No kidding. I was flying back from South Africa and had some bottled water in my bag. The security check 'told me' to throw it out. It was apparently the honor system to actually throw it out as I left the security area. And I did. Well one of the bottles anyway.
As for the underwear bomber, I don't really understand why international arrivals aren't screened on arrival if they plan to board another flight.
the problem is none of what they are doing would prevent 9/11...which is the justification for all this crap. 9/11 wasn't a 'bomb' it was a hijacking. We solved that problem with reinforced cockpit doors.
Bombs were in existence before 9/11 but we didn't seem to care about them - because they are rare, and very limited in their effect. Blowing up a plane != using it as a flying missile.
The Israeli system can't scale to our needs. It definitely works but it is significantly labor intensive. They actually talk to each and every passenger.
Wrong analogy. The proper car analogy to 'bandwidth' is cars per lane per time unit. How much 'data' i.e. cars can you get through a fixed pipe, i.e. highway.
In the car world, as more people try to use the limited resource your speed goes down. The concept of 'caps' is to limit the amount of data being requested at any given time.
Unfortunately the ISPs concept is that they stop the congestion by limiting how many miles you can drive in a month which still lets everyone on the highway for the first 2 weeks of the month.
So your solution to not running an electric maglev track is to run a non maglev electric track? What does this get us again? A flying train needs vastly more energy to stay aloft whereas maglev needs only propulsion (assuming perm mags for levitation) for frictionless movement (air friction is the same for both). Flying trains have jets or props or whatever that have to interact with the air as well.
Beats letting some random stranger (potential murderer) in your house to read the meter.
How does whether it is collected manually or electronically change the fact that it is collected? The latter is a bigger scope but can be done with the former especially since electric meters are usually outside anyway...
they can't really tell the difference between taking a shower and suddenly turning on every appliance in your house just for shits and giggles.
Except that nobody does that. Surveillance works with routines and normal. If they see your power drop every day at 8:30am, it's pretty clear you aren't home and they can now verify that by seeing your car(s) leave. The collected data lets them get a feel, then actual surveillance is used to go in when needed.
On the one hand, they don't care about privacy of their personal lives and relationships (re: Facebook) but now they care that someone knows how much electricity they're using?
Some of us don't use Facebook or other social media with a real name attached for that very reason. Why should we be lumped in with the unwashed masses who give away CC numbers for a free soda?
Water/power are utilities, they are run by private companies but they are local government granted monopolies. That means we as the public get a say in how they are run and what they collect and what they use it for. I can't choose a different power or water company. Phone service has been much the same way until recent years.
Internet would be a monopoly if it had been created at an earlier time, but currently it's only psuedo-monopoly via cable TV franchises. Wireless Broadband will further make this a choice option.
At my company we call it 'Quality Assurance' which is right up there with Military Intelligence. These QA people are not on the projects, they are almost exclusively at the main office corporate level and just take the projects word for it that everything is working. There are document milestones (req's, design, etc), but no even cursory investigation as to how the documents are created or how it relates to the actual process going on.
I understand that politics and budgetary concerns can trump 'best practice', that's just normal real world stuff. But pretending it doesn't affect how the 'process' is what gets people into trouble. We're currently running req's, design and development in parallel, yet still pretending it's a waterfall schedule. sigh.
Sadly it's misinformed people like you that keep sending the GOP corporate shills to DC.
First off, I'm not talking about hybrids or any type of vehicle. I'm talking about the way to accurately measure usage regardless of fuel used. You *already* pay for your usage via the gas tax. This is a *replacement* for that. Since as cars stop using gasoline or diesel, the amount of tax collected from that will go down. Or do you want us to just raise the gas tax so you pay more while all the electric car drivers pay nothing? Didn't think so.
It is called QUIT BLOWING MONEY YOU DAMNED PIGS and there goes the problems!
how quaint, name calling.
We don't need the F-35
GOP sponsored and defended.
all our wars are in Bumfuckistan
Which would be over already if we had not gone into Iraq and used actual interrogation procedures instead of torture. GOP strikes again.
