Just partially kidding...
Just partially kidding...
It's as tho putting a radio collar on a polar bear turns it into some cyborg killing machine.
Not really a good comparison; the polar bear is already a killing machine, and putting a radio collar on it "could" make it a cyborg. It's either a cyborg killing machine, or a radio tracked killing machine.
The bacteria are in essence, armored AND tracked, which makes them pretty a more like Emo kids with smart phones who tweet their every action. Sounds counter productive; "LOL, just arrived at the Colon and man, this dude is whack!" Sorry, my slang is 10 years un-hip.
That was an awesome and insightful response.
So while Nuclear is getting better technology -- it's providers are only in the game if the Government can flip the bill.
Has any business in the past two decades actually financed and built a nuclear power plant? If not, then that would challenge the concept that they are economical.
"The government views this as a revenue enhancing measure because it wants to channel gamblers to its own Espacejeux, the government's own online gaming site."
Usually the blocking of sites is for morality issues, but Quebec is seeing this as a revenue measure. Much like the provisions against bringing in your own water bottle to a concert, so you can buy their more expensive one.
Communism is redistribution of wealth, or at least apportionment of resources (can be like old USSR, or like Star Trek if you've got machines to materialize anything you can want -- resources are no longer limited).
Fascism is a government that runs for the purpose of businesses and eventually, picks a winner (like 1940's Italy and Germany, and arguably Japan today, and America is getting close).
But what is it when the government BECOMES the company? Don't government's know they can just PRINT MONEY? SEE; Real World economics explained below.
Instead of a lottery/gambling;
Form your own bank, create bonds for local infrastructure, and pay 10% per diem with tax breaks to investors and meanwhile you can put people to work creating things that will enhance business and the community. You get more money back from the wages.
Gambling is a pernicious social problem, and these scratch-card financed governments can only capture revenue from other locations and their own citizens, who will be less productive and lose a work ethic for their "get rich quick" gambling ethic. It's a way to raise taxes on the people who usually have the least education, judgement and income. In short; it's robbing Peter to pay Paul, but doing it with Pay-Day loans and Paul is going to be a useless wife-beater wearing fool who insists everyone around him write their Le Menu in French.
*In the USA we have a fractional reserve banking system. Bonds are created to be offset by dollars created and the bonds are investments the government can sell. So money is created by debt. The Money just gets shipped to banks. Why doesn't the government be the bank, you may ask, since it's both the real lender and the one taking the risk (holding and paying off the bond) - and wow, Iceland just did it and it seems to have worked fine in the past in the USA. Great question, which will get you kicked out of economics class if you ask it again. but that's because it was necessary to pay off the rich people in charge at the time during the Civil War -- I'm sure people have learned interesting and convoluted economical explanations for why our Federal Reserve banking system is yadda yadda, but they can't explain how the system doesn't collapse if you pay off all the debts that created money in the first place (because of factoring, banks can loan $10 or more dollars for each on deposit - but leverage works both ways see; Nov. 2008) -- oh, and let's not notice that the #1 Investor is offshore banks. Anyone know if we don't just manufacture money to buy our own money? But I digress, all is well and go back to whatever and just know; governments don't need to tax -- EXCEPT to engage the citizens, and to redistribute wealth (some other fools think it's because they can't pay for things otherwise and stuff about who DESERVES what they earned -- as if most wages weren't decisions made by those who valued themselves higher), and it's a way to value their currency -- you have to back a currency with the ability to pay it back if you don't have nuclear weapons (OK, someone really needs to explain to the average person how currencies are valued; military power, and/or arbitrary decision of World Banker and his last bootie call -- you are welcome).
Can anyone speak to the costs that are often left out of pro nuclear equations;
Half of all nuclear power plants don't seem to get completed -- is that fair?
Cost over-runs are rampant, they never cost what is projected, often this is 2 to 10 times projected, but maybe that's just in the USA where the winning lowest bid forces unrealistic expectations.
