It's because the people in charge know that a domestic flight ban would be economically intolerable (due to how it would deter people from making business trips), while they don't realize how the same is true of international flights.
Science actually does have a problem with "groupthink" where there are very few experts in a given specialty, so if you have an original idea your paper will be reviewed by the same small pool of experts who are personally invested in an alternative idea, and are likely to review your idea negatively.
Of course this "groupthink" is not based on your race, gender, or other $BUZZWORD, but rather based on your ideas, but it still impedes the progress of science.
You need to differentiate between "pollution" and "climate change".
"Pollution" means nasty chemicals and heavy metals which make breathing difficult or give you cancer. China has lots of this, the US has cleaned most of it up in the last 50 years (even Los Angeles does not have the perpetual layer of thick smog it had 20 years ago).
"Climate change" refers to emissions of carbon dioxide (and a few other substances like methane). These molecules are perfectly healthy to be around, but in in large mounts they trap heat and cause the earth to warm (and the oceans to acidify). Both China and the US are huge contributors here.
Of course. Customs doesn't check for explosives at all. There is no reason to think that US security for domestic flights is more rigorous than European security for international flights. So the checks in the US airport wouldn't make any difference.
What is your idea of an "undetectable laptop bomb"????
The whole point of these laptop measures is that, supposedly, the bombs cannot be detected at security. You can turn the laptop on and operate it normally, and it looks normal on the x-ray, but there is a bomb inside. And supposedly if a passenger holds this bomb up to the side of the plane, it can blow a hole in the fuselage and destroy the plane. And the only way to avoid this possibility is to require all laptops to be in checked baggage.
Which all makes sense, until you remember that laptops would only be banned on some flights (from Europe/Middle East) and not other flights.
If laptops had been banned on flights from Europe, then a terrorist could put an undetectable-laptop-bomb in their luggage from Paris to New York, then pick up their luggage, board a flight from New York to Los Angeles with the laptop in hand, and blow the plane up.
Banning laptops on international flights would have done nothing about that risk. Therefore, it seems this measure was security theater, not real security. And when it became clear how big the economic effect of banning laptops would be (in terms of dissuading travel), the measure had to be cancelled. Laptops are still banned on flights from the Middle East, but this is a small market without other options, so the economic impact on the US is minimal.
Really? Everyoneexceptyou reports a cost around $700/month for a typical car. How are your expenses so much lower than this? Perhaps you miscalculated something?
Isn't this equally a threat on any flight, even domestic flights?
If the concern is that terrorists and laptops-with-undetectable-bombs are only created in Europe (or the Middle East), then what's to stop a terrorist from flying to the US with a laptop-bomb in checked baggage, then bringing their laptop-bomb into the cabin on their next domestic flight?
And lots of people get killed at those intersections. Vietnam has over twice as many traffic deaths per capita as the US, and over four times as many deaths per vehicle owned.
Roundabouts are a massive improvement on 4-way stop signs, which is the default solution in much of the US.
They can also replace some traffic lights, but not all. Roundabouts have a maximum capacity (unless they too are signalled, which is sometimes done in the UK) so they cannot replace the biggest signalled intersections.
More white space = less words = less content = less thinking = more scrolling until you actually find what you want.
I suppose Youtube's most profitable customers are unable to deal with a screen packed full of information, but I'd prefer not to waste my time scrolling until I find what I need.
Tunnel boring can be done for about $10,000 per foot.
I'm not sure where you are getting this number from. Tunnel boring cost is highly dependent on the size of the tunnel (approximately proportional to area or radius, I forget which). It is also extremely prone to cost overruns, as in the Big Dig. For a car tunnel you also need to provide ventilation, emergency exit systems, signalling, and other costly additions.
Instead of building a tunnel from San Jose to Palo Alto, you could build an elevated highway for a much lower cost. Alternatively, you could build a subway for a similar cost, which would carry many times the number of people. Either way, a tunnel for cars is almost always the least cost-effective solution.
And yet, Travelocity/Expedia/similar have replaced a lot of travel agents, Amazon has replaced a lot of stores, ATMs have replaced a lot of bank tellers, Microsoft Office has replaced a lot of secretaries, and so on. People DO prefer automated service when it's as effective or more effective than human service.
It's a damn pilot. They can pilot it with whoever they want. There is no point in piloting it with upper-middle-class people who everyone knows won't quit their job for a small UBI check.
As long as the people they have picked, who are poor now, get to keep receiving the UBI even if they get rich, it's a valid test.
My laptop has some hardware issue, which causes the wireless connection to die. It used to be the only fix was to restart. But since installing a new version of Linux Mint with systemd, I can now run "sudo systemctl restart network-manager.service" rather than restarting. Yay fewer interrupted workflows!
I don't know if people have a right to know what they are eating.
I do know that if you tell people you're selling them chicken, but you're actually selling them soy, you're defrauding them and you deserve to be prosecuted.
As bad as major-corporation spyware is, spyware by a random hacker is much worse. If Microsoft does anything truly horrible, it has identifiable executives who can go to jail for it. A random hacker does not have the same disincentive.
Slashdot Mirror
It's because the people in charge know that a domestic flight ban would be economically intolerable (due to how it would deter people from making business trips), while they don't realize how the same is true of international flights.
