However, the article talks about nitrogen oxides, not molecular nitrogen. The nitrogen in nitrogen oxides is already "fixed" and can be absorbed by many different kinds of plants.
This the question becomes "Are these plants significently better at adsorbing the oxide mix produced in vehicle exhausts compared with other plants?"
While I agree that it does seem like this will do little, from the article you posted, it sounds like nitrogen can normally only be absorbed by the roots of plants, and only by means of nitrifying bacteria.
Certain plants form nodules on their roots which contain bacterial symbiotes which "fix" nitrogen. This arrangement being of mutual benefit to both the plant and the bacteria.
To their defense, we do have safety bottles today because at some point a baby died eating pills thinking they were candies. It's all about protecting the incompetent from themselves.
It's not always easy to come up with a design which will resist children whilst being easily operated by adults though. I also recall that in one experiment a child was able to bite through a plastic bottle.
I agree with you completely, but:
1. the **AAs are bastards
They are also hypocrits (which probably puts them in good company with the average politician). Both the RIAA and the MPAA have been caught pirating software and the MPAA has also been caught pirating a movie.
2. existing copyright law is impractical to enforce
Considering the amount of lobbying which has gone into recent copyright law the phrase "You made your own bed..." seems most appropriate.
Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.
It's rather more complex than that. There are plenty of situations where a "legitimate copy" won't be available for some time, if ever. But a pirate download is available right now. There are also plenty of free "podcasts" available which would be in competition with paid for materials.
In the Bush years, the US had become the poster child for bad government in the Western world. Now, though, it seams the UK is the clear leader in this respect.
It might be easier to list examples of good government. There appears to be plenty of competition for the bad government.
We have something like that, here in the U.S. It's called the Constitution. The only problem is, those who have the ability to remove someone from power for abusing their position are, in fact, controlled (i.e., given their literal marching orders) by those in power.
The problem is that, by definition, it is impossible to give some group the power to depose those who hold power without given them power as well.
This would be workable if you had a effective "separation of powers". e.g. barring people have ever been members of Congress from standing for President.
Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back. He's even said he'll work for the opposition if they'll have him. Some people have no principles.
He undoubtedly has "principles" just not those most people would espouse. His appear to be those of "corrupt career politician".
They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.
Or even for dumb politicians. Wonder if there is anywhere the politicians would be dumb enough to pass such a law. Alternativly we need a system where good government is a side effect of politicians fiddling their expenses:)
With paper votes, you can be sure that whatever you've written on the ballot doesn't change in the time between putting it in the voting box and the opening of said box by the people who count the votes and record the results at the end of the day.
Assuming that the appropriate security is in place. If this isn't the case then putting them in place is likely to be a far better idea compared with buying lots of expensive machines.
Can't speak to Brazil specifically, but the "popularity" of electronic voting, or more correctly, the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods, can be summed in two words: hanging chad.
Thing is that the "hanging chad" issue is related to a mechanical, quite possibly in parts electronic, system anyway. Using Hollerith cards as ballot papers can only be described as a "hack" in the first place. If anything the underlaying problem is too much (inappropriate) technology being used to vote.
Those two words, in turn, gave rise to another infamous two words: Bush v. Gore.
How would electronic voting machines have dealt with the conflict of interests issue of Jeb Bush not reclusing himself?
Here are the problems that e-voting solves:
Handicap accessibility
Handicap is a generic term covering many things. If someone has difficulty getting to the polling station (because they are in a wheelchair, agrophobic, etc.) what they may find there isn't really the issue. Someone who cannot use their hands may well find a touchscreen just as unusable as pencil and paper.
The simple alternative is for the handicapped voter to appoint someone (they trust) to either help them or at as their proxy/attorney in matters of voting.
ballot complexity
Assuming the ballot needs to be that complex in the first place. On the other hand an electronic system may prevent a voter abstaining from part of the ballot, spoiling their "paper" or even filling out the ballot in a way which is within the rules but not thought of by whoever designed the form.
Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular". Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?
Most likely it's simply an issue of "follow the money".
So whyion not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open? That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote. It's simple enough to understand. While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.
