This is why Ebola is dangerous. It doesn't matter how long it takes for someone to go from "sick" to "dead", as once they get sick, they probably won't be traveling. On the other hand, you have three weeks of incubation to traipse around the world and get somewhere quite distant from the original vector, then get sick, and now all of a sudden you have a handful of cases in Toronto followed by a handful of cases three weeks later in Mexico City... and so on.
Not just that, but the damage done to a forest floor after a fire will certainly contribute to water erosion. You think the folks in Manitou Springs are going to keep their sandbags at the ready for the next decade worth of Spring runoff?
I was fishing last week, and took some time to observe the fish behavior, as the water was especially clear and the ecosystem was especially healthy.
Something I noticed almost immediately was that the largest fish were swimming near the shore. I've seen this before, but in this case there were no small fry near the banks. It was only the large adults. Out toward the center of the lake was where you were seeing smaller fish rise to food on the surface. In the case of this small mountain lake, the prime locations for what these trout need (food and cover, mostly) happened to be near the banks while the less prime locations were out in the middle.
As they say, big fish eat small fish, and if those small fish want an opportunity to cruise a better location, they will have to fight for it.
The battle for food and shelter/protection is not something we only see in humans fighting wars. The vast majority of animal species on this planet spend the entire length of their lives in a constant battle for food and shelter.
Funny you mention that. I was just looking over some gigs on Craigslist. I clicked an ad for a "Magento/Joomla Developer" and the first thing they list in the requirements is, "Strong Project Management Abilities".
I sort of feel like emailing them so I can ask why they want their developer to also be the project manager... it's a rhetorical question since the ad is for a "boutique ad agency".
I am utterly confused about that whole statement. Uber is worth more than Sony? People getting knocked out? I'm not sure what we're talking about right now.
I sort of get what the article is about based on the summary, but it is not appealing enough to warrant clicking on something (I have no idea where that link has been) that would explain the confusing summary.
There are way too many applications I use that fail to do anything useful for multi-monitor setups. There's a few useful features like being able to resize window panels to customize my view better, but I want to be able to tear panels off and put them on a different monitor. To me, that is so vastly more important than just increasing resolution.
I currently use two monitors. One in landscape and one in portrait and I use them exactly how you'd expect, documents on the portrait screen, video/games/etc on the landscape screen. If I use Photoshop, it's great because I can use the landscape screen for the image and the portrait screen can hold all of my panels... nice and out of the way. Unfortunately, this is one of the few suites that supports these tear-off panels. I have yet to find an IDE/coding environment that makes me happy in this regard (while also making me happy in others). If I could stand to use Eclipse, I would... I just absolutely loathe it.
We have received your complaint and have made a note to mention it at the Biannual Intrabureaucratic Government Legislative Institutional Engagement. Your concerns are our concerns. Let's discuss this further.
Drug violence, caused by its illegality, is the primary cause of the children trying to get across the border. Legalize drugs and take the violence out of them.
Not only that, but consider that criminals in Colorado (and I'm sure Washington as well, but I can't speak for that) still consider marijuana an illicit substance worthy of criminal acts to attain and sell. We used to have the street folk in Denver hustling pot. That was their income. Now, nobody buys pot from the thugs on Colfax, because they can just go into a store and buy it. As a result, that guy on the corner of Colfax and Logan that always relied on drugs to put some food in his mouth now has to resort to other means.
What is he experienced with and what does he know? Drugs. Instead of hustling on the corner, though, now he is looking at maybe robbing a dispensary... because hey! All that pot is worth a lot of money!
We're coming full circle here soon. I enjoy having pot be legal. What I don't enjoy is the nonsense of "legalization will reduce crime." That's just not so, since those criminals still view drugs as their choice of income and will commit the same (or potentially worse) crimes in the name of drugs. However, with enough time, the "Invisible Hand" will make its way to illicit pot dealers and they will find their market is dried up.
Now, had it never been illegal in the first place, I'm guessing we wouldn't be seeing this problem to the extent we have. It's just that the goal of reducing crime by legalizing drugs is going to take long enough to have an effect that it shouldn't be what we consider the main point of drug legalization. Our children's children will see the benefit of reduced crime from legalization, but we certainly won't. Criminals have relied on illegal drugs for so long that they are not willing to accept legalization at face value. To them, it's still the profitable item they have always dealt and they will continue the same criminal acts to attain it as they have in the past.
