Slashdot Mirror

Specifically NorCal water being redirected to Southern California and particularly LA.
[...]
The drought scam in California has been entirely fictional, and mostly related to the mega-cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles stealing all the water from the eastern range [...] The same applies to Southern California agriculture

BS. Cities and towns only use about 10% of the water. The vast majority of water is used for agriculture and for environmental reasons (keeping rivers flowing, wetlands wet, and preventing saltwater inundation in bays). Yes most of the water used by LA metro residents is piped in from elsewhere. But it's a tiny fraction of the water that's redirected around the state. Southern California has very little agriculture - a few orange groves and scattered ground crops. The vast majority of agriculture is in central California (note that the Bay Area is actually in the middle of the state, not Northern California as its generally called, and is adjacent to most of this agricultural productivity).

What needs to happen is for the price of agricultural products grown in California to increase to truly reflect the scarcity of water. Agriculture contributes only 2% to California's GDP, but consumes 80% of its non-environmental water use. California's agriculture industry needs to be charged full price for the water it uses. People in other states will then either pay the higher prices for California crops and livestock, allowing California farmers to afford to buy water from sources in other states. Or they'll refuse to pay the higher prices, allowing production to move to states where it makes more economic sense to grow those crops and livestock. Both of these alleviate the endemic water shortages. But as long as the state government insists on subsidizing its agriculture industry with cheap water, it'll result in water shortages for residents outside of the agricultural areas. That's what happens when you subsidize something - it distorts the economy causing shortages elsewhere.

Compare these clunky 4:3 laptops.

http://17c4dcd7f91259d8cc66-f5...

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbo...

I wonder... I doubt horses would be any better than a Bombardier. Seems like more of a PR stunt to me.

She sure got around

Prices slashed - no reasonable offer refused:
http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group4/building34566/media/0426wth.jpg

I'll sign up anytime, any day! Get me out of Comcast and I'll be happy!

Not available??

Ah gee.. That's too bad...

https://15254b2dcaab7f5478ab-2...

Okay, thanks to selectspec for posting a link to the report: http://0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-c0...

The bad news is that Google were using their own custom controllers. Thus we can't draw any conclusions about different manufacturers or controllers or error correction techniques. All they look at is the error rates for different types of flash memory and how often their hardware could correct the errors.

For consumers this is likely meaningless. So much is dependent on the drive controller and selection of error detection/recovery scheme, it doesn't really help to look at the type of flash.

http://0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-c0...

I have an idea for starters. How about, to start, that all sexual abuse and harassment will be considered strictly unacceptable?

Define that. In my first sexual harassment class back in the late 80's, a fellow asked the counselor what sexual harassment was defined as.

Her answer? "Anything any woman thinks is sexual harassment - is sexual harassment.

As you might imagine, a hush fell over the room. How does one have any interaction with a woman if she can interpret "hello" as sexual harassment?

I did ask a coworker what she considered as harassment - she said "It depends". Keep in mind this was a woman who used to find it funny to goose me when I was using a glove box and couldn't move or get hy hands loose.

But back to our counselor we were told that remarks on how the woman looked, saying we liked her jewelry, or her dress, or her hairstyle, or any mention of anything physical or anything that could be interpreted as sexual in nature would very likely result in us getting fired.

Know what effect that had on most every man there? We avoided women like the plague. We made certain that nothing other than business was discussed when we absolutely had to deal with them, and we very often made certain to have a witness along with us.

Know what effect that had on the assholes? None.

Want to know what effect that had on 99 percent of the women there? Pissed them off royally. Our staff assistant had the dirtiest mind I've ever known. Silly small talk. She was devastated when the guys started avoiding her. Because despite what a few folks think, women actually think about sex, talk about sex, and make jokes about it.

Some years later, after seeing the unproductive chill this had put on campus inter-gender relations, not to mention actual real cases remained unchanged in number, these draconian guidelines were relaxed a good bit.

I'm not certain if the incident had anything to do with the change of heart, but not too long before this happened, one of the machinists was taken to task because someone saw in his toolbox, a photograph of a cheerleader. Since photographs of women in cute little outfits were considered harassment of other women, he was turned into HR.

The offensive photograph that was so demeaning to women and considered sexual harassment? It was a photo of his daughter, who had made the high school cheerleading team. He did note that if he was disciplined, he was going to take it to the legal system, as denying hime to post a school photo of his daughter, not unlike the ones the HR people had on their desks, surely looked like discrimination.

So be careful what you ask for. In your ideal world where women cannot hear anything regarding sex, you could end up with...http://feminist.org/education/SexSegregation.asp

or http://www.tolerance.org/magaz...

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f...

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-co...

or even.....http://www.relativityonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/12653311_img9939.jpg

According to some half-assed googling, it looks like a Mohs hardness of 9 (Sapphire) roughly corrosponds to a vicker's scale rating of 2035.
Contrast that to Gorilla Glass's listed 622 - 701, and there's a drastic difference in hardness that actually places gorilla glass around a 5-6 on the Mohs scale.

