Now there are more hams than ever, and Amateur Radio is healthy. When I say "We won", it means "Amateur Radio won". It's too bad we had to fight our own old guys.
...
Sadly science isn't the only thing that advances one funeral at a time. As I am getting long in the tooth I try to remind myself not to resist change too much. But it's hard. You struggle to master something and then some damn whippersnapper makes it completely irrelevant.
You do see the irony in you painting them as ignorant fools for generalizing a group of people they don't know, right?
Just checking...
There is a HUGE difference between judging people based on their skin color (which tells you nothing about a person except the range of photons they reflect), and judging people based on them believing that skin color is an important measure of a person (which tells you they have not thought rationally on the matter and that they let they're fear and in-group pressures rule their intellect.) This is "natural" for a social animal that evolved/survived living in small tribes, but not optimal for cohabitation on the planet peacefully. The technical term for such people is, "ignorant racists." They lack the knowledge that race is not a good proxy for determining the intelligence nor moral character of a human being.
Er...how would they do that? Fire a weapon into a smokey background? Jam the radio...in a way that couldn't possibly interfere with other emergency communications? Or what?
A '72 Z28 Camaro is around 4 seconds, so I agree - those numbers are suspect at best. Have they actually done it? Or is this what the engineers calculate it might be able to do?
This is a Poe, right? Well played. YouTube will give you the answers you seek.:)
The 762 HP all-wheel drive electric car with traction control and performance tires (standard on the Model D) most definitely blows the doors of of the 255 HP rear wheel drive V8 with a standard differential. Also, the '72 Z/28 has a 0-60 time of 7.4 seconds.
Somehow I get the feeling that this $10K upgrade will just get me a bit more smoke and rubber left on the road. Just how was this tested? What am I likely to really achieve on a local highway and with stock tires (presumably while steering clear of cops and any other nearby traffic)?
The upgrade is to the P85D, which is the performance model so it's already got decent tires on it. Plus it's a four-wheel drive electric vehicle with traction control. So no tire smoking and on dry pavement you're going to get damn close to 0-60 in 2.8 seconds if you have a full charge. As the the charge decreases, you'll loose a bit of the acceleration.
And he DID. I own a Pono, thing sounds extremely awesome, ridiculously good for $400 (I have numerous digital converters worth more than that, it's my day job). He DID go make his own, and you're still bitchin'?
It's awesome that he made his own, it really is. But his argument that streaming 256 AAC sounds worse than AM Radio, cassette tapes and 8 tracks is ridiculous and it makes the whole thing feel a bit disingenuous. Is he pulling all his CDs off the shelves? Is he pulling his music from the iTunes store (which is encoded as 256 kbps AAC?
It's great he's creating a hi-fidelity option. It's marketing BS that he won't let people who don't care enjoy his music however the hell they want.
What gets me is that the idea of being arrested not for violating a law but for being a malcontent seems to have a lot of supporters in the UK. Doesn't seem like a place I'd want to live in. Not trying to be a jackass myself most of the times, but.. wow. Strange idea of freedom, really.
Even in the US, freedom of speech is not absolute.
Talk back to a cop in the US and you will end up facedown, handcuffed with a knee in your back.
...
On the other hand, real crime like robbery or burglary was a grave offence, meaning you'd be punished harshly and excommunicated from your family. These days they are handled as if they are victims of society, getting light sentences if caught at all (first offence a slap on the wrist, second offence some community service, and so on) and are usually out after a few hours. It will get ugly indeed.
Where in the world do you live?
Citation please (for criminals being treated like victims, not for where you live).
Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a philosophy. Science and math were also, at one time, considered "philosophies", in that they, all three, relied on inductive proof techniques developed by the classical philosophers. With the development of the scientific method, however, science stands apart on a new basis of testable hypotheses. It is my understanding that math is considered by many to not be a science on this basis.
Theology can't be taught from a neutral viewpoint because it only exists in the context of the religion that the theologian believes. Theology can include philosophy but it is invariably tainted by the specific religion that the theologian embraces. Theologians have contributed to philosophy because they try to square arbitrary canon with reality and have created some interesting arguments in the process.
Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.
No, that's called "religious studies" and it's a social science. Theology is the art of drinking Kool-aid and calling it fine wine. Religious studies is the cataloging of all the flavors of Kool-aid that theologians drink.
Left turn = three right turns. Three times safer, right?
