Slashdot Mirror

RadioShack announced it will be the primary sponsor for Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel's new cycling team.

"Lance Armstrong will compete for Team RadioShack as a cyclist, runner and triathlete in events around the world, including the 2010 Tour de France," the company said in a statement.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2009/news/story?id=4349772

Hey look! An ESPN citation on Slashdot too!

Seriously, The [Radio]Shack has just replaced the United States Postal Service, and the nation of Kazakhstan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astana as the most interesting cycling team to follow in the Tour de France!

A 30-40 mile commute isn't unheard of (in fact its very typical) where I live

Off-the-cuff anecdotes aren't worth squat. The average commute in America is 16 miles each way. 100 miles is ample for most people most days. Would it be anybody's only vehicle? Probably not.

>>>I'd say you missed a lot. First of all, ever since I can remember, and right up until this second, businesses are allowed to write off any car they buy as an expense. So congratulations on having fully swallowed the anti-Bush Kool-Ade.
>>>

Dear Sir (and I use that term loosely since most gentlemen are not rude):

First-off I'm a Jeffersonian-Republican (i.e. support minimal government) and hardly anti-bush. Not that I loved the guy, but he was still better than Obama who spends money like a teenage with a credit card, Al B Gore, or Slick Willy "it's fun to get sex from employees" Clinton. I hate big-government with a passion and Bush promised smaller government (and laid-out a budget with a surplus from 2001 to 2011), until the 9/11 attack derailed that plan.

Second, you may believe you know everything under the sun about SUV deductions, but you don't, so let me quote a relevant article about the SUV boondoggle - "It's a highly stimulating provision in the Bush administration's economic stimulus program. The loophole would allow someone who buys an $102,581 Hummer H1 for business purposes to deduct $87,135 from his taxes immediately. Seriously. Good deal if you can get it." - That was a CBS News articles. Here's another article from ABC - http://abcnews.go.com/technology/hybrid/Story?id=97505&page=1

To be fair, the Bush and Republican Congress closed this loophole within a year, but it still allowed a lot of people to buy expensive SUVs for cheap, and paid by us the taxpayers.

Alexis? Is that you?

he also played finance games as well

That really doesn't matter anyway. Without a signed release, it is violation of privacy laws to use someone's photograph in a commercial advertisement, period. You need a full fledged model release that makes it explicitly clear that you are agreeing to have a photograph of you used in this way, and in order to be a valid contract, you have to get compensation in return. The Facebook contract doesn't contain any such authorization, so it wouldn't protect an advertiser even if Facebook said such use was allowed. Further, even if the FB user agreement contained such an authorization clause, it still would not be legally valid. Profile photos may contain other people who are not a party to the FB user agreement.

Thus, use of photos in that way is not a contract matter, it's a criminal violation of privacy laws, and companies doing this could easily find their ad people doing time behind bars.

A far bigger problem, however is that Facebook isn't policing their advertisements AT ALL. I've seen violations of the no-use-of-photos-in-ads policy by that sleazy IQ Test scam as late as a few hours ago. Screen capture here.

Facebook needs to ban that IQ test company from advertising on their site. Besides being a textbook case of telco fraud, they're violating a number of privacy laws with these ads, violating Facebook policy, etc. These people truly should be arrested.

"If I were to present to you an artificial intelligence that behaved indistinguishably from a human being, reacted to stimuli, showed varying levels of consciousness in response to changing conditions, and was actively engaged in expanding its reach into whatever domains it could flow into... what would you call that?"

This is exactly my point though, if one could program a CPU to do just this and output to a robotic model, does this mean the cpu driving the robot is aware of itself?

The answer of course is no. I'm saying that we need to better understand our own consciousness before we can simply jump to conclusions that any artifical simulated brain is aware of its existence.

I certainly don't believe in naive physicalism that you are espousing, because X behaves exactly like us, therefore X is conscious like us.

We have good reasons to suppose that people who behave like us are conscious like us for other reasons other then functional similarity.

We need to find out how to discern between: Unconscious entity and Conscious entity

Here's a trivial example: A calculator can compute numbers, a man can compute numbers, therefore the calculator must be aware of what numbers are since they are able to compute numbers.