Cut military spending by a good 2/3rds right off the bat
Funny the GOP tends to be the rabid gung ho party. Dems are always painted as the ones who wouldn't spend to save the country. GOP fail.
bring our boys home
When the Dems proposed that back during the Bush administration, they were ridiculed for not letting our 'boys' win. Then when Obama refocused on Afghanistan Dems were charged with not listening to the generals (something Bush did regularly) Fail again.
close the shitload of military bases splattered all over the world
Isolationism is a bad idea. But above issue still applies
WPA style program so those without jobs can earn their money rebuilding our infrastructure.
Funny, GOP decried infrastructure spending when the Dems proposed it.
And the Union workers pensions that were killing the state according to Walker? Actually they are fully funded. No problem paying the bills for them. So Walker is talking his own bullshit about them bankrupting the state.
Seriously? SS2's 'Unique feather configuration'? Unique except for the fact that SS1 also used it. Granted it's unique to Virgin Galactic, but not to SS2./. editor's really should come in from recess....
My point has nothing to do with whether it's 'enforceable' or not. An exit ramp is fairly subjective but double the posted 'advisory' would still be significant I would think.
My point was that roads are affected by things outside of the roadway themselves and even though the physical roadway is built and able to hand higher speeds, there can be other factors causing a lower posted speed.
If you want to pay for your own roads you and your state are more than welcome to set your own speeds. If you want federal highway money, you follow the rules given to you. This was the entire impetus behind the 55mph limit imposed during the 70s. Carrot and stick is a highly effective motivator. I don't know if this is used any longer but is the reason most interstates are the way they are.
There are roads out west where its straight and flat and easily able to go 70 or even 90. Those are the exception. And they have one problem, not everybody is going 90. If there's only 2 lanes or even one, a 30-40 mpg difference in speeds becomes a hazard in its own right.
I suspect the speed traps being talked about are not on highways but on regular roads anyway.
Speeds are set based on many factors and are done by engineers and people lots more knowledgeable than you. And speeds are changeable. If you don't like the speed on a particular roadway and can justify why it is safe to go that speed, go to court and change the speed on that roadway.
There's a highway exit near me that is posted at 25 mph, but routinely people, including me, take it at 50 without trouble. The reason it is 25 is because it's a blind curve because of a sound wall. The exit was put in prior to the sound wall so it was graded for much faster than is reasonable now. There are reasons for posted speeds being what they are.
Only when it replaces broken things, maintains, things, or add new to the infrastructure.
Given that our electrical grid is widely considered 'broken' and not ready to handle the 21st century demands we're going to place on it, that's as good a place to start as any.
The argument isn't that we should do nothing, it's that we should do things differently, These things include finding and implementing ways to negate the impact of Co2 on the earth.
How is pushing solar and renewable sources not doing this very thing?
Removing it ourselves is one thing, regulations that require stages of improvement to almost a non emission level only after the technology is there.
Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We work to change. yes it happens in stages, but you need a goal. Stopping our 'increase' in CO2 emissions in 10 years isn't easy, but it's a good goal to shoot for.
No, I'm saying we should have a viable replacement already available.
You don't have viable options unless you start to develop them. And regulation/taxing of the stuff you don't want is a very effective way to get development going on alternatives. And we do have a number of viable alternatives now in solar, wind. They can supply a fair bit. Also molten salt heat storage for intermittent energy mitigation has plants in operation right now. I don't like nuclear, but it will be needed for a part of CO2 mitigation for the next 50-100 years or so.
We know that emitting CO2 is causing problems. Whether or not we have a ready made solution doesn't mean you don't start to mitigate the problem in the mean time.
This isn't about my freedom trumping yours or your freedom running over mine.
Saying that environmentalists are taking away your freedoms sounds like exactly that argument to me.
implementing them with the least amount of disruption to either of us.
To you or your kids? How much disruption is the flooding of Florida or NYC going to be? Is that acceptable to you? Think a bit longer than 10 or 20 years as this issue will be one going on for decades or centuries.
It will take longer then that unless you want to ruin the economy, drive inflation up, and restrict people's freedoms.
Infrastructure spending is one of the best was to 'grow' an economy. But you're argument is we should just do nothing? That people's freedoms are more important than the environment we need to survive?
It's not the same as CFCs which already had a viable replacement
So you're saying because it's hard we shouldn't start trying? CFCs were 'easy' for the reason you said. But it shows that we can move forward when we 'want' to.
so called attempts to fix this aren't attempts to fix Co2, it's an excuses to tax and punish people and companies while taking their freedoms away.
