Other posters are spot-on. The bandwidth isn't the issue, it's the latency. I had trouble just getting ssh work done over a consumer satellite connection because the delay for characters I typed to show up killed me. Pointy-clicky stuff is even worse.
I don't know what your exact setup is, but find a way to artificially induce 1-2 seconds of latency in your connection. Test it and see if you can still work with it before you commit.
The plan as I understand it is for Sebelius to continue being the lighting rod for as long as possible and then resign when the shit starts quieting down a bit thereby sparing higher ups.
No way in hell they allow her to resign until well after Obamacare stops being controversial. Why? They'd never be able to get a senate confirmation for a replacement.
I really don't think that's an actual good counter to a MAD situation..
The problem is that MAD is merely weakly so. If it were the difference between making the rubble bounce once or ten times, it wouldn't matter. But the difference between partial and a far more complete destruction can be good enough to weaken or negate the purpose of MAD.
Disagree a bit, as I often do. The logic of MAD works as long as the outcome is assured and prohibitively costly. It does not matter whether one side is more destroyed than the other, just that both sides know their losses would be unacceptably high.
Generally, increased nuclear capabilities are developed to satisfy the Mutually Assured part, not to increase the Destruction. You need large stockpiles to have a credible second strike capability. That is the basis of the US's nuclear triad. It's all about being able to say "you can find a way to hit me by surprise with your entire arsenal, and I will still have the remaining capacity to inflict more cost than you could ever benefit by attacking me". Doesn't matter if that's cost or cost + 1 million, it's still cost > benefit.
Nobody wanted to deny the widow of Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) her $174,000 payout.
To be fair, that payment was already going to go to her. It wasn't something new. Congress routinely gives a death gratuity equal to one year's salary to the surviving spouse. It wasn't some one-off from people trying to sneak a payout into the CR.
Personally, I'm OK with that, but I think regular life insurance could do the job just fine.
but do you really think Obama's race isn't a factor? If so, why are we hearing so much vitriol about him being "different", "secretly Muslim", "Kenyan", etc.?
This is the wonderful "because some people hate black people, every disagreement with someone who happens to be black is racism" argument.
Clearly this is some form of reverse racism. I just think everyone must be racist because some people are, and I didn't ask why there is a brand new, unique brand of rhetoric that has only appeared under the first black President.
I never said "every disagreement". I said people are calling him "different" and "Kenyan" and "secretly Muslim" with a few winks and nods thrown in. And then I asked what it could be other than racism. You. did. not. answer.
And if the Tea Party is more concerned with freedom than race, why is it attacking voting rights for minorities?
It isn't. Next question?
Beautiful argument, you could be on Fox! I have a counter: "Yes it is".
Please stop trying to sound so tough and confident, and start thinking logically. I'd like to see the right pull its head out so America can resume healthy political discourse. You're not helping.
You mean vocal minority? The most vocal part of any organization will almost assuredly be a minority of that organization. The Tea Party is no different.
Do you judge Christians by the Evangelicals, or liberals by eco-terrorists?
No, but I judge Catholics by the actions of the Pope and the church leadership they support. And guess what? I judge political parties by the actions and rhetoric of their leadership as well. The Tea Party doesn't just have a few nutters--it's covered in batshit from top to bottom.
What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.
That is a calculated political attack, it isn't true. You may recall that Herman Cain was strongly supported by the Tea Party in the presidential race.
It's partly true. Some in the Tea Party may support some blacks who are with them, but do you really think Obama's race isn't a factor? If so, why are we hearing so much vitriol about him being "different", "secretly Muslim", "Kenyan", etc.?
And if the Tea Party is more concerned with freedom than race, why is it attacking voting rights for minorities?
The UK does have a constitution, it is just an unwritten one, in the sense that its constitution is not self-contained inside a single document. You need further proof? The UK Constitution functions as a wiki page.
FTFY.
I am a bit envious, though. I would love to live in a society without a self-righteous political party that always carries a small version of a magical book in its pocket, loudly proclaiming that they have the only true interpretation.
I know your kind is nearly extinct, so I hate to argue with a 3-digiter... but I feel compelled to point out that "telling the truth" has always been potentially, justifiably treason. One example: troop movements and plans during a war. Nobody would buy the "I was just telling the truth" defense any more than they would believe a mob boss ordering a hit is just "speaking".
