The reason is, it's most likely a popular question (standard change request) that a simple search would of provided them with the very detailed satisfactory answer, posted previously.
I have to say, this is one thing that StackOverflow.com (and its related sister sites) handles pretty well... as you type in your question's subject line, a list of links to similar (already asked) questions automatically appears below. More than once I've avoided asking a redundant question because of that mechanism (often even after I thought I had done a reasonable search on the topic beforehand).
Sometimes you just have to bring the mountain to Mohammad.
Meh, what's another $1000 a year to live in the Golden State.
Given than it's sunny SoCal, you might look into getting solar panels for your roof, if you have one handy. Depending on financing, the price may be lower than what you're paying now (or what you will be paying in September), and even if it's not, at least the costs will be 100% predictable -- the incidence of unexpected stator corrosion in solar arrays is vanishingly small.;)
Don't just say something ridiculous and meaningless like "You can light the water from their tap on fire!!!!" as if that was somehow interesting without any baseline or comparison to contrast it with.]
Right, baseline: Most people's tap water is not flammable.
There are no fuel reprocessing plants either. ALL reactors are forced to store used fuel on-site. It is an engineering solution to a short sighted political problem.
I propose an engineering solution to the engineering solution: Build a breeder reactor on-site that can use the stored fuel/waste to generate power. There, that was easy!:^)
You wouldn't even need seat-belts, although they're probably a good idea in case something goes wrong.
I can't help but think that if something goes wrong at 4000mph, seat belts aren't going to help a whole lot... it will be just that much more jelly-coated debris to siphon out of the tube afterwards...:P
If Martin had kept on walking regardless of Zimmerman getting out of the car, Martin would have either gotten home safely, or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt.
It's hard to imagine that Martin would have considered "I kept walking and got shot in the back" to be an acceptable outcome.
Zimmerman was an over reactive wanna be cop that created a situation that got out of his control.
Agreed -- and that on its own sounds like sufficient grounds for a manslaughter conviction to me. But the jury made their decision, and I won't argue with it.
Which means he can get another gun. I'll bet he has one by tomorrow and that the people around him do too. The "black guys" as you put it will get a bullet in the chest just like Martin did but there won't need to be a trial since it will be obvious self defense.
Interestingly enough, all the "black guys" have to do is provoke him into reaching for his gun, and they can then use the "stand your ground" law to shoot him and get away with it.
Assuming Florida applies their ingenious law in a race-neutral manner, of course -- hahahaha.
Why not? It will be the cheapest park we've ever established, since until we have regular moon travel there is literally nothing (outside the passing of the legislation) to be done.
And possibly it will set up a legal framework so that when moon travel does become common, historic artifacts on the moon will be better protected.
As for the "why are we doing this when X other issues aren't solved yet" -- I'm amazed how often that canard comes up. Slashdot geeks who have no problem understanding parallel execution in a CPU can't seem to understand that parallel execution is possible in other contexts as well -- life is not a zero sum game.
. But, as an observer of economics, I can't help but notice that our national economy doesn't function as well as it did decades ago
One thing to keep in mind is that our national economy isn't a closed system -- it's greatly effected by what's going on outside of our national borders (e.g. a billion Chinese now doing a lot of the manufacturing that used to be done inside the USA).
If you look at the economy of the entire world, I'd think you'd see that the average quality of life is rising; perhaps at the expense of unskilled labor in the US though.
Gun free zones are free killing zones. Every mass shooting I can recall, except one, happened in a gun free zone. [...] When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
The problem with non-uniformed civilians carrying guns is that they cameoflage the bad guys. If you see a person carrying a gun in a place where nobody routinely carries a gun, you call the police because something is wrong. But if lots of people carry guns all the time, you end up either raising a lot of false alarms, or risk allowing a shooter to get to his victims and start shooting before anyone knows to stop him.
IMO if we're going to have people around carrying guns to keep the public safe, those people should be professionally trained and in uniform. That minimizes the "is that armed guy a good guy or a bad guy?" problem.
Crazy people (i.e. the sort of people who commit random murders) aren't all that likely to machine their own gun. But if you make it as easy as a few key strokes on a PC, they're a lot more likely to do that.
It seems to me that it's already just a few keystrokes on the computer to purchase a gun from (pick your favorite gun dealer site here). Perhaps printing your own gun would make the gun's existence less traceable, but then again there are plenty of ways to buy a gun anonymously as well.