After the plant is out of service, they have to maintain it for 2000 years -- or that's what I'd heard. Good luck getting humanity to keep going on a project that has no benefits for longer than the aquifers of Rome were built. Companies finagle themselves out of pension obligations these days, and dump toxins whenever someone isn't looking (google any records of dumping of the coast of New Jersey for instance -- metric tons of if). So the "we'll collect money to take care of decommissioning" is only as good as the government. With Citizen's United, it's cheaper to buy a politician than store a control rod. We all need government, but then some people who are pro corporate, have a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to corporate responsibility. Nuclear power has bigger responsibilities, are we heading towards our own Fukishima one day?
It is reliable and good to have in combination with other energy sources, but mere "cost per KWH" is not the only factor. We should also be looking at the water usage of energy and how it effects standard of living (you know; creating jobs for a lot of people as the cost of Green energy, rather than mostly capital expenditures as we get with Nuclear Plants)
I've got a therapist who is helping my kids, and I'm having a hard time justifying all the practices she is promoting. But since we are getting the input -- I've got to at least try what she recommends.
But the "put all the violent video games away -- it will hurt their minds" really irks me. I know too many violent brats who aren't allowed to even play with toy guns, much less violent games. There's no damn serious studies that link the two; as if violence arose with a First Person Shooter.
The main downside I do see to games and the smart phones is over stimulation. It's kind of like how some stimulant drugs work, and the user is no longer satisfied by real-world pleasures. There is value to "being bored." Figuring out how to entertain yourself or being lost in thought -- writing down a dream you had -- that's profile of future inventors.
It isn't cartoons or games in themselves that rot the mind. In fact, I'm fairly sure anything that forces you to react quickly improves the mind -- it's that doing it TOO MUCH instead of sports, and other more cerebral endeavors where you create the content needs to be part of someone's day.
I grew up with parents who didn't think you had to do much with the kids except feed them - and I'm raising my kids as if they were orchids. There needs to be a balance between these two extremes.
I agree with that -- because, really, how can we police them all the time?
The only real solution is to educate kids on good internet practices -- and most parents aren't using them either, nor know what to do, or what to teach.
There is a vacuum here and nature or spam will fill it.
As someone who is fairly tech savvy, it's getting harder for me to detect the scams. Just forwarded a decent sounding job opportunity because I knew someone it fit, and then noticed the same text for a different company -- because I've got a "tar baby" email account. All that stuff that I have to sign up for goes to the junk account and that one gets spammed. If I get a "job opportunity" there -- it's bogus. It's funny because if I didn't have a spam account, I wouldn't have seen the duplicate job with the same text -- and it's just luck because I don't read the spam for more than a second to identify its pattern.
Get a nicely configured MBP and be done with it.
It's the most common platform in research and academic settings for individual use these days, which means that there is a social dimension to the available support (i.e. people around you can help with problems). Meanwhile, the platform is narrow enough and the OS and hardware tightly bound together enough that one-off bugs and edge cases are exceedingly rare (which is not the case for Linux).
And Apple has very reasonable quality control in both hardware and software.
Having done a Ph.D. and dealt with the pressures and complexities that come therewith, I'd say that the overriding concerns should be reducing the PITA factor, keeping downtimes short, eliminating unexpected behavior and gotchas to whatever extent possible, and buying in to the largest on-the-ground support network (i.e. installed customer base) that you can find with identical hardware/software.
All of these things point to Mac for academic research settings.
You're absolutely right about incentives and grant money.
How you tied this to the Nobel Prize is beyond me, so let's drop that.
The incentives are all about grant money and outside (the campus) capital. As a result, the science takes a back seat to market economics, market-ing (both of corporate partners and of academic institutions themselves, which increasingly operate in a competitive marketplace for enrollments), management concerns, investors, etc.
This incentive structure is increasingly becoming the norm well beyond U.S. shores.
So the problem isn't that science is increasingly wrong, it's that scientists are increasingly doing labor that may *involve* science, but that is in fact product-oriented R&D driven by short-term investment timelines and economic and investor-friendly optics, and whether any of it is good *science* is secondary or tertiary to whether it's profitable, whether directly or indirectly.
