I recently had my 2nd child, and I have been living in a large-ish 1 bedroom apartment with my wife and first child because the rent was damn good and the location excellent. I live in the greater Vancouver area, and housing prices are stupid. Getting a 2 bedroom place is very likely to double my rent for a lesser location and an overall smaller square footage unless I am willing to increase my commute from 'less than 30 minutes by transit' to 'about an hour and requires a car'.
A conversation with a friend indicated an opportunity at his workplace, and I took a shot at it and got it. I managed a 20% pay increase too.
'Being Online' is way too broad a descriptor for spending leisure time.
I do not see any reason to differentiate between watching standard cable / broadcast TV and watching a movie, tv show, or other video content via a Netflix / Hulu / YouTube / whatever.
For free to play games, the tech support is primarily viewed as customer support. They know how much you pay, and the level of attention you get will be scaled to how much you are known to spend. I know this from a previous job where I was implementing the code for our game to use a 3rd party tech support service.
It is not the fault of whoever ended up speaking to your wife, as call center employees are basically doing what they are told. But for the developers and publishers of Freemium games, helping or catering to players that generate zero revenue is not a priority. There is literally no incentive for the publisher to pay a customer support tech to help your wife who is not spending any money, as she is not really a customer.
Fundamentally, Netflix created movies are the same medium as theatrical releases. Netflix has series that have won Emmy's. They want the same shot for their other content, particularly their documentaries.
There are a few good reasons for Netflix to want to do this.
- Competition for and Recognition of Talent: Netflix's shareholders and such might not care if a movie gets any nominations. The actors, writers, and directors probably do.
- Competition for Content: If someone makes a documentary, they shop it around. If the ownesr are hoping to win an Oscar, they will disregard Netflix if going with them means no chance of an Oscar. - Free Advertising: Being able to point to movies that have won awards may attract subscribers.
Of course the more popular Netflix became the more they wanted to charge Netflix. Netflix negotiates deals based on being able to show the content for X number of years. Lets say you own SuperAwesomeMovie 7, and you make a 3 year deal. You may assume that only 15% of Netflix subscribers will watch the movie, so you make a deal for 10 million dollars. If a year and a half into the deal, Netflix overall subscriber base tripled, you are now kicking yourself because your now only getting maybe 1/3rd of what you ought to.
DVD sales used to be massively lucrative, and a solid movie would sell 1 copy per potential viewer. You set your initial price high, and lower it over time to maximize your revenue. Maybe your movie is not a blockbuster, but if it did better on home video then in theaters, you were doing well.
Netflix has killed that revenue stream. Instead you have to negotiate a good deal for streaming rights. Netflix will know exactly how often your movie gets watched and what it is worth to them when the time comes to renew the deal. You can only make an educated guess based on disclosed number of subscribers.
For movie studios, Netflix is that one poker buddy who keeps cleaning you out every week. You need him at the table to play the game, but it would be nice to win once in a while.
The problem with saying that these companies should be broken up is that there is that the United States is not the only country in the world.
Companies that operate internationally are all competing on the same playing field, but depending on which country their HQ is in, they are not necessarily playing by the same rules. The reason outsourcing is a thing is because those countries do not have the same labour laws.
My point: TenCent and Alibaba are Chinese companies. Why should China compel them to be broken up, and why should they subject themselves to American laws saying they are too big and should be broken up?
The United States can regulate activities within its borders and impose all sorts of tariffs, but I do not think requiring these companies get broken up is the answer.
Ok, so you think Disney has too much of a monopolistic influence in entertainment. I disagree that it is a significant problem, provided that the contracts of the key content creators they have under their control are not unreasonably coercive. Being a bigger content provider does not worry me. I would be worried if they started buying and operating movie theaters or broadband networks (ie, buying Comcast).
Disney is fundamentally a creator of content. They own ABC and want to have their own streaming service, but the foundation of their power is the content they create.
