Bingo! This is all about public relations and nothing about the scientific justification. Taxpayers want to dream they will a day send someone (even just to die) on Mars, they feel it is a great way to spend money, while sending a probe on Saturnian moons seeking for life indications there isn't that great for them. In fact, people don't care that much about extraterresterial life, they care much more about going somewhere else to prove they are a so marvelous creature capable of spending ressources on useless things.
So, money wise, it is better to put efforts on Mars rather than on Saturnian moons from the taxpayer's point of view
You are all off-topic. The astronauts never went to the moon, everything was filmed into Hollywood studios and Mitchell just stole this fucking camera to Warner Bros and pretend he left it on the moon, something Warner Bros wasn't able to contradict without putting themselves into boiling waters regarded the faked moon walk of Apollo 14. So, they waited until now to sue him via the government pretending he finally just get it back from the moon. You can add anything to this conspiracy scenario to better fit to you local conditions.
Last major oil discovery, truely major, is in fact back in 1950 with the Arabic peninsula reserves. Since that time, nothing really significant was discovered. Since today, the Saudia Arabia was able to match the demand with the production. It is now over, they can no longer boost the production to match the demand and this is the indication their reserves are on the down side of the peak. The 1970 crisis is due to the US oil reserves reaching themselves the highest production peak, what is just happening today with Saudia Arabia reserves. Then, back in 1970, the Arabic countries decided to no longer sell their oil for cheap and they united into what is then known as OPEC. That triggered the 1970 crisis because USA was now dependant on oil from other countries since its own reserves were depleting.
Also, don't mix things, plastic and fuel are made from different components of the oil. It's not because you have plenty of tar you are necessarily don't have a fuel shortage problem with the current oil production.
In fact, it's less than a year of the worldwide oil consumption. I suppose you three years and half figure is for US domestic consumption only.
Nothing like the Arabic peninsula reserves was discovered since they were about 60 years ago. So, a less than a year strech is considered a major oil discovery.
Most people do not deny the facts about Arctic Circle's ice coverage. What they argue is about the pretention we can effectively do something about that. Some denies it's all the humans fault. And many do not want to be taxed because there is climate changes. Do we really think we can regulate the climate? Do we really think our models are accurate and complete enough and do not miss something that may on the long term worsen things if we take some actions to regulate the climate? Is a average human life long enough to experiment with climate engineering Will Climate Engineering Ever Go Prime Time?? And since we will probably stop burning oil in few decades provided the ressource will be too rare and expensive for most of us, what will be the impact of this on the intermediate and long term on the climate?
There is no political significance behind car accidents. This event is not about the number of deads. The number of peoples who died is just much more shocking to the public opinion than the USS Cole, the US Tanzania's Embassy or WTC terrorists attacks many years before the 9-11.
So, your point is completely off-topic, at my humble opinion. You are just trying to banalize somewhat the terrorism. It's like to say no terrorist attack will worth paying attention to it until it reach the deads count of Hiroshima or something like that.
This guy compares hearing aids not targetted at the same audience. The smaller is not better than the behind the ear one. The smaller device is for hearing impaired with low to medium hearing loss, while the behind the ear devices are designed for low to severe hearing loss. Both are available worldwide. The reason his mother's husband is not wearing a small in-ear device is probably his condition is too severe and this smaller device is not appropriate. Also, the behind the ear devices are having some buttons to switch functions, while this doesn't exist on in-ear devices. Often, eldery peoples prefer the behind the ear devices because they are easier to manipulate than the in-ear devices which cannot be turned off without removing them from the ear. And removing them requires some agility since you have a small nylon wire to pull to remove the device.
Bottom line, your conclusion is not well founded given the original post.
In my country and province (Canada, Quebec). The government is paying for hearing aids, but only for low-end. So, this is about the price the government is paying for most hearing aids. They are fine for most older people, however, the young and professionnally active people would benefit from higher end hearing aids with more sophisticated features. Unfortunately, we must pay them in full if we want them. The government won't even pay the 500$ they would be willing to pay if you pick the hearing aids on the approved list which are selling for about 500$ as I already mentioned.
Hearing aids with programmable DSP and with many modes and Bluetooth features are hardly required for active peoples. Acoustic or EM coupling with phones is not sufficient for those having severe hearing loss.
