That being said, the sat nav systems are a pile of crap, we all know that... Give me a Google maps interface with a capacitive touchscreen and that's a good start.
I'd love to be able to talk to my car, if it was decent at it. Siri and Cortana understand me amazingly well, my truck, less so.
No, I'm not... maybe they aren't the people to be doing this... perhaps someone else should...
As far as what would work on an asteroid, even a very large one, there are multiple ideas on what could work. Depending on your time frame, everything from solar sails to long duration ion engines to nuclear weapons.
Simply painting it white might work, if you have 50 years notice, since it would affect the orbital path very slightly which works over time.
I'm not afraid of terrorism or being attacked by sharks, etc.
I fully understand that I'm far more likely to be killed in my car, or by my bad eating habits, then any of those risks.
The issue with an asteroid is that if it is a big one, then it can end the entire human race. It is very, very, very, very, very unlikely, even within my great, great, great children's lifetime.
But if it happens, then everything else is meaningless. It is such a binary outcome that we should at least care a little bit about it. I don't lose sleep over it, but of all the things we spend money on, this should be one of them.
In a human's lifetime, the odds are unbelievably low, as in, almost nonexistent.
In the next 500 years? 1,000 years? A bit more, but still low.
However, while very low, if it were to happen, it makes everything else pointless and redundant. If we're wiped out, then our saving $450 million doesn't really matter much, now does it?
His parents were married all their adult lives and remained together until their death.
Corporal punishment was allowed in school, kids did not talk back to teachers and were taught respect for their elders.
He also went to an all white school of middle class Americans where everyone had a common background and understood each other.
50+ years ago was a different world, and while it was unfair to a lot of people (mostly anyone who wasn't white), it was a world in which these mass shootings were not so common.
It was also a world where you could spank other people's kids if they got out of line, kids could go out and play all day outside unsupervised, and so on...
Of course, it had other issues... but in this specific case, we were better off...
And the idea that schools in the US even need "gun-free zone" signs is bat-shit crazy. On the other side of the world, I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension. (That was before secure gun safes were mandatory.)
And that is a shame... my father took his rifle to school and kept it in his locker, they had a gun club at school and kids would often go shooting after classes were out...
And he has never owned a gun safe, and amazingly enough in 71 years none of his guns have jumped up and shot anyone... No one in any of his schools was ever shot either...
Most people are not single issue voters... There is plenty to not like about both parties and frankly one of those things is that both parties have worked very hard to keep a third party out of the game...
It is very simplistic to suggest that this is only the fault of the average US voter...
It really isn't. It is the fault of some select people in power who use that power and money to get their way. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and not a perfect one.
But you have to take the system you have, not the one you wish you had. Your other option is revolution, and that is bloody and messy and frankly doesn't happen very often to a well fed population.
Note: I like guns. Own several. But the constitution does not specify 'arms' very specifically. People, generally, cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nukes, cannons, explosives, etc.. ). The people that are allowed to own weapons with huge destructive capabilities have to go through a much more restrictive process of checks, licenses, fees, etc..
There is nothing in our constitution that would block our ability to regulate the level of "destructiveness" a person is able to own. We do it already to several classes of weapons. We could choose to apply stricter regulations, background checks, etc.. to lower levels of weapons.
My first response to this was going to be... less understanding...
However, after thinking about it, there is a fair point to be made there... clearly we aren't going to be selling nuclear weapons at Walmart, so the limit has to be somewhere between a BB gun and a nuclear weapon. The question then becomes, what is that limit?
My primary issue is that those "restrictions" are also set by the very same government that should fear its citizens, rather than the other way around.
I don't want people to walk into Walmart and buy a 50 caliber machine gun without some serious background inspections, licenses, mental health checks, etc..? Do you?
Ahh... yes and no... the problem is if you allow the government to have a list of everyone who has weapons, it becomes very easy for that same government to take them all away. Of course, the NFA is more than 80 years old now, so perhaps that ship has sailed.
