Oh no! You know what that means! 100 monkeys is the critical threshold! The brains of all of humanity will now be wiped! I can feel it sta....gurhcfjgjxhhfhcCARRIER LOST
Encourage inventors rather than patent troll them into oblivion.
Just a thought, I know it would destroy much of the current economic model, but maybe - just maybe - those expensive techniques are merely the product of insufficient brains. Does the semiconductor world forget so soon that "cutting edge" in the 1970s was to melt silicon and scrape off the scum on top? Does it eve r occur to anyone that, just as we use reduction techniques to obtain silicon today because older methods were crap, there exists the potential that the expensive, low-quality techniques of today could be the rejects of tomorrow?
There are no inventors any more because silicon is a bloody expensive field to get kicked out of by patent trolls. Mind you, it's also a difficult area to get into, what with TARP being used to fund golden parachutes, bonuses and doubtless a few ladies of the night rather than business loans and venture capital. There's probably a few tens of thousands of mad scientists on Slashdot, and I'm probably one of the maddest. Give each of us 15 million and I guarantee the semiconductor market will never be the same.
(P.S. For the NSA regulars on Slashdot, and if you don't know who you are, you can look it up, feel free to post on your journals or as an article all the nifty chip ideas you've intercepted that have never been used. After all, you're either for us or for the terrorists.)
It depends. If you're talking about average GDP growth by term, then Reagan is 0.2% better than Carter.
But if you measure by presidency... Well, go see for yourself. I've posted the very recent study elsewhere in this thread.
When France supported the United States in the Revolutionary War, I'm sure there were some criminals in the US.
The Assad regime was a brutal dictatorship. The opposition to Assad is made up primarily of people who are not at all jihadists. In fact, the freedom fighters have in many cases fought the Al Qaeda forces who came into Syria to exploit the violence.
When Thatcher and Reagan supported the apartheid white minority government in South Africa, they were doing so to preserve apartheid.
Mrs Thatcher profited directly from apartheid, since her husband had extensive investments in white South Africa during apartheid.
What is YOUR answer to that?
It's always better to oppose unjust, undemocratic regimes. 20th century American history is littered with occasions where the US supported the unjust regime and came to regret it later, in sometimes devastating ways. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, South America, Africa, Cuba...the list goes on.
If you average the GDP growth by term, Reagan comes out 2 tenths of a percent ahead.
If you average the GDP growth by presidency, Carter comes out ahead.
I've posted a link to the very recent study elsewhere in this thread. Look for figure 1b.
"Stanford scientists say they could help boost people's motivation to overcome difficulties by electrically stimulating the anterior midcingulate cortex in the brain.
You want motivation? I knew a guy who took two hits of crystal meth and a pint of schapps and was able to overcome a solid wall with his forehead.
It probably didn't do much for his anterior midcingulate cortex, though.
It was an incompatible finger protocol. You have to upgrade your hand and try again.
Been there, done that. Beanies are completely ineffective at helping concentration. Yours or anyone else's.
Microsoft don't write any SCADA control applications, do they?
Why would you want to connect your brain to the Internet? Far too great a risk of an NSA virus.
What you want to do is place your brain in a networked, Earthquake-proof, fire-proof enclosure, with an Infiniband connection to a Linux server. This would then be linked, via an OpenBSD firewall, to the Internet and also to some sort of ROV that can act as a relay between brain and body.
Meanwhile, your skull would contain an embedded computer, a massive multiplexer/demultiplexer to link up the nervous system and a very high bandwidth microwave link to the ROV.
It would reduce bandwidth requirements and latency if the motor neurons remained in the skull, with the rest of the brain transmitting only executive instructions and not specific nerve impulses. Those could be generated more locally. Split brains are found in squid, so we know this kind of isolation is possible. You'd also need a smaller computer, as it would largely be relegated to providing network security, error correction and data compression/decompression. This means you could increase the number of motor neurons, increasing the sophistication of muscle response.
From the brain-at-home POV, removing motor neurons means reducing distances between the other parts of the brain, reducing response time. (Since microwaves are a fair bit faster than electrochemical chains for transmitting data, latency due to distance is insignificant. You would be limited by signal strength and error correction codes, but the radius would be far beyond typical distances travelled by westerners anyway.)
Dissecting the brain further, with no executive functions in the skull to contend with, eyes could be larger, giving you higher resolution at the same number of distinguishable colours, or more colours at the same resolution. This would require the optic centres to be cut out of the brain and enlarged accordingly. Unlike those parts dealing with memory, the structure of the visual cortex probably won't vary much. By replacing the synapses with optic fibre, you can reduce latency, reduce errors, increase resilience to aging, reduce space requirements and eliminate tau protein knots. The reduced space means more visual cortex for the same response time, letting you process every scrap of available data rather than wasting it as the brain currently does.
Much the same applies to hearing and sense of balance. You could probably double your frequency range and your ability to distinguish tilt.
You may be more restricted in movement, but you would exchange it for superhuman senses and superhuman reflexes.
Reagan after the Congress vote on SA sanctions:
Which is exactly an indication of the kind of lying piece of shit Ronald Reagan was. He claimed to oppose apartheid after the whole world had already sided with Mandela, yet he moved to thwart him at every step.
When Mandela was looking for support from the West, Reagan and Thatcher decided to stand by the minority white apartheid regime. The only reason Mandela sought the support of the Soviet Union was because the West had already turned him down.
Ronald Reagan was as evil a man as has ever been in such a high office in the United States. He negotiated for Iran to hold Americans hostage so he could get elected. He sold arms to Iran in order to support fascist regimes in Central and South America. He undermined the industrial economy of the United States. He used the ugliest sort of racial stereotypes in his "Southern strategy". Reagan's "supply-side economics" have caused what Pope Francis has called the "New Tyranny".
Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher were blights on the free world. They supposedly "defeated" the Soviet Union only to turn the United States and Great Britain into the neo-feudal countries they are today.
I don't believe in erasing anything from history
I didn't say anything about erasing from history. My suggestion was to erase their names from the Book of Life, which is an ancient curse, equivalent to damning them to Hell for eternity.
Read twice, comment once. This way you won't make the same mistake again.
30 secs of google found a NY Times article* by Floyd Norris from 2011, using data from the Commerce Department, shows that it avg GDP growth was 3.5% under Reagan, The Gipper and 3.2% under Carter,
Here's something more recent that shows something different:
If you calculate the average GDP growth by term, you get the figures you cite. If you calculate the average GDP growth by presidency you get Carter ahead. See the paper below, figure 1b:
Glaciers melting in the dead of night
And the superstars sucked into the supermassive
Supermassive black hole
I very much enjoyed living in the Reagan years America.
Did you know that the average annual growth in GDP under Reagan was less than it was under Jimmy Carter? That doesn't figure in to your Reagan hagiography, does it?
Of course "living in the Reagan years America" was good, especially compared to the years after his trickle-down insanity kicked in.
Sometime, go take a look at the trend in middle-class income, starting with Ronald Reagan. In many ways, we're still living in Reagan's America. It's still his trickle-down voodoo economics. Even Pope Francis has recently weighed in on Ronald Reagan's beloved "supply-side" economics, calling it a "new tyranny".
And it's only very recently that we're starting to see people begin to push back, as they start to understand what Ronald Reagan really did to this country.