Wow, that dog and his owner must get around, not to mention having the most horrible luck.
Still, google for "state law dog bit intruder"
Washington - Dog owners in Washington are responsible for keeping their dogs in an enclosed area. If someone enters the enclosed area during a burglary or while committing some other crime, they could be responsible for any dog attack that takes place on the property. (I blame the wishy-washy wording on it being a lawyer advice website.). Generic for many states - In most states, dog owners aren't liable to trespassers who are injured by a dog. But the rules are convoluted and vary significantly from state to state. Same basic rules, different site - Common law holds a person who owns what he knows to be a 'dangerous dog' liable regardless of a person's status, but most common law states are 'reluctant' to find liability on behalf of a trespasser/criminal.
You must not have been searching very effectively if you spent "2 hours" searching, I found these sights in less time than it took to compose this post.
My grandfather used to keep Boston Terriers - one day he had a burglar running from the cops try to cut through his back yard.
Half grown male comes out to play(doggie door). He kicks the puppy, never saw the other male and female. They take him down and the male grabs him by the throat. The female grabs one of his legs. The recovered puppy comes over and grabs the other leg.
Crook got to sit there with three dogs on him for over 2 hours because animal control was busy elsewhere and grandpa wasn't home. Cops didn't dare go in the yard(how many dogs does grandpa have?), didn't dare try to shoot them(bostons aren't that big, they'd probably hit the crook), etc...
Grandpa finally gets home, enters the yard with the cops, shoos the dogs off and collects them into the house. 6 months later the crook tries to sue grandpa for 'injuries', saying he had vicious dogs. The case was thrown out of court when it was shown that despite being held like that for that long, none of the dogs so much as broke the skin.
Personal story: More Boston Terriers, but my parents while I lived with them. We needed some furnace work done, told the contractor where to locate the key. He goes in and goes to get to work. Cindy had just had puppies was in the downstairs bedroom with them just across from the furnace room. She growled at him from under the bed. He saw the pups and closed the door. Mugsy brought his toys down in the hope of playing with him. But one of my uncles once scared us kids pretty good, and from then on both the dogs had a vendetta against him. If he turned his back or moved funny, they'd go after him.
In addition, it's a common misconception that you 'don't need to aim a shotgun much'. At home defense ranges, you're generally looking at less than 10 yards. In most cases that's not enough time for the shot cup to separate from the pellets, resulting in the person you shoot essentially being hit with a giant glaser safety round. As it hasn't spread, you still need to aim.
Also, 20 gauge is pretty light on the list of common shotgun calibers, 5.56 is probably going to be a better stopper, depending on ranges, loading, and hit location.
PLUS, 5.56 is actually 'pretty safe' when misses are going to go through walls. Just like the shotgun, they'll go through a couple layers of drywall just fine, but they're so light that it destabilizes them, making it unlikely they'll make it through the NEXT set of drywall. IE it's dangerous to the person 'hiding' on the other side of the wall, but the next house over should be okay.
Studies have shown that 5.56 is actually stopped by drywall faster than 9mm -.45 caliber handgun rounds, and a slug out of a shotgun is suprisingly penetrative. 0-1 ought buck is slowed to a stop by 3-4 separated panels of drywall.
The UK's handgun ban is still a relatively recent thing.
The strange part would be that if you go back in history before the gun ban, the US murder rate was even higher and the UK's lower. After you banned guns your murder rate rose/remained stable(mostly), while after a time the US murder rate underwent a huge drop.
Oh, and the black thing - I'm not racist, but we have done some incredibly bad things to the blacks in our country; as a result a violent and destructive culture has developed; mostly self-destructive. There are areas in the USA where if you're a black man the odds are you'll die a violent death before 40.
In general, if you're not in those areas, as a white person you're safer in the USA than you are in Europe.
The second is that each of these different types of space junk would require (potentially) different processing techniques,
I've actually looked at some of this.
Property issues: Go by litter rules - they abandoned the materials in space; they're cluttering up the orbitals and thus you're just cleaning up and recycling the trash Volume: It's tiny in proportion to even a smaller asteroid, yes, but they're already refined materials. That helps. Plus the whole 'clean up the orbitals' thing. You don't actually need that much material to help the ISS or it's replacement on quite a bit. Different processing techniques: Initially I'd figure on the recycling to be fairly primitive - perhaps mostly a solar fuser and some automated tools to shape the collected material into more shielding. While lead is pretty good for the thickness needed to provide protection and water is good for other reasons, pretty much anything works to provide some shielding. A lot of radiation shielding is simply a question of mass.
In general, my policy short of humans would be 'what goes up doesn't come down'. When stuff in orbit is more costly than it's weight in gold, even some crazy recycling is worth it. Work on getting a green module* up and running to satisfy at least some of the ongoing oxygen and food demands. Etc...
