Because cleaning them is next to impossible or just too costly. We humans can fuck things up really well, so well that we can't always fix them afterwards.
Seems a better idea than cleaning them to whatever the maximum contamination level is by todays standards and then building houses on top. Ten years later the standards have been changed due to new research/etc and you have an entire suburb at above safe limit contamination.
One big drawback of lots of these alternative energy methods is space - you can build a nuke plant or a coal plant to provide the same amount of energy with a much smaller amount of space. Using land that is otherwise unusable seems a good idea.
And of course I'm sure the people/companies who own that worthless (in some cases negative worth since the cleanup costs dwarf the value) making lots of campaign contributions also helped.
RTFA and see that her lawyer is hinting they are taking that path in her defense:
"The only evidence that I'm aware of is a printout of a screen," said Lassiter, adding that the printed screen grab of the victim's Facebook page is what led police to determine that the protective order had been breached. "I'm trying to get my hands on some Facebook documentation so we can better assess the situation."
Information from Facebook could help verify whether the poke came from Jackson's account or an imposter's, he said. It could also help determine whether or not the poke was made from Jackson's computer or if someone broke into her account.
Treating it as income like that isn't the problem. If I lose my job but I have earn $100k a year by using the side of my house as a billboard, or by putting ads on my web page do you really think I should qualify for unemployment benefits?
The issue is that they suspend the entire benefits because she earned $3. Treating that $3 as income and reducing her unemployment payments would be fine. Stopping them, even temporarily - I'm sure lots of unemployed people are living check to check they are unemployed after all - is simply insanity.
Why not blame the lawmakers who added the loopholes in the first place, and then act all shocked with other people find out ways to exploit them in ways the lawmakers didn't think about (they just added them for their own benefit - not usually directly but indirectly, add an exemption for X because lots of people in their district are involved in X).
If the laws were simple to start with their would be no loopholes to exploit. Of course then the lawmakers couldn't use those laws to try to provide incentives for the things they like and barriers to the things they don't. Which most lawmakers live to do.
By forming an LLC you did own and operate a company, it's the very definition of it.
Yes the rules are stupid but those are the rules and they're not exactly hidden. Starting a company or accepting contract work nullifies your unemployment in lots of places.
The government providing incentives to stay on their teat and not provide for yourself as much as possible is par for the course.
If I'm buying stuff then yes some authentication/certification that I'm actually giving my credit card details to the company I think I am is a good thing.
If I am entering my password for a shitty forum web site, then having the session encrypted is nice to have. I don't really care about man-in-the-middle attacks since the alternative is no encryption at all.
Sometimes partial coverage is good enough. But web browsers make it appear that an encrypted connection without authentication is worse than an unencrypted connection without authentication by throwing up scary warnings about evil hackers.
You also think the FHA isn't going to bust too don't you?
And how would an "oil standard" tie your currency to the whims of OPEC and Venezuela (not that I think such a thing would be a good idea)...
If you made the currency redeemable then spikes in the price of oil would be deflationary and falls in the price of oil would provide an opportunity for the government to create inflation (though they wouldn't actually have to do so, but of course they would being the government and all).
If it wasn't redeemable then it would just reduce the opportunity for the government to create inflation on a whim.
So one option would let OPEC create a deflationary environment. But in all likelihood it would just act as a brake on inflation.
Personally I suggest a "politician kidney" backed currency.
Except we aren't talking about software development.
We are talking about simple preferences.
"I don't want to have to hibernate to swap batteries" can't just be answered with "it's easy you close the lid and wait for it to hibernate and then swap the batteries" by anyone wanting to provide a useful answer.
"That will add far to much complexity so you are stuck with hibernating" is a perfectly fine answer (though the fact that older laptops managed makes it seem an unlikely one). But just disregarding the only requirement is stupid.
"I'd like chocolate ice cream, please". "Here you go, have a scoop of vanilla, and you will like it!".
Yes eventually you have to recharge, but the idea was for those times between access to power.
And it's all about "Yeah, because nothing's quite so convenient as hibernating your laptop, swapping out the batteries, and resuming." so yes suspending to disk was explicitly mentioned as being a big deal.
If they claim to accept customer reviews and display them along side the products but only accept the positive reviews and don't mention that they are clearly on ethically shaky ground.
Would it be ethical for CNN to put up poll results showing that 95% of people polled supported Obama's health care plan - it is their web site and their TV station after all - if they just didn't bother including half the poll answers they got because they were "No"?
The reason you need to swap the battery is because there is no external power to plug the thing in to.
I'll leave taking a laptop with some holes drilled in it and some wires connecting it to an external battery pack though said holes through airport security for you, thanks.
You seriously don't know the difference between being able to run a particular version on Win 7 and meeting some arbitrary requirements to get a sticker???
Why? Neither ad is of any use to you or 99.9%+ of the population. The product is irrelevant, they're all useless to you.
Because there's a small chance an ad for a video game will in fact be relevant to me. I have found out about a game by seeing an ad for it on a website and said game provided enjoyment to me when I then downloaded it from usenet. I count that as useful.
It's highly relevant when 99%+ prefer not to see an ad at all. There should be a law.
Yes, there should be a law stopping me from displaying whatever I want to display on my web site. What a fantastic idea!
99% of people would rather not pay for anything too, there should be a law making everything free for everyone.
I have never been to a supermarket yet where the cashier hasn't just entered their own or some store number for the discount card when I say I don't have one. So I still don't pay the fine.
And though I now have a credit card I didn't for the first 30 years of my life with no problems at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Because cleaning them is next to impossible or just too costly. We humans can fuck things up really well, so well that we can't always fix them afterwards.
