Is there a fundamental limit to how large a state can becomes before it fails to maintain its own integrity, leading to eventual collapse?
You drop a pathogen into a solution that's 2%-8% alcohol with a PH around 4-5 that's had most of its sugars and oxygen consumed and tell me how it does.
First off, many bacteria produce the ethanol themselves. For ethanol to be sterilizing, it must be 60-80%, at which point it chemically degrades cellular envelopes of cells.
Second, oxygen is a non-issue. Anaerobic respiration is the default, not exception with prokaryotes.
As for how the "pathogen" will fare, it will see the low pH and lack of abundant energy sources, and form an endospore. Once it is drank, the pathogens will happily resume their life cycle and multiply inside your body.
It's as capable of developing into an independent organization as a liver cell is without the proper environment.
And there is no environment which allows a liver cell to develop into an organism. That is why the bill does not cover liver cells. Getting it yet?
A hESC is capable of developing into an independent organism, and in its natural environment does so. A liver cell does not.
We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. - attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga