The problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is not the presence of fructose. Sucrose (cane/beat sugar) is a disaccharide combination of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose. The body breaks down sucrose into glucose and fructose using an enzyme. The problem with HFCF is that it simpler molecules are absorbed into the body must faster than of they had to be broken down first. Spikes in sugar in the bloodstream strain the liver and get stored into fat.
Take a look at the current range. There are plenty of greedy/desperate people there. They already risk being shot by game wardens and the military why difference would a bomb make?
A first priority for all rhino conservationists should be to ensure adequate anti-poaching monitoring and security (including intelligence-gathering) to protect rhino populations, and only then should dehorning be considered, for is a rhino really a rhino without its horn?
The effectiveness of dehorning alone is much closer to 0% than it is to 100%. Dehorning is only a small part of the solution.
The problem is that the poachers killed the rhinos anyway because they did not want to waste time tracking a rhino without a horn. It was a good idea but didn't work.
They owe me, you and every other taxpayer who helped them build out their infrastructure.
There is a flaw in this statement. It assumes that infrastructure never changes. Sure the wires do not get replaced often but the switches, software, etc does. Then there is the cost of new technology required to push more data through old wires. New technology, upgrades, etc can only be funded through profit,
Excellent. I guess you're a Loch Ness and Bigfoot believer as well.
Eye witness accounts from untrained observers are very different that eye witness accounts from pilots whose very life is dependant on their observation skills and ability to identify threats.
Now I get it. You think that your internet based analysis of the severity of the danger is better than the pilots in the cockpit and the experts in the aviation field. Sorry but I do not agree with you.
Haven't you seen liquid fueled RC planes? They even have jets.
Yes I have. They are also quite expensive and difficult to pilot which restricts the numbers. There have been few if any encounters between liquid fuelled rc planes and aircraft therefore it is not a problem. There have been an increasing number of encounters between drones and aircraft therefore there is a problem.
It's not hard to maintain line of sight when you're flying high enough to possibly intercept an aircraft.
That depends on the size of the drone. It is also only very close to airports where there are already regulations. Keeping control with the average RC aircraft over 1000 feet away (without a remote camera) is almost impossible. If all you can see is a dot it is very difficult to control an aircraft.
Why do you insist on legislating away non-problems at other's expense?
When does it become a problem in your mind? When people are killed? To me, the increasing number of near misses makes it a problem now. The idea of "no one has died yet therefore it is not a problem" is just ignoring the inevitable. With enough near misses there will eventually be a strike. Lets see what we can do to prevent that future.
We know a lot of things ingested into a jet engine can be a problem.
What man made objects that can be encountered in the air and have a large enough mass/explosive capacity to bring down a jet have not been regulated. If you are thinking private rockets/weather balloons they are regulated. Any such flights need to be cleared with the FAA before launching.
We have had RC aircraft for decades without a problem.
The differences between RC aircraft and drones are a follows; 1. RC aircraft generally were line of sight only. That restricted the range. 2. Battery technology has greatly increases the flight time of drones. 3. Drones have stabilization and navigation capabilities that make them simple to pilot. Older RC aircraft took skill to pilot. With the increased range/ease of use there have been many more encounters with aircraft. Things have changed and regulations need to change with them.
Currently, the number of aircraft brought down by a drone strike is the same as the number brought down by catapulted footwear.
The number of near misses between aircraft and catapulted footwear is exactly 0 and always will be. The number or near misses between drones and aircraft is non-zero and rising. The two situations are very different. Why do you need a disaster before acting?
We control the things we can control. Natural events are uncontrollable so we have to deal with them. Events caused by people can be legislated against. For example we do not have laws against animals attacking humans but we do have laws against humans attacking humans.
Perhaps the problem is aircraft that are too damned fragile to handle an event with a non-zero natural occurrence without killing people.
Aircraft are designed to be as strong as possible but still light enough to be viable. It is a trade-off. Build an aircraft strong enough to handle all situations and it would not get off the ground.
So far, no aircraft has been brought down by a drone strike.
