Can we maybe stop referring to every fucking criminal act out there as a "terror attack?" It's childish and stupid.
You'll shut me down with a push of your button? But I'm out and I'm gone I'll tell you now I keep it on and on 'Cause what you see you might not get And we can bet so don't you get souped yet You're scheming on a thing that's a mirage I'm trying to tell you now it's sabotage Why; our backs are now against the wall Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
The DMCA exception had even been removed by the LoC, and after the public outcry, they reinstated the exception, and went even further. Today, the FCC forces all carriers to unlock phones as soon as they are paid-for: * http://pipedot.org/story/2015-...
And that change was at least partially responsible for all major carriers recently ending their post-paid contract plans with big phone subsidizes.
That's one huge change that has apparently come out of the process.
Oh yes, it is so un-American to accept the world's tired, poor, huddled masses.
I'd be happy to support visa for these folks, but NOT H-1Bs or similar. If we need them, bring them in and give them full rights. If we don't need them that badly, we don't really need them.
So many of the world's college educated workers want to leave their home economy and improve ours instead.
Coming here and working at below-market rates *does* technically "improve our economy*, as the investors get to make a bit more money off of them, but not in a positive way (driving down skilled middle-class labor wages).
Now we have the choice between having our luggage effectively vandalized as the morons at TSA cut off locks... or having massively insecure locks to prevent the morons at the TSA from cutting off the locks.
You didn't seriously think a lock provided any security, did you? I mean, you're locking the ZIPPER, of a CLOTH suitcase...
Do you also padlock paper bags so nobody steals your lunch?
From the helmet-cam video I counted: 11 motorists driving pre-dawn without lights, 8 motorists failing to signal lane changes
What state are you in? Here, there's definitely no requirement to signal when just changing lanes going in the same direction. It's a damn good idea, and I still do it religiously, but it's not actually "violating traffic law".
How can the reader tell when a word is a Proper Noun, Trademarked, etc; or when it is an Ordinary Word? I've complained about this before
I Agree... Plenty Of Headlines Are Quite Difficult To Read With All Initials As Caps. They Try To Pack A Lot Of Info In Minimal Space, Which Makes Proper Capitalization More Important Than Elsewhere. That's Why I've Made It Policy To Do It The Right Way On Stories Over At Pipedot: * https://pipedot.org/
When I Submitted A Story To/. The Other Day, The Only Changes Made By Samzenpus Were To Remove A Line On The Speed Of Comets, And To Capitalize Every Word In The Title For No Good Reason: * http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Actually, comments like yours are the kind of "media hype" they've been getting... It seems to consist of more unsupported criticism than anything else. And more to the point, all the criticisms have been soundly addressed, in a nice convenient list, LAST YEAR:
Jesus. Sometimes "on the plane" means you're on a fucking plane, and can't do some things.
I can see where the confusion comes from... Packed-in together with a bunch of people, an extremely noisy environment. Hell, an airplane is a slight improvement over many office spaces. And if you couldn't be engrossed with work, you might have to think about how you've crammed-in a noisy metal tube like sardines, with no personal space, no leg-room, no comfort to speak of at all.
VNC is an essential part of my job, in that I cannot run the sims on a puny IT issued laptop, and need my desktop
VNC sucks. You'd get vastly better performance out of ANY OTHER remote display protocol... Try NX, Citrix, or RDP if you must, but get rid of VNC if at all possible.
VNC is useful on KVMs and other dumb devices that don't have any idea what they're going to display, but locally, on a computer, it makes no sense unless nothing better is available.
the biggest change they can cite is that in some areas the average water consumption per person went from 170 gallons to 150 gallons... and that's only a in a couple places
Bullshit.
"Two water distributors in San Francisco and one in East Los Angeles recorded the lowest average totals, 46, 46 and 48, respectively. In Santa Cruz, which has some of the toughest conservation measures in the state, residents used an average of 49 gallons per person a day." "on average, Southern California residents used 119 gallons per person a day". http://www.latimes.com/local/c...
"The population of the U.S. has grown by more than 81 million people since 1975, but total water use has declined. As a result, our per-person water use is almost 30% lower than it was 30 years ago" http://pacinst.org/news/397/
California's "TOTAL WATER USE has been DECLINING since 1980"
"Water used for urban and agricultural purposes has generally remained stable, and has even declined at times, even though population has increased." http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/rsr...
I won't be responding to you again in this thread.
