Well, there would be a certain amount of support costs. But for any large company, you generally won't be getting the low level calls, as they'll have their own level 1/2 computer support people.
Read a little closer. I was talking about PAID advertisements. IE if Barrett wants to buy an ad for anybody searching for "M82 rifle", as their site doesn't show up at the top, Google's management won't accept the ad. Google Protest Site
Isn't it kind of hard to send firearms through the mail?
Well, you have to have it sent to a FFL, who'll fill out all the required paperwork and do the necessary checks before handing it over to you (and charge $20-$50 for what amounts to a piece of paper).
Afghanistan had the russians as the bad guys and the noble arabs. The same arabs that america is now fighting.
Not quite, we're fighting the Taliban, which are a distinct group from the Northern Alliance who we did support against the Russians. After the Taliban we're trying to either integrate or eliminate all the warlords that sprung up in the vacuum. Of course, we have this problem today because we didn't help them rebuild after Russia left...
How about this one? A little over 200 years ago we fought a war against England, now we're the closest of allies! Heck, we're even sorta on nice terms with Russia.
Google also refuses to advertise for firearm sites. They still index them, but will refuse to advertise them. Try doing a google search for terms like pistol or rifle. Rifle turns up one link to a german artist who has nothing to do with firearms. You'd tend to think that the various firarm manufacturers would be happy to buy advertisements, right?
What I said back then, in the time of no insurance, no welfare, and limited charity, that some "non-violent" crimes could cost the settlers their lives. Add in that law-enforcement could be weeks away, and you end up having to protect yourself. Even today, there are incidents of the police taking hours to get to a crime scene.
Most of these shows didn't have them shooting somebody just for squatters. They have weapons because the area was dangerous, and confronting unknown people dangerous too. The cop shows also often have gratutitous errors.
Another thing is that the "wild wild west" wasn't so wild. Their murder rates were actually lower than the eastern cities.
Sure, the little kids (I think they were preschool age) showed a short term effect. They were seen playing out parts of the show. It didn't help that they were shown the power rangers or equivalent. However, have any studies shown that these kids retain a more violent approach to life in general? It's like writing a paper about the effects of alcohol, and not including any observations a couple of days later.
That's NOT really standing up for what you believe in. That'd be just plain murder. Sure, violence is part of a man's (and woman's) arsenal. It's on the extreme end, to be used when necessary, such as defending yourself, your family, other innocents, and ultimatly, especially in those days where the majority didn't have insurance and the nearest sheriff was three days away, the property used to make your living.
that right will win in the end if you let the law handle it.
Sure. The police never have an agenda. Waco, Ruby Ridge, anybody? If you're going to go and commit a violent crime in front of me, I'm going to at least consider stopping it.
DUI and DWI don't have to necessarily relate to drinking or alcohol. Matter of fact, while levels are usually done to upgrade a DUI to DWI, in many states you can be prosecuted for DUI while on cold medicine, etc...
The point is that the law system gets to the point not even the lawyers can understand it. Thus, any new law should be done to clarify or deal with an actual new area.
Cell phones may be new (legally speaking), but distracted driving is not. How is talking on a cell phone worse than, say, putting on makeup or reading? Now distracted driving was enhanced by the invention (and more importantly proliferation) of the automobile. Wagons and coaches got into accidents too, but horses don't generally run into things on their own.
Alaska's prosecuting this guy just fine with no DVD statute, so why do they need another law? If anything, just clarify the older laws.
Um What weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
A better statement would be a coal plant releases more radioactive waste per megawatt/hour than a nuclear plant produces.
Per Pound, a nuclear powerplant produces more rads. On the other hand, the nuclear waste is waste, not pollution, because it's contained. You can fit the average nuclear plant's yearly waste in a semi trailer with the shielding. A better measure for a coal plant's waste is in train-loads per day. And that's not including what goes up the smoke-stacks.
I think that the first question is "What defines a major accident?"
For example, a major military base can pretty much count on at least a couple of deaths due to car accidents alone.
You could define a "major accident" as a mistake or failure that costs a human life or more than $1 million to fix or rectify. Under this definition, I would bet for one happening on a multiple year, multiple billion dollar project. Too many people, and a $1 million accident isn't that hard to come by. An idiot with a forklift could do that in about a minute.
