On general principle, nobody will accept the idea of being saddled with everyone else's toxic dregs. In almost all cases, even the same people who complain about NIMBYism will change their tune if it were proposed to bury all the waste near where *they* actually live.
No matter where you propose to dispose of the waste, people across the political spectrum in that region will unite to fight that particular project.
A couple of days ago, they came up with a new one: They called me and spoofed my own number AND name. I guess it worked; I picked it up out of sheer curiosity, but as expected it was a typical robot scam. After they did it again a few hours later, I had to block my own damned phone number.
So you've done the research and proven that none of this witch's brew of radioactive heavy metals would bioaccumulate? Where did you publish the paper?
When we first started to build these things, the waste disposal costs where *supposed* to be pretty fixed. And in reality they would have been, until Jimmy Carter decided that fuel reprocessing was a no-no and we made it illegal.
You do realize that the particularly hard-to-manage waste at Hanford came from reprocessing fuel to make weapons?
If you think that it's politically feasible to bury all of the nation's nuclear waste in any particular location anywhere in this country, you're a naive idiot.
No, you're considered an asshole because of your MO of making trollish posts followed by a bunch of passive-aggressive sidestepping responses to anyone who comments on them.
There are 5 million people in the US with Alzheimer's. Using your logic, that means without half of a trillion dollars in revenue, such a drug would never be developed. That's just plain BS.
The real reason the prices would be high is that the drug companies use the same strategy that TV repair shops use to maximize revenue: No matter what the problem is or how trivial it is to fix, the price for a fix is always about half of the cost of a new TV.
Likewise, an Alzheimer's drug will likely be priced at about half of the cost of a lifetime of long-term care for an untreated patient, regardless of how much the drug cost to develop or manufacture.
It's Miami Beach, which is not Miami, and which is comprised of islands. Miami itself will end up mostly under the waves at a somewhat later date.
Your linked article does not say that it is sinking faster than sea levels are rising, just that it is sinking. They do say that sea levels on the East Coast are currently rising at 3mm/year and accelerating.
Since people in Miami Beach are already wading through the streets at high tide on calm days, their situation is going to be pretty dire within a few decades just from sea level rise even if the sinking somehow stopped.
It's like arguing that cars shouldn't have safety belts and airbags, since you can never rule out the chance that you might die of a heart attack wile you're driving.
Here's the thing, though. Since they already have the "take screenshot and upload it on a dedicated server" code in place, all they need is to ask the user when taking a screenshot:
"Do you want to save this screenshot locally on your device (default choice) or upload it to the Mozilla servers?"
It looks to me like they don't even need to do that.
I never even knew that this feature existed (it's hidden under a '...' menu that I've never opened in all these years). So I pulled it up, and I see that there are already two separate buttons: A small "Download" button and a large "Save" button. (The latter has a tiny "cloud" icon in it, which I guess is a subtle clue and/or IQ test.)
All they really need to do is change the word "Save" to "Upload to cloud", and also change the color and size of the "Download" button to make it equally prominent to the save button. It could be purely styling changes with no change in the code logic.
Look, you asked how the Senate could have a Republican majority without sub-state level gerrymandering. When I showed you the math, you flipped into the standard "There's only States! No US population!" mode. Well, why did you ask your goddamned question if you already knew the answer?
However you try to spin it, you cannot deny the simple fact that the party in control of the Senate represents the will of a not-even-close minority of US voters. That outcome is indistinguishable from gerrymandering, intentional or not.
You should read the Constitution. Then you'd realize that the Senate has had gerrymandering baked into its definition since day one. The Republicans hold 53 seats after receiving 35 million votes, while the Democrats hold only 45 seats even though they got 53 million votes.
Actually, it's far more complicated than you represent. Lucent was only one blob spit out from what remained of the core post-breakup AT&T telecommunications company, which itself executed many other acquisitions and spinoffs before SBC bought them (the whole company, not just their name). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
With physical hoarding, the burden is often eventually shifted onto family or friends. They are stuck with the expense and effort of a major clean-out if the hoarder ever dies or becomes incapacitated.