So if you get cheaper prices, violating the law is okay? What laws are okay to break? Immigration, shoplifting, burglary, insider trading, bribery? Do you get to decide which ones? Perhaps any, if it benefits you.
What's with all the questions, bro? You said you wanted to triple the cost of illegal workers which will result in much higher food prices. I never said anything about breaking the law. You simply mentioned that you wanted the labor cost to triple.
My wife and I own a (mostly livestock) farm. Everybody here (all legal) earns above minimum wage (currently $9.10) after one month...
That's good. My family also owns a farm, though we are retail facing and only deal with plants. It's been in business for over 35 years and has always paid a fair wage for legal labor. Heck, we even (until just a few years ago during the '08 debacle) paid double time on Sundays. Yeah, that's right. We'd be open for six hours on Sunday and workers would be paid for 12. I'm curious how many employees you have. We have fluctuated between 20 in the winter to over 50 in the summer. Even with that many employees, it has always been manageable paying them a fair wage. Of course, it doesn't hurt that many of them are former illegals and that they are willing to perform the exhausting labor we require. In fact, the only white kids that have ever worked in the fields are myself and my brother (while at the same time being paid less than half what other workers were making). Nobody (outside of FFA circles) is going to send their kid to perform backbreaking labor in 100 degree sunshine all summer for minimum wage (or, in our case, less than minimum wage).
Of course, your small organic farm and my family's small retail nursery have very little to do with large food production farms that employ hundreds, if not thousands, with the goal of putting food on everyone's plate at a reasonable price. You ask me if violating the law is okay if the end result is cheaper prices. I'll humor you in that I'd believe that yes, it is okay if the circumstances warrant it. If the alternative is food that costs thrice what it does currently and the laborers that process that food can't even afford to buy it, then I'm all for violating the law. Not everyone is able to afford the luxury food items you're producing and I'm guessing there aren't too many people in the same wage bracket as your employees that are able to afford your products.
All companies that hire illegal aliens should be forced to pay a penalty to the gov't (half to border protection and half to the general fund) of twice the monies paid to the illegal. Pay the illegal $500, the fine is $1,000 for a total of $1,500 to use that person. That person is also transported back to their own country at the employers expense. Now the cost of the illegal alien is $1,500 + transportation for $500 of work.
But, how will you eat? Are you okay with tripling the cost of food? Or would you be happier paying triple for your food if that meant your 16 year old nephew could get a summer job pulling weeds for $6/hour?
When I ask my gf about what she's doing at work (she's in research), she often tells me of studies that aim to prove something that is already known. If you give a rat X, it will result in Y. Literally, a majority of what she does sounds like the same things she did a year ago. We gave a rat X, and it resulted in Y.
So if you know what is going to happen already, and you've done this study before, why are you still studying the same thing? Is it because, "science is never settled?"
Clearly the problem here is not AT&T or this simple consumer. The problem is nation states. If we didn't have borders, international roaming wouldn't exist.
Can you prove that feeding elephant dung to your toddler is unsafe? Name once instance of where a toddler ate elephant dung and was harmed as a result. You can't, and therefore feeding toddlers elephant dung must be safe.
Existing means for such production involve inserting a tiny cell with a tail into a not-quite-as-tiny spherical cell and waiting for approximately nine months. Simply because we do not currently fully understand the mechanisms involved does not mean we will be unable to replicate this type of production in the future.
That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.
You might want to take the blinders off. The EFF does a number of really great things, but they are not always the Robin Hood everyone makes them out to be.
A guy I met recently told me his story of the EFF. I don't recall all the details, but here's the gist:
Business owner is using Facebook for promotion of his company.
Owner's FB account is suspended because someone claimed trademark ownership of the business' name.
Several other businesses with similar names also have accounts suspended. The specific part of the name that is questionable is the use of "Urban Gardening/Urban Gardeners".
Business owner gets lumped in with other businesses in court case. His case was different because of the type of trademark he was allegedly infringing. Because he got incorrectly lumped in with the case, he was responsible for the outcome as well.