I do think that select-fire weapons should be legal to purchase again, but you're right, they probably shouldn't be sold over the counter.
If not, then what is the issue with applying stricter control to handguns? It isn't taking away your right to own the gun.
Handguns are person defensive weapons, those along with shotguns and semi-automatic rifles should not have very many restrictions on them.
The other consideration is that plenty of places "allow" you to have a handgun if you're special. If you're not, tough luck.
Any permitting system should be on a "shall issue" basis. My gut response is against such systems, however I'd be willing to compromise on the issue, in return for a few things. Most notably I want national uniform laws that allow concealed carry, national "shall issue" laws to any permits required for guns, and I'd like the 2nd amendment updated to make it very clear that the right to buy and own guns and hold them in personal possession is clear and confusing.
I have responded, you simply are not hearing it, or don't want to hear it, or your world view is so different than it isn't possible for you to hear it.
So if you have 2 guys doing each panel, and it takes 2.5 hours to do each panel (it doesn't, but lets say it does), and you pay them $20/hr, you're at $100 a panel.
Fair enough, double that to $200/hr since the company has to make money.
$3,200 for 16 panels.
Out of $18k install costs, that still isn't much, and these new panels don't cut the panel count in half.:(
I'm honestly not trying to be hard about this, I just don't think the cost of adding one more panel to an install makes THAT much difference.
Regardless, I'm still hoping to hear someone suggest a company in the Dallas area that doesn't charge stupid rates.
An installed cost of $2 per watt would get me really excited about it. The current prices of $3.50 per watt just make no sense.
Wars do not have to be declared... No on has to "sign up to it".
Now, I'll agree that the "war on terror" is just as useless as the "war on drugs", but that is another topic...
The US has been at war with someone since the end of WWII, this isn't new.
100 years ago, The British Empire was at war with someone most of the time as well, that wasn't new. Before them it was the Spanish, before them it was someone else...
All I know is that I lack enough information to have an informed opinion, as do 99.9% of the people posting about it.
Clearly something went wrong, either intentionally or by mistake.
It sucks, but frankly that is war. It makes the news, barely, and then life goes on. The sad thing is that most people care, but not enough to do anything about it.
I once checked out an archive of old Nazi political cartoons, and indeed they made use of that very sort of thing. There was one incident for example where the allies accidentally bombed Switzerland not long after hitting a hospital in Germany during a bombing raid. The cartoon played on the similarity of the Swiss flag and the Red Cross flag, with the allied pilot apologizing to the Swiss on the grounds that he got the flags mixed up.
Yes, but that was Nazi media directed to Germans, not US Media directed to Americans...
We couldn't have won WWII if CNN was doing what they do today...
War is hell, it sucks, but the quickest way to win is to destroy the enemy until he/she finally figured out that their ideas and ways are lost and agrees to convert. Or die, either is fine.
It took the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to finally get them to cry uncle and give up their ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Backup cameras should be mandatory...
That being said, the sat nav systems are a pile of crap, we all know that... Give me a Google maps interface with a capacitive touchscreen and that's a good start.
I'd love to be able to talk to my car, if it was decent at it. Siri and Cortana understand me amazingly well, my truck, less so.
No, I'm not... maybe they aren't the people to be doing this... perhaps someone else should...
As far as what would work on an asteroid, even a very large one, there are multiple ideas on what could work. Depending on your time frame, everything from solar sails to long duration ion engines to nuclear weapons.
Simply painting it white might work, if you have 50 years notice, since it would affect the orbital path very slightly which works over time.
Don't misunderstand...
I'm not afraid of terrorism or being attacked by sharks, etc.
I fully understand that I'm far more likely to be killed in my car, or by my bad eating habits, then any of those risks.
The issue with an asteroid is that if it is a big one, then it can end the entire human race. It is very, very, very, very, very unlikely, even within my great, great, great children's lifetime.