You cannot compare hearing aids only on the basis of the size and cutenest factor. The main point is your mom's husband may have a greater hearing loss than the European woman. The small device entering deep in the ear canal are suitable for those not having a too severe hearing loss condition. I know, I did own one and since my hearing loss is progressive it eventually needs to be replaced by a behind the ear device with much more amplification power. So, avoid this kind of comparisons. You must compare devices of a kind with devices of the same kind. They are targetted at different audiences.
Here, we have coverage for hearing aids from the government. However, there is restrictions on the make, models and types of hearing aids we can pick from. There is a list reviewed every two years or so. Usually, the government make a deal with few manufacturers after asking them to answer to a public RFP (Request for proposals). They set guidelines and the manufacturers must bid as well on a 6 years maintenance plan for their own devices. Those with the lowest prices meeting the requirements for each category win. The drawbacks of this approach is the devices are always end-of-line models. If you want to pick one not on the list, you have to pay it in full. This permit most individuals with hearing loss to have access to hearing aids devices at the price of having access to low-end models only.
The real merit of TFA is it state for the large audience there is no energy source out there strong enough to sustain human life beyond nearer planets. So, we can conclude that old dream to colonize the space beyond the solar system is extincted once and for all, provided a trip to the nearest solar system is a 40000 years journey and even if we can manage to protect the life from the cosmic rays on an hypothetical ship, we still have the energy problem to sustain life, even in hibernation state.
Also, is there a benefit to export energy sources from Earth to Moon and Mars in an hypothetical scenario where we believe something worth to be exploited there?
Don't we have an energy problem here in the forthcoming years? On a small scale, that may be acceptable for the stake of science, on a large scale for resources digging it is a completely other matter.
If you RTFA, the case you are describing was already judged by the same court. A biology teacher did want to teach about creationism and this was refused by the court.
"In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”"
So, I guess it then all depends what matter you are teaching.
I think you both missed the point. The CTRL-F short cut is written beside the Find word in the Edit menu in the menubar. The article mentionned the guy was looking for the word he was searching without using the CRTL-F, neither the menu. So, whatever the GUI is, this guy is just looking in the document by hand and is just not asking itself what the software can do for him.
In other crude terms, there is a lot of idiots out there.
(...) We realize that you may have paid more than our new subscription rate ($29.50 USD), so your current subscription term will be extended based on the remaining value of your subscription. For example, if your current remaining subscription value is $20.00 USD, the term will be extended by 8 issues based on the issue value of $2.56.
Moore's Law maybe violated as soon as you reached the atomic scale. Soon or later, Moore's law will be violated. You cannot project it in the future ad infinitum.
Last time someone at the federal government came with a 200 million dollars idea, we ended up paying over 2 billion dollars for a still flawn system (firearms register if you haven't identify yet what I am talking about). I don't trust any cost estimates for such a system coming from the government, neither from the industry. Sorry, we were screwed once. Keep everything on paper please, 288 million dollars is not too expensive to make sure the elected government is the right one, it would sure cost much more to have the wrong one elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's face it, almost everyone is undesirable in a global sense. Unless you believe life is having a purpose beyond its own reality.
I want a Dennis Ritchie week!
Helpdesk support persons in short.
Economics is just a fancy variation of numerology using complex math functions to convince people it is well grounded science.
Bingo! This is all about public relations and nothing about the scientific justification. Taxpayers want to dream they will a day send someone (even just to die) on Mars, they feel it is a great way to spend money, while sending a probe on Saturnian moons seeking for life indications there isn't that great for them. In fact, people don't care that much about extraterresterial life, they care much more about going somewhere else to prove they are a so marvelous creature capable of spending ressources on useless things.
So, money wise, it is better to put efforts on Mars rather than on Saturnian moons from the taxpayer's point of view
You are all off-topic. The astronauts never went to the moon, everything was filmed into Hollywood studios and Mitchell just stole this fucking camera to Warner Bros and pretend he left it on the moon, something Warner Bros wasn't able to contradict without putting themselves into boiling waters regarded the faked moon walk of Apollo 14. So, they waited until now to sue him via the government pretending he finally just get it back from the moon. You can add anything to this conspiracy scenario to better fit to you local conditions.
Edgar Mitchell is officially known as the first pickpocket on the moon!
Last major oil discovery, truely major, is in fact back in 1950 with the Arabic peninsula reserves. Since that time, nothing really significant was discovered. Since today, the Saudia Arabia was able to match the demand with the production. It is now over, they can no longer boost the production to match the demand and this is the indication their reserves are on the down side of the peak. The 1970 crisis is due to the US oil reserves reaching themselves the highest production peak, what is just happening today with Saudia Arabia reserves. Then, back in 1970, the Arabic countries decided to no longer sell their oil for cheap and they united into what is then known as OPEC. That triggered the 1970 crisis because USA was now dependant on oil from other countries since its own reserves were depleting.
