all I could find is that the _sewage_ cannot be used in _organic_ plants. So I call bull
Before making a fool of yourself, you should be looking for the opposite... ANYONE who says human excrement CAN be used on food crops. You won't find it.
But I can give you a start:
(a) Humus from composting toilets may be used around ornamental shrubs, flowers, trees, or fruit trees and shall be buried under at least twelve inches of soil cover. Deposit of humus from any compost toilet around any edible vegetable or vegetation shall be prohibited; http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/...
You'll find mostly the same restrictions, in almost every state.
Federal rules are... less concise. They require permitting, long time periods between last applying waste and when crops can be harvested, lots of remediation steps, etc., etc.:
Food, feed, or fiber crops may not be grown on an active biosolids unit unless the owner or operator of the surface disposal site can demonstrate to the permitting authority that through management practices public health and the environment are protected from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain pollutants that may be present in biosolids. https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/...
no way in heck I would choose to live in the insanity that is California when I can easily keep much more money in my account at the end of the month while affording a nice house (not a tiny shared apartment, a house) just about anywhere in "flyover country",
There are plenty of nice, cheap places in California, with prices comparable to flyover country. You just have to get two hours outside of the big cities and you can find houses on half acres for (high) 5-figure prices.
California neighbors Arizona and Nevada... There's enough empty desert in the state to build a whole other Phoenix, AZ inside of CA.
I'm going to side with every state and federal regulatory agency in the US, which bans any use of human waste on food crops, over your assertion that it's trivially easy to render safe.
someone knowingly placed their life in the hands of automation
You mean he purchased an automobile?
and paid the price for that.
The airbag blew up in his face?
It seems quite clear here that the driver was not watching the road ahead
No. It is a common tactic in most industries to imply human error was the cause immediately after an accident. This quickly placates the general public. When the results of the investigation prove the claim was unfounded, that information doesn't get remotely as much publicity, and nearly everyone has the incident committed to memory as 100% human error.
in fact was ignoring it enough to not notice a whole, large truck trailer unit turn in front of them
People driving completely non-autonomous cars have accidents all the time, including ones just like this. The quote from Musk in the first story was that the car's sensors couldn't distinguish a white trailer on a bright day. Obviously that can be difficult for human eyes as well, particularly around sunset.
I've been trying to hire a System Administrator, an actual American, not an H-1B, but there is a single American willing to fill the position. I'm even offering DOUBLE the minimum wage ($10 in CA).
In many parts of California, $20/hr is a starvation wage. Around Los Angeles, expect about $2,000/mo rent for a basic 1BR apartment. In the Bay Area, it's at least $3,000/mo and may be more. And that's assuming you're offering full-time, which you didn't say.
If you're actually offering full-time in an inexpensive location of Southern California, just link me to the job. The only ones that don't get filled usually have obscenely onerous requirement, like existing security clearance, a horrible application process that takes an hour, etc.
I'm in the market. More experience than anybody could want, but I prefer to stay in cheaper areas where there are fewer, lower-paying IT jobs. Plus there's less turnover in those positions, which means it takes quite a while to find a job, too. I also ironically get dismissed as overqualified for some of those low-paying jobs, too.
This is a perfectly safe thing to do if you observe basic safety standards, and if you're not overmedicating your population so severely that their waste becomes a health hazard on that basis; crap left to sit around for a year turns into dirt.
Funny, I just read Comcast has the opposite complaint. A local power utility was about to rip down Comcast's lines for failing to pay their pole attachment fees, "which would have killed service for about 7,000 Comcast customers."
âoeUnfortunately, the utility has been unwilling to compromise and has billed Comcast for arbitrary pole rates that are nearly three times the national average,â said Horwitz. Comcast claimed [the power company is] using their position as a monopoly to gouge customers with high rates.
If the cognitive dissonance of that last quote doesn't make your head explode, it's a good read:
my ISP (AT&T) can only give me 1.5Mbps. [...] this would be like hooking up a firehose to my house and using it as my garden hose.
There were LANs before there was even internet access! Companies pay big money to upgrade their LANs (and WiLANs) even as their internet speeds don't increase.
If you've really got no use for it, no problem. Why you feel the need to announce it to a group of strangers is beyond my comprehension, but nevermind that. I can see millions of uses for it, even with slow internet speeds.
For the average person, you'll probably also see much better speeds when you're out on the fringe of the signal area, than you would with slower implementations, making it usable a greater distance from the router.
Plenty of people have DVRs, movie libraries, HDHomeRuns, and similar, where higher speeds would greatly help them view movies on their phones/tablets/rokus/etc.
