It's worth noting, BTW, that Netflix didn't sponsor this study. Mostly because everyone at Netflix already knows how toxic ads would be to the brand.
Bingo! Netflix has already figured out how to be successful, and part of that is not having ads. They don't have any plans to move to ads. And we already know that people prefer to not have ads. What a waste of time.
That and come up with new captcha types so the bots aren't ready for them, and maybe add a delay.
There's a lot of attention on this in Canada recently, where the Tragically Hip final tour sold out before fans could buy the tickets, scalpers got most of them. Its particularly intense in this case since the lead singer has terminal cancer and this is really the last tour.
Motorized landing wheels for taxi makes sense for stop/start rolling on jet aircraft, but there's no benefit of those additions for flying and we don't see them on ICE prop aircraft, the type you are comparing battery craft against. You are touting electric aircraft awfully hard, but even with all the battery advances we've had the only electric craft making any traction are very short range/duration, single person recreational craft. Those look like fun, but there is a long way to go to get beyond the recreational market even with major battery improvements.
And then, trying to compete with jets is another challenge altogether.
The claim is not tenable. Evolution can filter out deleterious mutations that affect the ability to reproduce. Mutations that happen after the body loses ability to bear or sire babies will not be filtered out..
That is the best point made on this topic. Cancers are by far more common late in life, after reproductive years are pretty much over. An evolutionary change mechanism would need to occur earlier in life.
And, btw, since we are living longer, we'll see more cancer cases.
I had a very good reason. You posted a non equator, and an incorrect one at that,....
Because they are not. Your move, tell me why corporate welfare is different than welfare for individuals.If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs, you gotta test them all.
You mean a "non-sequitur"?.And then to say 'an incorrect one" made me belly laugh., Its either non-sequitur or it isn't. And, it certainly is relevant because the whole premise is making some moral equivalence to two things that are fundamentally different. That some people can't even admit to such a fundamental realism because of some fear that it might detract from their moral equivalency argument makes me laugh as well.
Like I said, whether you agree with testing or not, their is a fundamental difference between taking money and giving it. Why is that so hard to admit?
No, there is revenue generation (taxes) and expenditures (welfare). There is a difference between income and expense, a basic thing you learn in economics 101. Increasing income is not the same as reducing expense, even if it can has a zero sum from the baseline. You are saying something entirely stupid to justify some position about wealth and fairness. Notice I never spoke of either.
Your perspective fails the basic "Justice as Fairness" doctrine espoused in one of the greatest works of political philosophy and ethics from the 20th century, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice.
And what, exactly, do you think my perspective is? I only stated there is a fundamental difference between providing money and penalizing. If you can't get past that fundamental difference, then don't expect to have an intelligent conversation about comparing how they are executed.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I never said I did. I never even hinted that I did. Why did you put those words in my mouth with no reason? That demonstrates to me you cannot make a point without distorting the words of others, which tell me something about you but nothing about the point at hand.
Whether you agree with drug testing for welfare or not, there is a bid difference between testing for handouts, and testing for tax penalty avoidance. A complete lack of comprehension of said difference is the most disappointing thing about such a proposal.
The problem with cable's "compromise' as described is they can charge for the app instead of the cable box. And with limits on recording as well, its essentially a continuation of the existing lock down. I hope the FCC isn't stupid enough to fall for this.
I'd like to see how they are going to get within 8 cm of 15 cards in one second. The author is stupid for making that the headline. The more important point is that it can scan a single card in 1/15th of a second.
Let say a country produces 10% renewable energy. We could say that all clients get 10% of renewable energy, on average. What happens if one client pay more to get only renewable? He/she gets 100% (that is in theory, because in practice the flow of electrons remains the same), while the rest decrease from 10% to 9.999%. No more green energy is produced, or consumed.
Therefore it sounds like a scam to me. In the end it doesn't matter if YOUR energy is renewable or not. What counts is the overall. And that can only be achieved through government regulations.
It is just a game. Utilities have used the 'green power' option to get some customers to willingly pay more, they don't have to do a thing but make sure that they don't charge for more MWhs than they produce from renewables over a period of time. Since they'll be producing that power anyhow, the customer is not influencing anything. So in reality at a given time they may not be producing enough 'green' energy to supply all the 'green' contracts demand.
