Once the demand causes prices to reach the level of moral depravity, there will be a class of "entrepreneurs" who will realize that the market is worth any moral failure to provide. Torture, murder, environmental destruction - all a small price to pay to become rich (for someone's personal value of rich). The drug trade is similar.
I've been saying it for years...there are too many humans on this planet. Sure, we're advancing at an astounding rate, but we just don't need eight billion people. We'd likely be better off with closer to 1% of that.
But, hey, in order to "grow" commerce and markets we need more consumers, so damn reality and keep on fuckin'.
No, it will be ignored. I once reviewed a school in West Virginia and when I was done, I told the owner that his floors were only rated for about 1/2-2/3 of what they should be for a school building. He'd built the thing himself (it was constructed much like a pole barn) and hosted underprivileged city kids for year round programs, teaching them about the outdoors. His response: "We don't have codes in WV, I just need to know that it's safe."
I told him they had basically the same code as everywhere in the US (the International Building Code), but his county simply chose not to spend any money on enforcement. I also mentioned that if anything happened to the building, he would be held personally liable - as the builder - for violating the state building code. I wished him luck and went on my way. I no longer practice engineering in WV - it's just not worth it, as it's several hundred dollars a year to keep my license up.
Building codes don't address explosions like this. Even OSHA doesn't really have much way to require safety measures that would save people if an explosion occurred. BATFE isn't involved in fertilizer (afaik), though even in a manufacturing facility BATFE regs won't save people in the process area. These people will have died and their legacy will be nothing.
That's super easy. You could do it in 5s/piece just by sending it through a continuous "oven" monitored with an ion mobility spectrometer tuned for common agents.
Any flags get that batch carried off for further analysis.
"So please describe a situation where an honest person can defend themselves without a weapon?"
Eliminate all firearms
Okay, that's a ridiculous question and an equally ridiculous answer. It is, in fact, impossible to eliminate firearms. Case closed.
The thing is, you will never prevent an assailant from killing people in public with a firearm. Unless, of course, you are willing to mow down bystanders yourself.
And you will never stop a one-on-one assault unless the attacker is a bad shot, even if you own a weapon. The Prosecutor and his wife in Texas? He owned a gun, and it was in his house the day he and his wife were shot. In fact, it is believed he was going to get his weapon when he was gunned down. Guns don't protect you.
Believing that a gun will stop an assailant is a false security. The best you can hope for is that the attacker is a terrible shot and there's nobody behind him when you shoot.
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun in a public place is the bad guy running out of ammunition.
In response to someone FB post on how Switzerland offers decomm'd assault rifles to every male, I looked up gun ownership and deaths from guns by country. I chose first world, relatively lawful societies so as not to skew the data with lawless places or countries with insurrections. I chose Finland, US, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and (shoot, can't remember the other two). That's a pretty wide range of laws concerning guns, and a huge disparity in density of guns and people.
The result - 1 death per year for every 8000 guns. Regardless of population or # of guns. The std deviation was in the 300-400 range, iirc. It was a tight grouping. Regardless, fewer guns == fewer deaths from guns. Even in a place like Switzerland where every practically owner is military trained. Even in a place like Japan where they are nearly outlawed. More guns = more deaths / fewer guns = fewer deaths.
Nothing will stop the crazy that was Newtown or Virginia Tech, but fewer guns will, statistically, reduce the number of people who die from gun wounds - and it's 1:1.
FWIW, I'm a gun owner - have been for 20+ years. I'm also in favor of both 100%, kept-on-file background checks and 3 round capacity maximums. Then again, I used to deal with explosives as a hobby, and have friends who manufacture legally. Everything there is fully regulated, licensed, tracked, and recorded. Then again, you almost never see an IED made from mainstream pyrotechnic materials. It's more frequently homemade or common household materials, or commercially purchased black powder which - interestingly - is the only pyro explosive you can get and store without a license. Why? Because gun owners and the NRA bought the 25lb exemption in congress.
