$50k is about what people pay to have a chance at climbing the Everest. Almost 1000 people attempt the climb annually.
All either professional climbers or highly experienced amateur climbers. So basically people with enough free time or flexibility to spend weeks every year traveling to fairly remote mountains to climb, over many years, and the income to support that lifestyle. You don't just call up a guide company and book a climb on Everest. They only take skilled, experienced climbers otherwise it is essentially assisted suicide. So again, not something the average person would ever experience, especially at that price point.
the only potentially profitable venture seems to be space-tourism marketed to the ultra-rich.
They are expecting costs to fall significantly thanks to SpaceX and friends. At less than $100 per kg, outer space vacation will be available to more than just the ultra-rich....But even at $50,000 per trip, I'm sure a lot of customers would show up.
Even in America, if you have $50,000 (which is almost as much as the current median household income in the US) in liquid, disposable income that you can spend on a vacation, you are ultra rich. According to a Forbes article from last year, the average American spends around 10% of their annual household income on vacations. So for a 1 person household, that's 500k a year income. For 2 people that's 1 million a year. Going into debt for a vacation, even for a trip like going into space, is a bad idea. Of course, plenty of people will still do it just for the chance to play astronaut.
Easiest diet is this: expend more than you take in.
That is the easiest to understand, not the easiest to do.
I fell off the diet while in grad school and gained it back and more.
If it was so easy, why did you fail?
The diet succeeded. But like I said, I was in college. I brought in AP credits so I was ahead every year making my final year's class schedule being light, so between that and football being done I had plenty of free time to work out and stay busy with things I wanted to do. By the time I reached grad school I was working part time so the energy and ability/freedom to work out went away.
Easiest diet is this: expend more than you take in. I lost 30lbs over 3 months my senior year of college eating mostly 2 things that most diets tell you to stay away from: meat and rice. But I kept what I consumed to a minimum and worked out regularly. Of course, like any diet, you have to keep up with it for it to keep the benefits. I fell off the diet while in grad school and gained it back and more. Now that I'm stuck in an office job behind a desk it's hard to both regularly exercise and minimize what I consume.
That being said, over the past few years I've been very interested in some of the studies coming out about gut biome replacements. I would totally sign up for a clinic trial to study that.
When I was a kid it seemed like it had so much promise. Nowadays it's just pretty much advertising.
One the bright side, it seems like we are one step closer to Futurama. If we get spaceships and robots and an amusement park on the Moon, it might be worth putting up with the ads in your dreams or the suicide booths.
And don't forget hypnotoad! All glory to the hypnotoad!
This in car advertising feature will be non-starer for me. I will avoid buying cars equipped with one, if all cars go this way I will pull the fuse on infotaiment system.
One aspect people fail to consider is that if your car reports your location to advertisers, it also can be compelled to report your location to law enforcement, creditors, lawyers.
I'm sure you could probably pay a several thousand dollar premium for the "add free" model. Really, it's most likely that this kind of thing would, at least initially, be used on lower end cars to subsidize the price. Higher end cars like Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc won't install this as it would tarnish their brand image. But looking for a cheap little 4 cylinder commuter car? Be ready for ads.
So then why won't the Republicans even entertain sane gun laws, such as requiring proof of attendance of a free class that teaches basic firearm safety, laws, and handling/marksmanship before purchasing a firearm/getting a carry permit, along with a yearly recurrent training covering those same topics?
I dunno, maybe it's that Second Amendment thing? You know, the one that has "shall not be infringed" in it? You do know that "requiring proof of attendance" is an infringement, right?
If we are going old school on it, the local militia were required to show up every now and then for drill on the town square. Guess we should just bring that back then.
But you know, heaven forbid we actually hold those people with "gun control means using both hands" bumperstickers to their promise and make sure they actually know how to control a gun.
Even if we trusted the cops (and history tells us we shouldn't) the cops aren't the only party in play here. If the cops have a back door then so do black hats, criminals, foreign nations, and anyone else. So we get lots of whining by politicians and cops who are either clueless or disingenuous or both.
Think about it this way: while it hard to solve a crime, it is even harder to prevent a crime. On top of that it is much easier to track and measure "crimes solved" versus "crimes prevented"(you can measure year over year changes but attribution is difficult), and more "crimes solved" means promotions, more funding, recognition, etc. So the motivation is there for police to focus more on solving crimes than preventing them (especially crimes that do not involve risk of injury to life and limb). It's not intentional(at least not in most cases), it's just how they think these days.
Without taking sides, if a public shooting and innocent dead people aren't a good reason to discuss the issue of gun control and public safety, when is a good time?
Here's the problem: "Mass shootings" account for only about 0.1% of gun deaths, and are NOTHING like the normal quotidian killings that account for the other 99.9%:
* Mass shootings tend to be carefully planned and premeditated.
* Normal shootings tend to be impulsive and emotional.
* Mass shootings are often done by people with no prior violent criminal record.
* Normal shootings are usually by people with a history of violence.
* Mass shootings tend to be done with rifles.
* Normal shootings are mostly done with handguns.
* Mass shooters are usually crazy people.
