Japan attacked us, Germany did not. And it was 1941, not 1940. Yamamoto first submitted plans for Operation Z, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Singapore and other Pacific islands/territories on January 7, 1941. The oil embargo started July 26, 1941. They had been building their attack forces for years. The oil embargo may have advanced the attack, but was not the cause, or even a cause, for the attack on the first place. Did you bother to even find out the reasons for the embargo? Start with the Rape of Nanking.
Since the attack had long been planned, the oil embargo was the right thing to do. Or do you think it would have been better to supply them with oil for an additional 5 months before they attacked us?
Again, cherry picking your information is revising history.
No, the US was demanding an unconditional surrender. The Japanese offered a conditional surrender. The US rejected that, and proceeded to use nuclear weapons against non-military people.
You do not accept conditional surrenders from someone who has repeatedly attacked you without provocation. Should we have accepted a conditional surrender from Hitler when we got to the German border? Left him or the Nazis in power? Let the holocaust continue? Let him continue to develop the V2? Why should Hirohito and the Big 6 be left in power in Japan?
The US, Great Britain, and the Soviets all agreed to accept nothing but unconditional surrender. Accepting a conditional surrender was not an option for the US, and at the time very few citizens of the US would have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. The Japanese were only starting talks with the Soviets about a conditional surrender, which the Soviets rejected and built up forces on the Manchuko border. There was no conditional surrender on the table when the bomb was dropped, they had been warned at Potsdam on July 26th by the 3 powers to unconditionally surrender or face prompt and utter destruction. Even after the second bomb was dropped, it took the emperor another 5 days to formally declare surrender. None of this is consistent with the bullshit theory that the US rejected an offer to surrender when the bomb was dropped.
Read the actual histories, not revisionist crap with cherry picked quotes, to get the actual information.
They removed a page created in the US because it offended some Muslims in Pakistan? The Taliban control a large portion of Pakistan. Can I get pages in Pakistan removed because they offend me? I'll bet that there's a lot that have things way more offensive than stick figures of Jesus. Like death threats and pro-female-slavery propaganda.
Pictures of women without veils offend some Muslims too. When are they going to ban those for being offensive?
many aerospace experts questioned whether the mission benefits of the X-37B outweighed its costs and argued that expendable rockets could achieve similar results.
The secretive flight, civilian specialists said in recent weeks, probably centers at least partly on testing powerful sensors for a new generation of spy satellites.
So they're saying the benefits of the mission, which "probably centers at least partly on testing" sensors , aren't worth the cost. They don't have a clue what the mission is or it's benefits, how can they possibly say it's not worth it?
Even if you ignore all other possibilities for the mission and it's just for testing sensors, they have no idea what kind of sensors are being tested. What do they detect? Nuclear weapons? Underground gold and oil deposits? Are they just testing better cameras or perfecting Smell-o-vision? Some sensors might be more than worth the cost.
No, I read and understood your post, you just fail to see the difference between physically handing someone your keys and remote wireless access to your cars functions. Also, there's a couple of easy steps to take to prevent your scenario. Also, it's flawed even in concept.
First, not everyone has a garage. Not all garages are attached. The ones that are have an interior door with a lock.
Someone impersonating a valet would've just stolen your car if they could get away with it. How long do you think you can get away with being a fake valet? Do you really think no one will notice for more than 15 minutes if the place doesn't have valet? Don't you think the other valets would notice the stranger trying to do their job if they did?
Thieves won't return the profits of a crime they got away with on the hopes of getting away with a more serious crime later. Especially since they have to assume you have an attached garage and don't lock the interior door. Also, expensive cars come with valet keys that only unlock the door and start the car, they don't unlock the glovebox or trunk. You can take your garage door opener with you.
This doesn't even address the fact that you don't have to use valet in the first place. But you can't remove OnStar, and most people won't even know this remote disabling is a "feature" of that little blue button on the dash.
