Plus I've heard a few horror stories. Friends in Australia pay extra when coming to Canada just so they can avoid landing in the US. Not because they're terrorists or on any watch list or "look ethnic", but because they simply don't want the hassles at the end of a long flight.
Been there - I went through Vancouver instead of LA:)
A few hundred dollars vs having to negotiate LAX and the end of a long trip overseas. No brainer really. Especially now they're charging for the visa waiver programme. The fee is nominal, I presume the real purpose is to get your credit card details.
"In research that could boost the sales of socks in New England, a study out of the University of Otago in New Zealand found that wearing socks over shoes results in far fewer slips and falls on icy footpaths. It won the physics prize."
This is common knowledge here amongst yachties and other people who walk on green covered slipways (they're not called that for nothing). Put on some rugby socks and you won't fall over. It's counter-intuitive but it works.
By my very rough calculations, you'd be doing about 180,000,000 ms-1 after a year of accelerating at 1g. Ah special relativity, you seemed so simple while at school but now you confuse the hell out of me.
If you entrust a person's personal details to a third party and that third party leaks it, you're responsible. The third party is too, but you gave them the info in the first place when you didn't have permission to do so.
I would have taken it better if the guy wasn't younger than me. If he'd been more my father's age then it might have been an effective 'talking to', but as it was he just came off as an aggressive prick.
Actually yes I'd rather I didn't get verbally abused. The guy was young and obviously had issues with not being taken seriously, so his way of dealing with it was being overly-aggressive.
I would have had no problem if he'd breath-tested me.
And he didn't write me a reckless driving ticket because I wasn't driving recklessly.
I got pulled over by a young cop on a power trip for driving too fast through a chicane designed to slow people down. I was probably doing half the speed limit (25 in a 50 zone), and it was about 10:30 at night in a deserted part of town.
Yeah, I had a lot of body roll (older car), so perhaps it looked dangerous. The cop basically had a shout at me, while his co-cop stood there and said nothing, and then drove off to harass someone else.
Where's the good cop in that? The guy doing the shouting was clearly an asshole, but the other policeman who just stood there was also culpable. If your 'good cops' are sitting passively by while bad cops abuse their good name, they're not really good cops are they?
Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to say. Glad you could phrase it a bit better than I was.
On a tangent, the concept of buying electricity from one particular source has always annoyed me. If you're connected to the grid, you're making use of all the ancillary services connected to the grid - whether they're provided by thermal, nuclear, hydro, wind or whatever.
It's like people who buy as much energy from wind generation as they use and then claim that they only use clean green wind power. This is clearly not the case since when wind isn't generating they are being supported by thermal generation.
We actually have a power company here who claims 'clean green' energy, since they only have hydro and wind generation plant. However, they regularly have more demand from customers (who bought into the nonsense) than they generate. Guess where the difference comes from? It's not clean or green.
Definitely, coal plants that spew pollutants into the air at no cost to themselves would be taxed.
Do you have any idea how much electricity a typical shopping mall uses?
In the electricity example, I propose that it's better to tax further up the chain where the environmental harm is done, not at the end user. Taxing at the end user is much much harder to get 'right', and the environmental impact of coal plants is better understood.
So, tax the polluting electricity plants, then the cost of electricity should more closely reflect real environmental impact, and malls can make their own decision on whether paying for lighting is worth it.
As a side benefit you do away with all the complex 'renewable' energy subsidies since all the different technologies compete on equal terms.
Or we could tax petrol in accordance with its environmental impact and let people choose the best method for their own situation. If petrol cost (say) 3-4 times the current amount people would choose the option that inflicted the least amount of damage on the environment because it would be the cheapest.
If you'd actually clicked on the link, you'd find that book was written by an American.
Here's what the blurb says about him: "Leonard Evans, an internationally renowned expert on traffic safety, is president of Science Ser-i’ing Society, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan".
Admittedly that book I linked was written in 1991, so it is a little out of date. If you have any more recent research which supports your hypothesis, I'd be glad to see it.
If you don't, you're just making an unsubstantiated claim based on your own prejudices. I agree that it might be a little surprising that race drivers have more crashes than average on public roads, but hey, that's what the research says.
Don't agree with it? Find something which backs up your position.
And don't go off on a tangent about copyright laws etc. There is an abundance of freely available information out there designed, and waiting to be used/copied.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing screams professional like Excel graphs with default settings.
"Over three years, it's believed as much as 31 percent of notebooks will either fail of their own accord or suffer drops that render them inoperable."
So people drops laptops and they break.
Plus I've heard a few horror stories. Friends in Australia pay extra when coming to Canada just so they can avoid landing in the US. Not because they're terrorists or on any watch list or "look ethnic", but because they simply don't want the hassles at the end of a long flight.
Been there - I went through Vancouver instead of LA :)
A few hundred dollars vs having to negotiate LAX and the end of a long trip overseas. No brainer really. Especially now they're charging for the visa waiver programme. The fee is nominal, I presume the real purpose is to get your credit card details.
"In research that could boost the sales of socks in New England, a study out of the University of Otago in New Zealand found that wearing socks over shoes results in far fewer slips and falls on icy footpaths. It won the physics prize."