Well, there's still plenty of wildlife around chernobyl. A somewhat higher rate of mutation, but the wildlife seems to have more or less adapted. With average lifespans of considerably less than a decade most wildlife doesn't survive long enough to get cancer anyways.
I wish I had mod points right now.:) Thought whether I'd mod it insightful or funny (I laughed at the McArthur part), I guess informative would win out, as you don't get credit for funny anymore.
I vote for the Subduction zone! Far cheaper than a rocket, and even more secure. Add in that it'll end up ground up and spread out you'd never find it after a million years.
As for plan B: I'd use it in breeder reactors, as using fresh materials is easier and cheaper to use for making bomb-grade material. I think we're doing just fine in changing Iran using more conventional methods, so nuking there isn't really a need. Now North Korea...
There might have been 'major worries', but were they founded worries?
The Cassini thermal reactor was designed to be able to take the rocket exploding around it, and then drop onto solid ground intact...
There are far too many people who have "nuclear" = "Bad/Evil/Polluting/Dangerous" implanted in their minds. It's like "Nuclear Power" == "Nuclear Weapons" == "End of the world".
military nuclear weapon industry != civilian nuclear power industry.
I agree completly. Also, I think that you should disregard about the first 30 years of nuclear operations, as it was a completely 'new' industry, and the risks were not known. It'd be like saying that flying is unsafe because of the crash rate for biplanes.
Now we have a good handle on the requirements for safe nuclear power. It's generally safer for workers than coal, and has fewer negative enviromental effects. Go nuclear!
I remember hearing about a class action lawsuit against a state which required the live polio vaccine, which gives about one family a year polio. This is despite there being a non-infectious version with the same effectivness in studies. The state required the live vaccine on the theory that some scientists and doctors had that the live vaccine might be more effective.
That being said, I fully support vaccination for infectuous diseases, but this... No Way!
What kind of FUD have you heard? They most commonly use chicken embryos (ie eggs), not human fetuses. No vaccine that I've heard of uses human fetuses for it's creation.
There are a few treatments for genetic disorders that use stem cells from the umbilical cord, otherwise all 'fetal tissue' used is used in research.
As it goes, my grandfather had polio. He still walks with a limp.
As for those who can't be vaccinated, the more people you get who can be vaccinated protect those who can't, as they won't become a carrier.
I'd tend to say that 1/10^(10^60) is basicly considering the possibility of a new revolutionary understanding of the universe happening, proving Relativity wrong.
Nothing can go faster than light? What about tachyons?
Besides, most theoretical geniuses are at least somewhat 'crackpot'. They're pushing the edge of our understanding, striking into unknown territory. Let them be wrong occasionally.
Time travel possible or not? Could the laws that we 'understand' be wrong, or only true within, say, ~2x the heliopause? We haven't had a probe go out that far, so who knows?
We're complaining about the requirement to register to read the article. I don't read the NYT unless I'm following a link. I don't want to have to 'register' just to read an article. Either slashdot needs to enter an agreement with the NYT to remove the registration requirement for referrals from/. or/. needs to find articles from non-registration required sites. CNN/Foxnews/Wired/BBC/AP/MSN/... There are plenty of sites that don't require registration.
DU is poisonous as well as radioactive. In many ways it's more poisonous than radioactive. It's a heavy metal, just like lead. The thing is that all the replacements for DU, while maybe not as radioactive, are just as much if not more poisonous. Add in that they're not as effective, so you have to shoot more of them and your in trouble.
Well, yes, those particular bombs were guided by the same package that they put on the explosive ones. It was a matter of creative thinking by the mission planners. They really wanted those vehicles, but didn't want to touch the school.
Maybe for a few artists, but most books are one of only about three sizes. A: 6 3/4 x 4 1/8" Paperback B: 8 1/4 x 5 1/2" Small, soft or hardcover C: 8 7/8 x 5 7/8" Large, soft or hardcover
Note that there is some variation, probably due to binding differences and the fact that I'm using a tape measure. Now I do have some larger books, they're art books, and so probably not within the reach of this machine.
You could, but due to the wonders of cross-pollination, your fine weed would degenerate into ditch-weed fairly quickly, and your fields of hemp would start showing suspiciously high THC levels...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there would be a certain amount of support costs. But for any large company, you generally won't be getting the low level calls, as they'll have their own level 1/2 computer support people.
Television ads might be one thing, but what about the targeted advertising Google does?