If you ask a statistician you'll discover that it's not only safer, but it's also more efficient because less time is spend making complete stops and idling at lights. This is why UPS minimizes left turns.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here but I suspect the idea of changing the algorithm to introduce more right turns to eliminate some left turns never occurred to you. But once you read the above story you were all like "oh yeah, that makes sense, what harm can come from that, what would it cost, oh man it might actually save money and time and lives andandand...
Meanwhile, thankfully, there will be people that are accustomed to giving thought to long term ramifications and unintended consequences. Hence the phrase, cooler heads will prevail. Start looking at the problem from a logical point of view and less from your heart and you too might realize that education and personal responsibility may not be the best or only solution to the problem but are a better long term solution than having 4 million drivers making more right turns.
Or, you might find, that making more right turns works out better for everyone. UPS minimizes left turns because it saves fuel even though it may increase the length of the route. But gravity forbid we look into alternatives to telling the victim of an accident "suck it up and take responsibility". A pedestrian can cross with a walk sign and some asshole stopped at a green light can see an opening in traffic and then make the turn without looking. This is the situation that they are trying to improve. There is nothing the pedestrian can do in this situation and it happens all the time.
And a percentage of pedestrians act as if the 7000 pounds of steel, glass and explody stuff can stop like an arcade vehicle with no "laws of physics" constraints, or acknowledgment of human limitations like reaction time. Yeah, it goes both ways. Some drivers are assholes. Some pedestrians are assholes too.
Pedestrians have the right of way, which is true. But that doesn't mean they can slip into blissful ignorance, step off the curb into traffic and have a reasonable expectation that the car that is turning left will see them in time to stop. With your right comes some responsibility. Far too often I see pedestrians step into the crosswalk in such a way as to make it all but impossible for the left turning car to safely stop. Whereupon, they flip the driver a bird. That is assuming they even bother to acknowledge the herculean effort the driver put in to avoid their dumb ass.
Asking Google to modify the code to reduce the number of suggested left turns is one way to MAYBE alter the outcome. An additional step would be to put some effort into a PSA campaign that tells pedestrians to watch where the hell they are going and stop behaving like they are entitled before they even step into the street.
The fact that some pedestrians act "entitled" does not change the fact that cars regularly hit pedestrians that are following the law and are crossing with a walk sign. Why is this so hard to understand? Cars in many cities can turn left at a green light where pedestrians are crossing. The car, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, sees an opening in oncoming traffic and punches it without looking for pedestrians. This happens all the time. I saw it happen this weekend.
Hmm. How about teaching kids to do the simple, sane thing and Watch Where The Fuck they are going...??
What happened to parents teaching their kids basic safety, and the old adage about "Looking both ways before crossing the street"?
Seriously...do parents not teach kids the basic things about life? Don't talk to strangers, look both ways, cross street at intersections, etc.
I guess I'm just puzzled why what used to be common sense has suddenly gone straight out the fucking window?
Seriously? Pedestrians crossing the street with a walk sign get hit by someone making a left hand turn and you blame the pedestrian? The issue is the driver making the left is mostly focussed on oncoming traffic. As soon as they see an opening in oncoming traffic, they gun it with out checking if the crosswalk is clear. We can "blame" the victim like you are. We can blame and punish the driver. Or we can admit there are limits to human focus and do something to improve the situation.
Clearly you don't walk, ride a bicycle, or a motorcycle on a regular basis or you would be aware that people in cars regularly change lanes, run red lights and make turns without noticing anything smaller than a passenger car.
That wasn't very nice of you to say. You're also [stupidly] assuming that
1) Survival instinct is trumped by rationality
2) The astronauts have complete faith in SpaceX's ability to correctly identify and solve the problem that didn't show up on their boards at all
There is no reason why these people can't be of two minds about this topic.
There're astronauts. They choose to do this for a career. They spent their entire educations and careers focussed on getting into space. They are all test pilots and all of them flew missions on the Space Shuttle after NASA lost two of them and choose to compete for flying on commercial crew. NASA, the NTSB, and the FAA have to approve every item that SpaceX removes from the fault tree analysis. They aren't just trusting SpaceX.
Yes, they have a survival instinct, and yes they constantly override it with rationality. And the reward they get is to work on the ISS and orbit the Earth.
The more interesting answer to ask for... at some point down the road, will be: "After having trained with both companies, which vehicle would you prefer to crew?".
Politically, they would never answer that question beyond "they are both great craft and I'm glad to have the opportunity to fly on either one."
Realistically, it will come down to a matter of personal preference and getting our panties in a bunch is no different than a vim and emacs holy war.
they have not yet found all the reasons for the exploding rocket disaster and already announce that they will put humans in there soon. wow.