As the station grows, so wouldn't the justification for more elaborate recycling.
*I don't care whether it's potted, hydroponic, aeroponic, or even just algae in a tank.
Okay, I'm something of a theorist of 'international law'. I'm not a lawyer or anything.
First, my theory on international politics/law: The dealings of nations is a bit like an ancient village, where different nations are 'people' of varying size and ability. There is effectively limited to no 'police', there are no courts, etc...
As such, 'international law' depends on the threat or actual use of force. Any given country is free to do what it wants to until other countries can be motivated to do something about it.
In this case; in order to have any real effect, said beacon has to be recognized by countries willing to press the issue - whether in space or on the ground.
In general, it's a lot more likely if parties in multiple countries have interests in various asteroids for exploitation - IE it's worth money, and spread out enough for a coalition to form. You'd probably see some sort of time and scope limit on the beacon claims - just because the USA put some flags on the moon doesn't mean we own the whole thing. If anything, a flag might only be good for, say, a 5 km radius, or a latitude/longitude section that the flag is in of a pre-specified size(basically, divide the planet up into lots and lots of squares; plant a flag or probe in a square to claim it). If you undertake no further activity, said claim from flag-planting expires after X years, which I'd peg at 20-40 years. If you undertake further activity, the claim becomes permanent unless you abandon said site, which would become open to claim again after 20-40 years from your last activity.
There's Spitzak's option: Include more engine so they can still get started from that position, even if slowly. Or perhaps the 'highest grade' is such that the engines are already powerful enough to get started on a level surface. Finally, the 'best' option would be to put the stop points on the electrification list at a priority level just below that of actual stations.
you can't say video game A causes people to be violent, but video game B does not.
Fallacy of composition - CoD is a first person shooter. Farmville is a 2D overhead view game. The stimuli can be extremely different, therefore causing different effects.
Do video games affect us? Yes, we know they do. Do they affect us negatively? That's the part that studies don't seem to know.
There are some positives, some negatives with video games. What I do know is that we're a lot less violent than we used to be - to the point that video games, lead, etc... Are all insignificant compared to the decrease between the 15th and 20th centuries. And that's including the world wars.
In general, the research I've seen suggests that 'violent' media increases violent behavior in those under 6 for brief periods of time amongst inadequately supervised children, mostly due to imitation. For teenagers and adults, 'violent' media actually tends to cause the opposite reaction.
There are still people who are going to fixate upon something and use it as justification for their bad behavior.
If you've got 50% disk use then expect the lifetime to be cut in half because the used blocks cannot be part of the remapping.
That's the older firmwares. The newest ones are capable of moving data that tends to remain static onto the higher used blocks to free up blocks with more writes left.
Of course, this can be a tricky procedure to get right - too much churn and you end up killing the drive much quicker. Too little and you still end up with a unevenly worn drive.
The diesel engine is a very heavy part of the train (as batteries would be).
You know, this makes me wonder. The biggest short-term energy expense of a train is accelerating out of a station. What if we made 'dual mode' trains that have undersized diesel generators only capable of keeping up speed on the highest grade expected, then electrify the lines within and around the stations?
That way we can save the diesel that would be used for starting/stopping, not to mention the pollution. Then, as money permits, you electrify the highest grades, so you can downgrade the engines needed.
As time goes on, you just keep electrifying more of the routes, and eventually have a completely done one.
Are you figuring in the $16,000 to $18,000 cost of an economy sedan?
He's most likely figuring on the marginal cost. You see, if I need a vehicle 3 times a week, it's cheaper to buy it than to just rent it when I need one. Once I own it, there's all sorts of static costs such as registration and insurance that I have to pay whether I drive or not. For that matter, the vehicle only depreciates slower if I don't drive it. As such, if it costs $2 to take the bus, but I figure it's 20 cents to the mile(gas+maintenance+depreciation), anything less than 10 miles is cheaper to drive.
Here's the kicker though: I value my time at ~$12/hour. A trip that takes 10 minutes by car, might take 30 minutes by buss. So that extra 20 minutes 'costs' an extra $4. If you value your time moderately high, it often comes out that even if the bus was free it's effectively sucking money out of your life by taking up extra time. Though one mitigating factor is that if they're nice enough in your area you could do something else during the ride - read or something. But I get motion sick just enough that reading isn't fun for me anymore on a bus.:(
Or the $24,000 for an SUV or more option-laden vehicle that many opt for (on monthly payments)?
Somebody buying a $24k SUV isn't doing it just for common transportation. Heck, even a $16k vehicle isn't a common commuter.
