If I only had mod points today I would mod the parent up. Before you bash DDT and asbestos based on what you have seen in the popular media showing half truths, do some research on the subject. Look at the flawed studies, decisions made for political reasons against the advice of expert panels, etc.
Who says that they have to do it in the bedroom, the ISS has about 46,000 cubic feet of pressurized space (think the floor space of a very large home if it had 8 ft ceilings, online site compares it to about the same as 2 747's) , in all that room some of it must be the space equivalent of a seldom used supply closet. Remember we are talking about 1/3 to 2/3 (crew size was doubled to 6 in 2009) of the total crew being able to sneak off for a quickie here, in the good old days of crews of 3 all they really had to do was wait for a quiet moment while the other one was sleeping.
Ok, just a few points here, most of the people predicting a rise in sea level claim it will occur on a time scale of many decades or even centuries, with a worst case rise of about 180-200 feet, and many projections call for a fraction of that. For some places like southern Florida this will be very bad, but for many others like the U.S. west coast which has mountains within site of the ocean in many places it will hardly be noticed as the cities slowly crawl inland. Even Manhattan's famed central park is located more than a hundred feet above sea level, and the highest point on the island is at 265 ft.
Why adapt, engineer, take your pick, we either engineer ourselves to fit into the climate, or we engineer the climate to fit ourselves. We have been doing it for thousands of years, diverting rivers for irrigation, clearing land to grow crops, this really is no different.
After being wiped out twice in the last 5 years, I don't think Cameron is coming back this time, almost all of the long term residents have moved away. The big thing that has driven the nail in its coffin are all the new state coastal building codes (requiring up to 8 feet of fill dirt to be brought in for houses in many locations), the effect is making these new replacement homes cost 5 to 10 times as more than the ones that were wiped off the map (even with government help financing) , and yet would still likely not do enough to keep the new houses standing when the next big storm hits. There will always be some industry there being at the mouth of a river, and there will be basic housing for the industrial workers, maybe even a gas station or two, but don't expect a community and all the little things that come together to make one, for the simple fact that common people can't afford to live there anymore and can't afford to commute from the nearest dry land not subject to these regulations 35 or so miles away down a narrow shoulderless 2 lane highway with water on either side.
Before complaining too much about a few months in solitary confiment , look at some historical comparison in the U.S. Look up the Angola 3 who were put in solitary confinement in Louisiana in 1972 and left there for decades, until a law student studying the case in the 1990's realized that they were still there..
At least you have the option to avoid, around here they pick a bottle neck point on the main 4 lane highways where avoiding would mean an extra 30-40 miles of driving down small side roads.
I have to disagree with you here, the average person CAN relate to those in the top 5%, that top 5% includes the guy they turned to for help when they were in school, or the guy at work that has the answer to their problem. What they can't relate to is the guy in the top.1% as their realms of thought are just too different.
An IQ of 130 (ish) puts them in the top 2% of the population (or about 1 in 50), The U.S. population is now a bit over 300 million, so there fore for someone with an IQ of about 130, there are roughly 6 million people in the U.S. smarter than they are. Such thoughts must be humbling to those that are used to thinking they are the smartest person in the room, just because it is often true. By contrast a person with an IQ of about 150 is in the top.05% of the population (or about 1 in 2,000), the key difference here is those 130ish IQ people tend to associate with the general population, and those in the 150+ IQ club tend to associate with other much higher than average IQ people. It is this very association that causes them to more humble about their IQ as well as being less likely than those in the 130 IQ club to rise to a point of prominence in the general population.
On a side note those in the 150 IQ club, while they tend to see those with an IQ of 25-30 points below them as somewhat stupid, they also tend to see those with an IQ of 25-30 points higher as out of touch with reality, sometimes to the point of being unable to function in the real world (I am not talking about social ineptitude here, more like things we tend to associate with the other extreme of the IQ scale like eat and bathe).
Like many things a CDL itself may not appear that expensive, but there are a fair number of associated costs to getting one and maintaining one, one such example is mandatory annual medical exams.
An absolute policy of protecting a source is an idiot concept. Afterall what do you do when your source tells you he is responsible for a criminal act, more importantly what do you do when they tell you they plan to do more criminal acts? Even in the current example, there is a fine blurry line here between whisle blower and releasing state secrets that could get people killed Now consider if the source was a member of some fringe group that thinks freedom of expression extends to blowing up things as a form of protest.
You must have a different DMV than I do, here it means you walk in and are presented with a numbered ticket dispenser with a large "TAKE A NUMBER" notice and a lighted sign on the wall saying "No serving # ___". The problem is you walk in get ticket #74, the sign says now serving #12 and there are only 35 other people in the place.