Car thieves will use whatever method possible to steal cars, just look at the extent that the manufacturers have to go to prevent it. And they're still unsuccessful. Using OnStar to steal cars is extremely likely, if you look at the history of car theft.
12% of the water on this planet supports life. This does not imply that only 12% of the planets that have water will have life as he claims. You'd have to assume that all other planets are completely uniform, with none of the variation in environment that our planet has, and apply a single potential water bearing environment to each planet for that to be the case. I don't think we've found a single uniform planet yet, applying that to every planet is ridiculous.
Only 12% of my car can support a working engine, if you put it in the trunk or seat, it won't work, only the engine bay. This does not imply that only 12% of cars have engines.
Yes, I know things cost money. That's why I mentioned it in my post, and why what I proposed is of negligible expense.
I won't have OnStar in my vehicle, that doesn't change the fact they're still assholes for ignoring the crash signal in those that do have it.
The only assumption I've made is that GM did not build the world's first totally secure completely unhackable wireless connection created and maintained by perfectly trustworthy employees who can neither be bribed nor blackmailed. I would say that, yes, I do know with certainty that it is hackable.
A valet, who you knowingly give your keys to and you can identify, copying your keys and stealing your car is a lot different than having it, along with your wallet, phone, and other valuables, stolen at gunpoint by someone you've no clue where to find then leaving you stranded in a shitty neighborhood.
[blockquote]Let's see, how hard would it be to read the VIN number on the dash, determine the key codes for the car, cut a key, spoof the access number electronically, and gain access to the OBD-II connector?[/blockquote]
Probably about 10,000,000 times harder than sitting in your chair clicking a mouse to get access. But I'm pretty sure that's a gross underestimation. Also, you left out step one: Find car.
There's a lot more things you can do when something is ridiculously simple and involves almost no time, effort or cost than if it is only possible with a large investment in time, effort and materials.
When I look at all of OnStar's "Features", it's just about the worst option you can have on a car. I would never own a car that had a remote disabling system built in. OnStar is not unhackable. Once it's hacked, you just became an easy carjacking victim, they can follow you without needing to see you and stop you whenever they want.
If you're in a car crash and the airbags deploy in a remote area, the car sends a signal to OnStar, and they can send help. Unless you didn't pay your $19.95/month, then they ignore the signal that they recieved and you can die, for all they care. Sell all the other OnStar services, charge whatever a month for then, shut them off when no payment is recieved, that's fine. The crash notification system should never be shut off. Yes, I know there's an expense involved, but it's not that expensive to pass on the information since the entire system is in place, it's just hiring a few more employees to deal with the slight increase in volume of OnStar calls. You could even automate it to send emails to whichever local jurisdiction is closest to the accident. Doing nothing should be criminal, in my opinion.
Their advertisements are horrible, especially the one with a woman imitating a child's voice who's Mom's heart medicine's not working. Scaremongering assholes.
Tires need to be inspected, you can't go by mileage. Ditto hoses and belts. Tire usage varies greatly by how it's driven, what might last you 75,000 miles might only last me 30,000. Hoses and belts are the same, 10,000 miles driven mostly on interstates takes a lot less time and wears the belts a lot less than 10,000 miles in stop-and-go on city streets.
There are a few things that it could warn you about, but there's not much reason it would need to remind you on the phone when it can just remind you when you get in the car. You need to be at the car to do anything about it.
No, Nintendo offers the old titles on systems that no longer have the capability of playing the old cartridges. You are free to play the old version you own on the old system as long as you like. You bought a cartridge/disc of software. If you want it on a different format of cartridge/disc/download that plays on a completely different device, buy the new cartridge/disc/download. If you want to build a converter to play the old software on the new system, go right ahead. Most people will just buy the new one, it's simpler, easier and cheaper for them to not spend their time converting it.
The Gameboy line has always been compatible with their last generation games. They kept the GB Advance cartridge slot on all DS models for 5 years before releasing the DSi without it, and they still sell the DS Lite with it. The Advance was only 4 years old when they released the DS, they've been backwards compatibile for over 6 years. Do they need to keep that slot forever?
