"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
This is/. where the motto seems to be "Never let reason get in the way of a good headline..." Facts, logic, and rational thought are not allowed to get in the way of sensationalism, emotion, and personal biases.
I believe that reactors would run with less manpower than an engine, and be a fairly autonomous machine, with maybe two crew onboard to maintain it. You don't have to change the lubrication, there are less moving parts, you can store the energy produced, and you only have to refuel every other decade.
Not really. First off, the staff would probably be significantly more expensive due to the specialized training and skills than the average engine room sailor. You'd need at lease a reactor operator and electric plant operator in the control room, along with a steam turbine operator to coordinate with the reactor operator to maintain power levels. Watches would be needed in the engineering spaces because now you have to check equipment for proper operation to ensure reactor safety and check for leaks, etc.
Refueling costs would probably kill the vessel's commercial viability. Either you design it for ease of access to the reactor which means a large flat area you can cut straight through to get access for refueling, wasting a lot of space, or your cutting through multiple decks of staterooms, dining areas, etc that all need to be redone afterward. Military vessels don't have to worry about looking nice after refueling and are designed with that in mind.
We can run reactors in the confines of a submarine, in aircraft carriers, and on large combat ships, and it's arguable that a military ship is more at risk than a commercial ship, since it will be actively engaged in combat! When anti-nuclear pundits win, the environment loses. And so does the company, since it would be cheaper in the long run, certainly in a period time for which this ship will operate.
Cost, long and short run. Navy's build them because construction and operating costs are not a concern.
Building a nuclear vessel is much more expensive than a conventional one. Parts have to have pedigrees to ensure they actually meet specs and many of the skilled trades need experience constructing to nuclear standards. That's not cheap compared to a commercial vessel where "close enough" will do during construction
Operating costs would be higher since you can't simply crew it with cheap labor in the engineering spaces. The Navy takes a year to train a nuclear qualified sailor and cruise lines are unlikely to want to absorb the cost of training an maintaining that qualification; or paying the salaries needed to get crews. In port, you'd probably need to keep the reactor operating, if it of a conventional PWR design, since you might run into startup issues due to Xenon.
Maintenance would be higher because you can't simply defer it until the next slow period. Preventative maintenance is needed on a regular basis, and you can't just go into a yard on an open, inspect, repair if needed basis. In addition, you need a yard than can work on nuclear vessels, which means doing the yard work in high cost countries versus cheaper ones.
Politically, there are issues as well. Finally, some countries might not allow a nuclear cruise ship to dock; and while you aren't dumping pollutants into the air you'd potentially be dumping radioactive water overboard overtime you blow down a steam generator.
From a PR standpoint, how do you convince customers the ship is "safe" and they won't get large doses of radioactivity? While the shielding would prevent that it's still an issue that could prevent people from cruising on it.
Finally, cruise ships get passed from line to line as they age, with lower tier lines buying the old ones, renaming them and running them. You couldn't do that with a nuclear cruise ship as the cheaper lines simply wouldn't have the resources to run it properly; which means there is no cost recovery at EOL.
Fire Chief Harold Schapelhouman, who said this might have been the first incident of its kind in his 35-year tenure, was concerned there might be a problem with the elevator's design and that, if so, other elevators might be affected. The elevator at issue has been in use since at least March 2015, when the building opened.
"We would usually do an elevator rescue in older buildings with antiquated... elevators," Schapelhouman told The Daily News. "Especially, when this is a brand-new, state-of-the-art building... that's not good that something's not releasing on the elevator. Is that a one-off or is it a flaw of the elevator?"
In related news, Facebook announced it was no longer supporting its Facebook Elevator(tm) project and replacing it with an entirely new concept called Facebook Stairs (TM)
The committee that carried out the study and authored the Phase 2 report found that spent fuel storage facilities -- both spent fuel pools used to store fuel under water and casks used to dry-store fuel -- at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant maintained their containment functions during and after the March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.
and
The committee recommended that the USNRC perform a spent fuel storage risk assessment that addresses both accident and sabotage risks for both pool and dry cask storage. USNRC staff informed the committee that it is already thinking about how to expand its risk assessment methodologies to include sabotage risks.