Yes, many of us do enjoy alcohol's flavor in its various forms and mixed with things. The fact that it makes you feel great is definitely a plus.
I'm all for allowing people to drink. I'm not some prohibitionist.
I'm like the non-annoying vegetarians - I don't like the taste of alcohol, I don't like how it makes me feel, so I don't drink it. But I know there's lots of stuff other people like that I don't, and there's things I like that others don't.
"To each his own". Have fun drinking. If you need a ride, call.
So grocery store eggnog won't work, you need raw yolks, and one of three raw commercial eggs has salmonella.
Something like half of chicken growers vaccinate their chickens against salmonella. If you can't have a coop, do some research and buy your eggs from a farm that vaccinates against it.
It's not 100%, but then neither is having your own chickens.
The price at the pump is being manipulated. The US exports a lot of gasoline. A fact that is overlooked when politicians talk about the need for more domestic oil exploration.
Oil/gasoline is a global market. We also import a lot of oil/gasoline. If we don't sell batch X to China, batch Y from somewhere else will go to China instead of the USA. Due to shipping and all, the costs would likely be higher in that scenario. It's complicated.
The way to drop the price of gasoline is to reduce the demand for it. If the 10% of drivers most suited for EV use switched, we'd save boatloads of oil/gasoline, and it'd drop the price for the 90% still using gasoline vehicles.
May I ask WHY you do this drive? Have you considered getting your private pilot's license and maybe flying a more direct route? I value my time at ~$10/hour. That's $120 a commute if you value your time like I do, not including vehicle expenses.
You're also driving more than 99% of people in the USA. Edge cases will always be unusual. Now consider this - let's say 50% of people switch over to EVs - that leaves more gasoline for your unusual behavior, saving you money at the pump.
I've always figured the best spots for fast chargers would be at restaurants. You can relax and refuel while your car is doing the same. Plus, a nice sit down meal is 40-60 minutes anyways, so it dove-tails nicely.
If you really need to marathon drive an EV, what about a generator trailer? Add a bit more storage along with the generator, when you're most likely to need the extra space. For a Tesla S level EV, it doesn't even need to be sized large enough to provide 100% of the power necessary to maintain highway speeds - just 50% would extend range to over 600 miles. Then you plug in at night or if you're camping or something let the generator continue through the night(get a trailer with a bigger fuel tank in this case, or bring a couple gas cans in the extra storage space).
Electric cars do suck unless you own your own home. Since unless you do, there's going to be nowhere to plug it in since you cant exactly retrofit your rental.
Not everybody would need to... Sorry, couldn't find one specifically for apartments.
For that matter, consider that some businesses installed chargers on their own. For an apartment, if you, or anybody else, manages to convince the landlord that good renters are going to start looking for the ability to charge in their assigned spot, that it's now a salable feature, they'll have the work done themselves.
I've been considering buying an electric motorcycle specifically because of all the heater plugs out there - I'd be able to charge up all over the place for free.
A 'great car' so long as you don't want to drive long distances or turn the heater on in the winter.
By all accounts, if John Broder had allowed the car to charge for half an hour more in total, he would have been able to make the journey just fine, heat and all.
At 200 miles of range, that's ~3 hours of driving to exhaust the car's power, Tesla has gotten it down to 30-40 minutes to reach 80% charge. After 3 hours of driving you're supposed to take a break anyways. Go have lunch or something. If you really need to drive 600 miles in a day, rent a gasoline car for that day/trip. If you routinely drive that much, buy a diesel.
You think most 'luxury' car drivers don't expect to drive more than 200 miles or turn the heater on when it's cold outside?
I'm willing to bet that there's quite a crowd of luxury car drivers that will fly if they have to go over 200 miles in a day and simply rent a car at their destination. While the heater takes power, it's apparently not enough to kill long driving.
Now, if you live in Alaska or something I'd expect that you might want to do something else - my option would be to install a small hydrocarbon heater of some sort, with like a gallon tank. 80% or so heating efficiency would make it able to last a long time, even if it's providing some heat to the battery as well. As long as you're parked, you should have it plugged into one of the handy HBO ports all over the place up here, enabling you to come back to a somewhat topped off battery.
Except our electric-car-driving ancestors dumped them almost immediately when the ICE car came along, because they realised how much better it was. And you, of course, won't be coming back here in ten years to admit that you were wrong.
Actually it was still something of a hard fight - even back then, perhaps especially back then, they recognized the problems with emissions. Electric trains/trolleys helped keep the cities livable for quite a while. At worst, EVs became 'special purpose' - used in places where air quality was important(IE you couldn't accept the carbon monoxide levels an IC can produce, not to mention all the other crap). Mines, factories and warehouses, some golf courses, etc...