Well that is a reasonable response when you've been making stupid statements that you can't possibly support. I would have suggested keeping your mouth shut after my first reply demonstrated how baseless and ignorant your statements were.
we see that the Cali Reservoir capacity increased by 218 Percent since 1960. The population of the state however increased by about 250 percent in that same time frame.
Glad to see you've conceded the point. Of course I realize you didn't mean to do so, but the trivial shortfall easily disappears into efficiency improvements (low-flow toilets, showers, etc.) that have greatly reduced per-capita water-usage over the same time-frame. So I can draw no other conclusion than your complete agreement that the water sources are more than adequate.
And that's just the Reservoirs. I cited aqueducts as well.
No, you didn't. In fact you never even used the word aqueduct once in ANY of your previous posts in this thread.
But to the point, aqueducts are only useful if you have a huge supply of water somewhere, and just need to move it around. California doesn't. The whole state is in drought, so extra aqueducts would make no difference. And other states that have extra supply (like Oregon) haven't been willing to export theirs. Additionally, the existing aqueducts haven't exceeded their capacity at all... They aren't running dry before reaching the end of the line, or anything like that, and nobody is claiming we've all be in great shape if only they could move more water across the state. There is no particular need for more of them.
Its what I do when/. shits the bed.
I'm with/.'s lameness filter on this one. The public should be spared that horrendous wreck of worthless copy-pasta.
I'm going to get water use figures from around 1960
I'm the one here who has actually sited real facts and provided sources of information. All of which directly contradicting absolutely everything you've had to say. You've provided exactly none. And here's some more for the hell of it.
That's a list of California reservoirs, you can sort by date. You will note that new ones have been built continually. One of the largest came on line a few years ago. At no point did water sources stop being developed.
I merely point out that it was not enforced because the demand remained unchecked as evidenced by its relationship to supply.
Except that's not true, and you have no evidence to indicate it is. It will be harder to find such evidence, because it doesn't exist.
citing non-enforced laws as a rebuttal is not valid.
It was and is enforced. You have no evidence to indicate otherwise. You are using only circular logical to claim it MUST NOT be enforced (even though it is) because the result doesn't live-up to the perfect world you imagine.
Having a camera built-in to a smartphone is a huge advance (and cost savings) over having separate devices. Your phone becomes a bar-code scanner, webcam, video phone, etc, and the convenience and space saved is significant, too.
Pretty much everybody uses the camera in their phones. Forcing people to buy it separately is just hiding part of the price, that everyone is going to pay, anyhow. Plus extra overhead for connectors, casings, etc, which add nothing of value.
If the law you cited were de facto relevant than the water issue would not be an issue.
That's called circular logic. It's not evidence of anything.
The real reasons are numerous and complex. If you wish to start edifying yourself on the topic, it includes many strange and exotic things like SCOTUS rulings requiring larger percentages of water be released from dams inside and outside the state, water rights claims dating back hundreds of years, and so much more.
I thought all you said we had to do was pass a law and the problem would go away?
No, actually that's what you said... You even called it "the solution". I'm the one who pointed-out the existing law. Hope this helps reduce your confusion.
Which means your citation of the law at the start was meaningless because it isn't enforced.
Again, no. Saying that one law isn't enforced, therefore NO LAWS are enforced, is a very simple and extreme logical fallacy.
you contradicted yourself in your own post
Your wild and fevered imagination is not my problem nor concern.
So if you want to build housing for another million people, then I want to see somewhere in there that you've expanded water and power resources for an additional million people. And if it isn't on line... NOW... then I'm not zoning land for use by another million people.
It's already a California state law; on the books for decades.
SB 610 - The Water Supply Assessment Law
In 1995, the California Legislature enacted SB 901 (later codified in Water Code sections 10910-10915) to ensure that cities and counties would assess the adequacy of available water supplies to meet projected water demand prior to approving significant new land development projects. In 2001, perceived shortcomings in SB 901 compliance led the California Legislature to enact two further lawsâ"SB 610 and SB 221â"to tighten the linkage between water supply availability and land-use planning decisions. SB 610 focused on improving the Water Supply Assessment, or WSA, procedure previously established by SB 901. Among other things, SB 610 expanded the scope of development projects triggering the WSA procedure and expanded the informational requirements of the procedure, particularly with respect to groundwater supplies.
