This is a negative financially, but the more expensive treatement tends to lead to better treatment.

Compare the opposite case in the EU. Because hospitals have a budget, and they aren't paid directly by the patients, they are less likely to screen for disease because screening is expensive, but screening saves lives (cancer, among other things are found early, for example).

So, imo, the best system is a combination of public and private. I have no idea how such a thing would work, but both public and private have drastic negative consequences (public means less people get diagnosed and dies while private means a larger financial burden and less people get diagnosed and die due to the financial burden of care), so I figure a combination is the right way to go.... somehow.

Ok, not really, but let's just say someone did this, then somehow, the egg stays frozen for *generations*. I'm not sure about how well the genetic material would hold up being frozen for that long, but I'm assuming it could last quite a while.

Then a descendant decides to use the egg to produce a child... who is effectively that person's great^n uncle/aunt.

I gotta say. That'd be weird to explain to the kid, keep up with medical records, and a slew of other things, I'm sure.

A weird idea, but something that might end up happening at some point or another in the near to far future. How would you handle diseases for that? It could be a potential pandora's box.

Unless I'm mistaken, what causes the atmosphere to "leak" so profusely is the lack of a strong magnetic field (which the Earth has due to it's molten iron core).

To me, this means that to terraform Mars, we'd have to have the technology to "restart" Mars' core, a la "The Core", as in the movie. Theoretically, that'd bring the magnetic field back and protect the atmosphere. Then the plant part can start.

That significantly raises the bar on the technology that is required to terraform the planet, so I don't expect it to happen in the foreseeable future. Whereas, before this was mentioned, I thought maybe we'd start some time in my lifetime (the next 50-90 years). It'd be kind of pointless if, by the time we had the technology to somehow spin up the core, the atmosphere would basically be gone.

True. They both affect the celebrity equally, but in one instance, I follow the rules and get the benefit of keeping my money. In the other, I do something illegal and and get to keep my money *and* I get the media.

I suppose the difference for me is that although both have the same effect on the celebrity, I have a right to one (my money, my choice), while the other, I don't.

Which leads me back to why I consider it acceptable to pirate in this situation. The laws that say it's illegal to do so are broken, barely enforced (by percentage), and generally asinine in a digital age, imo. So me breaking the law is irrelevant/negligible in my eyes, while the negative regarding the celebrity will happen either way because I'm not buying it with my money. So in that situation, in my eyes, pirating isn't different from not buying the song, except in that I don't get the media. ... So if there's no difference except that I don't get to experience what I enjoy, why wouldn't I pirate?

And I suppose regarding the "Is it evil/wrong?" discussion, if we are to assume (wrongly, but still) that the laws represent the people in the USA, then violating them is breaching our social contract that has been set up. In that instance, I would say it's wrong. However, since the laws don't represent the people accurately, I still consider it wrong in that it breaches our social contract (with the corporations, but still), but don't really care because every other choice is unreasonable or what I constitute as worse in terms of my moral compass.

Note: Evil was probably too strong a word. I just used that instead of "wrong" because I was saying "lesser of two evils" and wanted it to go together.

You are right. I suppose I value whether something is evil or not in if it negatively affects another person. That's why I mentioned the absolutist sense.

i.e. me pirating some album from some rich celebrity still negatively affects that celebrity (since me not buying it means they don't get more money), but they are already rich so a single $20 album purchase is negligible in my eyes, but that doesn't change the fact it affects them, just whether it affects them in a way I reasonably care about or not.

So yes, it's amoral generally, but for my personal moral compass it is a lesser evil. Because I'd rather their music be a reasonable price and available to me so I can buy it without breaking laws that are arbitrary in my view. Idealism, again.

Then there is an absolutist sense for me (that's why I mentioned it).

No. In a digital age, I find it absurd that people (particularly me) are kept from experiencing content that they enjoy, and more importantly, can learn from or grow as a person. I find that unreasonable to ask of me.

Basically, I'm acknowledging that the system is fubared and that I'm actively choosing an option that would normally be detrimental to the system, but because of it's state, is the only reasonable, acceptable option imo.

I live by Occam's Razor. Not sure how, but I learned to do that anyway before I knew it was a thing. My options being: 1. purchase the content. 2. Pirate the content. or 3. don't get the content.