Wow indeed. But only in regard to your lack of understanding of how things get done in the real world. The first human launch on an F9 is over two years from now. That is plenty of time to identify and fix the problem, or if they can't (a ridiculously unlikely outcome) then they can make a new plan.
Or should we have shutdown all civil air travel until MH370 is found and the root cause analysis is complete?
P.S. In case you are unaware, there are two commercial crew providers. Only one of them use the F9. That's by design. It's called redundancy.
"For my money, anyone over 13 years old is aware of their actions and if they are defective enough to SWAT once, let alone multiple times, they should be incarcerated indefinitely in a mental health facility and banned from any phone or internet connected devices for life. "
There are no more mental health facilities the way you're thinking of them. All the institutions closed in the 80s and 90s. Now, you pretty much need to be Hannibal Lechter to get a mental health inpatient bed; you need to be so dangerous to yourself or others that the only choice is to keep you locked up and attempt to treat you. Prison is the new asylum for most mid-level mentally ill people.
You're right. But I think they just throw the "dangerous" ones in solitary, so nothing will get you into a mental health facility anymore. I put dangerous in scare quotes because anyone with a pulse can be put into solitary for what seem completely arbitrary reasons. On any given day, 80,000 US prisoners are in solitary. 25,000 are in long term solitary confinement. It's cruel, it drives normal humans insane and should be unconstitutional.
"I don't see a problem with this, but you have to trust the authorities in they're doing what they think is best,"
Wow, first post and first Godwin.
There is a big difference between, "police investigate suspicious activity and determine there is no threat" and "secret police ferret out Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and send to death camps." Yes, it's a bummer that basic curiosity and experimentation is suspicious and that we live in a society so scared of terrorism that we jump at shadows. But Nazis? Please...
1. So far as I understand the horns are being ground down mostly for chinese penis pills or something. So... printing the horns is pointless.
2.Even if the horns are ornamental, the real deal will fetch a higher price.
3. Clearly there are already established manufactuering methods for making horns that are cheaper and give a better finished product using less expensive manufacturing equipment.
4. The actual way you protect the Rhinos is by giving the people in the area OWNERSHIP of the Rhinos. This has been done in a few other places and the poaching stops if the local people literally own the animal. They don't put it in a cage or something. But it is on their land and they understand that they own it. And in addition to that they are owed a share of any safari money or whatever comes from tourism or scientific whatever in the area. You enter my zone... I have responsibility for X animals there are Y total animals... X is some ratio of Y... when you come to the area for a safari I get a proportional share of that money. Then you have people come out and audit how many of the animals are still alive and on the property. The locals are thus rewarded proportionately for how many of these animals live in their area. This has been done in a few places and it always works. The local governments don't like to do this because they want the money. But then they spend a lot of it on anti poaching police that don't actually work because the locals live with these animals and if they want money they just either go out themselves and kill the animal or get paid to turn a blind eye by some poachers. If the locals are getting paid to keep the animals alive the poaching stops.
This is a dumb project for clueless 1st world idiots that makes them think they're accomplishing something by playing with their toys.
I'd be sorry for being harsh if I weren't even more disgusted at the fucking stupidity.
Come kids... we didn't build these big rich ass countries by being morons. Be practical or we're going to lose it all.
Whoosh! If it's hard to distinguish fake horns from real ones, then people will be motivated to pass off the fake ones as real. Making them look like horns ensures they are inserted into the bottom of the supply chain. This will hopefully flood the market and shake consumer confidence, both of which will drive the price down. Yes, people will be willing to pay more for "real" horn, fortunately a lot of people will be willing to lie and say that fake horns are real, or that they are selling "real" powder. The vast majority of consumers will have no way to know what is real and what is fake. And the fake rhino horn powder will be exactly as efficacious as the real powder...
As far as allowing ownership of the rhino's for hunting or harvesting, that is not in the control of the people sponsoring this project. That is the purview of governments. Governments that are well aware of the approaches you are advocating and are unwilling, or unable, to enact them. Maybe there are draw backs you are unaware of. Maybe they are too busy just trying to survive to give a fuck.
So rather than just feeling superior and doing nothing, the "Save Rhinos by Making Fake Horns" project is trying to use market forces that it actually can influence.
Slashdot Mirror
...
Now there are more hams than ever, and Amateur Radio is healthy. When I say "We won", it means "Amateur Radio won". It's too bad we had to fight our own old guys.
...