EFF took the case for these defendants and refused to acknowledge the special circumstance this business owner had compared to the others because it was a high prestige case for them. As a result the business owner unfairly lost his business name.
I'm not trying to flame the EFF, but before I heard this story, I had the same impression everyone around here does; the EFF is a bastion of freedom and watches the backs of the little guys. Ultimately, they are just like any other group of lawyers and will throw anyone to the wolves if they are not part of their agenda.
There is a larger picture than you are seeing. Consider the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) and this interesting bit from Colorado State University:
Extreme cold temperatures also can reduce MPB populations. For winter mortality to be a significant factor, a severe freeze is necessary while the insect is in its most vulnerable stage; i.e., in the fall before the larvae have metabolized glycerols, or in late spring when the insect is molting into the pupal stage. For freezing temperatures to affect a large number of larvae during the middle of winter, temperatures of at least 30 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit) must be sustained for at least five days.
Yes, these trees are susceptible to MPB because of the reason you state (over crowding, more stressed, etc). I don't disagree with that. But you cannot overlook the fact that winters simply haven't been killing these bugs the way that has been done in the past. Less frequent cold snaps means more beetles able to kill more trees that are already stressed which leads to a more devastating outbreak and massive increases in fuel loads in the forest. How is that not an after effect of a warming climate?
This, I am assuming, is also why there are a trillion different names for pot these days. I recently bought something called "Seal Team 303". It was nice, but I know that in probably less than two years, nobody will know what that "strain" is, because everything will have new names again.
Slashdot Mirror
All this.
This is why Ebola is dangerous. It doesn't matter how long it takes for someone to go from "sick" to "dead", as once they get sick, they probably won't be traveling. On the other hand, you have three weeks of incubation to traipse around the world and get somewhere quite distant from the original vector, then get sick, and now all of a sudden you have a handful of cases in Toronto followed by a handful of cases three weeks later in Mexico City ... and so on.
Not just that, but the damage done to a forest floor after a fire will certainly contribute to water erosion. You think the folks in Manitou Springs are going to keep their sandbags at the ready for the next decade worth of Spring runoff?
I was fishing last week, and took some time to observe the fish behavior, as the water was especially clear and the ecosystem was especially healthy.
Something I noticed almost immediately was that the largest fish were swimming near the shore. I've seen this before, but in this case there were no small fry near the banks. It was only the large adults. Out toward the center of the lake was where you were seeing smaller fish rise to food on the surface. In the case of this small mountain lake, the prime locations for what these trout need (food and cover, mostly) happened to be near the banks while the less prime locations were out in the middle.
As they say, big fish eat small fish, and if those small fish want an opportunity to cruise a better location, they will have to fight for it.
The battle for food and shelter/protection is not something we only see in humans fighting wars. The vast majority of animal species on this planet spend the entire length of their lives in a constant battle for food and shelter.
Funny you mention that. I was just looking over some gigs on Craigslist. I clicked an ad for a "Magento/Joomla Developer" and the first thing they list in the requirements is, "Strong Project Management Abilities".
I sort of feel like emailing them so I can ask why they want their developer to also be the project manager ... it's a rhetorical question since the ad is for a "boutique ad agency".
That's fine and dandy and all, but what does Sony have to do with anything? Why is he comparing Uber to Sony as if they are analogs?
I am utterly confused about that whole statement. Uber is worth more than Sony? People getting knocked out? I'm not sure what we're talking about right now.
I sort of get what the article is about based on the summary, but it is not appealing enough to warrant clicking on something (I have no idea where that link has been) that would explain the confusing summary.
I can see the physicist now, proudly standing on that wall ...
So much potential.
... clear giant work area for multiple windows.
All this.
There are way too many applications I use that fail to do anything useful for multi-monitor setups. There's a few useful features like being able to resize window panels to customize my view better, but I want to be able to tear panels off and put them on a different monitor. To me, that is so vastly more important than just increasing resolution.
I currently use two monitors. One in landscape and one in portrait and I use them exactly how you'd expect, documents on the portrait screen, video/games/etc on the landscape screen. If I use Photoshop, it's great because I can use the landscape screen for the image and the portrait screen can hold all of my panels ... nice and out of the way. Unfortunately, this is one of the few suites that supports these tear-off panels. I have yet to find an IDE/coding environment that makes me happy in this regard (while also making me happy in others). If I could stand to use Eclipse, I would ... I just absolutely loathe it.
