I was about to look into whether they had ground based sensors for such radioactive materials, I've heard about them being suggested for security purposes. Then I remembered we are talking about an incident where a truck full of pretty radioactive material was stolen in Mexico, so I'm just going to say "Maybe we should just wait for the thieves to turn up dead rather than give them another truck full of expensive equipment to sell for scrap."
Did you read the article? The bit quoted in the summary (on slashdot) was the first mention of terrorism, and, again, pointed out there was no reason to suspect it. It was halfway through the BBC article. If there's yellow journalism here, it's very watered down, and it's entirely on the AC who submitted this to slashdot. What "more balanced new source" are you talking about? Tell me you're talking about more balanced than slashdot and not BBC.
Well, the article I linked to was from 2008. And, given that Obama didn't change it, it's still true. You could label it "Bush/Obama dragnet approach."
Minor quibble, but I think simply saying "constitution free zones around the border" is a dramatic understatement since only the government thinks of the border of something as one hundred fucking miles from the actual edges of the US. Most Americans live in constitution free zones.
Jesus, it's like he's testing the public to see if they can be convinced to care at all about net neutrality. NETFLIX is the example you choose? What were some examples you decided wouldn't be good to mention?
Wheeler: "Say a hospital doesn't want children to die unnecessarily because they couldn't get information, maybe their ISP will charge them highway robbery to prevent your son or daughter from dying. Oh, my secretary is shaking her head at that, okay, maybe a bad example. Porn? If you don't pay the monthly fee, you won't be able to see boobies unless you stop me? Hmm still no... Oh, I know! NETFLIX will pay more because AT&T will demand it. Yes? Okay, sounds like that's the best example I could come up with. Oh, and your ISP will also charge you an arm and a leg, on top of the arm and leg you're already charged, so they'll be getting double the money for less service if I'm allowed to make the rules, which I am. Oops, I think I'm back over the line. I'm also having second thoughts about strangling this puppy to demonstrate what this will do for the economy."
Or the fact that vandalizing a pointless website is illegal, but the Koch brothers are regarded as law abiding citizens. The bribery, the environmental damage... if there's anyone out there who could say with a straight face that the justice system is being used by the good against the bad here, I would like to meet such people.
But it is really fair for the Government to say protect Far Left ideas while trying to hinder far right ones?
Possibly. False equivalence would be stupid: the legality of the ideas being protected or outlawed should be considered independent of whether it would be balanced. You don't outlaw a far left idea like "Animals should be allowed to vote too!" simply because you have outlawed a far right idea like "How about we commit genocide against Jewish people."
I'm not sure whether I think neo-nazis should be outlawed, just that it shouldn't come down to a balance between right and left.
How many of these cars are there on the road? How many are involved in fatal crashes? Take the second number and divide it by the first. Compare it to other cars. If the porsche number is significantly higher, then you have a story.
Otherwise you're just making excuses to gossip about celebrities and point fingers.
From a review at IGN it appears size, computing power, PR, R&D at a minimum. Functionality too: the glasstron appears to have been just a wearable monitor.
You joke/troll, but there are people who honestly wouldn't see a problem with all public places being monitored electronically. Such people are naive. Other people simply accept that their privacy is eroded constantly. Such people are also naive.
Easier probably, but there are at least two other concerns. 1: Privacy. Unless the CCTV is programmed to activate only upon identifying a pooping dog, you're catching everything. With just collecting and testing the poop, you're only invading the privacy of the dog in question. Which is not much of a concern. 2: a CCTV could create the illusion that crime is going up among residents and other people, making them feel less safe even if you say it's for dog poop. Conversely, saying "Oh, we do DNA testing of dog poop to fine poop offenders" does the opposite. Neither are logical responses, but people aren't logical.
No no no, you're aiming too low! There's clearly now a market for microbeads containing oligomers which will foil the PCR that you can feed these dogs to make their poop undetectable.
I don't know anything about raising venture capital, but I'm going to do a little more research and try to get on "shark tank" pitching that.
Could you give some more information about what it was you saw 15 years ago? Because I saw deloreans capable of reverse time travel decades ago, that doesn't mean much. Odds are several things is the answer. Economics, computing power, battery power, PR, R&D budgets....
I agree we stopped being vigilant a while back, but I'd argue that there are signs that things are getting better. The first step in recovering from addiction is admitting that one HAS an addiction. Our addiction to the war on drugs, pointless militarizing of the police, and the prison industry, we're admitting it. The fact that we lock up so many people is working it's way into public consciousness. Pot legalization is on the horizon, it's no longer just people who LIKE pot who are voting for it, people are voting for legalization because of tax economics. Even some law enforcement groups are raising awareness: when the proposition for legalization came to the table in California, I recall several police groups coming out in favor of it as they'd like to stop getting shot at by Mexican cartels.