I am sorry to pick on your particular post here, but enough is enough, What is it with people that think that if someone has a problem with a gay person or even the gay life style that they must be a homophobe, or alternatively a closet homosexual? Why can't people have opinions about the issues, morality , practicality, etc.
Now before you go labelling me one of the above let me state my stance on a few issues:
I am against legalized gay marriage, I have several reasons, but I am also against legalized straight marriage, I think marriage should be in the domain of the churches, government should have nothing to do with it (other than perhaps, and only perhaps to act as a registration agent), let people manage their own interpersonal relationships, form their own contracts signed or not, with their own choice of exit clauses. Get government out of the whole marriage/divorce treadmill.
I can see where there could be issues with openly gay members of the armed forces, and these issues could effect the combat effectiveness of the group. I think it is an issue that should be studied in detail then policies should be put in place based on reason, not political motives. I think in time this will be a moot point, and historians will try to grasp why this was a big deal.
On a final note, I am straight, and married for the second time, over the years I have had gay friends and associates (in fact one of them was even a witness that signed my first marriage license), I don't consider myself a homophobe
It is easy to see how you can make this mistake, but the issue is not so much that the military service members have adapted, it is that the current military service members were always more comfortable around openly gay colleagues. One must remember that the military force as a whole (excluding the upper leadership which accounts for a fraction of a percent of the total troops) are relatively young, 60% of most branches are under the age of 30, 80% of Marines are under the age of 30. This means that they have grown up in a culture that is more gay tolerant than the average member of the general population, a culture that embraces the gay lifestyle on television, in schools, etc. (at least embraces it compared to any time in the modern past). Much the same happened to the post school desegregation generation that I belong to (I started 1st grade just a handful of years after the local southern fairly small school district I grew up in was fully integrated), we grew up with less attention to the color of a persons skin, and more attention to who they were as individuals, sure there were still racial issues among my peers, but that were a pale shadow of the views from those just a decade older than us.
He woke up one day and was the president, then he realized all the stuff Bush had been saying about there not being easy, quick solution to these things were true..
The thing is DADT was not an anti-discrimination policy, it was an anti-investigate policy, if knowledge of someone being gay came to the powers that be in the military, then the person was treated the same as before this policy came about (no gays allowed). The thing is it did not have to be the gay told, it could be an angry ex-spouse with a video tape, a police raid on a motel room, any number of other sources and then it was court martial time.
Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.
As I see it the primise of the B team in space was good, the problem is we did not get the B team, we got the reject team. We can compare this to the early days of Astronaut selection for NASA (or even the current days), you have hundreds if not thousands of people that score perfectly on every test, had spotless records, etc and only a handful of job openings. Sure there would likely be a few exceptions, mostly people with very specific skills and perhaps interpersonal skills problems, or those that accidentally found out about the program and were given the choice of joining up as a cook or being too big of security risk.
The problem is everyone tries to "fix the problem" and don't spend any time asking what people want and need. In the US light or heavy rail passenger transportation is great if people are interested in going from point A to point B. Beyond that everything breaks down, the same is true of most forms of public transportation. American cities are designed for automobiles, so give the people what they want a car to drive the last mile (or 10) at each end of their trip, better yet build a rail system that lets them take the car with them. Drive your electric micro car from your house to the local train station loading point, drive it onto specially built train cars for short commutes stay in the car, let it recharge on the commute into the city. Unload at the station a mile or two from your office and drive the rest of the way there. While your at it invite the existing support industries in to help out, get your morning coffee fix or Mc whatever delivered to your car window on the commute (inverse drive through window approach). For longer commutes add dining cars, rent by the hour meeting cubicles, whatever else. Imagine a business trip on a train where a group from one office can get work done while in transit even if the transit takes 3 times longer than flying.
I disagree, the biggest problem with CGI is the suspension of physical laws, actors making stunt jumps that would have ripped there arms off if they were able to catch themselves like that in the real world, or helicopters manouvering at speeds that make it look like the film was speeded up 10X. Somewhere in their minds people know that if someone that the result of someone jumping off a bridge and catching a steel cable 40 feet is not going to result in the hero climbing to safetey no matter how fit they are.
Slashdot Mirror
If I only had mod points today I would mod the parent up. Before you bash DDT and asbestos based on what you have seen in the popular media showing half truths, do some research on the subject. Look at the flawed studies, decisions made for political reasons against the advice of expert panels, etc.