The WSA law requires that before cities or counties approve certain classes of projects (e.g., residential developments over 500 units) as lead agencies under CEQA, they must request preparation of a WSA by the public water supplier identified to serve the proposed development project. The public water supplier has 90 days to prepare and approve a WSA after receiving a request from a city or county land-use agency. The WSA must assess the supplier's projected water availability and the projected water demand in its service area over a 20-year horizon, including supply and demand projections in normal water years, dry water years and multiple-dry water years (i.e., in droughts). The public water supplier's WSA must conclude whether projected supplies will be adequate to serve existing demand, demand from the proposed development project, and demand from planned future uses.
After the water supplier's governing body (i.e., board of directors) approves the WSA, it must be submitted to the city or county land-use agency (i.e., the lead agency) for physical incorporation into the CEQA document being prepared for the proposed development project. The WSA law provides for the lead agency's CEQA document (i.e., an environmental impact report ["EIR"] or negative declaration) to evaluate the water supply and demand information in the WSA. Ultimately, the WSA law requires the lead agency to make a determination "based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses." (Water Code  10911(c).)
This is why we get brown outs, over crowded schools, over worked police departments, water shortages, and hellacious traffic.
Brown-outs and rolling blackouts were caused by stupid laws (deregulation) and fraud (Enron). Since those years, power outages have been quite rare. California has been investing huge amounts of money in renewable grid-connected wind and solar power sources. Name a huge solar power project, and it probably happened in California.
Over-crowded schools happened mostly from a change in tax laws, that cut-out cities/counties and instead requires them to beg the state for some of their own tax revenue back.
I have yet to see a water shortage. I turn-on the tap and water comes out. Golf courses remain bright green. etc. And California isn't remotely alone in handling water stress:
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".
God bless them. Those guys willingly paying higher-tier water rates helps subsidize the delivery infrastructure for everyone else.
"80 %" of "the developed water supply" in California "is used by agriculture". You're bitching about a tiny percent of water usage... I guess that bit makes a better sound-byte, and it generally makes people feel better about ignoring other people's troubles if even natural events can be somehow written off as a person's own fault.
The statute of limitations in the USA only applies until indictment. If there's enough evidence for to indict, even if you're out of reach of the court, the case remains open for prosecution, indefinitely. And if you're absent, it's even easier to indict.
Roman Polanski will remains a fugitive if he lives to be 1000 years old.
These are one of those items where you get what you pay for.
Actually not. A DC boost circuit that only needs to double the voltage is just a few cents worth of components. The one I linked is likely not super reliable, but you can get much cheaper ($4) and still very reliable boost circuit (if you add a fan) hardware like this:
Slashdot Mirror
You'll shut me down with a push of your button?
But I'm out and I'm gone
I'll tell you now I keep it on and on
'Cause what you see you might not get
And we can bet so don't you get souped yet
You're scheming on a thing that's a mirage
I'm trying to tell you now it's sabotage
Why; our backs are now against the wall
Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage
Except when it does:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
I generally agree, except it absolutely did work for cell phone unlocking. https://petitions.whitehouse.g...
The DMCA exception had even been removed by the LoC, and after the public outcry, they reinstated the exception, and went even further. Today, the FCC forces all carriers to unlock phones as soon as they are paid-for:
* http://pipedot.org/story/2015-...
And that change was at least partially responsible for all major carriers recently ending their post-paid contract plans with big phone subsidizes.
That's one huge change that has apparently come out of the process.
I'd be happy to support visa for these folks, but NOT H-1Bs or similar. If we need them, bring them in and give them full rights. If we don't need them that badly, we don't really need them.
Coming here and working at below-market rates *does* technically "improve our economy*, as the investors get to make a bit more money off of them, but not in a positive way (driving down skilled middle-class labor wages).
You didn't seriously think a lock provided any security, did you? I mean, you're locking the ZIPPER, of a CLOTH suitcase...
Do you also padlock paper bags so nobody steals your lunch?
What state are you in? Here, there's definitely no requirement to signal when just changing lanes going in the same direction. It's a damn good idea, and I still do it religiously, but it's not actually "violating traffic law".
http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2...
I Agree... Plenty Of Headlines Are Quite Difficult To Read With All Initials As Caps. They Try To Pack A Lot Of Info In Minimal Space, Which Makes Proper Capitalization More Important Than Elsewhere. That's Why I've Made It Policy To Do It The Right Way On Stories Over At Pipedot:
* https://pipedot.org/
When I Submitted A Story To /. The Other Day, The Only Changes Made By Samzenpus Were To Remove A Line On The Speed Of Comets, And To Capitalize Every Word In The Title For No Good Reason:
* http://science.slashdot.org/st...
