Doesn't matter, you can still go to jail for cruelty to an animal for shooting one with a BB gun - in some areas it's a felony. It's not all that much different than if you shot their kid with a BB. "Bah, it's only a small welt" isn't going to convince the judge...
It's even more amusing to sit in the same lane driving at a nice constant speed while watching them do this, only to pass them a few minutes later when they get stuck behind a semi truck that just doesn't give a shit about their tailgating and bright flashing.
Though when possible I am happy to let them go ahead of me. Usually safer when you are driving behind a moron than vice-versa.
Also, if this is just a device that monitors speed, acceleration, driving distance etc it's not going to know about some of the stupidest/most dangerous driving decisions - running red lights, talking on a cell/texting/eating while driving, cutting people off, tailgating, road rage, etc. I assume it won't even know about DUIs or other seriously stupid decisions.
Speeding or accelerating "too fast" are probably some of the *least* dangerous acts in themselves (unless they are blatantly reckless, which is rare), and only really indicative of bad driving when combined with the kinds of dumb actions a GPS device can't detect...
You can't defend something if you don't own it, and to own land you have to live on it.
Eh? Sorry, but there's just nothing true about that statement...
Clearly you don't have to live on your land to own it. Literally countless examples of that. And clearly you don't have to own it to defend it. Various government enforcement agencies are happy to defend your land for you (that's what we pay them for!) And good luck as a squatter if you aren't living in a VERY liberal community. Most of the time it will get you tossed out on your ass if you are lucky or in jail if you resist.
And if it doesn't work with a standard QAM tuner, it shouldn't count as cable TV!
"Cable" as a regulatory definition has nothing to do with "QAM". QAM is just a modulation used for digital ATSC broadcasts. AT&T UVerse, for example, is regulated by the FCC as a cabled system but is implemented in a completely different way.
And good luck with the FCC, they specifically allow encrypting basic cable channels now. The FTC, then, isn't going to care since the FCC specifically allows it. And the BBB is a joke - I assume you know it isn't even a government agency, just a non-profit organization that rates/reviews companies? (ie. Comcast could not care less about them).
Not that I don't think Comcast is totally overpriced and the cable industry (what with its near monopoly in many cases) in general has little interest in customer service... but they are a business providing the service they have contracted with you to provide. They are required to provide 2 free boxes to you for the first two years after they start encrypting basics, but then after that they can charge for those as well. All under new FCC rules, of course. And give the new chairman is a former cable lobbyist, I don't see them going back on those any time soon...
You can call the advantage "complexity", but in practice that really means price, heat, and size, all of which are critical to laptops. Additionally, putting them on the same die makes it easier to have unified memory, which can further simplify things (and be as fast or faster in some applications for the less money if designed correctly - for example, compute tasks that touch a lot of the same data on the CPU and GPU like video encoding, etc).
And it most definitely does not have to "run hotter" than *two* discrete parts (and is certainly easier to cool, anyway). Computers are *always* using a GPU these days, modern OSes do all sorts of 3D effects (even some mobile ones). If the GPU (and software/driver) is designed well, it would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and possibly even more power efficient than the dual-graphics design of Macbook Pros and some Wintel laptops...
For a desktop, this isn't anything all that exciting (except for those who want cheap PCs with reasonable performance). For a laptop/embedded system, it's a really interesting chip, even if it's not the cheapest.
Sorry, your post is factually incorrect. The common mutation to the pathway is with ALDH2 (aldehyde dehydrogenase), the *second* step of the process.
What happens is ethanol is broken down into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), and then the aldehyde into acetic acid by ALDH2. When ALDH2 is not effective, aldehyde (a toxin) builds up in the bloodstream and causes flushing, nausea, headaches, etc. And it's been traced down to a single amino acid substitution in ALDH2 with partially dominant expression.