We can't have an honest debate if the "pro-truth" side is hiding behind simple platitudes. We are talking about the extent to which the press has a right to expose the sources and methods of some of the governments' most secret intelligence programs. We are not talking about whether the press is allowed to report a car accident. Personally, I don't support what Snowden did, but the Guardian seems to be at least somewhat responsible in its handling. At least compared to wikileaks.
Minor nitpick: the queen is the Head of State in the UK, Cameron is just the head of government. Not nearly as catchy, but always bugs me that people don't differentiate.
This corporate protection from individual liability works for the bad guys, it works for good guys, it works for everyone.
It doesn't work for little guys that often anymore. Piercing the corporate veil is becoming a common practice, and I'd bet that wouldn't be hard against IsoHunt. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if promising not to do it was part of the settlement.
Yes, that debt is bad, but believing that it must be reduced at all costs - and one of those costs being increasing the interest rate on the debt to make the debt worse - is a bad solution.
Understatement of the nanosecond, buddy.
It's been amazing to watch the GOP shift from "debt doesn't matter" to such an obsession. I wonder how that will change if they end up back in power.
They particularly resent the way it was forced through Congress with the comment, "You'll have to pass it in order to find out what's in it." and now that they know what's in it, they know why it was done that way.
Let's be honest here. Nothing was "forced" through Congress. Republicans had months to negotiate and offer constructive criticism. Instead, they organized yell-fests, screamed "LIAR!" at every Democrat they could find, spread FUD about death panels. And even when they joined negotiations and got their concessions, Republicans reneged on their promises to support the bill.
The Senate then had to pass it with a super majority, it had to be signed off on by the House, and ultimately signed by the President. Republicans need to stop using the term "forced" and "dictator", and most certainly "socialism" if they want to be taken seriously.
Now, if we were still funding the government the way we used to, with separate appropriation bills instead of a single, all-inclusive budget bill, this probably wouldn't have happened.
The real concern here should be the debt ceiling. It is absolutely ridiculous that Congress could pass a budget with a deficit without inherently granting Treasury the authority to borrow. Revoke the debt ceiling entirely, or at least bring back the Gephardt Rule. Shutdowns will continue to happen as long as we have a party that is holding a hostage it wants to see dead.
I don't see how that is relevant. We are not talking about punishing the person who said it, we are talking about punishing the website which allowed public comment. I don't see where its the responsibility of anyone but the courts to enforce their laws.
To be a bit more precise, we are talking about a news outlet that publishes comments. Publishers do bear some well-defined responsibility for the materials they publish, and I don't see how writing "Anonymous" in the byline changes that. Nor do I see how "but it's on the interwebz!" changes anything.
I followed the original trial very closely. At no point have I said it was only about rounded rectangles, just that this was one of the design issues at play in the trial.
So you're acknowledging that you were a bit loose with the facts here?
Apple claimed, and got a court to agree with them, that any rectangular phone with rounded corners violated their patents
Because your post sure seems to state that "any rectangular phone with rounded corners" is indeed the issue. And we both know that's not the case.
This wasn't about making a phone that wouldn't cut users. It was about making a phone that is so close in appearance to the iPhone that many people saw it and asked, "is that a new iPhone?". Just think of trade/dress patents as the trademarks of patents. Samsung copied nearly every design choice Apple made, ultimately producing a phone that was extraordinarily similar to the iPhone. Only a fool would think they could get away with that.
Ane it is obvious that you don't understand that the voters can change their mind on a given law or tax and place representatives in office to change the law. If your version of how the system should work was true then I couldn't go get a shot of booze to forget your shortsighted post.
If you think you presented a cohesive argument, you've probably already had enough booze.
Read the constitution, stupid! It's only treason to criticize a patriotic President during time of war, and only Republicans are True Patriots.
Threatening to default, shutting down the government, holding the country/world hostage, and defunding our troops during a time of war? True Patriotism if the President is the Communist, Muslim, Kenyan anti-Christ.
You're drastically overstating the validity of your counter-argument by claiming the GP doesn't "understand how the system is supposed to work".
I'm glad you agree that Obama won in 2012, because the ACA was a core element of that election. The Democrats also held the Senate. In the House... Democrats also got the most votes, by a 1.6 million vote margin. Republicans got the house through gerrymandered districts, *not* through popular vote. Then SCOTUS upheld the ACA.
