well... what size is too small for them to rise to the surface? And I should point out that eventually they MUST sort our properly. A medical centrifuge accelerates this process dramatically.... and using such things you can sort things a great deal smaller and close to the density of the medium than these micro beads.
So they do absolutely sort. The question is whether or not they do so before the settling tanks cycle the water.
How long would you have to leave water in a tank for nearly all the micro beads to sort?
That's a good question. And I'd further ask if are other things that might sort as well if the tanks were left alone a bit longer.
What time frame are we talking about here? Do we need the tanks to be left alone for an additional day? Eventually they MUST sort. So the question is whether it is practical to have that many tanks to handle that many days of sewage to process the sewage that heavily. And if not, then we need to look at other means of processing the water. Possibly some sort of industrial centrifuge would be a good idea?
okay... then why is it hard to filter this out at the sewage plant? The microbeads are lower in density than water. Which means they should float to the surface in a settling tank or be deposited on the bottom if enmeshed in heavier sewage. Why are they passed through the system if they have a different density?
And consider that settling tanks are used to seperate out a lot of other things. if they're not skimming the microbeads off the surface of the tanks then what else aren't they filtering out?
This sounds like a flaw in the sewage treatment system more than anything.
That said, I have no problem with you banning them. As I said... Meh.
By all means... ban it or don't ban it. It is totally irrelevant from what I can tell.
The only revelation here is that the sewage plants are probably doing a worse job than I thought.
depends on the type of plastic and whether or not a given plastic can be digested by microorganisms.
Microbeads are mostly made out of PE for example which isn't readily biodegradable under many circumstances. However, there are some species of bacteria that can digest it.
The issue is less the beads than what they're made out of and what sort of treatment the water goes through
If the sewage treatment process is letting microbeads in any great quantity into the rivers or ocean then I have to ask what else are we releasing? Because PE has a LOWER density than water, it should float on the surface. Which means in a settling tank, it should get skimmed off the surface. If it isn't getting skimmed off the surface, then what else aren't we skimming off the surface?
If your water treatment system is anything short of a complete joke... how are microbeads even getting through the system at all?
Oh look, an AC judging someone that actually logs in? Shocking.
Do tell us, AC shithead, what is your record?
Oh that's right... you don't have one. You explicitly make it impossible for anyone to determine your contribution to the community.
And my guess is that all you do is what I see above. You just make mindlessly hostile comments to random posts on the site.
Well, thanks for that. We all appreciate your reminder that the internet is full of countless semi evolved primates that communicate entirely in their own flung feces.
X must equal Y because Variable M that does not require under all circumstances that X must equal Y given the presence of Variable M.
So for example, does news corp or the wallstreet journal ALWAYS lie? Obviously not.
What is more, MUST they lie? For example, if we had a computer program that reported on a binary value and it always gave the opposite value to whatever it read. Then you could conclude that variable X was the opposite of whatever that program said. Neither newscorp nor the Wallstreet journal are reliability reporting the opposite of anything.
Therefore it is logically fallacious to say that something they said is a lie because they said it.
See?
Fallacies are about LOGIC. Not you fucking politics.
You can't say anything is automatically bullshit no matter who says it because no one is reliably wrong 100 percent of the time.
You can of course take what they say with a grain of salt. You can choose to ignore them. You can hold any sort of opinion you want.
You cannot say that everything they say is wrong or that any given thing is wrong simply because they said it.
You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then your opinion is based entirely on your own bias and the value of your opinion is based on the value of your bias. Which in this place is literally nothing.
I can't imagine it is really a big water treatment issue since they have a different density than water and you could separate them with settling tanks and skimmers.
And I don't see it matters for industry really because they'll just go back to using what they were using before which is mostly - sand.
You use this stuff as an abrasive and maybe the microbeads are mildly less abrasive? I don't know... anyway, they'll just replace this with very fine sand.
Not at all... there are many issues like all the time and they cut both ways.
You have black people going out to kill white people. You have white people going out to kill black people. You have criminals of some random race going out to kill other criminals of some other random race. You have police killing criminals of a race. You have criminals of a race killing police.
If you actually covered this stuff except when you wanted to support a political agenda, you'd cover it more and you'd cover a more varied spectrum of cases.