Expecting a company to have to squeeze 4 different cartridge slots on a handheld system or to give you the software in the new format for free when they come out with a new system is more disgusting. The former wouldn't sell, and the latter would result in new systems being prohibitively expensive to produce.
Well, the studio made well over half a billion dollars off of Avatar just in box office alone, El Secreto De Sus Ojos made less than $20 million (Box office - cost to make (+marketing estimate for Avatar only.)) "El Secreto..." might be a great movie, but it's a crime drama. There is almost no chance that anyone would see it twice in the theater, like almost everyone I know did who saw Avatar. It's the only movie in the last 20 years I paid to see twice. I need to be in the mood to sit down and watch a crime drama, if I stopped by someone's house and they were watching Avatar, I'd probably watch the rest of it unless I had somewhere to be.
The studio could care less what got the same IMDB score. It's a internet poll, a large group of idiots can make "Ernest Goes To Camp" have a higher rating than "Shawshank Redemption." A rating of 7 doesn't mean much when the margin of error is +-3.
Ratings are just a reflection of the peron who rated it. According to Insight Cable's rating system last year, a movie starring Jessica Simpson (can't remember the title) is just as good as Al Pacino in Scarface (2 stars.)
An assistant principal looked at images of a student in their home and punished the student for what they saw.
I'll buy their excuse once the can explain how the I.T. department did the above. Explain how the assistant principal didn't know of the capability while punishing the student for a picture taken in the students home using this very capability.
The capability was known and the invasion of privacy was just fine with the administration until the moment they got sued. If it weren't, the situation causing the lawsuit could never have happened in the first place.
There's tons of money to be gained right now from it. If they announce it, and can back it up, it will take years before actual profits start rolling in, they need to build plants/distribution etc. But the stock price will skyrocket upon the announcement, and continue to rise as it gets closer to being in use. The CEO's bonuses are usually based on stock price, not profitability.
"Had scientists that invented napalm at Dow Chemical been given the same amount of resources to invent more efficient fuels and engines, I've no doubt they could have"
Why? There are approximately one metric crapload of scientists working on those two problem with billions in potential profits that every automobile manufacturer, oil company, and backyard Edison would kill to have and produce. Billions are being spent on it. The market for these is probably measured in trillions of dollars. Which is going to make more profit, staying in the oil business with several competitors, or being the only one with a cheaper fuel and who isn't under OPEC's yoke? There is no advantage to any oil company sitting on new cheaper fuel. Similarly, any automobile manufacturer would love to have 100mpg cars. They spend billions to eke out a 5% gain in fuel efficiency. It is not due to a lack of effort or investment that we don't have super engines and fuels, it is that the speed of technological advance is much slower than everyone wants it to be. Would it be faster if we had more investment? Sure, but the difference will be small, e.g from a 5% efficiency gain/year now to a 6% gain, not major, like a sudden leap to 75MPG for trucks in 5 years. We can hope for a radical design or research breakthrough, but that's not something you can force with more investment, but only hope it comes a little bit quicker.
(Yes, I know you didn't state anything about companies sitting on inventions, but since it's frequently brought up, I threw it in.)
Can we handle a day or two of airport shutdowns every 20 years? No problem. But they were shut down for longer than that already, they're only running limited flights now, and the volcano's still erupting, it's just spitting out mainly steam instead of ash. There's no guarantee that it won't start spitting out ash again and not stop for 2 years.
Many businesses were built with the assumption that materials and products could be shipped rapidly. Many more adopted just-in-time procurement systems, in some industries, it's required to stay afloat - it's hard to compete when you have to keep a month's worth of inventory on hand for production that you hope catches up to what you ordered, while your competitors only keep a couple of days supply and can adjust to meet demand, or might not even order the parts until they have a sale. This will kill some companies that were just scraping by.