This is common knowledge here amongst yachties and other people who walk on green covered slipways (they're not called that for nothing). Put on some rugby socks and you won't fall over. It's counter-intuitive but it works.
By my very rough calculations, you'd be doing about 180,000,000 ms-1 after a year of accelerating at 1g. Ah special relativity, you seemed so simple while at school but now you confuse the hell out of me.
So it would appear to take 21.86 years to travel to a planet 20 light years away? Something tells me you've made a mistake here :p
Yeah Sky aren't the good guys here.
If you entrust a person's personal details to a third party and that third party leaks it, you're responsible. The third party is too, but you gave them the info in the first place when you didn't have permission to do so.
Impressive backpeddling though.
Yeah, I agree with that.
I would have taken it better if the guy wasn't younger than me. If he'd been more my father's age then it might have been an effective 'talking to', but as it was he just came off as an aggressive prick.
Actually yes I'd rather I didn't get verbally abused. The guy was young and obviously had issues with not being taken seriously, so his way of dealing with it was being overly-aggressive.
I would have had no problem if he'd breath-tested me.
And he didn't write me a reckless driving ticket because I wasn't driving recklessly.
Did you read my post or did you just scan through and notice the phrase 'good cop'?
I quite clearly ask the rhetorical question "they're not really good cops are they?" which implies that no, they're not good cops.
I got pulled over by a young cop on a power trip for driving too fast through a chicane designed to slow people down. I was probably doing half the speed limit (25 in a 50 zone), and it was about 10:30 at night in a deserted part of town.
Yeah, I had a lot of body roll (older car), so perhaps it looked dangerous. The cop basically had a shout at me, while his co-cop stood there and said nothing, and then drove off to harass someone else.
Where's the good cop in that? The guy doing the shouting was clearly an asshole, but the other policeman who just stood there was also culpable. If your 'good cops' are sitting passively by while bad cops abuse their good name, they're not really good cops are they?
"If I have seen further, it is by infringing on the copyright of giants."
-- Isaac Newton.
It wouldn't be recognisable as a middle earth story without dozens of ex-Shortland Street actors running around.
It was certainly the case with my physics/maths degree, and I'd be surprised if it's not the case for most people.
Quantum mechanical tunnelling? Not really that useful in my current job.
Fourier transforms, matlab, significance tests? I use them almost daily.
Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to say. Glad you could phrase it a bit better than I was.
On a tangent, the concept of buying electricity from one particular source has always annoyed me. If you're connected to the grid, you're making use of all the ancillary services connected to the grid - whether they're provided by thermal, nuclear, hydro, wind or whatever.
It's like people who buy as much energy from wind generation as they use and then claim that they only use clean green wind power. This is clearly not the case since when wind isn't generating they are being supported by thermal generation.
We actually have a power company here who claims 'clean green' energy, since they only have hydro and wind generation plant. However, they regularly have more demand from customers (who bought into the nonsense) than they generate. Guess where the difference comes from? It's not clean or green.
Definitely, coal plants that spew pollutants into the air at no cost to themselves would be taxed.
Do you have any idea how much electricity a typical shopping mall uses?
In the electricity example, I propose that it's better to tax further up the chain where the environmental harm is done, not at the end user. Taxing at the end user is much much harder to get 'right', and the environmental impact of coal plants is better understood.
So, tax the polluting electricity plants, then the cost of electricity should more closely reflect real environmental impact, and malls can make their own decision on whether paying for lighting is worth it.
As a side benefit you do away with all the complex 'renewable' energy subsidies since all the different technologies compete on equal terms.
And solar energy is free! Win win.
Or we could tax petrol in accordance with its environmental impact and let people choose the best method for their own situation. If petrol cost (say) 3-4 times the current amount people would choose the option that inflicted the least amount of damage on the environment because it would be the cheapest.
Note this comment has no basis in reality.
Assuming some routing efficiency the trucks will travel only a fraction of the miles the cars do per package.
Unfortunately Slashdot says we can't do that until someone proves P=NP
If you'd actually clicked on the link, you'd find that book was written by an American.
Here's what the blurb says about him: "Leonard Evans, an internationally renowned expert on traffic safety, is president of Science Ser-i’ing Society, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan".
Admittedly that book I linked was written in 1991, so it is a little out of date. If you have any more recent research which supports your hypothesis, I'd be glad to see it.
If you don't, you're just making an unsubstantiated claim based on your own prejudices. I agree that it might be a little surprising that race drivers have more crashes than average on public roads, but hey, that's what the research says.
Don't agree with it? Find something which backs up your position.
Woops, posting to undo moderation. Have an imaginary +1 interesting.
Maybe they had to turn right?
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=OyuGJJ6rKQ0C&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq='race+drivers+have+fewer+crashes'&source=bl&ots=zqlejfpoBH&sig=QmE-KnGY69HW8nKoV4aHtOPYryo&hl=en&ei=CdyTTPr_JJL6swO81_DACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q='race%20drivers%20have%20fewer%20crashes'&f=false
I thought it was because they couldn't be sure it was actually chicken.
I guess that's why race drivers have fewer crashes?
The biggest difference between school and work:
In school you get punished for copying.
And don't go off on a tangent about copyright laws etc. There is an abundance of freely available information out there designed, and waiting to be used/copied.
If I mod you +1 informative will you promise not to hurt me?