There is probably some kind of creative, adaptive scheduling solution that could fix this, but their management software might not have that kind of support.
Why try to find a technical solution when a simple employee policy/memo would fix this overnight? Like, "employees must leave their laptops powered and on the network at night, if you need to bring your laptop home, you'll be scanned the next morning when you connect"
Most hobbyist don't operate unmanned aerial vehicles. They operate what is called First Person View (FPV) aircraft that have limitations due to maintaining a video signal link as well as a flight control link.
There are a lot of autonomous planes now. You can pick a path/gps route on a tablet/computer, upload the path to the drone, and it will make the journey and return without any human intervention. It stores the video locally for download later.
By default everyone is supposed to have equal rights under the law. But we do take away or restrict certain rights to benefit society or prevent harm. (Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose).
There is no logical case that gay marriage causes any harm. So you can't take away that right. But things like incest or polygamy have been shown to have negative effects in society historically.
People who want even more forms of marriage, like polygamy, are welcome to take their case to court and attempt to explain why their marriage type causes no harm or that it provides a benefit to society.
But it's still a valid principle of democracy that unelected folks don't get to unilaterally decide law without precedent.
Those unelected folks can decide that there is no basis in law to deny rights to people though, even if that decision happens to override laws (that because of the ruling are now illegal). They can also just flat out decide that a specific law is unconstitutional. That is kinda the entire point of having a SCOTUS....
Well, isn't it still true that, at least for java, you don't even have to 'install it' on windows. You can just set the jre/jdk binaries in place manually. Make a JAVA_HOME env variable if you want, add it to PATH, etc..
I know that "personal responsibility" is frequently touted on Slashdot as the answer to a variety of problems, but please recognize that sometimes, despite 'smart choices', the world can put people in hard situations.
More info about this "must have nuclear" point that is always brought up on slashdot: http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en
True, but Nuclear works when its dark and there's no wind. Nuclear is a base load source so should only be compared against other base load sources.
So does wind/solar when stored. No one proposing renewable energy as base load isn't also aware that we have to store the energy, and upgrade the grid to push energy around to where it is needed.
Nuclear probably has the most accurate and transparent cost model of all the base load options. So if it looks expensive, it's because all power generation is, but Nuclear is forced to include ALL costs, while the likes of coal get a free ride. If you include the costs of climate change, which is a cost of Coal Power, it's pretty much the most expensive thing ever in all of human history.
As far as I can tell, renewable costs are continuing to steadily decline, while nuclear has stayed the same for a long time. I haven't looked in a while, but I'd be willing to guess that if renewable+storage costs haven't already, they will be cheaper than any other source of energy soon.
I just posted this above, but I'm curious about your opinion as well.
Why is everyone on this site so 100% sure that we need nuclear? I wasn't aware that there had been definitive studies done that concluded we had to use nuclear, despite the continual advancements in renewable. Sure, we'd need a smarter grid and a heck of a lot more energy storage, but I didn't think it was impossible.
These two guys are fairly smart, and they disagree on the matter. Interesting ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en
We is everyone on this site so 100% sure that we need nuclear? I wasn't aware that there had been definitive studies done that concluded we had to use nuclear, despite the continual advancements in renewable. Sure, we'd need a smarter grid and a heck of a lot more energy storage, but I didn't think it was impossible.
These two guys are fairly smart, and they disagree on the matter. Interesting ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en
she makes way more off touring and related merchandising than she does the pitiful royalties from album (both physical & virtual) sales.
Which is where I think music should head in general: no more selling digital copies of music, make your money actually playing the music. Something that can be copied with zero cost is always going to be at odds with a business model that uses artificial scarcity to inflate the value of a digital copy.
And it obviously doesn't help creativity or society to have copyrights be 70+ years plus the life of the artist. Works of art are supposed to go back into the common pool, so new artists can build off them, reinterpret them, get inspiration from them, etc..
you have no right to deny a business transaction to someone because of their sexual orientation
Unfortunately, sexual orientation isn't as protected a class as race, religion, etc.. so there are some states where your boss can legally fire you for being gay, restaurants can kick you out, etc...
Once the state governments and federal government amend their constitutions/laws to make sexual orientation a protected class like race, the "issues" around gay marriage will cease to be issues (legally speaking).
More than 50% of gun owners want stricter gun control laws. There have been dozens of polls about these issues. It is the lobbies and politicians that are refusing to budge, not the US citizens.
