Do you have any idea what the line losses would be sending 5V across a hospital? I'm guessing no.
Also, are you really proposing that they spend the metric assload of money and years converting all the equipment for some sort of DC standard rather than get up and running today?
Meanwhile, modern power supplies are pretty efficient.
It has 35 permanent residents. It also treats a considerably larger number of children who then go home after recovering, much like any hospital. If it's life or death, they can probably take care of adults as well.
In any event, it's probably more useful than throwing paper towels at people.
In other words, you have to accept dollars. You may prefer something else, and you may even demand something else, but end of the day dollars are the only thing the law will enforce.
Some things would make more sense than others. For example, phones can be quite expensive. Sure, the things are fairly complex, but the VAST majority of potential repairs all come down to simply diagnosed problems. Worn out battery, cracked screen, damaged USB port or headphone jack. You don't need much in the way of tools to diagnose those.
What we really need is a right to repairability (but that would be harder to define and enforce). It shouldn't be a big deal to swap out a cellphone screen.
Actually, the stinkum should be banned first. Other than the nicotine (which is mostly absorbed by the user), vape contains only food additives. Also, vapers can refrain when in confined spaces, the stinkum has no off switch.
It really depends on the person. Although It would be rude, I would prefer if people on the train would smoke rather than wear some of the perfumes I have had the displeasure to know. Weeping eyes and unstoppable running nose are not a good way to start work. Others feel the opposite.
It's a matter of balance and perspective. Even when I smoked, I wouldn't have lit up on the train were it legal (unless they had smoking and non-smoking cars). Nor in an office that had non-smokers. There should be some sort of covered area for smokers though, preferably climate controlled. Bars and restaurants should decide for themselves.
OK, but be sure to wash thoroughly with unscented soap before you go out. No cologne or after-shave either except for rubbing alcohol if you really need it (but be sure it's good and dry before you go out.
While we're here, be sure to wear the standard grey uniform as well. We don't want your flashy colored clothes assaulting our senses.
Sure, the creditor can decline payment, to his or her own detriment.
So if I owe you $100 and hand you a $100 bill, you can decline it but then I can just stick it in a coffee can. When you later demand payment again, I can again hand you the $100. If you keep declining it and still demanding payment, it becomes harassment and a judge will tell you to take the money or don't but either way, shut up.
Looking at their setup, there is a critical flaw. They apparently didn't bother to see if the students vaping nigh nicotine were current or former smokers at baseline or if they started nicotine with vaping. My observation is that really strong nicotine liquids are needed by people trying to transition to e-cigs. This is especially true if they're using those wimpy pen style devices you can get at the convenience store.
Given that not everyone who tries to switch to e-cigs succeeds, attempted quitters will show up as smoking cigarettes at followup. Some likely smoked at baseline (but apparently weren't asked) and still smoked cigarettes at followup. Even if they cut back on smoking during the 6 months they were categorized as supporting the conclusion that high-nic vaping causes smoking.
Simple omissions like that, especially when they COULD go back and ask the necessary questions about smoking status at baseline but didn't always raise suspicions.
There IS a law that you must accept U.S. dollars to satisfy a debt in the U.S. That doesn't mean you can accept only U.S. dollars. It doesn't mean you have to agree to a new transaction in u.S. dollars (since no debt yet exists). It doesn't fix the value of a dollar, but if I owe you a cow, and I offer you the current market value of a cow (delivered) in dollars, you MUST accept it and consider the debt paid.
More exactly, Fiat currencies are worth no more than what people are willingh to exchange for them. If someone will give you $4000 for a bitcoin, then a Bitcoin is worth $4000. If they will give you a gallon of gas for a bitcoin, then it's worth a gallon of gas. If nobody will give you anything for your Bitcoin, then it's worth nothing.
The U.S. government enforces that a dollar is legal tender and places the full might of the U.S. behind it. In other words, the U.S. with it's large economic power and it's large military and arsenal will demand that your dollar be accepted as payment, or else.