The fact that you convienently only find these cases to piggyback on a national story AND only report stories that support that message proves it since any moron that looks at the statistics will see that you can find LOTS of examples of the story going all sorts of other ways.
For example, there was a convict that wall pulled over by a female police officer... he got out of the police car when asked and waited for the female police officer to frisk him. Where upon he turned around quickly and beat the woman to death.
Did you hear about that? Not brutal enough? Would you like me to mix in some rape on top of that because there are other incidents where it went that way. I can also cite incidents where street gangs attacked businesses in their "territory" based on the race of the people that either owned or worked at the business.
There is quite a bit of contradiction though which is AGAIN why people are blending alternative media into their mix. If you include the internet only media sources you tend to get that contradiction.
If you're only reading the online version of traditional media then you're in almost the same place you were before. But we've seen an explosion in interest in alternative media.
It is much harder to bury stories or manipulate the news.
That it works at all is mostly due to much of the baby boom generation still sticking with dead tree media.
The success of this sort of thing could cripple the walled garden model. We need a more decentralized software distribution system. Yes, people that are terrible at this sort of thing profit from a walled garden. But it is also a crutch, gives too much power to apple, google, etc, and is apparently a security risk.
The media is generally not trusted. It is just that it is the primary source for nearly all information so they have the ability to start a discussion and frame it. even if they're not trusted, their ability to manipulate the national discussion is quite extensive if they can merely bring choose when they want to bring up a topic and frame it.
Take the whole issue with police brutality. Are the media reports of police brutality valid? Sometimes. But a bigger issue is that they're very selective about what they talk about. Often they are pushing an ideological agenda so they'll talk about a specific case because it supports their position.
In my city, there are about 400 murders a year. That is in a population of about 12 million or so. How many of those incidents get reported by the media? Almost none. How many criminals are fatally killed by police officers? I'm sure there are at least dozens a year... and again... how often do you hear about them? Almost never.
Yet every so often one of these will get reported on, then get picked up by the social activists, and then get spun by the media as being indicative of a pattern of abuse. Now there could be a pattern there but a SINGLE incident does not give you a pattern. You'd need to look at a broader selection of examples and rather than coming to it with preconceptions, you instead would need to form you opinion from the data.
The media almost never does this since they're very narrative driven.
It is sort of as if creationists ran the news because their methodology is identical. They first form an opinion and then they look for what they call an "emblematic" case to promote that opinion. The rolling stone rape story was an example of that. They already knew what they wanted to say but didn't feel comfortable just making an editorial to say that. So instead, they looked for an example that they could use to validate their opinion. They couldn't find one which was sort of funny because they were claiming an epidemic. So after not being able to find an example they just settled for the sketchiest least reliable source they could get and tried to pull off a hoax.
It went disturbingly far before backfiring. But that sort of thing is quite common and most people take media reports with a grain of salt.
I can only speak to what I hear from other people and what reports and statistics I can gather.
My own information shows broad distrust of the media.
What is more, the decline of traditional media and growth of alternative media suggests that traditional media is not trusted.
This does not mean that alternative media is more trustworthy but it is easier to audit given that you can go through many sources on line very quickly where as trying to do the same thing with traditional media is impractical.
As to echo chamber news... can you give me some examples from multiple political factions so I can see what you're talking about?
The senior senators... both republicans and democrats want this legislation.
It is an issue generally in congress at this point. Most of the long term senators and congressman opportunistic career politicians that are more interested in playing the game than doing a good job.
So for pretty much everyone that has been there for a long time... It is all a game. A game they play with our money, our government, our lives... and the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.
What I wanted was some indication that you had any of your own thinking what so ever or that you were not simply using the false convictions as a pretext.
You failed that challenge. You've clearly no personal thinking on the issue what so ever and you are either using this as a pretext directly or are copying an argument from someone else verbatim that is doing so.
As to response time... the current hobby motors might not be up to the challenge but gasoline engines handle rapid accelerations all the time. Internal combustion engines are prized for this specific feature.
I wonder if this is more of a gearing issue?
The issue with gasoline engines is that they don't like to literally stop and start. They like to idle and go. Electric motors are generally quite happy to go from a cold start to high activity.
... no one is finger printed when they take a plane flight either domestic or international from the US.
Since apparently you've never flown in the US, let me explain it.
1. your check in baggage has a swab run over it and that swab is run through a chemical bomb detector.