I do my best. This one really isn't my favorite, but the other admittedly wasn't on slashdot:
http://pipedot.org/2V6P
You could use a nice flat "strap" instead of a round "rope". Far less difficulty transferring rotational forces.
Unfortunately, it seems the NASA scientists made one fatal mistake... They didn't bother to read the opinions of Anonymous Cowards on the internet, who just last year throughly explained why the idea "makes no sense", and flies in the face of "basic orbital mechanics".
Actually, comments like yours are the kind of "media hype" they've been getting... It seems to consist of more unsupported criticism than anything else. And more to the point, all the criticisms have been soundly addressed, in a nice convenient list, LAST YEAR:
http://www.theoceancleanup.com...
You'll find a lot of the crap you're spouting is already in there, and already debunked.
I can see where the confusion comes from... Packed-in together with a bunch of people, an extremely noisy environment. Hell, an airplane is a slight improvement over many office spaces. And if you couldn't be engrossed with work, you might have to think about how you've crammed-in a noisy metal tube like sardines, with no personal space, no leg-room, no comfort to speak of at all.
And don't call me "Jesus".
VNC sucks. You'd get vastly better performance out of ANY OTHER remote display protocol... Try NX, Citrix, or RDP if you must, but get rid of VNC if at all possible.
VNC is useful on KVMs and other dumb devices that don't have any idea what they're going to display, but locally, on a computer, it makes no sense unless nothing better is available.
Bullshit.
"Two water distributors in San Francisco and one in East Los Angeles recorded the lowest average totals, 46, 46 and 48, respectively. In Santa Cruz, which has some of the toughest conservation measures in the state, residents used an average of 49 gallons per person a day." "on average, Southern California residents used 119 gallons per person a day". http://www.latimes.com/local/c...
"The population of the U.S. has grown by more than 81 million people since 1975, but total water use has declined. As a result, our per-person water use is almost 30% lower than it was 30 years ago" http://pacinst.org/news/397/
California's "TOTAL WATER USE has been DECLINING since 1980"
"Water used for urban and agricultural purposes has generally remained stable, and has even declined at times, even though population has increased." http://www.lao.ca.gov/2008/rsr...
Well that is a reasonable response when you've been making stupid statements that you can't possibly support. I would have suggested keeping your mouth shut after my first reply demonstrated how baseless and ignorant your statements were.
Glad to see you've conceded the point. Of course I realize you didn't mean to do so, but the trivial shortfall easily disappears into efficiency improvements (low-flow toilets, showers, etc.) that have greatly reduced per-capita water-usage over the same time-frame. So I can draw no other conclusion than your complete agreement that the water sources are more than adequate.
No, you didn't. In fact you never even used the word aqueduct once in ANY of your previous posts in this thread.
But to the point, aqueducts are only useful if you have a huge supply of water somewhere, and just need to move it around. California doesn't. The whole state is in drought, so extra aqueducts would make no difference. And other states that have extra supply (like Oregon) haven't been willing to export theirs. Additionally, the existing aqueducts haven't exceeded their capacity at all... They aren't running dry before reaching the end of the line, or anything like that, and nobody is claiming we've all be in great shape if only they could move more water across the state. There is no particular need for more of them.
I'm with /.'s lameness filter on this one. The public should be spared that horrendous wreck of worthless copy-pasta.
I'm the one here who has actually sited real facts and provided sources of information. All of which directly contradicting absolutely everything you've had to say. You've provided exactly none. And here's some more for the hell of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's a list of California reservoirs, you can sort by date. You will note that new ones have been built continually. One of the largest came on line a few years ago. At no point did water sources stop being developed.
You may now resume your ranting.
Except that's not true, and you have no evidence to indicate it is. It will be harder to find such evidence, because it doesn't exist.
It was and is enforced. You have no evidence to indicate otherwise. You are using only circular logical to claim it MUST NOT be enforced (even though it is) because the result doesn't live-up to the perfect world you imagine.
Having a camera built-in to a smartphone is a huge advance (and cost savings) over having separate devices. Your phone becomes a bar-code scanner, webcam, video phone, etc, and the convenience and space saved is significant, too.