So the Executive, before and after the election, supports the ACA. Half of the legislative supports the ACA (before and after election, and they needed 60% to pass it). The other half has a majority but not a plurality of popular votes. By every measure, voters have spoken, and voters did not elect Republicans who promised to repeal the ACA. Nobody is saying POTUS should call all the shots, but people are saying that the President, Senate, or Supreme Court needs to agree if the House is going to be successful at repealing laws. Division of powers swings both ways... the House can't just go around repealing anything it doesn't like all on its own.
Now, can you show me where in the constitution it says that a gerrymandered majority in the House has the power to threaten to default on the nation's debt? If not, please tell your friends to get over the election, stop lying, and start doing their goddamned jobs.
I think the most likely outcome is a blend of the two, geared far more towards #1. Those with capital will own the machines, and they'll need political stability, security, and consumer demand. To do that, they're going to have to guaranteee a minimum income for everyone else. But they're greedy bastards, so it probably won't be very high. I'd guess the equivalent of around $40k/year per adult, but I could be wildly off.
The more interesting question, to me, is how we get there. Do we go through a long period of turmoil, riots, and alternation between overthrows and serfdom? Do aristocrats see it coming, know the end game, and just give in before there is blood?
uh...Popular Science does not DO science, they communicate (popularize) science. Communication works best when it is two way. To prohibit comments eliminates some two way communication...They have delusions of grandeur. They write about science at a keyboard, not in a science lab. This is about their egos, nothing more.
I can't tell if you're trolling, trying to illustrate the point about comments diminishing the value of the story, or actually being serious.
Do you have any proof that this sort of "communication" works better? Because we've seen plenty that indicates all the FUD spread by commenters reduces the public's understanding.
Maybe you're projecting a bit with this whole "delusions of grandeur" spiel? Do you think you (and all the other random commenters) actually add to the public's understanding about science? Do you (plural) think all the nitpicking you do over research actually contributes anything? Do you really think the half second you spent thinking about this issue before replying qualifies you to make such claims about Popular Science?
Giving millions of morons, illiterates, and trolls a large megaphone is a terrible idea. It's ruined all my favorite science sites, and the evidence shows that it decreases public understanding.
Whenever CEO's tell us the market for talent is a global one, they mean that they should get paid more, or else they leave.
Perhaps American CEO's should compete in the global labor market, because CEO's in other countries are lucky to get 1/10'th, and often more like 1/20th or less of what American CEO's do. It's probably because those foreigners have it easy. What idiot couldn't run a simple outfit like Mitsubishi or Siemens?
You've got it backwards. American CEOs are worth far more than any others, and that's why they get paid so much more.
How many German CEOs are able to make record profits by forcing their employees to work longer without overtime, cutting benefits, cutting take-home pay, and reneging on pension promises? Now find a CEO who can do that while getting the majority of the voting public to blame the government and unions for it!
And literally (really literally not emphatically literally) the iPad chargers are not less cool. They get pretty warm:-)
Erm, isn't more warm = less cool? So the iPad chargers are less cool...
Agreed, though. My iPad needs more juice to charge. I wish it was slightly higher A because it doesn't seem to actually charge while I'm using it for anything heavy.
I love my lightning connector the phone though. USB always goes in right the third time, but no problems with lightning. Much more convenient. Worth the $10 or whatever I paid for the second cable.
Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?
There are plenty of things that will hurt you, if you are careless with them. Most hot coffee is indeed that hot.
Actually, it's not. I'd encourage you to read the facts about the Hot Coffee case. McDonald's coffee was about 50 degrees hotter than home-brewed, and significantly hotter than most other establishments.
I haven't seen any evidence that large numbers of people are irrational (in the game theory sense). Generally it just turns out that we're wrong about what they value and how they value it.
I agree, however, that we need a harm reduction approach. These things work every single damned time they're tried, but people just ignore them. Speaking of "irrational", I think people honestly prefer the psychological boost of perceived superiority over saving lives.
it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.
So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
No, those are all just plain murder. This is a bit more like somebody jumping off a cliff because you chased them to the edge with a flamethrower. While they killed themselves, we created the conditions knowing this was the expected outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Other posters are spot-on. The bandwidth isn't the issue, it's the latency. I had trouble just getting ssh work done over a consumer satellite connection because the delay for characters I typed to show up killed me. Pointy-clicky stuff is even worse.