Not exactly a doomsday scenario. Seems reasonable to do more risk assessments but it's not like they are yelling "Danger Danger Will Robinson..."
Interestingly enough CA LE agencies refuse to release their data because it's part of an active investigation, which as the EFF article points out involves al the cars in CA.
Securing the cameras to protect individual privacy is important, but there is a much more important thing at stake here; namely being sure that no public figures actions can be monitored and thus causing people to question what they are doing. Imagine the horrors if the voting public knew that fine upstanding god fearing elected official's car was seen regularly outside a strip bar. Think of the politicians.We need to protect them!
As trainers not active duty. If an FBI agent tries to arrest me in my home country I have every right to use deadly force against him because outside US jurisdiction it is not a legal arrest. It is kidnapping and shooting him is self defense. No sane judge would convict me.
Actually they take part in investigations as well. You are correct that local law enforcement makes the arrest, although technically a US citizen abroad would fall under their jurisdiction based on US law; but it is impractical to actually arrest them unless they stray onto US territory while abroad.
What France is doing is no different. They expect Google to obey French law for information they serve up in France, even if the information is located outside of France.
I have three problems with this statement.
All good points. Mine was, which may have not been clear, is countries attempt to apply their laws extra-territorially and the internet makes it a much more complicated scenario given the ability to easily cross borders without leaving physically.
Google just links to the information, they don't remove it. Why does none of this responsibility to preserve privacy fall on the shoulders of people who host it in the first place? I'll tell you why, because it's too much of a hassle to go after each of the ones hosting the info, so they go after Google, mainly because it's easier. But the information does not go away, and if people really have an interest about searching about people, alternatives will become available. Especially because technology is constantly improving, how long until every newspaper ever written fits on a single hard disk? This law to censor Google will soon become obsolete but it won't be removed because that would be too much of a hassle as well.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out it's easier to go after Google. If they tried to force the sources of the information to remove it they would probably wind up in numerous court fights as well as run afoul of press freedom laws making it impractical to take that course. So the "right to be forgotten" becomes the "right to make it harder to find out."
But it's interesting how your basic assumption begs the question: what the fuck makes you think US investigators have the right to investigate somebody in another country ? He is NOT subject to their authority. Unless he commits a crime IN the US they have no right to be doing that investigation in the first place.
Of course they do. If they have reason to believe someone abroad has violated US law and did so with a nexus in the US then they are fair game. For example, if someone uses a bank in the US to wire money for illegal purposes then they are subject to US law; even if they never set foot in the US or their bank merely routed the money through a US branch. If a US company or branch of a foreign company based in the US has information of interest to law enforcement, even if the person is not in the US, they are obliged to turn it over subject to a proper court order. What France is doing is no different. They expect Google to obey French law for information they serve up in France, even if the information is located outside of France.
No country has yet invited the FBI to come investigate their criminals for them and no country is likely to ever do so.
You realize the FBI has agents stationed abroad that work with foreign governments and law enforcement?
There are significantly more men rater stain women rates, which means their results will skew ratings towards what men like to watch
A poor rating does not mean it is bad TV nor does a high one mean it is good
The rating in and off itself is pretty much useless, a better idea is to look at the data to get a clearer picture if a show might be of interest to you
IMDB could separate mens scores from women's; as well as show what shows were highly or poorly rated by the same people who rated a particular show. That would give you a better idea of the value of a rating in deciding if you might be interested in the show.
Filmmaker wanted to scare accused person with Voodoo, accused knows it's bullshit and calls bluff, Filmmaker realizes that someone who calls his Voodoo bluff will not be affected by the curse and rather folds than have the Voodoo fizzle because too many people believe in the Voodoo and would consider the person innocent.
Exactly. I'd bet the plaintiff's attorney, when the defendant took them up on it, said to their client "Don't do it" while pointing out the plaintiff would be on the hook for costs, including conceivably the defendant's own expert witness who would ensure the results were interpreted in the defendant's best interests. Now, the defendant can use their retraction against them; showing why the adage "never bluff unless you are willing to risk having your bluff called" is good advice.
That's why they did the phone call thing. Until they did that, they were likely catching too many people. Have to give them time to drink the goo and a half gallon of water (study for the drug test).
