Slashdot Mirror

If that bothers you, then you better hope Trump fails very obviously as president. Because if he succeeds, then the whole country will turn into a bunch of yuppies, looking like this crap.

I haven't heard anything about Trump increasing SOx, NOx, lead or mercury.

EPA seeks to derail cleanup of coal power plant pollution
 

Google should have played back by pushing something like this to the top of the result list, and having Assistant read out the first paragraph from there.

Prices have gone up since then, but SF Gate reported San Francisco's median rent in 2015 was $4225/mo.

$4225/mo × 12mo/y ÷ 52w/y = $975/week.

This number seems about right to me (I pay more, but I live down town; I also work down town, with a 10 minute walking commute).

So, you *do* want things.

I want the nation to continue to exist. Without military and police it will not exist, therefore, military and police are necessary. Moreover, there can not, unfortunately, be a competition among different groups of armed people, so they must be under a single command — this is why I'm willing to hold my nose and accept the government doing both.

Space exploration is not required for a nation to exist. Nor are social programs. If, heaven forfend, all of the six thousand homeless of San Francisco die tomorrow, the city will not be any worse off. Moreover, provision of these folks with food and shelter can be accomplished by competing charities. Therefore, it must not be done by the government. A clear cut rule, easy to apply and understand.

So if a commie socialist program reduces more crime per dollar spent than spending it on police, you'd be in favour of that? I suspect not.

Your suspicion is correct — because socialist programs do not reduce "more crime per dollar". Not at all. The total cost of crime in the US is about $200 bln/year. The annual cost of the "War on Poverty" meanwhile costs four times that — only a tiny fraction of that stemming from the above-mentioned military.

So, if we eliminate the "War on Poverty" altogether — thus saving about $750 billion/year — and the crime so much as doubles we'd still be saving about $350 bln a year. But, of course, it will not double — because it didn't half, under Lyndon Jonson, who saddled us with this burden — so the actual savings will be much greater.

No, help for the poor can not be justified by efficiency of crime-fighting — indeed, it never was the justification. The government's benevolent and omniscient saints — including the current President — have always appealed to the taxpayers' compassion and charity. Sentiments, that are not compatible with monies being confiscated at gun-point, which is how the taxes are collected.

but now it has no government so free market pixes

Thanks to its Socialist past, it has no law and order either — which are required for a free market to do its magic.

But, so long as we are giving each other relocation advice, maybe, it is you, who should consider moving? North Korea — the worker's paradise — provides its happy citizens with free everything and has a wonderful space-exploration program too. And the glorious Rays of Chuch'e shine on everyone!

I'm no farmer, so I don't know if this applies in the same way to crops, but watering lawns at night is generally a bad idea as it leads to fungus growth.

http://www.hewitts.com/garden-tips/gardening/avoiding-fungus-and-correct-watering-methods/

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/lawn-problems-watering-night-74544.html

Ukrainian dumbass

Don't be hating, suchechka.

drought in one place doesn't mean a drought elsewhere

The flooding happening now and the drought blamed on AGW last year are happening in the same place. That same Oroville lake was "water starved" only a couple of months ago.

Last January I saw birds trying to find food for their chicks. In January. That is global warming

No, dumbass, that's merely weather.

Western Union has turned a blind eye to criminals using their services for fraud for decades. Why did this take so long?

Yeah, the over-pay check scam has been going on since I can remember.
(Link below has autoplay video because SFGate hired morons to design their website.)
And can lead to wrongful arrest with no recourse. Especially by assholes like Bank of America

If it weren't for the latest tech bubble keeping them afloat, California would be completely screwed.

California has:

* High state income taxes, and overall it's one of the highest taxed states in the country.
* Over $1.3 TRILLION in government debt, much in underfunded public employee union pension obligations.
* A regulatory and legal climate that stifles growth and drives businesses out of the state to lower tax, lower regulation, lower cost states like Texas.
* Schools that are some of the worst in the nation.
* Some of the worst roads in the nation, despite having some of the highest gas taxes in the nation.
* Widening income inequality, driven by coastal elites enacting policies that make it increasingly difficult for the poor and middle class to earn a living in California.

San Francisco is an extreme example of the case, since their land use regulations are even worse than the rest of California, and their rent control policies make it so hard to evict tenants that building owners choose to let properties remain vacant because it's all but impossible to kick a tenant out if you want to sell the property.

People can't afford to live in San Francisco because the city and state governments have made the decisions that make it impossible for them to live there.