I have a "playroom" where I have two sets of lights. One set is ceiling cans with 23w CFLs and produces a very bright, white (3000k) even lighting for playing games or doing crafts. One set are sconces around the room perimeter with 60W incandescents on a dimmer. They produce a nicer light which is dimmable all the way down to barely-on, which is perfect for watching movies.
Compared to what we were doing at NASA in the 90s - much less by today's standards - the 60s really were lacking in the barest of computer aids. In hindsight, the assistance of computers was amazingly rudimentary. The ability to do structural analysis was being built "as they needed it" and independently in each group or center - NASTRAN, even in its earliest state, didn't exist yet. These are the people who started developing tools which didn't exist.
You have to remember - this was a time when Battin was using discrete math to plan missions, and a general n-body problem was considered unsolvable (and, afaik, still is in explicit form - but is trivial on modern computers for relevant values of n).
One gun related death for every 8000 guns in circulation. Doesn't matter where you are or what the gun laws of that country are. Std deviation on that stat is in the 500-700 range, btw, which is pretty small.
I generally hang with the party which is less likely to screw things up in the long term which will be unable to fix.
Here's where I take my position: We can always make more money, even if that means each individual unit is worth less. Money an economy are just human constructs - we make them, we can alter them. OTOH, if the environment gets screwed up, or lots of people die, there's no way to fix that - no dollar amount which will make it right.
Do you mean waiting tables as a part time job can cover the tuition & fees but have no money for rent, food, and healthcare? Or that if you compare the average full time waiter salary to the costs published by the state schools that you are close to break even?
(1) you don't have to pay an electrician to remove and reinstall a lamp, but you do a fixture (2) you don't disrupt the flow of business and it takes a shorter time to re-lamp than replace a fixture (3) if you find that the LED sucks, you can go back to what you know works (4) In 10 years, when one (or more) of the 30 year life fixtures dies and they don't make that model any more, I can replace a lamp and the fixture will still look the same. If I have to replace a fixture, then I have an oddball looking spot in my ceiling. Not everything is a warehouse where aesthetics mean nothing.
Oh, and there are a good number of older consumer fixtures which either (a) anticipate a certain light pattern or (b) actually use the lamp as the structure to hold the shade. I you think it's hard to convince people to buy a $20 lamp instead of a $1 one, it's even harder to get them to buy a new $60 fixture to put it in.
They haven't. Best Philips I could find, I think, had a CRI around 90; most are in the 80s (where 100 is blackbody for the rated color temp).
I have some Sylvania Par20s with a 95CRI and at full power they are not only as bright as 50W halogen PARs but very, very close to the same color (I think they're 2900K, vs 2800ish for incandescent halogens). Best price I could find was $34/ea, but they're great - and dimmable. At dim, though, they're goofy looking because the light temp doesn't change, but I can live with that. I had one of 13 fail within 2 weeks of installation, and I'm still waiting (3 weeks later) for a replacement.
" For personal chargers utilities could give homeowners a bill credit if they only charge their cars between specified times. "
This exists in some areas, or did 20 years ago when I lived in MD. They implemented time of use rates, which meant that electricity used in the middle of a summer day was (back then) 18c/kWh, but at night was 2.9c/kWh. There were shoulder periods, too. And the charges/hours differed in the winter.
In addition, they would give you a $10 credit for an A/C cutoff box and $5 credit for a WH cutoff box which allowed them to remotely cycle your system off for up to 20min/hr for A/C and 4hr/day for water heating. I'm pretty sure I had them install the box for the WH because I already had a timer which made sure it was off during the peak periods.
This would be fairly easy to do; allowing the grid to cancel charging of high-rate interfaces for a set period of time.
I wager that no matter what resources I muster, getting a functioning baby, from scratch (so to speak), is going to take me no less than 36 weeks, and that's shorting the process by a couple figuring you can induce early (i.e.: the base moulding won't be applied and some of the paint won't be finished).
I've watched some "fast track" architectural projects (I'm a structural engineer in real life), and one of two things happen: The project ends up taking just as long as it would have, or it becomes an absolute clusterfuck where nothing works properly. Occasionally, you get both the regular schedule AND the clusterfuck. On very rare occasions, and on very small projects, good planning actually saves time - but it's still never as much as the owner would like.