Your freedom to pollute conflicts with my freedom to live in an unpolluted world. How do you resolve that conflict?
You can not disregard infrastructure costs or maintenance fees.
I'm not disregarding infrastructure or maintenance, I'm simply saying that you have it no matter what system you use so that is 'equal' in a general sense. However, every current fossil fuel energy system currently also has 'fuel' costs for operation.
Fuel costs are far and away the most expensive piece of operation when it comes to power grids. You put the infrastructure in once, yes there are maintenance costs but compared to initial installation these are minimal, and pay for the fuel forever. Solar has no fuel cost. This is a significant reduction in the cost of providing power. If you don't think power companies will either be regulated to have cheaper rates or compete to provide better service and lower prices, well
As for your fifty cars...cars need oil changes, tires, belts, coolant
Electric cars don't need oil changes, belts or coolant or a 'thousand' things gas engines do:) There are very few maintenance things an electric car needs compared to a gas cars. Most everything an electric needs, a gas engine does as well, so those wash in comparison. (see maintenance and infrastructure arg above).
Higher population density = less transmission loss.
Which only works if transmission loss is the 'majority' of your electrical costs. It isn't. It's a factor but by no means a major factor. 50% population increase *is* a major factor. You can't use efficiency to counter significant increased demand, it just can't compete with a 50% increase. Now assume that the even the already existing population is going to want significant energy usage that they don't already have.
And to go back to the original point. You'll have the transmission cost problem regardless of whether you're running coal or solar. Unless of course you put solar on the rooftops. Then you have no transmission loss. Try that with coal:)
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. I was flying back from South Africa and had some bottled water in my bag. The security check 'told me' to throw it out. It was apparently the honor system to actually throw it out as I left the security area. And I did. Well one of the bottles anyway.
As for the underwear bomber, I don't really understand why international arrivals aren't screened on arrival if they plan to board another flight.
but it's a whole lot less people than 9/11. 9/11 wasn't a bomb threat. apples to oranges.
it's the most important one. 9/11 was a hijacking. it wasn't a bomb threat.
Bombs only kill those in the plane and a few on the ground. Control of a missile loaded with fuel causes a *lot* more damage.
the problem is none of what they are doing would prevent 9/11...which is the justification for all this crap. 9/11 wasn't a 'bomb' it was a hijacking. We solved that problem with reinforced cockpit doors.
Bombs were in existence before 9/11 but we didn't seem to care about them - because they are rare, and very limited in their effect. Blowing up a plane != using it as a flying missile.
The Israeli system can't scale to our needs. It definitely works but it is significantly labor intensive. They actually talk to each and every passenger.
What I want is for Sony to stop being a dinosaur of a fucking company that supports the BSA
What I want is a Unicorn that poops rainbows. - fixed that for you
Fair enough, but how does that matter to the problem at hand of limited bandwidth at peak times?
To use the required car analogy
Wrong analogy. The proper car analogy to 'bandwidth' is cars per lane per time unit. How much 'data' i.e. cars can you get through a fixed pipe, i.e. highway.
In the car world, as more people try to use the limited resource your speed goes down. The concept of 'caps' is to limit the amount of data being requested at any given time.
Unfortunately the ISPs concept is that they stop the congestion by limiting how many miles you can drive in a month which still lets everyone on the highway for the first 2 weeks of the month.
the gas man has keys to most of the houses in her neighborhood.
I call BS. Unless she or her family gave him a key, how did he get it?
it's the unscrupulous folks who claim they're from the electric co. to read your meter
The meter is outside... And any modern utility has long since put distance readable meters so the techs don't even need to be in your yard...
just run 2 electric rails in the track
So your solution to not running an electric maglev track is to run a non maglev electric track? What does this get us again? A flying train needs vastly more energy to stay aloft whereas maglev needs only propulsion (assuming perm mags for levitation) for frictionless movement (air friction is the same for both). Flying trains have jets or props or whatever that have to interact with the air as well.
Beats letting some random stranger (potential murderer) in your house to read the meter.
How does whether it is collected manually or electronically change the fact that it is collected? The latter is a bigger scope but can be done with the former especially since electric meters are usually outside anyway...
they can't really tell the difference between taking a shower and suddenly turning on every appliance in your house just for shits and giggles.