BMW can afford to pay it's idle workers. Many other companies cannot. An unexpected unpaid week can be disastrous to those living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Financially, this is hurting many companies besides the airlines and many more people.
The displacement isn't as useful as everyone thinks. Anything that is wider than it is tall will still get hit by any shot that's near center or to the correct side of the displacement, and some shots that would have missed will be hits. Actually anything whose height to width ratio is 4:3 or lower will still get hit. That covers a lot of the military equipment you'd want to hide - tanks, planes, ships, most buildings, most vehicles, anyone not standing up, etc.
I mean, I know we all understand it, but if you're giving an example, why use unitless decimals when you can use integers and tangible concepts? Why not just say it would displace a 4 meter tall truck by 3 meters instead of 0.2 units tall object by 0.15 units?
The caller ID law seems to place these legitimate uses of caller ID spoofing (Google Voice, businesses that send out the main phone number on outgoing lines) in a legal gray area. While they clearly violate the first part of directive by causing a caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, it is debatable whether or not that activity has "the intent to defraud or deceive."
\
It really isn't debatable if the intent is to defraud or deceive. If I call you from my phone through google voice, and the caller ID displays my name and my google voice number which, if called, connects to me on whatever phone I can be reached at, where is the deception? Who's being defrauded? What should the number say, Google, Inc.?
Similarly if I'm at work making a business call on a work phone, how can anyone argue displaying the company name and main phone number be deceptive?
Re:Pfft. you know nothing about hardware
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
It all depends on where you are. NYC and Texas have very different prices.
Re:Rogue-like
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If these actually caught on, you'd be able to buy the $20 life camera jammer from the trunk of a car along with the $100 Hi-Point 9mm. Just because they need to be developed by geeks doesn't mean that, once developed, they can't then be made cheaply, even by morons. And there are plenty of geek criminals, too, it's not that hard to build a jamming device.\
Drunks and people on meth are notoriously bad at thinking of long term consequences. If a drunk is going to hit you, warning him that he might get arrested is not going to stop him. If a meth addict needs your money for meth, taking his picture isn't going to deter him at all.
It really depends on how you handle it. It's actually fairly easy to get them to pay for it, if you stick to your guns and force them to see the logic. They are charging you money to keep your job. They aren't getting the money, but to you, they are not only forcing you to work for free on your own time getting the certification, but they are actually charging you for it. You lose that cash because of them. It wasn't what you agreed to, you agreed to a certain amount of work (measured in time, projects, etc) for a certain amount of pay, adding a requirement for that work that reduces your pay while adding to your work is absolutely not acceptable in any way.
You have to get them to see your side first. You're trying to get them to come to the logical conclusion before you have to explicitly state it. Be calm and reasonable. They will have arguments about budgets, policies, everyone else, etc. - don't get drawn into them. Keep the argument about you having less money and doing more work.
If they don't have the budget, then the certification and the requirement for it can wait until the next budget. Policies which effectively fine employees to keep their jobs aren't ones any rational moral human can follow. If everyone else accepted it, and you're the only one, it's because they haven't thought it through and you didn't talk to them about it, which is how you thought they'd prefer it.
If you don't do this, it will most likely be the start (if it's not the continuation) of more work for you with no additional compensation.
Why would they need to be trained in Scots law? It's not like they know the US one any better, really. Just pick something that you want to apply to a situation, then look it up and try to wrangle the closest law you can find around it - no training required.
Step one and step two in your logic are huge steps, and contain every thing that is immoral in your conclusion.
Convincing the public that a group of humans are subanimals, as you put it, is the only step needed to get from any point to your step 3. And has nothing to do with the medical experiments - it's arbitrarily thrown in at this point as an assumption, as is the assumption that the disabled are defective in step 1.
As logically true, in two steps:
If you snort milk into your nose, then take these 2 steps: step 1 - Convince the public that a group of humans are subanimals. Step 2 - Kill them. Nazi!