Stricter gun control regulation works in every single country....but not the US, because....? Government run healthcare works in every single country....but not the US, because....? Free/subsidized college works in every single country....but not the US, because....? etc...
*every single country being all modern western nations.
I think what some people imagine is a day when the Government 'goes too far' and all citizens rise up at once. 300 million angry people with rifles vs 100,000 soldiers with *everything*... and then 50,000 of those soldiers refusing to fight their own citizens and joining the 'rebel' fight with their weapons, etc.. It would be bloody and messy but the masses would likely win. See Syria for example. I'm pretty certain the rebels there will eventually win, unless Syria goes full out genocide type tactics, which the world would likely not allow.
I don't think that day will ever come though. We are, after all, still kind of a democracy. If things 'go to far', people will turn out to vote.
look how quickly we acted on things like acid rain or the ozone and CFC's
But I don't recall those requiring any major consumer sacrifices. Businesses had to change the chemicals they use, but the consumer never felt any of that in their pocket book and never had to change what they do on a day to day basis. Acid Rain/Ozone is a great example of how governments can work together, when the science is clear, and the economic burden for change is light.
And I think it plays into the Conservative Right's fear mongering to start talking about lifestyle changes anyway. I try to avoid it at all costs when talking to conservative family members. Most 'road to renewables' plans I've seen are basically painless. A 20-30 year transition to renewables that requires zero lifestyle changes from individuals. For instance, http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame?language=en
Like on the subject of meat, I assume the country is never going to be predominantly vegetarian, let alone vegan. So I place my future bets on things like lab grown meat, not reducing meat consumption.
You must have horrible restaurants where you are from, or are calling fast food places "restaurants".
Rather than not eating at restaurants, you should say "learn to recognize non-processed food and order healthier food combinations when you go out" or "eat at restaurants where the owner(s)' state on the web site that they try to use local, organic, healthy, etc.." or "eat at places where everything is made from scratch".
http://www.seasonsandregions.com/#!menu/c21ei I order the cafe meals pretty often. Dinners less so. Everything is made from scratch. The owner has their own farm and brings in heirloom fruits and veggies. http://sancheztaqueriapdx.com/photos_taqueria_.html - More fats and lards used in some mexican cooking. But everything is made from scratch. Even the tortillas.
Or look for deli's or super markets that have good cooked food offerings. Not the major ones like Fred Meyers, Safeway, etc.. but local smaller places, if you have them. http://www.newseasonsmarket.com/our-departments/deli http://www.marketofchoice.com/ http://www.worldfoodsportland.com/deli-catering.html
Or maybe I'm deluded and spoiled in PDX. Are there moderately sized or larger towns that don't have healthy restaurants and region supermarkets with 'from scratch' deli's?
Who is advising the politicians though? The spies may have been "deep plants", long time spies living and working in Russia and had grown influential, powerful, and/or trusted by decision makers. They also may have been native Russians who were recruited by MI6 as assets.
Believe it or not, people managed to survive in colder climates before they could truck in fresh fruit year-round from California. And actually, if they planned well, they could eat rather well with a variety of food. The stuff that didn't store well? Well, that's why they invented fermentation. And canning. And freezing.
I often wonder if various health issues, like obesity, or other modern ailments, are partially caused by our lack of healthy gut biomes due to cutting out fermented foods, breads, pickled items, etc..
We evolved alongside fermentation. Putting cabbage, salt, peppers, in a jar, and burying it in the ground for 6 months (Kimchi), and other examples, can be found far back in history. In some cases, pre-history. There are 10,000 year old sites that show evidence of wine making, for instance.
And it seems like we lost a lot of those preservation methods (canning, fermenting, pickling, etc..) really recently. 1950's maybe?
While it is true that there is really no logical way to justify eating meat (and even harder, try arguing against China's right to do this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinese-yulin-dog-meat-festival-activists-fight-back-in-support-of-event-which-will-see-10000-cats-and-dogs-slaughtered-10326736.html , while we kill millions of pigs a year, who are just as intelligent as dogs, etc.. ), it isn't going to change in the US any time soon, if ever.
Solutions to environmental issues that require people to change their moral compass or lifestyle in any significant way are doomed to fail. At least in the 50-100 year range.
Slashdot Mirror
There is probably some kind of creative, adaptive scheduling solution that could fix this, but their management software might not have that kind of support.