See the fallacy yet?

Here's a better one, check out the girl who can't feel pain:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1386322

This is what I mean, the fact that something could seem to behave like us but *not* be like us in some important respect.

How would you know this girl could not feel pain for instance? When you've known pain all your life it would seem unbelievable that someone with very similar biological heritage to you couldn't feel pain.

These are non trivial "hard problems".

Complex reactions is not proof of it is aware of it's existence, otherwise you could say a robot with pre-programmed inputs and outputs to respond dynamically to stimuli is aware of it's existence by sheer nature of duplicating complex reactions.

An embryo is not conscious, yet it leads to a host organism that finally comes to possesses one. During pregnancy none of us remember or were aware of ourselves being developed by unconscious processes of our cells, yet when we reach a certain age a few years after being born we finally become consciously aware of ourselves, before that time anything that would happen to us we would not even feel nor know about, even though we were reacting and engaging our parents, even though we were not conscious of this fact**.

Unconscious processes are certainly an aspect of consciousness no doubt about it but there's a threshold between being alive and unconscious of your own existence and being aware of ones own existence. No one would say bacteria for instance are conscious, yet most would believe they have some form of limited intelligence in order to have survived

I'm saying there is more to consciousness that we must figure out what it is before we can say for certain that *x is aware of it's existence*

Copying everything a human does, does not prove awareness, this is only going to be figured out with a lot of hard slog.

Take the case of Terri Schiavo for instance, her brain was functioning in that vegitative state yet she is not aware of her existence, even though much of her body is still 'very alive', in the sense that it functions exactly like a human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

I'm not denying that we will some day get there and create real conscious entities but we should not pretend we have figured out the hard problems yet.

It depends on what your final objective is and the costs of second stage screening and further testing. So, yes, there have been times when actions with grave consequences were taken based on lousy screening.

For more years than I care to think about, a stream of "terrorists" was sent to Gitmo because they did not pass first stage screening and the political costs of doing effective follow-up checking were deemed to be too great.

How does TFA's statistical sense apply to Mr. Cheney's "one percent doctrine"? Finding answers to that doctrine's legacy of problems is one of the USA's critical needs. It takes a back seat only to the current fiscal mess, but there has to be progress on these issues within the next year or the USA will have drifted too far from its roots in the Constitution and rule of law to ever reconnect with those moorings.

--
No number of spin doctors can repair the damage that could have been prevented by listening to one statistician

IANAP (I am not a pilot), but I know a few people going for their licenses right now, and I get the impression that pilot to tower communications are all business. Each side knows what the other is going to say when he says it, kind of like a script, and it's all both relevant and necessary to the task at hand (flying the plane). It's a bit different than the highly improvisational, distant-focused conversational style employed by multitasking commuters.

FAA regulations prohibit talking about non-flying related things between crew members during takeoff and landing approaches, and a violation of this reg was blamed for causing a crash near Buffalo earlier this year.

I agree that we'd be better off if people adopted the no-nonsense conversation style of pilots while talking on the road, but I doubt many would go through a certification as rigorous as pilot training to gain the privilege. That said, a study probably wouldn't hurt. Even if it fails, it might quiet those who insist "Well I can talk on the phone while driving quite safely enough, thank you very much! I need to call you back, there's a telephone pole in my engine compartment."

PALIN: . . .That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia. And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

Chrysler may have financial difficulties - Microsoft certainly hasn't.

Say what now?

Don't kid yourself. Almost any corporation has difficulties these days, especially certain software corporations since other corporations using these softwares are beginning to question the necessities. OpenOffice is quickly gaining ground, and in my experience the biggest reason why corporations aren't fully migrating to OpenOffice is that their affiliates are still using MS Office, and you can just imagine peoples faces when they receive a .odt file instead of a .doc file. So it's really not about functionality or innovation. Even if MS Office has a thousand more features the office suits have reached to the extent where almost anything new is more about convenience rather than necessity.

Like this girl?

Maybe in some regards, but the electrocuting ATM isn't a great example.

Oh, I dunno, it's not like there hasn't been precedent for companies systematically ignoring lethal electrocution hazards in their work.

There exist numerous product safety laws that could affect the criminal culpability of decision makers in a company who refuse to address serious known safety concerns in their products.