There's no link between the medical experiments and viewing other humans as a subclass. If there were, then skinhead lab assistants would be the norm.
Slashdot Mirror
Japan attacked us, Germany did not. And it was 1941, not 1940. Yamamoto first submitted plans for Operation Z, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Singapore and other Pacific islands/territories on January 7, 1941. The oil embargo started July 26, 1941. They had been building their attack forces for years. The oil embargo may have advanced the attack, but was not the cause, or even a cause, for the attack on the first place. Did you bother to even find out the reasons for the embargo? Start with the Rape of Nanking.
Since the attack had long been planned, the oil embargo was the right thing to do. Or do you think it would have been better to supply them with oil for an additional 5 months before they attacked us?
Again, cherry picking your information is revising history.
You do not accept conditional surrenders from someone who has repeatedly attacked you without provocation. Should we have accepted a conditional surrender from Hitler when we got to the German border? Left him or the Nazis in power? Let the holocaust continue? Let him continue to develop the V2? Why should Hirohito and the Big 6 be left in power in Japan?
The US, Great Britain, and the Soviets all agreed to accept nothing but unconditional surrender. Accepting a conditional surrender was not an option for the US, and at the time very few citizens of the US would have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. The Japanese were only starting talks with the Soviets about a conditional surrender, which the Soviets rejected and built up forces on the Manchuko border. There was no conditional surrender on the table when the bomb was dropped, they had been warned at Potsdam on July 26th by the 3 powers to unconditionally surrender or face prompt and utter destruction. Even after the second bomb was dropped, it took the emperor another 5 days to formally declare surrender. None of this is consistent with the bullshit theory that the US rejected an offer to surrender when the bomb was dropped.
Read the actual histories, not revisionist crap with cherry picked quotes, to get the actual information.
They removed a page created in the US because it offended some Muslims in Pakistan? The Taliban control a large portion of Pakistan. Can I get pages in Pakistan removed because they offend me? I'll bet that there's a lot that have things way more offensive than stick figures of Jesus. Like death threats and pro-female-slavery propaganda.
Pictures of women without veils offend some Muslims too. When are they going to ban those for being offensive?
So they're saying the benefits of the mission, which "probably centers at least partly on testing" sensors , aren't worth the cost. They don't have a clue what the mission is or it's benefits, how can they possibly say it's not worth it?
Even if you ignore all other possibilities for the mission and it's just for testing sensors, they have no idea what kind of sensors are being tested. What do they detect? Nuclear weapons? Underground gold and oil deposits? Are they just testing better cameras or perfecting Smell-o-vision? Some sensors might be more than worth the cost.
No, I read and understood your post, you just fail to see the difference between physically handing someone your keys and remote wireless access to your cars functions. Also, there's a couple of easy steps to take to prevent your scenario. Also, it's flawed even in concept.
First, not everyone has a garage. Not all garages are attached. The ones that are have an interior door with a lock.
Someone impersonating a valet would've just stolen your car if they could get away with it. How long do you think you can get away with being a fake valet? Do you really think no one will notice for more than 15 minutes if the place doesn't have valet? Don't you think the other valets would notice the stranger trying to do their job if they did?
Thieves won't return the profits of a crime they got away with on the hopes of getting away with a more serious crime later.
Especially since they have to assume you have an attached garage and don't lock the interior door. Also, expensive cars come with valet keys that only unlock the door and start the car, they don't unlock the glovebox or trunk. You can take your garage door opener with you.
This doesn't even address the fact that you don't have to use valet in the first place. But you can't remove OnStar, and most people won't even know this remote disabling is a "feature" of that little blue button on the dash.
Car thieves will use whatever method possible to steal cars, just look at the extent that the manufacturers have to go to prevent it. And they're still unsuccessful. Using OnStar to steal cars is extremely likely, if you look at the history of car theft.