* Normal shooters are usually stupid people.
So policies directed at mass shootings tend to be ineffective at actually reducing gun deaths. Because of the meticulous planning, mass shooters are difficult to detect. Because of their mental illnesses, they are difficult to deter. This is precisely where gun control will be least effective. The world's worst mass shooting was in Norway, not America.
Another problem with discussing gun control in the aftermath of a mass shooting, is that gun control advocates tend to let their emotions get away from them, and say a lot of silly things that are factually incorrect about "machine guns" and "automatic rifles" (both of which are illegal in America). This just exacerbates the feeling among gun owners that they belong to a different culture, and that there is no room for compromise or moderation.
So then why won't the Republicans even entertain sane gun laws, such as requiring proof of attendance of a free class that teaches basic firearm safety, laws, and handling/marksmanship before purchasing a firearm/getting a carry permit, along with a yearly recurrent training covering those same topics? We already require a test/license to drive a car (a potentially deadly tool, same as a gun), and many states require or at least suggest taking a hunter safety/law course before getting a hunting license, so this is a logical step. It won't stop mass shootings, but it will prevent a lot of accidental shootings as well as reduce other gun crimes. And I say all this as someone who owns multiple handguns, several shotguns, an AR-15, and various other firearms.
And if you argue "who's going to pay for those classes", well, many of the gun ranges around me already offer free basic courses, just certify those to count. And the NRA rakes in millions each year and is at least nominally about firearm safety, so make them literally put their money where their mouth is. Shortfalls in funding can be made up through local and federal funding which should be available as gun crimes reduce.
Good thing this facility was Top Secret. I would hate to hear about what goes on inside.
One wonders how secret it can be if there are Getty Images of it.
That photo was taken at a museum. Either that or Russian nuclear production facilities have some very interesting decorative choices. Of course, it could still be at the facility, just not a restricted access area.
My response was a tongue in cheek response to an obvious troll. It's hard to argue that not paying someone to speak is "censorship" anyway, as they did not kick him off the service.
This is America. If you don't like what youtube is doing you have the freedom to make your own YouTube. Well, as long as it doesn't have blackjack and hookers.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you mean like the armed resource officer the school had that stayed outside the building and never confronted the shooter?
$50k is about what people pay to have a chance at climbing the Everest. Almost 1000 people attempt the climb annually.
All either professional climbers or highly experienced amateur climbers. So basically people with enough free time or flexibility to spend weeks every year traveling to fairly remote mountains to climb, over many years, and the income to support that lifestyle. You don't just call up a guide company and book a climb on Everest. They only take skilled, experienced climbers otherwise it is essentially assisted suicide. So again, not something the average person would ever experience, especially at that price point.
the only potentially profitable venture seems to be space-tourism marketed to the ultra-rich.
They are expecting costs to fall significantly thanks to SpaceX and friends. At less than $100 per kg, outer space vacation will be available to more than just the ultra-rich....But even at $50,000 per trip, I'm sure a lot of customers would show up.
Even in America, if you have $50,000 (which is almost as much as the current median household income in the US) in liquid, disposable income that you can spend on a vacation, you are ultra rich. According to a Forbes article from last year, the average American spends around 10% of their annual household income on vacations. So for a 1 person household, that's 500k a year income. For 2 people that's 1 million a year. Going into debt for a vacation, even for a trip like going into space, is a bad idea. Of course, plenty of people will still do it just for the chance to play astronaut.
Easiest diet is this: expend more than you take in.
That is the easiest to understand, not the easiest to do.
I fell off the diet while in grad school and gained it back and more.
If it was so easy, why did you fail?
The diet succeeded. But like I said, I was in college. I brought in AP credits so I was ahead every year making my final year's class schedule being light, so between that and football being done I had plenty of free time to work out and stay busy with things I wanted to do. By the time I reached grad school I was working part time so the energy and ability/freedom to work out went away.
That being said, over the past few years I've been very interested in some of the studies coming out about gut biome replacements. I would totally sign up for a clinic trial to study that.
When I was a kid it seemed like it had so much promise. Nowadays it's just pretty much advertising.
One the bright side, it seems like we are one step closer to Futurama. If we get spaceships and robots and an amusement park on the Moon, it might be worth putting up with the ads in your dreams or the suicide booths.
And don't forget hypnotoad! All glory to the hypnotoad!
This in car advertising feature will be non-starer for me. I will avoid buying cars equipped with one, if all cars go this way I will pull the fuse on infotaiment system. One aspect people fail to consider is that if your car reports your location to advertisers, it also can be compelled to report your location to law enforcement, creditors, lawyers.
I'm sure you could probably pay a several thousand dollar premium for the "add free" model. Really, it's most likely that this kind of thing would, at least initially, be used on lower end cars to subsidize the price. Higher end cars like Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc won't install this as it would tarnish their brand image. But looking for a cheap little 4 cylinder commuter car? Be ready for ads.
I dunno, maybe it's that Second Amendment thing? You know, the one that has "shall not be infringed" in it? You do know that "requiring proof of attendance" is an infringement, right?
If we are going old school on it, the local militia were required to show up every now and then for drill on the town square. Guess we should just bring that back then.