Seems a better idea than cleaning them to whatever the maximum contamination level is by todays standards and then building houses on top. Ten years later the standards have been changed due to new research/etc and you have an entire suburb at above safe limit contamination.
One big drawback of lots of these alternative energy methods is space - you can build a nuke plant or a coal plant to provide the same amount of energy with a much smaller amount of space. Using land that is otherwise unusable seems a good idea.
And of course I'm sure the people/companies who own that worthless (in some cases negative worth since the cleanup costs dwarf the value) making lots of campaign contributions also helped.
You fill it with nuclear waste first, obviously.
RTFA and see that her lawyer is hinting they are taking that path in her defense:
Treating it as income like that isn't the problem. If I lose my job but I have earn $100k a year by using the side of my house as a billboard, or by putting ads on my web page do you really think I should qualify for unemployment benefits?
The issue is that they suspend the entire benefits because she earned $3. Treating that $3 as income and reducing her unemployment payments would be fine. Stopping them, even temporarily - I'm sure lots of unemployed people are living check to check they are unemployed after all - is simply insanity.
Why not blame the lawmakers who added the loopholes in the first place, and then act all shocked with other people find out ways to exploit them in ways the lawmakers didn't think about (they just added them for their own benefit - not usually directly but indirectly, add an exemption for X because lots of people in their district are involved in X).
If the laws were simple to start with their would be no loopholes to exploit. Of course then the lawmakers couldn't use those laws to try to provide incentives for the things they like and barriers to the things they don't. Which most lawmakers live to do.
By forming an LLC you did own and operate a company, it's the very definition of it.
Yes the rules are stupid but those are the rules and they're not exactly hidden. Starting a company or accepting contract work nullifies your unemployment in lots of places.
The government providing incentives to stay on their teat and not provide for yourself as much as possible is par for the course.
Your phone doesn't let you make calls while it is plugged into the charger?
And unsurprisingly Italy isn't in the USA.
Women are smarter than men and less of them didn't notice that FOSS is a stupid thing to participate in?
More "God help you" I think.
Pity you didn't something actually useful with your logic and language prodigy ability and instead did damn programming.
Oh well hopefully your talent wouldn't have actually been applicable to something that would either have been good for or progressed humanity.
Try reading that wikipedia page again. You're doing it wrong.
The TFA is irrelevant, the reply was to a post here which stated:
"Yeah, because nothing's quite so convenient as hibernating your laptop, swapping out the batteries, and resuming."
No he means what he says, encryption.
If I'm buying stuff then yes some authentication/certification that I'm actually giving my credit card details to the company I think I am is a good thing.
If I am entering my password for a shitty forum web site, then having the session encrypted is nice to have. I don't really care about man-in-the-middle attacks since the alternative is no encryption at all.
Sometimes partial coverage is good enough. But web browsers make it appear that an encrypted connection without authentication is worse than an unencrypted connection without authentication by throwing up scary warnings about evil hackers.
You also think the FHA isn't going to bust too don't you?
And how would an "oil standard" tie your currency to the whims of OPEC and Venezuela (not that I think such a thing would be a good idea)...
If you made the currency redeemable then spikes in the price of oil would be deflationary and falls in the price of oil would provide an opportunity for the government to create inflation (though they wouldn't actually have to do so, but of course they would being the government and all).
If it wasn't redeemable then it would just reduce the opportunity for the government to create inflation on a whim.
So one option would let OPEC create a deflationary environment. But in all likelihood it would just act as a brake on inflation.
Personally I suggest a "politician kidney" backed currency.
Except we aren't talking about software development.
We are talking about simple preferences.
"I don't want to have to hibernate to swap batteries" can't just be answered with "it's easy you close the lid and wait for it to hibernate and then swap the batteries" by anyone wanting to provide a useful answer.
"That will add far to much complexity so you are stuck with hibernating" is a perfectly fine answer (though the fact that older laptops managed makes it seem an unlikely one). But just disregarding the only requirement is stupid.
"I'd like chocolate ice cream, please". "Here you go, have a scoop of vanilla, and you will like it!".
Yes everything has an easy solution if you just ignore the requirements.
Yes eventually you have to recharge, but the idea was for those times between access to power.
And it's all about "Yeah, because nothing's quite so convenient as hibernating your laptop, swapping out the batteries, and resuming." so yes suspending to disk was explicitly mentioned as being a big deal.
If they claim to accept customer reviews and display them along side the products but only accept the positive reviews and don't mention that they are clearly on ethically shaky ground.
Would it be ethical for CNN to put up poll results showing that 95% of people polled supported Obama's health care plan - it is their web site and their TV station after all - if they just didn't bother including half the poll answers they got because they were "No"?
Really, a best effort communication system with potential for delays at numerous points would do all of that because of a minor delay.
Your screwed.
The reason you need to swap the battery is because there is no external power to plug the thing in to.
I'll leave taking a laptop with some holes drilled in it and some wires connecting it to an external battery pack though said holes through airport security for you, thanks.
You seriously don't know the difference between being able to run a particular version on Win 7 and meeting some arbitrary requirements to get a sticker???
Because non-targeted ads are fair reviews of products and not marketing bullshit?
Because there's a small chance an ad for a video game will in fact be relevant to me. I have found out about a game by seeing an ad for it on a website and said game provided enjoyment to me when I then downloaded it from usenet. I count that as useful.
Yes, there should be a law stopping me from displaying whatever I want to display on my web site. What a fantastic idea!
99% of people would rather not pay for anything too, there should be a law making everything free for everyone.
I have never been to a supermarket yet where the cashier hasn't just entered their own or some store number for the discount card when I say I don't have one. So I still don't pay the fine.
And though I now have a credit card I didn't for the first 30 years of my life with no problems at all.