12% of the water on this planet supports life. This does not imply that only 12% of the planets that have water will have life as he claims. You'd have to assume that all other planets are completely uniform, with none of the variation in environment that our planet has, and apply a single potential water bearing environment to each planet for that to be the case. I don't think we've found a single uniform planet yet, applying that to every planet is ridiculous.
Only 12% of my car can support a working engine, if you put it in the trunk or seat, it won't work, only the engine bay. This does not imply that only 12% of cars have engines.
Yes, I know things cost money. That's why I mentioned it in my post, and why what I proposed is of negligible expense.
I won't have OnStar in my vehicle, that doesn't change the fact they're still assholes for ignoring the crash signal in those that do have it.
The only assumption I've made is that GM did not build the world's first totally secure completely unhackable wireless connection created and maintained by perfectly trustworthy employees who can neither be bribed nor blackmailed. I would say that, yes, I do know with certainty that it is hackable.
A valet, who you knowingly give your keys to and you can identify, copying your keys and stealing your car is a lot different than having it, along with your wallet, phone, and other valuables, stolen at gunpoint by someone you've no clue where to find then leaving you stranded in a shitty neighborhood.
[blockquote]Let's see, how hard would it be to read the VIN number on the dash, determine the key codes for the car, cut a key, spoof the access number electronically, and gain access to the OBD-II connector?[/blockquote]
Probably about 10,000,000 times harder than sitting in your chair clicking a mouse to get access. But I'm pretty sure that's a gross underestimation. Also, you left out step one: Find car.
There's a lot more things you can do when something is ridiculously simple and involves almost no time, effort or cost than if it is only possible with a large investment in time, effort and materials.
When I look at all of OnStar's "Features", it's just about the worst option you can have on a car. I would never own a car that had a remote disabling system built in. OnStar is not unhackable. Once it's hacked, you just became an easy carjacking victim, they can follow you without needing to see you and stop you whenever they want.
If you're in a car crash and the airbags deploy in a remote area, the car sends a signal to OnStar, and they can send help. Unless you didn't pay your $19.95/month, then they ignore the signal that they recieved and you can die, for all they care. Sell all the other OnStar services, charge whatever a month for then, shut them off when no payment is recieved, that's fine. The crash notification system should never be shut off. Yes, I know there's an expense involved, but it's not that expensive to pass on the information since the entire system is in place, it's just hiring a few more employees to deal with the slight increase in volume of OnStar calls. You could even automate it to send emails to whichever local jurisdiction is closest to the accident. Doing nothing should be criminal, in my opinion.
Their advertisements are horrible, especially the one with a woman imitating a child's voice who's Mom's heart medicine's not working. Scaremongering assholes.
Tires need to be inspected, you can't go by mileage. Ditto hoses and belts. Tire usage varies greatly by how it's driven, what might last you 75,000 miles might only last me 30,000. Hoses and belts are the same, 10,000 miles driven mostly on interstates takes a lot less time and wears the belts a lot less than 10,000 miles in stop-and-go on city streets.
There are a few things that it could warn you about, but there's not much reason it would need to remind you on the phone when it can just remind you when you get in the car. You need to be at the car to do anything about it.
No, Nintendo offers the old titles on systems that no longer have the capability of playing the old cartridges. You are free to play the old version you own on the old system as long as you like. You bought a cartridge/disc of software. If you want it on a different format of cartridge/disc/download that plays on a completely different device, buy the new cartridge/disc/download. If you want to build a converter to play the old software on the new system, go right ahead. Most people will just buy the new one, it's simpler, easier and cheaper for them to not spend their time converting it.
The Gameboy line has always been compatible with their last generation games. They kept the GB Advance cartridge slot on all DS models for 5 years before releasing the DSi without it, and they still sell the DS Lite with it. The Advance was only 4 years old when they released the DS, they've been backwards compatibile for over 6 years. Do they need to keep that slot forever?