They are not in a position to prevent other groups from creating content, and nothing they do can diminish the quality of the content.
Putting it another way, you are allowed to like both DC and Marvel comics. You are allowed to like Star Trek and Star wars. You may like one better than the other, but within the constraints of your own time and budget, you are free to enjoy both.
Unless they are in a position to force customers to be unable to watch competitors offerings, I do not see any real problem here.
Clearly you see a problem, but what is an ideal situation for you, and how does it change things from how they are now for a typical consumer?
The argument for Universal Basic Income should not be based on any concept of fairness or trying to guarantee outcomes. That path is generally unworkable anyway.
It should be about self preservation.
If a societies wealth ends up too concentrated among a small segment of the population (say 10%), you are going to end up with 90% of the population having a huge incentive to destroy the social economic system that is screwing them over.
More bluntly, a rich person is able to live a life of comfort and luxury because all of his poorer neighbors are not envious and angry enough to want to tear his head off and take his shit.
If 90% of the population is living in poverty and squalor, the wealthy 10% have a good incentive to spread enough of the wealth around to keep that 90% content enough that they do not want to murder wealthy.
Complaining about too much screen time misses the point.
The problem has never been 'too much video games' or 'too much facebook'. The problem is 'Not enough meaningful activities that improve ones quality of life". As long as any given individual is doing something that is personally fulfilling, and as long as they put enough time and effort into those things, it really does not matter how they use the rest of their time.
But if a random person has few friends, no hobbies, and lacks the means and opportunity to find and pursue something of interest to them, they are going to be depressed and isolated.
Before 'Screen Time' became a thing with smart phones, it existed with The Internet, Game Consoles, and TV. Trying to arbitrarily reduce screen time is not really solving the right problem.
When this kind of issue starts to cause actual problems, you do not want to focus on minimizing screen time; You want to focus on maximizing activities that have either a social component, or that carries other benefits that contribute to general success in life.
Teens between 13 and 15 years old have a combination of a maximum amount of free time to pursue whatever interests they may have combined with minimal responsibilities. But when there is a lack of opportunity to pursue anything that can both engage their attention and benefit them in any meaningful way, there is no shortage of activities that can engage attention and provide nothing in return.
When shopping for any new gaming console, NEVER pick the hardware first. Since this is for some kids, figure out which games the kids are going to want to play. If any of them are exclusive to one console or the other, then your decision has been made for you. If Gears of War or Halo is on the list, your getting an XBox. If Gran Turismo or Ultra Street Fighter IV are on the list of games that they want to play, get the PS4.
If the games that they want are multi-platform, then the next things to consider are which controller is better in the opinion of the players, and what platform their friends play on (if online competitive play is a drawing point for the kids).
In my view of things, in any democratic society governed by the rule of law, people can only become as wealthy as the masses are willing to tolerate.
Maybe some of those who are rich managed to get there by hard work and talent, or maybe they were born into it. Either way, the only reason that the rich are able to stay rich, at a fundamental level, is that every other person in that society is willing to tolerate it. If the poor become angry enough, they will basically either steal all the shit that the rich person has by force, or just outright murder the fucker by forming an angry mob and going after them.
The basic income scheme can be viewed as the rich and powerful having enough foresight to see this possibility and trying to placate the mob sharing the wealth.
Besides, it also helps to keep in mind that those who are truly wealthy are in a position that which country they chose to live in is a near trivial matter of choice. If you have a billion dollars in the bank, and do not like the taxes in one place, you can afford to move to another place with a more hospitable tax regime.
Set aside for a moment about which programming language you like to use the most, and how much it upsets you that "People you Do Not Know also Do Not Like what You Like". Many of us are employed to work on projects we did not start. In most cases, you are not going to start a job and tell people 'Henceforth, all code shall now be implemented in the One True Language'.
Assuming that, which language is going to get you paid the most and make you most employable?