EV - great motor, incredibly lousy energy storage. IC - lousy engine; incredibly great energy storage.
There's nothing wrong with EV's that a batter that lasts twice as long that cost half as much wouldn't fix. We're getting there. LiIon fulfilled the 'twice as long', we're working on lowering the price of the batteries now.
I've read the writer's article and examined the logs. Are you alleging that the logs were faked? Because at this point it's not 'bullying' unless CEO Elon Musk had those records faked up.
I'd EXPECT a company and CEO who's actually interested in his product to have an interest in reviews of their product. I do believe that many companies work very hard to get favorable reviews, but Tesla seems confident in their product - they let these journalists drive without supervision, etc...
Top Gear ADMITTED to staging the push into the garage scene in order to 'spice up' the episode. Per the logs, either the logs or the journalist is lying. Who is?
Yeah, the brass has gotten ahold of the term 'cyber' and abused it. My career field used to be the ever so expressive "Computer Operator". This translated to me being able to work basically anything computer related - help desk, system administration, servers, switches, inventory, security, etc.... Now I'm 'cyber-surety', which means I concentrate on the security aspect.
But anyways - I'm still in uniform. I've deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and elsewhere. I am still trained in combat arms, issued an M-16, M-4, or M-9 as appropriate. I must meet the PT standards.
Am I any less of a soldier than the maintainer or inventory technician? They say knowledge is power - and my job is to make sure the communication lines stay open, yet secure against the enemy.
If the intel guys can't get their info to the commander, and he can't get it to the troops, how effective are we?
civilian population will realise that drone warfare has turned them into human shields.
Uh... No more than they are anyways. It's not like we're setting up drone control centers downtown, we're setting them up on already valid target military bases. The military drone pilots still wear uniforms, except maybe the CIA ones, and I find the idea of the CIA operating armed drones a bit shady myself.
Drones presents the enemy with interesting problems - if they go after the drones, well, they're relatively cheap to replace compared to manned aircraft. We lose no skill in the process, the pilot(s) will be back up as soon as we get another drone there. If they go after the pilots, they have the problem of reach and seperation - it's a whole different ballgame to mount a successful attack on a base within the US, and it's unlikely to do much anyways - there's multiple control centers. Again, other experienced pilots just take over the drones in the AOR while we slap additional guards and defenses over the rest of the control centers.
Yeah, we know. And these days, all kids are winners and get medals just for showing up at a sporting event.
The military's non-combat medals and ribbons predate WWII. Some trace their roots back to the continental army.
Graduating basic training/boot camp = ribbon. Not getting in serious trouble for 3 years = good conduct medal.
They're doing work that any 15 year old kid could do if you told them it was just a video game.
Except that the 15 year old kids would suck at it. Seriously, tests have shown that gamers are worse drone pilots than non-gamers. Gamers can't take the long periods of boring activity between exciting parts without becoming distracted.
Then you get into the fact that piloting a drone is NOT a game, especially to those at the other end. Sometimes the hardest thing is to know how and when to NOT pull the trigger.
That's not impressive, that's not medal worthy. If they want recognition of their peers, they should get off their ass and become real fighter pilots, or real tank commanders, or real platoon leaders and _then_ do something medal worthy. People do it every day - hell, even in real life there are cops and firefighters out there who deserve their medals.
The DoD is looking to recognize them to fight just this stigma. We're moving away from 'real fighter pilots', because fighter pilots are expensive(and can get killed/captured), fighter planes are expensive(and vulnerable), have limited linger time and require vast amounts of support.
Same with tank commanders - except you can add 'relatively slow response' to the list. Same deal with 'Platoon leaders'. Though I find it interesting that in these two cases you specified 'leader'. Where's the respect for the rest of the people in these units?
Then you would receive a purple heart for being wounded in the line of duty.
Better double check the requirements - the injury has to be the direct result of enemy action. Shot, stabbed, shrapnel, or just exploded enough to get a TBI.
Purple Heart criteria- "Enemy-related injuries which justify the award of the Purple Heart include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed land mine, naval mine, or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.
Injuries or wounds which do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart include frostbite or trench foot injuries; heat stroke; food poisoning not caused by enemy agents; chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy; battle fatigue; disease not directly caused by enemy agents; accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action; self-inflicted wounds (e.g., a soldier accidentally fires their own gun and the bullet strikes his or her leg), except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence; post-traumatic stress disorders;[7] and jump injuries not caused by enemy action."
Slashdot Mirror
dog bites an intruder in all 50 states
Wow, that dog and his owner must get around, not to mention having the most horrible luck.