One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address voter intimidation, gerrymandering, conflicts of interests between people running the election and candidates, differing nomination/campaigning rules for different candidates, etc. Many of which are actually far bigger problems...
That paper based system may take a bit more time,
Such systems are generally quick enough for political systems where the results of the election take effect within hours/days. In places such as the USA elected people may not actually start for weeks/months after the election. What is the situation in Brazil?
the people of america have abdicated and the power vacuum has been filled by corporate interests, which is precisely why there is so much corporate-sponsored propaganda brainwashing citizens into believing that socialist principles like universal health care are bad for them.
Though "corporate socialism" (along with corporate welfare) is considered good...
I thought Hushmail did something like that. Like they store your email encrypted and your password decrypts it when you need access, so they can't read your mail even if they get a subpoena.
The details matter a lot here. If the email provider is handling decryption then the whole thing is basically "snake oil".
That is where the judge gets the interpretation that there is no expectation of privacy. If you understand that Google employees can read your email in gmail, then you don't expect that your emails are private.
Does anyone know what email this judge uses? He apparently dosn't mind anyone reading it:)
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of opening the sealed letter. It's the act of opening it that's the issue.
What if it's possible to read the contents without opening the envelope? If the intention is to keep the contents secret it might not be a bad idea to encrypt the contents and have the inside of the envelope coated in the same kind of ink/toner as the letter.
Building a missile, bomb or anything that kills people is NOT HARD. I can get the relevant documents needed for anyone with a mild training in electronics to build a guidance system for a missile or a homing system for a rocket.
However building a missile which destroys an invading warplane is rather harder. If you are in Syria, Lebanon, Iran (or quite a few other places) then this is the kind of missile you are likely to need. The claim here is that the attackers were somehow able to disable the SAMs which would otherwise have made their attack considerably more risky.
The impression I've gotten is that some judges (the ones I've heard about have been left-leaning) are too sympathetic to the criminals, and say things like "Well, yes, he did *murder* someone, but he's just a big lovable puppy" (ok, I exaggerate:) ). This was the legislator's attempt to say "While we don't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely, there's a certain point where people should just be locked up".
One reason for locking someone up for life is that they are a danger to the public. Many, possibly the majority, of murderers are only interested in killing a specific person or specific people. Thus were never a danger to the public in the first place. There might also be a good case for someone guilty of attempted murder to be held only until their intended victim dies.
3 strikes became a cause in the US, during the rise in violent crime as various street gangs warred for control of the crack trade.
It's not called the "war on (some) drugs" for no reason.
Essentially cities saw huge increases in crime and policies of the time weren't doing enough to make citizens feel safe. So led by Western states (where voters almost always have some ability to directly pass laws)
Since US drug laws are Federal the most effective method was not available.
I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.
One really big fly in the ointment is that those making the law appear to have a sizable proportion of habitual criminals...
It was never completely clear if the extended period of time was to give them greater time to rehabilitate, if people were hoping that great prison sentences would serve as an increased deterrent (i.e. "I can't do anything bad because I already have 2 strikes!"),
A possible "unintended consequence" would be that instead they think "I dosn't matter how bad I am since i'll get life regardless".
or if the idea was to get dangerous criminals off the street.
There are always going to be some people who prefer being prison to outside too...
What they did shows a basic lack of discipline and situational awareness which is completely incompatible with their job. Flying any aircraft is an unforgiving activity, and requires the ability to focus your attention on several boring tasks at once for hours on end.
The Pilot Flying is responsible for flying the plane, even if the autopilot is active. The Pilot Monitoring is typically responsible for communications with the ground and/or other aircraft.
Laptops with scheduling software are not on that list.
Though possibly on a list of things NOT to be done on the flight deck. This crew managed to not do several things they should have been doing.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the article talks about nitrogen oxides, not molecular nitrogen. The nitrogen in nitrogen oxides is already "fixed" and can be absorbed by many different kinds of plants.
This the question becomes "Are these plants significently better at adsorbing the oxide mix produced in vehicle exhausts compared with other plants?"
While I agree that it does seem like this will do little, from the article you posted, it sounds like nitrogen can normally only be absorbed by the roots of plants, and only by means of nitrifying bacteria.