We know a drone ingested into an engine can bring down an aircraft. Why do we have to wait for it to happen before we try to prevent it? If we did not have laws restricting where drones can fly would you be one of the people calling the government incompetent for not trying to prevent it?
In fact, I know of no report of a drone strike of any kind.
As the article states there have been a few near misses. As drones become more popular and their numbers increase so will near misses and eventually there will be strikes.
Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.
The fact that someone will go to jail for life is little consolation for the hundreds of people who died because a drone with a large battery is ingested into a jet engine on takeoff or landing causing a catastrophic failure. We have many laws that limit dangerous activity before it harms or kills someone.
There are many times where people write contracts for work that is legally employment. Just because a contract is written does not make it legally contract work.
This ruling is specific to the individual and not necessarily all drivers. Two people can be doing the same job where one is a contractor and one is an employee. I believe the ruling is that the driver is an employee if the only online taxi service that work for is Uber. Another issue is that contracts have end dates. Uber's agreement does not.
PS I refuse to call it "ride sharing" because it is not.
Uber agreements don't have an employment agreement, either.
There is an agreement between the drives setting out condition of the relationship between the driver and Uber. Labelling it a "contract" or "employment agreement" is semantics.
How you do that is immaterial,
Not so much as it has to abide by the following conditions; 1. Started within a specific time period. 2. Done in an approved vehicle. 3. Done by the driver contracted. 4. Done by the shortest reasonable route. 5. Done for a rate set by Uber
The main difference between Uber and Airbnb or eBay is that Uber chooses who to fulfill the request. With Airbnb and eBay the buyer chooses who to fulfill the request.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it interesting that you ask for citations yet give none.
The problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is not the presence of fructose. Sucrose (cane/beat sugar) is a disaccharide combination of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose. The body breaks down sucrose into glucose and fructose using an enzyme. The problem with HFCF is that it simpler molecules are absorbed into the body must faster than of they had to be broken down first. Spikes in sugar in the bloodstream strain the liver and get stored into fat.
We already have people who hunt rhino poachers. They are called game wardens and the military.
Take a look at the current range. There are plenty of greedy/desperate people there. They already risk being shot by game wardens and the military why difference would a bomb make?
Rhino horns grow about an inch a year. They will eventuality grow enough to shed the prosthetic and boom, one dead rhino.
Here is the conclusion from the article:
A first priority for all rhino conservationists should be to ensure adequate anti-poaching monitoring and security (including intelligence-gathering) to protect rhino populations, and only then should dehorning be considered, for is a rhino really a rhino without its horn?
The effectiveness of dehorning alone is much closer to 0% than it is to 100%. Dehorning is only a small part of the solution.
The problem is that the poachers killed the rhinos anyway because they did not want to waste time tracking a rhino without a horn. It was a good idea but didn't work.
They owe me, you and every other taxpayer who helped them build out their infrastructure.
There is a flaw in this statement. It assumes that infrastructure never changes. Sure the wires do not get replaced often but the switches, software, etc does. Then there is the cost of new technology required to push more data through old wires. New technology, upgrades, etc can only be funded through profit,
Excellent. I guess you're a Loch Ness and Bigfoot believer as well.
Eye witness accounts from untrained observers are very different that eye witness accounts from pilots whose very life is dependant on their observation skills and ability to identify threats.
I will give the analysis from the person on the spot much more credence than the analysis from an internet "expert" who has incomplete information.
Again you analysis is not necessarily better that the pilots'.
Pilots are the ones reporting the near misses. If they didn't think it was an issue they would not be reporting them.
Now I get it. You think that your internet based analysis of the severity of the danger is better than the pilots in the cockpit and the experts in the aviation field. Sorry but I do not agree with you.
Haven't you seen liquid fueled RC planes? They even have jets.
Yes I have. They are also quite expensive and difficult to pilot which restricts the numbers. There have been few if any encounters between liquid fuelled rc planes and aircraft therefore it is not a problem. There have been an increasing number of encounters between drones and aircraft therefore there is a problem.
It's not hard to maintain line of sight when you're flying high enough to possibly intercept an aircraft.
