MS has several plugins that install automatically in Firefox on Windows, related to media playback, DRM, and.NET, not to mention Silverlight. Just as Google makes plugins that accelerate Google Talk, embed Google Earth, and interact with Picasa for non-Chrome browsers. Seems like SOP.
Why? Do rear-view window breaklights alert the drivers behind you better, or somehow enable them to slow more quickly?
The former. Especially at night in bad weather, it was sometimes hard to distinguish regular taillights from brakelights, which are in basically the same position only brighter. It's easier to pick up on a new configuration rather than a mere difference in intensity. They do seem to be cost-effective (according to this study).
Seems kinda stupid to me. Car makers overcharge for the things already.
They presumably won't overcharge for them anymore once they're mandatory. Formerly premium features like airbags, anti-lock brakes, and traction control have all come way down in price once they became widespread, both because of economies of scale and because manufacturers can no longer divide the market the way they did before (of course they'll continue to do it with other goodies like heated seats and built-in GPS).
Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
What about jobs reverse-engineering proprietary designs? Having read the plans for the technology being reverse-engineered would preclude you from being hired.
And, buy local where possible. If you stop buying stuff made in China, those ships will have less need to cross the oceans in the first place. And, of course you'll be supporting your local economy.
Not always a helpful approach. First, something made near you of imported parts may have required that more energy be spent on transportation than something made far away and transported to you. Second, comparative advantage could make it more efficient to produce the same thing in another place (for example, if you live in a place with poor soil and climate, local produce may be grown with a lot of fertilizer or other inputs totaling more than the difference in transportation expense).
Actually the West Coast of the US is affected by industrial smog blowing in from China. So it's reasonable that some of these pollutants would spread thousands of miles.
Bullshit. Ships didn't require THAT much wood, and Britain didn't want North America simply to build wooden ships. They wanted North America because things like you know, houses are still made of wood.
Of course wood wasn't the principal reason for colonization, but it was a factor. Tall straight trees for masts were an especially scarce resource (hence the factors that led to the Pine Tree Riot).
These are two different categories. Cars today produce mainly CO2; catalytic converters and the like have reduced the amount of sulfur, hydrocarbons, ozone, and other nasties that they produced in the past (this is the stuff that causes smog and respiratory problems). So a lot of the pollution TFA is talking is not climate change emissions, which are a distinct issue.
Actually it's quite plausible, given how much automobile emissions have dropped in response to regulations. Between the 1960s and early 1990s, average passenger car emissions of smog-forming hydrocarbons went from 228 pounds to five pounds annually (according to this article, citing a 1993 study). I'm sure it's gone down even further since. So it's not impossible that a ship operating at the efficiency of a 1960 Pontiac would be the equivalent of millions of 2010 Honda Civics in terms of certain pollutants.
Of course other material could be used for sailing ships. But the parent was about the historical precedent, which was far from environmentally neutral. Almost all pre-modern ships (Irish soap notwithstanding) were made from wood or other plant material, and making them in large number cost significant bioresources. To really consider sails as an alternative, we'd need to be willing to accept much slower transit times and much lower reliability.
Actually sailing ships required the destruction of vast forests (one of the reasons Britain wanted North American colonies was for the wood to build ships with). They generally didn't last that long and had to be replaced frequently. So their effect on the environment wasn't minimal.
After the VA Tech shootings, a lot of college campuses implemented an emergency alert system that includes text messages to students and employees. My campus is one of them. The system is not geographically-aware but rather subscription-based, and so far all I've received are test messages (they announce the tests by email a few days in advance), sometimes synchronized with on-campus sirens. But it seems to work.
I suppose a lawyer could argue that using the internet connection in violation of the ToS is theft, just as illicitly hooking up your own transformer and getting unmetered power straight from the power lines is theft. It would be a stretch, but TGIANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
MS has several plugins that install automatically in Firefox on Windows, related to media playback, DRM, and .NET, not to mention Silverlight. Just as Google makes plugins that accelerate Google Talk, embed Google Earth, and interact with Picasa for non-Chrome browsers. Seems like SOP.
Especially among WASPs.
It's a known bug (regression, actually). http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-bugs/browse_thread/thread/e6cf782339d6f9a7/07d315c528d670cc?lnk=raot&pli=1
Automated enhanced pat-downs!
