The "craft brewers" don't produce that much waste,
According to this article;
Craft brewers sold an estimated 15.6 million barrels* of beer in 2013,
A barrel is 31 gallons and a gallon of beer produces about a poind of spent grain. Here is the math. 15.6M * 31 = 241,800 tons of spent grain that could be used for animal feed rather than being wasted in a landfill. To me, 242 thousand tons is significant.
and it's biodegradable.
So is paper yet we recycle paper. This material will take up room in landfills. In a time where we are running out of landfills not using that much feed is stupid.
Brewers get $30 a ton for the waste from beer manufacturing.
The lost revenue is not the issue. The breweries could just put it in a landfill and the beer prices would hardly be effected. The costs would come in the equipment and manpower needed to comply with the new regulations. Letting perfectly good animal feed go to waste because a bad regulation is prohibiting the sale is a bad idea.
They just have to follow the same rules as everybody else who sells animal feed, like Purina Chows and Cargill.
Every farmer who sells hay does not have to package that hay in closed sanitized containers. There are different regulations for different kinds of feed. Another issue is that the transport is very different. Most large feed manufacturers have large plants that ship feed over a wide area. This feed can sit around for weeks or months before it is used. In that time there is a very good probability that any small contamination could grow into something serious. Spent grain is sanitized during manufacture, shipped extremely short distances and used within a few days of production. There is very little possibility of contamination in that time. Comparing spent grain from small breweries to Cargill is like comparing a weekend bake sale to Mr. Christie
I am not against regulations as I see them as protection but bad regulation is just stupid.
Guess you have not been to Canada in the past 20 years. Swans Spinnakers Canoe Club Philips Beer Vancouver Island Brewing Moon Under Water Lighthouse Brewing Hoyne Brewing That is just in Victoria BC a small city of 300k. There are many more across Canada. By the way the craft brewing trend started in Canada and spread to the US. American craft beers have improved over the last ten years as have Canadian craft beers. Lets not get into a pissing match. That could be a long battle with all the beer involved.
There is a huge difference between the use of armed drones on US soil and armed droned in lawless areas of the World. If there were local law enforcement strong enough to deal with terrorist leaders the CIA and NSA would not need armed drones.
We'll know when the drones are armed after the trigger is already pulled.
How will banning unarmed drones stop armed drones is, a you say, they are going to happen anyway? If an unauthorized armed drone ever fires anything in the US the government will change in the next election.
Since there are authorized government helicopters and the government has armed helicopters why has the government not used armed helicopters on US soil? Because they are not authorized to do so. Drones are the same.
On the other hand, what If I compile data using public funds that does not agree with my hypothesis and call it "proprietary" and keep it from the public. There needs to be a balance between stifling research and transparency.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to impersonate or defame. From this article;
The @Peoriamayor account began in late February or early March with a photo of Ardis and a bio that stated he enjoyed serving the city and included his city email address. The content of tweets, or entries on the account, ranged from ambiguous to offensive, with repeat references to sex and drugs — and comparisons of Ardis to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as Ford’s drug use while in office became public. By about March 10, the bio of the Twitter account was changed to indicate it was a parody account.
As for indicating it is a parody account, how many people read the whole bio of a twitter poster?
They lead to more spying, which is what GP said but was omitted in your quote.
I omitted it because it it is true. I question the part about "more death and destruction". I am allowed to question part of a statement without questioning every singe part.
And sooner or later they'll be armed, let's not kid our selves.
Spying does not inevitably lead to armed drones, lets not be paranoid. If armed drones are ever proposed then we can deal with the proposal. That is not happening now so lets just deal with surveillance drones.
My original statement still holds "Not all government drones are bad".
The Moscow Mayer promised it would not snow in Moscow. He planned to do it by seeding the clouds before they got to Moscow so they would be depleted and not drop snow on Moscow. Cloud seeding is very minor and basically just changes where precipitation will fall. To me weather control is much more broad such as disrupting hurricanes, redirecting systems to help with drought, significantly effecting temperatures, etc.