Hardly, since we never had a drug related dismissal as far as I know, and generally folks were in their office when they got the call. As for false negatives, certainly those would occur but if you are tested 4x a year chances of them occurring 4 times is pretty slim.
...fuck Wikipedia. It's entire model can literally be summed-up as, "King of the Hill." Whoever camps at their computer to edit pages is the editor, regardless of any acumen or credentials with the subject matter, and without regard to any actual rules that govern article structure or citation.
If Wikipedia wants to fix this, they need to disallow users from camping on pet articles. They need to disallow reverts based on style that have nothing to do with substance and have no real benefit, and they need to ban users that continue to engage in these practices. Until that's done the entire process will be at the whim of the cave trolls that patrol the site because they have nothing better to do.
Wikipedia, as an idea, has a lot of promise but unfortunately the reality is far from the promise. There is a lot of good information there, but it is also a convenient and large forum for the power tripping to seek validation by "winning" while they safely post from their mother's basement. Those with useful input eventually decide to go elsewhere because the headaches aren't worth the toile, which off course just makes basement dwelling troll feel go because he has won yet again; even if no one really gives a shit about him or his miserable existence.
I never had a drug test in the military, ever. They had drug sniffer dogs, but no tests. Anyone who puts other peoples lives at risk will be discovered soon enough anyway and 'encouraged' to leave, regardless of whether from drugs, carelessness, or plain old stupid.
We did random ones based on a die roll and the last digit of the SSN. It was an odd or even pick based on the result; the CO and XO split between odd and even so one always wound up peeing in the bottle. After doing several in a row the XO accused the CO of using loaded dice...
There are drug tests that can tell illicit cocaine from the stuff used in ophtalmology, heroin from opioids used for medical pain management, and illicit stimulants from their medically precribed cousins?
I always thought drug tests only considered chemistry, not the legal aspects.
Not sure but my experience is if you have prescription a positive test is fine.
For me it's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of Federal law. The industry I work in is heavily regulated by the Feds and drug tests are mandatory.
By taking your position, you've eliminated yourself from tons of high paying, secure jobs.
I used to work in such an industry as well. My company had a two step approach. The first test was a quick go - no go test that was quick and cheap but not highly reliable. The second was a very expensive one, using the same sample, with much higher reliability to avoid accidentally firing someone over a false positive. Given our testing frequency and assuming 2 out of every 100 employees ( a very high number as I am willing to bet our real number was much lower) actually used drugs the first test would yield a 50 - 50 chance of a positive tested person actually being a drug user; thus the second test was needed to be sure. Even then HR said they'd run another set of tests if the person wanted it, to my knowledge no one ever tested positive on the second test. Oddly enough, HR would call you and if you weren't in leave a message to call them. If you called and got VM they would only call you back, they never told you it was for a random drug test; though everyone knew that and even HR admitted it was obvious what the call was for. If you finally connected too late in the day they simply said forget about it. They did do a random test as far as I can tell, I even saw the CEO in there for one.
But phone owners have complained about this off and on in the past, it's not a new issue.
It's not really a new issue but for FM stations it probably has become more important as more streaming services come online and become popular, cutting into their listener base. talk radio is probably less impacted because they can stream as well and are generally syndicated so streaming is just a new way of making money and the loss of a few FM stations won't impact them as much. My local FM station periodically runs "the evil cell phone manufacturers are preventing you from listening to FM on your phone ads" with directions to a website; that makes me think the latest push is their attempt to stay relevant. I would agree FM radio would by nice to have as an option, but I doubt many cell phone users really care about it.
Truthfully though - if the function is already there and would cost nothing to turn on - just do it and let the market decide if they want to use it or not.
I'm good with that; I just find the sudden push by radio station organizations interesting; I'm guessing they see no future in broadcasting as streaming takes off and people have less reason to listen to local broadcasts (which often aren't really local anymore) and may view this as one way to at least keep being available. Even the car radio is moving to streaming and pass and away from being a radio.
Or just leave both of them alone if they are both consenting adults. Just because I wouldn't be one or use one doesn't mean I need to go "exposing" those that do.
Never underestimate the ability of the morally superior to take exception with your behavior and decide what is best for you; until someone decides what they are doing is wrong and then comes the hypocrisy disguised as righteous indignation.