Expecting a company to have to squeeze 4 different cartridge slots on a handheld system or to give you the software in the new format for free when they come out with a new system is more disgusting. The former wouldn't sell, and the latter would result in new systems being prohibitively expensive to produce.
Well, the studio made well over half a billion dollars off of Avatar just in box office alone, El Secreto De Sus Ojos made less than $20 million (Box office - cost to make (+marketing estimate for Avatar only.)) "El Secreto..." might be a great movie, but it's a crime drama. There is almost no chance that anyone would see it twice in the theater, like almost everyone I know did who saw Avatar. It's the only movie in the last 20 years I paid to see twice. I need to be in the mood to sit down and watch a crime drama, if I stopped by someone's house and they were watching Avatar, I'd probably watch the rest of it unless I had somewhere to be.
The studio could care less what got the same IMDB score. It's a internet poll, a large group of idiots can make "Ernest Goes To Camp" have a higher rating than "Shawshank Redemption." A rating of 7 doesn't mean much when the margin of error is +-3.
Ratings are just a reflection of the peron who rated it. According to Insight Cable's rating system last year, a movie starring Jessica Simpson (can't remember the title) is just as good as Al Pacino in Scarface (2 stars.)
An assistant principal looked at images of a student in their home and punished the student for what they saw.
I'll buy their excuse once the can explain how the I.T. department did the above. Explain how the assistant principal didn't know of the capability while punishing the student for a picture taken in the students home using this very capability.
The capability was known and the invasion of privacy was just fine with the administration until the moment they got sued. If it weren't, the situation causing the lawsuit could never have happened in the first place.
There's tons of money to be gained right now from it. If they announce it, and can back it up, it will take years before actual profits start rolling in, they need to build plants/distribution etc. But the stock price will skyrocket upon the announcement, and continue to rise as it gets closer to being in use. The CEO's bonuses are usually based on stock price, not profitability.
"Had scientists that invented napalm at Dow Chemical been given the same amount of resources to invent more efficient fuels and engines, I've no doubt they could have"
Why? There are approximately one metric crapload of scientists working on those two problem with billions in potential profits that every automobile manufacturer, oil company, and backyard Edison would kill to have and produce. Billions are being spent on it. The market for these is probably measured in trillions of dollars. Which is going to make more profit, staying in the oil business with several competitors, or being the only one with a cheaper fuel and who isn't under OPEC's yoke? There is no advantage to any oil company sitting on new cheaper fuel. Similarly, any automobile manufacturer would love to have 100mpg cars. They spend billions to eke out a 5% gain in fuel efficiency. It is not due to a lack of effort or investment that we don't have super engines and fuels, it is that the speed of technological advance is much slower than everyone wants it to be. Would it be faster if we had more investment? Sure, but the difference will be small, e.g from a 5% efficiency gain/year now to a 6% gain, not major, like a sudden leap to 75MPG for trucks in 5 years. We can hope for a radical design or research breakthrough, but that's not something you can force with more investment, but only hope it comes a little bit quicker.
(Yes, I know you didn't state anything about companies sitting on inventions, but since it's frequently brought up, I threw it in.)
Can we handle a day or two of airport shutdowns every 20 years? No problem. But they were shut down for longer than that already, they're only running limited flights now, and the volcano's still erupting, it's just spitting out mainly steam instead of ash. There's no guarantee that it won't start spitting out ash again and not stop for 2 years.
Many businesses were built with the assumption that materials and products could be shipped rapidly. Many more adopted just-in-time procurement systems, in some industries, it's required to stay afloat - it's hard to compete when you have to keep a month's worth of inventory on hand for production that you hope catches up to what you ordered, while your competitors only keep a couple of days supply and can adjust to meet demand, or might not even order the parts until they have a sale. This will kill some companies that were just scraping by.
BMW can afford to pay it's idle workers. Many other companies cannot. An unexpected unpaid week can be disastrous to those living paycheck-to-paycheck.
Financially, this is hurting many companies besides the airlines and many more people.