Sadly science isn't the only thing that advances one funeral at a time. As I am getting long in the tooth I try to remind myself not to resist change too much. But it's hard. You struggle to master something and then some damn whippersnapper makes it completely irrelevant.
You do see the irony in you painting them as ignorant fools for generalizing a group of people they don't know, right?
Just checking...
There is a HUGE difference between judging people based on their skin color (which tells you nothing about a person except the range of photons they reflect), and judging people based on them believing that skin color is an important measure of a person (which tells you they have not thought rationally on the matter and that they let they're fear and in-group pressures rule their intellect.) This is "natural" for a social animal that evolved/survived living in small tribes, but not optimal for cohabitation on the planet peacefully. The technical term for such people is, "ignorant racists." They lack the knowledge that race is not a good proxy for determining the intelligence nor moral character of a human being.
>> Allow First Responders To Take Out Drones
Er...how would they do that? Fire a weapon into a smokey background? Jam the radio...in a way that couldn't possibly interfere with other emergency communications? Or what?
Nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure.
A '72 Z28 Camaro is around 4 seconds, so I agree - those numbers are suspect at best. Have they actually done it? Or is this what the engineers calculate it might be able to do?
This is a Poe, right? Well played. YouTube will give you the answers you seek. :)
The 762 HP all-wheel drive electric car with traction control and performance tires (standard on the Model D) most definitely blows the doors of of the 255 HP rear wheel drive V8 with a standard differential. Also, the '72 Z/28 has a 0-60 time of 7.4 seconds.
Somehow I get the feeling that this $10K upgrade will just get me a bit more smoke and rubber left on the road. Just how was this tested? What am I likely to really achieve on a local highway and with stock tires (presumably while steering clear of cops and any other nearby traffic)?
The upgrade is to the P85D, which is the performance model so it's already got decent tires on it. Plus it's a four-wheel drive electric vehicle with traction control. So no tire smoking and on dry pavement you're going to get damn close to 0-60 in 2.8 seconds if you have a full charge. As the the charge decreases, you'll loose a bit of the acceleration.
...
And he DID. I own a Pono, thing sounds extremely awesome, ridiculously good for $400 (I have numerous digital converters worth more than that, it's my day job). He DID go make his own, and you're still bitchin'?
It's awesome that he made his own, it really is. But his argument that streaming 256 AAC sounds worse than AM Radio, cassette tapes and 8 tracks is ridiculous and it makes the whole thing feel a bit disingenuous. Is he pulling all his CDs off the shelves? Is he pulling his music from the iTunes store (which is encoded as 256 kbps AAC?
It's great he's creating a hi-fidelity option. It's marketing BS that he won't let people who don't care enjoy his music however the hell they want.
The belt clip keeps it closer to my genitalia. So I think that is the conservative testing location.
A belt clip is closer to your genitals than the inside of a front pocket?
What gets me is that the idea of being arrested not for violating a law but for being a malcontent seems to have a lot of supporters in the UK. Doesn't seem like a place I'd want to live in. Not trying to be a jackass myself most of the times, but.. wow. Strange idea of freedom, really.
Why does nearly every article mention the type of phone?
Would it be any different if he was charging a cheap Nolkia - or even his shaver?
Yes, it would be a totally different story if he was charging a Nokia. It would be fiction.
... On the other hand, real crime like robbery or burglary was a grave offence, meaning you'd be punished harshly and excommunicated from your family. These days they are handled as if they are victims of society, getting light sentences if caught at all (first offence a slap on the wrist, second offence some community service, and so on) and are usually out after a few hours. It will get ugly indeed.
Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a philosophy. Science and math were also, at one time, considered "philosophies", in that they, all three, relied on inductive proof techniques developed by the classical philosophers. With the development of the scientific method, however, science stands apart on a new basis of testable hypotheses. It is my understanding that math is considered by many to not be a science on this basis.
Theology can't be taught from a neutral viewpoint because it only exists in the context of the religion that the theologian believes. Theology can include philosophy but it is invariably tainted by the specific religion that the theologian embraces. Theologians have contributed to philosophy because they try to square arbitrary canon with reality and have created some interesting arguments in the process.
Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.
No, that's called "religious studies" and it's a social science. Theology is the art of drinking Kool-aid and calling it fine wine. Religious studies is the cataloging of all the flavors of Kool-aid that theologians drink.
Left turn = three right turns. Three times safer, right?