Your analysis would be beautiful, except that in reality, those who silicon valley and who claim to care the most about people, really don't. As a whole, you give very little to charity, minimize tax personal tax burden, and are very, very comfortable with the notion that your special snowflake tech jobs DESERVE 3x more pay than those who serve others. The corporations of silicon valley are notorious for talking the talk about social justice, but then surprisingly absent when it comes time to pay for it. I am looking at your Apple and Google.

So, I bet that you are very supportive about measures that address income inequality....just so long as it does not personally affect you. So, can you please cut the bullshit, SJW crap about how much you care. By all measures you don't. Having a "bad" feeling is nowhere near the same as actually doing something. Please, grow up or shut up.

Btw: Here is my supporting evidence.
Bay Area near bottom of nation charitable giving from SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/business...
Silicon Valley does not social give: http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2...
Lastly, there are numerous of these showing that conservatives are far more generous than liberals: https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-...

The selfish jerk rule

But Uber is right in this case, so they're not breaking any laws.

The State of California disagrees. Note this little detail: over 20 companies have gotten permits from the State of California to test (drive) autonomous cars on public streets. That means that Uber is not acting in a regulative vacuum, it is just choosing to ignore the regulations that do exist.

Next time, please cite your sources.

http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2011/11/08/san-francisco-naked-city-with-a-napkin-below/

It's on the San Francisco Chronicle website (sfgate.com) right now.

Imagine that. A liberal rag doing the same thing as Fox News.

The link: http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...

Sadly, the article is silent on some important details. If you dig into the IBM announcement, you find that they are putting the entire chain of custody records into a blockchain

There's nothing wrong with using tech to track the source, but at the source, if you dig into field practices, perhaps the problem could be addressed earlier.

Unless the left is saying it about Trump or his supporters. Then, it is true.

Like the lefty liars making up stories about how they were attacked by white men post-election (and then fully retracting their stories once the police asked them about it).

There are cameras everywhere, you fools.

Well here are two documented cases with witnesses in the last week in one area:
Suspects target Latinos for hate in separate Bay Area attacks.

How is this relevant here? Because it has effects when the soldiers return home.

Specifically, the odds of domestic abuse go way, way up. We teach them to be shitheels and then we act surprised when they act like shitheels. There's also the issue that the military is a lot more desperate for recruits these days. Garbage in, garbage out. I do believe in rehabilitation, but that's not what the military's indoctrination is about. It's about making assholes into bigger assholes. Meanwhile, we create such animals we don't even let them have rights any more. No, really. The UCMJ forcing enlisted (or even former enlisted) into military courts is unconstitutional right on its face.

ummmm. first of all. San Francisco is spelled wrong. The address that they give is actually a brand marketing + design company that has been there for years. also - here is info on the supposed company he says is in that location: http://www.sfgate.com/technolo... it doesn't have anything to do with drones, it is mainly a big data trend analysis company. ... so yeah... completely fabricated hoax

> Entitled? What if you grew up there; lived there all
> your damn life.

Actually, what's going on is that other states are "dumping" their homeless on California in general, and San Francisco and San Diego in particular (LA used to be a popular one too, but they engaged in their own anti-dumping battle a while back when "skid row" became unmanageable.). Most recently, Nevada was caught red-handed shuffling their mental patients off to California with one-way Greyhound tickets:

http://www.motherjones.com/moj...
https://thinkprogress.org/neva...
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/new...

Im not sure what the solution is. But the reality is that there really is a metric crapton of unpopulated land in the US where people could be housed cheaply. It's hard to believe until you do a decent amount of cross-country travel. But I've flown from SF to Kansas a number of times for work these last few years. And, aside from Denver, there's very little in-between. And, for that matter, Kansas has all of one city of any note; and they share that one with Missouri. The rest is a whole lot of nothing. It's kind of ironic that it's Nevada that was caught doing the most recent round of bussing; because they're one of the states with the most empty land.

Nice strawman. The AC you quoted didn't mention treason. Very few people have been convicted under the Treason clause of the U.S. Constitution, namely because the Founding Fathers made it so damned difficult to prove it.

Manning and Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. It reads as almost a textbook definition of "traitor". (Personally I think Snowden could be pardoned for acting as a whistleblower, since he's been careful to release only documents relating to questionable government programs. His only complication would be that some/most of those documents are ones he shouldn't have had access to. Manning OTOH did an indiscriminate wholesale data dump of both questionable and legal activity, which IMHO voids any whistleblower defense.)

