Or you could, you know, tell all those rich idiots who insist on acre-sized green lawns in the middle of the desert "tough luck".
how about we tell all those idiots who insist on a city-sized sprawl of assholes in the middle of the desert without capturing any water worth mentioning even though enough rain falls on it in the average year to serve 100% of their needs "tough luck"? I'm tired of draining California dry so that socal can have water it should never have had.
I don't like sprawl and we could be a lot smarter about collecting water. That said, 80% of our water goes to agriculture which gets water dirt cheap (pardon the pun.) Now try convincing the ag-lobby to pay their fair share for water and related infrastructure (capture, desalination, etc...)
Bother is? Bother was? Something belongs to a bother?
Seriously dude, bother's???
Yes, I made a typo on a forum that does not allow editing and you, oh great and noble AC, have shown the light of your vast intellect upon it. No idea why I accidentally typed that apostrophe. But thank you for focussing your attention on that rather than the actual content of the comment I made.
I shall henceforth start all of my posts with a trigger warning that I may occasionally make a mistake when composing a message and that people afflicted with various forms of grammatical, syntactical or orthographical OCD should have their psychological support system readily available before reading the message.
Yes it is false. Computer Science is a very difficult thing to learn, not just later in life. It is "hard" same way Math(s) is "hard." Simply put lot of people will not get it, will not use it even if forced to learn, will not see any use for it since their jobs will not require it (jobs that do require it will be beyond these people's reach).
All this pissing away money will do is have people sitting in classroom ten years hence whining "Why am I learning hello world? I'm never gonna use it! I'm going to be a drone pilot when I grow up."
"Philanthropic" aspect is a counter to that argument, but even if it was a tax funded endeavor, the bigger sin is the waste of time. Time when students could be learning something useful to their lives and to help them be better educated humans.
This whole CS as a core subject really bother's me. Basically it's being motivated by corporations to serve their needs without any regard for what is best for the student nor society at large. In 2012, 1.8% of the population of the US is working in the "information sector" and the idea that we our going to tailor our education to serve that industry is appalling. All the hand wavy arguments that teaching CS will have broad benefits is absurd in that it ignores the fact that time is being taken for CS that could be used to teach actual fundamental subjects. If you want better citizens then make recognition of one's own cognitive biases and combating them a core subject. Include some logic and epistemology. FFS.
An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis
Problem is that catharsis is a literary and theater concept -- not one rooted in science or human psychology.
I wish I had mod-points. What most of the slashdotter's are missing is that writing the email is just another form of ruminating. Even if you don't send it, all you've done is spend more time being angry and possibly engaging in a bunch of confirmation bias fueled "research" to justify your position. After reinforcing your beliefs you're just more primed to get triggered again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The whole "emotion as pressure to be released" belief is complete bunk
Though the rest of the summary (haven't RTFA, whadda I look like some kinda guy who's not lazy) sounds like this is obvious funding of bad science by Coca-Cola to discredit the obvious link between diet and weight, the quoted phrase "research into fighting obesity through other means than improving diet" sounds like something that would in fact be absolutely wonderful if there's any hope of it actually paying off.
...
Maybe every case of Coke could come with a free feather and a bucket.
they are coming closer and closer to their goal: to brainwash idiots like you into thinking that carbonated sugar water is somehow good for you.
On behalf of the whole world, we would all like to deeply apologize to you, and we sincerely promise never to offend you again in the future, including especially never laughing at your SJW internet posts.
they are coming closer and closer to their goal: to brainwash idiots like you into thinking that carbonated sugar water is somehow good for you.
On behalf of the whole world, we would all like to deeply apologize to you, and we sincerely promise never to offend you again in the future, including especially never laughing at your SJW internet posts.
Accusing people you don't agree with of being SJW is the new Godwin. As is the hypersensitivity of extreme SJW's.
Remember, your not fat because you eat a bag of cheetos and 2 liters of coke everyday and never leave your house. You're Fat because of North Korea and Iran and you don't believe in the right God.
PP:
I've met plenty of fat liberal atheists.