I'm curious to understand why FM radio isn't available in iPod Touches, iPhones, and other smart phones. Seems like it isn't a matter of real estate, if the chip is already there.
My guess would be the additional certification an testing it might require to have another rRF source active. Since the carriers and phone manufacturers are focused on services other than FM they probably didn't even consider it in many cases.
As a smart phone owner, I would prefer FM radio over streaming. Absolutely, with no doubt. It's cheaper, more varied, and does many things streaming can not do. I guess the fans of streaming are scared of having alternatives?
Not really, it doesn't really impact them and offers another alternative. I just wonder what the true motivations are when an industry group pushes for someone else to change their business model.
Well, your post really sounded like it came from a streamer/podcast only media consumer, who wasn't aware of the fantastic things NPR/BBC/Community Radio has to offer.
My apologies.
No worries. I wasn't real clear that I was directing my comment at the organization pushing the idea, not that FM radio was a bad thing.
To use the emergency alert system, your phone must be connected to the cellular network. That works great for things like tornado warnings or Amber alerts, etc. But two weeks into a disaster, when all the cell towers have been dead for well over a week, that gets a lot more difficult. And the emergency alert system is for short messages - i.e. "Tornado! Take cover!" or "Look for this license number...". They don't work well for long lists of water distribution locations and updated stock, instructions for leaving the area with bus schedules, etc. It is a lot easier to provide emergency power to one radio station operating independently than to a thousand cellular towers, which are all connected by fiber lines that will be severed when an earthquake hits. So for immediate duck and cover type warnings, the existing cellular system works great. For coordinating large-scale multiple-week disaster efforts, they fall apart quickly. That's why emergency response teams have phones and connected devices, but also have complete stand-alone systems like VHF radios.
While I agree a phone with FM would be great for an early warning, two weeks into a disaster the battery is likely long dead versus a pack of AA's and a cheap FM radio. As you point out, it's important to have an alternate reliable means of communication when land or cellular connections go down.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate bad journalism like this...
"It burn 96,000 gallons a day"!! Well no shit, it's the biggest ship of the world. If you want to impress me, tell how how much fuel per passager it burn and compare it to others cruise ship. And unless it's the most efficient ship in the world, I won't see a problem.
This is /. where the motto seems to be "Never let reason get in the way of a good headline..." Facts, logic, and rational thought are not allowed to get in the way of sensationalism, emotion, and personal biases.
I believe that reactors would run with less manpower than an engine, and be a fairly autonomous machine, with maybe two crew onboard to maintain it. You don't have to change the lubrication, there are less moving parts, you can store the energy produced, and you only have to refuel every other decade.
Not really. First off, the staff would probably be significantly more expensive due to the specialized training and skills than the average engine room sailor. You'd need at lease a reactor operator and electric plant operator in the control room, along with a steam turbine operator to coordinate with the reactor operator to maintain power levels. Watches would be needed in the engineering spaces because now you have to check equipment for proper operation to ensure reactor safety and check for leaks, etc.
Refueling costs would probably kill the vessel's commercial viability. Either you design it for ease of access to the reactor which means a large flat area you can cut straight through to get access for refueling, wasting a lot of space, or your cutting through multiple decks of staterooms, dining areas, etc that all need to be redone afterward. Military vessels don't have to worry about looking nice after refueling and are designed with that in mind.
We can run reactors in the confines of a submarine, in aircraft carriers, and on large combat ships, and it's arguable that a military ship is more at risk than a commercial ship, since it will be actively engaged in combat! When anti-nuclear pundits win, the environment loses. And so does the company, since it would be cheaper in the long run, certainly in a period time for which this ship will operate.
Cost, long and short run. Navy's build them because construction and operating costs are not a concern.
Building a nuclear vessel is much more expensive than a conventional one. Parts have to have pedigrees to ensure they actually meet specs and many of the skilled trades need experience constructing to nuclear standards. That's not cheap compared to a commercial vessel where "close enough" will do during construction
Operating costs would be higher since you can't simply crew it with cheap labor in the engineering spaces. The Navy takes a year to train a nuclear qualified sailor and cruise lines are unlikely to want to absorb the cost of training an maintaining that qualification; or paying the salaries needed to get crews. In port, you'd probably need to keep the reactor operating, if it of a conventional PWR design, since you might run into startup issues due to Xenon.