I pay Netflix, who pays the content owner. Netflix doesn't have a network connection I can connect to from my house, so I pay Comcast to extend the signal from Netflix to my house. I could pay Verizon, by I choose Comcast. In theory I could put in my own connection to netflix, but that's not really cost effective. Comcast pays nothing to re-broadcast the signal.
OTA transmissions are broadcast for "free" (i.e. the content owner is paid by advertising) and the bandwidth they use is allocated by me (the US Govt) for that specific purpose (Free TV). I choose to pay Aereo because it is cheaper or more convenient to use their antenna than my own, but they are doing nothing but being a common carrier, extending a digital signal to my house.
Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot, I'd like to speak to...
*click*
I find it very amusing to think of Timothy calling up a company in Russia for comment on why they just got blacklisted by the US Gov't. I'm not sure why, though it could be because every time I see his name on the editor line I think of the monkey from ThinkGeek.
That may be one of the funniest things I've read in a while.
Next time I need a baby in two weeks, I'm going to get together a team of 18 women and have them knock it out. I can pay extra, so it shouldn't be problem to get them focused and working together.
It depends, of course. There is no value added - it's just extending the signal. This should make is crystal clear:
If you're a cable provider sending a digitally encoded, real-time TV from the CBS network of a re-run of Big Bang Theory, yes. If you're a cable provider sending a digitally encoded, recorded TV from the Netflix servers of a re-run of Big Bang Theory, no.
Both times the same entity (the cable provider) is sending you digital data over their digital network of an identical program. See how obvious is the distinction is when you spell it out?
Slashdot Mirror
Once the demand causes prices to reach the level of moral depravity, there will be a class of "entrepreneurs" who will realize that the market is worth any moral failure to provide. Torture, murder, environmental destruction - all a small price to pay to become rich (for someone's personal value of rich). The drug trade is similar.
I've been saying it for years...there are too many humans on this planet. Sure, we're advancing at an astounding rate, but we just don't need eight billion people. We'd likely be better off with closer to 1% of that.
But, hey, in order to "grow" commerce and markets we need more consumers, so damn reality and keep on fuckin'.
No, it will be ignored. I once reviewed a school in West Virginia and when I was done, I told the owner that his floors were only rated for about 1/2-2/3 of what they should be for a school building. He'd built the thing himself (it was constructed much like a pole barn) and hosted underprivileged city kids for year round programs, teaching them about the outdoors. His response: "We don't have codes in WV, I just need to know that it's safe."
I told him they had basically the same code as everywhere in the US (the International Building Code), but his county simply chose not to spend any money on enforcement. I also mentioned that if anything happened to the building, he would be held personally liable - as the builder - for violating the state building code. I wished him luck and went on my way. I no longer practice engineering in WV - it's just not worth it, as it's several hundred dollars a year to keep my license up.
Building codes don't address explosions like this. Even OSHA doesn't really have much way to require safety measures that would save people if an explosion occurred. BATFE isn't involved in fertilizer (afaik), though even in a manufacturing facility BATFE regs won't save people in the process area. These people will have died and their legacy will be nothing.
Now we know where Gru can use his fart gun.
That's super easy. You could do it in 5s/piece just by sending it through a continuous "oven" monitored with an ion mobility spectrometer tuned for common agents.
Any flags get that batch carried off for further analysis.
"So please describe a situation where an honest person can defend themselves without a weapon?"
Eliminate all firearms
Okay, that's a ridiculous question and an equally ridiculous answer. It is, in fact, impossible to eliminate firearms. Case closed.
The thing is, you will never prevent an assailant from killing people in public with a firearm. Unless, of course, you are willing to mow down bystanders yourself.
And you will never stop a one-on-one assault unless the attacker is a bad shot, even if you own a weapon. The Prosecutor and his wife in Texas? He owned a gun, and it was in his house the day he and his wife were shot. In fact, it is believed he was going to get his weapon when he was gunned down. Guns don't protect you.