With digital hoarding, everything that was accumulated often fits into a shirt pocket. While it may stress out the actual hoarder, those who inherit it could easily dispose of it if they choose.
I'm not talking about home hobbyists. I *am* talking about hot dogs and other industrially manufactured sausages, which comprise the vast majority of the market. I an certain that their high speed machines have an easier time dealing with artificial casings as they spit out sausages by the mile.
Oh, sure. Just as carbon-neutral as coal, oil, and natural gas anyway. Not that this is a useful definition of carbon-neutral.
There are two major carbon cycles on this planet: The geological cycle, which takes millions of years, and the biological cycle, which operates on a time span between a few months and a few decades.
The carbon in fossil fuels are pulled out of the geological cycle where they had been sequestered for millions of years, and it is responsible for the currently increasing accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Most all of the carbon in wood was pulled out of the atmosphere by trees within the past few decades. Releasing it again leaves the atmospheric CO2 level about where it was originally.
(Even if you don't harvest trees to burn them, in mature forests they'll release their CO2 as they rot, so that doesn't significantly change the overall picture.)
Slashdot Mirror
Go buy a bright purple Dell laptop then. Mac owner are the people who care about how well something functions, not how it looks.
Too bad you weren't there to tell that to Steve Jobs 20 years ago. You could have helped Apple avoid wasting billions of dollars on Lucite.
Care to expand on why?
Human nature.
On general principle, nobody will accept the idea of being saddled with everyone else's toxic dregs. In almost all cases, even the same people who complain about NIMBYism will change their tune if it were proposed to bury all the waste near where *they* actually live.
No matter where you propose to dispose of the waste, people across the political spectrum in that region will unite to fight that particular project.
A couple of days ago, they came up with a new one: They called me and spoofed my own number AND name. I guess it worked; I picked it up out of sheer curiosity, but as expected it was a typical robot scam. After they did it again a few hours later, I had to block my own damned phone number.
So you've done the research and proven that none of this witch's brew of radioactive heavy metals would bioaccumulate? Where did you publish the paper?
Yeah, it would be diluted in all the oceans, and cause no further problems.
Just like mercury has.
When we first started to build these things, the waste disposal costs where *supposed* to be pretty fixed. And in reality they would have been, until Jimmy Carter decided that fuel reprocessing was a no-no and we made it illegal.
You do realize that the particularly hard-to-manage waste at Hanford came from reprocessing fuel to make weapons?
Of course it was closed for political reasons.
If you think that it's politically feasible to bury all of the nation's nuclear waste in any particular location anywhere in this country, you're a naive idiot.
No, you're considered an asshole because of your MO of making trollish posts followed by a bunch of passive-aggressive sidestepping responses to anyone who comments on them.
There are 5 million people in the US with Alzheimer's. Using your logic, that means without half of a trillion dollars in revenue, such a drug would never be developed. That's just plain BS.
The real reason the prices would be high is that the drug companies use the same strategy that TV repair shops use to maximize revenue: No matter what the problem is or how trivial it is to fix, the price for a fix is always about half of the cost of a new TV.
Likewise, an Alzheimer's drug will likely be priced at about half of the cost of a lifetime of long-term care for an untreated patient, regardless of how much the drug cost to develop or manufacture.
It's Miami Beach, which is not Miami, and which is comprised of islands. Miami itself will end up mostly under the waves at a somewhat later date.
Your linked article does not say that it is sinking faster than sea levels are rising, just that it is sinking. They do say that sea levels on the East Coast are currently rising at 3mm/year and accelerating.
Since people in Miami Beach are already wading through the streets at high tide on calm days, their situation is going to be pretty dire within a few decades just from sea level rise even if the sinking somehow stopped.