It's taking longer than anyone who isn't directly profiting from it would like, sure.
But if the surface kills the bacteria when it first lands, then there's nothing to put down the slime in the first place. Biofilms arise with the bacteria, not before.
What's accepted as fair arguments in court is a separate issue that depends on context. From a quick google search, it seems like the context for at least one case of public defecation as free speech was homelessness. Didn't do a lot of reading on it, but it sounds like in Santa Cruz, they decided to get rid of unsightly homeless people by getting rid of public toilets and declaring public defecation illegal. That seems to be a common approach. And frankly, that's bullshit. In that specific context, I think declaring pooping on a city that is trying to boot you out is fair.
You're arguing that there are more hassles with reusable bags than with... renting people plastic bags? That's nonsense. THe problems you mention for reusable bags would be true with your idea: you'd have to remember to return them, and you'd have to essentially buy them. Washing, unless you're constantly breaking eggs or using the bags for things other than the grocery store, you don't have to wash them. For years, let alone every trip. I say this from personal experience. If you ARE using them for other things than the grocery store, you're getting more value out of them. They are useful.
Moreover, most of the plastic bags won't be returned, they'll just be thrown away.
I'd guess it's because there are many powerful buisiness interests in getting you to drive your own car. The fuel industry, the auto industry are the big ones obviously, but also law enforcement (tickets), construction (roads are probably more lucrative than a few tunnels). Public transit systems are rarely lucrative, they seem to always end up being government run. I've heard that even in subway crazy Tokyo where they manage to have privatized subways, most of those lines are run at a loss, it's only viable because they shuttle people directly to monster shopping centers, owned by the same megacorps that run the lines.
So I think the short answer is that more people profit from private transit.
Slashdot Mirror
I was about to look into whether they had ground based sensors for such radioactive materials, I've heard about them being suggested for security purposes. Then I remembered we are talking about an incident where a truck full of pretty radioactive material was stolen in Mexico, so I'm just going to say "Maybe we should just wait for the thieves to turn up dead rather than give them another truck full of expensive equipment to sell for scrap."
Did you read the article? The bit quoted in the summary (on slashdot) was the first mention of terrorism, and, again, pointed out there was no reason to suspect it. It was halfway through the BBC article. If there's yellow journalism here, it's very watered down, and it's entirely on the AC who submitted this to slashdot. What "more balanced new source" are you talking about? Tell me you're talking about more balanced than slashdot and not BBC.
Well, the article I linked to was from 2008. And, given that Obama didn't change it, it's still true. You could label it "Bush/Obama dragnet approach."
Chicago doesn't, though that is most likely because the police can't find a station where the subway works...
Minor quibble, but I think simply saying "constitution free zones around the border" is a dramatic understatement since only the government thinks of the border of something as one hundred fucking miles from the actual edges of the US. Most Americans live in constitution free zones.
Jesus, it's like he's testing the public to see if they can be convinced to care at all about net neutrality. NETFLIX is the example you choose? What were some examples you decided wouldn't be good to mention?
Wheeler: "Say a hospital doesn't want children to die unnecessarily because they couldn't get information, maybe their ISP will charge them highway robbery to prevent your son or daughter from dying. Oh, my secretary is shaking her head at that, okay, maybe a bad example. Porn? If you don't pay the monthly fee, you won't be able to see boobies unless you stop me? Hmm still no... Oh, I know! NETFLIX will pay more because AT&T will demand it. Yes? Okay, sounds like that's the best example I could come up with. Oh, and your ISP will also charge you an arm and a leg, on top of the arm and leg you're already charged, so they'll be getting double the money for less service if I'm allowed to make the rules, which I am. Oops, I think I'm back over the line. I'm also having second thoughts about strangling this puppy to demonstrate what this will do for the economy."
The sheep is more serious because it's bigger and has more meat?
Or the fact that vandalizing a pointless website is illegal, but the Koch brothers are regarded as law abiding citizens. The bribery, the environmental damage... if there's anyone out there who could say with a straight face that the justice system is being used by the good against the bad here, I would like to meet such people.
(We can skip the tu quoque arguments about George Soros or Al Gore: I'm not saying those guys are good. We can also skip over the climate change debate.)
But it is really fair for the Government to say protect Far Left ideas while trying to hinder far right ones?
Possibly. False equivalence would be stupid: the legality of the ideas being protected or outlawed should be considered independent of whether it would be balanced. You don't outlaw a far left idea like "Animals should be allowed to vote too!" simply because you have outlawed a far right idea like "How about we commit genocide against Jewish people."