Interestingly, Gorilla glass 3 even lists a LOWER Vicker's rating, citing only 534-639.
Hardness does not always = scratch resistance apparently. The Gorilla glass 3 resists scratches a very different way.....

citations
http://www.cidraprecisionservi... - Mohs conversions
http://www.corning.com/docs/sp... - gorilla glass info sheet
http://317d462d97c0f60cc4a8-f8... = gorilla glass 3 info sheet

Reminds me of this image:
http://c580019.r19.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/obama-checking-out-girl.jpg

I don't think Obama can take full blame for that one. The responsibility for that incident falls on the shoulder of the guy standing next to him. There is a high probability that he muttered too himself "Whoa, awesome ass." However, he muttered it too loudly so that Obama heard him. When you overhear a comment like that, it is absolutely impossible not to have a look, and a look again.

And it gave me this in the first row of images (probably NSFW...but then again this whole thread is)

I still received a fresh helping of titties so google isn't broken, they just want to sabotage and betray you so hard that you won't care about titties anymore.

P.S. I know the pic is of a slashdotter. REVEAL YOURSELF!!

P.P.S The people who are being modded insightful for whining that this is censorship ought not to be, because they aren't.

Religions (churches) are not a charity; see, e.g.,
this paper(PDF).

Oh cool! :D

No, I intend to have no buttons on the dashboard. My DB looks like this: http://c767170.r70.cf2.rackcdn.com/R20924.jpg

There is a nice rectangular hole in the middle, where the centre speaker would go (optional extra). In my case that is an empty cavity, and would make an excellent place for a LCD screen.

At the moment I'm debating whether to make it a touch screen or not, but if I do make it touch sensitive, it would be rarely used (only instead of a keyboard, e.g. if I want to type in an address), due to my original post w.r.t distractions, and because I don't like fingerprints on the screen :)

The place I was thinking of putting the buttons is on the centre console, between the gear stick and the armest. That is currently being used by the ashtray (which I never use, as I don't smoke), seen here on the left: Centre console.

I built an in-car PC for a friend ages ago, and found that a simple usb numpad (12 buttons in 4x4 arrangement) was more that enough to fulfill all the functions we needed, including having some dedicated buttons for music/movie control, so you could switch tracks e.g. even when you were on the GPS map. As it was just in front of the armrest, when you rested your arm your fingers were right on the keys, for easy access while cruising, seemed to work pretty well for years.

However I don't have the space for a 4x4 grid there, so need to trim down the button count, or find a better interface. I tried the BMW iDrive system when it first came out, but I didn't really like it, doing simple tasks required you to remember patterns (e.g. Shift left, rotate twice, shift right, then up, then rotate left, etc...).
Once again I found myself having to look at the screen in order to make sure what I was doing was correct. Ideally I'd want an interface that is limited enough so that the basics, such as track/app switching and volume control, can be done without me needing to look at the buttons or the screen.

Not an easy goal, eh? ;) Also, even if I found an in-car system that I was happy with, how could I interface it with my own hardware and software? Most of these parts aren't exactly easy to come by for the hobbyist :)

Let us not forget Mac OS X Cougar and, of course, Mac OS X Liger, known for its skills and magic.

Damnit guys, you undercooked the food again!

You are wrong. He wants to cut the budget of the Department of Defence by 15%, this will mean the funding of the wars will end.

See page 2 in his program
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

Ron Paul's budget addresses the military spending on foreign wars in the exact same sentence as the cuts to these cabinet departments. His outlined budget below that has the Department of Defense listed first amongst the departments whose discretionary spending would be frozen. While your point is well made, Ron Paul already agrees with your premise, and always mentions military spending as the number one thing that needs to stop to help fix the budget. Perhaps you should take a look at the actual document that this article is mentioning as you may realize that Ron Paul is on your side and is the only one that isn't peddling a bunch of half-truths and lies about the economy, budgets and politics in general. Ron Paul's Budget Plan

SPENDING:
"Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year
of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet
departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and
Education), abolishing the Transportation Security
Administration and returning responsibility for security
to private property owners, abolishing corporate
subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and
returning most other spending to 2006 levels."

He plans to privatize the TSA and to cut some of the DHS funding. Source. (BTW, I may be blind, but I don't see the TSA on his itemized lists, even though he mentions it in writing.)

I RTFA (I know...) The linked article is an editorial. It links to another article summarizing Ron Paul's plan. That article links to the actual proposal: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf The plan is actually really interesting. It DOES cut DOD by 200B per year. It makes some deep cuts, and balances the budget by 2015. I don't know if he could get it though congress, but at least he is proposing SOMETHING. We can't keep our heads buried in the sand and spend money we don't have. Even with RP's plan, it shows national debt as 92.5% of GDP in 2013! Getting out of the mess we are in is going to require some hard choices, and sacrifice.

On top of that, all of this is just cents compared to the overall budget, yet the sacred cows like the DOD never get cut.

Ron Paul proposes to cut the DOD by 15%, and to end all foreign wars. Source.

TFA is strictly about science. If you read Ron's actual proposed budget you'll see that the VAST majority of his budget savings will come from the military.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Check out the last page:
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

I wonder why Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget, it would appear the potential savings are enormous?

He does talk about slashing the military budget. All the freaking time. Here's just one of many examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpedybOR2oY

And here's his spending plan, 15% reduction in DoD funding:
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf