The primary mechanism for capacitive coupling is a voltage differential from a charge on one side of the pad, and a sink on the other. The trick is that this is not a simple ground mechanism, it's a dispersion. In other words, the meat and ion containing water in the body act as an antennae.
The fix is to implement the same type of dispersion to couple the other pole of the capacitor. So what you do is embed a conductive mesh below the surface in the "skin" glove of the prosthetic, and attach it to an antenna at the resonant frequency of H-O bonds. Triggering resonance is the same way microwaves work to heat water (and why they are generally not dangerous ionizing radiation), only this time you want to sink the electron transport, rather than sourcing resonance.
The physical implementation was effectively attaching a 2.4 GHz WiFi antenaa extracted from a laptop to the conductive mesh, and placing it near the surface elsewhere within the prosthetic arm.
I developed the technique as part of building a robot (at Google) to test gesture recognition algorithms on touch screen devices; the device tracked an recorded human movements on the touch surface, and the robot reliably reproduced those movements on the surface to make the same "human" gestures, in a reproducible fashion. The robot had exactly the same capacitive coupling problems that are present in the prosthetics.
I imagine that your own touch problem could be alleviated via a conductive glove, of the type used to use touch screens while wearing gloves, with a similar surface mount 2.4 GHz antenna attached to the back of the glove and wired to the conductive layer.
However... I'd also suggest you check your electrolyte balance -- particularly, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus levels -- and have a test done for peripheral neuropathy, since an inability to use a touch device as you describe could be an indicator of a medical condition, such as anemia, diabetes, or hypokalaemia (typically a result of diuretics or other medication, but also reduced kidney function), hypomagnesia (stress, alcohol abuse, Bartter syndrome, Gitelman syndrome, dietary phytate or oxalate, etc. -- could be a cause of high blood pressure as well, if you have that), or hypocalcemia (pancreatitus, hypothyroidism -- including that caused by Hashimoto's), or something else entirely.
Yes, touch screens can in fact be a medical diagnostic tool pointing to other underlying causes for problems.:)
The problem with almost all "uploading" schemes is that it creates a copy of your brain structure, so it's a copy of you, rather than you. Externally, there might be no apparent difference to an outside observer, but internally, you're kind of dead, if that 1 cubic foot of meat space is no longer functional.
The only hope of an upload of the actual "you" would be an incremental replacement of brain structure, such that you lived in both meat-you and electronic-you at the same time, until the electronic-you completely replaced the meat-you, without a loss of continuity of consciousness.
Otherwise, you're just building pod people. Which could be useful, if you wanted to embed one of them in a starship (or more likely, a tank or other weapon of war), or if you wanted to make a lot of duplicate copies of a particular mind, and didn't care about their locality of self, either.
No, not all advances will suit all people. Don't cripple the rest to make it accessible to those who can't. Let's not tear down the mountains because they can't be climbed by fat people.
Okay, so I'm only sort of guessing where you were going with that. However, no... No you shouldn't slow down progress because some can't keep up. For some reason my 'touch' doesn't seem to work well on most every touch screen. I accept that.
Bad guess, dude.
There's a difference between being *able to* engage certain sensory and motor systems in order to interact with our devices, and *requiring us to* engage certain sensory and motor systems in order to do so.
P.S.: I came up with a "fix" for the capacitive coupling problem and posted it to a prosthetics forum, rather than being an asshole and patenting it. Numerous people have thanked me for it being the first time they've ever been able to use a trackpad (and so on).
"Or even better: I will pay the third party to cause their site to"
You end up spending ressources to undo what someone did with an automated script
You are presuming that I do not hire them to implement an automated script to go on a seek-and-destroy for *ALL* the compromised systems attacking mine. I'm well aware of amplification techniques. Doing that, however, risks attacking intermediary systems in the same jurisdiction as yourself, which tends to be more legally dangerous, if a connection is ever proven. But if the government isn't willing to go after the perpetrators of a botnet, they are even more unlikely to go after a company engaging in this type of tactic. If the government couldn't/wouldn't stop the original when a large company was complaining, they are much less likely to go after the company.
Either way, we appear to be on the verge of legislation which authorizes such things, in which case doing that would no longer be illegal. The competing idea is a new national law enforcement unit whose purpose is to do it on behalf of complaining U.S. companies. We will likely end of on one of these paths, sooner, rather than later, should another attack on the order of the OPM hack occur. If that happens, it could come together rather quickly, up to and including requiring broadband providers to include government use DDOS tools in Comcast routers (for example).
There is no defence.
Back up. That's only true if we are talking intermediaries.
I know a number of executives at multinational corporations that, should the original perpetrators of an attack on their companies be identified, they'd have one of their "corporate fixers" go and "handle it". So there *is* a defense, it's just rather extreme, and generally pretty extralegal, up to and including *very* extralegal. As long as it wasn't someone who was government related, or prominent in some way, governments generally look the other way when multinationals do stuff like this, and I expect that it happens even more frequently when banks are involved.
This has already happened, in extremis, several times in Russia already.
"What makes you think that site's owner will cooperate with your investigation?"
To be very clear: we are talking about an intermediate site that has themselves been hacked, rather than the origin of the attacks.
In the absolute freaking limit? No holds barred?
Because, if they are in Korea, they are extraterritorial to everyone but Koreans, and I will just hire Russians or some other third party to take them down more or less permanently if they choose not to cooperate. Or even better: I will pay the third party to cause their site to host illegal-in-Korea content, and then wait several weeks before having them reported to Korean authorities for their content through a side channel, and then the site's owner gets arrested.
Or did you think "active defense" or "strike-back" doesn't happen?
You have a problem with language semantics. Obviously, the definition of "severe problem" you use here is something you dreamed up, and incompatible with general use.
severe/svir/ 1. harsh; unnecessarily extreme: severe criticism; severe laws. 2. serious or stern in manner or appearance: a severe face. 3. grave; critical: a severe illness.
Yes, copyright laws are indeed severe. However, violation of copyright does not lead to death, like the severe flaws in the Toyota ECM software, so in that sense, unlike a severe illness, a violation of copyright is not severe in the same way the Toyota ECM software or an illness can be considered severe.
And, incidentally, if discovered, it becomes a severe problem for those that wrote and own the software and possible those that use it. Fro example, it could then become subject to criminal penalties (i.e. personal ones) to continue to use the software.
China regularly ignores patent and copyright law, and if the only way to expose such violations would be to provide source code (it's not: companies are just lazy about reverse engineering to determine copyright violations -- which, since it would not be in the interests of interoperability, would be a DMCA violation -- just like the DMCA violation the CARB and the EPA committed to determine that VW was cheating on the smog tests, in fact), then a company would have to be stupid to ever expose their source code.
BTW: The only penalties for a Chinese violation of a patent or copyright are... nothing.
As for those who use the software: ATI and nVidia have basically agreed to not look inside each other's sausage factories. If you are a user who goes looking and finds something, expect to be sentenced for violating the DMCA, and then expect hate mail from everyone who can no longer use the product, because you've exposed the internals of the sausage factory.
See also: The recent FTDI serial dongle driver debacle.
This is always a problem: incrementalist thinking, the idea that one can achieve the revolutionary through small intermediate steps with an evolutionary process. This is very limited (and limiting) thinking, and people who think that way will never achieve anything truly revolutionary. If you think like this, you should probably get the hell out of the way of those of us who don't. We'll come back for you. Some day. Maybe.
The typical reason to keep code secret from everybody is because it is of abysmally bad quality or there are other severe problems hidden in there.
That's not the reason.
A lot of code violates copyright, patents, and license agreements like the GPL. You would *not* believe what some of the ATI and nVidia code looks like, and you would *not* believe the number of USB keyboards running firmware that one manufacturer pretty much copied wholesale from another, and you would not believe the number of companies that sell "sanitized" open source software as proprietary code to third parties.
Yes, I realize that the entire paper was a coded message that read "give us a bigger budget, please, or we are going to prevent your business from growing at the rate that it is currently growing, with nothing more than our 'correlation is causation' argument".
I guess I was too subtle in my jab at them to work smarter (i.e.: with a smaller budget), rather than harder (i.e.: with a huge budget).