It's like you're trying to make IMightB's point for them...
OK about the government. But telling a person he is a victim of his food isn't what he needs to hear to improve his life. "Appetite" is not destiny. You decide to eat or not, you decide what, and you decide how much.
Gravity forbid we bother to understand how we are effected by various factors and use that information to help ourselves do better.
Lots of people like to say things like 'there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous.' But that is mirroring the hippy-dippy types who say that anything 'natural' is healthy.
Just because no one's found a problem with the corn that most of us have been unknowingly eating for decades, that doesn't mean the latest and greatest GMO won't have its own unique risks. The more GMOs that are engineered, the more chances there are to screw something up.
Way to be all hand wavy... You forgot to say "think of the children!"
Just watch "Pimp My Ride" look at the before and decide if you want people like that in your vehicle or even to drive in a public vehicle which they've occupied.
This is such a solvable problem. First off all, contrary to the popular opinion of "all other humans are total assholes," most humans are mostly decent most of the time. Otherwise society would collapse. Second, all the cabs would have cameras and some mechanism for customers to report problems for that small percentage of the time that the cab is occupied by someone behaved badly/sloppily or something broke, etc. Third, part of the contract for using the cab is that if you damage it, you pay a shit ton of money; make a mess (like accidentally spilling a drink) and report it, you pay a small fee; make a mess and don't report it, you pay a big fee.
Very quickly, people would be trained to remove all their trash from the cab and to report problems when they see them or cause them. This is not rocket science.
Just another example of the classically American naive conceit that "poverty happens" to people randomly, like a strike of lightning from the blue, and not (mostly) from a series of really bad life choices, something which is plausibly heritable.
My point isn't that poor people can't enjoy Macbeth, but teaching them to code isn't going to make a person like something they didn't enjoy before,, either.
Yeah. Little bastard choose to be born to poor parents, in a poor neighborhood. He deserves to suffer for it.
Had he been a better person, he would have forced his parents to expose him to language before he learned to talk by holding a gun in his pudgy little baby hands and forcing them to read to him. Had he been a moral child, he would have made a time machine and borrowed his own fully developed adult pre-frontal cortex from the future to make make better life choices as a pre-schooler.
My point isn't that CS should be a core subject, that's ridiculous. As is your post.
"plausibly heritable": A euphemism for "he ain't my kin, fuck 'em."
...will eventually crash and burn. Sure it's convenient, powerful and cheap, but inherent with major security risks. If I were a company, there is no way in hell I would ever deliberately host or put anything on the cloud. I don't care how 'secure' things are, there are way to many attack vectors and unknown vulnerabilities. It's only going to get worse before people start to see if for what it truly is - dangerous!
The dangerous thing is having your information on computers you don't control. Every service that bills your credit card is a risk. Your Bank, VISA, MasterCard, Netflix, Amazon, and every single account and online purchase you've ever made. There is virtually no difference whether those services are deployed on dedicated hardware or not.
Barring a complete collapse of our civilization, there is no escaping having your data on other people's computers. The "cloud" makes very little difference how "risky" that is.
What the video shows is an assault, which is still a crime. If I punch you in the face, regardless of the reasons, I'll end up in jail. Was the hooligan in the video charged? Nope, because he's 'famous', so the prosecutors came up with an excuse, which they won't grant you. And you lap it up, because you're from the Republic that loves royalty.
You don't know what you are talking about. The law and the police recognize that people can be provoked into throwing a punch. Laws frequently contain clauses about "Fighting Words" and/or stipulations for considering who a "reasonable person" would react in a situation. If you watch the whole video, you will see Aldrin spend minutes trying to get away from Sibrel who continues to chase him, block his path, shove a bible in his face and accuse Aldrin of being a "a coward, and a liar, and a thief." No one would be charged for throwing a punch after all that harassment. Not even you, Mr. AC.
Auto ownership has probably hit it's peak, self-driving cars will make the expense of individual ownership less and less appealing in general. And owning an ICE for road trips is ridiculous. Just rent the car.
When did we reach the conclusion that self driving cars is some sort of given fact?