One interesting anecdote I've seen from this is the use of certain drugs (an antihistamine, I think?) as off-label ALH inhibitors - basically to slow the pathway down and reduce buildup of acetaldehyde. In fact, an anesthesiologist friend was giving it to all of the Asian guys at the last bachelor party I attended:)
And do the slightest research into it and you will see the OP was correct - one study showed something like 40-50% of Japanese had ALDH2 deficiency as a whole, but less than 5% of Japanese alcoholics had it. If you almost immediately got flushed and sick when you drank you'd obviously be more likely to avoid it in general...
Yes, wildfires are an exaggerated case, but so was an asthma attack for someone who has never experienced it before or since. MANY people have real asthma or other breathing problems and WILL be affected by much lower concentrations of particles. You may also not care about people smoking in restaurants, public buildings, or cars with their children in the back seat. Some people say they "like the smell". Who cares?
And in the end, this is just tightening regulations - they haven't outlawed the practice, just required less pollutant output. It's happened with cars, power plants, factories, etc, and we still have those, obviously And because of those regulations US cities are SO much cleaner than they were 50-100 years ago, and we don't have the same horrible air quality as Beijing or Guangzhou.
Actually, you didn't cite a single source because You can't.
No, I didn't cite them because they ridiculously easy to find.. You'd have to be completely incompetent not to find a dozen sources on Google on your first try.
And holy crap, the link YOU POSTED said this: "On winter days when the Bay Area experiences peak ambient PM concentrations, the largest single source of PM2.5 is wood burning."
Now let's break down the bullshit; Winter lasts three months. That's 25% of the year.
You do realize "winter" is a season, not a temperature? In many areas of the US (even Northern California!) heat is necessary Nov-March (or *more*). What broken bullshit, then?
In other words, if you optimize all the variables... you still come out with wood burning only accounting for about 12.5% of particulate matter in what is very close to the worst-case scenario
What kind of idiotic math is that? Why on earth would you assume air pollution level is a constant? It's not just logic you are failing, but basic statistics. Especially since your initial statement was that wood burning is cleaner than natural gas, I pointed out that's ONLY true since wood burning is a small minority of heating, and you STILL didn't get my point and pretend that 5% (your figure - no idea of the real number) of the people generating 50% of the particulate pollution is acceptable. If 5% of cars generated 50% of the carbon monoxide or ozone, would that be fine just letting them continue? It's a stupid argument if you look at it like that...
For someone complaining about bullshit & lack of references, you are remarkably full of the former and totally empty of the latter. Which Bay Area are you talking about? San Francisco? Green Bay? Hudson Bay?
If you had actually read what I wrote, I said Bay Area, CA. You even quote it! Hard to take your mostly content-free string of ranting insults seriously after that. But I'll try.
Oh, and sorry, the rest of your post is nearly unreadable because you haven't figured out how to quote parent posts, but really you don't know anything about me so why make up stupid, insulting, useless crap like you did? I was not brought up in CA. I was brought up in a relatively small midwest town. Many of my relatives live in rural towns where it's still legal to burn your *garbage*, let alone wood in stoves.
I don't disagree that limiting wood burning should be a gradual process and make exceptions for areas and people who have few other options. But seriously, almost everything about the OP was a big pile of stupid, and NOTHING you said changed any of that or made any useful contribution to the discussion. It's a plain FACT that if 120M homes in the US just decided to switch all of their heat sources to wood burning with current stoves it would be disastrous for air quality, so the OP's post was wrong and your reply no better.
And you know what? This regulation doesn't outlaw wood burning. It sets a higher bar for wood stoves (some of which will still qualify). Are you so clueless that you think that will somehow just end the entire industry and practice? If that were true the EPA would have completely destroyed, oh, the automobile industry, fossil fuel burning power plants, and dozens of other things that have had to improve their technology to reduce the level pollutants they introduce. But, in fact, that didn't happen, and that's why US cities don't look like Beijing.
Yeah, but Australia is notorious for *horrible* Internet prices.
And even you are saying 15GB is $95, which is just over $6 / GB. *That* is the sort of volume discount I'm talking about. So you'd think buying 1 PB of data would give an even *better* one. Since it clearly didn't, this article is fairly pointless...