As of 2008, with the passing of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, the criminal penalty for "knowing, willful violation" is 5 years instead of only 1 year per the original 1972 Comsumer Product Safety Act. So yeah, the risk of imprisonment is something company officers have to consider, outside of a simple cost/benefit analysis. But realistically, if you play the game right, you may be able to stonewall and obfuscate well enough to make "willful, knowing" violation unprovable, taking that risk off the table. After that, consumer protection penalties are just another number in the "cost" side of the equation, with a "probability of occurrence" value that gets artificially deflated (because that stuff never happens to us).

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

this bitch is retarded

Neither the school district nor Cynthia Moreno or her attorney were available for an interview. The newspaper, The Coalinga Record also declined to comment, but the paper's former editor tells me she was fired for printing Moreno's myspace entry in the paper last year. http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=4850386

the article I read did not give a brain age of 9 months.

My mistake - it was in the accompanying video with the article. The video display counts down the time remaining in the video, so to speed your discovery, the statement is made with about 1:45 left in the video: "Her mental age is estimated to be 9 months to a year old."

I notice you've gone from trying to defend your point to asking me to stick my "suppositions" (which suppositions have I made, exactly?) up my own ass. I'll take that as your concession that you were out of line.

Here's a pro tip: don't be surprised when people respond critically to you acting like an arrogant twat. Tastelessly offensive declarative statements about a situation you know very little nothing about are not exactly the best way to make your points about euthanasia.

And one final note to clear up a misconception on your part, "euthanasia" simply means "painless death" (from the Greek for "good death" - true story, you can even look it up). The term itself does not necessarily say anything about whether or not the person or animal being euthanized is suffering. Euthanasia describes the painless quality of the death, not the painful quality of the life it ends in some instances. As such, it would be totally appropriate to call what you're proposing "euthanasia," rather than the nonsensical "post-birth abortion" phrase you were so proud of earlier in this thread. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means; sort of hard to terminate a pregnancy that's already ended with a birth, isn't it?

Here's the first page: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/Story?id=7880954&page=1

It doesn't matter to you that actors in their late 20s playing teenagers aren't actually convincing?

That's a rather subjective thing to say. Besides, if age were as objective as you seem to think it is, tell me - why, when buying alcohol or tobacco, do you have to show an ID? why not just install eye-level video cameras?

And on the subject of Summer Glau... she looks a whole lot younger than Jewel Staite yet if you look it up on wikipedia or imdb you'll see that she's actually a year older. But I suppose you, with your magical powers of discernment, knew that?

And then there are these cases:
31-Year-Old Poses as H.S. Student
Twenty-nine Year Old Neil Rodreick Poses as 7th Grader

But I guess their peers are just idiots, huh?

First off, directed != broadcast. Doesn't matter? Fine. It doesn't have to. Second off, show me your 200MW bluetooth device. You must have quite some range on that. I'm not an environmentalist, and I like nuclear power (when handled responsibly). With regard to your question about why arguments from the position of ignorance are allowed, I will have to contend by saying that they worked pretty well for this guy until everyone decided he must be forcefully outed and silenced. "Either get on the side of science or get away from a computer"? I draw an interesting parallel, if I don't say so myself. I don't hate science, I don't hate advancement, and I don't hate progress. I hate people who take a stance without considering all the possibilities and leap to conclusions without extensive testing. Do your cell phones and bluetooth earpieces cause cancer? Most studies say no, but after five seconds of google work, I found this and this. Are those real or are they more people "just as stupid as someone arguing against evolution.."? I don't know. Obviously there are contridictory results, so someone has to be wrong. There is an awful lot of money invested in cell phones. Which one is the disinformation coming from? I can't tell because I don't know who to trust.

Here's a couple of case of murderers being caught because of government widespread cameras put there specifically for crime. One in the US, one in Britain. There are plenty more.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2755037&page=3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Beshenivsky

QED.

How about "Up"?

'Get cheapest phone you can find with GPRS and USB.'