Believing that a gun will stop an assailant is a false security. The best you can hope for is that the attacker is a terrible shot and there's nobody behind him when you shoot.
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun in a public place is the bad guy running out of ammunition.
Actually, it's not anecdotal at all.
In response to someone FB post on how Switzerland offers decomm'd assault rifles to every male, I looked up gun ownership and deaths from guns by country. I chose first world, relatively lawful societies so as not to skew the data with lawless places or countries with insurrections. I chose Finland, US, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and (shoot, can't remember the other two). That's a pretty wide range of laws concerning guns, and a huge disparity in density of guns and people.
The result - 1 death per year for every 8000 guns. Regardless of population or # of guns. The std deviation was in the 300-400 range, iirc. It was a tight grouping. Regardless, fewer guns == fewer deaths from guns. Even in a place like Switzerland where every practically owner is military trained. Even in a place like Japan where they are nearly outlawed. More guns = more deaths / fewer guns = fewer deaths.
Nothing will stop the crazy that was Newtown or Virginia Tech, but fewer guns will, statistically, reduce the number of people who die from gun wounds - and it's 1:1.
FWIW, I'm a gun owner - have been for 20+ years. I'm also in favor of both 100%, kept-on-file background checks and 3 round capacity maximums. Then again, I used to deal with explosives as a hobby, and have friends who manufacture legally. Everything there is fully regulated, licensed, tracked, and recorded. Then again, you almost never see an IED made from mainstream pyrotechnic materials. It's more frequently homemade or common household materials, or commercially purchased black powder which - interestingly - is the only pyro explosive you can get and store without a license. Why? Because gun owners and the NRA bought the 25lb exemption in congress.
I think there's already a standard hashtag for this.
Oh that's easy...try getting a good shield at the storefront (windows)!
I have a "playroom" where I have two sets of lights. One set is ceiling cans with 23w CFLs and produces a very bright, white (3000k) even lighting for playing games or doing crafts. One set are sconces around the room perimeter with 60W incandescents on a dimmer. They produce a nicer light which is dimmable all the way down to barely-on, which is perfect for watching movies.
Compared to what we were doing at NASA in the 90s - much less by today's standards - the 60s really were lacking in the barest of computer aids. In hindsight, the assistance of computers was amazingly rudimentary. The ability to do structural analysis was being built "as they needed it" and independently in each group or center - NASTRAN, even in its earliest state, didn't exist yet. These are the people who started developing tools which didn't exist.
You have to remember - this was a time when Battin was using discrete math to plan missions, and a general n-body problem was considered unsolvable (and, afaik, still is in explicit form - but is trivial on modern computers for relevant values of n).
One gun related death for every 8000 guns in circulation. Doesn't matter where you are or what the gun laws of that country are. Std deviation on that stat is in the 500-700 range, btw, which is pretty small.
I dunno. At the level of carcinogens in the study, washing all of that into the Ganges may actually make that cesspool cleaner.
I generally hang with the party which is less likely to screw things up in the long term which will be unable to fix.
Here's where I take my position: We can always make more money, even if that means each individual unit is worth less. Money an economy are just human constructs - we make them, we can alter them. OTOH, if the environment gets screwed up, or lots of people die, there's no way to fix that - no dollar amount which will make it right.
Do you mean waiting tables as a part time job can cover the tuition & fees but have no money for rent, food, and healthcare? Or that if you compare the average full time waiter salary to the costs published by the state schools that you are close to break even?
Because
(1) you don't have to pay an electrician to remove and reinstall a lamp, but you do a fixture
(2) you don't disrupt the flow of business and it takes a shorter time to re-lamp than replace a fixture
(3) if you find that the LED sucks, you can go back to what you know works
(4) In 10 years, when one (or more) of the 30 year life fixtures dies and they don't make that model any more, I can replace a lamp and the fixture will still look the same. If I have to replace a fixture, then I have an oddball looking spot in my ceiling. Not everything is a warehouse where aesthetics mean nothing.