2.your check in baggage is x rayed
3. a TSA agent checks your ID and looks at your boarding pass. If your name matches the name on your ticket, then they let you go through gate security.
4. At gate security they have you take anything metal off your body. And they have you remove your shoes. The shoe removal is the big change.
5. Everything you're carrying is put into plastic bins that are x rayed.
6. You walk through either a back scatter scanner or a simple metal detector.
And you're done.
That is security at US airports.
If you are flying INTO the US from a foreign country then your passport is checked by a customs agent. And your check in baggage is sometimes checked for contraband or pathogens. Hawaii and California for example worry about people bringing foreign fruit etc to the state that bares foreign plant pathogens... often fungus's etc from other parts of the world infect local crops in this manner so they don't want people to bring them.
I'm not saying it is fun, but we're not finger printed. The only way you get more than what I described above is if you do something stupid or you were on some kind of list. Most people on those lists are there for a reasonable reason. Some are mistakes. Regardless it is rare for anyone to be taken aside and subjected to additional security.
You can also avoid nearly all of this by getting a special ID card that lets you skip most of the security. The ID costs 50 dollars and requires you to go to an interview with the FBI for about half an hour at a Federal building. If you're a frequent flier then that is often worth it.
... and any fool can make one with existing hobby motors.
Another thing I'd like to see someone try is use little hobby jet engines instead of four rotors.
Why? More compact size, I think the thrust might be higher, and they're probably more energy efficient if kept reved high for long periods of time. And that long rev state would be typical of a long distance flight.
Slashdot Mirror
well... what size is too small for them to rise to the surface? And I should point out that eventually they MUST sort our properly. A medical centrifuge accelerates this process dramatically.... and using such things you can sort things a great deal smaller and close to the density of the medium than these micro beads.
So they do absolutely sort. The question is whether or not they do so before the settling tanks cycle the water.
How long would you have to leave water in a tank for nearly all the micro beads to sort?
That's a good question. And I'd further ask if are other things that might sort as well if the tanks were left alone a bit longer.
What time frame are we talking about here? Do we need the tanks to be left alone for an additional day? Eventually they MUST sort. So the question is whether it is practical to have that many tanks to handle that many days of sewage to process the sewage that heavily. And if not, then we need to look at other means of processing the water. Possibly some sort of industrial centrifuge would be a good idea?
okay... then why is it hard to filter this out at the sewage plant? The microbeads are lower in density than water. Which means they should float to the surface in a settling tank or be deposited on the bottom if enmeshed in heavier sewage. Why are they passed through the system if they have a different density?
And consider that settling tanks are used to seperate out a lot of other things. if they're not skimming the microbeads off the surface of the tanks then what else aren't they filtering out?
This sounds like a flaw in the sewage treatment system more than anything.
That said, I have no problem with you banning them. As I said... Meh.
By all means... ban it or don't ban it. It is totally irrelevant from what I can tell.
The only revelation here is that the sewage plants are probably doing a worse job than I thought.
depends on the type of plastic and whether or not a given plastic can be digested by microorganisms.
Microbeads are mostly made out of PE for example which isn't readily biodegradable under many circumstances. However, there are some species of bacteria that can digest it.
The issue is less the beads than what they're made out of and what sort of treatment the water goes through
If the sewage treatment process is letting microbeads in any great quantity into the rivers or ocean then I have to ask what else are we releasing? Because PE has a LOWER density than water, it should float on the surface. Which means in a settling tank, it should get skimmed off the surface. If it isn't getting skimmed off the surface, then what else aren't we skimming off the surface?
If your water treatment system is anything short of a complete joke... how are microbeads even getting through the system at all?
Oh look, an AC judging someone that actually logs in? Shocking.
Do tell us, AC shithead, what is your record?
Oh that's right... you don't have one. You explicitly make it impossible for anyone to determine your contribution to the community.
And my guess is that all you do is what I see above. You just make mindlessly hostile comments to random posts on the site.
Well, thanks for that. We all appreciate your reminder that the internet is full of countless semi evolved primates that communicate entirely in their own flung feces.
Kill yourself.
It is still a fallacy though.
Let me help you understand how to stop fallacies:
X must equal Y because Variable M that does not require under all circumstances that X must equal Y given the presence of Variable M.