But if it happens, then everything else is meaningless. It is such a binary outcome that we should at least care a little bit about it. I don't lose sleep over it, but of all the things we spend money on, this should be one of them.
Yea, I knew some snark would come along with that silly point.
Earth has been hit by multiple large rocks already, we know they exist, we can see them today, right now.
That makes it a real, if unlikely, threat. Space slugs are not a real threat.
The price of the human race is everything.
All of it. No amount of stuff or money is worth what the whole human race is worth.
That was easy, I need a Staples big red button. :)
Are you sure about that? 100% completely sure?
What if we had 50 years warning? Still sure?
In a human's lifetime, the odds are unbelievably low, as in, almost nonexistent.
In the next 500 years? 1,000 years? A bit more, but still low.
However, while very low, if it were to happen, it makes everything else pointless and redundant. If we're wiped out, then our saving $450 million doesn't really matter much, now does it?
How would you suggest going about doing that?
It sounds nice, but it isn't as simple as you make it sound.
It is a shame that you learned nothing about American History in school.
You're not alone of course... there is reason you want (or should want) and armed population...
It was different...
His parents were married all their adult lives and remained together until their death.
Corporal punishment was allowed in school, kids did not talk back to teachers and were taught respect for their elders.
He also went to an all white school of middle class Americans where everyone had a common background and understood each other.
50+ years ago was a different world, and while it was unfair to a lot of people (mostly anyone who wasn't white), it was a world in which these mass shootings were not so common.
It was also a world where you could spank other people's kids if they got out of line, kids could go out and play all day outside unsupervised, and so on...
Of course, it had other issues... but in this specific case, we were better off...
And the idea that schools in the US even need "gun-free zone" signs is bat-shit crazy. On the other side of the world, I did not need any sign or rule to know that if I sneaked my dad's shotgun into school, I'd be facing certain suspension. (That was before secure gun safes were mandatory.)
And that is a shame... my father took his rifle to school and kept it in his locker, they had a gun club at school and kids would often go shooting after classes were out...
And he has never owned a gun safe, and amazingly enough in 71 years none of his guns have jumped up and shot anyone... No one in any of his schools was ever shot either...
Guns didn't change, society did, for the worse...
Most people are not single issue voters... There is plenty to not like about both parties and frankly one of those things is that both parties have worked very hard to keep a third party out of the game...
It is very simplistic to suggest that this is only the fault of the average US voter...
It really isn't. It is the fault of some select people in power who use that power and money to get their way. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and not a perfect one.
But you have to take the system you have, not the one you wish you had. Your other option is revolution, and that is bloody and messy and frankly doesn't happen very often to a well fed population.
You think you're funny... but 15a 120v power wires can burn your house down if not hooked up properly...
Plenty of house fires from people who thought they knew what they were doing...
Note: I like guns. Own several. But the constitution does not specify 'arms' very specifically. People, generally, cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nukes, cannons, explosives, etc.. ). The people that are allowed to own weapons with huge destructive capabilities have to go through a much more restrictive process of checks, licenses, fees, etc..
There is nothing in our constitution that would block our ability to regulate the level of "destructiveness" a person is able to own. We do it already to several classes of weapons. We could choose to apply stricter regulations, background checks, etc.. to lower levels of weapons.
My first response to this was going to be... less understanding...
However, after thinking about it, there is a fair point to be made there... clearly we aren't going to be selling nuclear weapons at Walmart, so the limit has to be somewhere between a BB gun and a nuclear weapon. The question then becomes, what is that limit?
My primary issue is that those "restrictions" are also set by the very same government that should fear its citizens, rather than the other way around.
I don't want people to walk into Walmart and buy a 50 caliber machine gun without some serious background inspections, licenses, mental health checks, etc..? Do you?
Ahh... yes and no... the problem is if you allow the government to have a list of everyone who has weapons, it becomes very easy for that same government to take them all away. Of course, the NFA is more than 80 years old now, so perhaps that ship has sailed.