Maintenance would be higher because you can't simply defer it until the next slow period. Preventative maintenance is needed on a regular basis, and you can't just go into a yard on an open, inspect, repair if needed basis. In addition, you need a yard than can work on nuclear vessels, which means doing the yard work in high cost countries versus cheaper ones.
Politically, there are issues as well. Finally, some countries might not allow a nuclear cruise ship to dock; and while you aren't dumping pollutants into the air you'd potentially be dumping radioactive water overboard overtime you blow down a steam generator.
From a PR standpoint, how do you convince customers the ship is "safe" and they won't get large doses of radioactivity? While the shielding would prevent that it's still an issue that could prevent people from cruising on it.
Finally, cruise ships get passed from line to line as they age, with lower tier lines buying the old ones, renaming them and running them. You couldn't do that with a nuclear cruise ship as the cheaper lines simply wouldn't have the resources to run it properly; which means there is no cost recovery at EOL.
Fire Chief Harold Schapelhouman, who said this might have been the first incident of its kind in his 35-year tenure, was concerned there might be a problem with the elevator's design and that, if so, other elevators might be affected. The elevator at issue has been in use since at least March 2015, when the building opened.
"We would usually do an elevator rescue in older buildings with antiquated ... elevators," Schapelhouman told The Daily News. "Especially, when this is a brand-new, state-of-the-art building ... that's not good that something's not releasing on the elevator. Is that a one-off or is it a flaw of the elevator?"
In related news, Facebook announced it was no longer supporting its Facebook Elevator(tm) project and replacing it with an entirely new concept called Facebook Stairs (TM)
The committee that carried out the study and authored the Phase 2 report found that spent fuel storage facilities -- both spent fuel pools used to store fuel under water and casks used to dry-store fuel -- at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant maintained their containment functions during and after the March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.
and
The committee recommended that the USNRC perform a spent fuel storage risk assessment that addresses both accident and sabotage risks for both pool and dry cask storage. USNRC staff informed the committee that it is already thinking about how to expand its risk assessment methodologies to include sabotage risks.
Not exactly a doomsday scenario. Seems reasonable to do more risk assessments but it's not like they are yelling "Danger Danger Will Robinson..."
Interestingly enough CA LE agencies refuse to release their data because it's part of an active investigation, which as the EFF article points out involves al the cars in CA.
Securing the cameras to protect individual privacy is important, but there is a much more important thing at stake here; namely being sure that no public figures actions can be monitored and thus causing people to question what they are doing. Imagine the horrors if the voting public knew that fine upstanding god fearing elected official's car was seen regularly outside a strip bar. Think of the politicians.We need to protect them!
As trainers not active duty. If an FBI agent tries to arrest me in my home country I have every right to use deadly force against him because outside US jurisdiction it is not a legal arrest. It is kidnapping and shooting him is self defense. No sane judge would convict me.
Actually they take part in investigations as well. You are correct that local law enforcement makes the arrest, although technically a US citizen abroad would fall under their jurisdiction based on US law; but it is impractical to actually arrest them unless they stray onto US territory while abroad.
I have three problems with this statement.
All good points. Mine was, which may have not been clear, is countries attempt to apply their laws extra-territorially and the internet makes it a much more complicated scenario given the ability to easily cross borders without leaving physically.
Google just links to the information, they don't remove it. Why does none of this responsibility to preserve privacy fall on the shoulders of people who host it in the first place? I'll tell you why, because it's too much of a hassle to go after each of the ones hosting the info, so they go after Google, mainly because it's easier. But the information does not go away, and if people really have an interest about searching about people, alternatives will become available. Especially because technology is constantly improving, how long until every newspaper ever written fits on a single hard disk? This law to censor Google will soon become obsolete but it won't be removed because that would be too much of a hassle as well.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out it's easier to go after Google. If they tried to force the sources of the information to remove it they would probably wind up in numerous court fights as well as run afoul of press freedom laws making it impractical to take that course. So the "right to be forgotten" becomes the "right to make it harder to find out."