Still, google for "state law dog bit intruder"
Washington - Dog owners in Washington are responsible for keeping their dogs in an enclosed area. If someone enters the enclosed area during a burglary or while committing some other crime, they could be responsible for any dog attack that takes place on the property. (I blame the wishy-washy wording on it being a lawyer advice website.).
Generic for many states - In most states, dog owners aren't liable to trespassers who are injured by a dog. But the rules are convoluted and vary significantly from state to state.
Same basic rules, different site - Common law holds a person who owns what he knows to be a 'dangerous dog' liable regardless of a person's status, but most common law states are 'reluctant' to find liability on behalf of a trespasser/criminal.
You must not have been searching very effectively if you spent "2 hours" searching, I found these sights in less time than it took to compose this post.
My grandfather used to keep Boston Terriers - one day he had a burglar running from the cops try to cut through his back yard.
Half grown male comes out to play(doggie door). He kicks the puppy, never saw the other male and female. They take him down and the male grabs him by the throat. The female grabs one of his legs. The recovered puppy comes over and grabs the other leg.
Crook got to sit there with three dogs on him for over 2 hours because animal control was busy elsewhere and grandpa wasn't home. Cops didn't dare go in the yard(how many dogs does grandpa have?), didn't dare try to shoot them(bostons aren't that big, they'd probably hit the crook), etc...
Grandpa finally gets home, enters the yard with the cops, shoos the dogs off and collects them into the house. 6 months later the crook tries to sue grandpa for 'injuries', saying he had vicious dogs. The case was thrown out of court when it was shown that despite being held like that for that long, none of the dogs so much as broke the skin.
Personal story: More Boston Terriers, but my parents while I lived with them. We needed some furnace work done, told the contractor where to locate the key. He goes in and goes to get to work. Cindy had just had puppies was in the downstairs bedroom with them just across from the furnace room. She growled at him from under the bed. He saw the pups and closed the door. Mugsy brought his toys down in the hope of playing with him. But one of my uncles once scared us kids pretty good, and from then on both the dogs had a vendetta against him. If he turned his back or moved funny, they'd go after him.
In addition, it's a common misconception that you 'don't need to aim a shotgun much'. At home defense ranges, you're generally looking at less than 10 yards. In most cases that's not enough time for the shot cup to separate from the pellets, resulting in the person you shoot essentially being hit with a giant glaser safety round. As it hasn't spread, you still need to aim.
Also, 20 gauge is pretty light on the list of common shotgun calibers, 5.56 is probably going to be a better stopper, depending on ranges, loading, and hit location.
PLUS, 5.56 is actually 'pretty safe' when misses are going to go through walls. Just like the shotgun, they'll go through a couple layers of drywall just fine, but they're so light that it destabilizes them, making it unlikely they'll make it through the NEXT set of drywall. IE it's dangerous to the person 'hiding' on the other side of the wall, but the next house over should be okay.
Studies have shown that 5.56 is actually stopped by drywall faster than 9mm -.45 caliber handgun rounds, and a slug out of a shotgun is suprisingly penetrative. 0-1 ought buck is slowed to a stop by 3-4 separated panels of drywall.
The UK's handgun ban is still a relatively recent thing.
The strange part would be that if you go back in history before the gun ban, the US murder rate was even higher and the UK's lower. After you banned guns your murder rate rose/remained stable(mostly), while after a time the US murder rate underwent a huge drop.
Oh, and the black thing - I'm not racist, but we have done some incredibly bad things to the blacks in our country; as a result a violent and destructive culture has developed; mostly self-destructive. There are areas in the USA where if you're a black man the odds are you'll die a violent death before 40.
In general, if you're not in those areas, as a white person you're safer in the USA than you are in Europe.
The second is that each of these different types of space junk would require (potentially) different processing techniques,
I've actually looked at some of this.
Property issues: Go by litter rules - they abandoned the materials in space; they're cluttering up the orbitals and thus you're just cleaning up and recycling the trash
Volume: It's tiny in proportion to even a smaller asteroid, yes, but they're already refined materials. That helps. Plus the whole 'clean up the orbitals' thing. You don't actually need that much material to help the ISS or it's replacement on quite a bit.
Different processing techniques: Initially I'd figure on the recycling to be fairly primitive - perhaps mostly a solar fuser and some automated tools to shape the collected material into more shielding. While lead is pretty good for the thickness needed to provide protection and water is good for other reasons, pretty much anything works to provide some shielding. A lot of radiation shielding is simply a question of mass.
In general, my policy short of humans would be 'what goes up doesn't come down'. When stuff in orbit is more costly than it's weight in gold, even some crazy recycling is worth it. Work on getting a green module* up and running to satisfy at least some of the ongoing oxygen and food demands. Etc...
As the station grows, so wouldn't the justification for more elaborate recycling.