I'm not sure whether I think neo-nazis should be outlawed, just that it shouldn't come down to a balance between right and left.
Only the sith deal in absolutes.
How many of these cars are there on the road? How many are involved in fatal crashes? Take the second number and divide it by the first. Compare it to other cars. If the porsche number is significantly higher, then you have a story.
Otherwise you're just making excuses to gossip about celebrities and point fingers.
intrahemisphere vs interhemisphere wiring in the brains is millenniums behind? I guess so, Jesus did build the first fMRI, right?
Oh, you only read the title and decided to make a funny about it. Carry on.
If I were a weapons manufacturer trying to sell this, I might describe that as a "bonus feature."
From a review at IGN it appears size, computing power, PR, R&D at a minimum. Functionality too: the glasstron appears to have been just a wearable monitor.
For more information, google it yourself.
You joke/troll, but there are people who honestly wouldn't see a problem with all public places being monitored electronically. Such people are naive. Other people simply accept that their privacy is eroded constantly. Such people are also naive.
Easier probably, but there are at least two other concerns. 1: Privacy. Unless the CCTV is programmed to activate only upon identifying a pooping dog, you're catching everything. With just collecting and testing the poop, you're only invading the privacy of the dog in question. Which is not much of a concern. 2: a CCTV could create the illusion that crime is going up among residents and other people, making them feel less safe even if you say it's for dog poop. Conversely, saying "Oh, we do DNA testing of dog poop to fine poop offenders" does the opposite. Neither are logical responses, but people aren't logical.
No no no, you're aiming too low! There's clearly now a market for microbeads containing oligomers which will foil the PCR that you can feed these dogs to make their poop undetectable.
I don't know anything about raising venture capital, but I'm going to do a little more research and try to get on "shark tank" pitching that.
Could you give some more information about what it was you saw 15 years ago? Because I saw deloreans capable of reverse time travel decades ago, that doesn't mean much. Odds are several things is the answer. Economics, computing power, battery power, PR, R&D budgets....
There's often no rhyme or reason or even logic to lawsuits, so the second point is null. The answer to your first point is "probably less than they make in like a nanosecond."
I agree we stopped being vigilant a while back, but I'd argue that there are signs that things are getting better. The first step in recovering from addiction is admitting that one HAS an addiction. Our addiction to the war on drugs, pointless militarizing of the police, and the prison industry, we're admitting it. The fact that we lock up so many people is working it's way into public consciousness. Pot legalization is on the horizon, it's no longer just people who LIKE pot who are voting for it, people are voting for legalization because of tax economics. Even some law enforcement groups are raising awareness: when the proposition for legalization came to the table in California, I recall several police groups coming out in favor of it as they'd like to stop getting shot at by Mexican cartels.
It's taking longer than anyone who isn't directly profiting from it would like, sure.
Doesn't Ford also want their successes to get a lot of press?
Are you blaming this on Musk's marketing strategy rather than shitty journalism?
But if the surface kills the bacteria when it first lands, then there's nothing to put down the slime in the first place. Biofilms arise with the bacteria, not before.
What's accepted as fair arguments in court is a separate issue that depends on context. From a quick google search, it seems like the context for at least one case of public defecation as free speech was homelessness. Didn't do a lot of reading on it, but it sounds like in Santa Cruz, they decided to get rid of unsightly homeless people by getting rid of public toilets and declaring public defecation illegal. That seems to be a common approach. And frankly, that's bullshit. In that specific context, I think declaring pooping on a city that is trying to boot you out is fair.
You're arguing that there are more hassles with reusable bags than with... renting people plastic bags? That's nonsense. THe problems you mention for reusable bags would be true with your idea: you'd have to remember to return them, and you'd have to essentially buy them. Washing, unless you're constantly breaking eggs or using the bags for things other than the grocery store, you don't have to wash them. For years, let alone every trip. I say this from personal experience. If you ARE using them for other things than the grocery store, you're getting more value out of them. They are useful.
Moreover, most of the plastic bags won't be returned, they'll just be thrown away.
I'd guess it's because there are many powerful buisiness interests in getting you to drive your own car. The fuel industry, the auto industry are the big ones obviously, but also law enforcement (tickets), construction (roads are probably more lucrative than a few tunnels). Public transit systems are rarely lucrative, they seem to always end up being government run. I've heard that even in subway crazy Tokyo where they manage to have privatized subways, most of those lines are run at a loss, it's only viable because they shuttle people directly to monster shopping centers, owned by the same megacorps that run the lines.
So I think the short answer is that more people profit from private transit.