Yes, but not just one. Buy several and dispose of them regularly (if you're paranoid or at real risk, after a single use). But don't bulk-buy as that tends to attract attention:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1499905

To minimise the risk of tracking, keep the phone switched off when it's not in active use and make sure that 'off' means 'off' - if in doubt, remove the battery:

https://ssd.eff.org/wire/protect/cell-tracking

Here I was about to say that tale sounds suspiciously familiar.... then I did a bit more digging. Disturbing stuff.

Good point. Well, since my ISP is on this list, I wrote them this letter. Here's hoping they care.

I am writing to voice my concern that AT&T maintain net neutrality.

I noticed that AT&T is a "participating provider" in ESPN360.com (http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/affList).

As a customer, I'm not interested in this service, and want to make sure you're not passing this cost on to ALL your customers when only SOME of your customers would want this service. Are you charging me for this service?

I'd also like to say that I oppose any efforts to give preferential access to internet content for business reasons. For example, if you were to give faster connections to MySpace than to Facebook because you had a deal with MySpace, I would strongly oppose that and would consider switching carriers.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response.

Guess they want some feedback on this topic:

http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback

done.

AT&T is on the list of "Participating Providers". http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/affList

Don't know if it's still true, but Disneyland used to prohibit their employees form having facial hair. Even though Walt sported a mustache.

Disneyworld as well as all other Disney properties had the same rule, no facial hair. Years ago I knew someone who worked in construction and I was told even employees of construction companies who worked on Disney property had to be clean shaven. However according to ABC News Disney ended that rule in 2000.

Falcon

Guess they want some feedback on this topic:

http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback

HOLD IT.

Unless my memory is faulty our CURRENT PRESIDENT voted for it himself...in his capacity as a United States Senator.

Right there is how it's Obama's fault. He didn't try and stop it and actually voted FOR it.

Also, please read the first paragraph of this link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=6654133&page=1

Obama himself WANTED TARP and access to TARP money.

All Bush did was sign it into law, it's the CONGRESS that made the program. In everyone's rush to BushBash they seem to forget how the U.S. Government actually works.

Oh, and that same Congress that passed T.A.R.P. was majority DEMOCRAT!

Isn't political bashing fun? It can go on all day...and not solve one god damned thing.

Wait until they make their first mistake and crush the first innocent person....

That will depend. If it's the Chinese government, they may well decide that an innocent person was just the sort of counter-revolutionary who would post fake information about the birthdates of the members of their Olympic women's gymnastic team...

It might be a cultural thing too. A lot of conservatives here decry it as evil yet consume more than their share.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6977202&page=1

And then we have the spectacularly bad closet cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_Scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig#2007_arrest_and_consequences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Try finding and loading WAP sites like http://wap.go.com/wireless/abcnews/index (You can test them with a browser first.)

... Since men are better at math (and generally smarter), they're less likely thwarted by the job interviewers at schools to take the crappy teaching job for ideological reasons.

Guys don't teach cause it's a traditionally female field* (read here for usual reasons) not 'cause they can get better jobs. The equally gender skewed male equivalent is probably a technical job like repairmen, carpenter, or electrician.

*acceptableness of male teachers is inversely proportional to age of student, which is why there are as many male professors as female ones, but very few male pre-school teachers)

Dang, I thought it was related to television/TV series!

Praiseworthy? You been watchin' too much Oprah, Willis!

Look, his "philanthropy" is just more oligarchal, social and economic control for an elite agenda.

"They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming."

Why all the secrecy? "They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece

He's also a Bilderberger. He wants to turn mosquitoes into flying syringes - to inject folks with agents that serve the "Overpopulation" agenda.

Overpopulation? That's your children, mate. The world can sustain 10,000 ordinary mortals for the same resources that support Gate's own two children.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=7628545&page=1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30851839/

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202009/news/regionalnews/worlds_richest_hold_secret_meeting_170193.htm

Watch Goodman on the agenda of the BMGF
http://www.snapbuzz.com/view/video/6051/

Fair enough, but I first heard about this from KCBS, IIRC. There were two studies. One showed the obvious correlation---that overweight people were more likely to consume diet sodas (you'd expect this from reverse causation). The other study followed up on this and tested rats on one of the artificial sweeteners (I forget which one). It noted, among other things, that despite the rats taking in fewer calories in that meal, they gained more weight than the rats that ate the same food sweetened with sugar. Basically, they overcompensated in future meals, making up the calories that they missed and then some.

