131–140 of 192 posts
Throwback to the greatest debate of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDdRrMVEnA
This is amazing. They both give pretty compelling arguments. Can anyone else throw anything else into the ring? Is a fish wet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally, once you have covered the R&D cost, it should be free for all. Not unless the R&D cost includes all of the R&D into unsuccessful products that didn't get productized. Also complicating the debate is pharmaceuticals, where you're also covering the cost of FDA approval, clinical trials, etc. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development this cost comes out to several billion per successful drug am…
It seems like an unjustified, kind of Panglossian, assumption that all of the unsuccessful research was necessary and that the returns from patents are exactly equal to the necessary costs. Markets are powerful optimization machines, but that is too often taken dogmatically to prove we are in the best of all possible worlds.
In fact the returns are higher than the necessary costs, including the costs of the failures. That is one of the reasons that pharma is profitable.
However what this also means is that big pharma lobbies hard for long patent terms. And when they get them, then other fields, such as software, have to put up with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blenders can be replaced. I would worry more about silicosis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis
Or pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Been waiting for 25 years to use that word seriously. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilico...
I wonder if it would make a good fire retardant. The water would heat up and make steam and burst out along with some CO2 trapped in it.
It wouldn't be as good as Aerogel [1] which is a similar silica nano-particle based structure. It contains air as opposed to water so conducts very little heat. [1] http://www.aerogel.org/?p=1929
Throwback to the greatest debate of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPDdRrMVEnA
This is amazing. They both give pretty compelling arguments. Can anyone else throw anything else into the ring? Is a fish wet?
Until someone can find a definition of "wet" from a respectable source that states an object cannot be fully submerged in a liquid, the guy sitting down has no argument. He seems to be trying to make the argument that to be wet means a liquid is clinging to you, rather that you occupying the liquid's space. Anyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could that lead to cysts in the GI tract?
Would be easy to investigate. Have desert people more cysts in the GI tract than other people? Digestive tissue is being distroyed and sheding constantly on the other hand, so probably not.