There are so many forces at play in favor of self-driving cars, it is as close as inevitable as it can be. Independence for the elderly, lower insurance rates, convenience, improved safety, cost saving by sharing cars (imagine uber without drivers), etc. Some people will resist, some will be very vocal and insist on their "right" to drive. Maybe they'll keep that right. It won't matter, science is the only human endeavor that advances one funeral at a time.
Again, this works in the US with big suburbs where everyone has a parking lot with an electric outlet. In other countries (like good old Europe), where most people live in apartments and there is just no way you can plug your car at night, it doesn't work. It is just impossible until you can refill your car in 5 minutes like with gasoline...
The EU’s Clean Fuel Directive, as proposed in January 2013 and being discussed in EU Parliament in March 2014, sets a target of 800,000 publicly accessible EV charging stations to be installed throughout Europe by 2020 – with individual targets being set for each member state. This requirement for publicly available charging infrastructure recognizes that many EV owners, especially in cities, will need to rely on access to charging stations in collective parking lots, at apartment blocks, offices, or business locations, and suggests that member states focus on charging station density in urban areas.
Oh, and many Europeans travel 1000+km on a single streak with their cars on holidays. Again, if the cars you want to sell have to wait 2 times 4 hours to refill in such travel, you're not going to sell many of them.
Ecars are good for commuters that live in houses. There are not many of them outside the US.
Auto ownership has probably hit it's peak, self-driving cars will make the expense of individual ownership less and less appealing in general. And owning an ICE for road trips is ridiculous. Just rent the car.
I'm not driving an EV during a snow storm at night..... The draw from the headlights, defroster and wipers and the batteries being weakened by the cold?
EVs are fine for warmer climates, but nor the cold.
How reliable are they in winter driving conditions? How is the battery efficiency affected by temperature? What about cabin heating? I'm having a hard time seeing any of the current crop being adopted for year-round use in areas that get more than a smattering of snow, or a few days below freezing per year.
Does Norway count as an area that has a few days below freezing per year?.
I'm always amused by the way science is suborned to political expediency.
Some people strongly tout the consensus regarding global warming/climate change. They commonly disparage and dismiss those who don't fully subscribe as politically-motivated ignoramuses who are anti-science. The doubters view themselves simply as more cautious, unwilling to risk large costs when it is not clear that science can clearly predict there will be benefits.
Other people strongly tout the consensus regarding the safety of GM foods. The opposition claims to be simply cautious, unwilling to risk any unknown dangers of these foods despite the enormous benefits they could provide.
Interestingly enough, very often it's the same people who support massive reductions in CO2 emissions based on a scientific consensus and despite the economic costs and the uncertain climate benefits, and yet would prefer to avoid the benefits of GM foods due to fear of unknown bad results, despite the scientific consensus.
News Flash: People are more often rationalizers than rational. What does the FUD of corporations, consumers or anyone else have to do with putting scientific consensus in scare quotes?
You are misquoting me. I never said all laws were bad, I'm just pointing out government overreach. As for your example, it's silly. The road system is similar to the Internet, yet, governments don't regulate how Internet communication are to be made. Everything we have now has been mostly driven by the private sector. There is a few rogue corporation, but globally, everybody cooperate to build what is the best code of conduct (which is pretty much what the rule of the road are, a code of conduct). The existence of this code of conduct (and strong enforcement) does not forbid people to violate them. Heck, when I drive the speed limit, I am generally at the head of a trail waiting to pass me. Nobody respect the law by the book, but they violate the law in a "common sense" fashion. If the limit is 50 on a wide 4 lane highway an a sunny day in the middle of nowhere, nobody's gonna drive 50. If your argument is that people are stupid and cannot follow a code of conduct, then you are patronizing them. Even the most stupid individuals are not doing burnout and donuts in dense urban area. They do it on country roads or abandoned parking lots.
