I don't want to be accused of selling stuff on Slashdot. Google for bed bugs thermal remediation in BC, and you should find the company quite quickly..
You know, just because Koenig wasn't on the series during Space Seed is no reason to think that Chekov was not on the Enterprise at all.
There were over 400 crewmembers on board the Enterprise, Chekhov's absence in a first season episode is easy to explain simply by having him not yet assigned to full-time bridge duty.
Also, the novelization of Space Seed explicitly mentions Chekhov as being on night watch.
If you did go with the canon of the original ideas you would end being accused of being politically incorrect (why do the women wear miniskirts and why is the Captain banging all the aliens?)
Because in the end, it's still a TV show, perhaps? It's obviously going to reflect no small amount of values belonging to the period in which it was made. The concepts you describe were certainly part of the original series, but there's no reason something which is made today must include them just to be true to the original ideas, because those ideas (such as what kinds of clothes they wear, or how many different women Kirk slept with) are not really essential points to the idea behind Star Trek anyways.
Because really, if the books aren't substantially cheaper, there's not really much of a financial incentive when the students are sill going to need textbooks anyways, even if they are entirely electronic.
It doesn't matter how much you wish to pay for it, it's simply infeasible with the building still in the ground.
Like I said.... I'll be sure to tell my friend this weekend that she works for a fictitious company.
The system works. The amount of heat that escapes is negligible enough that it doesn't impact its effectiveness, and the bed bugs inside the building have nowhere to escape to because it's *completely* contained.
For all practical purposes there's no way, I repeat, no way to "heat the whole apartment block" to eradicate bed bugs.
I suppose I should tell my friend that she's working for a fictitious company then... since that's exactly what they do.
The way heat-based bed bug eradication is normally done is you bring in a high-power space heater system that heats the air in the building.
Well y'see, that's where things differ. The company my friend works at doesn't just do that... they practically put the entire building they are going to work on into what looks a lot like a huge-ass enormous sleeping bag. The whole building is evacuated, and they then go through the entire building, basically insulating the entire building from the outside environment with insulation, and then they pump the heat in. I've actually seen buildings that have gotten this done while the bags were in place, and based on what I saw for myself, I'd guess the process is at least a full day of labour for a whole team, maybe even two.
I have no doubt that some heat escapes, but apparently not enough to keep them from maintaining the temperature for the necessary period. The company my friend works for guarantees their work, and she's told me that while she's worked there, nobody she knows of has complained that the treatment was ineffective.
Good luck heating the concrete basement or other adjoining walls to 45C, as that would be necessary to really kill them
That's apparently exactly what they do... but it is also apparently a VERY costly operation.
You see, bed bugs scamper away from heat
Yes... but the treatment this company does leaves the bugs with no place to scamper to. They are fully contained inside of the big insulated bag which is heated to the necessary temperatures and the temperature held there for quite a long time.
To be fair... bedbugs can sometimes get into a hotel because of circumstances beyond the hotel's control, for example, only a very tiny handful may be on a guest's clothing or maybe in their luggage.. and a hotel can often only react to being made aware of their presence. By the time they know about them, it's extremely rare that they know the full extent of just how far they've spread.
I don't advocate the hotel's position here for one minute, but I think they might have a case under willful defamation.... even though true, the facts were publicly presented with malicious intent to publicly discredit them, where they were presumably making every effort to resolve the situation once they became aware of it.
I suspect it might come down to who has the better lawyer.
The point of self-driving cars is to reduce accidents. If people won't actually let cars drive themselves because they are too hung up about fearing the very thing that the cars are supposed to prevent, then where do go from here? Just give up on the whole idea entirely?
Very few people drive cars with any actual intent to kill, yet evidently only 3% of gun related deaths in the statistic you cited above are accidental.
So what does it say about something when more than 95% of the deaths caused by that means were actually *intended*?
Accidents are ALWAYS caused by a difference in speed
More specifically, they are caused by traveling at speeds wherein the driver of one or more of the vehicles involved cannot react sufficiently quickly to prevent the accident. It doesn't take a degree in physics or math to realize that excessive speed is the real problem, not merely a difference in speed between you and other cars, since other cars which are going exactly the same direction as you in smoothly flowing traffic are not the only thing that you may potentially collide with if or when something entirely unexpected happens. You can't do jack about how fast other people drive... you *CAN* do something about how fast you drive, and should do everything in your ability to ensure that while engaging in that practice, you do so in a way that gives *YOU* the maximum opportunity to react to anything unexpected, and thereby preserving life to the best of your own ability. Somebody else driving too fast should be their problem, not yours.