Yes, and it is often the engineers that have to remind the physicist that the real world does not always work so neatly as their models
Who says that they have to do it in the bedroom, the ISS has about 46,000 cubic feet of pressurized space (think the floor space of a very large home if it had 8 ft ceilings, online site compares it to about the same as 2 747's) , in all that room some of it must be the space equivalent of a seldom used supply closet. Remember we are talking about 1/3 to 2/3 (crew size was doubled to 6 in 2009) of the total crew being able to sneak off for a quickie here, in the good old days of crews of 3 all they really had to do was wait for a quiet moment while the other one was sleeping.
Ok, just a few points here, most of the people predicting a rise in sea level claim it will occur on a time scale of many decades or even centuries, with a worst case rise of about 180-200 feet, and many projections call for a fraction of that. For some places like southern Florida this will be very bad, but for many others like the U.S. west coast which has mountains within site of the ocean in many places it will hardly be noticed as the cities slowly crawl inland. Even Manhattan's famed central park is located more than a hundred feet above sea level, and the highest point on the island is at 265 ft.
Why adapt, engineer, take your pick, we either engineer ourselves to fit into the climate, or we engineer the climate to fit ourselves. We have been doing it for thousands of years, diverting rivers for irrigation, clearing land to grow crops, this really is no different.
After being wiped out twice in the last 5 years, I don't think Cameron is coming back this time, almost all of the long term residents have moved away. The big thing that has driven the nail in its coffin are all the new state coastal building codes (requiring up to 8 feet of fill dirt to be brought in for houses in many locations), the effect is making these new replacement homes cost 5 to 10 times as more than the ones that were wiped off the map (even with government help financing) , and yet would still likely not do enough to keep the new houses standing when the next big storm hits. There will always be some industry there being at the mouth of a river, and there will be basic housing for the industrial workers, maybe even a gas station or two, but don't expect a community and all the little things that come together to make one, for the simple fact that common people can't afford to live there anymore and can't afford to commute from the nearest dry land not subject to these regulations 35 or so miles away down a narrow shoulderless 2 lane highway with water on either side.
Before complaining too much about a few months in solitary confiment , look at some historical comparison in the U.S. Look up the Angola 3 who were put in solitary confinement in Louisiana in 1972 and left there for decades, until a law student studying the case in the 1990's realized that they were still there..
At least you have the option to avoid, around here they pick a bottle neck point on the main 4 lane highways where avoiding would mean an extra 30-40 miles of driving down small side roads.
Around here it is every Friday and Saturday night when the weather is not bad
I have to disagree with you here, the average person CAN relate to those in the top 5%, that top 5% includes the guy they turned to for help when they were in school, or the guy at work that has the answer to their problem. What they can't relate to is the guy in the top .1% as their realms of thought are just too different.
An IQ of 130 (ish) puts them in the top 2% of the population (or about 1 in 50), The U.S. population is now a bit over 300 million, so there fore for someone with an IQ of about 130, there are roughly 6 million people in the U.S. smarter than they are. Such thoughts must be humbling to those that are used to thinking they are the smartest person in the room, just because it is often true. By contrast a person with an IQ of about 150 is in the top .05% of the population (or about 1 in 2,000), the key difference here is those 130ish IQ people tend to associate with the general population, and those in the 150+ IQ club tend to associate with other much higher than average IQ people. It is this very association that causes them to more humble about their IQ as well as being less likely than those in the 130 IQ club to rise to a point of prominence in the general population.
On a side note those in the 150 IQ club, while they tend to see those with an IQ of 25-30 points below them as somewhat stupid, they also tend to see those with an IQ of 25-30 points higher as out of touch with reality, sometimes to the point of being unable to function in the real world (I am not talking about social ineptitude here, more like things we tend to associate with the other extreme of the IQ scale like eat and bathe).
Maybe not, but some of the JVC D-ILA units get close, it is just a matter of time.
Like many things a CDL itself may not appear that expensive, but there are a fair number of associated costs to getting one and maintaining one, one such example is mandatory annual medical exams.
An absolute policy of protecting a source is an idiot concept. Afterall what do you do when your source tells you he is responsible for a criminal act, more importantly what do you do when they tell you they plan to do more criminal acts? Even in the current example, there is a fine blurry line here between whisle blower and releasing state secrets that could get people killed Now consider if the source was a member of some fringe group that thinks freedom of expression extends to blowing up things as a form of protest.
What goals? Design another new shuttle replacement that will in turn be cancelled before being completed?
You must have a different DMV than I do, here it means you walk in and are presented with a numbered ticket dispenser with a large "TAKE A NUMBER" notice and a lighted sign on the wall saying "No serving # ___". The problem is you walk in get ticket #74, the sign says now serving #12 and there are only 35 other people in the place.