Clearly you have not driven in a country were traffic laws are not enforced. You should try it sometime, it's very exciting. So, yes, police in the US can be lenient about a few miles an hour over the speed limit, and that's a good thing. But if you think people more or less follow the rules of the road because of some naturally evolved "code of conduct", then you are seriously confused. You remind me of people I know that argue that the reductions in river pollution and smog that followed the creation of the EPA is a coincidence and that the agency was completely unnecessary.
Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.
But if that's what the government is worried about, the drone was a danger before it was shot too -- it doesn't take a shotgun shell to make a drone become a hazard.
No government is worried about people shooting guns in populated areas. Drones are a hazard, but that is a separate issue.
Government bashes free speech, and then some private agent comes with the wonderful idea of "free speech zone".
I hate what the US have become, it is such that everything is considered "potentially dangerous", and thus need to be banned and/or operate in "controlled" area. Drones accident will happen, just the same way car accident happens, planes accident happens, or even accidental discharge happen (gun are as much subject to mechanical failure as anything else).
The government engages in unreasonable overreach, therefore all laws are bad? Do you think the world would be a better place if there were no laws related to the operation of automobiles? No signals, no stop signs, no right of way rules, etc? What is your point here?
Right, 60% larger gravity would be tough on a fat guy like me. Also, can someone please help me understand the orbit thing? In the article it appears that 186 orbits a brighter-sun closer to Mercury's orbit as opposed to Earth's. The Earth has liquid water in the summer and frozen water in the winter just with the polar shift. How can a planet orbiting closer to a brighter star have anything but steam in the atmosphere, if it even has water?
You're looking at the wrong planet. Kepler-452b is the planet whose orbit is similar to Earth's orbit. And it's sun is similar to ours. Kepler-186 is orbiting much closer to it's star, but it's star is much cooler than ours.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could, you know, tell all those rich idiots who insist on acre-sized green lawns in the middle of the desert "tough luck".
how about we tell all those idiots who insist on a city-sized sprawl of assholes in the middle of the desert without capturing any water worth mentioning even though enough rain falls on it in the average year to serve 100% of their needs "tough luck"? I'm tired of draining California dry so that socal can have water it should never have had.
I don't like sprawl and we could be a lot smarter about collecting water. That said, 80% of our water goes to agriculture which gets water dirt cheap (pardon the pun.) Now try convincing the ag-lobby to pay their fair share for water and related infrastructure (capture, desalination, etc...)
Bother is? Bother was? Something belongs to a bother?
Seriously dude, bother's???
Yes, I made a typo on a forum that does not allow editing and you, oh great and noble AC, have shown the light of your vast intellect upon it. No idea why I accidentally typed that apostrophe. But thank you for focussing your attention on that rather than the actual content of the comment I made.
I shall henceforth start all of my posts with a trigger warning that I may occasionally make a mistake when composing a message and that people afflicted with various forms of grammatical, syntactical or orthographical OCD should have their psychological support system readily available before reading the message.
Yes it is false. Computer Science is a very difficult thing to learn, not just later in life. It is "hard" same way Math(s) is "hard." Simply put lot of people will not get it, will not use it even if forced to learn, will not see any use for it since their jobs will not require it (jobs that do require it will be beyond these people's reach).
All this pissing away money will do is have people sitting in classroom ten years hence whining "Why am I learning hello world? I'm never gonna use it! I'm going to be a drone pilot when I grow up."
"Philanthropic" aspect is a counter to that argument, but even if it was a tax funded endeavor, the bigger sin is the waste of time. Time when students could be learning something useful to their lives and to help them be better educated humans.
This whole CS as a core subject really bother's me. Basically it's being motivated by corporations to serve their needs without any regard for what is best for the student nor society at large. In 2012, 1.8% of the population of the US is working in the "information sector" and the idea that we our going to tailor our education to serve that industry is appalling. All the hand wavy arguments that teaching CS will have broad benefits is absurd in that it ignores the fact that time is being taken for CS that could be used to teach actual fundamental subjects. If you want better citizens then make recognition of one's own cognitive biases and combating them a core subject. Include some logic and epistemology. FFS.
An old trick is to write the email and not send it, or send it to yourself. That way you get some catharsis
Problem is that catharsis is a literary and theater concept -- not one rooted in science or human psychology.