But it's interesting how your basic assumption begs the question: what the fuck makes you think US investigators have the right to investigate somebody in another country ? He is NOT subject to their authority. Unless he commits a crime IN the US they have no right to be doing that investigation in the first place.
Of course they do. If they have reason to believe someone abroad has violated US law and did so with a nexus in the US then they are fair game. For example, if someone uses a bank in the US to wire money for illegal purposes then they are subject to US law; even if they never set foot in the US or their bank merely routed the money through a US branch. If a US company or branch of a foreign company based in the US has information of interest to law enforcement, even if the person is not in the US, they are obliged to turn it over subject to a proper court order. What France is doing is no different. They expect Google to obey French law for information they serve up in France, even if the information is located outside of France.
No country has yet invited the FBI to come investigate their criminals for them and no country is likely to ever do so.
You realize the FBI has agents stationed abroad that work with foreign governments and law enforcement?
TFA brings up some good points:
There are significantly more men rater stain women rates, which means their results will skew ratings towards what men like to watch
A poor rating does not mean it is bad TV nor does a high one mean it is good
The rating in and off itself is pretty much useless, a better idea is to look at the data to get a clearer picture if a show might be of interest to you
IMDB could separate mens scores from women's; as well as show what shows were highly or poorly rated by the same people who rated a particular show. That would give you a better idea of the value of a rating in deciding if you might be interested in the show.
Filmmaker wanted to scare accused person with Voodoo, accused knows it's bullshit and calls bluff, Filmmaker realizes that someone who calls his Voodoo bluff will not be affected by the curse and rather folds than have the Voodoo fizzle because too many people believe in the Voodoo and would consider the person innocent.
Exactly. I'd bet the plaintiff's attorney, when the defendant took them up on it, said to their client "Don't do it" while pointing out the plaintiff would be on the hook for costs, including conceivably the defendant's own expert witness who would ensure the results were interpreted in the defendant's best interests. Now, the defendant can use their retraction against them; showing why the adage "never bluff unless you are willing to risk having your bluff called" is good advice.
That's why they did the phone call thing. Until they did that, they were likely catching too many people. Have to give them time to drink the goo and a half gallon of water (study for the drug test).
Hardly, since we never had a drug related dismissal as far as I know, and generally folks were in their office when they got the call. As for false negatives, certainly those would occur but if you are tested 4x a year chances of them occurring 4 times is pretty slim.
...fuck Wikipedia. It's entire model can literally be summed-up as, "King of the Hill." Whoever camps at their computer to edit pages is the editor, regardless of any acumen or credentials with the subject matter, and without regard to any actual rules that govern article structure or citation. If Wikipedia wants to fix this, they need to disallow users from camping on pet articles. They need to disallow reverts based on style that have nothing to do with substance and have no real benefit, and they need to ban users that continue to engage in these practices. Until that's done the entire process will be at the whim of the cave trolls that patrol the site because they have nothing better to do.
Wikipedia, as an idea, has a lot of promise but unfortunately the reality is far from the promise. There is a lot of good information there, but it is also a convenient and large forum for the power tripping to seek validation by "winning" while they safely post from their mother's basement. Those with useful input eventually decide to go elsewhere because the headaches aren't worth the toile, which off course just makes basement dwelling troll feel go because he has won yet again; even if no one really gives a shit about him or his miserable existence.
I never had a drug test in the military, ever. They had drug sniffer dogs, but no tests. Anyone who puts other peoples lives at risk will be discovered soon enough anyway and 'encouraged' to leave, regardless of whether from drugs, carelessness, or plain old stupid.
We did random ones based on a die roll and the last digit of the SSN. It was an odd or even pick based on the result; the CO and XO split between odd and even so one always wound up peeing in the bottle. After doing several in a row the XO accused the CO of using loaded dice...
There are drug tests that can tell illicit cocaine from the stuff used in ophtalmology, heroin from opioids used for medical pain management, and illicit stimulants from their medically precribed cousins?
I always thought drug tests only considered chemistry, not the legal aspects.
Not sure but my experience is if you have prescription a positive test is fine.
For me it's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of Federal law. The industry I work in is heavily regulated by the Feds and drug tests are mandatory. By taking your position, you've eliminated yourself from tons of high paying, secure jobs.