Also, don't mix things, plastic and fuel are made from different components of the oil. It's not because you have plenty of tar you are necessarily don't have a fuel shortage problem with the current oil production.
In fact, it's less than a year of the worldwide oil consumption. I suppose you three years and half figure is for US domestic consumption only.
Nothing like the Arabic peninsula reserves was discovered since they were about 60 years ago. So, a less than a year strech is considered a major oil discovery.
Most people do not deny the facts about Arctic Circle's ice coverage. What they argue is about the pretention we can effectively do something about that. Some denies it's all the humans fault. And many do not want to be taxed because there is climate changes. Do we really think we can regulate the climate? Do we really think our models are accurate and complete enough and do not miss something that may on the long term worsen things if we take some actions to regulate the climate? Is a average human life long enough to experiment with climate engineering Will Climate Engineering Ever Go Prime Time?? And since we will probably stop burning oil in few decades provided the ressource will be too rare and expensive for most of us, what will be the impact of this on the intermediate and long term on the climate?
What's the political threat here? Car makers are plotting to destroy America?
There is no political significance behind car accidents. This event is not about the number of deads. The number of peoples who died is just much more shocking to the public opinion than the USS Cole, the US Tanzania's Embassy or WTC terrorists attacks many years before the 9-11.
So, your point is completely off-topic, at my humble opinion. You are just trying to banalize somewhat the terrorism. It's like to say no terrorist attack will worth paying attention to it until it reach the deads count of Hiroshima or something like that.
Bottom line, your conclusion is not well founded given the original post.
Hearing aids with programmable DSP and with many modes and Bluetooth features are hardly required for active peoples. Acoustic or EM coupling with phones is not sufficient for those having severe hearing loss.
Here, we have coverage for hearing aids from the government. However, there is restrictions on the make, models and types of hearing aids we can pick from. There is a list reviewed every two years or so. Usually, the government make a deal with few manufacturers after asking them to answer to a public RFP (Request for proposals). They set guidelines and the manufacturers must bid as well on a 6 years maintenance plan for their own devices. Those with the lowest prices meeting the requirements for each category win. The drawbacks of this approach is the devices are always end-of-line models. If you want to pick one not on the list, you have to pay it in full. This permit most individuals with hearing loss to have access to hearing aids devices at the price of having access to low-end models only.
The real merit of TFA is it state for the large audience there is no energy source out there strong enough to sustain human life beyond nearer planets. So, we can conclude that old dream to colonize the space beyond the solar system is extincted once and for all, provided a trip to the nearest solar system is a 40000 years journey and even if we can manage to protect the life from the cosmic rays on an hypothetical ship, we still have the energy problem to sustain life, even in hibernation state.
Also, is there a benefit to export energy sources from Earth to Moon and Mars in an hypothetical scenario where we believe something worth to be exploited there?
Don't we have an energy problem here in the forthcoming years? On a small scale, that may be acceptable for the stake of science, on a large scale for resources digging it is a completely other matter.
If you RTFA, the case you are describing was already judged by the same court. A biology teacher did want to teach about creationism and this was refused by the court.
"In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”"
So, I guess it then all depends what matter you are teaching.
In other crude terms, there is a lot of idiots out there.
(...) We realize that you may have paid more than our new subscription rate ($29.50 USD), so your current subscription term will be extended based on the remaining value of your subscription. For example, if your current remaining subscription value is $20.00 USD, the term will be extended by 8 issues based on the issue value of $2.56.
You should be glad, your hemorrhoids will go digital as well. No more pain in the ass my friend.
And on the power consumption side, these will consume about 1 million TW.
Moore's Law maybe violated as soon as you reached the atomic scale. Soon or later, Moore's law will be violated. You cannot project it in the future ad infinitum.
Good! No more bugs, just mental diseases.
Last time someone at the federal government came with a 200 million dollars idea, we ended up paying over 2 billion dollars for a still flawn system (firearms register if you haven't identify yet what I am talking about). I don't trust any cost estimates for such a system coming from the government, neither from the industry. Sorry, we were screwed once. Keep everything on paper please, 288 million dollars is not too expensive to make sure the elected government is the right one, it would sure cost much more to have the wrong one elected.
You are paid for that job, so, just sit, wait and shut up.