I don't know what your exact setup is, but find a way to artificially induce 1-2 seconds of latency in your connection. Test it and see if you can still work with it before you commit.
The plan as I understand it is for Sebelius to continue being the lighting rod for as long as possible and then resign when the shit starts quieting down a bit thereby sparing higher ups.
No way in hell they allow her to resign until well after Obamacare stops being controversial. Why? They'd never be able to get a senate confirmation for a replacement.
I dunno, 10.9 fixed the most obvious, stupid thing that never got fixed in 10.8: multi-monitor support was atrocious.
But ftr, I think Windows and all the *nix GUIs are even worse.
I really don't think that's an actual good counter to a MAD situation..
The problem is that MAD is merely weakly so. If it were the difference between making the rubble bounce once or ten times, it wouldn't matter. But the difference between partial and a far more complete destruction can be good enough to weaken or negate the purpose of MAD.
Disagree a bit, as I often do. The logic of MAD works as long as the outcome is assured and prohibitively costly. It does not matter whether one side is more destroyed than the other, just that both sides know their losses would be unacceptably high.
Generally, increased nuclear capabilities are developed to satisfy the Mutually Assured part, not to increase the Destruction. You need large stockpiles to have a credible second strike capability. That is the basis of the US's nuclear triad. It's all about being able to say "you can find a way to hit me by surprise with your entire arsenal, and I will still have the remaining capacity to inflict more cost than you could ever benefit by attacking me". Doesn't matter if that's cost or cost + 1 million, it's still cost > benefit.
Nobody wanted to deny the widow of Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) her $174,000 payout.
To be fair, that payment was already going to go to her. It wasn't something new. Congress routinely gives a death gratuity equal to one year's salary to the surviving spouse. It wasn't some one-off from people trying to sneak a payout into the CR.
Personally, I'm OK with that, but I think regular life insurance could do the job just fine.
but do you really think Obama's race isn't a factor? If so, why are we hearing so much vitriol about him being "different", "secretly Muslim", "Kenyan", etc.?
This is the wonderful "because some people hate black people, every disagreement with someone who happens to be black is racism" argument.
Clearly this is some form of reverse racism. I just think everyone must be racist because some people are, and I didn't ask why there is a brand new, unique brand of rhetoric that has only appeared under the first black President.
I never said "every disagreement". I said people are calling him "different" and "Kenyan" and "secretly Muslim" with a few winks and nods thrown in. And then I asked what it could be other than racism. You. did. not. answer.
And if the Tea Party is more concerned with freedom than race, why is it attacking voting rights for minorities?
It isn't. Next question?
Beautiful argument, you could be on Fox! I have a counter: "Yes it is".
Please stop trying to sound so tough and confident, and start thinking logically. I'd like to see the right pull its head out so America can resume healthy political discourse. You're not helping.
You mean vocal minority? The most vocal part of any organization will almost assuredly be a minority of that organization. The Tea Party is no different.
Do you judge Christians by the Evangelicals, or liberals by eco-terrorists?
No, but I judge Catholics by the actions of the Pope and the church leadership they support. And guess what? I judge political parties by the actions and rhetoric of their leadership as well. The Tea Party doesn't just have a few nutters--it's covered in batshit from top to bottom.
What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.
That is a calculated political attack, it isn't true. You may recall that Herman Cain was strongly supported by the Tea Party in the presidential race.
It's partly true. Some in the Tea Party may support some blacks who are with them, but do you really think Obama's race isn't a factor? If so, why are we hearing so much vitriol about him being "different", "secretly Muslim", "Kenyan", etc.?
And if the Tea Party is more concerned with freedom than race, why is it attacking voting rights for minorities?
The UK does have a constitution, it is just an unwritten one, in the sense that its constitution is not self-contained inside a single document. You need further proof? The UK Constitution functions as a wiki page.
FTFY.
I am a bit envious, though. I would love to live in a society without a self-righteous political party that always carries a small version of a magical book in its pocket, loudly proclaiming that they have the only true interpretation.
"You might be living in a totalitarian regime if..." Truth is considered Treason by heads of State.
Thoughtcrime
I know your kind is nearly extinct, so I hate to argue with a 3-digiter... but I feel compelled to point out that "telling the truth" has always been potentially, justifiably treason. One example: troop movements and plans during a war. Nobody would buy the "I was just telling the truth" defense any more than they would believe a mob boss ordering a hit is just "speaking".