That depends on the size of the drone. It is also only very close to airports where there are already regulations. Keeping control with the average RC aircraft over 1000 feet away (without a remote camera) is almost impossible. If all you can see is a dot it is very difficult to control an aircraft.
Why do you insist on legislating away non-problems at other's expense?
When does it become a problem in your mind? When people are killed? To me, the increasing number of near misses makes it a problem now. The idea of "no one has died yet therefore it is not a problem" is just ignoring the inevitable. With enough near misses there will eventually be a strike. Lets see what we can do to prevent that future.
We know a lot of things ingested into a jet engine can be a problem.
What man made objects that can be encountered in the air and have a large enough mass/explosive capacity to bring down a jet have not been regulated. If you are thinking private rockets/weather balloons they are regulated. Any such flights need to be cleared with the FAA before launching.
We have had RC aircraft for decades without a problem.
The differences between RC aircraft and drones are a follows;
1. RC aircraft generally were line of sight only. That restricted the range.
2. Battery technology has greatly increases the flight time of drones.
3. Drones have stabilization and navigation capabilities that make them simple to pilot. Older RC aircraft took skill to pilot.
With the increased range/ease of use there have been many more encounters with aircraft. Things have changed and regulations need to change with them.
Currently, the number of aircraft brought down by a drone strike is the same as the number brought down by catapulted footwear.
The number of near misses between aircraft and catapulted footwear is exactly 0 and always will be. The number or near misses between drones and aircraft is non-zero and rising. The two situations are very different. Why do you need a disaster before acting?
All geese must be cyborged immediately with GPS
We control the things we can control. Natural events are uncontrollable so we have to deal with them. Events caused by people can be legislated against. For example we do not have laws against animals attacking humans but we do have laws against humans attacking humans.
Perhaps the problem is aircraft that are too damned fragile to handle an event with a non-zero natural occurrence without killing people.
Aircraft are designed to be as strong as possible but still light enough to be viable. It is a trade-off. Build an aircraft strong enough to handle all situations and it would not get off the ground.
So far, no aircraft has been brought down by a drone strike.
We know a drone ingested into an engine can bring down an aircraft. Why do we have to wait for it to happen before we try to prevent it? If we did not have laws restricting where drones can fly would you be one of the people calling the government incompetent for not trying to prevent it?
In fact, I know of no report of a drone strike of any kind.
As the article states there have been a few near misses. As drones become more popular and their numbers increase so will near misses and eventually there will be strikes.
Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.
The fact that someone will go to jail for life is little consolation for the hundreds of people who died because a drone with a large battery is ingested into a jet engine on takeoff or landing causing a catastrophic failure. We have many laws that limit dangerous activity before it harms or kills someone.
Same work and responsibilities.
But different agreement.
There are many times where people write contracts for work that is legally employment. Just because a contract is written does not make it legally contract work.
WebRTC is may not be ready for all browsers
This ruling is specific to the individual and not necessarily all drivers. Two people can be doing the same job where one is a contractor and one is an employee. I believe the ruling is that the driver is an employee if the only online taxi service that work for is Uber. Another issue is that contracts have end dates. Uber's agreement does not.
PS I refuse to call it "ride sharing" because it is not.
I bet they also monitored whether or not you to another contract at the same place.
Uber agreements don't have an employment agreement, either.
There is an agreement between the drives setting out condition of the relationship between the driver and Uber. Labelling it a "contract" or "employment agreement" is semantics.
How you do that is immaterial,
Not so much as it has to abide by the following conditions;
1. Started within a specific time period.
2. Done in an approved vehicle.
3. Done by the driver contracted.
4. Done by the shortest reasonable route.
5. Done for a rate set by Uber
That seems to be quite a bit of control.
The main difference between Uber and Airbnb or eBay is that Uber chooses who to fulfill the request. With Airbnb and eBay the buyer chooses who to fulfill the request.
If you hire contractors to staff a phone bank, the contractors don't get to bring in their own phones to use,
You are assuming it is valid to hire a contractor to staff a phone bank. They may one be able to be hired as employees.
FexEx drivers are not independent contractors.