Certain plants form nodules on their roots which contain bacterial symbiotes which "fix" nitrogen. This arrangement being of mutual benefit to both the plant and the bacteria.
What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu?
Ask Africa. They eat everything. Then you get desert.
Only if the people involved are too daft to eat the goats (and turn their skins into leather).
To their defense, we do have safety bottles today because at some point a baby died eating pills thinking they were candies. It's all about protecting the incompetent from themselves.
It's not always easy to come up with a design which will resist children whilst being easily operated by adults though. I also recall that in one experiment a child was able to bite through a plastic bottle.
That, or large handcannon-style guns. "Let me introduce you... to the Lawmaker." *BOOM*
Isn't that a lawGIVER?
I agree with you completely, but:
1. the **AAs are bastards
They are also hypocrits (which probably puts them in good company with the average politician). Both the RIAA and the MPAA have been caught pirating software and the MPAA has also been caught pirating a movie.
2. existing copyright law is impractical to enforce
Considering the amount of lobbying which has gone into recent copyright law the phrase "You made your own bed..." seems most appropriate.
Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.
It's rather more complex than that. There are plenty of situations where a "legitimate copy" won't be available for some time, if ever. But a pirate download is available right now.
There are also plenty of free "podcasts" available which would be in competition with paid for materials.
In the Bush years, the US had become the poster child for bad government in the Western world. Now, though, it seams the UK is the clear leader in this respect.
It might be easier to list examples of good government. There appears to be plenty of competition for the bad government.
We have something like that, here in the U.S. It's called the Constitution. The only problem is, those who have the ability to remove someone from power for abusing their position are, in fact, controlled (i.e., given their literal marching orders) by those in power.
The problem is that, by definition, it is impossible to give some group the power to depose those who hold power without given them power as well.
This would be workable if you had a effective "separation of powers". e.g. barring people have ever been members of Congress from standing for President.
Mandelson already resigned twice for being a dodgy fuck but he keeps coming back. He's even said he'll work for the opposition if they'll have him. Some people have no principles.
He undoubtedly has "principles" just not those most people would espouse. His appear to be those of "corrupt career politician".
They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.
:)
Or even for dumb politicians. Wonder if there is anywhere the politicians would be dumb enough to pass such a law. Alternativly we need a system where good government is a side effect of politicians fiddling their expenses
With paper votes, you can be sure that whatever you've written on the ballot doesn't change in the time between putting it in the voting box and the opening of said box by the people who count the votes and record the results at the end of the day.
Assuming that the appropriate security is in place. If this isn't the case then putting them in place is likely to be a far better idea compared with buying lots of expensive machines.
Can't speak to Brazil specifically, but the "popularity" of electronic voting, or more correctly, the push to use electronic voting systems to deal with the problems of manual methods, can be summed in two words: hanging chad.
Thing is that the "hanging chad" issue is related to a mechanical, quite possibly in parts electronic, system anyway. Using Hollerith cards as ballot papers can only be described as a "hack" in the first place. If anything the underlaying problem is too much (inappropriate) technology being used to vote.
Those two words, in turn, gave rise to another infamous two words: Bush v. Gore.
How would electronic voting machines have dealt with the conflict of interests issue of Jeb Bush not reclusing himself?
Here are the problems that e-voting solves: Handicap accessibility
Handicap is a generic term covering many things. If someone has difficulty getting to the polling station (because they are in a wheelchair, agrophobic, etc.) what they may find there isn't really the issue. Someone who cannot use their hands may well find a touchscreen just as unusable as pencil and paper. The simple alternative is for the handicapped voter to appoint someone (they trust) to either help them or at as their proxy/attorney in matters of voting.
ballot complexity
Assuming the ballot needs to be that complex in the first place. On the other hand an electronic system may prevent a voter abstaining from part of the ballot, spoiling their "paper" or even filling out the ballot in a way which is within the rules but not thought of by whoever designed the form.
Actually the puzzling thing to me is why is electronic voting so "popular". Why do the people in charge keep promoting it?
Most likely it's simply an issue of "follow the money".