We can't have an honest debate if the "pro-truth" side is hiding behind simple platitudes. We are talking about the extent to which the press has a right to expose the sources and methods of some of the governments' most secret intelligence programs. We are not talking about whether the press is allowed to report a car accident. Personally, I don't support what Snowden did, but the Guardian seems to be at least somewhat responsible in its handling. At least compared to wikileaks.
Minor nitpick: the queen is the Head of State in the UK, Cameron is just the head of government. Not nearly as catchy, but always bugs me that people don't differentiate.
This corporate protection from individual liability works for the bad guys, it works for good guys, it works for everyone.
It doesn't work for little guys that often anymore. Piercing the corporate veil is becoming a common practice, and I'd bet that wouldn't be hard against IsoHunt. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if promising not to do it was part of the settlement.
Yes, that debt is bad, but believing that it must be reduced at all costs - and one of those costs being increasing the interest rate on the debt to make the debt worse - is a bad solution.
Understatement of the nanosecond, buddy.
It's been amazing to watch the GOP shift from "debt doesn't matter" to such an obsession. I wonder how that will change if they end up back in power.
They particularly resent the way it was forced through Congress with the comment, "You'll have to pass it in order to find out what's in it." and now that they know what's in it, they know why it was done that way.
Let's be honest here. Nothing was "forced" through Congress. Republicans had months to negotiate and offer constructive criticism. Instead, they organized yell-fests, screamed "LIAR!" at every Democrat they could find, spread FUD about death panels. And even when they joined negotiations and got their concessions, Republicans reneged on their promises to support the bill.
The Senate then had to pass it with a super majority, it had to be signed off on by the House, and ultimately signed by the President. Republicans need to stop using the term "forced" and "dictator", and most certainly "socialism" if they want to be taken seriously.
Now, if we were still funding the government the way we used to, with separate appropriation bills instead of a single, all-inclusive budget bill, this probably wouldn't have happened.
The real concern here should be the debt ceiling. It is absolutely ridiculous that Congress could pass a budget with a deficit without inherently granting Treasury the authority to borrow. Revoke the debt ceiling entirely, or at least bring back the Gephardt Rule. Shutdowns will continue to happen as long as we have a party that is holding a hostage it wants to see dead.
I don't see how that is relevant. We are not talking about punishing the person who said it, we are talking about punishing the website which allowed public comment. I don't see where its the responsibility of anyone but the courts to enforce their laws.
To be a bit more precise, we are talking about a news outlet that publishes comments. Publishers do bear some well-defined responsibility for the materials they publish, and I don't see how writing "Anonymous" in the byline changes that. Nor do I see how "but it's on the interwebz!" changes anything.
I followed the original trial very closely. At no point have I said it was only about rounded rectangles, just that this was one of the design issues at play in the trial.
So you're acknowledging that you were a bit loose with the facts here?
Apple claimed, and got a court to agree with them, that any rectangular phone with rounded corners violated their patents
Because your post sure seems to state that "any rectangular phone with rounded corners" is indeed the issue. And we both know that's not the case.
This wasn't about making a phone that wouldn't cut users. It was about making a phone that is so close in appearance to the iPhone that many people saw it and asked, "is that a new iPhone?". Just think of trade/dress patents as the trademarks of patents. Samsung copied nearly every design choice Apple made, ultimately producing a phone that was extraordinarily similar to the iPhone. Only a fool would think they could get away with that.
Ane it is obvious that you don't understand that the voters can change their mind on a given law or tax and place representatives in office to change the law. If your version of how the system should work was true then I couldn't go get a shot of booze to forget your shortsighted post.
If you think you presented a cohesive argument, you've probably already had enough booze.
Read the constitution, stupid! It's only treason to criticize a patriotic President during time of war, and only Republicans are True Patriots.
Threatening to default, shutting down the government, holding the country/world hostage, and defunding our troops during a time of war? True Patriotism if the President is the Communist, Muslim, Kenyan anti-Christ.
You're drastically overstating the validity of your counter-argument by claiming the GP doesn't "understand how the system is supposed to work".
I'm glad you agree that Obama won in 2012, because the ACA was a core element of that election. The Democrats also held the Senate. In the House... Democrats also got the most votes, by a 1.6 million vote margin. Republicans got the house through gerrymandered districts, *not* through popular vote. Then SCOTUS upheld the ACA.
