Yes. And people sought to address the specific causes of tubercular beef while leaving the rest untouched because they weren't cared about the exploitation and abuse of laborers as much as their own health.
I mean the same thing happened to Orwell. He was a democratic socialist who literally went to war with the fascists in Spain but people think Animal Farm is meant to be a rebuke of communism generally (and not Stalinism specifically).
Our peaceful and sustainable coexistence with the rest of the world (natural or otherwise) has always required the curtailment of some liberties.
You cannot sell tubercular beef and poison the population. For the same reason, you cannot submerge island nations and cause droughts that make other regions of the world inhabitable. Deal with it.
I just googled "what island nations have been submerged" and looked at the top six links. They are all about islands that have been submerged, are on the brink of being submerged, or will be submerged soon if recent sea rise trends continue for a very short time.
from Nature, " Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls."
> The beaches surrounding the atolls are sinking due to erosion caused by waves and this is exacerbated by rising sea levels.
> In addition, because the sea level is rising on the islands, Tuvaluans must continually deal with their homes flooding, as well as soil salination.
> Soil salination is a problem because it is making it difficult to get clean drinking water and is harming crops as they cannot grow with the saltier water. As a result, the country is becoming more and more dependent on foreign imports.
> Tuvalu has adopted a national plan of action as the observable transformations over the last ten to fifteen years show Tuvaluans that there have been changes to the sea levels. These include sea water bubbling up through the porous coral rock to form pools at high tide and the flooding of low-lying areas including the airport during spring tides and king tides.
Re: land increase
2% is within the margin of error and experts have raised issues about the accuracy of data collected prior to 1993.
It is also understood that growing coral reefs combat sea level rises to an extent, but that this biological mechanism is not infallible.
In any case, the rising sea levels are a matter of fact :
> The 2011 report of the Pacific Climate Change Science Program published by the Australian Government,[297] concludes: "The sea-level rise near Tuvalu measured by satellite altimeters since 1993 is about 5 mm (0.2 in) per year."
Lastly, there is no meaningful difference in this context between a completely submerged island and an island that is in the process of becoming submerged by the sea. You are arguing a moot point.
So it will be a "submerged nation" in about 900 years. Which would explain ... "The threat of climate change to the islands is not a dominant motivation for migration as Tuvaluans appear to prefer to continue living in Tuvalu for reasons of lifestyle, culture and identity."
This is incorrect. Manning’s commutation is just as immutable as a full pardon. Her current incarceration is over supposed contempt of court by refusing to testify in an ongoing grand jury investigation. A pardon for her past conviction would have had zero effect on that. Blame the judge and prosecutors if you think it is contrary to justice.
Cheslea can't invoke her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination because she has already been convicted.
If she had been pardoned, that conviction would be null, and her fifth amendment right would apply. She would have a strong legal defence to avoid being thrown in jail.
That is incorrect. A pardon does not nullify a conviction.
The most relevant ruling would be Burdick v United States (1915) where the Supreme Court majority opinion stated that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." It was an offhand remark which hasn't been litigated in front of the Supreme Court since then so it's an open issue whether the statement above is authoritative and binding but there is zero law or precedent that allows convictions to be nullified by Presidential pardon.
AFAIK only a higher court can nullify a conviction.
A pardon wouldn't have any different effect; she's not being targeted (legally speaking) for any action before Obama left office, so even had he pardoned here for every federal crime she might have committed from the day she was born to the microsecond Obama’s turn ended, she would be subject to the exact same thing she is experiencing now.
Now, if Obama has pardoned Assange things might be a little differenct for Manning, but that's a weirder counterfactual assumption.
The problem is that those who get unfathomably rich off of "business" will employ this tremendous power to erode the barriers between what's an acceptable business venture and what is not.
Capitalism is not a "disease" really, it's a legacy system whose fundamental mechanisms are becoming an increasingly large source of dysfunction.
Do we know for a fact that all life derives from one organism? Could the conditions that allowed it to come into existence not have occurred in multiple places?
> Do we know for a fact that all life derives from one organism? Could the conditions that allowed it to come into existence not have occurred in multiple places?
In the sense that we have directly observed this organism and can directly trace all life to it? No.
However, the evidence for the LCA is pretty strong. All doubts in my mind were removed when I took molecular genetics of procaryotes in college. Without going into details of finding relevant citations, and hence a fairly lay (and several years divorced from me learning about this stuff), the fact that all domains of life (procaryota, eucaryota, and archaea) share common genetic code and operate similar RNA- and protein-based molecular machinery strongly implies that a single "master template" originated all subsequent life on the planet. Considering how complex a ribosome is, for instance, the fact that all domains of life have similar, but not identical, ribosomal structures seems exceedingly unlikely. Molecular machinery is as complicated as it is because it evolves randomly to fulfill specific tasks. It's highly unlikely that two organisms would evolve the exact same piece of machinery which similar construction and composition to solve a novel task. On the other hand, when evolving from common machinery (i.e. shared ancestors), it's feasible to imagine that two organisms sharing an LCA might independently evolve similar proteins to adapt to a common stimulus. Consequently, eucaryotic cells function broadly similarly to other eucaryotic cells, archaeal cells function broadly similarly to other archaeal cells, and prokaryotic cells function broadly similar to other prokaryotic cells. Finally, archaeal cells function more closely to eucaryotic cells than do prokaryotic cells. Thus, it implies that archaea and eucaryota are more closely related than prokaryota and eucaryota. Hence, the phylogenetic tree. This implies that the most elegant (but not necessarily correct) solution to the similarity between different domains of life is a single unicellular ancestor.
I don't think that actually makes any difference. The earliest common ancestor of humans would still be a single-celled organism, even if we were a composite of several such life forms that evolved totally independently of one another.
Let's say that life arose independently on three separate occasions, and each of these groups evolved as far as a fish completely independently of one another, and these three fish populations were by some miracle similar enough genetically to produce fertile offspring, and they mated, and we're the result. Each of the single-celled organisms that eventually gave rise to these fish would still be a common ancestor of humans, in that all of today's humans are descended from it. Whichever of these organisms appeared first would win the crown of "earliest" common ancestor.
Truth is an abstract concept. We only ever get an interpretation, and this interpretation needs to be properly apprehensive of how information is disseminated and interpreted. Proper editorializing is far more important than you realize.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the contents of this article. It does not undermine the climate change (read: scientific) "agenda" in the slightest. However, considering the sheer amount of people who only read article titles and form rigid opinions nonetheless, this article's title specifically is potentially harmful.
It looks like you're looking for a colocation host. You basically rent out rack space in someone else's datacenter. Your options are mostly constrained by geographical location though so HN is probably not the best place to ask. Maybe try some IT professionals in your entourage?
I personally only have experience with Cologix and I can vouch for them. Good installations, good network speeds, etc. My previous employers' entire infrastructure runs there pretty much. They're based in North America.
However you don't necessarily need to access the rack yourself. I believe most will install the server for a fee if you ship it directly to them.
It's also pretty expensive. 2U of rack space can cost something like $99 USD a month. It's worth it on the long run if you need extremely beefy servers though.
It's simply not possible to quantify performance in this way, when comparing language implementations. Performance can also be constrained by environment and/or context on top of the expensive abstractions the compiler or interpreter are required to make. But I'm honestly just being pedantic.
You make a good argument about the potential costs abstractions when they are applied at a very large scale. You are however ignoring the cost of things that may be prevented with high-level language features, like for instance errors in memory management which in my opinion are far worse than wasted cycles. I'd wager most would choose a marginally higher power bill over Heartbleed.