So whyion not just stick with paper ballots in a process where almost everything is done in the open? That way the eventual loser's representatives, 3rd party observers, various other people can observe every count of each vote. It's simple enough to understand. While postal votes can still be used to rig stuff, most electronic voting systems are also vulnerable to that same problem.
One thing to also remember is that changing the mechanics of the polling process does nothing to address voter intimidation, gerrymandering, conflicts of interests between people running the election and candidates, differing nomination/campaigning rules for different candidates, etc. Many of which are actually far bigger problems...
That paper based system may take a bit more time,
Such systems are generally quick enough for political systems where the results of the election take effect within hours/days. In places such as the USA elected people may not actually start for weeks/months after the election. What is the situation in Brazil?
the people of america have abdicated and the power vacuum has been filled by corporate interests, which is precisely why there is so much corporate-sponsored propaganda brainwashing citizens into believing that socialist principles like universal health care are bad for them.
Though "corporate socialism" (along with corporate welfare) is considered good...
I thought Hushmail did something like that. Like they store your email encrypted and your password decrypts it when you need access, so they can't read your mail even if they get a subpoena.
The details matter a lot here. If the email provider is handling decryption then the whole thing is basically "snake oil".
That is where the judge gets the interpretation that there is no expectation of privacy. If you understand that Google employees can read your email in gmail, then you don't expect that your emails are private.
:)
Does anyone know what email this judge uses? He apparently dosn't mind anyone reading it
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of opening the sealed letter. It's the act of opening it that's the issue.
What if it's possible to read the contents without opening the envelope? If the intention is to keep the contents secret it might not be a bad idea to encrypt the contents and have the inside of the envelope coated in the same kind of ink/toner as the letter.
Building a missile, bomb or anything that kills people is NOT HARD. I can get the relevant documents needed for anyone with a mild training in electronics to build a guidance system for a missile or a homing system for a rocket.
However building a missile which destroys an invading warplane is rather harder. If you are in Syria, Lebanon, Iran (or quite a few other places) then this is the kind of missile you are likely to need.
The claim here is that the attackers were somehow able to disable the SAMs which would otherwise have made their attack considerably more risky.
The impression I've gotten is that some judges (the ones I've heard about have been left-leaning) are too sympathetic to the criminals, and say things like "Well, yes, he did *murder* someone, but he's just a big lovable puppy" (ok, I exaggerate :) ). This was the legislator's attempt to say "While we don't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely, there's a certain point where people should just be locked up".
One reason for locking someone up for life is that they are a danger to the public. Many, possibly the majority, of murderers are only interested in killing a specific person or specific people. Thus were never a danger to the public in the first place. There might also be a good case for someone guilty of attempted murder to be held only until their intended victim dies.
3 strikes became a cause in the US, during the rise in violent crime as various street gangs warred for control of the crack trade.
It's not called the "war on (some) drugs" for no reason.
Essentially cities saw huge increases in crime and policies of the time weren't doing enough to make citizens feel safe. So led by Western states (where voters almost always have some ability to directly pass laws)
Since US drug laws are Federal the most effective method was not available.
I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.
One really big fly in the ointment is that those making the law appear to have a sizable proportion of habitual criminals...
It was never completely clear if the extended period of time was to give them greater time to rehabilitate, if people were hoping that great prison sentences would serve as an increased deterrent (i.e. "I can't do anything bad because I already have 2 strikes!"),
A possible "unintended consequence" would be that instead they think "I dosn't matter how bad I am since i'll get life regardless".
or if the idea was to get dangerous criminals off the street.
There are always going to be some people who prefer being prison to outside too...
What they did shows a basic lack of discipline and situational awareness which is completely incompatible with their job. Flying any aircraft is an unforgiving activity, and requires the ability to focus your attention on several boring tasks at once for hours on end.
The Pilot Flying is responsible for flying the plane, even if the autopilot is active. The Pilot Monitoring is typically responsible for communications with the ground and/or other aircraft.
Laptops with scheduling software are not on that list.
Though possibly on a list of things NOT to be done on the flight deck.
This crew managed to not do several things they should have been doing.