Also, people are accustomed to trading in dollars. Bitcoin is beginning to gain some of that assurance as well, but to a much lesser extent so far. A new crypto currency will have no benefit there.
That pre-supposes a nuclear attack on NK has happened. I would imagine that we might take such precautions just prior to going nuclear against NK. As bad as trump is, I don't think we're there yet. I'm not so sure his order would be obeyed if he did give it.
At this point, China could do us a great deal of damage, but not enough to even think it could prevent a counter-strike, with or without bombers taking off on detection of a launch.
Beyond that, we have nuclear submarines to act as our retaliation now.
That would be all the more reason not to do something high profile like reinstating the 24 hour alert. As I said, it's whole purpose is to make sure retaliatory strikes are possible even if the entire U.S. is wiped out. The primary purpose is to use that threat as part of Mutual Assured Destruction. It's pointless against a country like NK that has no capability to completely wipe the U.S. out in the first place.
When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.
Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.
The question is how much is too much. Most people who think for a minute or two will understand the concept of the vig. It's also understood that the possibility that you might occasionally beat the vig is part of the attraction. The house sees that as part of the cost of doing business. They don't win on every customer every time.
The question is really how far is too far to go in making sure they do win. Even in a game of chance, some people will beat the vig more often than others. How far is too far to go in beating the vig? In casino games, it's fairly well defined where the line is. There are a few bright lines in sports betting, such as not threatening or paying off players, but there's not really anything about using computers and superior analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
There are legal obligations that are not debts.
Yet the hospital had no power until Tesla showed up. It's still egg on the government's face.
Do you have any idea what the line losses would be sending 5V across a hospital? I'm guessing no.
Also, are you really proposing that they spend the metric assload of money and years converting all the equipment for some sort of DC standard rather than get up and running today?
Meanwhile, modern power supplies are pretty efficient.
It has 35 permanent residents. It also treats a considerably larger number of children who then go home after recovering, much like any hospital. If it's life or death, they can probably take care of adults as well.
In any event, it's probably more useful than throwing paper towels at people.
In other words, you have to accept dollars. You may prefer something else, and you may even demand something else, but end of the day dollars are the only thing the law will enforce.
Companies have been making attractive and profitable devices for years that weren't glued shut.
Some things would make more sense than others. For example, phones can be quite expensive. Sure, the things are fairly complex, but the VAST majority of potential repairs all come down to simply diagnosed problems. Worn out battery, cracked screen, damaged USB port or headphone jack. You don't need much in the way of tools to diagnose those.
What we really need is a right to repairability (but that would be harder to define and enforce). It shouldn't be a big deal to swap out a cellphone screen.
Actually, the stinkum should be banned first. Other than the nicotine (which is mostly absorbed by the user), vape contains only food additives. Also, vapers can refrain when in confined spaces, the stinkum has no off switch.
It really depends on the person. Although It would be rude, I would prefer if people on the train would smoke rather than wear some of the perfumes I have had the displeasure to know. Weeping eyes and unstoppable running nose are not a good way to start work. Others feel the opposite.
It's a matter of balance and perspective. Even when I smoked, I wouldn't have lit up on the train were it legal (unless they had smoking and non-smoking cars). Nor in an office that had non-smokers. There should be some sort of covered area for smokers though, preferably climate controlled. Bars and restaurants should decide for themselves.
OK, but be sure to wash thoroughly with unscented soap before you go out. No cologne or after-shave either except for rubbing alcohol if you really need it (but be sure it's good and dry before you go out.
While we're here, be sure to wear the standard grey uniform as well. We don't want your flashy colored clothes assaulting our senses.
Sure, the creditor can decline payment, to his or her own detriment.
So if I owe you $100 and hand you a $100 bill, you can decline it but then I can just stick it in a coffee can. When you later demand payment again, I can again hand you the $100. If you keep declining it and still demanding payment, it becomes harassment and a judge will tell you to take the money or don't but either way, shut up.