BTW, look at that Green Mountain Power link in the summary, you'll see the clearly fake customer quotes. No way would I ever contract with them.
How about the fact that he has been driving it ignoring the "thunk Thunk" noises for 5,000-10,000 miles? If a ball joint is failing it thunks. They guy ignored it for months.
Its still a failure once it gets to the thunk noise. Regardless of any neglect by the owner afterward, you would not expect it at under 70K miles.
Any one-off failure can be considered an anomaly, but you can't summarily dismiss ball joint failures at 70,000 miles as acceptable because that is unusual even for cheap cars. We can't conclude anything without knowledge of more failures if they are happening.
The economics of point-to-point VTOL travel make a lot more sense when you factor in the lives lost every day in car crashes, and what we spend on building roads.
How can you claim that when you don't know how many might be killed in VTOL and you don't know how much it will cost? Aren't they the two fundamental pieces of data to qualify your statement?
There are two sides. Three is nothing inherently wrong with customers who use more paying more. The biggest problem I have is that the per unit rates increases outrageously for over-limit usage. If they would have pay for unit usage at a reasonable and steady rate, that would be OK with me.
Maybe its petty, but I never liked the term 'caps' as it implies a limit that can't be exceeded. Its often really tiered pricing under another name.
As with any cause, levels of exposure are critical information. Even if you can cause some cancers to develop by bombarding rats with super high amounts of RF energy, that does not mean that cell phone use poses any significant risk to humans. Even with ionizing radiation we know that at low levels risk is sow low it is insignificant.
Unfortunately, the scientists did not disclose what levels of exposure were used in the study, which increases the ability of FUD mongers to take it and run.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worth noting, BTW, that Netflix didn't sponsor this study. Mostly because everyone at Netflix already knows how toxic ads would be to the brand.
Bingo! Netflix has already figured out how to be successful, and part of that is not having ads. They don't have any plans to move to ads. And we already know that people prefer to not have ads. What a waste of time.
That and come up with new captcha types so the bots aren't ready for them, and maybe add a delay.
There's a lot of attention on this in Canada recently, where the Tragically Hip final tour sold out before fans could buy the tickets, scalpers got most of them. Its particularly intense in this case since the lead singer has terminal cancer and this is really the last tour.
Motorized landing wheels for taxi makes sense for stop/start rolling on jet aircraft, but there's no benefit of those additions for flying and we don't see them on ICE prop aircraft, the type you are comparing battery craft against. You are touting electric aircraft awfully hard, but even with all the battery advances we've had the only electric craft making any traction are very short range/duration, single person recreational craft. Those look like fun, but there is a long way to go to get beyond the recreational market even with major battery improvements.
And then, trying to compete with jets is another challenge altogether.
I had heard a theory some time ago that a perfectly healthy human body should not get cancer.
Since there is not, and never will be, a perfectly healthy human body in existence, we won't be able to test that theory.
The claim is not tenable. Evolution can filter out deleterious mutations that affect the ability to reproduce. Mutations that happen after the body loses ability to bear or sire babies will not be filtered out. .
That is the best point made on this topic. Cancers are by far more common late in life, after reproductive years are pretty much over. An evolutionary change mechanism would need to occur earlier in life.
And, btw, since we are living longer, we'll see more cancer cases.
You'd think that evolution would have given up by now.
The issues with electric planes have been beat to death here, this NASA plane appears to have no solution for any of them.
I had a very good reason. You posted a non equator, and an incorrect one at that,....
Because they are not. Your move, tell me why corporate welfare is different than welfare for individuals.If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs, you gotta test them all.
You mean a "non-sequitur"? .And then to say 'an incorrect one" made me belly laugh., Its either non-sequitur or it isn't. And, it certainly is relevant because the whole premise is making some moral equivalence to two things that are fundamentally different. That some people can't even admit to such a fundamental realism because of some fear that it might detract from their moral equivalency argument makes me laugh as well.
Like I said, whether you agree with testing or not, their is a fundamental difference between taking money and giving it. Why is that so hard to admit?
