"Porn via drones"
[noblebeast] The Discovery article makes it pretty clear towards the end that it is not religious belief, but religious activities, that are likely responsible for the cognitive benefits.
[inasity_rules] I am not sure we read the same article. Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible.
Note that "listening" and "reading" are verbs that describe activities, not beliefs. So TFA in fact agrees with nobebeast's interpretation.
It even ends with 'âoeMy personal belief is that having a strong belief is key to getting the benefits,â Fotuhi said.'
So he contradicted himself in the article.
And we might note that both are possible. We have a word for beliefs that have pharmacological effects: "placebo". People tend to think that placebos are ineffective, but a number of studies have turned up cases of placebos having an effect on people who believe that they are actual medicines. In particular, belief that X can have an effect on a specific brain activity can easily lead to X having just that effect on people who believe that it will.
But the real problem with religious beliefs is that they have a history of leading to very negative effects on non-believers who encounter the believers.
Remember that old hardware is subject to a selection bias: the stuff that was crap died long ago; only the good stuff remains!
I have a ancient Pentium 3 with 512 MB of RAM that I use as a network monitor. It's done that job continuously for 10+ years and I haven't replaced it because it has literally never given me a problem. If it was doing "real work" I'd have replaced it long ago, but it does what it does fine, and uses so little power (18 watts) that I feel no need to replace it.
I was a bit relieved when CentOS 6 came out with a 32 bit version, letting me coax another 7 or so years out of it...
Because nature has shit loads of fusion reactors all over the planet that go critical all the time.
Actually, that's not all that far off from reality. Except that, in our solar system, nature has only one fusion reactor, which went critical roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Nature has been powered by the output of that one runaway fusion reactors ever since then. And life here has had to handle the fact that our power supply is available only about half of each day, so each species needs to develop ways of surviving a total failure of the power plant every day.
... THE most important thing about a church, is that it's about building and serving the COMMUNITY, actual religious beliefs are secondary. Atheists need to understand this, and I would like to see atheist 'churches' that fulfill this important human need.
Here in the US, there's a widespread "church" that officially takes this approach: The UU (Unitarian-Universalist) church.
When my wife and I moved to the Boston area back in the early 1980s, we lived in the suburb of Belmont, and the UU church there recently celebrated its 150th year of existence. Back in the 1850s, a new "town center" had grown up at the junction of three adjacent towns, and the people wanted to form a new town. At the time, Massachusetts law required a town to have a church, but (as the story goes), the truly religious churches in the area had a problem: If one of them was accepted, members of the others would have problems using that church as the town meeting place. This was settled when members of the area's Unitarian churches got together a committee that created a new church. This was acceptable to all, because they knew that the Unitarian church would support all local groups regardless of their religions (or lack thereof).
This has pretty much always how the UUers work. It's why, here in New England, they often have the title "First Church in <town-name>". They don't require any declaration of religious belief for membership, and they actively work to be the local central meeting place for all (especially non-profit) organizations. They do hold regular Sunday-morning services, but typically a lot of members never go to those services, and this is socially acceptable to everyone.
But they do tend to be community "activists". That's the primary function of a UU church. It's legally a "church" to gain tax exemption, so they can more easily support non-profit community activities. If you're an atheist with little interest in community events, you probably wouldn't find them useful. If you're an atheist trying to be more involved in the community, they're often a good place to find like-minded people who won't give you a hassle over your lack of religious beliefs.
Some of those old songs are actually kinda fun:
(The 1952 date for IBM's disk is probably wrong, a few years too early, per another post.)
Indeed, if you have a time-tested system that does a certain job well, why change it? It's possible in older apps it wasn't possible to easily migrate to newer hardware because of compatibility differences. In fact, it's still a problem today, as apps written for older OS's often have issues being moved. Software is often the cost bottleneck, not hardware. Compatibility between hardware generations can be a bear.
in 1952, an IBM RAMAC 350 disk drive would have been able to hold only one
Where is that 1952 date coming from? It wasn't commercially available until about 1956, in limited quantities, and as best I can tell, it's from a research project that started in 1953 with the goal of testing the various storage possibilities, disk being one of many. Thus, it's not likely that working prototypes would be available until about 1954 or '55.
