I'm going to assume you know what you are talking about, so to clarifiy, is the article (and you) saying "a molecule of methane emitted is 25-100x as destructive over 20 years." Because that could coexist with what I was saying. It still could indicate that the CO2 is a scarier/longer term problem.
They are paid a salary, and they get the same benefits as a 40-hour-a-week employee. Just 75% of the salary. So, with benefits, they make more per hour.
It's not a horrible idea. Although, at 40 hours a week, I already want to just do 10x4. The idea of doing a 10x3 is really appealing to me. 8x3 + 6 is a little less, but not horrible.
Methane added lasts about 8 years before leaving the atmosphere. CO2 lasts orders of magnitude longer. So, while it would produce a noticeable effect to cut the methane, at this point we're just replacing 2008's methane (maybe a little more, I know the number of cows has gone up post recession, but I don't know if it fell during the recession.)
It's a normal chemical to have around in this case (huge public pools). It neutralizes chlorine (as in this case). Too much chlorine is bad for people, so neutralizing excess is important. And it's hard to know how much chlorine you'll need, because sweat and such cause it to decay. So in case of a situation where they'll need to reduce the chlorine rapidly, they'd need hydrogen peroxide.
And there's not going to be a signed work order. Because the measurements are supposed to indicate what chemicals to add, and tit's part of the daily job. After all, there' no signed work order to specifically swap out the urinal cakes, it's just a job.
(This is not unusual - many entities often provide legal aid in cases they deem important - if you think Thiel acted wrong, what do you think of the ACLD, EFF, EPIC, etc., doing the same thing?)
I can certainly think he's wrong and the EFF is right. For one, I usually agree with/root for the EFF's side in a lawsuit.
You're right, Slashdot is populated entirely by people who want more corporate control over the internet. You think Netflix had it rough with transferring a lot of data, wait until private companies take over the domain name registration.
I think that's the right answer for a developer. "Here's my view of what I think things should look like. Don't like it, go elsewhere." It's a main reason why OS X on the desktop had been more successful than Linux on the desktop.
Most people won't take the time to configure their UI. And most superusers use enough different machines that it has to be similar to the standard view anyway. And smaller developers will always have ot make a view that works well for people using the defaults.
Let's go the other way. Why should multiple UX paradigms be supported?
To answer your question: It's a beam of light. If you put an opaque object in the beam, it will henceforth not work for communication until that object is removed.
More practically, I would imagine a similar laser aimed at the same receptor, would introduce so many spurious photons that it would be unusable. Similar to radar/radio jamming.
Basically, quantum communications like is is a communications channel that reveals when it is being tapped. The accuracy of this detection is very high.
Hence, I can trivially send you a one-time pad. If you detected a tap, we toss it out, I generate more numbers, and we try again. So, it vastly improves security and key-distribution.
It gets worse, of course, if I use that one time bad over a quantum encryption channel.
Now, the channel does have more noise than a standard channel, but that's fixable with parity bits, etc.
Rallies aren't valuable because the attendees are swayed. They're valuable because they appear in glowing terms on local TV. They're valuable because they pump up the attendees to vote/donate/volunteer. They're valuable because without them diehards won't have seen the candidate and may lose faith.
During a major war, why shouldn't we use animals as missile guidance systems? Are their lives more sacrosanct than the people who were are going to blow up?
I'm claiming that the FBI can set up fake companies, sure. Or use an existing company's name and information as their fake company, or lie on the paperwork they do do, or even have a non-MD write a prescription. Those things in the last list aren't just less paperwork/papertrail, but are illegal as fraud if you were to do it.
I fully grant that most people couldn't articulate the formal moral framework they use. You're right that they use intuition to make those decisions.
But you were saying they could not explain why certain things offend their sensibilities. I'd argue that the reason would be this differing underlying sensibility.
