actually when asked DIRECTLY by the press, Bush's Press Secretary wouldn't saw what, if anything, Bush suggested/asked related to the coming Hurricane. Link
Also buried in there is the fact that Bush never even gave the order to *use* the military. He ordered them to be ready to go, but never bothered to send them in until days later.
Is Bush responsible for the 'unacceptable' response to this disaster? No, he's not. But is he ultimately 'accountable'? You damn well bet he is. These are his federal appointees that are macking a mockery of relief, and so he's accountable for putting unqualified people in place.
And since he's obviously put unqualified people in before...you can bet any new Bush appointees will be seriously questioned in the future.
well I didn't want to be cocky and just say NY;-) I'm originally from Rochester and to my knowledge no significant hurricane effects have ever really been felt there.
We had a massive ice storm back in '89 I think...but with proper planning you can 'weather' that just fine.
Lucky for him then...I thnk the OP was more comparing the choice you have to make if people start misbehaving during the movie.
You miss some of the movie to get mgmt, then *maybe* mgmt gives you a freebie ticket to come back and rewatch it later (and hopefully buy more overpriced food)
considering weather.gov took me all of 2 clicks to get to Elk Rapids, MI...family cottage location, with all of like 5 friggin streets.
I'd say they're providing pretty good local forecasts. I'm currently outside DC and yes, the local sources are much better; but hey it's a big market here.
Those living in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, I'm sure they won't have those resources so this is pretty good it seems to me.
That would be a lousy installer. The cable internet jack is supposed to be off the first split, then the TVs.
The 'fun' part is they send the weaker of the signals to the Cable Modem...because 'god forbid' they lose TV signal. Yet the TVs are wildly less sensitive.
My installer blatantly told me, "Once I leave, switch these around";-)
MG was bought by Cox...their TV service I don't even subscribe too. AFairfax Co actually wouldn't let Cox make changes because they promised to do stuff when they bought MG and then didn't. Fairfax held them accountable for making the digital cable tv rollout happen on schedule without a price increase. The fscking 2 line system was nothing more than a gauranteed $3/month box rental system. If you didn't rent the box the local OTA channels tuned in at 34, 35, 37, and 39! They even said over the phone, "Um, that's the way it comes from the satelllite"! Sheesh!
The Cable Internet service is another thing entirely, good speed, pretty much always on, and just plug and play usage.
I've been in 3 different locations for cable service, and all have 3mb+ down speeds consistently. at $55/month it isn't that cheap, but I'll pay it for the reliability I've seen from them.
Dude....call your local gov't and complain. it works.
Here in Fairfax, VA, when the local cable (Media General) wanted to increase rates...the local gov looked at the massive stack of complaints and said...um..sure, right after you solve all these other problems for your current promised service.
So make sure you aren't just whining on/. do it someplace that actually makes a difference;-)
How can a camera know what you're doing when you cross the line during a red light?
My understanding is that the sensors detect your speed based on the change in magnetic field as your engine block passes over.
Just as cops don't pull people for 5mph over speed limits, it *should* be pretty simple to program this sensor to ignore anything similarly slow.
The photo taken needs to show both the state of the light and the car.
If the camera is set far enough back this isn't an issue.
The 4 way red is an interesting idea...though around here you'd have increasing hospital bills as blood pressures boil over waiting for *nobody* LOL
I live in Fairfax, VA and we just had the cameras turned off because of grandstanding about such things. See here for some good info linky
lets see your points: the vast majority of people "caught" by the red light cameras are simply average people passing safely through the intersection while it is yellow only to be caught at the last second when the light turns red If they are IN the intersection when it turns red then they are in violation of the law. - and the sensors are actually in the pavement BEHIND the stop line, only triggered if you go over it when the light is ALREADY red.
I doubt they are suddenly going to become faithful servants of the law just because you stick a camera there.
And you attribute the significant drop in t-bone accidents at these intersections to what then? Seems clear cut proof is also in the initial increase of rear-end accidents...those are people who would have otherwise gone through stopping very quickly.
why did they not increase yellow light times in addition to the cameras?
Yellows are timed based on the posted Speed Limit. If people aren't obeying that law (or within say 5mph) then the problem isn't the yellow time, it's the road speed. A *new* traffic feature such as the cameras will take time to get used too.
Oh wait, they decreased the time at some lights... can someone say free money? Were there less then honest implementations of the cameras? Definitely...contractors making money PER ticket thus inducing all sorts of 'incentive' to do less then ethical/legal things. Does this mean you should ban a PROVEN technology? I say no...You're welcome to not want the cameras, but the stats don't lie, they save lives and money.
Initially this is true...as people get used to the presence of the cameras, accidents do go down.
The BIG difference that such arguments love to omit, is that the 'increased' accidents actually have a lower overal cost than the 'fewer' more serious accidents.
Would you prefer a 10 mph rear-end collision or the 35mph T-bone?