1 is unreasonable because it feeds the problem, and is detrimental to me (content is overpriced, which is a symptom of the problem).
3 is unreasonable for the aforementioned reasons about availability.

So I'm left with 2 which is the most reasonable even if it's not the best possible choice (i.e. in a perfect world).

Indeed.

>personal rant

The issue of piracy is complex, and personally, I am a pirate. However, I acknowledge that it is evil, but I consider it the lesser of two evils. And I sincerely believe each action is relative.

To clarify, I'm not going to pirate a $1 song from some indie artist. However, the same may or may not be true from much larger artists with larger libraries. Simply because I realize they are probably going to be rich regardless due to large numbers of people actually buying there stuff. That's what I mean by relative.

And sure, in the absolutist sense both are still wrong. However, I consider it even more wrong to support an industry that is set up to screw over the consumer. And I consider every single digital media generating industry set up that way because they are based on copyright laws that are broken in some way or another.

Sure, piracy has been known to be pretty good advertisement, so it's still supporting if I enable that (I don't), but the sheep are gonna buy the stuff anyway, so I consider that irrelevant both to my situation and to the general issue to begin with.

Personally, I wish the world were perfect, where people created media as a hobby, and (thanks to the Internet) everything was crowd-sourced and thereby, free. The potential would be massive then. Oh well, idealism.

And honestly, I think the sheer number of pirates are a symptom and not the problem (the problem being copyright laws and how we handle media in general). And I alike it to those strange laws that if you did indeed break them, nobody would care because they realize they are stupid. I imagine the number of pirates that get jailed for piracy VS the number that exist & known about by authorities is around 1%. When the precedent says no one cares or even has the potential to do something about it (due to sheer numbers), I too fail to care.

People may disagree. They do that. /personal rant

Just an FYI, it states on his github page (which is something I'd figure a commentator would read, but hey, lets talk about things we didn't bother to read) the following:
"After talking with the frustrated non-technical people who owned/managed them, I wrote this program to help network users and owners." ... So you are completely off-base with your comments.

Thank you for sharing. I didn't know he had written a trilogy of books about that. Definitely something I'll be picking up in the future.

I mean, not to be the debbie downer here, but that presupposition has be presupposed before, and by smarter minds, imo anyway.

Then we have to consider the Great Filter (which could be radioactive elements & nuclear in general which makes sense) as well, and things just aren't looking good for the idea of us discovering extraterrestrial life any time soon. It might be out there, but us seeing it out there seems unlikely so far to me. And the odds of us finding a civilization that is younger than us in terms of maturity is pretty small considering the cosmic time scale.

I'm just saying. I doubt this will happen any time soon. But I've been wrong before.

Regardless, I, For One, Welcome Our New Alien Overlords.

BillMeLater is now Pay Pal Credit. Maybe that's the direction they are heading?

I've actually seen this come up before.

Question: What if you have a vague idea of what you are looking for, but don't explicitly remember the name? Usually I just open the start menu and start looking down the list of folders until something jumps out at me which takes about 2-5 seconds.

Obviously that only happens with things that you don't use regularly, but as someone with many programs for varying uses, I can't remember all of them all the time.

So what do I do then? Search the HDD?

My backup is to open Add/Remove Programs then find it's name and then search it, but that takes noticeably longer.

Airplanes don't fly stationary. I assume it was flying away from the missile, so "20 seconds away" would've been calculated using the missile's speed minus the airplane's speed. Which means the missile could've been much closer.

Just so it's clear, ALS causes a person to lose feeling in their body. The ice bucket challenge's purpose is to simulate that effect so that you know what they go through in a much less permanent way. How it "feels" to have ALS (hint: it doesn't).

I agree, although I can't imagine how someone would die from it unless they had a pre-existing condition, in which case they shouldn't be doing it to begin with.

And that's where this comes in. (skip to 6:45)

The idea is that you use the animal to actually grow the organ (such as an ape or large monkey), then you get rid of the animal-specific cells using the solution in the video and put the patient's cells on the organ letting them grow making it the patient's organ, effectively. The animal is just there to grow the base protein structure for the patient's cells to grow from. Then, using scanning technology, you can check the organ for defects before actually putting it in the patient, as a protein structure by itself has less to worry about radiation than living cells do.

It's really fascinating stuff.