I wish I had mod-points. What most of the slashdotter's are missing is that writing the email is just another form of ruminating. Even if you don't send it, all you've done is spend more time being angry and possibly engaging in a bunch of confirmation bias fueled "research" to justify your position. After reinforcing your beliefs you're just more primed to get triggered again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The whole "emotion as pressure to be released" belief is complete bunk
.
Though the rest of the summary (haven't RTFA, whadda I look like some kinda guy who's not lazy) sounds like this is obvious funding of bad science by Coca-Cola to discredit the obvious link between diet and weight, the quoted phrase "research into fighting obesity through other means than improving diet" sounds like something that would in fact be absolutely wonderful if there's any hope of it actually paying off.
...
Maybe every case of Coke could come with a free feather and a bucket.
they are coming closer and closer to their goal: to brainwash idiots like you into thinking that carbonated sugar water is somehow good for you.
On behalf of the whole world, we would all like to deeply apologize to you, and we sincerely promise never to offend you again in the future, including especially never laughing at your SJW internet posts.
they are coming closer and closer to their goal: to brainwash idiots like you into thinking that carbonated sugar water is somehow good for you.
On behalf of the whole world, we would all like to deeply apologize to you, and we sincerely promise never to offend you again in the future, including especially never laughing at your SJW internet posts.
Accusing people you don't agree with of being SJW is the new Godwin. As is the hypersensitivity of extreme SJW's.
Remember, your not fat because you eat a bag of cheetos and 2 liters of coke everyday and never leave your house. You're Fat because of North Korea and Iran and you don't believe in the right God.
PP:
I've met plenty of fat liberal atheists.
It's like you're trying to make IMightB's point for them...
OK about the government. But telling a person he is a victim of his food isn't what he needs to hear to improve his life. "Appetite" is not destiny. You decide to eat or not, you decide what, and you decide how much.
Gravity forbid we bother to understand how we are effected by various factors and use that information to help ourselves do better.
So long as by "the rest of the world" you mean North America, Australia and New Zealand, then yes, you are correct.
I guess I'm lucky that Australia and NZ get included. The average American doesn't know that ANY of the rest of the world exists.
Isn't listing Australia and NZ separately redundant? (I'm kidding, I watched "Flight of the Conchords" so I'm an educated American...)
Lots of people like to say things like 'there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous.' But that is mirroring the hippy-dippy types who say that anything 'natural' is healthy.
Just because no one's found a problem with the corn that most of us have been unknowingly eating for decades, that doesn't mean the latest and greatest GMO won't have its own unique risks. The more GMOs that are engineered, the more chances there are to screw something up.
Way to be all hand wavy... You forgot to say "think of the children!"
Automated swappable seats/whole-lower-interior liners?
Just watch "Pimp My Ride" look at the before and decide if you want people like that in your vehicle or even to drive in a public vehicle which they've occupied.
This is such a solvable problem. First off all, contrary to the popular opinion of "all other humans are total assholes," most humans are mostly decent most of the time. Otherwise society would collapse. Second, all the cabs would have cameras and some mechanism for customers to report problems for that small percentage of the time that the cab is occupied by someone behaved badly/sloppily or something broke, etc. Third, part of the contract for using the cab is that if you damage it, you pay a shit ton of money; make a mess (like accidentally spilling a drink) and report it, you pay a small fee; make a mess and don't report it, you pay a big fee.
Very quickly, people would be trained to remove all their trash from the cab and to report problems when they see them or cause them. This is not rocket science.
Just another example of the classically American naive conceit that "poverty happens" to people randomly, like a strike of lightning from the blue, and not (mostly) from a series of really bad life choices, something which is plausibly heritable.
My point isn't that poor people can't enjoy Macbeth, but teaching them to code isn't going to make a person like something they didn't enjoy before,, either.
Yeah. Little bastard choose to be born to poor parents, in a poor neighborhood. He deserves to suffer for it.