No, there is revenue generation (taxes) and expenditures (welfare). There is a difference between income and expense, a basic thing you learn in economics 101. Increasing income is not the same as reducing expense, even if it can has a zero sum from the baseline. You are saying something entirely stupid to justify some position about wealth and fairness. Notice I never spoke of either.
Your perspective fails the basic "Justice as Fairness" doctrine espoused in one of the greatest works of political philosophy and ethics from the 20th century, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice.
And what, exactly, do you think my perspective is? I only stated there is a fundamental difference between providing money and penalizing. If you can't get past that fundamental difference, then don't expect to have an intelligent conversation about comparing how they are executed.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I never said I did. I never even hinted that I did. Why did you put those words in my mouth with no reason? That demonstrates to me you cannot make a point without distorting the words of others, which tell me something about you but nothing about the point at hand.
Whether you agree with drug testing for welfare or not, there is a bid difference between testing for handouts, and testing for tax penalty avoidance. A complete lack of comprehension of said difference is the most disappointing thing about such a proposal.
The odds are astronomical.
The problem with cable's "compromise' as described is they can charge for the app instead of the cable box. And with limits on recording as well, its essentially a continuation of the existing lock down. I hope the FCC isn't stupid enough to fall for this.
John Kerry was a perfect beta tester. No risk of intelligence being lost.
I'd like to see how they are going to get within 8 cm of 15 cards in one second. The author is stupid for making that the headline. The more important point is that it can scan a single card in 1/15th of a second.
Too bad it didn't predict the shipwreck.
Let say a country produces 10% renewable energy. We could say that all clients get 10% of renewable energy, on average. What happens if one client pay more to get only renewable? He/she gets 100% (that is in theory, because in practice the flow of electrons remains the same), while the rest decrease from 10% to 9.999%. No more green energy is produced, or consumed.
Therefore it sounds like a scam to me. In the end it doesn't matter if YOUR energy is renewable or not. What counts is the overall. And that can only be achieved through government regulations.
It is just a game. Utilities have used the 'green power' option to get some customers to willingly pay more, they don't have to do a thing but make sure that they don't charge for more MWhs than they produce from renewables over a period of time. Since they'll be producing that power anyhow, the customer is not influencing anything. So in reality at a given time they may not be producing enough 'green' energy to supply all the 'green' contracts demand.
BTW, look at that Green Mountain Power link in the summary, you'll see the clearly fake customer quotes. No way would I ever contract with them.
How about the fact that he has been driving it ignoring the "thunk Thunk" noises for 5,000-10,000 miles? If a ball joint is failing it thunks. They guy ignored it for months.
Its still a failure once it gets to the thunk noise. Regardless of any neglect by the owner afterward, you would not expect it at under 70K miles.
Any one-off failure can be considered an anomaly, but you can't summarily dismiss ball joint failures at 70,000 miles as acceptable because that is unusual even for cheap cars. We can't conclude anything without knowledge of more failures if they are happening.
The economics of point-to-point VTOL travel make a lot more sense when you factor in the lives lost every day in car crashes, and what we spend on building roads.
How can you claim that when you don't know how many might be killed in VTOL and you don't know how much it will cost? Aren't they the two fundamental pieces of data to qualify your statement?
People are just getting bored with it.
There are two sides. Three is nothing inherently wrong with customers who use more paying more. The biggest problem I have is that the per unit rates increases outrageously for over-limit usage. If they would have pay for unit usage at a reasonable and steady rate, that would be OK with me.
Maybe its petty, but I never liked the term 'caps' as it implies a limit that can't be exceeded. Its often really tiered pricing under another name.
I'm not sure I'd put my real name on any sort of embarrassment to the North Koreans. They are rather unpredictable.
I predict North Korea will have at least one less (living) IT staff members.
As with any cause, levels of exposure are critical information. Even if you can cause some cancers to develop by bombarding rats with super high amounts of RF energy, that does not mean that cell phone use poses any significant risk to humans. Even with ionizing radiation we know that at low levels risk is sow low it is insignificant.
Unfortunately, the scientists did not disclose what levels of exposure were used in the study, which increases the ability of FUD mongers to take it and run.