Rates will go down if the costs of insurance go down as well...it's a thing called competition.
How about I intend to 'copyright' my submission of opposition?
Henceforth that meets the requirement. and 'intend' has nothing to do with actually doing it...I'm thinking about it and this would impair my ability to do it.
in the 1700's Ben Franklin rightly surmized(sp?) that by increasing the use of daylight during the summer, less candles had to be made, transported, and used thus there was a fairly good bit of savings.
In early 1900s, if more daylight led to less electric light use (a sizeable portion of the electric bill) then there would be significant savings.
In modern times however, it is but a blip on the monthly electric bill, with AC units, refrigerators, freezers, TVs, etc all demanding almost constant power draw. Lights simply aren't a huge area of savings anymore.
Even more so this could actually INCREASE our electric costs: I have a programmable thermostat, that I set to be warmer in the summer when I'm not home, then turn on so it's cool when I return from work. Now I'm home more hours during the hottest part of the day which in turn uses more power for my AC unit which is wildly more expensive to run than a few lightbulbs.
You're correct that the people buying TH clothes and assorted products aren't probably techno-literate, nor do they care about what OS is being run. (GP poster made basically the same point)
What he also said is that these are the people most easily swayed into believing FUD, and MS paying TH Inc. to switch would be a cheap form of advertising. So the neophites hear "TH uses MS because it's good and secure" and believe it rather than "TH uses Linux because it's good and secure".
Now, what OS are they more likely to remember when then need to buy their next computer?
Slashdot Mirror
actually when asked DIRECTLY by the press, Bush's Press Secretary wouldn't saw what, if anything, Bush suggested/asked related to the coming Hurricane. Link
Also buried in there is the fact that Bush never even gave the order to *use* the military. He ordered them to be ready to go, but never bothered to send them in until days later.
Is Bush responsible for the 'unacceptable' response to this disaster? No, he's not. But is he ultimately 'accountable'? You damn well bet he is. These are his federal appointees that are macking a mockery of relief, and so he's accountable for putting unqualified people in place.
And since he's obviously put unqualified people in before...you can bet any new Bush appointees will be seriously questioned in the future.
well I didn't want to be cocky and just say NY ;-) I'm originally from Rochester and to my knowledge no significant hurricane effects have ever really been felt there.
We had a massive ice storm back in '89 I think...but with proper planning you can 'weather' that just fine.
Blizzards you say?
A roof steeply sloped to prevent snow build-up
an adequate supply of firewood/food/water
no trees withing falling distance of the house.
Anything else I need be worried about? Not to say bad things can't happen, but the vast bulk of things are able to be prepared for in advance.
and why I prefer the northeast. 0 serious earthquakes, 0 landslides, 0 hurricanes, 0 tornados (mostly anyway)
There just aren't much of any natural phenomenon that you can't adequately prepare for in advance up there.
Sadly I'm in DC these days...the home of some the most obscene unnatural disasters, our very own House and Senate...ugh
Wow the Mods are in a pissy mood today...Parent isn't overrated, but rather a feeling shared by quite a few people
Lucky for him then...I thnk the OP was more comparing the choice you have to make if people start misbehaving during the movie.
You miss some of the movie to get mgmt, then *maybe* mgmt gives you a freebie ticket to come back and rewatch it later (and hopefully buy more overpriced food)
Problem is...your friend probably missed parts of the movie.
Did he get a free ticket to come back later? (which is *exactly* what the movie theaters want anyway)
But what are the effects on humans?
/. editors....oh wait...
well lets try it out on the
considering weather.gov took me all of 2 clicks to get to Elk Rapids, MI...family cottage location, with all of like 5 friggin streets.
I'd say they're providing pretty good local forecasts. I'm currently outside DC and yes, the local sources are much better; but hey it's a big market here.
Those living in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, I'm sure they won't have those resources so this is pretty good it seems to me.
That would be a lousy installer. The cable internet jack is supposed to be off the first split, then the TVs.
;-)
The 'fun' part is they send the weaker of the signals to the Cable Modem...because 'god forbid' they lose TV signal. Yet the TVs are wildly less sensitive.
My installer blatantly told me, "Once I leave, switch these around"
MG was bought by Cox...their TV service I don't even subscribe too. AFairfax Co actually wouldn't let Cox make changes because they promised to do stuff when they bought MG and then didn't. Fairfax held them accountable for making the digital cable tv rollout happen on schedule without a price increase. The fscking 2 line system was nothing more than a gauranteed $3/month box rental system. If you didn't rent the box the local OTA channels tuned in at 34, 35, 37, and 39! They even said over the phone, "Um, that's the way it comes from the satelllite"! Sheesh!
The Cable Internet service is another thing entirely, good speed, pretty much always on, and just plug and play usage. I've been in 3 different locations for cable service, and all have 3mb+ down speeds consistently. at $55/month it isn't that cheap, but I'll pay it for the reliability I've seen from them.