Why try to find a technical solution when a simple employee policy/memo would fix this overnight? Like, "employees must leave their laptops powered and on the network at night, if you need to bring your laptop home, you'll be scanned the next morning when you connect"
Most hobbyist don't operate unmanned aerial vehicles. They operate what is called First Person View (FPV) aircraft that have limitations due to maintaining a video signal link as well as a flight control link.
There are a lot of autonomous planes now. You can pick a path/gps route on a tablet/computer, upload the path to the drone, and it will make the journey and return without any human intervention. It stores the video locally for download later.
Well, it isn't even that complicated.
By default everyone is supposed to have equal rights under the law. But we do take away or restrict certain rights to benefit society or prevent harm. (Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose).
There is no logical case that gay marriage causes any harm. So you can't take away that right. But things like incest or polygamy have been shown to have negative effects in society historically.
People who want even more forms of marriage, like polygamy, are welcome to take their case to court and attempt to explain why their marriage type causes no harm or that it provides a benefit to society.
But it's still a valid principle of democracy that unelected folks don't get to unilaterally decide law without precedent.
Those unelected folks can decide that there is no basis in law to deny rights to people though, even if that decision happens to override laws (that because of the ruling are now illegal). They can also just flat out decide that a specific law is unconstitutional. That is kinda the entire point of having a SCOTUS....
Well, isn't it still true that, at least for java, you don't even have to 'install it' on windows. You can just set the jre/jdk binaries in place manually. Make a JAVA_HOME env variable if you want, add it to PATH, etc..
When my landlord raised my rent, it was a signal to me that I needed to buy a house. I guess there are risks either way.
I know that "personal responsibility" is frequently touted on Slashdot as the answer to a variety of problems, but please recognize that sometimes, despite 'smart choices', the world can put people in hard situations.
Once you reach a certain density, excellent public transit makes a lot more sense than a 10 lane wide road.
The transition from not dense to very dense can be problematic of course.
Is it also a heritage breed, woodland raised, and fed a vegan diet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAlWrT5P2VI
More info about this "must have nuclear" point that is always brought up on slashdot: http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en
True, but Nuclear works when its dark and there's no wind. Nuclear is a base load source so should only be compared against other base load sources.
So does wind/solar when stored. No one proposing renewable energy as base load isn't also aware that we have to store the energy, and upgrade the grid to push energy around to where it is needed.
Nuclear probably has the most accurate and transparent cost model of all the base load options. So if it looks expensive, it's because all power generation is, but Nuclear is forced to include ALL costs, while the likes of coal get a free ride. If you include the costs of climate change, which is a cost of Coal Power, it's pretty much the most expensive thing ever in all of human history.
As far as I can tell, renewable costs are continuing to steadily decline, while nuclear has stayed the same for a long time. I haven't looked in a while, but I'd be willing to guess that if renewable+storage costs haven't already, they will be cheaper than any other source of energy soon.
I just posted this above, but I'm curious about your opinion as well.
Why is everyone on this site so 100% sure that we need nuclear? I wasn't aware that there had been definitive studies done that concluded we had to use nuclear, despite the continual advancements in renewable. Sure, we'd need a smarter grid and a heck of a lot more energy storage, but I didn't think it was impossible.
These two guys are fairly smart, and they disagree on the matter. Interesting ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en
We is everyone on this site so 100% sure that we need nuclear? I wasn't aware that there had been definitive studies done that concluded we had to use nuclear, despite the continual advancements in renewable. Sure, we'd need a smarter grid and a heck of a lot more energy storage, but I didn't think it was impossible.
These two guys are fairly smart, and they disagree on the matter. Interesting ted talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy?language=en
she makes way more off touring and related merchandising than she does the pitiful royalties from album (both physical & virtual) sales.
Which is where I think music should head in general: no more selling digital copies of music, make your money actually playing the music. Something that can be copied with zero cost is always going to be at odds with a business model that uses artificial scarcity to inflate the value of a digital copy.
And it obviously doesn't help creativity or society to have copyrights be 70+ years plus the life of the artist. Works of art are supposed to go back into the common pool, so new artists can build off them, reinterpret them, get inspiration from them, etc..
you have no right to deny a business transaction to someone because of their sexual orientation
Unfortunately, sexual orientation isn't as protected a class as race, religion, etc.. so there are some states where your boss can legally fire you for being gay, restaurants can kick you out, etc...
Once the state governments and federal government amend their constitutions/laws to make sexual orientation a protected class like race, the "issues" around gay marriage will cease to be issues (legally speaking).