So the Executive, before and after the election, supports the ACA. Half of the legislative supports the ACA (before and after election, and they needed 60% to pass it). The other half has a majority but not a plurality of popular votes. By every measure, voters have spoken, and voters did not elect Republicans who promised to repeal the ACA. Nobody is saying POTUS should call all the shots, but people are saying that the President, Senate, or Supreme Court needs to agree if the House is going to be successful at repealing laws. Division of powers swings both ways... the House can't just go around repealing anything it doesn't like all on its own.
Now, can you show me where in the constitution it says that a gerrymandered majority in the House has the power to threaten to default on the nation's debt? If not, please tell your friends to get over the election, stop lying, and start doing their goddamned jobs.
I think the most likely outcome is a blend of the two, geared far more towards #1. Those with capital will own the machines, and they'll need political stability, security, and consumer demand. To do that, they're going to have to guaranteee a minimum income for everyone else. But they're greedy bastards, so it probably won't be very high. I'd guess the equivalent of around $40k/year per adult, but I could be wildly off.
The more interesting question, to me, is how we get there. Do we go through a long period of turmoil, riots, and alternation between overthrows and serfdom? Do aristocrats see it coming, know the end game, and just give in before there is blood?
uh...Popular Science does not DO science, they communicate (popularize) science. Communication works best when it is two way. To prohibit comments eliminates some two way communication...They have delusions of grandeur. They write about science at a keyboard, not in a science lab. This is about their egos, nothing more.
I can't tell if you're trolling, trying to illustrate the point about comments diminishing the value of the story, or actually being serious.
Do you have any proof that this sort of "communication" works better? Because we've seen plenty that indicates all the FUD spread by commenters reduces the public's understanding.
Maybe you're projecting a bit with this whole "delusions of grandeur" spiel? Do you think you (and all the other random commenters) actually add to the public's understanding about science? Do you (plural) think all the nitpicking you do over research actually contributes anything? Do you really think the half second you spent thinking about this issue before replying qualifies you to make such claims about Popular Science?
Giving millions of morons, illiterates, and trolls a large megaphone is a terrible idea. It's ruined all my favorite science sites, and the evidence shows that it decreases public understanding.
Whenever CEO's tell us the market for talent is a global one, they mean that they should get paid more, or else they leave.
Perhaps American CEO's should compete in the global labor market, because CEO's in other countries are lucky to get 1/10'th, and often more like 1/20th or less of what American CEO's do. It's probably because those foreigners have it easy. What idiot couldn't run a simple outfit like Mitsubishi or Siemens?
You've got it backwards. American CEOs are worth far more than any others, and that's why they get paid so much more.
How many German CEOs are able to make record profits by forcing their employees to work longer without overtime, cutting benefits, cutting take-home pay, and reneging on pension promises? Now find a CEO who can do that while getting the majority of the voting public to blame the government and unions for it!
And literally (really literally not emphatically literally) the iPad chargers are not less cool. They get pretty warm :-)
Erm, isn't more warm = less cool? So the iPad chargers are less cool...
Agreed, though. My iPad needs more juice to charge. I wish it was slightly higher A because it doesn't seem to actually charge while I'm using it for anything heavy.
I love my lightning connector the phone though. USB always goes in right the third time, but no problems with lightning. Much more convenient. Worth the $10 or whatever I paid for the second cable.
Does your coffee typically give you third-degree burns?
There are plenty of things that will hurt you, if you are careless with them. Most hot coffee is indeed that hot.
Actually, it's not. I'd encourage you to read the facts about the Hot Coffee case. McDonald's coffee was about 50 degrees hotter than home-brewed, and significantly hotter than most other establishments.
I haven't seen any evidence that large numbers of people are irrational (in the game theory sense). Generally it just turns out that we're wrong about what they value and how they value it.
I agree, however, that we need a harm reduction approach. These things work every single damned time they're tried, but people just ignore them. Speaking of "irrational", I think people honestly prefer the psychological boost of perceived superiority over saving lives.
Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.
it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.
So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
No, those are all just plain murder. This is a bit more like somebody jumping off a cliff because you chased them to the edge with a flamethrower. While they killed themselves, we created the conditions knowing this was the expected outcome.