Here's a link to some less-biased stories on the subject:

• http://thyroid.about.com/b/2004/07/08/are-artificial-sweeteners-sabotaging-your-weight-loss-efforts.htm
• http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/Story?id=4271246&page=1

Any time something like this happens everyone from the first manager with the authority to do something that refuses all the way up the chain gets held responsible for whatever happens as a result of their refusal to act.

Good idea. At this very moment you could be in Sudan saving lives. Since you aren't, please report to your nearest court house for sentencing. Given the severity of your crime -- several thousand cases of manslaughter over your lifetime -- it is likely you'll get the death penalty, but there is a small chance you'll get life without possibility of parole.... Or is it more a case of "laws for thee, but not for me"?

There are good reasons that jurisdictions don't make it mandatory to act. Not everyone has the skill, training or experience necessary to evaluate the situation and provide effective aid. As a result you can end up like this woman or this gentleman.

I'm not saying anyone should not act, I have and would again, but it's up to each individual to decide for themselves. Do you really want the state mandating ad-hoc emergency medical treatment from someone whose entire knowledge comes from watching House? Giving a non-swimmer the choice of jumping into a rushing river or being prosecuted for negligent manslaughter? No thanks.

Interesting. Why do you believe that?

Do you live under a rock?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: CIA Lied to Me

Dems: CIA briefers may have broken law

After all their grandstanding on "torture", it turns out the numerous Dems were fully briefed back in 2002 on what was going on.

So now Pelosi et al are squealing "The CIA lied! The CIA broke the law!"

Conveniently for Pelosi, the person who probably briefed her died three years ago.

Are there any other issues that might make the Confirmation Hearing more than a rubber-stamping?

Dude, Congress ignored illegal wiretaps, Bush signing statements, being lied to about Iraq, and torture. But they did find time to have hearings on the Bowl Championship Series playoff system.

Do you think they really give a f*ck about something substantial?

I don't know what type of car you had prior

Like many, I can't afford a new car, so I'm always driving older cars. Every 10,000 miles is unrealistic for oil changes. We used-car aficionados are looking at 3,000 miles or so.

Your 200mi EV fails in comfort and economy to my Diesel, especially if the goal is take 5 200LB adults with luggage 250 miles with no more than 20 minute brakes every 100mi.

I dunno. The Tesla Model S is pretty luxurious. In any case, "comfort" is a subjective measurement, and I'm not sure where it figures in our efficiency discussion.

At the current price of 2.19 I could drive to and from the pool about 4 times on a single gallon, 2.19/4=0.54, so yes technically I can.

I think we're going to need some numbers on this one. That's 60 miles on one gallon of diesel in your SUV. (I did specify one trip to the pool and back was 15 miles.) And this isn't highway driving; it's stop-and-go traffic lights all the way. And 54 cents is, "technically", not less than 50 cents (a high estimate of my electricity cost).

I drive about 26mi to work, most of the people I work with drive better than 50mi in a single direction, some pushing 80mi.

Then you work with a singularly unusual workforce. Polls consistently show average commutes around 20 miles or so; for example, here's a 2005 commute poll showing 16 miles average, at an average speed of about 37 mph.

Around these parts (and by these parts I mean NC, I'm from TN and my family is from MS which has no jobs except to drive to TN and work -- 60 to 120mi one way a day is normal for most Missippians), an EV is nothing but a waste of time, a diesel makes far more sense.

I used to live near Asheville, NC. 'say, neighbor?

I'm not trying to argue that EVs are for everyone. Certainly not yet. The only thing I'm saying is that EVs are about twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine vehicle. I didn't like your pointed questions characterizing my car as worthless, so I asked some of my own.

Your car is for you, and I don't question your decision. My car is for me, built specifically for my needs. I don't see why we have to belittle each others' choices to discuss efficiency.

Did I mention that I've actively lobbies for a commuter rail, and have been shot down because people don't want to ride with the "riff raff" that use public transportation? Now you see why I've switched to lobbying for diesel and domestic plant-based biofuels, notably fuel that comes from non-consumable plants like hemp or algae (but algae isn't really a plant).