I am a game developer, and I have worked on consoles and currently on mobile games. I have used mostly C++. But I have had to work with pure C and C#. Being able to write good code in C++ is primarily responsible for me being employed.
I would want my daughter to know who her father is as a person.
There is a great deal about you that your child will remember. But there are clearly stories about yourself that you would never tell a 12 year old girl. Things like the first time you got drunk, or did something that horrified your parents. Essentially, things that your best friends and wife might know but might not tell your child about.
So tell your kid about the first time you got drunk, but also say why you did that and what you were thinking. Tell you child about the most important decisions you made in your life, and why you made them. Tell your child about your regrets and what you wish you could have done differently. If you have any strong beliefs that are important to you, talk about them and why they are important.
The FBI has counter intelligence responsibilities (ie, dealing with foreign spies in the US), and some portion of related counter terrorism responsibilities, so they do have a legit need for the data.
While this does not exclude the possibility of general misuse of the data by the FBI, it is worth keeping in mind.
If an officer with a camera is in the presence of a man who facial recognition flags as a possible match for someone with an open warrant out on them, it would probably be a good thing for the officer to be alerted about the match.
Now, of course what I am thinking of is the situation where some guy with an open murder warrent in Florida is spotted laying low in Wyoming. Having that guy picked up is probably a good thing.
I wonder exactly what sort of abuse you foresee with that situation? I am sure there are things that can go wrong.
The character was created in 1962, which puts it just over 50 years of existence. But the character is still being used in new and ongoing works. I expect that 100 years from now, the character will continue to exist in some form.
I think copyright laws need to recognize that characters used in ongoing works need different protection then something like a song (which is written once).
I am personally not in favor of a the Death Penalty, but I can understand why it exists and the arguments for having it.
I would say that if your going to have Capital punishment, then the means of execution should be mechanical, and performed in such a way as to minimize suffering. To that end, I agree with the idea of a dropping a sufficiently large mass on the skull of the condemned man, sufficient enough to crush a skull like a grape.
Lethal injection primarily exists to make executions more palatable by making them less gruesome. I disagree with this. Even if justified, ending a human life should not be an easy thing for those who must decide that it must happen.
Solitary Confinement is the sort of thing that should only be used for the following reasons:
- The inmate is dangerous to both other inmates and to the prison staff
- The inmate is guilty of crimes that call for very harsh punitive measures, but execution is not an option
- The inmate is being punished for rules infractions in prison (in which case solitary should be used for a limited time).
You need to have solitary confinement as an option to punish an inmate, otherwise the inmate may become uncontrolable. If your in prison and have no chance to ever be released, then why not stab that annoying cellmate / guard? They cannot keep you locked up for 2 life times. Solitary is the 'things can still get worse' measure.
The guy who created pirate bay is guilty of copyright infringement. I am going to assume he is not a threat to himself or others. So what basis is there for dropping him in solitary confinement?
Their names were never published, and only discovered in an illegal search. If I write down in my notebook 'Cowboy Neal has inappropriate sexual relations with his water bottle', and never tell anyone what I have written, and never publish it, than what exactly am I guilty of?
If they license that content out to another platform, they lose a non trivial cut of that cash to the platform owner. If they release on the iPhone, I do not think the title would sell very well to an audience that expects everything to cost $1.
$40 * 4 million = $160 million in sales.
Do you think Pokemon would move 160 million paid sales on the iPhone?
Keeping that product on their own platform will give Nintendo the bulk of that profit, and it will help increase the size of the audience for other 3DS titles.
The 4th Amendment of the US constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, this can be taken to mean that the police cannot pull a random passer by aside and go wrist deep into your rectal cavity on the off chance you might have something illegal up there, as it is unreasonable. I think I will get no disagreement on that.
Now, the reason that the above example is an unreasonable search is that it is absurdly invasive and there is no warrant, and in that particular scenario, there is no way to easily verify that the police officer doing the search did not plant evidence (or basically lie about finding a quantity of drugs or contraband up there).