Wouldn't that be the largest, the widest, or the broadest, or something like that?
Communications speeds have always been predominantly measured by throughput / bandwidth. It's fastest because you can fit a lot more data through it in less time. If you're streaming a movie, you can start watching it much sooner, because the connection is faster. Latency would have almost no affect on that.
Lower latency is only important in a few narrow applications, and within practical limits, it doesn't matter in most usages, so it's not a typical measure. Low latency is certainly not what people want when they ask for a faster connection.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt...
Why are we selling these airwaves? We should be renting them by the month.
The airwaves are only licensed. A contract of only months would be moronic, as it takes YEARS to build out any cellular network, and nobody would make the investment without some guarantees that they can keep using them for quite a few years.
What if some company buys them all up and never uses them in hopes that they double in price in the next 10 years due to scarcity?
Spectrum has build-out requirements, so they can't stall development. It's also not really theirs to sell. The FCC can and does take it away.
More than that, since the start of wireless communications, each improvement in the technology has pushed radio into higher and higher frequencies. There's only a few narrow purposes for TV-band spectrum. For most cellular communications, much higher frequencies are actually better in many ways, with these more often just a fallback.
It's good and very useful to ask such hypothetical questions, but only in certain contexts. It expands people's view on what they are and should be doing, and helps guide distant future decisions.
But these are mostly useful only to those inside the industry. When you start to quiz people on their preferences, as if such an imaginary hypothetical vehicle exists, pretending the answers matter to anyone, anywhere, for anything, you're just doing a lot of mental masturbation.
So tell me: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Do we really need it anymore now that we have NTP running on most of our smartphones, computers, etc.?
There are a substantial number of people who do not own a cellphone or an internet connected computer, and/or may just not have access to one of those at some time and place (e.g. power outage) when they want accurate time. And I'm confident providing the service is a nominal cost that benefits these many millions of people.
You'd be idiotic to purchase a car which might sacrifice your life or health in ANY circumstances. It can't possibly be perfect enough to make that decision properly even just most of the time. False positives are far more likely, which means cars will be murdering occupants on a regular basis, for no good reason.
The thought experiment is massively unrealistic. Among other things, it requires a computer with infallible and almost prescient knowledge. It doesn't just require an almost magical mastery of physics, so that the wet road, temperature of the tires, or similar won't change the vehicle characteristics enough to change which option is most ideal. It also requires the crash dynamics of vehicles and humans to be perfectly model-able, where it can guess that one person will be killed in a 25MPH wreck, but another will survive a firery high-speed collision with an immovable object.
What's more, this computer deciding how to save lives, has ALREADY failed to avoid putting you (and others) in a no-possible-way-out deadly situation in the first place.
And did I mention that mannequins or animals in the road will look an awful lot like pedestrians to computer sensors? Jumping in front of a driver-less car would be a good way to murder the occupants. Criminals have already realized that standing in front of a car with pedestrian avoidance systems will hold the victims' vehicles helplessly in place.
Blackberry was known, and popular, for their hardware keyboards....
There are numerous dedicated fans of Android sliders.
There are NO Android sliders left on the US market, and the last few like the Droid 4, Photon Q, LG Mach/Optimus F3Q (which sell used for abnormally high prices) are all getting decrepit and with out-dated OS versions.
It seems like a no brainer for Blackberry to bring back the Android slider.
Instead they make the Priv, which has a tiny keyboard that slides out in portrait mode (not landscape like all other sliders), and is more expensive than the highest-end flagship phones from the most popular manufacturers, and an order of magnitude more expensive than entry-level Android phones. This after the failure of their similarly crazy (square) Passport.
Blackberry's current business model seems to involve heating their headquarters by burning $100 bills in the furnace. They're determined to either beat Samsung and become a huge name again, or else die trying, and the later is more or less the foregone conclusion. If, instead, they'd introduce what many people want, but is currently unavailable in the market, they would have an instant niche all to themselves.
You'd need several times larger storage, actually.
Attempting to decrypt a stream even just a couple seconds later would not reliably work.
I explained to the loud-mouthed AC in a decent bit of detail why decoding later is very, very difficult and not realistically possible. Saying "just use a faster one" is about as good a solution as saying "just sprinkle some fairy dust on it."
Getting your technical information from Khyber is the batshit crazy nutjobs leading the blind...
I'm now very tired of this worthless topic and dispelling lots of magical thinking for no purpose. Do let me know when you get your box built...
Ah, good old Khyber spouting nonsense again. Don't remember seeing you since you got kicked off of SoylentNews.