The most annoying part is that, when the humans are asked why these decisions are so horrific, they often have a difficult time answering
Most likely, you're confused because you're presupposing the moral framework you consider appropriate: act-based utilitarianism. You then evaluate what people say by that framework
But most people are not an act-based utilitarian. They may be a rule-based utilitarian, where firm moral rules ignore the details of the act. They could be a Rawlsian (if they care about outcomes), not trying to maximize total utility, but instead to maximize minimal utility (that is, maximize how well the worst off person is.) Or, they could be a Kantian, and believe that moral codes are based on respect for individuals right, regardless of consequence.
But, in any of those cases, you're likely to have an issue because of, well, an axiomatic decision you disagree with at the onset of the reasoning process.
(Democrats-wise) Based on my discussions (highly scientific!) people over 40 who voted for Hillary honestly admired her from the 90's, and while they may have voted for Obama in 2008, they weren't voting against her. People who are younger often skew more socialist, and Sanders would appeal more to them.
(Republican-wise) I'd suspect that the cause is that people aged 45-65 are more likely to unemployed/underemployed, are looking at the world changing (and leaving them behind) and want to wind it back. They're easy to convince that if we can wind back immigration/free-trade, then their skills will be required, and they'll be able to continue their career/have a retirement like their parents.
I'm 99.9% sure that the FBI can create (a) A company/dba without notifying the appropriate state officials, (b) A company with false officers, registered agents, etc., (c) A company/dba that happens to infringe on any trademark and/or matches the name of an existing company, or (d) A company/dba in any regulated industry without the appropriate licenses or what-have-you.
While an individual certainly can approximate some of their techniques, when you enter a bank with fraudulent paperwork, including IDs, LLC paperwork, and state bar credentials, you're committing fraud. An FBI agent may simply be undercover and acting perfectly legally.
I'm fairly sure the FBI is allowed to create as many fake companies as it needs to do its job. This is different from a company/individual actor, as going undercover is a legitimate FBI role. Now, they probably register the company, just so it will be more realistic...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to assume you know what you are talking about, so to clarifiy, is the article (and you) saying "a molecule of methane emitted is 25-100x as destructive over 20 years." Because that could coexist with what I was saying. It still could indicate that the CO2 is a scarier/longer term problem.
They are paid a salary, and they get the same benefits as a 40-hour-a-week employee. Just 75% of the salary. So, with benefits, they make more per hour.
It's not a horrible idea. Although, at 40 hours a week, I already want to just do 10x4. The idea of doing a 10x3 is really appealing to me. 8x3 + 6 is a little less, but not horrible.
Methane added lasts about 8 years before leaving the atmosphere. CO2 lasts orders of magnitude longer. So, while it would produce a noticeable effect to cut the methane, at this point we're just replacing 2008's methane (maybe a little more, I know the number of cows has gone up post recession, but I don't know if it fell during the recession.)
Don't jump to gGoogle. There are a lot of engines that wrap Google searches (like startpage)./p.
It's a normal chemical to have around in this case (huge public pools). It neutralizes chlorine (as in this case). Too much chlorine is bad for people, so neutralizing excess is important. And it's hard to know how much chlorine you'll need, because sweat and such cause it to decay. So in case of a situation where they'll need to reduce the chlorine rapidly, they'd need hydrogen peroxide.
And there's not going to be a signed work order. Because the measurements are supposed to indicate what chemicals to add, and tit's part of the daily job. After all, there' no signed work order to specifically swap out the urinal cakes, it's just a job.
I can certainly think he's wrong and the EFF is right. For one, I usually agree with/root for the EFF's side in a lawsuit.
You're right, Slashdot is populated entirely by people who want more corporate control over the internet. You think Netflix had it rough with transferring a lot of data, wait until private companies take over the domain name registration.
I think that's the right answer for a developer. "Here's my view of what I think things should look like. Don't like it, go elsewhere." It's a main reason why OS X on the desktop had been more successful than Linux on the desktop.
Most people won't take the time to configure their UI. And most superusers use enough different machines that it has to be similar to the standard view anyway. And smaller developers will always have ot make a view that works well for people using the defaults.