The people who originally clean-roomed the IBM BIOS for Compaq were split into two teams, with a Chinese wall between them: the analysis team, and the implementation team. The analysis team analyzed the IBM BIOS, wrote a specification, and then the implementation team implemented a BIOS to that specification. At which point the analysis team were effectively "burned", as in being forever barred from ever working on an implementation team in the future. They were highly paid for this, but they were disposable.
As with clean-room engineering, this expert would not be permitted to work on any software covered by the trade secret in the future. In an expert witness situation, you might be able to get away with disposing of the expert, if all they did was witnessing, rather than actually coding in the field of expertise themselves. However, how likely is it that you can find someone like that who also qualifies as an expert?
Further complication: Having testified (presumably in favor of the prosecution, in this case), would the expert witness be permitted to testify on similar goal programs in the future, given what the [now] knows about the process and techniques of the one they testify about today? Would exposure to multiple, competing trade secrets, damage their ability to perform an unbiased analysis, given what they knew from earlier experience? In general, I think you [as the defense] could argue that it, in fact, did damage their impartiality in their analysis.
I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of those were the paid moderators charged with investigating flagged tweets and suspected code of conduct violations. A lot of that can't be automated, so it must be one of their more labor-intensive tasks.
Actually, it *could* be automated. What we are probably seeing is them about to do a roll-out of exactly that, and the current moderator staff scaled back to the point that they only have to deal with explicit moderation and tweaking of the automoderation software, for things which fall through the filters in the wrong direction, either pro or con.
My suspicion is that there was an internal "secret project team" utilizing "big data" techniques until they ended up with a trained-up model that (mostly) ended up with the same answers as the human moderation teams, and they are doing this concurrent with a roll-out, and will decide how many people to let go, subsequent to growing pains.
Your suggestion is that somebody should go retrofit extensive tracts of abandoned buildings, most of which were built many decades ago, instead of simply turning the water off?
Since the technologies have all been available since 1972, for the latest one (the mechanical excessive flow shutoff valve)... unless the thing was built more than 43 years ago, yeah, they should have had the damn things since day one.
But if it was built more than 43 years ago... are you saying that things like plumbing and seismic retrofits of *in use at the time* buildings couldn't have been accomplished over a period of more than four decades?!?
The most important part of this system is the issue tracking feedback, as it provides positive reinforcement to the reporting party, and it provides incentive to not just blow off the report to the city.
Systems such as this, but without the feedback loop, exist in many cities; without the feedback loop, there's no way to detect the difference between an ignored report and one which is scheduled for a fix (including a "cable TV guy" style estimate as to when).
They should have cold temperature relief valves, and use PEX piping, so that it can freeze without damage. The building itself should be equipped with an excessive flow shut-off valve, such as the Dorot 100FE (which is an entirely mechanical design, mediated by water pressure differential over time).
Then they could leave the water on, and not have a problem.
BTW: if they had excessive flow shut-off valves throughout the system, the broken water lines would never have risen to the level of a problem in the first place; the first they would have heard about it would have been complaints of not water.
The reason that a fire hydrant doesn't freeze is that there's no water in it; it's called an "anti-siphon valve" and it's located below the frost line. When water is shut off, the valve drains the water out of the plug; the same thing should be employed in structures so that when the excessive flow cut-off triggers, the water drains out of the system, and it's protected against freezing.
You could literally abandon a properly equipped building for yeas, it'd get close to the freeze point, and the entire plumbing system would protect itself.
Such systems are common in areas where a power failure could result in a loss of heating; I've seen them used in Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (among others) for apartment complexes and horse stables. You'd think that Detroit, having so many mechanical engineers at one point, would have adopted this into their building code already.
“The growth in the fracking industry has gotten way out ahead of our ability to assess what the environmental and, just as importantly, public health impacts are,”
So fix your ability to assess the impacts. Clearly it's broken, if it can't scale.
There is some truth to that. Republicans hate children. Just look at what they want to do to WIC.
Is this why they are such strong supporters of Planned Parenthood?
Seriously, quit ascribing properties to the right wing nutjobs that are even nuttier than reality, or no one is going to believe you when you cry "Wolf!" and there's actually a wolf there...