Not yet a debt, so they don't have to.
Looking at their setup, there is a critical flaw. They apparently didn't bother to see if the students vaping nigh nicotine were current or former smokers at baseline or if they started nicotine with vaping. My observation is that really strong nicotine liquids are needed by people trying to transition to e-cigs. This is especially true if they're using those wimpy pen style devices you can get at the convenience store.
Given that not everyone who tries to switch to e-cigs succeeds, attempted quitters will show up as smoking cigarettes at followup. Some likely smoked at baseline (but apparently weren't asked) and still smoked cigarettes at followup. Even if they cut back on smoking during the 6 months they were categorized as supporting the conclusion that high-nic vaping causes smoking.
Simple omissions like that, especially when they COULD go back and ask the necessary questions about smoking status at baseline but didn't always raise suspicions.
There IS a law that you must accept U.S. dollars to satisfy a debt in the U.S. That doesn't mean you can accept only U.S. dollars. It doesn't mean you have to agree to a new transaction in u.S. dollars (since no debt yet exists). It doesn't fix the value of a dollar, but if I owe you a cow, and I offer you the current market value of a cow (delivered) in dollars, you MUST accept it and consider the debt paid.
More exactly, Fiat currencies are worth no more than what people are willingh to exchange for them. If someone will give you $4000 for a bitcoin, then a Bitcoin is worth $4000. If they will give you a gallon of gas for a bitcoin, then it's worth a gallon of gas. If nobody will give you anything for your Bitcoin, then it's worth nothing.
The U.S. government enforces that a dollar is legal tender and places the full might of the U.S. behind it. In other words, the U.S. with it's large economic power and it's large military and arsenal will demand that your dollar be accepted as payment, or else.
Also, people are accustomed to trading in dollars. Bitcoin is beginning to gain some of that assurance as well, but to a much lesser extent so far. A new crypto currency will have no benefit there.
And you believe NK has not only developed this brand new weakon but also has enough to blanket the U.S.? You're not Trump's military advisor, are you?
That pre-supposes a nuclear attack on NK has happened. I would imagine that we might take such precautions just prior to going nuclear against NK. As bad as trump is, I don't think we're there yet. I'm not so sure his order would be obeyed if he did give it.
At this point, China could do us a great deal of damage, but not enough to even think it could prevent a counter-strike, with or without bombers taking off on detection of a launch.
Beyond that, we have nuclear submarines to act as our retaliation now.
And how would having our bombers on 24 hour alert help that?
That would be all the more reason not to do something high profile like reinstating the 24 hour alert. As I said, it's whole purpose is to make sure retaliatory strikes are possible even if the entire U.S. is wiped out. The primary purpose is to use that threat as part of Mutual Assured Destruction. It's pointless against a country like NK that has no capability to completely wipe the U.S. out in the first place.
I'm just speaking on the strategy, not making claims of right or wrong. In fact, I'm advocating not keeping the whole thing on a hair trigger.
When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.
Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.
On the other hand, password managers remove the barriers to longer more complex passwords and remove incentives to re-use passwords.
Compared to a server, a single password manager presents a relatively low value target (but not no value, so actually secure it).
Actually, I like Babymetal. I'm just not sure it's what most people think of when they say Metal.
The question is how much is too much. Most people who think for a minute or two will understand the concept of the vig. It's also understood that the possibility that you might occasionally beat the vig is part of the attraction. The house sees that as part of the cost of doing business. They don't win on every customer every time.
The question is really how far is too far to go in making sure they do win. Even in a game of chance, some people will beat the vig more often than others. How far is too far to go in beating the vig? In casino games, it's fairly well defined where the line is. There are a few bright lines in sports betting, such as not threatening or paying off players, but there's not really anything about using computers and superior analysis.
I have frequently seen things like driving without insurance called a 'gamble'.