No, you didn't mention, and it doesn't matter, except insofar as I'm happy you're trying to improve things. Me, too. I like biofuels; recently I attended an alternative-energy symposium where one of the projects focused on coconuts.

Personally, I'd like a self propelled electric highway transiting the entire country. Like a rail gun, only slower. I'd set it up as "individual mass transportation": you drive your car to the station, drive onto one of the induction cars, and it whisks you away quietly and quickly to your next destination. No need to mingle with the "riff-raff". If your car was electric, it would even recharge while you waited.

Such a system would be a fantastic economic benefit. Certainly a lot better than destroying stuff in another country, or propping up business models that are already failing. It's actually creating value.

Anyway -- that's a side track. (Sorry. You started it! :)) I'm not some fanatic trying to criticize or take away your SUV. Make your own choices, drive what you like. The OP thought the inefficiencies of power transmission and storage reduced EV efficiency to less than an ICE. I just pointed out that studies show otherwise.

Well that and sell items in the game to help with game play. Plus a monthly subscription so they can play unlimited with options turned on.

Many games like Pirates of the Caribbean, etc already do that.

Many Facebook games are that way like Battlestations, you play for free but can buy items from their shop to help gameplay. They earn about $40,000 a month.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7561561&page=1

Well MBTA, I hope your liberal Jim Crow hiring practices were worth $9.6M in damaged property and 46 lawsuits...

Great example. Here's a pretty good article on it: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=98043

I also like their explanation for "why":
"Imagine that you deposit $1,000 in a bank at 10 percent compound interest per year. Next year you'll have $1,100, the year after that $1,210, then $1,331, and so on. The first digit of your bank account remains a "1" for a long time.

When your account grows to more than $2,000, the first digit will remain a "2" for a shorter period as your interest increases. And when your deposit finally grows to more than $9,000, the 10 percent growth will result in more than $10,000 in your account the following year and a long return to "1" as the first digit. "

most people who make it to 75 aren't the expensive people. it's 40-60.

Huh? Actually, lifelong medical expenses for healthy people are higher than for people who die younger.

Patients report that a more expensive placebo is more effective in treating their symptoms. Perhaps that's why medical expenses are out of control in the United States.

Ok, we need to put a stop to this myth like thirty years ago.

THE AIR ON PLANES ISN'T RECYCLED.

It seems your information is outdated. Once again, Google to the rescue:

http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/Pdf/aId/2518

Quoting:

Today some 50% of commercial passen- ger aircraft use recirculated air for ventilation of the passenger cabin

also here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/air/handbook/part3/section-3.html

Newer airplanes recirculate part of the cabin air (up to 50%) to save fuel, in contrast with older planes, which use all fresh air ventilation.

and a small article here:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1213901&page=1

H.L. Hunt, oil tycoon made a similar quote in the 1960s about his son, Lamar, co-founder of the AFL which later merged with the NFL, to form the AFC half of the current NFL.

From my first link:
It was suggested to billionaire H. L. Hunt that he must be worried about son Lamar's pro football losses, which surely amounted to $1 million a year.

"Oh, I am, I am," the elder Hunt exclaimed. "At that rate he will be broke in 200 years."

Come on people, use your heads. Just like, I dunno, flying a commercial jet at low altitude over NYC, making a game about a battle in an ongoing war where many of the people involved are still fighting is just a bad idea, and shows not only insensitivity but also questionable taste.

It is a game. No matter how realistic the fighting is, it won't be like the real thing. It therefore trivializes the very real aspects of war that the soldiers who were there must have gone through. I'm glad the game was canceled, but I question the intelligence of those who greenlit it to begin with. At some point during the creative process, somebody must have had the courage to say "hey guys, maybe we shouldn't be doing a game like this so soon after the real event". But maybe not.

It's a leak that they may release a "wiz-cool" OS, *cough*...let's see, last time they did that it got called "Vista", except that everything was dropped out except the 3D desktop and the DRM improvements. So now, they need to see another OS...question is, why? Is it really to further OS development, or is this another story to get us excited about tech that will never be, but will be replaced by yet further OS-support for remote control by content producers, law enforcement, and corporate interests who pay to buy in for a piece of the pie.