So did they shut off the water to the buildings... because it was wasting water, or because there were squatters living in the buildings, and they wanted to render them uninhabitable, instead of providing city services in the area?
Slashdot Mirror
That's good, what was your fix?
The primary mechanism for capacitive coupling is a voltage differential from a charge on one side of the pad, and a sink on the other. The trick is that this is not a simple ground mechanism, it's a dispersion. In other words, the meat and ion containing water in the body act as an antennae.
The fix is to implement the same type of dispersion to couple the other pole of the capacitor. So what you do is embed a conductive mesh below the surface in the "skin" glove of the prosthetic, and attach it to an antenna at the resonant frequency of H-O bonds. Triggering resonance is the same way microwaves work to heat water (and why they are generally not dangerous ionizing radiation), only this time you want to sink the electron transport, rather than sourcing resonance.
The physical implementation was effectively attaching a 2.4 GHz WiFi antenaa extracted from a laptop to the conductive mesh, and placing it near the surface elsewhere within the prosthetic arm.
I developed the technique as part of building a robot (at Google) to test gesture recognition algorithms on touch screen devices; the device tracked an recorded human movements on the touch surface, and the robot reliably reproduced those movements on the surface to make the same "human" gestures, in a reproducible fashion. The robot had exactly the same capacitive coupling problems that are present in the prosthetics.
I imagine that your own touch problem could be alleviated via a conductive glove, of the type used to use touch screens while wearing gloves, with a similar surface mount 2.4 GHz antenna attached to the back of the glove and wired to the conductive layer.
However... I'd also suggest you check your electrolyte balance -- particularly, potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus levels -- and have a test done for peripheral neuropathy, since an inability to use a touch device as you describe could be an indicator of a medical condition, such as anemia, diabetes, or hypokalaemia (typically a result of diuretics or other medication, but also reduced kidney function), hypomagnesia (stress, alcohol abuse, Bartter syndrome, Gitelman syndrome, dietary phytate or oxalate, etc. -- could be a cause of high blood pressure as well, if you have that), or hypocalcemia (pancreatitus, hypothyroidism -- including that caused by Hashimoto's), or something else entirely.
Yes, touch screens can in fact be a medical diagnostic tool pointing to other underlying causes for problems. :)
Locality of self.
The problem with almost all "uploading" schemes is that it creates a copy of your brain structure, so it's a copy of you, rather than you. Externally, there might be no apparent difference to an outside observer, but internally, you're kind of dead, if that 1 cubic foot of meat space is no longer functional.
The only hope of an upload of the actual "you" would be an incremental replacement of brain structure, such that you lived in both meat-you and electronic-you at the same time, until the electronic-you completely replaced the meat-you, without a loss of continuity of consciousness.
Otherwise, you're just building pod people. Which could be useful, if you wanted to embed one of them in a starship (or more likely, a tank or other weapon of war), or if you wanted to make a lot of duplicate copies of a particular mind, and didn't care about their locality of self, either.
No, not all advances will suit all people. Don't cripple the rest to make it accessible to those who can't. Let's not tear down the mountains because they can't be climbed by fat people.
Okay, so I'm only sort of guessing where you were going with that. However, no... No you shouldn't slow down progress because some can't keep up. For some reason my 'touch' doesn't seem to work well on most every touch screen. I accept that.
Bad guess, dude.
There's a difference between being *able to* engage certain sensory and motor systems in order to interact with our devices, and *requiring us to* engage certain sensory and motor systems in order to do so.
P.S.: I came up with a "fix" for the capacitive coupling problem and posted it to a prosthetics forum, rather than being an asshole and patenting it. Numerous people have thanked me for it being the first time they've ever been able to use a trackpad (and so on).
Gareth Williams.
Unless you actually believe he accidentally locked himself in the North Face bag, which was padlocked from the outside?
Do Chevy Citations even meet current EPA regs?
I mean, those cars are from 30 years ago, at best! What kind of monster would give someone a Chevy Citation, just for fly a toy quadcopter?!?
to the top of Mt. Denali.
Problem solved
Even better! Rearrange the letters afterwards to confuse people, and rename it "Mt. Denial".