Pretty much everybody uses the camera in their phones. Forcing people to buy it separately is just hiding part of the price, that everyone is going to pay, anyhow. Plus extra overhead for connectors, casings, etc, which add nothing of value.
That's called circular logic. It's not evidence of anything.
The real reasons are numerous and complex. If you wish to start edifying yourself on the topic, it includes many strange and exotic things like SCOTUS rulings requiring larger percentages of water be released from dams inside and outside the state, water rights claims dating back hundreds of years, and so much more.
No, actually that's what you said... You even called it "the solution". I'm the one who pointed-out the existing law. Hope this helps reduce your confusion.
Again, no. Saying that one law isn't enforced, therefore NO LAWS are enforced, is a very simple and extreme logical fallacy.
Your wild and fevered imagination is not my problem nor concern.
It's already a California state law; on the books for decades.
SB 610 - The Water Supply Assessment Law
In 1995, the California Legislature enacted SB 901 (later codified in Water Code sections 10910-10915) to ensure that cities and counties would assess the adequacy of available water supplies to meet projected water demand prior to approving significant new land development projects. In 2001, perceived shortcomings in SB 901 compliance led the California Legislature to enact two further lawsâ"SB 610 and SB 221â"to tighten the linkage between water supply availability and land-use planning decisions. SB 610 focused on improving the Water Supply Assessment, or WSA, procedure previously established by SB 901. Among other things, SB 610 expanded the scope of development projects triggering the WSA procedure and expanded the informational requirements of the procedure, particularly with respect to groundwater supplies.
The WSA law requires that before cities or counties approve certain classes of projects (e.g., residential developments over 500 units) as lead agencies under CEQA, they must request preparation of a WSA by the public water supplier identified to serve the proposed development project. The public water supplier has 90 days to prepare and approve a WSA after receiving a request from a city or county land-use agency. The WSA must assess the supplier's projected water availability and the projected water demand in its service area over a 20-year horizon, including supply and demand projections in normal water years, dry water years and multiple-dry water years (i.e., in droughts). The public water supplier's WSA must conclude whether projected supplies will be adequate to serve existing demand, demand from the proposed development project, and demand from planned future uses.
After the water supplier's governing body (i.e., board of directors) approves the WSA, it must be submitted to the city or county land-use agency (i.e., the lead agency) for physical incorporation into the CEQA document being prepared for the proposed development project. The WSA law provides for the lead agency's CEQA document (i.e., an environmental impact report ["EIR"] or negative declaration) to evaluate the water supply and demand information in the WSA. Ultimately, the WSA law requires the lead agency to make a determination "based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses." (Water Code  10911(c).)
http://www.kmtg.com/node/1292
Brown-outs and rolling blackouts were caused by stupid laws (deregulation) and fraud (Enron). Since those years, power outages have been quite rare. California has been investing huge amounts of money in renewable grid-connected wind and solar power sources. Name a huge solar power project, and it probably happened in California.
Over-crowded schools happened mostly from a change in tax laws, that cut-out cities/counties and instead requires them to beg the state for some of their own tax revenue back.
I have yet to see a water shortage. I turn-on the tap and water comes out. Golf courses remain bright green. etc. And California isn't remotely alone in handling water stress:
http://pipedot.org/story/2015-...
Traffic is a very complicated topical all it's own.
God bless them. Those guys willingly paying higher-tier water rates helps subsidize the delivery infrastructure for everyone else.
"80 %" of "the developed water supply" in California "is used by agriculture". You're bitching about a tiny percent of water usage... I guess that bit makes a better sound-byte, and it generally makes people feel better about ignoring other people's troubles if even natural events can be somehow written off as a person's own fault.
The statute of limitations in the USA only applies until indictment. If there's enough evidence for to indict, even if you're out of reach of the court, the case remains open for prosecution, indefinitely. And if you're absent, it's even easier to indict.
Roman Polanski will remains a fugitive if he lives to be 1000 years old.
Natural gas. Your WSJ article is a year out-of-date, and simply wrong:
http://pipedot.org/story/2015-...
Actually not. A DC boost circuit that only needs to double the voltage is just a few cents worth of components. The one I linked is likely not super reliable, but you can get much cheaper ($4) and still very reliable boost circuit (if you add a fan) hardware like this:
http://amazon.com/dp/B008NKNHS...
Okay, done.
* http://www.amazon.com/Daiwl-68...
WTF are you even talking about? Here's a $15 unit:
* http://www.dx.com/p/universal-...