No, because if you were a civil engineer you would have advocated a useless four-way intersection with poorly timed lights right in the middle of the Golden Gate bridge.
If _I_ were a civil engineer, I'd switch all lanes to right-turn-only at the intersection at the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge. Muhahahaha.
Ahh, the Thomas Hobbes apology-for-tyranny approach, where any action the government takes is OK because without government your life would be primitive, brutish, and short.
Why is no one pointing out, correctly I might add, that genes alone can in fact lead to obesity, no matter your food intake or physical activity routine?
Because it simply isn't true. As someone else pointed out, the laws of thermodynamics hold here. If you eat less than you burn, you _will_ lose weight.
The interesting thing, is that tofu, beans, lentils and many other meat substitutes have these items completely beaten in price, as well as healthiness.
Oh, yeah, soy beans and lentils. I'm not falling for THAT one again.
I certainly don't want to nit-pick, but isn't this already widely known? I've read dozens of articles about how glass panes in very old buildings have settled to the point where the top is so thin it breaks at the barest touch, while the bottom of the panes have thickened to near-translucence. Even in high school (many moons ago) we were taught that glass is technically a liquid.
It's widely known and widely taught, but it's not so. Glass does not flow at any measurable rate at room temperature. Glass at room temperature is an amorphous solid, not a liquid.
Codes are mostly enforced by municipalities, and to a lesser extent by states, counties, fire departments, and other agencies. And most places I've been involved with do enforce such restrictions, though not always effectively.
Nearly always ineffectively, if the electrical aisles at Home Depots everywhere are any indication. Unless all those people buying the stuff are licensed electricians pulling permits and getting inspections, which seems unlikely.
Though I will say that most codes allow a homeowner to repair or replace 'in-kind' existing electrical work, most will not allow you to make significant changes without a permit. And usually they require a licensed engineer or licensed contractor for the permit.
Do the codes also require homeowners to get an LPN to wipe their noses?
Codes all have clauses in them that allow you to design any innovative system that works, if you're willing to go through the considerable trouble of getting it approved.
Where the "considerable trouble" = an insurmountable barrier, for an individual.
I'm pretty sure this is not new, or at least the basic idea isn't. In fact, I recall reading a detective story set near the start of the fingerprinting era, where an old murder case (from before fingerprints were used) was solved by the detective using a fingerprint that was actually visible in corrosion on the doorknob of the room the murder took place in, the room having been closed off since the murder.
Don't know where you live, but in most areas of the U.S. you legally need a permit and an inspection to perform any electrical work on residential wiring. When I say "any", I mean even down to installing an outlet or changing any type of fixed fixture.
Only state I've ever heard of that nonsense actually being enforced is Florida. What, should we go crying to Mommy Government or her anointed and licensed representatives every time we need to change a light bulb?
To advocate that an unlicensed and inexperienced homeowner take on this type of project without adequate, licensed professional supervision is irresponsible in the extreme. No licensed electrician would advocate such irresponsible and potentially hazardous course of conduct.
Of course no licensed electrician would do so; when people do their own work it means less money for licensed electricians. Never mind that if you want to do anything even slightly unusual that no licensed electrician will touch it anyway. Building codes are all about "do it the way it has always been done, that has been worked out to be safest over the years"; they may prevent injury, but they also completely kill any sort of innovation.
I ask because, for instance, filmed coverage of congress from unmanned cameras by CSPAN gets full copyright protection even though it is similar in circumstances to the artbook photography you mention.
Actually, it does not. From C-Span's right and permissions page:
Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.
But, you need to recognize, for things to change, you can't just hate the player, and you can't just hate the game. You have to hate them both, and you have to hate them enough to set your own safety and comfort aside and put a stop to it by whatever means are necessary.
And if you do that successfully, do you know what you are? Just another successful ruthless player. Catch-22.
Hairshirt: A garment of rough cloth made from goats' hair and worn in the form of a shirt or as a girdle around the loins, by way of mortification and penance.
#1 -- the point is putting someone else at *risk*. Even if you drive someone's car 120 mph and don't do any damage, it's still wrong to put their car at risk like that.
This is just more hair-shirt ethics. Almost every action I take creates some risk for someone else. It's unavoidable. That said, I don't see how my use of my neighbors wi-fi for _legal_ activities puts my neighbor at any significant risk for prosecution for my _illegal_ activities'
Electricity can most efficiently be generated as close to where it is consumed as possible.
Um, no. We have these things called "high voltage transmission lines", and while they are not 100% efficient, the economies of scale achieved by placing a larger plant further away mean that it just isn't that simple. Not to mention that you also have to consider the issue of providing the plant with the fuel.
What we need to look at is massive investment in small scale generation. Every house in the world should have grid connected photovoltaics on the roof.
Yeah, that'll do a lot of good in Seattle. Not to mention the cost of _producing_ all those photovoltaics, in both money and energy.
The power companies may find they have such a windfall of power during daylight hours that they have to invest in pumped storage hydro, flywheel, or other energy storage systems. While they can take the fossil plants offline permanently.
Another one who hasn't looked at the numbers. All these "alternatives" (unless you count nuclear) can barely make a _dent_ in fossil fuel use. They're boutique sources, good for environmentalists and politicians to point to justify not finding more oil or using more coal, but they just can't cut the mustard.