As a bonus, the gun you purchased will be of much higher quality, and probably cheaper than the cost of a 3D printer.
The main thing that 3D printers have is novelty -- people aren't sure what they're capable of yet. Once that wears off, the FUD will diminish as well.
I'm pretty sure that the effort required to put the necessary calories into your body is a lot higher, and less environmentally friendly, than burning a few gallons of gasoline in a car engine.
What makes you sure of that? I think it would depend a lot on what kind of food you ate, and how the food was produced.
But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter... because you were going to eat those calories anyway. So the environmental costs of producing the food are present either way; the only question is whether you want those calories to go towards making you fat, or to be used as part of your transportation and/or recreation.
On an absolute scale, nothing is green except killing yourself and your children,so that you stop using Earth's resources. Which nobody is prepared to do, so that definition of "green" is irrelevant.
The relevant question is relative green-ness: given that a new-car buyer is going to buy a new car(*), is it better to buy X or Y? How much more (or less) energy does it take to produce an electric car instead of the gas-powered car you would have bought instead? How much more (or less) energy does that car require over its service life? How is that energy generated? How will it be generated 10, 20, 50 years in the future?
These questions don't have easy or obvious answers, and conditions change all the time. If electric cars aren't "more green" this year, they might easily become so next year (as advances in battery technology make batteries more powerful and/or less carbon-intensive to produce). But what remains true is that at some point, fossil fuels will become sufficiently scarce, and/or the costs of carbon loading in the atmosphere will rise, to the point where gas-powered cars aren't practical anymore; and at that point will we be glad we have electric-car technology on hand to transition to.
(*) I'd personally rather see more people go by bike instead, as bikes are significantly greener and healthier than any car... but if that's not an option for someone, then it's not an option for them.
Yes, a motorcycle is in many ways ideal (at least for instances where a bicycle won't do), except for two things -- it's not much fun in bad weather, and it's really no fun when you get in an accident. For that reason, there are many people who simply (and justifiably) won't ride them, no matter what the benefits are -- safety and comfort are non-negotiable to them.
For example, wouldn't it be preferable for Saudi Arabia and Syria and Egypt to be out of natural resources in 50 years, but the socially-compassionate countries still have theirs?
Yes, because those areas aren't volatile enough yet, we need to have them energy-starved (and likely literally starving) as well, while we Westerners continue to enjoy our remaining energy reserves in front of them. If you think they generate too many terrorists now, just wait for real desperation to set in. You're going to need all those oil reserves for defense...
Seriously though, in the long run there is no "homeland-only solution". Either the entire world figures out how to survive without fossil fuels, or modern civilization mostly collapses when the fossil fuels run out, and we (well, those of thus that survive) go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Hoarding fuel only delays the inevitable, whereas developing renewable energy makes the exhaustion of fossil fuels a non-issue.
The reason why it's so expensive for you to go to the movies is that you're not going to the movies and getting a snack, you're going to dinner and watching a movie. a $12 ticket plus $15 worth of food.
While I agree with everything you said, my OCD compels me to point out that "$1.87 worth of snacks being sold for $15" isn't the same thing as "$15 worth of food".
Which is why I say take "love" out of it. If we respect the rights of marriage based on the household vs the people involved. everyone gets what they want and no one has to argue over semantics.
Well, the impetus behind giving favorable treatment to married people is that committed long-term relationships are beneficial and stabilizing to society. (e.g. if you get sick, your spouse will [presumably] take care of you, so you won't be left to fend for yourself or depend on society)
Given that, I think some way of encouraging at least commitment is warranted... e.g. society probably doesn't want to encourage all college roommates to routinely "get married" for the year just to receive additional tax benefits.
That's a valid point for land-grown biofuels. Hence the appeal of algae, which can be grown in the ocean... which comprises 70% of the Earth's surface. Algae farms won't compete with human farm production (and if located thoughtfully, won't compete with seafood production either).
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is, it's most likely a popular question (standard change request) that a simple search would of provided them
with the very detailed satisfactory answer, posted previously.
I have to say, this is one thing that StackOverflow.com (and its related sister sites) handles pretty well... as you type in your question's subject line, a list of links to similar (already asked) questions automatically appears below. More than once I've avoided asking a redundant question because of that mechanism (often even after I thought I had done a reasonable search on the topic beforehand).
Sometimes you just have to bring the mountain to Mohammad.
Meh, what's another $1000 a year to live in the Golden State.