This is the kind of blatant generalizations that cause unnecessary fear of government drones. FEMA is a government agency and could use drones to quickly survey disaster areas and send help where it is need. The Forest Service is a government agency that could use drones to spot for water bombers and keep pilots out of dangerous situations. The Forest Service can also use drones to survey the health of the forests. There are many very good uses for government drones.
more death and destruction.
The most government drones that will be authorized for use in US airspace will be surveillance drones. How can surveillance drones lead to death and destruction? The only exception to this I can see would be in cases like the armored bulldozer rampage. Sorry but drones are not going to be shooting Hellfires at speeders.
Michael Halpern, a program manager for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which also filed an amicus brief in the case, said that the state Supreme Court “ was right to protect scientists’ ability to pursue tough research questions free from threats or intimidation..."
As if a scientist has never been threatened or intimidated by other scientists in heated email conversations about hot topics like global warming. What if there were conversations in those emails about how certain figure do not match and those figures were suppressed to make the paper show more of an issue. Climate scientists are not paragons of virtue.
Do you want all your email and documents published to the public?
I agree that there should be an exemption for documents of a personal nature. Documents of a proprietary nature could include documents that disagree with the published findings.
Scientific transparency does not require laying your entire online life open to muckrakers.
Agreed but it does mean giving access to all the documents and emails that are the basis of published findings. Documents of a proprietary nature would fall into that category.
This looks too much like "don't look at the documents behind the curtain. Just watch the show we are presenting".
The automated check that was turned off was the one that checked to see if the memory be accessed should have been accessed. The bug only showed itself when two mismatched parameters, the string and the length of the string, were sent through. That check was more of a security guard saying "no you can't do that" and not a bug checker saying "in certain cases of parameters will cause problems so re-write the code". Bug checkers are good at catching common errors but are not a perfect solution. There are many bugs that have never been seen before or are too complex for a bug checker to find. A total reliance on bug checkers is not the way to go. We need to do both automated checks and human checks. They help each other.
According to this limb prosthetic, unless very different in technology, are exempt;
This section states that these devices are exempt from premarket approval or [WWW]510(k) requirements, except as provided in [WWW]21CFR890.9, which allows this exemption as long as the new device has "existing or reasonably foreseeable characteristics of commercially distributed devices within that generic type," it is intended for the same use and the same user type as existing products, and the device operates on the same fundamental scientific technology.
This one is too easy to check. You ask a Chinese victim and a foreign victim how much they got paid. I also noticed that the Guardian piece did not weigh in on whether or not he lied. I would think that the reporter would check something like that.
Those are great advancements but what is the solution to the inability to produce a smooth surface using the glue gun approach? It is a problem with extruding out of a round nozzle that the surfaces will always have ridges. Round nozzles are needed to be able to print in any direction.
Only if the stalker can link the map to a person. The article says it is possible but not how to do it. The maps are called up but a user id not a name.
Do you understand that insulting people makes them less open to what you are saying? By calling people you have never met "small brained morons" you are actually hurting your cause.
A better camera will make a better photographer. Notice that "better" is a relative term. An abysmal photographer with a better camera may be a horrible photographer and still not a good photographer.
Slashdot Mirror
The "craft brewers" don't produce that much waste,
According to this article;
Craft brewers sold an estimated 15.6 million barrels* of beer in 2013,
A barrel is 31 gallons and a gallon of beer produces about a poind of spent grain. Here is the math. 15.6M * 31 = 241,800 tons of spent grain that could be used for animal feed rather than being wasted in a landfill. To me, 242 thousand tons is significant.
and it's biodegradable.
So is paper yet we recycle paper. This material will take up room in landfills. In a time where we are running out of landfills not using that much feed is stupid.
This is a story about regulating animal feed and not beer.