As long as they aren't targeting minors, why shouldn't they be able to advertise?
According to this site, it's not just firearms, but air rifles as well.
Read a little closer. I was talking about PAID advertisements. IE if Barrett wants to buy an ad for anybody searching for "M82 rifle", as their site doesn't show up at the top, Google's management won't accept the ad.
Google Protest Site
Isn't it kind of hard to send firearms through the mail?
Well, you have to have it sent to a FFL, who'll fill out all the required paperwork and do the necessary checks before handing it over to you (and charge $20-$50 for what amounts to a piece of paper).
Afghanistan had the russians as the bad guys and the noble arabs. The same arabs that america is now fighting.
Not quite, we're fighting the Taliban, which are a distinct group from the Northern Alliance who we did support against the Russians. After the Taliban we're trying to either integrate or eliminate all the warlords that sprung up in the vacuum. Of course, we have this problem today because we didn't help them rebuild after Russia left...
How about this one? A little over 200 years ago we fought a war against England, now we're the closest of allies! Heck, we're even sorta on nice terms with Russia.
Google also refuses to advertise for firearm sites. They still index them, but will refuse to advertise them. Try doing a google search for terms like pistol or rifle. Rifle turns up one link to a german artist who has nothing to do with firearms. You'd tend to think that the various firarm manufacturers would be happy to buy advertisements, right?
the property used to make your living
What I said back then, in the time of no insurance, no welfare, and limited charity, that some "non-violent" crimes could cost the settlers their lives. Add in that law-enforcement could be weeks away, and you end up having to protect yourself. Even today, there are incidents of the police taking hours to get to a crime scene.
Most of these shows didn't have them shooting somebody just for squatters. They have weapons because the area was dangerous, and confronting unknown people dangerous too. The cop shows also often have gratutitous errors.
Another thing is that the "wild wild west" wasn't so wild. Their murder rates were actually lower than the eastern cities.
Sure, the little kids (I think they were preschool age) showed a short term effect. They were seen playing out parts of the show. It didn't help that they were shown the power rangers or equivalent. However, have any studies shown that these kids retain a more violent approach to life in general? It's like writing a paper about the effects of alcohol, and not including any observations a couple of days later.
That's NOT really standing up for what you believe in. That'd be just plain murder. Sure, violence is part of a man's (and woman's) arsenal. It's on the extreme end, to be used when necessary, such as defending yourself, your family, other innocents, and ultimatly, especially in those days where the majority didn't have insurance and the nearest sheriff was three days away, the property used to make your living.
that right will win in the end if you let the law handle it.
Sure. The police never have an agenda. Waco, Ruby Ridge, anybody? If you're going to go and commit a violent crime in front of me, I'm going to at least consider stopping it.
DUI and DWI don't have to necessarily relate to drinking or alcohol. Matter of fact, while levels are usually done to upgrade a DUI to DWI, in many states you can be prosecuted for DUI while on cold medicine, etc...
The point is that the law system gets to the point not even the lawyers can understand it. Thus, any new law should be done to clarify or deal with an actual new area.
Cell phones may be new (legally speaking), but distracted driving is not. How is talking on a cell phone worse than, say, putting on makeup or reading? Now distracted driving was enhanced by the invention (and more importantly proliferation) of the automobile. Wagons and coaches got into accidents too, but horses don't generally run into things on their own.
Alaska's prosecuting this guy just fine with no DVD statute, so why do they need another law? If anything, just clarify the older laws.
Um What weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
A better statement would be a coal plant releases more radioactive waste per megawatt/hour than a nuclear plant produces.
Per Pound, a nuclear powerplant produces more rads. On the other hand, the nuclear waste is waste, not pollution, because it's contained. You can fit the average nuclear plant's yearly waste in a semi trailer with the shielding. A better measure for a coal plant's waste is in train-loads per day. And that's not including what goes up the smoke-stacks.
I think that the first question is "What defines a major accident?"
For example, a major military base can pretty much count on at least a couple of deaths due to car accidents alone.
You could define a "major accident" as a mistake or failure that costs a human life or more than $1 million to fix or rectify. Under this definition, I would bet for one happening on a multiple year, multiple billion dollar project. Too many people, and a $1 million accident isn't that hard to come by. An idiot with a forklift could do that in about a minute.