Being a minimum wage, cable installing subcontractor, doesn't give you any insights into designing demodulators, MPEG decoders, buffers, etc. Yeah, I believe you've opened up a STB and swapped a fan or two, but that's about it.
a TV set top box is responsible for just 1.3 percent of a typical householdâ(TM)s energy use.
That's actually a very significant and expensive amount of power... particularly when you multiply that by how many TVs are in one home.
Hell, you can buy 64-channel simultaneous DVRs from Alibaba for $3,000
You're talking about surveillance camera DVRs. Those don't do QAM or ATSC decoding. Completely different tech.
they work as long as you have ONE SINGLE CABLE CARD.
You've completely made that up. It's not even remotely possible.
Hand-waving away the actual, difficult problems involved doesn't get rid of them, no matter how frequently you repeat the assertion. Still, I'll take a quick stab at just a FEW of the ignorant assertions before I give up on this ignorant lot, entirely...
How did you expect a multi-tuner set top box records multiple content streams?
Not by just tuning the frequency. There are quite a lot of demodulation and decoding steps to recover the correct digital bitstream. That requires a lot more hardware than is being claimed here. Look at the most basic TV tuner card which doesn't do decoding or anything, and they're all about $40 per tuner. It requires quite a bit of hardware to do just the first step of this idea, and falls completely apart very quickly after that.
DVRs have an unlimited buffer, so doing this circular rotating multi-channel grab is actually MUCH more difficult than building a 10-channel DVR would be (have you seen any 10-channel DVRs lately?). You can't tell your box to just store from the last I-Frame without almost entirely decoding the multimedia stream (particularly PTS/DTS/SCR/PCR), so that you can even determine where the I-Frame is and when the next one has arrived.
you decode the I-Frame from the chosen channel on selection and display it until the live I-Frame is received [...] Ten I-Frames per second,
That's NOT what GP had previously suggested, and what's more it bears no resemblance to "channel surfing". People aren't going to want to stare at a single still image for two seconds. That's hardly any better than nothing, and you're going to sell them some massive, $1,000+, power-hungry monster to give them this trivial anti-feature?
You can't just route an extra I-frame to your decoder. It's busy with the new data coming in, and can't figure out when to show a disjointed I-frame. Correctly forging metadata of the incoming stream to tell it exactly when to display it and how to sync it with the audio requires a hell of a lot of smarts in your STB. A full-fledged MPEG video file editor is what you need, working much faster than real-time, inside your giant, power hungry set-top-box.
Idling set top boxes already chew power like candy, because users want instant-on, updated channels, guides etc.
And you want to increase that power consumption by a factor of 10, all just to give them a still image to stare at for two seconds, for the single use-case of up/down channel-surfing, which people don't actually need to do in an age of on-screen guides.
I don't know.
That's really the sum total of your reply. I never understood why those who are the most ignorant of a topic feel the need to shout the loudest.
you're grasping at straws
No, it's actually called being knowledgeable about the subject at hand. I can understand how complete ignorance of the subject would give you the wrong impression, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Before making a fool of yourself, you should be looking for the opposite... ANYONE who says human excrement CAN be used on food crops. You won't find it.
But I can give you a start:
You'll find mostly the same restrictions, in almost every state.
Federal rules are... less concise. They require permitting, long time periods between last applying waste and when crops can be harvested, lots of remediation steps, etc., etc.:
There are plenty of nice, cheap places in California, with prices comparable to flyover country. You just have to get two hours outside of the big cities and you can find houses on half acres for (high) 5-figure prices.
California neighbors Arizona and Nevada... There's enough empty desert in the state to build a whole other Phoenix, AZ inside of CA.
I'm going to side with every state and federal regulatory agency in the US, which bans any use of human waste on food crops, over your assertion that it's trivially easy to render safe.
You mean he purchased an automobile?
The airbag blew up in his face?
No. It is a common tactic in most industries to imply human error was the cause immediately after an accident. This quickly placates the general public. When the results of the investigation prove the claim was unfounded, that information doesn't get remotely as much publicity, and nearly everyone has the incident committed to memory as 100% human error.
People driving completely non-autonomous cars have accidents all the time, including ones just like this. The quote from Musk in the first story was that the car's sensors couldn't distinguish a white trailer on a bright day. Obviously that can be difficult for human eyes as well, particularly around sunset.
In many parts of California, $20/hr is a starvation wage. Around Los Angeles, expect about $2,000/mo rent for a basic 1BR apartment. In the Bay Area, it's at least $3,000/mo and may be more. And that's assuming you're offering full-time, which you didn't say.
If you're actually offering full-time in an inexpensive location of Southern California, just link me to the job. The only ones that don't get filled usually have obscenely onerous requirement, like existing security clearance, a horrible application process that takes an hour, etc.