That option has long been available from Jaguar.
Booth was a patriot
You have made an excellent argument against the supposed virtue of patriotism, and I applaud you for it.
Why? Do rear-view window breaklights alert the drivers behind you better, or somehow enable them to slow more quickly?
The former. Especially at night in bad weather, it was sometimes hard to distinguish regular taillights from brakelights, which are in basically the same position only brighter. It's easier to pick up on a new configuration rather than a mere difference in intensity. They do seem to be cost-effective (according to this study).
Seems kinda stupid to me. Car makers overcharge for the things already.
They presumably won't overcharge for them anymore once they're mandatory. Formerly premium features like airbags, anti-lock brakes, and traction control have all come way down in price once they became widespread, both because of economies of scale and because manufacturers can no longer divide the market the way they did before (of course they'll continue to do it with other goodies like heated seats and built-in GPS).
Worse yet, floating the idea you can be barred from future jobs because you read something is ridiculous.
What about jobs reverse-engineering proprietary designs? Having read the plans for the technology being reverse-engineered would preclude you from being hired.
It just reflects how much computers have been embiggened over the past few decades.
Warmongers diversifying their portfolios?
Even anti-consumption is a form of consumption.
And, buy local where possible. If you stop buying stuff made in China, those ships will have less need to cross the oceans in the first place. And, of course you'll be supporting your local economy.
Not always a helpful approach. First, something made near you of imported parts may have required that more energy be spent on transportation than something made far away and transported to you. Second, comparative advantage could make it more efficient to produce the same thing in another place (for example, if you live in a place with poor soil and climate, local produce may be grown with a lot of fertilizer or other inputs totaling more than the difference in transportation expense).
Poison us--dump it in a reservoir?
Actually the West Coast of the US is affected by industrial smog blowing in from China. So it's reasonable that some of these pollutants would spread thousands of miles.
Bullshit. Ships didn't require THAT much wood, and Britain didn't want North America simply to build wooden ships. They wanted North America because things like you know, houses are still made of wood.
Of course wood wasn't the principal reason for colonization, but it was a factor. Tall straight trees for masts were an especially scarce resource (hence the factors that led to the Pine Tree Riot).
These are two different categories. Cars today produce mainly CO2; catalytic converters and the like have reduced the amount of sulfur, hydrocarbons, ozone, and other nasties that they produced in the past (this is the stuff that causes smog and respiratory problems). So a lot of the pollution TFA is talking is not climate change emissions, which are a distinct issue.
Actually it's quite plausible, given how much automobile emissions have dropped in response to regulations. Between the 1960s and early 1990s, average passenger car emissions of smog-forming hydrocarbons went from 228 pounds to five pounds annually (according to this article, citing a 1993 study). I'm sure it's gone down even further since. So it's not impossible that a ship operating at the efficiency of a 1960 Pontiac would be the equivalent of millions of 2010 Honda Civics in terms of certain pollutants.
Of course other material could be used for sailing ships. But the parent was about the historical precedent, which was far from environmentally neutral. Almost all pre-modern ships (Irish soap notwithstanding) were made from wood or other plant material, and making them in large number cost significant bioresources. To really consider sails as an alternative, we'd need to be willing to accept much slower transit times and much lower reliability.
Actually sailing ships required the destruction of vast forests (one of the reasons Britain wanted North American colonies was for the wood to build ships with). They generally didn't last that long and had to be replaced frequently. So their effect on the environment wasn't minimal.
Wherein the coroner announces "C.O.D.: B.O."
That's one kind of feedback, I guess.
After the VA Tech shootings, a lot of college campuses implemented an emergency alert system that includes text messages to students and employees. My campus is one of them. The system is not geographically-aware but rather subscription-based, and so far all I've received are test messages (they announce the tests by email a few days in advance), sometimes synchronized with on-campus sirens. But it seems to work.
I suppose a lawyer could argue that using the internet connection in violation of the ToS is theft, just as illicitly hooking up your own transformer and getting unmetered power straight from the power lines is theft. It would be a stretch, but TGIANAL.
* With a few exceptions for prepositions, articles, etc.
Then they should get over themselves.