News Stories

[GundamFan0083]

Researchers: Ancient Human Remains Found In Israel

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=132365459

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

lol, they only have the "breakthrough" because Korea is being held back by the US due to the Korea-U.S. Atomic Energy Agreement that bans Korea from reprocessing its own nuclear fuel. Seriously, sometimes unrestrained dictatorship does have its benefits.

I fail to see any logic in such a comment beside its purpose to inject some sense of victimization into an unrelated topic and its mud-slinging attempt.

First, this breakthrough is exclusively, in a sense, a breakthrough for China itself. As the news mentioned, such technology has long been known to US, Russia, France, Japan, etc.. So what if ROK has such technology? It merely adds to this list. Or are you suggesting that ROK having it may work in some miraculous way to prevent the China to have it? I don't know what warrants the "only have ... because ... " argument.

Secondly, this is not something that benefits only China itself. Sure there are concerns about military applications, but China is already a nuclear nation, so the possible change of number of war heads hardly affects world dynamic. China is not in a cold war with anybody. But the Chinese power supply is dominated by coal burning plants, which not only pollutes the Chinese air, but also send smogs, dust and acid rain to as far as Japan, if not further. It sure affects the Korea Peninsula even more. So why is a technology that will potentially reduce pollution and slow down global warming a bad thing?

Last, "unrestrained dictatorship"? What the hell? Is this even remotely related to the topic about the technological development?

[ganbaru]

At least 43 African migrants drown off Yemen coast
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...7022XJ20110103

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

what new buffy?

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...123-184ko.html

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Researchers: Ancient Human Remains Found In Israel

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=132365459

I really hate it when archeologists hype their discoveries as "game changing", "rewrites evolution" and other nonsense. Its just fuel for creationist dotards. It is an interesting find but the tendency to cling tightly one hypothesis or another and never consider the truth might be some combination of several hypotheses is just exasperating.

Interesting:
1) potentially 400,000 year old Homo Sapiens
2) location: region of Israel
They can't say "this proves" anything other than at least a few H. Sapiens wandered this way 400,000 years ago. Every thing else is arm-waving hyperbole at the moment. Personally, I have reservations with the overly simplistic notions of human migration these nimrods keep asserting.

[GundamFan0083]

Yes Vexx, but you and I both know why they do it.
They want the funding.
The more sensational the find "is" the more grant money and funding by interests they can accumulate for their research.

I found the article interesting, but I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude.
If they can prove it, more the better for science.
If they can't, no big deal.

[Circular Logic]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

On the other hand, if they elect a Democrat, debt will rise, and QE3 will be a reality. But the simple way would be to do a Sweden: have a comprehensive social coverage for all citizens, and people will be more likely to pay more income tax if they know what they're payin.

Might I add that Sweden is one of the most open, deregulated and free-trading countries in the world? I somehow doubt the Democrats would do the same thing. (And from what you've argued, I doubt you'd agree with it either).

Got to pay for that incredibly expensive social security spending somehow...

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Circular Logic

Might I add that Sweden is one of the most open, deregulated and free-trading countries in the world? I somehow doubt the Democrats would do the same thing. (And from what you've argued, I doubt you'd agree with it either).

Got to pay for that incredibly expensive social security spending somehow...

Another possibly fatal flaw in the US economy: R&D, or the relative lack of it. Only California, Oregon, Washington, and New England make it worthwile to do R&D in America, (and to a lesser extent, Texas). The rest are uber-conservative rightwing Christians with an abject fear or disdain for science.

I should know. When we have red-state American Christians as guests in our church, we are taken aback at their attitude towards science (especially with science education in schools). It's... provincial.

Sweden is able to afford open trade policies because it produces little in terms of primary production (agriculture and mineral/earth resources), and makes it up by agressively pursuing the R&D field.

That's where I think the US needs to go, along with ramping up the use of renewable energy. It's not impossible. Remember the Hoover Dam? In NZ, we have 70% of our power from hydroelectricity, and it helps a lot.