I'm in the market. More experience than anybody could want, but I prefer to stay in cheaper areas where there are fewer, lower-paying IT jobs. Plus there's less turnover in those positions, which means it takes quite a while to find a job, too. I also ironically get dismissed as overqualified for some of those low-paying jobs, too.
Enjoy your parasitic Helminth worm infestation...
This is precisely how plagues start.
Funny, I just read Comcast has the opposite complaint. A local power utility was about to rip down Comcast's lines for failing to pay their pole attachment fees, "which would have killed service for about 7,000 Comcast customers."
âoeUnfortunately, the utility has been unwilling to compromise and has billed Comcast for arbitrary pole rates that are nearly three times the national average,â said Horwitz. Comcast claimed [the power company is] using their position as a monopoly to gouge customers with high rates.
If the cognitive dissonance of that last quote doesn't make your head explode, it's a good read:
http://stopthecap.com/2016/06/...
There were LANs before there was even internet access! Companies pay big money to upgrade their LANs (and WiLANs) even as their internet speeds don't increase.
If you've really got no use for it, no problem. Why you feel the need to announce it to a group of strangers is beyond my comprehension, but nevermind that. I can see millions of uses for it, even with slow internet speeds.
For the average person, you'll probably also see much better speeds when you're out on the fringe of the signal area, than you would with slower implementations, making it usable a greater distance from the router.
Plenty of people have DVRs, movie libraries, HDHomeRuns, and similar, where higher speeds would greatly help them view movies on their phones/tablets/rokus/etc.
Communications speeds have always been predominantly measured by throughput / bandwidth. It's fastest because you can fit a lot more data through it in less time. If you're streaming a movie, you can start watching it much sooner, because the connection is faster. Latency would have almost no affect on that.
Lower latency is only important in a few narrow applications, and within practical limits, it doesn't matter in most usages, so it's not a typical measure. Low latency is certainly not what people want when they ask for a faster connection.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt...
The airwaves are only licensed. A contract of only months would be moronic, as it takes YEARS to build out any cellular network, and nobody would make the investment without some guarantees that they can keep using them for quite a few years.
Spectrum has build-out requirements, so they can't stall development. It's also not really theirs to sell. The FCC can and does take it away.
More than that, since the start of wireless communications, each improvement in the technology has pushed radio into higher and higher frequencies. There's only a few narrow purposes for TV-band spectrum. For most cellular communications, much higher frequencies are actually better in many ways, with these more often just a fallback.
Repetition doesn't turn ignorance into insight.
That's completely and totally wrong.
You seem not to know the difference between posing a potential danger, and intentionally sacrificing someone's life.
It's good and very useful to ask such hypothetical questions, but only in certain contexts. It expands people's view on what they are and should be doing, and helps guide distant future decisions.
But these are mostly useful only to those inside the industry. When you start to quiz people on their preferences, as if such an imaginary hypothetical vehicle exists, pretending the answers matter to anyone, anywhere, for anything, you're just doing a lot of mental masturbation.
So tell me: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
How often do you drive your HOUSE?
There are a substantial number of people who do not own a cellphone or an internet connected computer, and/or may just not have access to one of those at some time and place (e.g. power outage) when they want accurate time. And I'm confident providing the service is a nominal cost that benefits these many millions of people.
I would instead recommend these:
(909) 390-0003 Echo-back line (for testing latency)
(415) 437-4880 SF Public library, Dial-a-story
You'd be idiotic to purchase a car which might sacrifice your life or health in ANY circumstances. It can't possibly be perfect enough to make that decision properly even just most of the time. False positives are far more likely, which means cars will be murdering occupants on a regular basis, for no good reason.
The thought experiment is massively unrealistic. Among other things, it requires a computer with infallible and almost prescient knowledge. It doesn't just require an almost magical mastery of physics, so that the wet road, temperature of the tires, or similar won't change the vehicle characteristics enough to change which option is most ideal. It also requires the crash dynamics of vehicles and humans to be perfectly model-able, where it can guess that one person will be killed in a 25MPH wreck, but another will survive a firery high-speed collision with an immovable object.
What's more, this computer deciding how to save lives, has ALREADY failed to avoid putting you (and others) in a no-possible-way-out deadly situation in the first place.
And did I mention that mannequins or animals in the road will look an awful lot like pedestrians to computer sensors? Jumping in front of a driver-less car would be a good way to murder the occupants. Criminals have already realized that standing in front of a car with pedestrian avoidance systems will hold the victims' vehicles helplessly in place.
Blackberry was known, and popular, for their hardware keyboards....