The above example might become reasonable if the authorities were to follow due process and had reasonable cause to believe that there is something deep inside the suspects rectal cavity.
I think most people get hung up on the idea that the only reasonable search is one that has a warrant.
If the authorities opt instead to data mine thousands of e-mails looking for evidence of random wrongdoing the assumption of many is going to be that it is an unreasonable search. But on what basis is it unreasonable? Lets say such a search of several thousand suspects the authorities identify a few potential suspects of legit crimes, and the authorities then prosecute them. The people that were not implicated in that search will probably never know they were under scrutiny, and they would be hard pressed to prove any actual harm from that search.
So why exactly is that kind of search unreasonable? I am not about to say that such a search is reasonable (at least not without a warrant to go looking for something specific), but the only argument against it is for an expectation of privacy. While such an argument is valid, I am not aware of any laws in the US that guarantee privacy from non invasive scrutiny.
The big issue with Fukushima at the moment is the build up of radioactive water that they do not want to introduce into the ocean / food chain.
If one were to use Electrolysis to separate the radioactive water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, would the Hydrogen and Oxygen also be radioactive? Or would the radioactive matter be condensed?
It may not be the most efficient use of power to convert the amount of water at Fukushima, but it would probably be much easier to manage the waste if it were condensed.
I wonder how air travel compares to rail when you also factor in the cost of the required infrastructure. Trains are much more fuel efficient, but laying massive amounts of rail is not cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently had my 2nd child, and I have been living in a large-ish 1 bedroom apartment with my wife and first child because the rent was damn good and the location excellent. I live in the greater Vancouver area, and housing prices are stupid. Getting a 2 bedroom place is very likely to double my rent for a lesser location and an overall smaller square footage unless I am willing to increase my commute from 'less than 30 minutes by transit' to 'about an hour and requires a car'.
A conversation with a friend indicated an opportunity at his workplace, and I took a shot at it and got it. I managed a 20% pay increase too.
END COMMUNICATION
'Being Online' is way too broad a descriptor for spending leisure time.
I do not see any reason to differentiate between watching standard cable / broadcast TV and watching a movie, tv show, or other video content via a Netflix / Hulu / YouTube / whatever.
END COMMUNICATION
Next time your in a 7/11, take a look at the section with prepaid cards for iTunes and Android. You can buy those with cash.
https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/...
END COMMUNICATION
For free to play games, the tech support is primarily viewed as customer support. They know how much you pay, and the level of attention you get will be scaled to how much you are known to spend. I know this from a previous job where I was implementing the code for our game to use a 3rd party tech support service.
It is not the fault of whoever ended up speaking to your wife, as call center employees are basically doing what they are told. But for the developers and publishers of Freemium games, helping or catering to players that generate zero revenue is not a priority. There is literally no incentive for the publisher to pay a customer support tech to help your wife who is not spending any money, as she is not really a customer.
END COMMUNICATION
Fundamentally, Netflix created movies are the same medium as theatrical releases. Netflix has series that have won Emmy's. They want the same shot for their other content, particularly their documentaries.
There are a few good reasons for Netflix to want to do this.
- Competition for and Recognition of Talent: Netflix's shareholders and such might not care if a movie gets any nominations. The actors, writers, and directors probably do.
- Competition for Content: If someone makes a documentary, they shop it around. If the ownesr are hoping to win an Oscar, they will disregard Netflix if going with them means no chance of an Oscar.
- Free Advertising: Being able to point to movies that have won awards may attract subscribers.
END COMMUNICATION
Of course the more popular Netflix became the more they wanted to charge Netflix. Netflix negotiates deals based on being able to show the content for X number of years. Lets say you own SuperAwesomeMovie 7, and you make a 3 year deal. You may assume that only 15% of Netflix subscribers will watch the movie, so you make a deal for 10 million dollars. If a year and a half into the deal, Netflix overall subscriber base tripled, you are now kicking yourself because your now only getting maybe 1/3rd of what you ought to.