Had he been a better person, he would have forced his parents to expose him to language before he learned to talk by holding a gun in his pudgy little baby hands and forcing them to read to him. Had he been a moral child, he would have made a time machine and borrowed his own fully developed adult pre-frontal cortex from the future to make make better life choices as a pre-schooler.
My point isn't that CS should be a core subject, that's ridiculous. As is your post.
"plausibly heritable": A euphemism for "he ain't my kin, fuck 'em."
...will eventually crash and burn. Sure it's convenient, powerful and cheap, but inherent with major security risks. If I were a company, there is no way in hell I would ever deliberately host or put anything on the cloud. I don't care how 'secure' things are, there are way to many attack vectors and unknown vulnerabilities. It's only going to get worse before people start to see if for what it truly is - dangerous!
The dangerous thing is having your information on computers you don't control. Every service that bills your credit card is a risk. Your Bank, VISA, MasterCard, Netflix, Amazon, and every single account and online purchase you've ever made. There is virtually no difference whether those services are deployed on dedicated hardware or not.
Barring a complete collapse of our civilization, there is no escaping having your data on other people's computers. The "cloud" makes very little difference how "risky" that is.
What the video shows is an assault, which is still a crime. If I punch you in the face, regardless of the reasons, I'll end up in jail. Was the hooligan in the video charged? Nope, because he's 'famous', so the prosecutors came up with an excuse, which they won't grant you. And you lap it up, because you're from the Republic that loves royalty.
You don't know what you are talking about. The law and the police recognize that people can be provoked into throwing a punch. Laws frequently contain clauses about "Fighting Words" and/or stipulations for considering who a "reasonable person" would react in a situation. If you watch the whole video, you will see Aldrin spend minutes trying to get away from Sibrel who continues to chase him, block his path, shove a bible in his face and accuse Aldrin of being a "a coward, and a liar, and a thief." No one would be charged for throwing a punch after all that harassment. Not even you, Mr. AC.
Auto ownership has probably hit it's peak, self-driving cars will make the expense of individual ownership less and less appealing in general. And owning an ICE for road trips is ridiculous. Just rent the car.
When did we reach the conclusion that self driving cars is some sort of given fact?
There are so many forces at play in favor of self-driving cars, it is as close as inevitable as it can be. Independence for the elderly, lower insurance rates, convenience, improved safety, cost saving by sharing cars (imagine uber without drivers), etc. Some people will resist, some will be very vocal and insist on their "right" to drive. Maybe they'll keep that right. It won't matter, science is the only human endeavor that advances one funeral at a time.
Again, this works in the US with big suburbs where everyone has a parking lot with an electric outlet. In other countries (like good old Europe), where most people live in apartments and there is just no way you can plug your car at night, it doesn't work. It is just impossible until you can refill your car in 5 minutes like with gasoline...
That's not a long term issue. See (pdf): Electric vehicles in Europe: - McKinsey & Company
The EU’s Clean Fuel Directive, as proposed in January 2013 and being discussed in EU Parliament in March 2014, sets a target of 800,000 publicly accessible EV charging stations to be installed throughout Europe by 2020 – with individual targets being set for each member state. This requirement for publicly available charging infrastructure recognizes that many EV owners, especially in cities, will need to rely on access to charging stations in collective parking lots, at apartment blocks, offices, or business locations, and suggests that member states focus on charging station density in urban areas.
Oh, and many Europeans travel 1000+km on a single streak with their cars on holidays. Again, if the cars you want to sell have to wait 2 times 4 hours to refill in such travel, you're not going to sell many of them.
Ecars are good for commuters that live in houses. There are not many of them outside the US.
Auto ownership has probably hit it's peak, self-driving cars will make the expense of individual ownership less and less appealing in general. And owning an ICE for road trips is ridiculous. Just rent the car.
I'm not driving an EV during a snow storm at night..... The draw from the headlights, defroster and wipers and the batteries being weakened by the cold? EVs are fine for warmer climates, but nor the cold.
I guess the Norwegians didn't get the memo.