*I don't care whether it's potted, hydroponic, aeroponic, or even just algae in a tank.
Okay, I'm something of a theorist of 'international law'. I'm not a lawyer or anything.
First, my theory on international politics/law: The dealings of nations is a bit like an ancient village, where different nations are 'people' of varying size and ability. There is effectively limited to no 'police', there are no courts, etc...
As such, 'international law' depends on the threat or actual use of force. Any given country is free to do what it wants to until other countries can be motivated to do something about it.
In this case; in order to have any real effect, said beacon has to be recognized by countries willing to press the issue - whether in space or on the ground.
In general, it's a lot more likely if parties in multiple countries have interests in various asteroids for exploitation - IE it's worth money, and spread out enough for a coalition to form. You'd probably see some sort of time and scope limit on the beacon claims - just because the USA put some flags on the moon doesn't mean we own the whole thing. If anything, a flag might only be good for, say, a 5 km radius, or a latitude/longitude section that the flag is in of a pre-specified size(basically, divide the planet up into lots and lots of squares; plant a flag or probe in a square to claim it). If you undertake no further activity, said claim from flag-planting expires after X years, which I'd peg at 20-40 years. If you undertake further activity, the claim becomes permanent unless you abandon said site, which would become open to claim again after 20-40 years from your last activity.
Basically, a bit like the old homestead days.
There's Spitzak's option: Include more engine so they can still get started from that position, even if slowly. Or perhaps the 'highest grade' is such that the engines are already powerful enough to get started on a level surface. Finally, the 'best' option would be to put the stop points on the electrification list at a priority level just below that of actual stations.
you can't say video game A causes people to be violent, but video game B does not.
Fallacy of composition -
CoD is a first person shooter. Farmville is a 2D overhead view game. The stimuli can be extremely different, therefore causing different effects.
Do video games affect us? Yes, we know they do. Do they affect us negatively? That's the part that studies don't seem to know.
There are some positives, some negatives with video games. What I do know is that we're a lot less violent than we used to be - to the point that video games, lead, etc... Are all insignificant compared to the decrease between the 15th and 20th centuries. And that's including the world wars.
In general, the research I've seen suggests that 'violent' media increases violent behavior in those under 6 for brief periods of time amongst inadequately supervised children, mostly due to imitation. For teenagers and adults, 'violent' media actually tends to cause the opposite reaction.
There are still people who are going to fixate upon something and use it as justification for their bad behavior.
If you've got 50% disk use then expect the lifetime to be cut in half because the used blocks cannot be part of the remapping.
That's the older firmwares. The newest ones are capable of moving data that tends to remain static onto the higher used blocks to free up blocks with more writes left.
Of course, this can be a tricky procedure to get right - too much churn and you end up killing the drive much quicker. Too little and you still end up with a unevenly worn drive.
The diesel engine is a very heavy part of the train (as batteries would be).
You know, this makes me wonder. The biggest short-term energy expense of a train is accelerating out of a station. What if we made 'dual mode' trains that have undersized diesel generators only capable of keeping up speed on the highest grade expected, then electrify the lines within and around the stations?
That way we can save the diesel that would be used for starting/stopping, not to mention the pollution. Then, as money permits, you electrify the highest grades, so you can downgrade the engines needed.
As time goes on, you just keep electrifying more of the routes, and eventually have a completely done one.
Are you figuring in the $16,000 to $18,000 cost of an economy sedan?
He's most likely figuring on the marginal cost. You see, if I need a vehicle 3 times a week, it's cheaper to buy it than to just rent it when I need one. Once I own it, there's all sorts of static costs such as registration and insurance that I have to pay whether I drive or not. For that matter, the vehicle only depreciates slower if I don't drive it. As such, if it costs $2 to take the bus, but I figure it's 20 cents to the mile(gas+maintenance+depreciation), anything less than 10 miles is cheaper to drive.
Here's the kicker though: I value my time at ~$12/hour. A trip that takes 10 minutes by car, might take 30 minutes by buss. So that extra 20 minutes 'costs' an extra $4. If you value your time moderately high, it often comes out that even if the bus was free it's effectively sucking money out of your life by taking up extra time. Though one mitigating factor is that if they're nice enough in your area you could do something else during the ride - read or something. But I get motion sick just enough that reading isn't fun for me anymore on a bus. :(
Or the $24,000 for an SUV or more option-laden vehicle that many opt for (on monthly payments)?
Somebody buying a $24k SUV isn't doing it just for common transportation. Heck, even a $16k vehicle isn't a common commuter.
For those unwilling/too lazy to do the math:
Not counting alternate smartphone OS's like blackberry, windows, symbian, etc...