Brewers get $30 a ton for the waste from beer manufacturing.
The lost revenue is not the issue. The breweries could just put it in a landfill and the beer prices would hardly be effected. The costs would come in the equipment and manpower needed to comply with the new regulations. Letting perfectly good animal feed go to waste because a bad regulation is prohibiting the sale is a bad idea.
They just have to follow the same rules as everybody else who sells animal feed, like Purina Chows and Cargill.
Every farmer who sells hay does not have to package that hay in closed sanitized containers. There are different regulations for different kinds of feed. Another issue is that the transport is very different. Most large feed manufacturers have large plants that ship feed over a wide area. This feed can sit around for weeks or months before it is used. In that time there is a very good probability that any small contamination could grow into something serious. Spent grain is sanitized during manufacture, shipped extremely short distances and used within a few days of production. There is very little possibility of contamination in that time. Comparing spent grain from small breweries to Cargill is like comparing a weekend bake sale to Mr. Christie
I am not against regulations as I see them as protection but bad regulation is just stupid.
Guess you have not been to Canada in the past 20 years.
Swans
Spinnakers
Canoe Club
Philips Beer
Vancouver Island Brewing
Moon Under Water
Lighthouse Brewing
Hoyne Brewing
That is just in Victoria BC a small city of 300k. There are many more across Canada. By the way the craft brewing trend started in Canada and spread to the US. American craft beers have improved over the last ten years as have Canadian craft beers. Lets not get into a pissing match. That could be a long battle with all the beer involved.
There is a huge difference between the use of armed drones on US soil and armed droned in lawless areas of the World. If there were local law enforcement strong enough to deal with terrorist leaders the CIA and NSA would not need armed drones.
We'll know when the drones are armed after the trigger is already pulled.
How will banning unarmed drones stop armed drones is, a you say, they are going to happen anyway? If an unauthorized armed drone ever fires anything in the US the government will change in the next election.
Since there are authorized government helicopters and the government has armed helicopters why has the government not used armed helicopters on US soil? Because they are not authorized to do so. Drones are the same.
On the other hand, what If I compile data using public funds that does not agree with my hypothesis and call it "proprietary" and keep it from the public. There needs to be a balance between stifling research and transparency.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to impersonate or defame. From this article;
The @Peoriamayor account began in late February or early March with a photo of Ardis and a bio that stated he enjoyed serving the city and included his city email address.
The content of tweets, or entries on the account, ranged from ambiguous to offensive, with repeat references to sex and drugs — and comparisons of Ardis to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as Ford’s drug use while in office became public.
By about March 10, the bio of the Twitter account was changed to indicate it was a parody account.
As for indicating it is a parody account, how many people read the whole bio of a twitter poster?
They lead to more spying, which is what GP said but was omitted in your quote.
I omitted it because it it is true. I question the part about "more death and destruction". I am allowed to question part of a statement without questioning every singe part.
And sooner or later they'll be armed, let's not kid our selves.
Spying does not inevitably lead to armed drones, lets not be paranoid. If armed drones are ever proposed then we can deal with the proposal. That is not happening now so lets just deal with surveillance drones.
My original statement still holds "Not all government drones are bad".
The Moscow Mayer promised it would not snow in Moscow. He planned to do it by seeding the clouds before they got to Moscow so they would be depleted and not drop snow on Moscow. Cloud seeding is very minor and basically just changes where precipitation will fall.
To me weather control is much more broad such as disrupting hurricanes, redirecting systems to help with drought, significantly effecting temperatures, etc.
This is the kind of blatant generalizations that cause unnecessary fear of government drones.
FEMA is a government agency and could use drones to quickly survey disaster areas and send help where it is need.
The Forest Service is a government agency that could use drones to spot for water bombers and keep pilots out of dangerous situations.
The Forest Service can also use drones to survey the health of the forests.
There are many very good uses for government drones.
more death and destruction.