Or, your business could ask for negative reviews.

"Richmond restaurant encourages bad Yelp reviews":

http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.co...

Not only are health care data privacy laws not enforceable outside the US, but the data is vulnerable to breaches so brilliantly illustrated when a medical transcriptionist working in Pakistan threatened to expose patient records unless she got her back pay. It was revealed that the person who outsourced the work - and was responsible for the salary dispute - had ignored a prohibition from using offshore labor.

UCSF has also been in the news recently for treating it's janitors like crap and firing them when they complained, and for raising the salary of their medical center's CEO to over $1 million (on top of the ~$550,000.00 he gets from being on the boards of several vendors who sell to UCSF).

Check this shit out...

Pick your borders more carefully. If you're on the MEXICAN side of the border, you could probably kill a police officer the size of a prized Hereford and not be extradited, unless life in prison / no parole and the death penalty are off the table

  http://www.sfgate.com/crime/ar...

Unfortunately it will not solve the "bus problem".

A bus exists to obstruct traffic to the point that you never get anywhere any faster than had you taken the bus. This encourages the use of public transportation.

A bus that you can drive under thwarts this purpose for busses, which also means that it's impossible to shut down a section of public transportation, in the same way that BART shut down services to a station, and cell phone services to thwart protests: http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...

If your intent is to use public transportation as a means of government control, you are kind of screwing the pooch if you make it less inconvenient to not take it.

The grid operator does not use rolling blackouts to demand higher prices.

Guess you're not interested much in recent history...Market manipulation is SOP, which makes me wonder, what's the deal, eh? Why ignore the obvious with this phony supply/demand nonsense?

Boilerplate QOTD: We take our business and compliance with regulations very seriously.

Of course they do...

this is a test. if something happens, i will post the result

You can't hide a conspiracy that big.

Yes you can, for a while...

But keep believing in your Utopia, and whine more about how the real world works.

Your trolling is duly noted.

<a>new Barbie doll figurine touted as Game Developer Barbie</a>

Good job, EditorDavid ! Was it supposed to be submitter's link to sfgate ?

Anyone else live in a burgeoning "secondary" tech city?

San Jose. They're tearing down two-story buildings to put up four-story buildings and provide more space. Especially since Apple is developing 4.15 million square feet over the next 15 years in North San Jose.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Apple-gets-green-light-for-massive-San-Jose-6786465.php

That said, as others have said,150g carb/day isn't even close to low-carb. More like 20g/day would be low-carb.

Low-carb diets are 150 grams or less per day.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/150-carbs-per-day-still-considered-low-carb-7754.html

The source cited by your source is "the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans." IE the same people who have espoused for years that fat was the devil and we should be getting over half our daily calories from sugar & starch. Defining "low carb" as "less than the way too much we've been told to eat the entire time we've become the fattest people in history," is maybe not the best definition. I think a far more reasonable definition of low-carb is the point at which you have metobolic changes versus "normal carb" eating. Anything less than that is just changing your diet without it having a specific effect. From my experience, the benefits of being in ketois taper off above 20g/day and are pretty much gone by 40-50g tops.

Specifically that Tess at BMI 46+ is just as healthy and will experience no negative health consequences as compared to someone at BMI 20.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson are morbidly obese based on his BMI score. If I shed my fat and tone my muscles, I'll still be morbidly obese. It's not a reliable indicator.

http://www.docshop.com/2008/04/08/arnold-schwarzenegger-is-obese-problems-with-body-mass-index-bmi-calculations

Arnold, Sly, and Tom are are huge (or tiny...) outliers because of their height and/or muscularity. BMI doesn't work well on the edges of the human population, but it's a very reasonable indicator within average ranges of height & muscularity. It's a poor model when applied to professional athletes or the very tall or very short, but it's pretty good for everyone else. Not sure what's up with Mel, but that applies to both physical & mental condition for him...

If you're a few BMI points off your ideal range, it's certainly very possible you're fine. Arnold was supposedly BMI 33 when he was Mr. Universe, but that's still a far cry below Tess' 46. I'm not aware of any body builders or other athletes that are 40+ BMI. There may be some for extreme heavy weight lifters perhaps, but you're by definition at the outliers of normal human physique there.

That said, as others have said,150g carb/day isn't even close to low-carb. More like 20g/day would be low-carb.

Low-carb diets are 150 grams or less per day.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/150-carbs-per-day-still-considered-low-carb-7754.html

You're not telling people that being at your current weight is a healthy thing that they should accept as good.