Let's go the other way. Why should multiple UX paradigms be supported?
They have a duty to build a successful company. They can totally say "goodwill is a better investment than $2 million dollars from an ad company."
To answer your question: It's a beam of light. If you put an opaque object in the beam, it will henceforth not work for communication until that object is removed.
More practically, I would imagine a similar laser aimed at the same receptor, would introduce so many spurious photons that it would be unusable. Similar to radar/radio jamming.
Basically, quantum communications like is is a communications channel that reveals when it is being tapped. The accuracy of this detection is very high.
Hence, I can trivially send you a one-time pad. If you detected a tap, we toss it out, I generate more numbers, and we try again. So, it vastly improves security and key-distribution.
It gets worse, of course, if I use that one time bad over a quantum encryption channel.
Now, the channel does have more noise than a standard channel, but that's fixable with parity bits, etc.
Rallies aren't valuable because the attendees are swayed. They're valuable because they appear in glowing terms on local TV. They're valuable because they pump up the attendees to vote/donate/volunteer. They're valuable because without them diehards won't have seen the candidate and may lose faith.
Heck, give me 1 and 4 and I'll auction off anything you want.
During a major war, why shouldn't we use animals as missile guidance systems? Are their lives more sacrosanct than the people who were are going to blow up?
But that's tecnology that's at least 10 years old. That must mean it's somehow obsolete.
They just return the donations if they are illegal. They have staff to check them out.
All the ads on their own server as a anti-anti-ad measure. They don't allow scripting (JS/Flash). They may allow animated gifs though.
I'm not sure why multiple classes of shares are even legal.
I'm claiming that the FBI can set up fake companies, sure. Or use an existing company's name and information as their fake company, or lie on the paperwork they do do, or even have a non-MD write a prescription. Those things in the last list aren't just less paperwork/papertrail, but are illegal as fraud if you were to do it.
I fully grant that most people couldn't articulate the formal moral framework they use. You're right that they use intuition to make those decisions.
But you were saying they could not explain why certain things offend their sensibilities. I'd argue that the reason would be this differing underlying sensibility.
Hopefully, that helps somewhat.
Most likely, you're confused because you're presupposing the moral framework you consider appropriate: act-based utilitarianism. You then evaluate what people say by that framework
But most people are not an act-based utilitarian. They may be a rule-based utilitarian, where firm moral rules ignore the details of the act. They could be a Rawlsian (if they care about outcomes), not trying to maximize total utility, but instead to maximize minimal utility (that is, maximize how well the worst off person is.) Or, they could be a Kantian, and believe that moral codes are based on respect for individuals right, regardless of consequence.
But, in any of those cases, you're likely to have an issue because of, well, an axiomatic decision you disagree with at the onset of the reasoning process.
Because Facebook conditioned people to expect settings to reset randomly. So why wouldn't companies take advantage of that?
Meaningless correlation.
(Democrats-wise) Based on my discussions (highly scientific!) people over 40 who voted for Hillary honestly admired her from the 90's, and while they may have voted for Obama in 2008, they weren't voting against her. People who are younger often skew more socialist, and Sanders would appeal more to them.
(Republican-wise) I'd suspect that the cause is that people aged 45-65 are more likely to unemployed/underemployed, are looking at the world changing (and leaving them behind) and want to wind it back. They're easy to convince that if we can wind back immigration/free-trade, then their skills will be required, and they'll be able to continue their career/have a retirement like their parents.
While an individual certainly can approximate some of their techniques, when you enter a bank with fraudulent paperwork, including IDs, LLC paperwork, and state bar credentials, you're committing fraud. An FBI agent may simply be undercover and acting perfectly legally.
I'm fairly sure the FBI is allowed to create as many fake companies as it needs to do its job. This is different from a company/individual actor, as going undercover is a legitimate FBI role. Now, they probably register the company, just so it will be more realistic...