Except that nobody does that. Surveillance works with routines and normal. If they see your power drop every day at 8:30am, it's pretty clear you aren't home and they can now verify that by seeing your car(s) leave. The collected data lets them get a feel, then actual surveillance is used to go in when needed.
On the one hand, they don't care about privacy of their personal lives and relationships (re: Facebook) but now they care that someone knows how much electricity they're using?
Some of us don't use Facebook or other social media with a real name attached for that very reason. Why should we be lumped in with the unwashed masses who give away CC numbers for a free soda?
Water/power are utilities, they are run by private companies but they are local government granted monopolies. That means we as the public get a say in how they are run and what they collect and what they use it for. I can't choose a different power or water company. Phone service has been much the same way until recent years.
Internet would be a monopoly if it had been created at an earlier time, but currently it's only psuedo-monopoly via cable TV franchises. Wireless Broadband will further make this a choice option.
In my experience Process Assurance means little.
At my company we call it 'Quality Assurance' which is right up there with Military Intelligence. These QA people are not on the projects, they are almost exclusively at the main office corporate level and just take the projects word for it that everything is working. There are document milestones (req's, design, etc), but no even cursory investigation as to how the documents are created or how it relates to the actual process going on.
I understand that politics and budgetary concerns can trump 'best practice', that's just normal real world stuff. But pretending it doesn't affect how the 'process' is what gets people into trouble. We're currently running req's, design and development in parallel, yet still pretending it's a waterfall schedule. sigh.
First off, I'm not talking about hybrids or any type of vehicle. I'm talking about the way to accurately measure usage regardless of fuel used. You *already* pay for your usage via the gas tax. This is a *replacement* for that. Since as cars stop using gasoline or diesel, the amount of tax collected from that will go down. Or do you want us to just raise the gas tax so you pay more while all the electric car drivers pay nothing? Didn't think so.
It is called QUIT BLOWING MONEY YOU DAMNED PIGS and there goes the problems!
how quaint, name calling.
We don't need the F-35
GOP sponsored and defended.
all our wars are in Bumfuckistan
Which would be over already if we had not gone into Iraq and used actual interrogation procedures instead of torture. GOP strikes again.
Cut military spending by a good 2/3rds right off the bat
Funny the GOP tends to be the rabid gung ho party. Dems are always painted as the ones who wouldn't spend to save the country. GOP fail.
bring our boys home
When the Dems proposed that back during the Bush administration, they were ridiculed for not letting our 'boys' win. Then when Obama refocused on Afghanistan Dems were charged with not listening to the generals (something Bush did regularly) Fail again.
close the shitload of military bases splattered all over the world
Isolationism is a bad idea. But above issue still applies
WPA style program so those without jobs can earn their money rebuilding our infrastructure.
Funny, GOP decried infrastructure spending when the Dems proposed it.
Sensing a pattern here?
Diesel is taxed the same way, perhaps not the same amount but the same way, per gallon.
If only we had a way to determine how far vehicles drove every year...oh yeah the odometer.
Now combine this with the type of vehicle registered and poof, you have enough info the calculate the difference in wear based on vehicle size.
And the Union workers pensions that were killing the state according to Walker? Actually they are fully funded. No problem paying the bills for them. So Walker is talking his own bullshit about them bankrupting the state.
So because it is in a museum it doesn't exist? They didn't say 'unique among active spacecraft'.
Seriously? SS2's 'Unique feather configuration'? Unique except for the fact that SS1 also used it. Granted it's unique to Virgin Galactic, but not to SS2. /. editor's really should come in from recess....
My point has nothing to do with whether it's 'enforceable' or not. An exit ramp is fairly subjective but double the posted 'advisory' would still be significant I would think.
My point was that roads are affected by things outside of the roadway themselves and even though the physical roadway is built and able to hand higher speeds, there can be other factors causing a lower posted speed.
If you want to pay for your own roads you and your state are more than welcome to set your own speeds. If you want federal highway money, you follow the rules given to you. This was the entire impetus behind the 55mph limit imposed during the 70s. Carrot and stick is a highly effective motivator. I don't know if this is used any longer but is the reason most interstates are the way they are.
There are roads out west where its straight and flat and easily able to go 70 or even 90. Those are the exception. And they have one problem, not everybody is going 90. If there's only 2 lanes or even one, a 30-40 mpg difference in speeds becomes a hazard in its own right.