The displacement isn't as useful as everyone thinks. Anything that is wider than it is tall will still get hit by any shot that's near center or to the correct side of the displacement, and some shots that would have missed will be hits. Actually anything whose height to width ratio is 4:3 or lower will still get hit. That covers a lot of the military equipment you'd want to hide - tanks, planes, ships, most buildings, most vehicles, anyone not standing up, etc.
I mean, I know we all understand it, but if you're giving an example, why use unitless decimals when you can use integers and tangible concepts? Why not just say it would displace a 4 meter tall truck by 3 meters instead of 0.2 units tall object by 0.15 units?
\
It really isn't debatable if the intent is to defraud or deceive. If I call you from my phone through google voice, and the caller ID displays my name and my google voice number which, if called, connects to me on whatever phone I can be reached at, where is the deception? Who's being defrauded? What should the number say, Google, Inc.?
Similarly if I'm at work making a business call on a work phone, how can anyone argue displaying the company name and main phone number be deceptive?
It all depends on where you are. NYC and Texas have very different prices.
If these actually caught on, you'd be able to buy the $20 life camera jammer from the trunk of a car along with the $100 Hi-Point 9mm. Just because they need to be developed by geeks doesn't mean that, once developed, they can't then be made cheaply, even by morons. And there are plenty of geek criminals, too, it's not that hard to build a jamming device.\
Drunks and people on meth are notoriously bad at thinking of long term consequences. If a drunk is going to hit you, warning him that he might get arrested is not going to stop him. If a meth addict needs your money for meth, taking his picture isn't going to deter him at all.
It really depends on how you handle it. It's actually fairly easy to get them to pay for it, if you stick to your guns and force them to see the logic. They are charging you money to keep your job. They aren't getting the money, but to you, they are not only forcing you to work for free on your own time getting the certification, but they are actually charging you for it. You lose that cash because of them. It wasn't what you agreed to, you agreed to a certain amount of work (measured in time, projects, etc) for a certain amount of pay, adding a requirement for that work that reduces your pay while adding to your work is absolutely not acceptable in any way.
You have to get them to see your side first. You're trying to get them to come to the logical conclusion before you have to explicitly state it. Be calm and reasonable. They will have arguments about budgets, policies, everyone else, etc. - don't get drawn into them. Keep the argument about you having less money and doing more work.
If they don't have the budget, then the certification and the requirement for it can wait until the next budget.
Policies which effectively fine employees to keep their jobs aren't ones any rational moral human can follow.
If everyone else accepted it, and you're the only one, it's because they haven't thought it through and you didn't talk to them about it, which is how you thought they'd prefer it.
If you don't do this, it will most likely be the start (if it's not the continuation) of more work for you with no additional compensation.
It's gotta be true if it's in the Daily Star. (+0)
I mean, they've got a section full of naked boobs.(+5 Interesting)
It's the section marked "Babes" (moderation limit reached)
(moderation limit reached)
(moderation limit reached)
(moderation limit reached)
(moderation limit reached)
Can we let the moderation score go up to 1,000,000 and add the category +1, Boobs? I think I'd have just won Slashdot.
Why would they need to be trained in Scots law? It's not like they know the US one any better, really. Just pick something that you want to apply to a situation, then look it up and try to wrangle the closest law you can find around it - no training required.
Step one and step two in your logic are huge steps, and contain every thing that is immoral in your conclusion.
Convincing the public that a group of humans are subanimals, as you put it, is the only step needed to get from any point to your step 3. And has nothing to do with the medical experiments - it's arbitrarily thrown in at this point as an assumption, as is the assumption that the disabled are defective in step 1.
As logically true, in two steps:
If you snort milk into your nose, then take these 2 steps:
step 1 - Convince the public that a group of humans are subanimals.
Step 2 - Kill them. Nazi!
There's no link between the medical experiments and viewing other humans as a subclass. If there were, then skinhead lab assistants would be the norm.
See the logic?