Given than it's sunny SoCal, you might look into getting solar panels for your roof, if you have one handy. Depending on financing, the price may be lower than what you're paying now (or what you will be paying in September), and even if it's not, at least the costs will be 100% predictable -- the incidence of unexpected stator corrosion in solar arrays is vanishingly small. ;)
Don't just say something ridiculous and meaningless like "You can light the water from their tap on fire!!!!" as if that was somehow interesting without any baseline or comparison to contrast it with.]
Right, baseline: Most people's tap water is not flammable.
There are no fuel reprocessing plants either. ALL reactors are forced to store used fuel on-site. It is an engineering solution to a short sighted political problem.
I propose an engineering solution to the engineering solution: Build a breeder reactor on-site that can use the stored fuel/waste to generate power. There, that was easy! :^)
If you stop taking risks you've already failed.
Or perhaps you've quit while you're ahead. Las Vegas hates people who do that.
You wouldn't even need seat-belts, although they're probably a good idea in case something goes wrong.
I can't help but think that if something goes wrong at 4000mph, seat belts aren't going to help a whole lot... it will be just that much more jelly-coated debris to siphon out of the tube afterwards... :P
If Martin had kept on walking regardless of Zimmerman getting out of the car, Martin would have either gotten home safely, or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt.
It's hard to imagine that Martin would have considered "I kept walking and got shot in the back" to be an acceptable outcome.
Zimmerman was an over reactive wanna be cop that created a situation that got out of his control.
Agreed -- and that on its own sounds like sufficient grounds for a manslaughter conviction to me. But the jury made their decision, and I won't argue with it.
Which means he can get another gun. I'll bet he has one by tomorrow and that the people around him do too. The "black guys" as you put it will get a bullet in the chest just like Martin did but there won't need to be a trial since it will be obvious self defense.
Interestingly enough, all the "black guys" have to do is provoke him into reaching for his gun, and they can then use the "stand your ground" law to shoot him and get away with it.
Assuming Florida applies their ingenious law in a race-neutral manner, of course -- hahahaha.
...so of course let's put a park on the moon!
Why not? It will be the cheapest park we've ever established, since until we have regular moon travel there is literally nothing (outside the passing of the legislation) to be done.
And possibly it will set up a legal framework so that when moon travel does become common, historic artifacts on the moon will be better protected.
As for the "why are we doing this when X other issues aren't solved yet" -- I'm amazed how often that canard comes up. Slashdot geeks who have no problem understanding parallel execution in a CPU can't seem to understand that parallel execution is possible in other contexts as well -- life is not a zero sum game.
you clearly have no experience with firearms and their myriad of uses
Myriad means 10,000. So far we have:
1. Killing people
2. Pretending to kill people
9,998 to go....
. But, as an observer of economics, I can't help but notice that our national economy doesn't function as well as it did decades ago
One thing to keep in mind is that our national economy isn't a closed system -- it's greatly effected by what's going on outside of our national borders (e.g. a billion Chinese now doing a lot of the manufacturing that used to be done inside the USA).
If you look at the economy of the entire world, I'd think you'd see that the average quality of life is rising; perhaps at the expense of unskilled labor in the US though.
Gun free zones are free killing zones. Every mass shooting I can recall, except one, happened in a gun free zone. [...] When armed good people are present someone might still get killed but it's also quite certain the murderer will be among the people shot.
The problem with non-uniformed civilians carrying guns is that they cameoflage the bad guys. If you see a person carrying a gun in a place where nobody routinely carries a gun, you call the police because something is wrong. But if lots of people carry guns all the time, you end up either raising a lot of false alarms, or risk allowing a shooter to get to his victims and start shooting before anyone knows to stop him.
IMO if we're going to have people around carrying guns to keep the public safe, those people should be professionally trained and in uniform. That minimizes the "is that armed guy a good guy or a bad guy?" problem.
Because criminals follow the law, right?
Most of the time, yes. When there's a warrant out for your arrest, you try very hard not to get pulled over for speeding...
Crazy people (i.e. the sort of people who commit random murders) aren't all that likely to machine their own gun. But if you make it as easy as a few key strokes on a PC, they're a lot more likely to do that.
It seems to me that it's already just a few keystrokes on the computer to purchase a gun from (pick your favorite gun dealer site here). Perhaps printing your own gun would make the gun's existence less traceable, but then again there are plenty of ways to buy a gun anonymously as well.
