Almost exact. The parties agree to disagree on a few issues that are really of no importance, like gay marriage, in order to maintain the illusion that the vote matters.
I think part of it is politics. There is a deep political divide right now - the liberal and conservative factions loathing each other. The liberals are the ones calling for energy conservation, which means the conservatives feel compelled to use any excuse they can to condemn the idea.
Firstly, they arn't banning incandescents. The law sets a minimum efficiency standard. It's an effective ban because no incandescent can meet it, but it doesn't specify any technology.
Secondly, there is an exemption for specialty bulbs like appliance lights.
CFLs do contain a trace of mercury. It's not enough to be dangerous unless you eat them. Even if it were dangerous, it's contained inside the bulb - it isn't coming out unless the glass is broken.
CT scanners are slow. I would guess this is a plain old x-ray machine with a digital sensor and a new idiot-proof interface. Just insert suspect and press button. It might even do some colorisation to try to make things with non-fleshy absorbtion profiles stand out more. Basically just like one of those luggage scanners, except with a more carefully limited dose.
A magnetic shield is, in princible, doable. In practicality it'd take a ridiculously huge coil and vast amount of power. It's not going to work. Plus you'd still need two huge lumps of shielding, unless you want an aurora inside your station.
It's also all been taxed when it was income for the company that paid them. Money circulates. It's all been taxed before, many times. There is nothing wrong with that.
It's an interesting example of language. Legally, the tax on inheritence is called an inheritence tax. Opponents, in an effort to make it sound scarier, started calling it the death tax. As a proponent, I like to call it the Paris Hilton tax.
1.02MeV, if I recall correctly, to make positrons. Doable in the living room. But containing them isn't, so all you could do is irradiate samples with a positron beam and see what happens. Potentially fun, but not explodey fun.
I imagine it would depend on the state of the antimatter and the surface area in contact with ordinary matter. But fast - enough heat and you'd get antimatter vapor, which would rapidly expand from the heat produced and intermix with a large volume of air.
Hmm... given that the neutrons can decay into protons and electrons, I suppose... ask a physicist. Positon-neutron annihilation might be possible, but it's beyond my knowledge of the field.
Blowing stuff up in a highly precise way. I'm thinking of ultra-precise machining of mirrors or lenses. Ion streams are already used for this, but they are very slow and don't work on most materials. A positron beam would be faster, and could cut through anything with electrons in. Which means anything.
Star Wars would be classed as a work for hire. The individual who produced it is unimportant.
Re:BCC still existed?
on
The Death of BCC
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actual scenario, that I've been on the recieving end of: A company decides to send a mass-mailing to a group of customers. The employee CCs them all... and thus inadvertantly gives out half the company mailing list to everyone on it.
My memory wasn't exactly right. She wasn't actually charged, but faced a two year internal investigation and appeals process, and the wrath of the local papers.
This was an Ancient geothermal plant. The Ancients never met a technology they couldn't make explode, usually taking out at least a sizable chunk of planet.
"I spent most of my free time for a big chunk of my childhood from about age 8 to 12 down at the local river/stream building damns and rafts with some of the neighbourhood kids about a mile from home."
Any parent today who let their child do that would not only horrify everyone else in the community, but risk social services getting involved. Children today are much more protected than they used to be. Things that were common back then just arn't permitted any more, at least not without a stack of risk assessments filled out in triplicate and under the supervision of a person trained in first aid and with a clean criminal records check.
"the fear of child predators online is wildly over the top."
I blame the media for that one. Child predators make very good news - great for the ratings.
All they need is a fake profile generator. It wouldn't be that hard. Just populate it with random trivia and inane rubbish, throw in some facebook games. Who would notice?
The redub is a comedy staple now. I've made two short ones myself. They arn't espicially funny - I'm not really talented at finding good jokes - but that's just some idea of how common it is.
Now there's an idea.... anyone here work for television studios, and want a stunt? Here's one. Set up a few hidden cameras in a street. Get a child actor to hang around and look miserable, cry a bit, and obviously be in distress. Film the manner in which every man carefully avoids approaching or looking at the child, and see how long it takes before someone is finally brave or reckless enough to intervene. Use for a news story about how the culture of fear is endangering children.
Ironically, all staff involved in the production would need to undergo enhanced-disclosure criminal records checks in this country to work with a child.
We've the same policy in the public school I work at. It's partly to protect the pupils, and partly to protect us from false accusations made by pupils seeking revenge upon the teacher who gave them detention. The staff are all terrified of such accusations, because we know that even if it's proven beyond all possible doubt that the accusations was completly fabricated it'll still mean the end of our career. No school is going to hire an accused pedophile, and if one did the parents would eventually find out and be outraged.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost exact. The parties agree to disagree on a few issues that are really of no importance, like gay marriage, in order to maintain the illusion that the vote matters.