To your #1 -- if I'm using my neighbor's wi-fi and NOT doing anything illegal, there's no issue.
To your #2 -- Believe it or not, it is not per se unethical to obtain a benefit without incurring a direct cost. That hair-shirt version of ethics is ridiculous.
The DHCP package you take as an invitation was interpreted by the court as a telecommunication message not intended for the recipient and thus illegal to read.
Which is insane, as the DHCP reply packet was actually _addressed_ to the recipient. But why should the law be sane? Much easier to start with the conclusion (Guilty, guilty, guilty! Burn the hacker!) and come up with some plausible sounding justification for it.
You apparently didn't learn the lesson of "if I defend myself once, very openly, very aggressively, no bullies will ever bother me again."
Except the bullies in the administration who will punish you for defending yourself.
I learned that lesson, more or less by accident, in fifth grade. But knocking a kid to the ground in front of the entire school while waiting for the bus does tend to get official attention, even if his provocation (smacking me in the back of the head, and not for the first time) would have gone unnoticed.
Because with a surplus of electrical power and high-temperature water sources, we can more readily convert to an electric and hydrogen-powered vehicle fleet, rather than limping along on the gasoline/diesel infrastructure we have today.
Hydrogen? Why not magic pixies? Ain't going to happen; H2 is too hard to store and to work with. And the breakthrough in batteries which would enable practical electric cars is always around the corner but never quite there either -- and further note that once you have it, you have to massively increase the capacity of the electrical transmission and distribution networks. To charge, e.g, the Tesla roadster in a reasonable time takes 90A; increasing everyone's service by 90A is not a trivial thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The downside of plumbing is that when you're hip-deep in shit, you're _really_ hip-deep in shit.
Ahh, the Thomas Hobbes apology-for-tyranny approach, where any action the government takes is OK because without government your life would be primitive, brutish, and short.
It's widely known and widely taught, but it's not so. Glass does not flow at any measurable rate at room temperature. Glass at room temperature is an amorphous solid, not a liquid.
Nearly always ineffectively, if the electrical aisles at Home Depots everywhere are any indication. Unless all those people buying the stuff are licensed electricians pulling permits and getting inspections, which seems unlikely.
Do the codes also require homeowners to get an LPN to wipe their noses?
Where the "considerable trouble" = an insurmountable barrier, for an individual.
I'm pretty sure this is not new, or at least the basic idea isn't. In fact, I recall reading a detective story set near the start of the fingerprinting era, where an old murder case (from before fingerprints were used) was solved by the detective using a fingerprint that was actually visible in corrosion on the doorknob of the room the murder took place in, the room having been closed off since the murder.
A swamp cooler works great in the desert. Thing is, they require the one resource which is by definition scarce in a desert: water.
Only state I've ever heard of that nonsense actually being enforced is Florida. What, should we go crying to Mommy Government or her anointed and licensed representatives every time we need to change a light bulb?
Of course no licensed electrician would do so; when people do their own work it means less money for licensed electricians. Never mind that if you want to do anything even slightly unusual that no licensed electrician will touch it anyway. Building codes are all about "do it the way it has always been done, that has been worked out to be safest over the years"; they may prevent injury, but they also completely kill any sort of innovation.
To be fair to Dodd, _anyone_ could get a sweet deal from Countrywide... that's why they're in so much trouble.
Hairshirt: A garment of rough cloth made from goats' hair and worn in the form of a shirt or as a girdle around the loins, by way of mortification and penance.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07113b.htm
Um, no. We have these things called "high voltage transmission lines", and while they are not 100% efficient, the economies of scale achieved by placing a larger plant further away mean that it just isn't that simple. Not to mention that you also have to consider the issue of providing the plant with the fuel.
Yeah, that'll do a lot of good in Seattle. Not to mention the cost of _producing_ all those photovoltaics, in both money and energy.
Another one who hasn't looked at the numbers. All these "alternatives" (unless you count nuclear) can barely make a _dent_ in fossil fuel use. They're boutique sources, good for environmentalists and politicians to point to justify not finding more oil or using more coal, but they just can't cut the mustard.
Or not. If I wanted to live the way people live in third world countries, I'd move to one.
To your #1 -- if I'm using my neighbor's wi-fi and NOT doing anything illegal, there's no issue.
To your #2 -- Believe it or not, it is not per se unethical to obtain a benefit without incurring a direct cost. That hair-shirt version of ethics is ridiculous.
Which is insane, as the DHCP reply packet was actually _addressed_ to the recipient. But why should the law be sane? Much easier to start with the conclusion (Guilty, guilty, guilty! Burn the hacker!) and come up with some plausible sounding justification for it.
You know what your description of Croatia's educlational system sounds like? America's. You went down the wrong path.
As with Prince Albert in a can, you LET THEM OUT.
Hydrogen? Why not magic pixies? Ain't going to happen; H2 is too hard to store and to work with. And the breakthrough in batteries which would enable practical electric cars is always around the corner but never quite there either -- and further note that once you have it, you have to massively increase the capacity of the electrical transmission and distribution networks. To charge, e.g, the Tesla roadster in a reasonable time takes 90A; increasing everyone's service by 90A is not a trivial thing.