My point, as so many respondents to my comment seem to have missed... is that the notion that something must be explicitly in the constitution for the government to be allowed to do it leads to absurdity.
The constitution, as I understand it, *limits* what the government is allowed to do by being explicit about things that they cannot do. But the poster to whom I originally responded stated more or less the opposite - that what they are allowed to do must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution, which as I attempted to illustrate above, is ridiculous.
So why does the government need any power or authority to monitor its citizens? Privacy isn't mentioned anywhere explicitly in the constitution either.
Bearing in mind here that I don't think it's right that they do so, I just find the reasoning that such things be only dependent on what is contained in the constitution to be flawed.
if the authority or power is NOT EXPLICITLY granted to the Federal Government it doesn't exist
Where in the constitution does it grant them the ability to use Macintosh computers? Nowhere? So does that mean that any government use of Macintosh computers is unconstitutional?
I trust that this devil's advocate position illustrates the folly of the notion you've mentioned above.
They might be filed by a different company, but patents themselves still would have to be publicly disclosed. Filing them under a different company name might make them harder to explicitly search for, but not any less publicly available, and so there'd almost automatically be more people that would know about it.
It's probably something like guaranteed 98% or better power, actually. If it lost half its power in just 20 years then that means it would have to be losing about 3% of its currently available power every single year, which would be very noticeable.
Slackbuilds are additional slackware software packages that one can download and install, but they are often installed by compiling from source. They work seamlessly with the existing slackware package system, however.
But WINE is not officially supported on slack64, even *WITH* multilib.
Plus, there is no technical requirement with slackware that slackbuilds be multilib friendly, since multlib is not part of the standard slackware distribution, so using multilib can sometimes break installing or upgrading slackbuilds.
A staggering majority of the submissions spoke very clearly against the problems of giving digital rights management legal protection. I think, perhaps, that the single biggest problem was that a well-meaning website creator crafted a web page that contained a template letter in a web-based form which would send off the email to the people who were conducting the public consultation, and unfortunately more than half of the submissions that were actually received were practically verbatim copies of that letter, which, I think, may have led to the committee concluding that they should be largely ignored.
Of course, even without those duplicate letters, the number of responses was quite high, and somewhere in the vicinity of 70% of those remaining still were outspoken against DRM, and for a while afterwards, I was hopeful that our government would listen to the majority of its submissions.
But that was not to be... instead, our government crafted a bill that not only gave digital rights control on copyrighted works full legal protection, but created a situation wherein it is virtually impossible to legally enjoy what were considered fair dealing rights within Canada on almost any works made since roughly the turn of the century. Indeed, the *ONLY* exemptions to removing a digital lock on a copyrighted work without permission by the copyright holder is in situations regarding security and/or safety (a safety-net of sorts, I think, to enable technical researchers to investigate security breaches, and to ensure that law enforcement was not similarly hampered by such regulations). Not even removing a digital lock for one's own personal and private use would be considered legal... and similarly, any tool which could be invented to accomplish such tasks would likewise be prohibited.
A few versions of this bill went through our parliamentary system, but were unable to make it into law... owing, I think, in no small part to the fact that the Conservative government, which crafted the bill, did not have a majority of seats in parliament.
Alas, however... the last Canadian election finally did give the Conservatives their much desired majority government, and they quite quickly pushed their latest draft of the bill through, in spite of what was otherwise unanimous opposition by all other party representatives.
Now oddly enough, even though it was now entirely illegal for a private person to simply use a DVD *as intended* on a device which the copyright holder never consented to, such as, perhaps, watching it on a Linux PC, out government came out and said not terribly long after the bill was passed that they "would not enforce the bill in matters of 'private infringement'". This proclamation floored me... not only had they crafted a situation where people were highly likely to privately break the law anyways, but they were now even explicitly saying that it was entirely okay for people to do this, effectively encouraging people to be closet lawbreakers.