DVD sales used to be massively lucrative, and a solid movie would sell 1 copy per potential viewer. You set your initial price high, and lower it over time to maximize your revenue. Maybe your movie is not a blockbuster, but if it did better on home video then in theaters, you were doing well.
Netflix has killed that revenue stream. Instead you have to negotiate a good deal for streaming rights. Netflix will know exactly how often your movie gets watched and what it is worth to them when the time comes to renew the deal. You can only make an educated guess based on disclosed number of subscribers.
For movie studios, Netflix is that one poker buddy who keeps cleaning you out every week. You need him at the table to play the game, but it would be nice to win once in a while.
END COMMUNICATION
The problem with saying that these companies should be broken up is that there is that the United States is not the only country in the world.
Companies that operate internationally are all competing on the same playing field, but depending on which country their HQ is in, they are not necessarily playing by the same rules. The reason outsourcing is a thing is because those countries do not have the same labour laws.
My point: TenCent and Alibaba are Chinese companies. Why should China compel them to be broken up, and why should they subject themselves to American laws saying they are too big and should be broken up?
The United States can regulate activities within its borders and impose all sorts of tariffs, but I do not think requiring these companies get broken up is the answer.
END COMMUNICATION
Ok, so you think Disney has too much of a monopolistic influence in entertainment. I disagree that it is a significant problem, provided that the contracts of the key content creators they have under their control are not unreasonably coercive. Being a bigger content provider does not worry me. I would be worried if they started buying and operating movie theaters or broadband networks (ie, buying Comcast).
Disney is fundamentally a creator of content. They own ABC and want to have their own streaming service, but the foundation of their power is the content they create.
They are not in a position to prevent other groups from creating content, and nothing they do can diminish the quality of the content.
Putting it another way, you are allowed to like both DC and Marvel comics. You are allowed to like Star Trek and Star wars. You may like one better than the other, but within the constraints of your own time and budget, you are free to enjoy both.
Unless they are in a position to force customers to be unable to watch competitors offerings, I do not see any real problem here.
Clearly you see a problem, but what is an ideal situation for you, and how does it change things from how they are now for a typical consumer?
END COMMUNICATION
The argument for Universal Basic Income should not be based on any concept of fairness or trying to guarantee outcomes. That path is generally unworkable anyway.
It should be about self preservation.
If a societies wealth ends up too concentrated among a small segment of the population (say 10%), you are going to end up with 90% of the population having a huge incentive to destroy the social economic system that is screwing them over.
More bluntly, a rich person is able to live a life of comfort and luxury because all of his poorer neighbors are not envious and angry enough to want to tear his head off and take his shit.
If 90% of the population is living in poverty and squalor, the wealthy 10% have a good incentive to spread enough of the wealth around to keep that 90% content enough that they do not want to murder wealthy.
END COMMUNICATION
Complaining about too much screen time misses the point.
The problem has never been 'too much video games' or 'too much facebook'. The problem is 'Not enough meaningful activities that improve ones quality of life". As long as any given individual is doing something that is personally fulfilling, and as long as they put enough time and effort into those things, it really does not matter how they use the rest of their time.
But if a random person has few friends, no hobbies, and lacks the means and opportunity to find and pursue something of interest to them, they are going to be depressed and isolated.
END COMMUNICATION
Before 'Screen Time' became a thing with smart phones, it existed with The Internet, Game Consoles, and TV. Trying to arbitrarily reduce screen time is not really solving the right problem.
When this kind of issue starts to cause actual problems, you do not want to focus on minimizing screen time; You want to focus on maximizing activities that have either a social component, or that carries other benefits that contribute to general success in life.
Teens between 13 and 15 years old have a combination of a maximum amount of free time to pursue whatever interests they may have combined with minimal responsibilities. But when there is a lack of opportunity to pursue anything that can both engage their attention and benefit them in any meaningful way, there is no shortage of activities that can engage attention and provide nothing in return.