Which island nations are losing area, are ending up underwater?
Miami Beach, FL
You seem to really be obsessing over this issue.
It's like arguing that cars shouldn't have safety belts and airbags, since you can never rule out the chance that you might die of a heart attack wile you're driving.
Here's the thing, though. Since they already have the "take screenshot and upload it on a dedicated server" code in place, all they need is to ask the user when taking a screenshot:
"Do you want to save this screenshot locally on your device (default choice) or upload it to the Mozilla servers?"
It looks to me like they don't even need to do that.
I never even knew that this feature existed (it's hidden under a '...' menu that I've never opened in all these years). So I pulled it up, and I see that there are already two separate buttons: A small "Download" button and a large "Save" button. (The latter has a tiny "cloud" icon in it, which I guess is a subtle clue and/or IQ test.)
All they really need to do is change the word "Save" to "Upload to cloud", and also change the color and size of the "Download" button to make it equally prominent to the save button. It could be purely styling changes with no change in the code logic.
Don't forget insurance. That's just another form of gambling as well when it comes down to it.
There is one important pragmatic difference: You don't see very many insurance addicts blowing their family fortunes on premiums.
Your effort was misdirected. I doubt that getting a pseudonym will help you with your grammar skills.
Likewise, if you are unable to comprehend the main point of a simple sentence, you demonstrate that to everyone by posting as an AC on Slashdot.
If you want to write python code then you must study the spaces rules defined as "PEP 8" at https://www.python.org/dev/pep...
If you don't like the spaces rules then you can refuse to learn python and to start looking for another scripting languages.
And apparently, if you don't like the rules of English, you can post your prose as an AC on Slashdot.
Look, you asked how the Senate could have a Republican majority without sub-state level gerrymandering. When I showed you the math, you flipped into the standard "There's only States! No US population!" mode. Well, why did you ask your goddamned question if you already knew the answer?
However you try to spin it, you cannot deny the simple fact that the party in control of the Senate represents the will of a not-even-close minority of US voters. That outcome is indistinguishable from gerrymandering, intentional or not.
You should read the Constitution. Then you'd realize that the Senate has had gerrymandering baked into its definition since day one. The Republicans hold 53 seats after receiving 35 million votes, while the Democrats hold only 45 seats even though they got 53 million votes.
Actually, it's far more complicated than you represent. Lucent was only one blob spit out from what remained of the core post-breakup AT&T telecommunications company, which itself executed many other acquisitions and spinoffs before SBC bought them (the whole company, not just their name). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, AT&T was already subjected to that fate, but then the parts seem to have reassembled themselves like the liquid metal robot from Terminator 2.
With physical hoarding, the burden is often eventually shifted onto family or friends. They are stuck with the expense and effort of a major clean-out if the hoarder ever dies or becomes incapacitated.
With digital hoarding, everything that was accumulated often fits into a shirt pocket. While it may stress out the actual hoarder, those who inherit it could easily dispose of it if they choose.
I'm not talking about home hobbyists. I *am* talking about hot dogs and other industrially manufactured sausages, which comprise the vast majority of the market. I an certain that their high speed machines have an easier time dealing with artificial casings as they spit out sausages by the mile.
Oh, sure. Just as carbon-neutral as coal, oil, and natural gas anyway. Not that this is a useful definition of carbon-neutral.
There are two major carbon cycles on this planet: The geological cycle, which takes millions of years, and the biological cycle, which operates on a time span between a few months and a few decades.
The carbon in fossil fuels are pulled out of the geological cycle where they had been sequestered for millions of years, and it is responsible for the currently increasing accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Most all of the carbon in wood was pulled out of the atmosphere by trees within the past few decades. Releasing it again leaves the atmospheric CO2 level about where it was originally.
(Even if you don't harvest trees to burn them, in mature forests they'll release their CO2 as they rot, so that doesn't significantly change the overall picture.)
So? I wouldn't eat either without cooking it.