I am sorry to pick on your particular post here, but enough is enough, What is it with people that think that if someone has a problem with a gay person or even the gay life style that they must be a homophobe, or alternatively a closet homosexual? Why can't people have opinions about the issues, morality , practicality, etc.
Now before you go labelling me one of the above let me state my stance on a few issues:
I am against legalized gay marriage, I have several reasons, but I am also against legalized straight marriage, I think marriage should be in the domain of the churches, government should have nothing to do with it (other than perhaps, and only perhaps to act as a registration agent), let people manage their own interpersonal relationships, form their own contracts signed or not, with their own choice of exit clauses. Get government out of the whole marriage/divorce treadmill.
I can see where there could be issues with openly gay members of the armed forces, and these issues could effect the combat effectiveness of the group. I think it is an issue that should be studied in detail then policies should be put in place based on reason, not political motives. I think in time this will be a moot point, and historians will try to grasp why this was a big deal.
On a final note, I am straight, and married for the second time, over the years I have had gay friends and associates (in fact one of them was even a witness that signed my first marriage license), I don't consider myself a homophobe
It is easy to see how you can make this mistake, but the issue is not so much that the military service members have adapted, it is that the current military service members were always more comfortable around openly gay colleagues. One must remember that the military force as a whole (excluding the upper leadership which accounts for a fraction of a percent of the total troops) are relatively young, 60% of most branches are under the age of 30, 80% of Marines are under the age of 30. This means that they have grown up in a culture that is more gay tolerant than the average member of the general population, a culture that embraces the gay lifestyle on television, in schools, etc. (at least embraces it compared to any time in the modern past). Much the same happened to the post school desegregation generation that I belong to (I started 1st grade just a handful of years after the local southern fairly small school district I grew up in was fully integrated), we grew up with less attention to the color of a persons skin, and more attention to who they were as individuals, sure there were still racial issues among my peers, but that were a pale shadow of the views from those just a decade older than us.
He woke up one day and was the president, then he realized all the stuff Bush had been saying about there not being easy, quick solution to these things were true..
The thing is DADT was not an anti-discrimination policy, it was an anti-investigate policy, if knowledge of someone being gay came to the powers that be in the military, then the person was treated the same as before this policy came about (no gays allowed). The thing is it did not have to be the gay told, it could be an angry ex-spouse with a video tape, a police raid on a motel room, any number of other sources and then it was court martial time.
Let me start off by saying I often agree with the Republicans, but I have been saying DADT was a bad policy since it first came about and it has nothing to do with gays serving in the military. This policy was a side step, it was like the solution of cutting the kid in half for joint custody, no one liked it. The reality of this policy after all was not "Don't Ask Don't Tell", but was instead "If we don't find out it is ok", just look at the number of gays in the military that were outed through no action of their own, who then had to face the punishment. At least now we can move on to something that is A POLICY.
As I see it the primise of the B team in space was good, the problem is we did not get the B team, we got the reject team. We can compare this to the early days of Astronaut selection for NASA (or even the current days), you have hundreds if not thousands of people that score perfectly on every test, had spotless records, etc and only a handful of job openings. Sure there would likely be a few exceptions, mostly people with very specific skills and perhaps interpersonal skills problems, or those that accidentally found out about the program and were given the choice of joining up as a cook or being too big of security risk.
The problem is everyone tries to "fix the problem" and don't spend any time asking what people want and need. In the US light or heavy rail passenger transportation is great if people are interested in going from point A to point B. Beyond that everything breaks down, the same is true of most forms of public transportation. American cities are designed for automobiles, so give the people what they want a car to drive the last mile (or 10) at each end of their trip, better yet build a rail system that lets them take the car with them. Drive your electric micro car from your house to the local train station loading point, drive it onto specially built train cars for short commutes stay in the car, let it recharge on the commute into the city. Unload at the station a mile or two from your office and drive the rest of the way there. While your at it invite the existing support industries in to help out, get your morning coffee fix or Mc whatever delivered to your car window on the commute (inverse drive through window approach). For longer commutes add dining cars, rent by the hour meeting cubicles, whatever else. Imagine a business trip on a train where a group from one office can get work done while in transit even if the transit takes 3 times longer than flying.
Shortly after 9/11 some kid flew a small plane into a building in Florida and no on remembers.
I disagree, the biggest problem with CGI is the suspension of physical laws, actors making stunt jumps that would have ripped there arms off if they were able to catch themselves like that in the real world, or helicopters manouvering at speeds that make it look like the film was speeded up 10X. Somewhere in their minds people know that if someone that the result of someone jumping off a bridge and catching a steel cable 40 feet is not going to result in the hero climbing to safetey no matter how fit they are.