That's totally irrelevant to my point that the vast majority of dead hardwood has not traditionally been recycled into the environment by *burning* but by slow decomposition. Burning hardwood for fuel and pretending that doesn't add the same pollutants to the environment as other organic fuel is just plan stupid.
As a result, even if team-A consists of all stellar performers and team C consists of all wastes of flesh, team A will have one member unfairly fired, and team C will have one member unfairly rewarded more than the average for team A.
Well, unless they are all doing the same job that's not necessarily a problem. And if they are and the whole team was useless it's likely the manager would be shitcanned as well and things would resolve themselves...
But anyway, I don't really disagree that stack ranking/curves are horrible, I really just wanted to point out in today's tech job market companies like Yahoo are much more likely to turn over their top 10% than their bottom 10%, unless they make drastic concessions to keep them....
Yeah, that reference was already in the SUMMARY, let alone the article, thanks.
But if you want to be serious, there is no reason a company like Yahoo! can't hire mostly above average engineers if they want to pay. And there is a reason the Yankees have been in the playoffs 18 of the last 20 years. They pay for above average players. It's annoying, but it's the truth...
So, that's about $13 / GB. AT&T (ie. the global rip off artist of the century) basically charges $10 / GB to inividuals. So, EE can't do any better than a 30% premium over that for a $13M contract!? How is this in any way interesting?
Coal is just wood that has sat around for while. It has nothing to do with being "carbon neutral", unless you think 100% of the trees that die on the planet are due to spontaneous combustion. (hint: in nature that's not the case, most of their carbon is slowly recycled into the soil to grow new trees).
Excuse me, I have asthma. And this bullshit about "particulate" count is just that, bullshit. The reason wood burning stoves are being banned in municipalities is because some people don't like the smell of burning wood, or the lingering smoke
Your whole post is complete and utter bullshit. Wood smoke is the single largest source of PM air pollution in the Bay Area in the winter, and had been for decades (yes, more than cars). You didn't cite a single source in your post because you can't.
At an eco-system level, burning wood is better for the environment than the total pollution from extraction,refining, and transport, of natural gas and propane.
Holy shit, that's so untrue it's mind boggling. If you want to compare current gas use vs current wood use, sure, but if you were to replace gas with wood YOU SAID SO YOURSELF we'd look like a polluted Chinese city (probably worse). So, what a horrible false analogy!
The air quality in many cities is already too low; So ostensibly, we have to reduce it any way we can, not for environmental reasons per-se, but quality of life. Cars stink. And burning wood would just make the cities stink that much more.
Another awful misconception! You think the only problem with air quality is the smell? Seriously?? How on earth is "quality of life" from *breathing* not an environmental issue? As an anecdote (that I mentioned in another thread) about 5 years ago there were major fires south of the Bay Area, CA that resulted in some horrible air quality (sort of like a lot of people burning wood). It's the first time in my life I had asthma, and I was freaked out and went to the doctor. She said she had seen a bunch of cases of people who had it for the first time because of massive amount of wood smoke coming from the fires that year. Not surprisingly, I have never had it again.
So, yeah, sure, replace all of the natural gas heat with wood stoves, and see what that does for "quality of life"...
Slashdot Mirror
Just put it on switch. You don't really want it wired up 24-7 anyway, or what's the point of having it?
Doesn't matter, you can still go to jail for cruelty to an animal for shooting one with a BB gun - in some areas it's a felony. It's not all that much different than if you shot their kid with a BB. "Bah, it's only a small welt" isn't going to convince the judge...
Besides... YOU'LL PUT YOUR EYE OUT!
It's even more amusing to sit in the same lane driving at a nice constant speed while watching them do this, only to pass them a few minutes later when they get stuck behind a semi truck that just doesn't give a shit about their tailgating and bright flashing.
Though when possible I am happy to let them go ahead of me. Usually safer when you are driving behind a moron than vice-versa.
Also, if this is just a device that monitors speed, acceleration, driving distance etc it's not going to know about some of the stupidest/most dangerous driving decisions - running red lights, talking on a cell/texting/eating while driving, cutting people off, tailgating, road rage, etc. I assume it won't even know about DUIs or other seriously stupid decisions.