So for example, does news corp or the wallstreet journal ALWAYS lie? Obviously not.
What is more, MUST they lie? For example, if we had a computer program that reported on a binary value and it always gave the opposite value to whatever it read. Then you could conclude that variable X was the opposite of whatever that program said. Neither newscorp nor the Wallstreet journal are reliability reporting the opposite of anything.
Therefore it is logically fallacious to say that something they said is a lie because they said it.
See?
Fallacies are about LOGIC. Not you fucking politics.
You can't say anything is automatically bullshit no matter who says it because no one is reliably wrong 100 percent of the time.
You can of course take what they say with a grain of salt. You can choose to ignore them. You can hold any sort of opinion you want.
You cannot say that everything they say is wrong or that any given thing is wrong simply because they said it.
You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then your opinion is based entirely on your own bias and the value of your opinion is based on the value of your bias. Which in this place is literally nothing.
I can't imagine it is really a big water treatment issue since they have a different density than water and you could separate them with settling tanks and skimmers.
And I don't see it matters for industry really because they'll just go back to using what they were using before which is mostly - sand.
You use this stuff as an abrasive and maybe the microbeads are mildly less abrasive? I don't know... anyway, they'll just replace this with very fine sand.
Thus - Meh.
Its a nothing issue either way.
incumbents win because incumbent parties don't run primaries.
Not at all... there are many issues like all the time and they cut both ways.
You have black people going out to kill white people. You have white people going out to kill black people. You have criminals of some random race going out to kill other criminals of some other random race. You have police killing criminals of a race. You have criminals of a race killing police.
If you actually covered this stuff except when you wanted to support a political agenda, you'd cover it more and you'd cover a more varied spectrum of cases.
The fact that you convienently only find these cases to piggyback on a national story AND only report stories that support that message proves it since any moron that looks at the statistics will see that you can find LOTS of examples of the story going all sorts of other ways.
For example, there was a convict that wall pulled over by a female police officer... he got out of the police car when asked and waited for the female police officer to frisk him. Where upon he turned around quickly and beat the woman to death.
Did you hear about that? Not brutal enough? Would you like me to mix in some rape on top of that because there are other incidents where it went that way. I can also cite incidents where street gangs attacked businesses in their "territory" based on the race of the people that either owned or worked at the business.
Did you hear about that?
So no. You're pushing an agenda.
I'm including the population of the county... apparently only 10 million.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/q...
Doesn't matter. Though I underestimated the number of murders apparently over 500 in the last 12 months:
http://homicide.latimes.com/
Which is apparently low if anything. I see it has gone over 1000 in some years.
There is quite a bit of contradiction though which is AGAIN why people are blending alternative media into their mix. If you include the internet only media sources you tend to get that contradiction.
If you're only reading the online version of traditional media then you're in almost the same place you were before. But we've seen an explosion in interest in alternative media.
It is much harder to bury stories or manipulate the news.
That it works at all is mostly due to much of the baby boom generation still sticking with dead tree media.
Cite what you're talking about and tell me what you're trying to say with that plainly. I am very clear. Be clear.
The success of this sort of thing could cripple the walled garden model. We need a more decentralized software distribution system. Yes, people that are terrible at this sort of thing profit from a walled garden. But it is also a crutch, gives too much power to apple, google, etc, and is apparently a security risk.
potato po-tato.
No they don't. They just tribalistically follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There are statistics that come out all the time:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157...
The media is generally not trusted. It is just that it is the primary source for nearly all information so they have the ability to start a discussion and frame it. even if they're not trusted, their ability to manipulate the national discussion is quite extensive if they can merely bring choose when they want to bring up a topic and frame it.
Take the whole issue with police brutality. Are the media reports of police brutality valid? Sometimes. But a bigger issue is that they're very selective about what they talk about. Often they are pushing an ideological agenda so they'll talk about a specific case because it supports their position.
In my city, there are about 400 murders a year. That is in a population of about 12 million or so. How many of those incidents get reported by the media? Almost none. How many criminals are fatally killed by police officers? I'm sure there are at least dozens a year... and again... how often do you hear about them? Almost never.
Yet every so often one of these will get reported on, then get picked up by the social activists, and then get spun by the media as being indicative of a pattern of abuse. Now there could be a pattern there but a SINGLE incident does not give you a pattern. You'd need to look at a broader selection of examples and rather than coming to it with preconceptions, you instead would need to form you opinion from the data.