Dear Citizen,
We have received your complaint and have made a note to mention it at the Biannual Intrabureaucratic Government Legislative Institutional Engagement. Your concerns are our concerns. Let's discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Your loving Federal Overlord.
how hard would it be to know the dealer/house was honest?
In the case of Pokerstars, just look up "Pokerstars rng".
Besides, this is poker, not some digital slot machine. You're not playing against the house.
Drug violence, caused by its illegality, is the primary cause of the children trying to get across the border. Legalize drugs and take the violence out of them.
Not only that, but consider that criminals in Colorado (and I'm sure Washington as well, but I can't speak for that) still consider marijuana an illicit substance worthy of criminal acts to attain and sell. We used to have the street folk in Denver hustling pot. That was their income. Now, nobody buys pot from the thugs on Colfax, because they can just go into a store and buy it. As a result, that guy on the corner of Colfax and Logan that always relied on drugs to put some food in his mouth now has to resort to other means.
What is he experienced with and what does he know? Drugs. Instead of hustling on the corner, though, now he is looking at maybe robbing a dispensary ... because hey! All that pot is worth a lot of money!
We're coming full circle here soon. I enjoy having pot be legal. What I don't enjoy is the nonsense of "legalization will reduce crime." That's just not so, since those criminals still view drugs as their choice of income and will commit the same (or potentially worse) crimes in the name of drugs. However, with enough time, the "Invisible Hand" will make its way to illicit pot dealers and they will find their market is dried up.
Now, had it never been illegal in the first place, I'm guessing we wouldn't be seeing this problem to the extent we have. It's just that the goal of reducing crime by legalizing drugs is going to take long enough to have an effect that it shouldn't be what we consider the main point of drug legalization. Our children's children will see the benefit of reduced crime from legalization, but we certainly won't. Criminals have relied on illegal drugs for so long that they are not willing to accept legalization at face value. To them, it's still the profitable item they have always dealt and they will continue the same criminal acts to attain it as they have in the past.
So if you get cheaper prices, violating the law is okay? What laws are okay to break? Immigration, shoplifting, burglary, insider trading, bribery? Do you get to decide which ones? Perhaps any, if it benefits you.
What's with all the questions, bro? You said you wanted to triple the cost of illegal workers which will result in much higher food prices. I never said anything about breaking the law. You simply mentioned that you wanted the labor cost to triple.
My wife and I own a (mostly livestock) farm. Everybody here (all legal) earns above minimum wage (currently $9.10) after one month ...
That's good. My family also owns a farm, though we are retail facing and only deal with plants. It's been in business for over 35 years and has always paid a fair wage for legal labor. Heck, we even (until just a few years ago during the '08 debacle) paid double time on Sundays. Yeah, that's right. We'd be open for six hours on Sunday and workers would be paid for 12. I'm curious how many employees you have. We have fluctuated between 20 in the winter to over 50 in the summer. Even with that many employees, it has always been manageable paying them a fair wage. Of course, it doesn't hurt that many of them are former illegals and that they are willing to perform the exhausting labor we require. In fact, the only white kids that have ever worked in the fields are myself and my brother (while at the same time being paid less than half what other workers were making). Nobody (outside of FFA circles) is going to send their kid to perform backbreaking labor in 100 degree sunshine all summer for minimum wage (or, in our case, less than minimum wage).
Of course, your small organic farm and my family's small retail nursery have very little to do with large food production farms that employ hundreds, if not thousands, with the goal of putting food on everyone's plate at a reasonable price. You ask me if violating the law is okay if the end result is cheaper prices. I'll humor you in that I'd believe that yes, it is okay if the circumstances warrant it. If the alternative is food that costs thrice what it does currently and the laborers that process that food can't even afford to buy it, then I'm all for violating the law. Not everyone is able to afford the luxury food items you're producing and I'm guessing there aren't too many people in the same wage bracket as your employees that are able to afford your products.
If the Tea Party were "center", there would have to be a drastic change of their agenda.