Speeding or accelerating "too fast" are probably some of the *least* dangerous acts in themselves (unless they are blatantly reckless, which is rare), and only really indicative of bad driving when combined with the kinds of dumb actions a GPS device can't detect...
You can't defend something if you don't own it, and to own land you have to live on it.
Eh? Sorry, but there's just nothing true about that statement...
Clearly you don't have to live on your land to own it. Literally countless examples of that. And clearly you don't have to own it to defend it. Various government enforcement agencies are happy to defend your land for you (that's what we pay them for!) And good luck as a squatter if you aren't living in a VERY liberal community. Most of the time it will get you tossed out on your ass if you are lucky or in jail if you resist.
And if it doesn't work with a standard QAM tuner, it shouldn't count as cable TV!
"Cable" as a regulatory definition has nothing to do with "QAM". QAM is just a modulation used for digital ATSC broadcasts. AT&T UVerse, for example, is regulated by the FCC as a cabled system but is implemented in a completely different way.
And good luck with the FCC, they specifically allow encrypting basic cable channels now. The FTC, then, isn't going to care since the FCC specifically allows it. And the BBB is a joke - I assume you know it isn't even a government agency, just a non-profit organization that rates/reviews companies? (ie. Comcast could not care less about them).
Not that I don't think Comcast is totally overpriced and the cable industry (what with its near monopoly in many cases) in general has little interest in customer service... but they are a business providing the service they have contracted with you to provide. They are required to provide 2 free boxes to you for the first two years after they start encrypting basics, but then after that they can charge for those as well. All under new FCC rules, of course. And give the new chairman is a former cable lobbyist, I don't see them going back on those any time soon...
Yeah, that's the point! It's easier to make a cooling system to diffuse heat from one die than two...
You can call the advantage "complexity", but in practice that really means price, heat, and size, all of which are critical to laptops. Additionally, putting them on the same die makes it easier to have unified memory, which can further simplify things (and be as fast or faster in some applications for the less money if designed correctly - for example, compute tasks that touch a lot of the same data on the CPU and GPU like video encoding, etc).
And it most definitely does not have to "run hotter" than *two* discrete parts (and is certainly easier to cool, anyway). Computers are *always* using a GPU these days, modern OSes do all sorts of 3D effects (even some mobile ones). If the GPU (and software/driver) is designed well, it would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and possibly even more power efficient than the dual-graphics design of Macbook Pros and some Wintel laptops...
For a desktop, this isn't anything all that exciting (except for those who want cheap PCs with reasonable performance). For a laptop/embedded system, it's a really interesting chip, even if it's not the cheapest.
Sorry, your post is factually incorrect. The common mutation to the pathway is with ALDH2 (aldehyde dehydrogenase), the *second* step of the process.
What happens is ethanol is broken down into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), and then the aldehyde into acetic acid by ALDH2. When ALDH2 is not effective, aldehyde (a toxin) builds up in the bloodstream and causes flushing, nausea, headaches, etc. And it's been traced down to a single amino acid substitution in ALDH2 with partially dominant expression.
One interesting anecdote I've seen from this is the use of certain drugs (an antihistamine, I think?) as off-label ALH inhibitors - basically to slow the pathway down and reduce buildup of acetaldehyde. In fact, an anesthesiologist friend was giving it to all of the Asian guys at the last bachelor party I attended :)
And do the slightest research into it and you will see the OP was correct - one study showed something like 40-50% of Japanese had ALDH2 deficiency as a whole, but less than 5% of Japanese alcoholics had it. If you almost immediately got flushed and sick when you drank you'd obviously be more likely to avoid it in general...
RIP to your genetic line. Jewish by any chance?
No, but thanks anyway, Christian P. But seriously, isn't it a bit cliche to be a German anti-semite these days?
Ok, I already posted this but you seem relatively intelligent so I would have thought you'd have found it for yourself:
http://sparetheair.org/Stay-Informed/Particulate-Matter/Wood-Smoke.aspx [sparetheair.org]
"Wood burning is the leading cause of wintertime pollution in the Bay Area."