There are numerous dedicated fans of Android sliders.
There are NO Android sliders left on the US market, and the last few like the Droid 4, Photon Q, LG Mach/Optimus F3Q (which sell used for abnormally high prices) are all getting decrepit and with out-dated OS versions.
It seems like a no brainer for Blackberry to bring back the Android slider.
Instead they make the Priv, which has a tiny keyboard that slides out in portrait mode (not landscape like all other sliders), and is more expensive than the highest-end flagship phones from the most popular manufacturers, and an order of magnitude more expensive than entry-level Android phones. This after the failure of their similarly crazy (square) Passport.
Blackberry's current business model seems to involve heating their headquarters by burning $100 bills in the furnace. They're determined to either beat Samsung and become a huge name again, or else die trying, and the later is more or less the foregone conclusion. If, instead, they'd introduce what many people want, but is currently unavailable in the market, they would have an instant niche all to themselves.
Yes, it does seem you completely misunderstood.
The contractor was Oracle... Be sure to NEVER use their products. Good luck.
You'd need several times larger storage, actually.
Attempting to decrypt a stream even just a couple seconds later would not reliably work.
I explained to the loud-mouthed AC in a decent bit of detail why decoding later is very, very difficult and not realistically possible. Saying "just use a faster one" is about as good a solution as saying "just sprinkle some fairy dust on it."
Getting your technical information from Khyber is the batshit crazy nutjobs leading the blind...
I'm now very tired of this worthless topic and dispelling lots of magical thinking for no purpose. Do let me know when you get your box built...
Coal power generation is going away quickly, so it's not part of the comparison.
Ah, good old Khyber spouting nonsense again. Don't remember seeing you since you got kicked off of SoylentNews.
Being a minimum wage, cable installing subcontractor, doesn't give you any insights into designing demodulators, MPEG decoders, buffers, etc. Yeah, I believe you've opened up a STB and swapped a fan or two, but that's about it.
That's actually a very significant and expensive amount of power... particularly when you multiply that by how many TVs are in one home.
You're talking about surveillance camera DVRs. Those don't do QAM or ATSC decoding. Completely different tech.
You've completely made that up. It's not even remotely possible.
Goodbye
Hand-waving away the actual, difficult problems involved doesn't get rid of them, no matter how frequently you repeat the assertion. Still, I'll take a quick stab at just a FEW of the ignorant assertions before I give up on this ignorant lot, entirely...
Not by just tuning the frequency. There are quite a lot of demodulation and decoding steps to recover the correct digital bitstream. That requires a lot more hardware than is being claimed here. Look at the most basic TV tuner card which doesn't do decoding or anything, and they're all about $40 per tuner. It requires quite a bit of hardware to do just the first step of this idea, and falls completely apart very quickly after that.
DVRs have an unlimited buffer, so doing this circular rotating multi-channel grab is actually MUCH more difficult than building a 10-channel DVR would be (have you seen any 10-channel DVRs lately?). You can't tell your box to just store from the last I-Frame without almost entirely decoding the multimedia stream (particularly PTS/DTS/SCR/PCR), so that you can even determine where the I-Frame is and when the next one has arrived.
That's NOT what GP had previously suggested, and what's more it bears no resemblance to "channel surfing". People aren't going to want to stare at a single still image for two seconds. That's hardly any better than nothing, and you're going to sell them some massive, $1,000+, power-hungry monster to give them this trivial anti-feature?
You can't just route an extra I-frame to your decoder. It's busy with the new data coming in, and can't figure out when to show a disjointed I-frame. Correctly forging metadata of the incoming stream to tell it exactly when to display it and how to sync it with the audio requires a hell of a lot of smarts in your STB. A full-fledged MPEG video file editor is what you need, working much faster than real-time, inside your giant, power hungry set-top-box.
And you want to increase that power consumption by a factor of 10, all just to give them a still image to stare at for two seconds, for the single use-case of up/down channel-surfing, which people don't actually need to do in an age of on-screen guides.
That's really the sum total of your reply. I never understood why those who are the most ignorant of a topic feel the need to shout the loudest.
No, it's actually called being knowledgeable about the subject at hand. I can understand how complete ignorance of the subject would give you the wrong impression, though.
Nuclear power plants are being shutdown all the time, and those projects are fully funded. You're spouting massive ignorance.
Here's a few more recent ones:
http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
That graphic is actually 2.5 years old... Several "at risk" plants have already decided upon shutdown. And more...
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
"another 15 to 20 plants are at risk of a premature shutdown in the next decade due to economics."
http://www.ibtimes.com/exelon-...
Solar and wind are much cleaner.