I wrote that I accepted the fact that I'm a big person, which means I'm not going to beat myself up emotionally it as I have no desire to relive my teenage years. Nowhere did I write that being fat was healthy. If that was the case, I wouldn't be on a diet and eat whatever I wanted.

Specifically that Tess at BMI 46+ is just as healthy and will experience no negative health consequences as compared to someone at BMI 20.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson are morbidly obese based on his BMI score. If I shed my fat and tone my muscles, I'll still be morbidly obese. It's not a reliable indicator.

http://www.docshop.com/2008/04/08/arnold-schwarzenegger-is-obese-problems-with-body-mass-index-bmi-calculations

You suggested in another post you were doing low-carb. 150 g/day isn't low-carb except by comparison to a standard American diet.

A low-carb diet is 150 grams or less of carbs per day. The typical American eats 225 grams to 325 grams of carbs per day on a 2,000-calorie diet.

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/150-carbs-per-day-still-considered-low-carb-7754.html

I know San Jose was licking its chops at that idea since they have been trying to get Apple to move its corporate headquarters for years.

Fast forward several years later, Apple is bringing 4.15-million square feet of office space to North San Jose over the next 15 years. In comparison, the Apple HQ in Cupertino is only 2.8-million square feet.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Apple-gets-green-light-for-massive-San-Jose-6786465.php

Ha, the the Bay Bridge... That's our next "Airport", and "Towering Inferno". The collapse sequence will be a blockbuster.

Ha, the the Bay Bridge... That's our next "Airport", and "Towering Inferno". The collapse sequence will be a blockbuster.

Y'all need to "push back"...at the next election.

Those of us with more than two brain cells and a pulse have been voting against Feinstein as long as we have been able. I literally vote for any candidate who runs against her. However, she pretends to be tough on crime which always ropes in the idiots, and she has a vagina which also ensures her a certain portion of the vote, deserved or not. She claims to be against gun crime, which is always popular, although she does nothing to rein in police (who regularly engage in gun crime... as in, it's SOP for them to point guns at people undeserved, which it itself an assault. And they usually have their fingers on the triggers; cops have shit trigger and muzzle discipline. But I digress.) Feinstein has a rabid core of usefully idiotic supporters who have kept her in office. And it does look like she's going to run again, and my money says that if she does, she'll win again (by a cunt hair, as the saying goes... but more to the point, on the vaginal vote.)

ObDisclaimer: I love women, and am fond of vagina, but when people vote solely on gender, I get a bit hot under the collar.

http://www.sfgate.com/science/...

I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you people. You want to say this is all global warming? Have fun substantiating that.

This is my state. I know it and I know its history. Most of the chumps commenting on this are either out of state hacks that are just bandwagoning an issue they don't understand. And the rest are mostly millennial twinks that don't know what happened yesterday much less the historic climate patterns of anywhere... even the fucking state they reside within.

http://articles.latimes.com/19...
http://news.sky.com/story/1193...
http://www.californiadrought.o...

The AGW hissy fit has gotten old. Shouldn't we be getting MORE water if your chicken little bullshit were right? After all, more heat, more humidity, more precipitation?

We brought water to the desert. Our cities do not thrive on the rain that falls on our land. It thrives on the water we bring to our land.

No part of the country has as elaborate a water transport system as California. That is what made our cities possible and is what allowed them to grow. Men that moved the water. Our population has grown and all we have to replace those old lions of the past are a bunch of head up their ass hippies that do very little besides whine and waste money.

That is why we have a problem. There is plenty of water. The old city fathers of Los Angeles would have already taken care of this bullshit. They would have gone to any of the many places in the north that have loads of fucking water and they would have made a deal. What is more, Our water system is not well designed to share water within itself. It is frequently compartmentalized. Simply by bringing water into the top of the system and then allowing reserves in the north to spill into reserves in the south... the problem solves itself.

Here someone will say "but every place needs every drop of their water". Bullshit. Oregon and Washington state are loaded with it. You talk to them and work out an arrangement. Buy it. Move it.

Here someone will say "but its hard to do things because we're so fucking incompetent!!!"... you have to imagine that with a really whiny voice to get the statement in its proper context. The Romans moved water hundreds of miles. This is the 21st century and we're talking about a major population center that is a huge economy and huge food producer... so... The fuck? Did we lose the ability to make pipes and concrete? I was unaware that level of incompetence had been reached. Because that's straight up Idiocracy levels of fuckwittery.