How reliable are they in winter driving conditions? How is the battery efficiency affected by temperature? What about cabin heating? I'm having a hard time seeing any of the current crop being adopted for year-round use in areas that get more than a smattering of snow, or a few days below freezing per year.
Does Norway count as an area that has a few days below freezing per year?.
I'm always amused by the way science is suborned to political expediency.
Some people strongly tout the consensus regarding global warming/climate change. They commonly disparage and dismiss those who don't fully subscribe as politically-motivated ignoramuses who are anti-science. The doubters view themselves simply as more cautious, unwilling to risk large costs when it is not clear that science can clearly predict there will be benefits.
Other people strongly tout the consensus regarding the safety of GM foods. The opposition claims to be simply cautious, unwilling to risk any unknown dangers of these foods despite the enormous benefits they could provide.
Interestingly enough, very often it's the same people who support massive reductions in CO2 emissions based on a scientific consensus and despite the economic costs and the uncertain climate benefits, and yet would prefer to avoid the benefits of GM foods due to fear of unknown bad results, despite the scientific consensus.
News Flash: People are more often rationalizers than rational. What does the FUD of corporations, consumers or anyone else have to do with putting scientific consensus in scare quotes?
You are misquoting me. I never said all laws were bad, I'm just pointing out government overreach. As for your example, it's silly. The road system is similar to the Internet, yet, governments don't regulate how Internet communication are to be made. Everything we have now has been mostly driven by the private sector. There is a few rogue corporation, but globally, everybody cooperate to build what is the best code of conduct (which is pretty much what the rule of the road are, a code of conduct). The existence of this code of conduct (and strong enforcement) does not forbid people to violate them. Heck, when I drive the speed limit, I am generally at the head of a trail waiting to pass me. Nobody respect the law by the book, but they violate the law in a "common sense" fashion. If the limit is 50 on a wide 4 lane highway an a sunny day in the middle of nowhere, nobody's gonna drive 50. If your argument is that people are stupid and cannot follow a code of conduct, then you are patronizing them. Even the most stupid individuals are not doing burnout and donuts in dense urban area. They do it on country roads or abandoned parking lots.
Clearly you have not driven in a country were traffic laws are not enforced. You should try it sometime, it's very exciting. So, yes, police in the US can be lenient about a few miles an hour over the speed limit, and that's a good thing. But if you think people more or less follow the rules of the road because of some naturally evolved "code of conduct", then you are seriously confused. You remind me of people I know that argue that the reductions in river pollution and smog that followed the creation of the EPA is a coincidence and that the agency was completely unnecessary.
Upon re-reading, there is a statement regarding the drone becoming a danger after being shot.
But if that's what the government is worried about, the drone was a danger before it was shot too -- it doesn't take a shotgun shell to make a drone become a hazard.
No government is worried about people shooting guns in populated areas. Drones are a hazard, but that is a separate issue.
Government bashes free speech, and then some private agent comes with the wonderful idea of "free speech zone". I hate what the US have become, it is such that everything is considered "potentially dangerous", and thus need to be banned and/or operate in "controlled" area. Drones accident will happen, just the same way car accident happens, planes accident happens, or even accidental discharge happen (gun are as much subject to mechanical failure as anything else).
The government engages in unreasonable overreach, therefore all laws are bad? Do you think the world would be a better place if there were no laws related to the operation of automobiles? No signals, no stop signs, no right of way rules, etc? What is your point here?
If 60% larger is "Earth-Sized," call me when they find something "Mars-Sized."
OK, Kepler-138b is about the size of Mars.
Right, 60% larger gravity would be tough on a fat guy like me. Also, can someone please help me understand the orbit thing? In the article it appears that 186 orbits a brighter-sun closer to Mercury's orbit as opposed to Earth's. The Earth has liquid water in the summer and frozen water in the winter just with the polar shift. How can a planet orbiting closer to a brighter star have anything but steam in the atmosphere, if it even has water?
You're looking at the wrong planet. Kepler-452b is the planet whose orbit is similar to Earth's orbit. And it's sun is similar to ours. Kepler-186 is orbiting much closer to it's star, but it's star is much cooler than ours.