What exactly is "decentralization"? The oligopolies and monopolies that tend to result under reduced regulation is more centralization; it's just corporate centralization instead of gov't centralization. Is one better than the other? Having banks that are "too big to fail" is a nasty side-effect of such. (They are still too big, by the way.)
Jefferson warned about excessively large government AND excessively large corporations.
Today, we call it "Blowback"
I've always thought of San Francisco as the new Sodom and Gomorrah.
That's a decade or two out of date. Maybe more. Here's this weekend's list of sex and fetish events in SF. There's a nostalgia tour for tourists of SF's sex history, and a screening of porn films from a Berlin festival. Yawn.
"I can write this in a slow, OO language using OPM (other people's modules) and it'll be quick to target, bug free, lightweight, and fast. Because, uh, faster hardware and, uh, derp" Also, "I don't need to learn C, I have (fill in the blank with the latest fad language that purports to save programmers from having to really learn to program)" and also "I can use the (fill in the blank with the latest agile / tricky / ultra-testable) technique to Make My Code Shine!"
Oh yeah, and this charmer: "I don't have to bugfix version-2 or older, it's perfectly reasonable to expect everyone to upgrade."
The fact is that technology may not have driven the purchase price of a car down that much, but it HAS driven the cost of transportation down significantly, while at the same time dramatically increasing reliability, comfort, and safety
I don't think this is supportable by evidence. Cars, including total cost of ownership and operation, are more expensive than ever. Mostly because people are willing (and able) to spend for it. Our entire culture and civilization is designed around subisidizing the hidden costs of transportation, to the point where it's buried into everything we buy or make or sell.
1909 cost of a Model T Touring edition = $850, inflation adjusted 2012 dollars, $23,394.41.
The problem with this comparison is there is rough equivalence in value between a 1908 car and a modern car. There was no such thing as commuting. There was were no highways. There were no paved roads. No auto shops, nothing. It was the wild west. There is no equivalence of value. People in the early days of television used TV much as it is today. There is arguably more value now because of many choices, but the uses and how it fits into a value tree decision are essentially the same. There are also a few new users (i.e. as a general purpose digital display) which add value that was not useful in 1950 since there we not other sources other than broadcast for content. But I think either way, the comparison is useful.
VW is notorious for selling its old models in foreign countries.
The original VW Beetle was manufactured in Mexico until 2003.
The VW Bus is finally getting canceled in Brazil (and that's being fought).
The 2nd gen VW Passat was sold in China for almost 30 years until it was updated.
Yes, this is exactly right. It cannot be done in the US because of increasing regulatory burden, and the availability of cheap credit (which I will get to in a minute). The examples you give support my position. In Mexico, increasing standards are what also finally killed it, and led to major revisions in three different model years. The Beetle in Mexico, despite rising standards and material costs, was reduced in price several times over it's production run, and it is likely that if new standards had not have been added, it would have continued to drop in price. See http://www.csmonitor.com/1990/... for example.
a. it's never cheaper to buy a new car.
This is absurdly wrong. You can argue that it's not a better value, but it can be frequently less money, especially short-term, to buy a new car. And it's often easier. If you are facing a large repair bill and have even mediocre credit, you can almost always buy an entirely new car for less money out of pocket than fixing your old car. And with special terms and whatnot, you can appear to save monthly as well (except that the term and therefore costs long-term are very expensive). Cheap credit, predicated on financing, makes it attractive to buy cars over unreasonably long terms, continuing the ability of car makers to hide the costs behind a seemingly low monthly payment.
b. One of those regulatory agencies crash tested a 1959 Chevy Bel Air with a 2009 Malibu
This video speaks for itself.
You are arguing that increased costs somehow are good for people because it puts them in safer cars. There is no argument that a 1959 Bel Air is not as safe as a 2009 Malibu, however, that is not the only piece of the equation. Why shouldn't the government (not insurance companies by the way) force every company to make a car as safe as a top of the line German built car?
Now you're just arguing with a straw man.
We're talking about the cheapest car of 1970 and the two cheapest cars of 2014
Yes, but the 2014 cars have many, many, many upgrades that are just plain flashy. People lived before air conditioning. People lived before automatic transmissions, CD players, airbags, LATCH, TPMS, etc.