Yes, wildfires are an exaggerated case, but so was an asthma attack for someone who has never experienced it before or since. MANY people have real asthma or other breathing problems and WILL be affected by much lower concentrations of particles. You may also not care about people smoking in restaurants, public buildings, or cars with their children in the back seat. Some people say they "like the smell". Who cares?
And in the end, this is just tightening regulations - they haven't outlawed the practice, just required less pollutant output. It's happened with cars, power plants, factories, etc, and we still have those, obviously And because of those regulations US cities are SO much cleaner than they were 50-100 years ago, and we don't have the same horrible air quality as Beijing or Guangzhou.
No, just because it's SO DAMN OBVIOUS I thought people wouldn't make silly posts like yours. Ok, here's one. Search on Google and you ca find dozens.
http://sparetheair.org/Stay-Informed/Particulate-Matter/Wood-Smoke.aspx [sparetheair.org]
"Wood burning is the leading cause of wintertime pollution in the Bay Area."
Actually, you didn't cite a single source because You can't.
No, I didn't cite them because they ridiculously easy to find.. You'd have to be completely incompetent not to find a dozen sources on Google on your first try.
http://sparetheair.org/Stay-Informed/Particulate-Matter/Wood-Smoke.aspx
"Wood burning is the leading cause of wintertime pollution in the Bay Area."
American Lung Association white paper: http://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1677
"Wood smoke is the largest source of wintertime particle pollution in the Bay Area."
And holy crap, the link YOU POSTED said this: "On winter days when the Bay Area experiences peak ambient PM concentrations, the largest single source of PM2.5 is wood burning."
Now let's break down the bullshit; Winter lasts three months. That's 25% of the year.
You do realize "winter" is a season, not a temperature? In many areas of the US (even Northern California!) heat is necessary Nov-March (or *more*). What broken bullshit, then?
In other words, if you optimize all the variables... you still come out with wood burning only accounting for about 12.5% of particulate matter in what is very close to the worst-case scenario
What kind of idiotic math is that? Why on earth would you assume air pollution level is a constant? It's not just logic you are failing, but basic statistics. Especially since your initial statement was that wood burning is cleaner than natural gas, I pointed out that's ONLY true since wood burning is a small minority of heating, and you STILL didn't get my point and pretend that 5% (your figure - no idea of the real number) of the people generating 50% of the particulate pollution is acceptable. If 5% of cars generated 50% of the carbon monoxide or ozone, would that be fine just letting them continue? It's a stupid argument if you look at it like that...
For someone complaining about bullshit & lack of references, you are remarkably full of the former and totally empty of the latter. Which Bay Area are you talking about? San Francisco? Green Bay? Hudson Bay?
If you had actually read what I wrote, I said Bay Area, CA. You even quote it! Hard to take your mostly content-free string of ranting insults seriously after that. But I'll try.
Oh, and sorry, the rest of your post is nearly unreadable because you haven't figured out how to quote parent posts, but really you don't know anything about me so why make up stupid, insulting, useless crap like you did? I was not brought up in CA. I was brought up in a relatively small midwest town. Many of my relatives live in rural towns where it's still legal to burn your *garbage*, let alone wood in stoves.
I don't disagree that limiting wood burning should be a gradual process and make exceptions for areas and people who have few other options. But seriously, almost everything about the OP was a big pile of stupid, and NOTHING you said changed any of that or made any useful contribution to the discussion. It's a plain FACT that if 120M homes in the US just decided to switch all of their heat sources to wood burning with current stoves it would be disastrous for air quality, so the OP's post was wrong and your reply no better.
And you know what? This regulation doesn't outlaw wood burning. It sets a higher bar for wood stoves (some of which will still qualify). Are you so clueless that you think that will somehow just end the entire industry and practice? If that were true the EPA would have completely destroyed, oh, the automobile industry, fossil fuel burning power plants, and dozens of other things that have had to improve their technology to reduce the level pollutants they introduce. But, in fact, that didn't happen, and that's why US cities don't look like Beijing.