I do think that select-fire weapons should be legal to purchase again, but you're right, they probably shouldn't be sold over the counter.
If not, then what is the issue with applying stricter control to handguns? It isn't taking away your right to own the gun.
Handguns are person defensive weapons, those along with shotguns and semi-automatic rifles should not have very many restrictions on them.
The other consideration is that plenty of places "allow" you to have a handgun if you're special. If you're not, tough luck.
Any permitting system should be on a "shall issue" basis. My gut response is against such systems, however I'd be willing to compromise on the issue, in return for a few things. Most notably I want national uniform laws that allow concealed carry, national "shall issue" laws to any permits required for guns, and I'd like the 2nd amendment updated to make it very clear that the right to buy and own guns and hold them in personal possession is clear and confusing.
You are living in fantasy land if you think you'll reach 100% perfection with zero mistakes.
I have responded, you simply are not hearing it, or don't want to hear it, or your world view is so different than it isn't possible for you to hear it.
And I suppose at the end of the day, that's ok.
So if you have 2 guys doing each panel, and it takes 2.5 hours to do each panel (it doesn't, but lets say it does), and you pay them $20/hr, you're at $100 a panel.
Fair enough, double that to $200/hr since the company has to make money.
$3,200 for 16 panels.
Out of $18k install costs, that still isn't much, and these new panels don't cut the panel count in half. :(
I'm honestly not trying to be hard about this, I just don't think the cost of adding one more panel to an install makes THAT much difference.
Regardless, I'm still hoping to hear someone suggest a company in the Dallas area that doesn't charge stupid rates.
An installed cost of $2 per watt would get me really excited about it. The current prices of $3.50 per watt just make no sense.
No, I was not, that is the first time I'd heard the name, thanks for pointing that out.
Wars do not have to be declared... No on has to "sign up to it".
Now, I'll agree that the "war on terror" is just as useless as the "war on drugs", but that is another topic...
The US has been at war with someone since the end of WWII, this isn't new.
100 years ago, The British Empire was at war with someone most of the time as well, that wasn't new. Before them it was the Spanish, before them it was someone else...
Welcome to the human race. :(
All I know is that I lack enough information to have an informed opinion, as do 99.9% of the people posting about it.
Clearly something went wrong, either intentionally or by mistake.
It sucks, but frankly that is war. It makes the news, barely, and then life goes on. The sad thing is that most people care, but not enough to do anything about it.
Before calling other people ignorant, you should first check to make sure you're not ignorant.
Mistakes happen in war, people get killed. It sucks, but that is how it is.
If you don't like it, don't have war. But since it takes 2 sides to agree to not have war, if one side wants to fight, you either fight back or die.
This is the human condition.
I once checked out an archive of old Nazi political cartoons, and indeed they made use of that very sort of thing. There was one incident for example where the allies accidentally bombed Switzerland not long after hitting a hospital in Germany during a bombing raid. The cartoon played on the similarity of the Swiss flag and the Red Cross flag, with the allied pilot apologizing to the Swiss on the grounds that he got the flags mixed up.
Yes, but that was Nazi media directed to Germans, not US Media directed to Americans...
We couldn't have won WWII if CNN was doing what they do today...
War is hell, it sucks, but the quickest way to win is to destroy the enemy until he/she finally figured out that their ideas and ways are lost and agrees to convert. Or die, either is fine.
It took the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to finally get them to cry uncle and give up their ways.
It is fantasy...
Assad is scum, but at least he is semi-rational scum...
ISIS is insane and needs to be put to bed... Assad you can ignore, ISIS you can't...
The Russians (gasp) have it right on this one...
The Afghan Police concerned are still swearing up and down they were taking fire from the building.
Maybe they were... it wouldn't the first time that an enemy used a hospital or other "off limits" location to fight from.
In short, what the fuck are we fighting for?
Profits of corporations, protection of the first world banking system, the military industrial complex...
You're on slashdot, you should know that...