If you ask a statistician you'll discover that it's not only safer, but it's also more efficient because less time is spend making complete stops and idling at lights. This is why UPS minimizes left turns.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here but I suspect the idea of changing the algorithm to introduce more right turns to eliminate some left turns never occurred to you. But once you read the above story you were all like "oh yeah, that makes sense, what harm can come from that, what would it cost, oh man it might actually save money and time and lives andandand...
Meanwhile, thankfully, there will be people that are accustomed to giving thought to long term ramifications and unintended consequences. Hence the phrase, cooler heads will prevail. Start looking at the problem from a logical point of view and less from your heart and you too might realize that education and personal responsibility may not be the best or only solution to the problem but are a better long term solution than having 4 million drivers making more right turns.
Or, you might find, that making more right turns works out better for everyone. UPS minimizes left turns because it saves fuel even though it may increase the length of the route. But gravity forbid we look into alternatives to telling the victim of an accident "suck it up and take responsibility". A pedestrian can cross with a walk sign and some asshole stopped at a green light can see an opening in traffic and then make the turn without looking. This is the situation that they are trying to improve. There is nothing the pedestrian can do in this situation and it happens all the time.
And a percentage of pedestrians act as if the 7000 pounds of steel, glass and explody stuff can stop like an arcade vehicle with no "laws of physics" constraints, or acknowledgment of human limitations like reaction time. Yeah, it goes both ways. Some drivers are assholes. Some pedestrians are assholes too.
And this issue has nothing to do with that.
Pedestrians have the right of way, which is true. But that doesn't mean they can slip into blissful ignorance, step off the curb into traffic and have a reasonable expectation that the car that is turning left will see them in time to stop. With your right comes some responsibility. Far too often I see pedestrians step into the crosswalk in such a way as to make it all but impossible for the left turning car to safely stop. Whereupon, they flip the driver a bird. That is assuming they even bother to acknowledge the herculean effort the driver put in to avoid their dumb ass.
Asking Google to modify the code to reduce the number of suggested left turns is one way to MAYBE alter the outcome. An additional step would be to put some effort into a PSA campaign that tells pedestrians to watch where the hell they are going and stop behaving like they are entitled before they even step into the street.
The fact that some pedestrians act "entitled" does not change the fact that cars regularly hit pedestrians that are following the law and are crossing with a walk sign. Why is this so hard to understand? Cars in many cities can turn left at a green light where pedestrians are crossing. The car, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, sees an opening in oncoming traffic and punches it without looking for pedestrians. This happens all the time. I saw it happen this weekend.
Hmm. How about teaching kids to do the simple, sane thing and Watch Where The Fuck they are going...??
What happened to parents teaching their kids basic safety, and the old adage about "Looking both ways before crossing the street"?
Seriously...do parents not teach kids the basic things about life? Don't talk to strangers, look both ways, cross street at intersections, etc.
I guess I'm just puzzled why what used to be common sense has suddenly gone straight out the fucking window?
Seriously? Pedestrians crossing the street with a walk sign get hit by someone making a left hand turn and you blame the pedestrian? The issue is the driver making the left is mostly focussed on oncoming traffic. As soon as they see an opening in oncoming traffic, they gun it with out checking if the crosswalk is clear. We can "blame" the victim like you are. We can blame and punish the driver. Or we can admit there are limits to human focus and do something to improve the situation.
Clearly you don't walk, ride a bicycle, or a motorcycle on a regular basis or you would be aware that people in cars regularly change lanes, run red lights and make turns without noticing anything smaller than a passenger car.
That wasn't very nice of you to say. You're also [stupidly] assuming that 1) Survival instinct is trumped by rationality 2) The astronauts have complete faith in SpaceX's ability to correctly identify and solve the problem that didn't show up on their boards at all There is no reason why these people can't be of two minds about this topic.
There're astronauts. They choose to do this for a career. They spent their entire educations and careers focussed on getting into space. They are all test pilots and all of them flew missions on the Space Shuttle after NASA lost two of them and choose to compete for flying on commercial crew. NASA, the NTSB, and the FAA have to approve every item that SpaceX removes from the fault tree analysis. They aren't just trusting SpaceX.
Yes, they have a survival instinct, and yes they constantly override it with rationality. And the reward they get is to work on the ISS and orbit the Earth.
The more interesting answer to ask for... at some point down the road, will be: "After having trained with both companies, which vehicle would you prefer to crew?".
Politically, they would never answer that question beyond "they are both great craft and I'm glad to have the opportunity to fly on either one."
Realistically, it will come down to a matter of personal preference and getting our panties in a bunch is no different than a vim and emacs holy war.
they have not yet found all the reasons for the exploding rocket disaster and already announce that they will put humans in there soon. wow.