END COMMUNICATION
When shopping for any new gaming console, NEVER pick the hardware first. Since this is for some kids, figure out which games the kids are going to want to play. If any of them are exclusive to one console or the other, then your decision has been made for you. If Gears of War or Halo is on the list, your getting an XBox. If Gran Turismo or Ultra Street Fighter IV are on the list of games that they want to play, get the PS4.
If the games that they want are multi-platform, then the next things to consider are which controller is better in the opinion of the players, and what platform their friends play on (if online competitive play is a drawing point for the kids).
END COMMUICATION
I tend to think of it a bit differently.
In my view of things, in any democratic society governed by the rule of law, people can only become as wealthy as the masses are willing to tolerate.
Maybe some of those who are rich managed to get there by hard work and talent, or maybe they were born into it. Either way, the only reason that the rich are able to stay rich, at a fundamental level, is that every other person in that society is willing to tolerate it. If the poor become angry enough, they will basically either steal all the shit that the rich person has by force, or just outright murder the fucker by forming an angry mob and going after them.
The basic income scheme can be viewed as the rich and powerful having enough foresight to see this possibility and trying to placate the mob sharing the wealth.
Besides, it also helps to keep in mind that those who are truly wealthy are in a position that which country they chose to live in is a near trivial matter of choice. If you have a billion dollars in the bank, and do not like the taxes in one place, you can afford to move to another place with a more hospitable tax regime.
END COMMUNICATION
Set aside for a moment about which programming language you like to use the most, and how much it upsets you that "People you Do Not Know also Do Not Like what You Like". Many of us are employed to work on projects we did not start. In most cases, you are not going to start a job and tell people 'Henceforth, all code shall now be implemented in the One True Language'.
Assuming that, which language is going to get you paid the most and make you most employable?
I am a game developer, and I have worked on consoles and currently on mobile games. I have used mostly C++. But I have had to work with pure C and C#. Being able to write good code in C++ is primarily responsible for me being employed.
END COMMUNICATION
I would want my daughter to know who her father is as a person.
There is a great deal about you that your child will remember. But there are clearly stories about yourself that you would never tell a 12 year old girl.
Things like the first time you got drunk, or did something that horrified your parents. Essentially, things that your best friends and wife might know but might not tell your child about.
So tell your kid about the first time you got drunk, but also say why you did that and what you were thinking. Tell you child about the most important decisions you made in your life, and why you made them. Tell your child about your regrets and what you wish you could have done differently. If you have any strong beliefs that are important to you, talk about them and why they are important.
END COMMUNICATION
The FBI has counter intelligence responsibilities (ie, dealing with foreign spies in the US), and some portion of related counter terrorism responsibilities, so they do have a legit need for the data.
While this does not exclude the possibility of general misuse of the data by the FBI, it is worth keeping in mind.
END COMMUNICATION
If an officer with a camera is in the presence of a man who facial recognition flags as a possible match for someone with an open warrant out on them, it would probably be a good thing for the officer to be alerted about the match.
Now, of course what I am thinking of is the situation where some guy with an open murder warrent in Florida is spotted laying low in Wyoming. Having that guy picked up is probably a good thing.
I wonder exactly what sort of abuse you foresee with that situation? I am sure there are things that can go wrong.
END COMMUNICATION
Consider Spiderman.
The character was created in 1962, which puts it just over 50 years of existence. But the character is still being used in new and ongoing works. I expect that 100 years from now, the character will continue to exist in some form.
I think copyright laws need to recognize that characters used in ongoing works need different protection then something like a song (which is written once).
END COMMUNICATION
I am personally not in favor of a the Death Penalty, but I can understand why it exists and the arguments for having it.