More than 50% of gun owners want stricter gun control laws. There have been dozens of polls about these issues. It is the lobbies and politicians that are refusing to budge, not the US citizens.
Stricter gun control regulation works in every single country....but not the US, because....?
Government run healthcare works in every single country....but not the US, because....?
Free/subsidized college works in every single country....but not the US, because....?
etc...
*every single country being all modern western nations.
I think what some people imagine is a day when the Government 'goes too far' and all citizens rise up at once. 300 million angry people with rifles vs 100,000 soldiers with *everything*... and then 50,000 of those soldiers refusing to fight their own citizens and joining the 'rebel' fight with their weapons, etc.. It would be bloody and messy but the masses would likely win. See Syria for example. I'm pretty certain the rebels there will eventually win, unless Syria goes full out genocide type tactics, which the world would likely not allow.
I don't think that day will ever come though. We are, after all, still kind of a democracy. If things 'go to far', people will turn out to vote.
What if the reflector is just a really shiny rock!? ;)
look how quickly we acted on things like acid rain or the ozone and CFC's
But I don't recall those requiring any major consumer sacrifices. Businesses had to change the chemicals they use, but the consumer never felt any of that in their pocket book and never had to change what they do on a day to day basis. Acid Rain/Ozone is a great example of how governments can work together, when the science is clear, and the economic burden for change is light.
And I think it plays into the Conservative Right's fear mongering to start talking about lifestyle changes anyway. I try to avoid it at all costs when talking to conservative family members. Most 'road to renewables' plans I've seen are basically painless. A 20-30 year transition to renewables that requires zero lifestyle changes from individuals. For instance, http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame?language=en
Like on the subject of meat, I assume the country is never going to be predominantly vegetarian, let alone vegan. So I place my future bets on things like lab grown meat, not reducing meat consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_%28wine%29
Stop eating at any restaurants
You must have horrible restaurants where you are from, or are calling fast food places "restaurants".
Rather than not eating at restaurants, you should say "learn to recognize non-processed food and order healthier food combinations when you go out" or "eat at restaurants where the owner(s)' state on the web site that they try to use local, organic, healthy, etc.." or "eat at places where everything is made from scratch".
http://www.seasonsandregions.com/#!menu/c21ei I order the cafe meals pretty often. Dinners less so. Everything is made from scratch. The owner has their own farm and brings in heirloom fruits and veggies.
http://sancheztaqueriapdx.com/photos_taqueria_.html - More fats and lards used in some mexican cooking. But everything is made from scratch. Even the tortillas.
Or look for deli's or super markets that have good cooked food offerings. Not the major ones like Fred Meyers, Safeway, etc.. but local smaller places, if you have them.
http://www.newseasonsmarket.com/our-departments/deli
http://www.marketofchoice.com/
http://www.worldfoodsportland.com/deli-catering.html
Or maybe I'm deluded and spoiled in PDX. Are there moderately sized or larger towns that don't have healthy restaurants and region supermarkets with 'from scratch' deli's?
Who is advising the politicians though? The spies may have been "deep plants", long time spies living and working in Russia and had grown influential, powerful, and/or trusted by decision makers. They also may have been native Russians who were recruited by MI6 as assets.
Believe it or not, people managed to survive in colder climates before they could truck in fresh fruit year-round from California. And actually, if they planned well, they could eat rather well with a variety of food. The stuff that didn't store well? Well, that's why they invented fermentation. And canning. And freezing.
I often wonder if various health issues, like obesity, or other modern ailments, are partially caused by our lack of healthy gut biomes due to cutting out fermented foods, breads, pickled items, etc..
We evolved alongside fermentation. Putting cabbage, salt, peppers, in a jar, and burying it in the ground for 6 months (Kimchi), and other examples, can be found far back in history. In some cases, pre-history. There are 10,000 year old sites that show evidence of wine making, for instance.
And it seems like we lost a lot of those preservation methods (canning, fermenting, pickling, etc..) really recently. 1950's maybe?
While it is true that there is really no logical way to justify eating meat (and even harder, try arguing against China's right to do this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinese-yulin-dog-meat-festival-activists-fight-back-in-support-of-event-which-will-see-10000-cats-and-dogs-slaughtered-10326736.html , while we kill millions of pigs a year, who are just as intelligent as dogs, etc.. ), it isn't going to change in the US any time soon, if ever.
Solutions to environmental issues that require people to change their moral compass or lifestyle in any significant way are doomed to fail. At least in the 50-100 year range.