Let the scientists go back to doing science first and money-making (whether to support their own tenure lines or to support corporate profits) second or even better, third, fourth, or fifth, and you'll find that the ship rights itself.
But obviously she liked the power more than she disliked the job conditions, and intended to ignore the job conditions anyway.
True of absolutely everyone in Washington.
Blah, blah, blah. You say that as if they are the first politicos to try and work around rules.
If you are going to refer to all the controversy surrounding ethics with the Clintons, do try and keep in mind that except for fooling around with his secretary, Bill Clinton and Hillary have never been found guilty of any of the charges.
So they had 5 court cases with a Federal Prosecutor, over a couple decades of bad press asking loaded questions, and furor over a tempest in a teapot like Benghazi.
Maybe the Clintons are not trying to be secretive, so much as paranoid. Maybe they worry that they might suddenly get an email saying; "Sent $100,000 to pay for Benghazi attack to Michelle Obama" in their sent email box.
By the time a forensic computer specialist can find the source of the doctored email, the Clintons will be defending themselves from another baseless claim.
Do you not remember who made all these different claims and why you aren't remembering that someone lied to you, but you remember that the Clintons are so corrupt?
I'm not supporting Hillary and I won't be voting for her, but she's just smart when dealing with Republicans -- not corrupt.
Maybe they just want to receive their emails and know that in the past, DNC servers and systems have been hacked. It's ingenious to say that their private system is automatically less secure than the government servers unless someone is an email security specialist and has knowledge of the two systems -- I'm sure someone on Slashdot will weigh in on this.
Perhaps with the record of Karl Rove and his operatives activities on Democratic servers -- I can definitely understand the Clinton's reticence to be on these same servers they've plagued. Doing the business of the state pre-supposes that all your communications are looked at by friendlies; not that everything you do is looked at in terms to set you up.
I can imagine a scenario where someone from the political opposition can read that you have a meeting with so and so, and can use that against you in some manner. As benign as changing the time of a meeting to making a fraudulent email and leaking it to the press.
Anything can happen if someone else with ill will controls the mail server.
Better to whether the small storm of criticism later, than be naive and pretend that political operatives won't do again what they've done to you in the past.
Anyone remember Mike Connell? http://www.democracynow.org/20...
Former hackers were hired to create the original Diebold voting machines; http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
>> and Anonymous claimed they stopped the voting machines from being manipulated in the last election -- sounds like a quiet political cyber war is going on.
I'm sure to people not involved in politics, they think these are paranoid ramblings like Ross Perot claiming that the Bush crowd was pulling dirty tricks, tapping his conversations, and altering photos of his daughter; http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10...
Ross Perot is a man who used his own money and put is own neck on the line to retrieve kidnapped employees. Like him or not, he seems a bastion of integrity compared to the average politician.
Oh, and let's not forget that the RNC emails went missing;
Rove's went missing;
And Iron Mountain lost emails -- and since their whole business model is storing sensitive data is probably one of the few things they've EVER lost;
I'm not saying this to excuse a politician from not being transparent -- but I'd think we need to address the fact that dirty tricks are going on, and we need to make sure there are no man-in-the-middle attacks and manipulations of data.
"Using Metadata to find Paul Revere"
problems of epistemology, including in science.
Note that there are no shortage of facts whose veracity depends on nuanced facets of context and condition, some of which are disputed.
For example, fact or not: "Linux is a difficult operating system to use, and is a better choice for geeks and hackers than for regular users."
Or how about:
"Android is an operating system written by Google."
Or how about:
"The Bermuda Triangle region has seen an unusually high number of ship and plane disappearances over the years, and may be a particularly dangerous place to travel."
Because unless Google's algorithms are very, very nuanced in their approach, each of these is going to be seen as carrying high levels of factuality based on the preponderance of content out there, particularity in high-authority sources.
Of course, statements like the first and third are too complex for Google's rankings to evaluate and rank, and it can only work with very simple assertions on the order of "Milk is white," or "Obama is a Democrat," the it's going to do practically nothing (good or bad) at all for the rankings, since facts with this level of consensus are generally undisputed, even by those that promote falsehoods.
Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.