So.... please, citizens of the USA.... consider carefully what has happened in the country to the north of you as you take part in this public consultation. Learn from the mistakes that we may have made, be cautious when the government starts to show a particular agenda, and maybe, just maybe... you might just end up with something that the people actually want.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to be accused of selling stuff on Slashdot. Google for bed bugs thermal remediation in BC, and you should find the company quite quickly..
You know, just because Koenig wasn't on the series during Space Seed is no reason to think that Chekov was not on the Enterprise at all.
There were over 400 crewmembers on board the Enterprise, Chekhov's absence in a first season episode is easy to explain simply by having him not yet assigned to full-time bridge duty.
Also, the novelization of Space Seed explicitly mentions Chekhov as being on night watch.
Because in the end, it's still a TV show, perhaps? It's obviously going to reflect no small amount of values belonging to the period in which it was made. The concepts you describe were certainly part of the original series, but there's no reason something which is made today must include them just to be true to the original ideas, because those ideas (such as what kinds of clothes they wear, or how many different women Kirk slept with) are not really essential points to the idea behind Star Trek anyways.
Because really, if the books aren't substantially cheaper, there's not really much of a financial incentive when the students are sill going to need textbooks anyways, even if they are entirely electronic.
Because flogging a living one will get you in trouble with the SPCA, maybe?
I agree, personally... but I can all too easily imagine that if the hotel has a good enough lawyer, it might not be seen that way by the court.
Like I said.... I'll be sure to tell my friend this weekend that she works for a fictitious company.
The system works. The amount of heat that escapes is negligible enough that it doesn't impact its effectiveness, and the bed bugs inside the building have nowhere to escape to because it's *completely* contained.
I suppose I should tell my friend that she's working for a fictitious company then... since that's exactly what they do.
Well y'see, that's where things differ. The company my friend works at doesn't just do that... they practically put the entire building they are going to work on into what looks a lot like a huge-ass enormous sleeping bag. The whole building is evacuated, and they then go through the entire building, basically insulating the entire building from the outside environment with insulation, and then they pump the heat in. I've actually seen buildings that have gotten this done while the bags were in place, and based on what I saw for myself, I'd guess the process is at least a full day of labour for a whole team, maybe even two.
I have no doubt that some heat escapes, but apparently not enough to keep them from maintaining the temperature for the necessary period. The company my friend works for guarantees their work, and she's told me that while she's worked there, nobody she knows of has complained that the treatment was ineffective.
That's apparently exactly what they do... but it is also apparently a VERY costly operation.
Yes... but the treatment this company does leaves the bugs with no place to scamper to. They are fully contained inside of the big insulated bag which is heated to the necessary temperatures and the temperature held there for quite a long time.
To be fair... bedbugs can sometimes get into a hotel because of circumstances beyond the hotel's control, for example, only a very tiny handful may be on a guest's clothing or maybe in their luggage.. and a hotel can often only react to being made aware of their presence. By the time they know about them, it's extremely rare that they know the full extent of just how far they've spread.
I don't advocate the hotel's position here for one minute, but I think they might have a case under willful defamation.... even though true, the facts were publicly presented with malicious intent to publicly discredit them, where they were presumably making every effort to resolve the situation once they became aware of it.
I suspect it might come down to who has the better lawyer.
The point of self-driving cars is to reduce accidents. If people won't actually let cars drive themselves because they are too hung up about fearing the very thing that the cars are supposed to prevent, then where do go from here? Just give up on the whole idea entirely?
Very few people drive cars with any actual intent to kill, yet evidently only 3% of gun related deaths in the statistic you cited above are accidental.
So what does it say about something when more than 95% of the deaths caused by that means were actually *intended*?
More specifically, they are caused by traveling at speeds wherein the driver of one or more of the vehicles involved cannot react sufficiently quickly to prevent the accident. It doesn't take a degree in physics or math to realize that excessive speed is the real problem, not merely a difference in speed between you and other cars, since other cars which are going exactly the same direction as you in smoothly flowing traffic are not the only thing that you may potentially collide with if or when something entirely unexpected happens. You can't do jack about how fast other people drive... you *CAN* do something about how fast you drive, and should do everything in your ability to ensure that while engaging in that practice, you do so in a way that gives *YOU* the maximum opportunity to react to anything unexpected, and thereby preserving life to the best of your own ability. Somebody else driving too fast should be their problem, not yours.