The most government drones that will be authorized for use in US airspace will be surveillance drones. How can surveillance drones lead to death and destruction? The only exception to this I can see would be in cases like the armored bulldozer rampage. Sorry but drones are not going to be shooting Hellfires at speeders.
I love this quote;
Michael Halpern, a program manager for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which also filed an amicus brief in the case, said that the state Supreme Court “ was right to protect scientists’ ability to pursue tough research questions free from threats or intimidation..."
As if a scientist has never been threatened or intimidated by other scientists in heated email conversations about hot topics like global warming. What if there were conversations in those emails about how certain figure do not match and those figures were suppressed to make the paper show more of an issue. Climate scientists are not paragons of virtue.
Do you want all your email and documents published to the public?
I agree that there should be an exemption for documents of a personal nature. Documents of a proprietary nature could include documents that disagree with the published findings.
Scientific transparency does not require laying your entire online life open to muckrakers.
Agreed but it does mean giving access to all the documents and emails that are the basis of published findings. Documents of a proprietary nature would fall into that category.
This looks too much like "don't look at the documents behind the curtain. Just watch the show we are presenting".
The automated check that was turned off was the one that checked to see if the memory be accessed should have been accessed. The bug only showed itself when two mismatched parameters, the string and the length of the string, were sent through. That check was more of a security guard saying "no you can't do that" and not a bug checker saying "in certain cases of parameters will cause problems so re-write the code". Bug checkers are good at catching common errors but are not a perfect solution. There are many bugs that have never been seen before or are too complex for a bug checker to find. A total reliance on bug checkers is not the way to go. We need to do both automated checks and human checks. They help each other.
What we need are intelligent bots to constantly trawl source repositories looking for bugs.
If we had bots that intelligent they would be intelligent enough to write the code without bugs.
According to this limb prosthetic, unless very different in technology, are exempt;
This section states that these devices are exempt from premarket approval or [WWW]510(k) requirements, except as provided in [WWW]21CFR890.9, which allows this exemption as long as the new device has "existing or reasonably foreseeable characteristics of commercially distributed devices within that generic type," it is intended for the same use and the same user type as existing products, and the device operates on the same fundamental scientific technology.
It also probably is illegal for the families of Chinese victims (should you happen to find them somehow) to give you that information.
Yet more baseless accusations. If you know it is illegal then prove it. Otherwise you are just spreading a rumor.
If not, the bureaucracy can always make it illegal whenever they feel like it.
Who cares what they can do. It is what they do is important.
This one is too easy to check. You ask a Chinese victim and a foreign victim how much they got paid. I also noticed that the Guardian piece did not weigh in on whether or not he lied. I would think that the reporter would check something like that.
The Chinese government does enough shitty stuff for real.
Nope. They bought the rights from Xerox.
If they bought the rights from Xerox then why, in the middle of the Apple/Microsoft suit, did Xerox try to sue them for infringement?
In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's.
Apple purchased the Xerox patents later.
If you have access to the cctv.
Those are great advancements but what is the solution to the inability to produce a smooth surface using the glue gun approach? It is a problem with extruding out of a round nozzle that the surfaces will always have ridges. Round nozzles are needed to be able to print in any direction.
Only if the stalker can link the map to a person. The article says it is possible but not how to do it. The maps are called up but a user id not a name.
From the article;
and with a little effort, it's possible to find the actual people who have made the journeys.
because (thankfully) it requires a fair bit of effort to actually identify individuals from the data
Is it "a little effort" or " a fair bit of effort"? The never go into what would need to be done to get the identity information.
you small brained morons
Do you understand that insulting people makes them less open to what you are saying? By calling people you have never met "small brained morons" you are actually hurting your cause.
Anyone can be a photographer!
A better camera will make a better photographer. Notice that "better" is a relative term. An abysmal photographer with a better camera may be a horrible photographer and still not a good photographer.