I suspect the speed traps being talked about are not on highways but on regular roads anyway.
Speeding is not dangerous in many circumstances
Speeds are set based on many factors and are done by engineers and people lots more knowledgeable than you. And speeds are changeable. If you don't like the speed on a particular roadway and can justify why it is safe to go that speed, go to court and change the speed on that roadway.
There's a highway exit near me that is posted at 25 mph, but routinely people, including me, take it at 50 without trouble. The reason it is 25 is because it's a blind curve because of a sound wall. The exit was put in prior to the sound wall so it was graded for much faster than is reasonable now. There are reasons for posted speeds being what they are.
Only when it replaces broken things, maintains, things, or add new to the infrastructure.
Given that our electrical grid is widely considered 'broken' and not ready to handle the 21st century demands we're going to place on it, that's as good a place to start as any.
The argument isn't that we should do nothing, it's that we should do things differently, These things include finding and implementing ways to negate the impact of Co2 on the earth.
How is pushing solar and renewable sources not doing this very thing?
Removing it ourselves is one thing, regulations that require stages of improvement to almost a non emission level only after the technology is there.
Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. We work to change. yes it happens in stages, but you need a goal. Stopping our 'increase' in CO2 emissions in 10 years isn't easy, but it's a good goal to shoot for.
No, I'm saying we should have a viable replacement already available.
You don't have viable options unless you start to develop them. And regulation/taxing of the stuff you don't want is a very effective way to get development going on alternatives. And we do have a number of viable alternatives now in solar, wind. They can supply a fair bit. Also molten salt heat storage for intermittent energy mitigation has plants in operation right now. I don't like nuclear, but it will be needed for a part of CO2 mitigation for the next 50-100 years or so.
We know that emitting CO2 is causing problems. Whether or not we have a ready made solution doesn't mean you don't start to mitigate the problem in the mean time.
This isn't about my freedom trumping yours or your freedom running over mine.
Saying that environmentalists are taking away your freedoms sounds like exactly that argument to me.
implementing them with the least amount of disruption to either of us.
To you or your kids? How much disruption is the flooding of Florida or NYC going to be? Is that acceptable to you? Think a bit longer than 10 or 20 years as this issue will be one going on for decades or centuries.
It will take longer then that unless you want to ruin the economy, drive inflation up, and restrict people's freedoms.
Infrastructure spending is one of the best was to 'grow' an economy. But you're argument is we should just do nothing? That people's freedoms are more important than the environment we need to survive?
It's not the same as CFCs which already had a viable replacement
So you're saying because it's hard we shouldn't start trying? CFCs were 'easy' for the reason you said. But it shows that we can move forward when we 'want' to.
so called attempts to fix this aren't attempts to fix Co2, it's an excuses to tax and punish people and companies while taking their freedoms away.
Your freedom to pollute conflicts with my freedom to live in an unpolluted world. How do you resolve that conflict?
You can not disregard infrastructure costs or maintenance fees.
I'm not disregarding infrastructure or maintenance, I'm simply saying that you have it no matter what system you use so that is 'equal' in a general sense. However, every current fossil fuel energy system currently also has 'fuel' costs for operation.
Fuel costs are far and away the most expensive piece of operation when it comes to power grids. You put the infrastructure in once, yes there are maintenance costs but compared to initial installation these are minimal, and pay for the fuel forever. Solar has no fuel cost. This is a significant reduction in the cost of providing power. If you don't think power companies will either be regulated to have cheaper rates or compete to provide better service and lower prices, well
As for your fifty cars...cars need oil changes, tires, belts, coolant
Electric cars don't need oil changes, belts or coolant or a 'thousand' things gas engines do :) There are very few maintenance things an electric car needs compared to a gas cars. Most everything an electric needs, a gas engine does as well, so those wash in comparison. (see maintenance and infrastructure arg above).
Higher population density = less transmission loss.
Which only works if transmission loss is the 'majority' of your electrical costs. It isn't. It's a factor but by no means a major factor. 50% population increase *is* a major factor. You can't use efficiency to counter significant increased demand, it just can't compete with a 50% increase. Now assume that the even the already existing population is going to want significant energy usage that they don't already have.
:)
And to go back to the original point. You'll have the transmission cost problem regardless of whether you're running coal or solar. Unless of course you put solar on the rooftops. Then you have no transmission loss. Try that with coal