The last quarter of 2011 Apple had 30% of the market
last quarter of 2012 it had slipped to 23%.
This is despite selling 30% more phones. Androids jumped 88%.
That sort of growth in a year is insane. I don't think even the computer revolution ever matched those numbers.
Yes, many of us do enjoy alcohol's flavor in its various forms and mixed with things. The fact that it makes you feel great is definitely a plus.
I'm all for allowing people to drink. I'm not some prohibitionist.
I'm like the non-annoying vegetarians - I don't like the taste of alcohol, I don't like how it makes me feel, so I don't drink it. But I know there's lots of stuff other people like that I don't, and there's things I like that others don't.
"To each his own". Have fun drinking. If you need a ride, call.
So grocery store eggnog won't work, you need raw yolks, and one of three raw commercial eggs has salmonella.
Something like half of chicken growers vaccinate their chickens against salmonella. If you can't have a coop, do some research and buy your eggs from a farm that vaccinates against it.
It's not 100%, but then neither is having your own chickens.
The price at the pump is being manipulated. The US exports a lot of gasoline. A fact that is overlooked when politicians talk about the need for more domestic oil exploration.
Oil/gasoline is a global market. We also import a lot of oil/gasoline. If we don't sell batch X to China, batch Y from somewhere else will go to China instead of the USA. Due to shipping and all, the costs would likely be higher in that scenario. It's complicated.
The way to drop the price of gasoline is to reduce the demand for it. If the 10% of drivers most suited for EV use switched, we'd save boatloads of oil/gasoline, and it'd drop the price for the 90% still using gasoline vehicles.
May I ask WHY you do this drive? Have you considered getting your private pilot's license and maybe flying a more direct route? I value my time at ~$10/hour. That's $120 a commute if you value your time like I do, not including vehicle expenses.
You're also driving more than 99% of people in the USA. Edge cases will always be unusual. Now consider this - let's say 50% of people switch over to EVs - that leaves more gasoline for your unusual behavior, saving you money at the pump.
I've always figured the best spots for fast chargers would be at restaurants. You can relax and refuel while your car is doing the same. Plus, a nice sit down meal is 40-60 minutes anyways, so it dove-tails nicely.
If you really need to marathon drive an EV, what about a generator trailer? Add a bit more storage along with the generator, when you're most likely to need the extra space. For a Tesla S level EV, it doesn't even need to be sized large enough to provide 100% of the power necessary to maintain highway speeds - just 50% would extend range to over 600 miles. Then you plug in at night or if you're camping or something let the generator continue through the night(get a trailer with a bigger fuel tank in this case, or bring a couple gas cans in the extra storage space).
Electric cars do suck unless you own your own home. Since unless you do, there's going to be nowhere to plug it in since you cant exactly retrofit your rental.
Not everybody would need to... Sorry, couldn't find one specifically for apartments.
For that matter, consider that some businesses installed chargers on their own. For an apartment, if you, or anybody else, manages to convince the landlord that good renters are going to start looking for the ability to charge in their assigned spot, that it's now a salable feature, they'll have the work done themselves.
I've been considering buying an electric motorcycle specifically because of all the heater plugs out there - I'd be able to charge up all over the place for free.
A 'great car' so long as you don't want to drive long distances or turn the heater on in the winter.
By all accounts, if John Broder had allowed the car to charge for half an hour more in total, he would have been able to make the journey just fine, heat and all.
At 200 miles of range, that's ~3 hours of driving to exhaust the car's power, Tesla has gotten it down to 30-40 minutes to reach 80% charge. After 3 hours of driving you're supposed to take a break anyways. Go have lunch or something. If you really need to drive 600 miles in a day, rent a gasoline car for that day/trip. If you routinely drive that much, buy a diesel.
You think most 'luxury' car drivers don't expect to drive more than 200 miles or turn the heater on when it's cold outside?
I'm willing to bet that there's quite a crowd of luxury car drivers that will fly if they have to go over 200 miles in a day and simply rent a car at their destination. While the heater takes power, it's apparently not enough to kill long driving.
Now, if you live in Alaska or something I'd expect that you might want to do something else - my option would be to install a small hydrocarbon heater of some sort, with like a gallon tank. 80% or so heating efficiency would make it able to last a long time, even if it's providing some heat to the battery as well. As long as you're parked, you should have it plugged into one of the handy HBO ports all over the place up here, enabling you to come back to a somewhat topped off battery.
Except our electric-car-driving ancestors dumped them almost immediately when the ICE car came along, because they realised how much better it was. And you, of course, won't be coming back here in ten years to admit that you were wrong.