But you know, heaven forbid we actually hold those people with "gun control means using both hands" bumperstickers to their promise and make sure they actually know how to control a gun.
Even if we trusted the cops (and history tells us we shouldn't) the cops aren't the only party in play here. If the cops have a back door then so do black hats, criminals, foreign nations, and anyone else. So we get lots of whining by politicians and cops who are either clueless or disingenuous or both.
Think about it this way: while it hard to solve a crime, it is even harder to prevent a crime. On top of that it is much easier to track and measure "crimes solved" versus "crimes prevented"(you can measure year over year changes but attribution is difficult), and more "crimes solved" means promotions, more funding, recognition, etc. So the motivation is there for police to focus more on solving crimes than preventing them (especially crimes that do not involve risk of injury to life and limb). It's not intentional(at least not in most cases), it's just how they think these days.
Without taking sides, if a public shooting and innocent dead people aren't a good reason to discuss the issue of gun control and public safety, when is a good time?
Here's the problem: "Mass shootings" account for only about 0.1% of gun deaths, and are NOTHING like the normal quotidian killings that account for the other 99.9%:
* Mass shootings tend to be carefully planned and premeditated. * Normal shootings tend to be impulsive and emotional.
* Mass shootings are often done by people with no prior violent criminal record. * Normal shootings are usually by people with a history of violence.
* Mass shootings tend to be done with rifles. * Normal shootings are mostly done with handguns.
* Mass shooters are usually crazy people. * Normal shooters are usually stupid people.
So policies directed at mass shootings tend to be ineffective at actually reducing gun deaths. Because of the meticulous planning, mass shooters are difficult to detect. Because of their mental illnesses, they are difficult to deter. This is precisely where gun control will be least effective. The world's worst mass shooting was in Norway, not America.
Another problem with discussing gun control in the aftermath of a mass shooting, is that gun control advocates tend to let their emotions get away from them, and say a lot of silly things that are factually incorrect about "machine guns" and "automatic rifles" (both of which are illegal in America). This just exacerbates the feeling among gun owners that they belong to a different culture, and that there is no room for compromise or moderation.
So then why won't the Republicans even entertain sane gun laws, such as requiring proof of attendance of a free class that teaches basic firearm safety, laws, and handling/marksmanship before purchasing a firearm/getting a carry permit, along with a yearly recurrent training covering those same topics? We already require a test/license to drive a car (a potentially deadly tool, same as a gun), and many states require or at least suggest taking a hunter safety/law course before getting a hunting license, so this is a logical step. It won't stop mass shootings, but it will prevent a lot of accidental shootings as well as reduce other gun crimes. And I say all this as someone who owns multiple handguns, several shotguns, an AR-15, and various other firearms.
And if you argue "who's going to pay for those classes", well, many of the gun ranges around me already offer free basic courses, just certify those to count. And the NRA rakes in millions each year and is at least nominally about firearm safety, so make them literally put their money where their mouth is. Shortfalls in funding can be made up through local and federal funding which should be available as gun crimes reduce.
Try to live like your grandparents did.
Eat a lot of fried food, use butter and/or animal fat when cooking just about everything, and smoke unfiltered cigarettes?
I want to believe you, but if I do then obviously can't believe you. So I won't
The movie Billy Madison perfectly demonstrated the well known fact that business ethics inevitably ends with someone pulling out a gun.
not to mention the tide of suicides by poising.
And the poisonings by Tide. Yes, teens are now eating Tide laundry packets as a "challenge".
They could at least have answered the age old question: "PC load letter? What the fuck does that mean?"
The McDonald's by me delivers through uber eats
Good thing this facility was Top Secret. I would hate to hear about what goes on inside.
One wonders how secret it can be if there are Getty Images of it.
That photo was taken at a museum. Either that or Russian nuclear production facilities have some very interesting decorative choices. Of course, it could still be at the facility, just not a restricted access area.
My response was a tongue in cheek response to an obvious troll. It's hard to argue that not paying someone to speak is "censorship" anyway, as they did not kick him off the service.
This is America. If you don't like what youtube is doing you have the freedom to make your own YouTube. Well, as long as it doesn't have blackjack and hookers.
Competitive waiting. Coming soon!
Little do they know I trained with one of, no, THE absolute best trainer ever : hl2.exe
For hardcore wait training, most professionals are waiting for Half Life 3.
The feminists will hate this, but curling is one of my wife's favorite sports to watch on TV precisely because of the sweeping.
The date selection doesn't work, you can only use the "I'm feeling lucky" button
I long for the day where everyone can have a private AI. Most likely by that time we can also put them in robotic bodies, making them corporeal AIs.
I love how every shitty company and their dog always point to their ToS like it's the word of god.. As if anybody gives a tiny rat's ass about them.
A pair of handcuffs are harmless...until you find them on your wrists.
You should use a different analogy. In porn handcuffs are usually a good thing....
I wonder why was he banned, I mean the true reason. Was he breaking the EULA or some Twitter rules?
Maybe Twitter is planning on releasing their own cryptocurrency to finally try and make some money so they need the market to stay propped up?