Yeah, but Australia is notorious for *horrible* Internet prices.
And even you are saying 15GB is $95, which is just over $6 / GB. *That* is the sort of volume discount I'm talking about. So you'd think buying 1 PB of data would give an even *better* one. Since it clearly didn't, this article is fairly pointless...
You could say the same thing about MANY consumer "cloud" services, and that app model seems to be doing fine...
That's totally irrelevant to my point that the vast majority of dead hardwood has not traditionally been recycled into the environment by *burning* but by slow decomposition. Burning hardwood for fuel and pretending that doesn't add the same pollutants to the environment as other organic fuel is just plan stupid.
As a result, even if team-A consists of all stellar performers and team C consists of all wastes of flesh, team A will have one member unfairly fired, and team C will have one member unfairly rewarded more than the average for team A.
Well, unless they are all doing the same job that's not necessarily a problem. And if they are and the whole team was useless it's likely the manager would be shitcanned as well and things would resolve themselves...
But anyway, I don't really disagree that stack ranking/curves are horrible, I really just wanted to point out in today's tech job market companies like Yahoo are much more likely to turn over their top 10% than their bottom 10%, unless they make drastic concessions to keep them....
Yeah, that reference was already in the SUMMARY, let alone the article, thanks.
But if you want to be serious, there is no reason a company like Yahoo! can't hire mostly above average engineers if they want to pay. And there is a reason the Yankees have been in the playoffs 18 of the last 20 years. They pay for above average players. It's annoying, but it's the truth...
This is Yahoo!. The good ones have already left long ago. Now it's a battle for the leftovers.
So, that's about $13 / GB. AT&T (ie. the global rip off artist of the century) basically charges $10 / GB to inividuals. So, EE can't do any better than a 30% premium over that for a $13M contract!? How is this in any way interesting?
Wha? That makes no sense.
Coal is just wood that has sat around for while. It has nothing to do with being "carbon neutral", unless you think 100% of the trees that die on the planet are due to spontaneous combustion. (hint: in nature that's not the case, most of their carbon is slowly recycled into the soil to grow new trees).
Excuse me, I have asthma. And this bullshit about "particulate" count is just that, bullshit. The reason wood burning stoves are being banned in municipalities is because some people don't like the smell of burning wood, or the lingering smoke
Your whole post is complete and utter bullshit. Wood smoke is the single largest source of PM air pollution in the Bay Area in the winter, and had been for decades (yes, more than cars). You didn't cite a single source in your post because you can't.
At an eco-system level, burning wood is better for the environment than the total pollution from extraction,refining, and transport, of natural gas and propane.
Holy shit, that's so untrue it's mind boggling. If you want to compare current gas use vs current wood use, sure, but if you were to replace gas with wood YOU SAID SO YOURSELF we'd look like a polluted Chinese city (probably worse). So, what a horrible false analogy!
The air quality in many cities is already too low; So ostensibly, we have to reduce it any way we can, not for environmental reasons per-se, but quality of life. Cars stink. And burning wood would just make the cities stink that much more.
Another awful misconception! You think the only problem with air quality is the smell? Seriously?? How on earth is "quality of life" from *breathing* not an environmental issue? As an anecdote (that I mentioned in another thread) about 5 years ago there were major fires south of the Bay Area, CA that resulted in some horrible air quality (sort of like a lot of people burning wood). It's the first time in my life I had asthma, and I was freaked out and went to the doctor. She said she had seen a bunch of cases of people who had it for the first time because of massive amount of wood smoke coming from the fires that year. Not surprisingly, I have never had it again.
So, yeah, sure, replace all of the natural gas heat with wood stoves, and see what that does for "quality of life"...
I'm not entirely against this rule, but I think it should be a local law not a national one
Yes, because air quality is a completely local issue. Or 50 million local issues. Brilliant.
Piecemeal laws like this are why we end up with absurdities
WHA? You just said you wanted local instead of Federal rules and then complain about "piecemeal laws"!?
If that's the case, good for them.