In most cases it's the local gov't that grants Comcast the 'franchise' to offer cable TV services in your location.
This is where I have filed my complaints.
Dude....call your local gov't and complain. it works.
/. do it someplace that actually makes a difference ;-)
Here in Fairfax, VA, when the local cable (Media General) wanted to increase rates...the local gov looked at the massive stack of complaints and said...um..sure, right after you solve all these other problems for your current promised service.
So make sure you aren't just whining on
nope...badly paraphrased but I got the parts correct ;-)
How can a camera know what you're doing when you cross the line during a red light?
My understanding is that the sensors detect your speed based on the change in magnetic field as your engine block passes over.
Just as cops don't pull people for 5mph over speed limits, it *should* be pretty simple to program this sensor to ignore anything similarly slow.
The photo taken needs to show both the state of the light and the car.
If the camera is set far enough back this isn't an issue.
The 4 way red is an interesting idea...though around here you'd have increasing hospital bills as blood pressures boil over waiting for *nobody* LOL
Actually I hope you have a set of underwear with you as your not SUPPOSED to be trying on pants/etc without it...
Reminds me of an old Friends joke:
Chandler: What do you mean, it's soap, it's self cleaning?
Joey: Oh yeah? Think about what I wash last and what you wash first...
Chandler: -freaks out-
I live in Fairfax, VA and we just had the cameras turned off because of grandstanding about such things. See here for some good info linky
lets see your points:
the vast majority of people "caught" by the red light cameras are simply average people passing safely through the intersection while it is yellow only to be caught at the last second when the light turns red
If they are IN the intersection when it turns red then they are in violation of the law. - and the sensors are actually in the pavement BEHIND the stop line, only triggered if you go over it when the light is ALREADY red.
I doubt they are suddenly going to become faithful servants of the law just because you stick a camera there.
And you attribute the significant drop in t-bone accidents at these intersections to what then? Seems clear cut proof is also in the initial increase of rear-end accidents...those are people who would have otherwise gone through stopping very quickly.
why did they not increase yellow light times in addition to the cameras?
Yellows are timed based on the posted Speed Limit. If people aren't obeying that law (or within say 5mph) then the problem isn't the yellow time, it's the road speed. A *new* traffic feature such as the cameras will take time to get used too.
Oh wait, they decreased the time at some lights... can someone say free money?
Were there less then honest implementations of the cameras? Definitely...contractors making money PER ticket thus inducing all sorts of 'incentive' to do less then ethical/legal things. Does this mean you should ban a PROVEN technology? I say no...You're welcome to not want the cameras, but the stats don't lie, they save lives and money.
Initially this is true...as people get used to the presence of the cameras, accidents do go down.
The BIG difference that such arguments love to omit, is that the 'increased' accidents actually have a lower overal cost than the 'fewer' more serious accidents.
Would you prefer a 10 mph rear-end collision or the 35mph T-bone?
Rates will go down if the costs of insurance go down as well...it's a thing called competition.
The relevant point here is whether the presence of the cameras is disclosed *before* a patron is under their surveilence.
If the store is upfront about it, then I see no problem...shop somewhere else.
Nice...care to pass the "coke-off-monitor" clean up tools?
Thanks for the laugh!
well except for the, ahem, *view* ;-)
How about I intend to 'copyright' my submission of opposition?
Henceforth that meets the requirement. and 'intend' has nothing to do with actually doing it...I'm thinking about it and this would impair my ability to do it.
in the 1700's Ben Franklin rightly surmized(sp?) that by increasing the use of daylight during the summer, less candles had to be made, transported, and used thus there was a fairly good bit of savings.
In early 1900s, if more daylight led to less electric light use (a sizeable portion of the electric bill) then there would be significant savings.
In modern times however, it is but a blip on the monthly electric bill, with AC units, refrigerators, freezers, TVs, etc all demanding almost constant power draw. Lights simply aren't a huge area of savings anymore.
Even more so this could actually INCREASE our electric costs: I have a programmable thermostat, that I set to be warmer in the summer when I'm not home, then turn on so it's cool when I return from work. Now I'm home more hours during the hottest part of the day which in turn uses more power for my AC unit which is wildly more expensive to run than a few lightbulbs.
You're correct that the people buying TH clothes and assorted products aren't probably techno-literate, nor do they care about what OS is being run. (GP poster made basically the same point)
What he also said is that these are the people most easily swayed into believing FUD, and MS paying TH Inc. to switch would be a cheap form of advertising. So the neophites hear "TH uses MS because it's good and secure" and believe it rather than "TH uses Linux because it's good and secure".
Now, what OS are they more likely to remember when then need to buy their next computer?
and most airplanes can 'go around again' if something happens that doesn't look/feel right.
The Shuttle is a single shot landing...you don't want to try risky weather when you only get one chance...