Perhaps it has something to do that with every centimeter the sea rises, the hawaii landmass shrinks? And who is the major land owner in Hawaii? Yes, the taxpayer! Means that raising sea levels destroy state owned real estate in the hundreds of millions. And land in Hawaii is not cheap you know.

Yes, of course its symbolic, but they want to not look like hyppocrites when they demand other states to adopt greener technologies.

Well, I think it's both true and untrue. I think it is more expensive to wire up the US because we have a lot of land area and people sprinkled through it fairly liberally. I think it's bullshit because telecom execs have collected piles of bonus money while failing to meet broadband penetration targets, after we paid them to do so. That is to say, it is more expensive, but we could clearly have accomplished it, and we did not because of fraud.

Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history) I'm not sure where they could get the spectrum they need to launch a service that would compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.

An interesting perspective, but it might just be that competing with the likes of AT&T and Verizon is exactly what Google wants to do. It's been speculated that one of the intended purposes of Google Fiber is "...to keep vendors, distributors and regulators on their feet." Mobile providers sell fairly expensive metered bandwidth, and their many of their policies haven't always been customer-friendly. Introducing unmetered wireless gigabit internet might just be a way to keep the mobile providers in check. Besides, wireless infrastructure would likely be far less expensive than FTTP.

"According to a database of state worker salaries, he earned $119,067 in 2011, the last year for which figures are available."

He received $38,000 in workman's compensation for the suffering he experienced after the event, which isn't included in the salary figure.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics...

So theater boxes?

Not in San Francisco.

This sort of thing is what one should expect when you start breaking down categories.

Initially fats were all one category. "Apparently fats are bad - stop eating so much fat." Okay.
Then different categories of fats were studied. "Apparently saturated fats are bad, other fats not as bad." Okay.
Then different types of those were studied. "Apparently monounsaturated fats are pretty good, but when polyunsaturated are concerned, most people get too much omega-6 and not enough omega-3 - and that can be as bad as too much saturated" Okay, this is getting complicated....
Then it keeps going: "Well, when you compare gamma lineolic acid to arachidonic acid...." Stop!

It's not that the earlier data was wrong. It was just categorically too broad. Even knowing statistics about individual chemicals isn't (ideally) enough, because the effects can vary depending on who eats it and how they eat. For example, potatoes: it's a little known fact that letting many types of starches cool (rice, potatoes, pasta) converts readily digestible starches into resistant starches, significantly reducing their caloric content and glycemic load. Or that eating iron-rich foods in many small servings over the course of a day yields significantly more iron absorption than eating the same amount all at once in a single serving. Etc. It's relatively straightforward to gather health data for foods, but often very hard to turn that into "universal recommendations".

you don't have many friends do you? http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...

"Degenerates" is over the line, but there is a problem here. Like any social problem the question of who contributes what share of the blame is in dispute.

But I'll just leave this here: Human waste shuts down BART escalators. Clearly something is horribly horribly wrong.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...

It's depressing that it could take three decades.

I find this somewhat amusing given my experience when Metro Transit went on strike. I found that when they were on strike traffic improve slightly during my commute times. That may have been better planning on people's part or because of the lack of giant mostly empty buses getting on and off of the highway.

Dunno which MT you're referring to, but the Bay Area sees crippling traffic slowdowns during BART service interruptions such as the strike three years ago.

Keep in mind, back then BART was brand spankin new, ultra-reliable, much cheaper than gas.

President Nixon rode it during the 1972 election.

http://blog.sfgate.com/thebigevent/2012/08/16/rail-to-the-chief-when-nixon-rode-bart/

Basically there's a significant number of people who believe that gun ownership is a vital part of their culture. They equate restrictions on gun ownership akin to government regulations about what sorts of apples can go into Mom's apple pie. It doesn't help that the NRA has moved from being a safety and enthusiast organization into a political one that encourages paranoia that the government is trying to ban guns outright. Because a guns are a part of culture this is all a part of what they think is the larger culture war.

You know, I wish you were right. I wish there weren't non-trivial segments of the government who weren't wanting to ban and confiscate such things. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world as you can see here. For those too lazy to click the link, it's Diane Feinstein in an interview in 1995 after the passage of the last Assault Weapons Ban saying that if she could have gotten the votes to force turning all such things in, she would have. If one thinks they would have stopped at so called Assault Weapons one would be seriously deluding themselves. If one thinks that she is alone in that view, especially in the Democrat party, one is deluding themselves.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." -- Diane Feinstein

http://www.sfgate.com/health/a...