I would say that if your going to have Capital punishment, then the means of execution should be mechanical, and performed in such a way as to minimize suffering. To that end, I agree with the idea of a dropping a sufficiently large mass on the skull of the condemned man, sufficient enough to crush a skull like a grape.
Lethal injection primarily exists to make executions more palatable by making them less gruesome. I disagree with this. Even if justified, ending a human life should not be an easy thing for those who must decide that it must happen.
END COMMUNICATION
Solitary Confinement is the sort of thing that should only be used for the following reasons:
- The inmate is dangerous to both other inmates and to the prison staff
- The inmate is guilty of crimes that call for very harsh punitive measures, but execution is not an option
- The inmate is being punished for rules infractions in prison (in which case solitary should be used for a limited time).
You need to have solitary confinement as an option to punish an inmate, otherwise the inmate may become uncontrolable. If your in prison and have no chance to ever be released, then why not stab that annoying cellmate / guard? They cannot keep you locked up for 2 life times. Solitary is the 'things can still get worse' measure.
The guy who created pirate bay is guilty of copyright infringement. I am going to assume he is not a threat to himself or others. So what basis is there for dropping him in solitary confinement?
END COMMUNICATION
Their names were never published, and only discovered in an illegal search. If I write down in my notebook 'Cowboy Neal has inappropriate sexual relations with his water bottle', and never tell anyone what I have written, and never publish it, than what exactly am I guilty of?
END COMMUNICATION
Pokemon X and Y have sold 4 million copies worldwide in two days.
http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/pokemon-x-and-y-sales-figures-revealed
The retail price for those games is about $40.
If they license that content out to another platform, they lose a non trivial cut of that cash to the platform owner. If they release on the iPhone, I do not think the title would sell very well to an audience that expects everything to cost $1.
$40 * 4 million = $160 million in sales.
Do you think Pokemon would move 160 million paid sales on the iPhone?
Keeping that product on their own platform will give Nintendo the bulk of that profit, and it will help increase the size of the audience for other 3DS titles.
END COMMUNICATION
The 4th Amendment of the US constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, this can be taken to mean that the police cannot pull a random passer by aside and go wrist deep into your rectal cavity on the off chance you might have something illegal up there, as it is unreasonable. I think I will get no disagreement on that.
Now, the reason that the above example is an unreasonable search is that it is absurdly invasive and there is no warrant, and in that particular scenario, there is no way to easily verify that the police officer doing the search did not plant evidence (or basically lie about finding a quantity of drugs or contraband up there).
The above example might become reasonable if the authorities were to follow due process and had reasonable cause to believe that there is something deep inside the suspects rectal cavity.
I think most people get hung up on the idea that the only reasonable search is one that has a warrant.
If the authorities opt instead to data mine thousands of e-mails looking for evidence of random wrongdoing the assumption of many is going to be that it is an unreasonable search. But on what basis is it unreasonable? Lets say such a search of several thousand suspects the authorities identify a few potential suspects of legit crimes, and the authorities then prosecute them. The people that were not implicated in that search will probably never know they were under scrutiny, and they would be hard pressed to prove any actual harm from that search.
So why exactly is that kind of search unreasonable? I am not about to say that such a search is reasonable (at least not without a warrant to go looking for something specific), but the only argument against it is for an expectation of privacy. While such an argument is valid, I am not aware of any laws in the US that guarantee privacy from non invasive scrutiny.
END COMMUNICATION
The big issue with Fukushima at the moment is the build up of radioactive water that they do not want to introduce into the ocean / food chain.
If one were to use Electrolysis to separate the radioactive water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, would the Hydrogen and Oxygen also be radioactive? Or would the radioactive matter be condensed?
It may not be the most efficient use of power to convert the amount of water at Fukushima, but it would probably be much easier to manage the waste if it were condensed.
END COMMUNICATION
I wonder how air travel compares to rail when you also factor in the cost of the required infrastructure. Trains are much more fuel efficient, but laying massive amounts of rail is not cheap.
END COMMUNICATION