Wow indeed. But only in regard to your lack of understanding of how things get done in the real world. The first human launch on an F9 is over two years from now. That is plenty of time to identify and fix the problem, or if they can't (a ridiculously unlikely outcome) then they can make a new plan.
Or should we have shutdown all civil air travel until MH370 is found and the root cause analysis is complete?
P.S. In case you are unaware, there are two commercial crew providers. Only one of them use the F9. That's by design. It's called redundancy.
Especially considering the last one exploded on take off.
Get your facts straight. The last one deflagrated over a minute into flight...
"For my money, anyone over 13 years old is aware of their actions and if they are defective enough to SWAT once, let alone multiple times, they should be incarcerated indefinitely in a mental health facility and banned from any phone or internet connected devices for life. "
There are no more mental health facilities the way you're thinking of them. All the institutions closed in the 80s and 90s. Now, you pretty much need to be Hannibal Lechter to get a mental health inpatient bed; you need to be so dangerous to yourself or others that the only choice is to keep you locked up and attempt to treat you. Prison is the new asylum for most mid-level mentally ill people.
You're right. But I think they just throw the "dangerous" ones in solitary, so nothing will get you into a mental health facility anymore. I put dangerous in scare quotes because anyone with a pulse can be put into solitary for what seem completely arbitrary reasons. On any given day, 80,000 US prisoners are in solitary. 25,000 are in long term solitary confinement. It's cruel, it drives normal humans insane and should be unconstitutional.
"I don't see a problem with this, but you have to trust the authorities in they're doing what they think is best,"
Wow, first post and first Godwin.
There is a big difference between, "police investigate suspicious activity and determine there is no threat" and "secret police ferret out Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and send to death camps." Yes, it's a bummer that basic curiosity and experimentation is suspicious and that we live in a society so scared of terrorism that we jump at shadows. But Nazis? Please...
If this happens, then someday people will complain that the Internet is nothing but porn and Schrödinger's cat videos.
1. So far as I understand the horns are being ground down mostly for chinese penis pills or something. So... printing the horns is pointless.
2.Even if the horns are ornamental, the real deal will fetch a higher price.
3. Clearly there are already established manufactuering methods for making horns that are cheaper and give a better finished product using less expensive manufacturing equipment.
4. The actual way you protect the Rhinos is by giving the people in the area OWNERSHIP of the Rhinos. This has been done in a few other places and the poaching stops if the local people literally own the animal. They don't put it in a cage or something. But it is on their land and they understand that they own it. And in addition to that they are owed a share of any safari money or whatever comes from tourism or scientific whatever in the area. You enter my zone... I have responsibility for X animals there are Y total animals... X is some ratio of Y... when you come to the area for a safari I get a proportional share of that money. Then you have people come out and audit how many of the animals are still alive and on the property. The locals are thus rewarded proportionately for how many of these animals live in their area. This has been done in a few places and it always works. The local governments don't like to do this because they want the money. But then they spend a lot of it on anti poaching police that don't actually work because the locals live with these animals and if they want money they just either go out themselves and kill the animal or get paid to turn a blind eye by some poachers. If the locals are getting paid to keep the animals alive the poaching stops.
This is a dumb project for clueless 1st world idiots that makes them think they're accomplishing something by playing with their toys.
I'd be sorry for being harsh if I weren't even more disgusted at the fucking stupidity.
Come kids... we didn't build these big rich ass countries by being morons. Be practical or we're going to lose it all.
Whoosh! If it's hard to distinguish fake horns from real ones, then people will be motivated to pass off the fake ones as real. Making them look like horns ensures they are inserted into the bottom of the supply chain. This will hopefully flood the market and shake consumer confidence, both of which will drive the price down. Yes, people will be willing to pay more for "real" horn, fortunately a lot of people will be willing to lie and say that fake horns are real, or that they are selling "real" powder. The vast majority of consumers will have no way to know what is real and what is fake. And the fake rhino horn powder will be exactly as efficacious as the real powder...
As far as allowing ownership of the rhino's for hunting or harvesting, that is not in the control of the people sponsoring this project. That is the purview of governments. Governments that are well aware of the approaches you are advocating and are unwilling, or unable, to enact them. Maybe there are draw backs you are unaware of. Maybe they are too busy just trying to survive to give a fuck.
So rather than just feeling superior and doing nothing, the "Save Rhinos by Making Fake Horns" project is trying to use market forces that it actually can influence.