In California, Texas and Nevada, solar is an option - one that isn't pursued, to much shame, really. Tidal is possible in Hawaii, the West Coast and (maybe) Florida.

In parts of America, geothermal can be tapped into - but no progress there.

WHY?

The reliance on Big Oil. Politicians are bought over by Big Oil, which means that alternative energy sources aren't agressively pursued.

And if you think nuclear is an option: think again. It is a finite resource. As a short to middle-term plan, yes, I think that's fine. But where renewable energy can be harnessed, the US needs to get there fast.

When that plan is started, the R&D area can be quickly developed. That would reduce reliance on primary production, and especially the notorious corn subsidy. Rather, a organic food subsidy needs to come into place, because the proliferation of GM foods, led by Monsanto, is fuelling the agriculture industry.

Again, another problem: Monsanto also funds politicians.
Also: Resistance to science education in red states.

What we need is a pilot program in the West Coast, New York and New England, where aggressive pursuit of alternative energy and R&D development is aggressively pursued, and a carbon trading system for energy producers is put in place.

When that starts, we can then talk about Sweden. Because that is exactly how far behind the US is - reliance on primary production is usually a 3rd World economic structure. Once we stop federally funding the red states and boost the R&D in the blue states (which we WERE well placed to do before November '10), we can have free trade in the US.

Then again, the Tea Party is against federal funding of states, states rights, liberal markets and free trade, right? HEY. Maybe this could be the key. Instead of helping red states play catch-up, we should divest federal funds to R&D start-ups. Instead of federal subsidies of GM foods, we should be looking at subsidy of hydropnics, aeroponics and other next-generation organic foods (as an R&D thing.) The US needs to pursue excellence, not mass-market. It needs to be a nexus of technology, not a bland place of 'more of the same'.

The red states can then decide, after the pilot, whether to follow or be left behnd. Eventually, I can see that the US will split up into a Liberal Canada+West Coast+New England+NY against Conservative Canada (like Alberta)+red state US. It might actually be beneficial, as the blue US becomes the new US in terms of prowess, and the red states, the new Canada.

And Quebec is free to join either side, I don't know how Quebec will move.

Until then, the comparison is of little value due to Sweden and US' differing economic focus.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I fail to see any logic in such a comment beside its purpose to inject some sense of victimization into an unrelated topic and its mud-slinging attempt?

Just the fact I don't see anything special about this. China is a nuclear power, and as such it has been able to have a technological lead that was hampered because of its "inferiority," so to speak. If ROK can develop such tech, why not China? Anything about "breakthroughs" is just.... well, something quite behind.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for KSTAR to fully be operational.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

So why is a technology that will potentially reduce pollution and slow down global warming a bad thing?

I never said it was a bad thing. More of "ah, so another instant of blowing one's horn when its old news." Besides, I don't see much change with the coal industry, given the interests vested in it.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Last, "unrestrained dictatorship"? What the hell? Is this even remotely related to the topic about the technological development?

Just a side comment on the rise of "state capitalism". Supposingly, greater state control is needed for economic growth and technological development, according to some people.

[ganbaru]

Entrepreneur touts alternative in BlackBerry-India dispute
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1856386/

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Just a side comment on the rise of "state capitalism". Supposingly, greater state control is needed for economic growth and technological development, according to some people.

Depending. State capitalism is only good if the revenue is used to help the most needy. Otherwise, it turns into an oligarchy. It's basically a trust and transparency thing.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Circular Logic

Might I add that Sweden is one of the most open, deregulated and free-trading countries in the world? I somehow doubt the Democrats would do the same thing. (And from what you've argued, I doubt you'd agree with it either).

Got to pay for that incredibly expensive social security spending somehow...

Additionally, Sweden is rather an exception, as it is one of the few countries which during the past years aimed for budget surplus, and is now reaping the benefits of having reduced their debt prior to the crisis. That, together with strong exports, makes it one of the few European countries with strong growth (with my home Switzerland, which similarly enacted a "debt brake" policy, and has strong high added value exports).