The media almost never does this since they're very narrative driven.
It is sort of as if creationists ran the news because their methodology is identical. They first form an opinion and then they look for what they call an "emblematic" case to promote that opinion. The rolling stone rape story was an example of that. They already knew what they wanted to say but didn't feel comfortable just making an editorial to say that. So instead, they looked for an example that they could use to validate their opinion. They couldn't find one which was sort of funny because they were claiming an epidemic. So after not being able to find an example they just settled for the sketchiest least reliable source they could get and tried to pull off a hoax.
It went disturbingly far before backfiring. But that sort of thing is quite common and most people take media reports with a grain of salt.
I can only speak to what I hear from other people and what reports and statistics I can gather.
My own information shows broad distrust of the media.
What is more, the decline of traditional media and growth of alternative media suggests that traditional media is not trusted.
This does not mean that alternative media is more trustworthy but it is easier to audit given that you can go through many sources on line very quickly where as trying to do the same thing with traditional media is impractical.
As to echo chamber news... can you give me some examples from multiple political factions so I can see what you're talking about?
More likely they're just callus authoritarians.
Bullshit. Yes, the press is corrupt but everyone knows it.
People don't vote for their party because they trust the press. They vote for their party because they're are tribalistic.
The senior senators... both republicans and democrats want this legislation.
It is an issue generally in congress at this point. Most of the long term senators and congressman opportunistic career politicians that are more interested in playing the game than doing a good job.
So for pretty much everyone that has been there for a long time... It is all a game. A game they play with our money, our government, our lives... and the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.
Actually a challenged you.
What I wanted was some indication that you had any of your own thinking what so ever or that you were not simply using the false convictions as a pretext.
You failed that challenge. You've clearly no personal thinking on the issue what so ever and you are either using this as a pretext directly or are copying an argument from someone else verbatim that is doing so.
As to response time... the current hobby motors might not be up to the challenge but gasoline engines handle rapid accelerations all the time. Internal combustion engines are prized for this specific feature.
I wonder if this is more of a gearing issue?
The issue with gasoline engines is that they don't like to literally stop and start. They like to idle and go. Electric motors are generally quite happy to go from a cold start to high activity.
... no one is finger printed when they take a plane flight either domestic or international from the US.
Since apparently you've never flown in the US, let me explain it.
1. your check in baggage has a swab run over it and that swab is run through a chemical bomb detector.
2.your check in baggage is x rayed
3. a TSA agent checks your ID and looks at your boarding pass. If your name matches the name on your ticket, then they let you go through gate security.
4. At gate security they have you take anything metal off your body. And they have you remove your shoes. The shoe removal is the big change.
5. Everything you're carrying is put into plastic bins that are x rayed.
6. You walk through either a back scatter scanner or a simple metal detector.
And you're done.
That is security at US airports.
If you are flying INTO the US from a foreign country then your passport is checked by a customs agent. And your check in baggage is sometimes checked for contraband or pathogens. Hawaii and California for example worry about people bringing foreign fruit etc to the state that bares foreign plant pathogens... often fungus's etc from other parts of the world infect local crops in this manner so they don't want people to bring them.
I'm not saying it is fun, but we're not finger printed. The only way you get more than what I described above is if you do something stupid or you were on some kind of list. Most people on those lists are there for a reasonable reason. Some are mistakes. Regardless it is rare for anyone to be taken aside and subjected to additional security.
You can also avoid nearly all of this by getting a special ID card that lets you skip most of the security. The ID costs 50 dollars and requires you to go to an interview with the FBI for about half an hour at a Federal building. If you're a frequent flier then that is often worth it.
With good encryption it should be hard enough to mess with the data that it just isn't worth it.
As to combat backups, I entirely agree. However, peace time systems don't need to be that robust.
That is to say, a system that handles accounting and inventory don't need to be as robust as the system that fires the nukes when you hit defcon 1.
... and any fool can make one with existing hobby motors.
Another thing I'd like to see someone try is use little hobby jet engines instead of four rotors.
Why? More compact size, I think the thrust might be higher, and they're probably more energy efficient if kept reved high for long periods of time. And that long rev state would be typical of a long distance flight.