Science actually does have a problem with "groupthink" where there are very few experts in a given specialty, so if you have an original idea your paper will be reviewed by the same small pool of experts who are personally invested in an alternative idea, and are likely to review your idea negatively.
Of course this "groupthink" is not based on your race, gender, or other $BUZZWORD, but rather based on your ideas, but it still impedes the progress of science.
Tell the dog owners.
You need to differentiate between "pollution" and "climate change".
"Pollution" means nasty chemicals and heavy metals which make breathing difficult or give you cancer. China has lots of this, the US has cleaned most of it up in the last 50 years (even Los Angeles does not have the perpetual layer of thick smog it had 20 years ago).
"Climate change" refers to emissions of carbon dioxide (and a few other substances like methane). These molecules are perfectly healthy to be around, but in in large mounts they trap heat and cause the earth to warm (and the oceans to acidify). Both China and the US are huge contributors here.
If you are carrying an undetectable-laptop-bomb made by the best engineers in ISIS, I'm sure you can afford that second flight.
Of course. Customs doesn't check for explosives at all. There is no reason to think that US security for domestic flights is more rigorous than European security for international flights. So the checks in the US airport wouldn't make any difference.
What is your idea of an "undetectable laptop bomb"????
The whole point of these laptop measures is that, supposedly, the bombs cannot be detected at security. You can turn the laptop on and operate it normally, and it looks normal on the x-ray, but there is a bomb inside. And supposedly if a passenger holds this bomb up to the side of the plane, it can blow a hole in the fuselage and destroy the plane. And the only way to avoid this possibility is to require all laptops to be in checked baggage.
Which all makes sense, until you remember that laptops would only be banned on some flights (from Europe/Middle East) and not other flights.
If laptops had been banned on flights from Europe, then a terrorist could put an undetectable-laptop-bomb in their luggage from Paris to New York, then pick up their luggage, board a flight from New York to Los Angeles with the laptop in hand, and blow the plane up.
Banning laptops on international flights would have done nothing about that risk. Therefore, it seems this measure was security theater, not real security. And when it became clear how big the economic effect of banning laptops would be (in terms of dissuading travel), the measure had to be cancelled. Laptops are still banned on flights from the Middle East, but this is a small market without other options, so the economic impact on the US is minimal.
Really? Everyone except you reports a cost around $700/month for a typical car. How are your expenses so much lower than this? Perhaps you miscalculated something?
Isn't this equally a threat on any flight, even domestic flights?
If the concern is that terrorists and laptops-with-undetectable-bombs are only created in Europe (or the Middle East), then what's to stop a terrorist from flying to the US with a laptop-bomb in checked baggage, then bringing their laptop-bomb into the cabin on their next domestic flight?
And lots of people get killed at those intersections. Vietnam has over twice as many traffic deaths per capita as the US, and over four times as many deaths per vehicle owned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Roundabouts are a massive improvement on 4-way stop signs, which is the default solution in much of the US.
They can also replace some traffic lights, but not all. Roundabouts have a maximum capacity (unless they too are signalled, which is sometimes done in the UK) so they cannot replace the biggest signalled intersections.
Wait, did you just discriminate against women without vaginas? You bigot!
More white space
= less words
= less content
= less thinking
= more scrolling until you actually find what you want.
I suppose Youtube's most profitable customers are unable to deal with a screen packed full of information, but I'd prefer not to waste my time scrolling until I find what I need.
Tunnel boring can be done for about $10,000 per foot.
I'm not sure where you are getting this number from. Tunnel boring cost is highly dependent on the size of the tunnel (approximately proportional to area or radius, I forget which). It is also extremely prone to cost overruns, as in the Big Dig. For a car tunnel you also need to provide ventilation, emergency exit systems, signalling, and other costly additions.
Instead of building a tunnel from San Jose to Palo Alto, you could build an elevated highway for a much lower cost. Alternatively, you could build a subway for a similar cost, which would carry many times the number of people. Either way, a tunnel for cars is almost always the least cost-effective solution.
And yet, Travelocity/Expedia/similar have replaced a lot of travel agents, Amazon has replaced a lot of stores, ATMs have replaced a lot of bank tellers, Microsoft Office has replaced a lot of secretaries, and so on. People DO prefer automated service when it's as effective or more effective than human service.
Source?
Where you come, does the power of people's marriages come from the fact that the state recognizes them?
It's a damn pilot. They can pilot it with whoever they want. There is no point in piloting it with upper-middle-class people who everyone knows won't quit their job for a small UBI check.
As long as the people they have picked, who are poor now, get to keep receiving the UBI even if they get rich, it's a valid test.
I tried something along those lines before systemd, it didn't work.
I'm one of those "end users" with an opinion.
My laptop has some hardware issue, which causes the wireless connection to die. It used to be the only fix was to restart. But since installing a new version of Linux Mint with systemd, I can now run "sudo systemctl restart network-manager.service" rather than restarting. Yay fewer interrupted workflows!
I don't know if people have a right to know what they are eating.
I do know that if you tell people you're selling them chicken, but you're actually selling them soy, you're defrauding them and you deserve to be prosecuted.
As bad as major-corporation spyware is, spyware by a random hacker is much worse. If Microsoft does anything truly horrible, it has identifiable executives who can go to jail for it. A random hacker does not have the same disincentive.
Trump is a stopped clock, and this is the "minute" in which he's right.
You should read the second half of my comment...