I used to work in such an industry as well. My company had a two step approach. The first test was a quick go - no go test that was quick and cheap but not highly reliable. The second was a very expensive one, using the same sample, with much higher reliability to avoid accidentally firing someone over a false positive. Given our testing frequency and assuming 2 out of every 100 employees ( a very high number as I am willing to bet our real number was much lower) actually used drugs the first test would yield a 50 - 50 chance of a positive tested person actually being a drug user; thus the second test was needed to be sure. Even then HR said they'd run another set of tests if the person wanted it, to my knowledge no one ever tested positive on the second test. Oddly enough, HR would call you and if you weren't in leave a message to call them. If you called and got VM they would only call you back, they never told you it was for a random drug test; though everyone knew that and even HR admitted it was obvious what the call was for. If you finally connected too late in the day they simply said forget about it. They did do a random test as far as I can tell, I even saw the CEO in there for one.
But phone owners have complained about this off and on in the past, it's not a new issue.
It's not really a new issue but for FM stations it probably has become more important as more streaming services come online and become popular, cutting into their listener base. talk radio is probably less impacted because they can stream as well and are generally syndicated so streaming is just a new way of making money and the loss of a few FM stations won't impact them as much. My local FM station periodically runs "the evil cell phone manufacturers are preventing you from listening to FM on your phone ads" with directions to a website; that makes me think the latest push is their attempt to stay relevant. I would agree FM radio would by nice to have as an option, but I doubt many cell phone users really care about it.
Truthfully though - if the function is already there and would cost nothing to turn on - just do it and let the market decide if they want to use it or not.
I'm good with that; I just find the sudden push by radio station organizations interesting; I'm guessing they see no future in broadcasting as streaming takes off and people have less reason to listen to local broadcasts (which often aren't really local anymore) and may view this as one way to at least keep being available. Even the car radio is moving to streaming and pass and away from being a radio.
Correct
Or just leave both of them alone if they are both consenting adults. Just because I wouldn't be one or use one doesn't mean I need to go "exposing" those that do.
Never underestimate the ability of the morally superior to take exception with your behavior and decide what is best for you; until someone decides what they are doing is wrong and then comes the hypocrisy disguised as righteous indignation.
I'm curious to understand why FM radio isn't available in iPod Touches, iPhones, and other smart phones. Seems like it isn't a matter of real estate, if the chip is already there.
My guess would be the additional certification an testing it might require to have another rRF source active. Since the carriers and phone manufacturers are focused on services other than FM they probably didn't even consider it in many cases.
As a smart phone owner, I would prefer FM radio over streaming. Absolutely, with no doubt. It's cheaper, more varied, and does many things streaming can not do. I guess the fans of streaming are scared of having alternatives?
Not really, it doesn't really impact them and offers another alternative. I just wonder what the true motivations are when an industry group pushes for someone else to change their business model.
Well, your post really sounded like it came from a streamer/podcast only media consumer, who wasn't aware of the fantastic things NPR/BBC/Community Radio has to offer. My apologies.
No worries. I wasn't real clear that I was directing my comment at the organization pushing the idea, not that FM radio was a bad thing.
To use the emergency alert system, your phone must be connected to the cellular network. That works great for things like tornado warnings or Amber alerts, etc. But two weeks into a disaster, when all the cell towers have been dead for well over a week, that gets a lot more difficult. And the emergency alert system is for short messages - i.e. "Tornado! Take cover!" or "Look for this license number...". They don't work well for long lists of water distribution locations and updated stock, instructions for leaving the area with bus schedules, etc. It is a lot easier to provide emergency power to one radio station operating independently than to a thousand cellular towers, which are all connected by fiber lines that will be severed when an earthquake hits. So for immediate duck and cover type warnings, the existing cellular system works great. For coordinating large-scale multiple-week disaster efforts, they fall apart quickly. That's why emergency response teams have phones and connected devices, but also have complete stand-alone systems like VHF radios.
While I agree a phone with FM would be great for an early warning, two weeks into a disaster the battery is likely long dead versus a pack of AA's and a cheap FM radio. As you point out, it's important to have an alternate reliable means of communication when land or cellular connections go down.