Oh, and there are a good number of older consumer fixtures which either (a) anticipate a certain light pattern or (b) actually use the lamp as the structure to hold the shade. I you think it's hard to convince people to buy a $20 lamp instead of a $1 one, it's even harder to get them to buy a new $60 fixture to put it in.
They haven't. Best Philips I could find, I think, had a CRI around 90; most are in the 80s (where 100 is blackbody for the rated color temp).
I have some Sylvania Par20s with a 95CRI and at full power they are not only as bright as 50W halogen PARs but very, very close to the same color (I think they're 2900K, vs 2800ish for incandescent halogens). Best price I could find was $34/ea, but they're great - and dimmable. At dim, though, they're goofy looking because the light temp doesn't change, but I can live with that. I had one of 13 fail within 2 weeks of installation, and I'm still waiting (3 weeks later) for a replacement.
" For personal chargers utilities could give homeowners a bill credit if they only charge their cars between specified times. "
This exists in some areas, or did 20 years ago when I lived in MD. They implemented time of use rates, which meant that electricity used in the middle of a summer day was (back then) 18c/kWh, but at night was 2.9c/kWh. There were shoulder periods, too. And the charges/hours differed in the winter.
In addition, they would give you a $10 credit for an A/C cutoff box and $5 credit for a WH cutoff box which allowed them to remotely cycle your system off for up to 20min/hr for A/C and 4hr/day for water heating. I'm pretty sure I had them install the box for the WH because I already had a timer which made sure it was off during the peak periods.
This would be fairly easy to do; allowing the grid to cancel charging of high-rate interfaces for a set period of time.
I wager that no matter what resources I muster, getting a functioning baby, from scratch (so to speak), is going to take me no less than 36 weeks, and that's shorting the process by a couple figuring you can induce early (i.e.: the base moulding won't be applied and some of the paint won't be finished).
I've watched some "fast track" architectural projects (I'm a structural engineer in real life), and one of two things happen: The project ends up taking just as long as it would have, or it becomes an absolute clusterfuck where nothing works properly. Occasionally, you get both the regular schedule AND the clusterfuck. On very rare occasions, and on very small projects, good planning actually saves time - but it's still never as much as the owner would like.
Uh...no.
I pay Netflix, who pays the content owner. Netflix doesn't have a network connection I can connect to from my house, so I pay Comcast to extend the signal from Netflix to my house. I could pay Verizon, by I choose Comcast. In theory I could put in my own connection to netflix, but that's not really cost effective. Comcast pays nothing to re-broadcast the signal.
OTA transmissions are broadcast for "free" (i.e. the content owner is paid by advertising) and the bandwidth they use is allocated by me (the US Govt) for that specific purpose (Free TV). I choose to pay Aereo because it is cheaper or more convenient to use their antenna than my own, but they are doing nothing but being a common carrier, extending a digital signal to my house.
Hi, this is Timothy from Slashdot, I'd like to speak to...
*click*
I find it very amusing to think of Timothy calling up a company in Russia for comment on why they just got blacklisted by the US Gov't. I'm not sure why, though it could be because every time I see his name on the editor line I think of the monkey from ThinkGeek.
That may be one of the funniest things I've read in a while.
Next time I need a baby in two weeks, I'm going to get together a team of 18 women and have them knock it out. I can pay extra, so it shouldn't be problem to get them focused and working together.
If the FBI's looking for you and gets the proper documentation, then it is legal. full stop
Whether things are fine, or whether you do or don't have something you would like to hide, it becomes irrelevant to the discussion.
It depends, of course. There is no value added - it's just extending the signal. This should make is crystal clear:
If you're a cable provider sending a digitally encoded, real-time TV from the CBS network of a re-run of Big Bang Theory, yes.
If you're a cable provider sending a digitally encoded, recorded TV from the Netflix servers of a re-run of Big Bang Theory, no.
Both times the same entity (the cable provider) is sending you digital data over their digital network of an identical program. See how obvious is the distinction is when you spell it out?
Until they take it away...HAM frequencies aren't written in the constitution, and congress has proven to be motivated by corporate money.