As a bonus, the gun you purchased will be of much higher quality, and probably cheaper than the cost of a 3D printer.
The main thing that 3D printers have is novelty -- people aren't sure what they're capable of yet. Once that wears off, the FUD will diminish as well.
Really? Your evidence against electric vehicles is an article by the Institute for Energy Research, a front group for the oil industry?
Don't you think oil companies might have an ulterior motive for casting doubt on their potential competition?
I'm pretty sure that the effort required to put the necessary calories into your body is a lot higher, and less environmentally friendly, than burning a few gallons of gasoline in a car engine.
What makes you sure of that? I think it would depend a lot on what kind of food you ate, and how the food was produced.
But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter... because you were going to eat those calories anyway. So the environmental costs of producing the food are present either way; the only question is whether you want those calories to go towards making you fat, or to be used as part of your transportation and/or recreation.
electric cars are not green
On an absolute scale, nothing is green except killing yourself and your children,so that you stop using Earth's resources. Which nobody is prepared to do, so that definition of "green" is irrelevant.
The relevant question is relative green-ness: given that a new-car buyer is going to buy a new car(*), is it better to buy X or Y? How much more (or less) energy does it take to produce an electric car instead of the gas-powered car you would have bought instead? How much more (or less) energy does that car require over its service life? How is that energy generated? How will it be generated 10, 20, 50 years in the future?
These questions don't have easy or obvious answers, and conditions change all the time. If electric cars aren't "more green" this year, they might easily become so next year (as advances in battery technology make batteries more powerful and/or less carbon-intensive to produce). But what remains true is that at some point, fossil fuels will become sufficiently scarce, and/or the costs of carbon loading in the atmosphere will rise, to the point where gas-powered cars aren't practical anymore; and at that point will we be glad we have electric-car technology on hand to transition to.
(*) I'd personally rather see more people go by bike instead, as bikes are significantly greener and healthier than any car... but if that's not an option for someone, then it's not an option for them.
Yes, a motorcycle is in many ways ideal (at least for instances where a bicycle won't do), except for two things -- it's not much fun in bad weather, and it's really no fun when you get in an accident. For that reason, there are many people who simply (and justifiably) won't ride them, no matter what the benefits are -- safety and comfort are non-negotiable to them.
For example, wouldn't it be preferable for Saudi Arabia and Syria and Egypt to be out of natural resources in 50 years, but the socially-compassionate countries still have theirs?
Yes, because those areas aren't volatile enough yet, we need to have them energy-starved (and likely literally starving) as well, while we Westerners continue to enjoy our remaining energy reserves in front of them. If you think they generate too many terrorists now, just wait for real desperation to set in. You're going to need all those oil reserves for defense...
Seriously though, in the long run there is no "homeland-only solution". Either the entire world figures out how to survive without fossil fuels, or modern civilization mostly collapses when the fossil fuels run out, and we (well, those of thus that survive) go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Hoarding fuel only delays the inevitable, whereas developing renewable energy makes the exhaustion of fossil fuels a non-issue.
Me, I use a velomobile to get around.
How do you find the velomobile compares to a road bike? More useful, less useful, or just different?
The reason why it's so expensive for you to go to the movies is that you're not going to the movies and getting a snack, you're going to dinner and watching a movie. a $12 ticket plus $15 worth of food.
While I agree with everything you said, my OCD compels me to point out that "$1.87 worth of snacks being sold for $15" isn't the same thing as "$15 worth of food".
Suppose we leave the planet, but would like to leave a message. Where should we put it, and in what form?
Leave the message underground, in a salt dome. Form the words by mashing Twinkies together.
Which is why I say take "love" out of it. If we respect the rights of marriage based on the household vs the people involved. everyone gets what they want and no one has to argue over semantics.
Well, the impetus behind giving favorable treatment to married people is that committed long-term relationships are beneficial and stabilizing to society. (e.g. if you get sick, your spouse will [presumably] take care of you, so you won't be left to fend for yourself or depend on society)
Given that, I think some way of encouraging at least commitment is warranted... e.g. society probably doesn't want to encourage all college roommates to routinely "get married" for the year just to receive additional tax benefits.
That's a valid point for land-grown biofuels. Hence the appeal of algae, which can be grown in the ocean... which comprises 70% of the Earth's surface. Algae farms won't compete with human farm production (and if located thoughtfully, won't compete with seafood production either).