Well, there's still plenty of wildlife around chernobyl. A somewhat higher rate of mutation, but the wildlife seems to have more or less adapted. With average lifespans of considerably less than a decade most wildlife doesn't survive long enough to get cancer anyways.
I wish I had mod points right now. :)
Thought whether I'd mod it insightful or funny (I laughed at the McArthur part), I guess informative would win out, as you don't get credit for funny anymore.
I vote for the Subduction zone! Far cheaper than a rocket, and even more secure. Add in that it'll end up ground up and spread out you'd never find it after a million years.
As for plan B: I'd use it in breeder reactors, as using fresh materials is easier and cheaper to use for making bomb-grade material. I think we're doing just fine in changing Iran using more conventional methods, so nuking there isn't really a need. Now North Korea...
There might have been 'major worries', but were they founded worries?
The Cassini thermal reactor was designed to be able to take the rocket exploding around it, and then drop onto solid ground intact...
There are far too many people who have "nuclear" = "Bad/Evil/Polluting/Dangerous" implanted in their minds. It's like "Nuclear Power" == "Nuclear Weapons" == "End of the world".
military nuclear weapon industry != civilian nuclear power industry.
I agree completly. Also, I think that you should disregard about the first 30 years of nuclear operations, as it was a completely 'new' industry, and the risks were not known. It'd be like saying that flying is unsafe because of the crash rate for biplanes.
Now we have a good handle on the requirements for safe nuclear power. It's generally safer for workers than coal, and has fewer negative enviromental effects. Go nuclear!
I remember hearing about a class action lawsuit against a state which required the live polio vaccine, which gives about one family a year polio. This is despite there being a non-infectious version with the same effectivness in studies. The state required the live vaccine on the theory that some scientists and doctors had that the live vaccine might be more effective.
That being said, I fully support vaccination for infectuous diseases, but this... No Way!
What kind of FUD have you heard? They most commonly use chicken embryos (ie eggs), not human fetuses. No vaccine that I've heard of uses human fetuses for it's creation.
There are a few treatments for genetic disorders that use stem cells from the umbilical cord, otherwise all 'fetal tissue' used is used in research.
As it goes, my grandfather had polio. He still walks with a limp.
As for those who can't be vaccinated, the more people you get who can be vaccinated protect those who can't, as they won't become a carrier.
I'd tend to say that 1/10^(10^60) is basicly considering the possibility of a new revolutionary understanding of the universe happening, proving Relativity wrong.
Nothing can go faster than light? What about tachyons?
Besides, most theoretical geniuses are at least somewhat 'crackpot'. They're pushing the edge of our understanding, striking into unknown territory. Let them be wrong occasionally.
Time travel possible or not? Could the laws that we 'understand' be wrong, or only true within, say, ~2x the heliopause? We haven't had a probe go out that far, so who knows?
We're complaining about the requirement to register to read the article. I don't read the NYT unless I'm following a link. I don't want to have to 'register' just to read an article. Either slashdot needs to enter an agreement with the NYT to remove the registration requirement for referrals from /. or /. needs to find articles from non-registration required sites. CNN/Foxnews/Wired/BBC/AP/MSN/... There are plenty of sites that don't require registration.
DU is poisonous as well as radioactive. In many ways it's more poisonous than radioactive. It's a heavy metal, just like lead. The thing is that all the replacements for DU, while maybe not as radioactive, are just as much if not more poisonous. Add in that they're not as effective, so you have to shoot more of them and your in trouble.
Well, yes, those particular bombs were guided by the same package that they put on the explosive ones. It was a matter of creative thinking by the mission planners. They really wanted those vehicles, but didn't want to touch the school.
Maybe for a few artists, but most books are one of only about three sizes.
A: 6 3/4 x 4 1/8" Paperback
B: 8 1/4 x 5 1/2" Small, soft or hardcover
C: 8 7/8 x 5 7/8" Large, soft or hardcover
Note that there is some variation, probably due to binding differences and the fact that I'm using a tape measure. Now I do have some larger books, they're art books, and so probably not within the reach of this machine.
No they aren't.
Version one: This is what I did wrong. Now we can fix it.
Version two: Ray's the one two blame!
A Reason can be an excuse. It doesn't have to be.
You could, but due to the wonders of cross-pollination, your fine weed would degenerate into ditch-weed fairly quickly, and your fields of hemp would start showing suspiciously high THC levels...