Personally, I believe a married gay couple should be able to grow marijuana on their property and defend it with guns. Which party is that again?
All companies that hire illegal aliens should be forced to pay a penalty to the gov't (half to border protection and half to the general fund) of twice the monies paid to the illegal. Pay the illegal $500, the fine is $1,000 for a total of $1,500 to use that person. That person is also transported back to their own country at the employers expense. Now the cost of the illegal alien is $1,500 + transportation for $500 of work.
But, how will you eat? Are you okay with tripling the cost of food? Or would you be happier paying triple for your food if that meant your 16 year old nephew could get a summer job pulling weeds for $6/hour?
Hint: Science is never settled.
When I ask my gf about what she's doing at work (she's in research), she often tells me of studies that aim to prove something that is already known. If you give a rat X, it will result in Y. Literally, a majority of what she does sounds like the same things she did a year ago. We gave a rat X, and it resulted in Y.
So if you know what is going to happen already, and you've done this study before, why are you still studying the same thing? Is it because, "science is never settled?"
So you can listen to the one outlier instead
This sounds vaguely similar to a stance that would be adopted by the Roman-Catholic Church in regards to geocentrism.
Peace on earth is within our reach.
... and the wars, I take it, are in the asteroid belt?
Anecdotes such as these remind me of how terrible of a military person I would have been.
I thank you for your service.
Pot is illegal in your jurisdiction? How quaint.
Clearly the problem here is not AT&T or this simple consumer. The problem is nation states. If we didn't have borders, international roaming wouldn't exist.
Can you prove that feeding elephant dung to your toddler is unsafe? Name once instance of where a toddler ate elephant dung and was harmed as a result. You can't, and therefore feeding toddlers elephant dung must be safe.
Existing means for such production involve inserting a tiny cell with a tail into a not-quite-as-tiny spherical cell and waiting for approximately nine months. Simply because we do not currently fully understand the mechanisms involved does not mean we will be unable to replicate this type of production in the future.
That isn't proof, but I tend to believe EFF over overzealous, corporate-brownnosing, incompetent government cops.
You might want to take the blinders off. The EFF does a number of really great things, but they are not always the Robin Hood everyone makes them out to be.
A guy I met recently told me his story of the EFF. I don't recall all the details, but here's the gist:
Business owner is using Facebook for promotion of his company.
Owner's FB account is suspended because someone claimed trademark ownership of the business' name.
Several other businesses with similar names also have accounts suspended. The specific part of the name that is questionable is the use of "Urban Gardening/Urban Gardeners".
Business owner gets lumped in with other businesses in court case. His case was different because of the type of trademark he was allegedly infringing. Because he got incorrectly lumped in with the case, he was responsible for the outcome as well.
EFF took the case for these defendants and refused to acknowledge the special circumstance this business owner had compared to the others because it was a high prestige case for them. As a result the business owner unfairly lost his business name.
I'm not trying to flame the EFF, but before I heard this story, I had the same impression everyone around here does; the EFF is a bastion of freedom and watches the backs of the little guys. Ultimately, they are just like any other group of lawyers and will throw anyone to the wolves if they are not part of their agenda.
There is a larger picture than you are seeing. Consider the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) and this interesting bit from Colorado State University:
Extreme cold temperatures also can reduce MPB populations. For winter mortality to be a significant factor, a severe freeze is necessary while the insect is in its most vulnerable stage; i.e., in the fall before the larvae have metabolized glycerols, or in late spring when the insect is molting into the pupal stage. For freezing temperatures to affect a large number of larvae during the middle of winter, temperatures of at least 30 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit) must be sustained for at least five days.
Yes, these trees are susceptible to MPB because of the reason you state (over crowding, more stressed, etc). I don't disagree with that. But you cannot overlook the fact that winters simply haven't been killing these bugs the way that has been done in the past. Less frequent cold snaps means more beetles able to kill more trees that are already stressed which leads to a more devastating outbreak and massive increases in fuel loads in the forest. How is that not an after effect of a warming climate?
This, I am assuming, is also why there are a trillion different names for pot these days. I recently bought something called "Seal Team 303". It was nice, but I know that in probably less than two years, nobody will know what that "strain" is, because everything will have new names again.