I think part of it is politics. There is a deep political divide right now - the liberal and conservative factions loathing each other. The liberals are the ones calling for energy conservation, which means the conservatives feel compelled to use any excuse they can to condemn the idea.
Firstly, they arn't banning incandescents. The law sets a minimum efficiency standard. It's an effective ban because no incandescent can meet it, but it doesn't specify any technology.
Secondly, there is an exemption for specialty bulbs like appliance lights.
CFLs do contain a trace of mercury. It's not enough to be dangerous unless you eat them. Even if it were dangerous, it's contained inside the bulb - it isn't coming out unless the glass is broken.
120Hz is about four times faster than any human is capable of percieving, except perhaps on very fast moving objects. You are not a fly.
There is always LED, or halogen, or even the more efficient incandescent bulbs.
CT scanners are slow. I would guess this is a plain old x-ray machine with a digital sensor and a new idiot-proof interface. Just insert suspect and press button. It might even do some colorisation to try to make things with non-fleshy absorbtion profiles stand out more. Basically just like one of those luggage scanners, except with a more carefully limited dose.
Weight. Electromagnets can produce far more field strength for their weight than even rare earth.
A magnetic shield is, in princible, doable. In practicality it'd take a ridiculously huge coil and vast amount of power. It's not going to work. Plus you'd still need two huge lumps of shielding, unless you want an aurora inside your station.
It's also all been taxed when it was income for the company that paid them. Money circulates. It's all been taxed before, many times. There is nothing wrong with that.
It's an interesting example of language. Legally, the tax on inheritence is called an inheritence tax. Opponents, in an effort to make it sound scarier, started calling it the death tax. As a proponent, I like to call it the Paris Hilton tax.
1.02MeV, if I recall correctly, to make positrons. Doable in the living room. But containing them isn't, so all you could do is irradiate samples with a positron beam and see what happens. Potentially fun, but not explodey fun.
Sure. But the energy cost of manufacturing antimatter would be more than the energy produced.
I imagine it would depend on the state of the antimatter and the surface area in contact with ordinary matter. But fast - enough heat and you'd get antimatter vapor, which would rapidly expand from the heat produced and intermix with a large volume of air.
Hmm... given that the neutrons can decay into protons and electrons, I suppose... ask a physicist. Positon-neutron annihilation might be possible, but it's beyond my knowledge of the field.
Blowing stuff up in a highly precise way. I'm thinking of ultra-precise machining of mirrors or lenses. Ion streams are already used for this, but they are very slow and don't work on most materials. A positron beam would be faster, and could cut through anything with electrons in. Which means anything.
Star Wars would be classed as a work for hire. The individual who produced it is unimportant.
Actual scenario, that I've been on the recieving end of: A company decides to send a mass-mailing to a group of customers. The employee CCs them all... and thus inadvertantly gives out half the company mailing list to everyone on it.
It wasn't at my school, but every school employee in the country was scared by it. Let me find the details....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11499872
My memory wasn't exactly right. She wasn't actually charged, but faced a two year internal investigation and appeals process, and the wrath of the local papers.
This was an Ancient geothermal plant. The Ancients never met a technology they couldn't make explode, usually taking out at least a sizable chunk of planet.
"I spent most of my free time for a big chunk of my childhood from about age 8 to 12 down at the local river /stream building damns and rafts with some of the neighbourhood kids about a mile from home."
Any parent today who let their child do that would not only horrify everyone else in the community, but risk social services getting involved. Children today are much more protected than they used to be. Things that were common back then just arn't permitted any more, at least not without a stack of risk assessments filled out in triplicate and under the supervision of a person trained in first aid and with a clean criminal records check.
"the fear of child predators online is wildly over the top."
I blame the media for that one. Child predators make very good news - great for the ratings.
All they need is a fake profile generator. It wouldn't be that hard. Just populate it with random trivia and inane rubbish, throw in some facebook games. Who would notice?
The redub is a comedy staple now. I've made two short ones myself. They arn't espicially funny - I'm not really talented at finding good jokes - but that's just some idea of how common it is.
Now there's an idea.... anyone here work for television studios, and want a stunt? Here's one. Set up a few hidden cameras in a street. Get a child actor to hang around and look miserable, cry a bit, and obviously be in distress. Film the manner in which every man carefully avoids approaching or looking at the child, and see how long it takes before someone is finally brave or reckless enough to intervene. Use for a news story about how the culture of fear is endangering children.
Ironically, all staff involved in the production would need to undergo enhanced-disclosure criminal records checks in this country to work with a child.
We've the same policy in the public school I work at. It's partly to protect the pupils, and partly to protect us from false accusations made by pupils seeking revenge upon the teacher who gave them detention. The staff are all terrified of such accusations, because we know that even if it's proven beyond all possible doubt that the accusations was completly fabricated it'll still mean the end of our career. No school is going to hire an accused pedophile, and if one did the parents would eventually find out and be outraged.