My point, as so many respondents to my comment seem to have missed... is that the notion that something must be explicitly in the constitution for the government to be allowed to do it leads to absurdity.
The constitution, as I understand it, *limits* what the government is allowed to do by being explicit about things that they cannot do. But the poster to whom I originally responded stated more or less the opposite - that what they are allowed to do must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution, which as I attempted to illustrate above, is ridiculous.
So why does the government need any power or authority to monitor its citizens? Privacy isn't mentioned anywhere explicitly in the constitution either.
Bearing in mind here that I don't think it's right that they do so, I just find the reasoning that such things be only dependent on what is contained in the constitution to be flawed.
Where in the constitution does it grant them the ability to use Macintosh computers? Nowhere? So does that mean that any government use of Macintosh computers is unconstitutional?
I trust that this devil's advocate position illustrates the folly of the notion you've mentioned above.
But what do you think exercise endurance is?
They might be filed by a different company, but patents themselves still would have to be publicly disclosed. Filing them under a different company name might make them harder to explicitly search for, but not any less publicly available, and so there'd almost automatically be more people that would know about it.
It's a safe bet that, if true, it wasn't patented, actually... since patents would require public disclosure.
It's probably something like guaranteed 98% or better power, actually. If it lost half its power in just 20 years then that means it would have to be losing about 3% of its currently available power every single year, which would be very noticeable.
Slackbuilds are additional slackware software packages that one can download and install, but they are often installed by compiling from source. They work seamlessly with the existing slackware package system, however.
While there's plenty of descriptions online for how to do that for some distributions, there is an astute lack of it for slackware.
But WINE is not officially supported on slack64, even *WITH* multilib.
Plus, there is no technical requirement with slackware that slackbuilds be multilib friendly, since multlib is not part of the standard slackware distribution, so using multilib can sometimes break installing or upgrading slackbuilds.
And what a disappointment it was.
A staggering majority of the submissions spoke very clearly against the problems of giving digital rights management legal protection. I think, perhaps, that the single biggest problem was that a well-meaning website creator crafted a web page that contained a template letter in a web-based form which would send off the email to the people who were conducting the public consultation, and unfortunately more than half of the submissions that were actually received were practically verbatim copies of that letter, which, I think, may have led to the committee concluding that they should be largely ignored.
Of course, even without those duplicate letters, the number of responses was quite high, and somewhere in the vicinity of 70% of those remaining still were outspoken against DRM, and for a while afterwards, I was hopeful that our government would listen to the majority of its submissions.
But that was not to be... instead, our government crafted a bill that not only gave digital rights control on copyrighted works full legal protection, but created a situation wherein it is virtually impossible to legally enjoy what were considered fair dealing rights within Canada on almost any works made since roughly the turn of the century. Indeed, the *ONLY* exemptions to removing a digital lock on a copyrighted work without permission by the copyright holder is in situations regarding security and/or safety (a safety-net of sorts, I think, to enable technical researchers to investigate security breaches, and to ensure that law enforcement was not similarly hampered by such regulations). Not even removing a digital lock for one's own personal and private use would be considered legal... and similarly, any tool which could be invented to accomplish such tasks would likewise be prohibited.
A few versions of this bill went through our parliamentary system, but were unable to make it into law... owing, I think, in no small part to the fact that the Conservative government, which crafted the bill, did not have a majority of seats in parliament.
Alas, however... the last Canadian election finally did give the Conservatives their much desired majority government, and they quite quickly pushed their latest draft of the bill through, in spite of what was otherwise unanimous opposition by all other party representatives.
Now oddly enough, even though it was now entirely illegal for a private person to simply use a DVD *as intended* on a device which the copyright holder never consented to, such as, perhaps, watching it on a Linux PC, out government came out and said not terribly long after the bill was passed that they "would not enforce the bill in matters of 'private infringement'". This proclamation floored me... not only had they crafted a situation where people were highly likely to privately break the law anyways, but they were now even explicitly saying that it was entirely okay for people to do this, effectively encouraging people to be closet lawbreakers.
So.... please, citizens of the USA.... consider carefully what has happened in the country to the north of you as you take part in this public consultation. Learn from the mistakes that we may have made, be cautious when the government starts to show a particular agenda, and maybe, just maybe... you might just end up with something that the people actually want.
Good luck.
Slackware blows donkey dick then, I suppose.