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by JMvS

Additionally, Sweden is rather an exception, as it is one of the few countries which during the past years aimed for budget surplus, and is now reaping the benefits of having reduced their debt prior to the crisis. That, together with strong exports, makes it one of the few European countries with strong growth (with my home Switzerland, which similarly enacted a "debt brake" policy, and has strong high added value exports).

R&D certainly helped. It was a profit enhancing strategy, in the sense that people will pay for technology.

[MrTerrorist]

Is working with your hands better than just with your head?

[killer3000ad]

Pakistani governor speaks out against blasphemy law, killed by own bodyguard

[Ithekro]

I have attempted to write a rant on red vs blue ideologies from the prespective of someone in the middle of the line (suburbia) where party lines are drawns and the goods and bads of both sides seem to play out. (trouble is I am using a moble phone while on the road, and the "cancel" button is too close to the "backspace" key. I have accidently deleted my rant about six times now. Thus my rant is different from the one I originally wanted to give).

Let us just say that red voter objections to blue energy policies is not always religious based. A lot of it is based on the idea that one could spend wastefully on something that might not work and at the same time let the currently working systems decay, thus leaving the region broke and without a fuctioning infrustrusture.

Also I would point out that a lot of energy projects in the three western states have been stopped by lawsuits from what I suppose could be called "ecoterrorists". People that will block any increase in industry. Be it a tiny power plant that uses the left over produce from the lumber industry to power a small town in Oregon, to stopping hydroelectric projects because it might kill the (non-native) fish some of these people will stop any progress, be it "green" or not. We have had a housing development that was going to be for low income housing stalled for 25 years by enviromental groups so that when they finally ran out of random plants and animals to protect the land owner and contractors had to build all luxury housing to make a return on the investment plus 25 years of legal fees. The enviromental group yelled about that as well and were rightly told off as this being their fault.

The other thing is that some suspect the blue cities get a lot of their votes via the under educated welfare based population. Which stands to reason since the blue side is for social programs even if we have generational welfare families now. The red side voters seems to be more for "pulling your own wieght". Realistic or not?

The red/blue line is basically the major population centers (New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, and the like) verses everyone else in the country, with the smaller cities and suburbia as the battlegrounds.

As for Jerry Brown....he was governor when I was born. He is now in his third term as governor of California because his first two terms were from before the term limits laws came into effect. Somehow I doubt old "Moonbeam" has gotten much better in the last 30 years. We will see. Maybe he has learned something.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I really hate it when archeologists hype their discoveries as "game changing", "rewrites evolution" and other nonsense. Its just fuel for creationist dotards. It is an interesting find but the tendency to cling tightly one hypothesis or another and never consider the truth might be some combination of several hypotheses is just exasperating.

Interesting:
1) potentially 400,000 year old Homo Sapiens
2) location: region of Israel
They can't say "this proves" anything other than at least a few H. Sapiens wandered this way 400,000 years ago. Every thing else is arm-waving hyperbole at the moment. Personally, I have reservations with the overly simplistic notions of human migration these nimrods keep asserting.

It does push the origin of modern humans back about 150,000 years. That is a big change in what we know about the evolution of modern humans.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It does push the origin of modern humans back about 150,000 years. That is a big change in what we know about the evolution of modern humans.

except the article was so sensationalist i had to check the website and make sure I wasn't reading a article form the national enquirer.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It does push the origin of modern humans back about 150,000 years. That is a big change in what we know about the evolution of modern humans.

its also interesting in the sense that it puts to question on where Homo sapians originate from.
prior to this finding, the assumption was that they originate from Africa, but if this finding in the Levant really does predate the findings in Africa by such a long time, then the prior assumption may no longer be true.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

its also interesting in the sense that it puts to question on where Homo sapians originate from.
prior to this finding, the assumption was that they originate from Africa, but if this finding in the Levant really does predate the findings in Africa by such a long time, then the prior assumption may no longer be true.

no it doesn't, all that does if the finding is true is that the date for human expansion was earlier then we thought.