Actually it was still something of a hard fight - even back then, perhaps especially back then, they recognized the problems with emissions. Electric trains/trolleys helped keep the cities livable for quite a while. At worst, EVs became 'special purpose' - used in places where air quality was important(IE you couldn't accept the carbon monoxide levels an IC can produce, not to mention all the other crap). Mines, factories and warehouses, some golf courses, etc...
EV - great motor, incredibly lousy energy storage.
IC - lousy engine; incredibly great energy storage.
There's nothing wrong with EV's that a batter that lasts twice as long that cost half as much wouldn't fix. We're getting there. LiIon fulfilled the 'twice as long', we're working on lowering the price of the batteries now.
I've read the writer's article and examined the logs. Are you alleging that the logs were faked? Because at this point it's not 'bullying' unless CEO Elon Musk had those records faked up.
I'd EXPECT a company and CEO who's actually interested in his product to have an interest in reviews of their product. I do believe that many companies work very hard to get favorable reviews, but Tesla seems confident in their product - they let these journalists drive without supervision, etc...
Top Gear ADMITTED to staging the push into the garage scene in order to 'spice up' the episode. Per the logs, either the logs or the journalist is lying. Who is?
Yeah, the brass has gotten ahold of the term 'cyber' and abused it. My career field used to be the ever so expressive "Computer Operator". This translated to me being able to work basically anything computer related - help desk, system administration, servers, switches, inventory, security, etc.... Now I'm 'cyber-surety', which means I concentrate on the security aspect.
But anyways - I'm still in uniform. I've deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and elsewhere. I am still trained in combat arms, issued an M-16, M-4, or M-9 as appropriate. I must meet the PT standards.
Am I any less of a soldier than the maintainer or inventory technician? They say knowledge is power - and my job is to make sure the communication lines stay open, yet secure against the enemy.
If the intel guys can't get their info to the commander, and he can't get it to the troops, how effective are we?
civilian population will realise that drone warfare has turned them into human shields.
Uh... No more than they are anyways. It's not like we're setting up drone control centers downtown, we're setting them up on already valid target military bases. The military drone pilots still wear uniforms, except maybe the CIA ones, and I find the idea of the CIA operating armed drones a bit shady myself.
Drones presents the enemy with interesting problems - if they go after the drones, well, they're relatively cheap to replace compared to manned aircraft. We lose no skill in the process, the pilot(s) will be back up as soon as we get another drone there. If they go after the pilots, they have the problem of reach and seperation - it's a whole different ballgame to mount a successful attack on a base within the US, and it's unlikely to do much anyways - there's multiple control centers. Again, other experienced pilots just take over the drones in the AOR while we slap additional guards and defenses over the rest of the control centers.
Yeah, we know. And these days, all kids are winners and get medals just for showing up at a sporting event.
The military's non-combat medals and ribbons predate WWII. Some trace their roots back to the continental army.
Graduating basic training/boot camp = ribbon.
Not getting in serious trouble for 3 years = good conduct medal.
They're doing work that any 15 year old kid could do if you told them it was just a video game.
Except that the 15 year old kids would suck at it. Seriously, tests have shown that gamers are worse drone pilots than non-gamers. Gamers can't take the long periods of boring activity between exciting parts without becoming distracted.
Then you get into the fact that piloting a drone is NOT a game, especially to those at the other end. Sometimes the hardest thing is to know how and when to NOT pull the trigger.
That's not impressive, that's not medal worthy. If they want recognition of their peers, they should get off their ass and become real fighter pilots, or real tank commanders, or real platoon leaders and _then_ do something medal worthy. People do it every day - hell, even in real life there are cops and firefighters out there who deserve their medals.
The DoD is looking to recognize them to fight just this stigma. We're moving away from 'real fighter pilots', because fighter pilots are expensive(and can get killed/captured), fighter planes are expensive(and vulnerable), have limited linger time and require vast amounts of support.
Same with tank commanders - except you can add 'relatively slow response' to the list. Same deal with 'Platoon leaders'. Though I find it interesting that in these two cases you specified 'leader'. Where's the respect for the rest of the people in these units?
Then you would receive a purple heart for being wounded in the line of duty.
Better double check the requirements - the injury has to be the direct result of enemy action. Shot, stabbed, shrapnel, or just exploded enough to get a TBI.
Purple Heart criteria- "Enemy-related injuries which justify the award of the Purple Heart include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed land mine, naval mine, or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.
Injuries or wounds which do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart include frostbite or trench foot injuries; heat stroke; food poisoning not caused by enemy agents; chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy; battle fatigue; disease not directly caused by enemy agents; accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action; self-inflicted wounds (e.g., a soldier accidentally fires their own gun and the bullet strikes his or her leg), except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence; post-traumatic stress disorders;[7] and jump injuries not caused by enemy action."