Already, the US is seeing the rewards 'reaped' on the deliberate vulnerabilities implanted in cell phones for law enforcement official (for the war on terror, for the new-bogus war to track down the national security threat of kiddy-porn (which americans and other nationalities are having their fear pumped up artificially, just like Cheney/Rove/Bush did with the daily 'threat level' for the war on terror) -- all methods to justify over-arching powers and privileges to spy and monitor all of our actions and communications. Computers -- PC's, are the new biggest 'threat' -- darknets that can completely hide networks of users, encrypted P2P nets are only the tip, with song and movie piracy as only additional legal 'excuses' for law-enforcement to get permanently open taps and backdoors available. Since the war on terror has now been mostly unmasked as entirely fabricated, with the only torture usage being shown to brainwash prisoners into giving bogus 'confessions' to give fabricated information to support the GOP-fascist agenda, the "LawEnforcement-Prison Machine" wants more methods to make their job of artificial political-enforcement easier.

They seem to not be making much progress in prosecuting real crime -- in fact they are losing their battle of control now that DNA evidence is proving even "eye-witness" testimony as reliable as memories recovered with hypnosis. With evidence building against fingerprints as people ask for proof of efficacy, and evidence leaking out that the Fed's DNA database can return many false positives when a "DNA-print" is run against their entire database, they need new tools so they can get back in power -- or gain power over the people that they never had. Having a closed-source OS with hooks available to law-enforcement to tap into, and control people's computers would be a big boon to the Law.Enf.+Prison "machine". They need to keep feeding the prisons with new criminals so 'Corrections' operations (of which Cheney is a major owner/player) can continue its upward trend as a growth industry.

Meanwhile, as corrections are privatized, you increasingly have a slave-labor workforce. No minimum wages required, minimal benefits -- time to make those "criminals" start "producing for the country." Don't believe it can happen here? Take a look at US 'territories' setup far from American roving investigative camera crews where Jack Abramoff did much of his entertaining of congressmen -- Saipan island, the largest island in the American territories. They ship in foreign workers with no rights on national soil -- force them to live in prison like conditions for manual labor and have the better 'behaved'/'trained' perform in the 'service industry' (the big new industry capitalism has been trying to sell to America as our new 'future'). But these particular servants got low wages, and had to be well mannered and obedient in all they did, or they'd be returned to the even worse conditions of their native countries. The females, of course were also their for 'servicing' the (from what I've read, exclusively male clientele/visitors -- all high political mucktymucks who are on the conservative 'payroll' system of (serve and be taken care of).
If you wish to be depressed and understand the processes behind our recently departed regime (who is only out temporarily, but still quite actively planning their next take-over, with increasing the slave-labor force in the privately held priso

I agree. One need only take a look at the typical use of a personal automobile to see that battery-swapping will be very rarely used. The average American daily work commute is less than 40 miles. How many people are really going to bother signing up for an expensive battery-swapping service where they have to make a special trip to the charging station once or twice a week when they could simply plug their cars in at home each night and forget about it?

Given what hobbyists are already doing I wouldn't be surprised if we see all-electric affordable production cars in the next 10-20 years averaging over 100 miles/charge with some lighter ones getting over 150/charge. With that kind of range I know my personal automotive-transportation needs for all but perhaps 3 trips in the past 5 years would be covered.

For those people who frequently take long road trips, or those who just absolutely cannot live with the idea of not owning a machine capable of taking them more than 150 miles without a break, there's the plug-in hybrid model with an on-board ICE for recharging on the go with fossil or alcohol fuels. Or the oft-mentioned option, cumbersome as it may be, of renting one or renting a plain old ICE car.

Or how about an electric car with the option of towing behind it a small trailer carrying an ICE electric generator for those occasional long-distance trips? You'd probably be able to go over to Enterprise and rent the trailer on those rare occasions when you'd actually need to go more than 150 miles without stopping.

And for those people who drive more than 150 miles at a go with some frequency they can either 1. own their own generator/trailer or 2. just use a plug-in hybrid that already had an integrated generator built-into the car.

Don't those options seem so much simpler and cheaper than trying to manage tens of thousands of shared battery packs and building robotized transfer stations?