"Or even better: I will pay the third party to cause their site to"
You end up spending ressources to undo what someone did with an automated script
You are presuming that I do not hire them to implement an automated script to go on a seek-and-destroy for *ALL* the compromised systems attacking mine. I'm well aware of amplification techniques. Doing that, however, risks attacking intermediary systems in the same jurisdiction as yourself, which tends to be more legally dangerous, if a connection is ever proven. But if the government isn't willing to go after the perpetrators of a botnet, they are even more unlikely to go after a company engaging in this type of tactic. If the government couldn't/wouldn't stop the original when a large company was complaining, they are much less likely to go after the company.
Either way, we appear to be on the verge of legislation which authorizes such things, in which case doing that would no longer be illegal. The competing idea is a new national law enforcement unit whose purpose is to do it on behalf of complaining U.S. companies. We will likely end of on one of these paths, sooner, rather than later, should another attack on the order of the OPM hack occur. If that happens, it could come together rather quickly, up to and including requiring broadband providers to include government use DDOS tools in Comcast routers (for example).
There is no defence.
Back up. That's only true if we are talking intermediaries.
I know a number of executives at multinational corporations that, should the original perpetrators of an attack on their companies be identified, they'd have one of their "corporate fixers" go and "handle it". So there *is* a defense, it's just rather extreme, and generally pretty extralegal, up to and including *very* extralegal. As long as it wasn't someone who was government related, or prominent in some way, governments generally look the other way when multinationals do stuff like this, and I expect that it happens even more frequently when banks are involved.
This has already happened, in extremis, several times in Russia already.
This may just be me, but audio seems far from the best interface
Yeah, it has a hell of a time with deaf people. If you think that's bad, try using a capacitive touch screen with a Bock's hand prosthesis.
A lot of the "natural" interfacing we are tending toward today disenfranchises those with disabilities.
"What makes you think that site's owner will cooperate with your investigation?"
To be very clear: we are talking about an intermediate site that has themselves been hacked, rather than the origin of the attacks.
In the absolute freaking limit? No holds barred?
Because, if they are in Korea, they are extraterritorial to everyone but Koreans, and I will just hire Russians or some other third party to take them down more or less permanently if they choose not to cooperate. Or even better: I will pay the third party to cause their site to host illegal-in-Korea content, and then wait several weeks before having them reported to Korean authorities for their content through a side channel, and then the site's owner gets arrested.
Or did you think "active defense" or "strike-back" doesn't happen?
1337-speak for "Advanced Persistent Threat".
In plain English, it means "someone trying to hack you who won't go away".
You have a problem with language semantics. Obviously, the definition of "severe problem" you use here is something you dreamed up, and incompatible with general use.
severe /svir/
1. harsh; unnecessarily extreme: severe criticism; severe laws.
2. serious or stern in manner or appearance: a severe face.
3. grave; critical: a severe illness.
Yes, copyright laws are indeed severe. However, violation of copyright does not lead to death, like the severe flaws in the Toyota ECM software, so in that sense, unlike a severe illness, a violation of copyright is not severe in the same way the Toyota ECM software or an illness can be considered severe.
And, incidentally, if discovered, it becomes a severe problem for those that wrote and own the software and possible those that use it. Fro example, it could then become subject to criminal penalties (i.e. personal ones) to continue to use the software.
China regularly ignores patent and copyright law, and if the only way to expose such violations would be to provide source code (it's not: companies are just lazy about reverse engineering to determine copyright violations -- which, since it would not be in the interests of interoperability, would be a DMCA violation -- just like the DMCA violation the CARB and the EPA committed to determine that VW was cheating on the smog tests, in fact), then a company would have to be stupid to ever expose their source code.
BTW: The only penalties for a Chinese violation of a patent or copyright are ... nothing.
As for those who use the software: ATI and nVidia have basically agreed to not look inside each other's sausage factories. If you are a user who goes looking and finds something, expect to be sentenced for violating the DMCA, and then expect hate mail from everyone who can no longer use the product, because you've exposed the internals of the sausage factory.
See also: The recent FTDI serial dongle driver debacle.
And code violating copyrights is not a "severe problem hidden in there"? I would think it is.
It's not a "severe problem" for everyone, only for the copyright holder.
I would only class something as a "severe problem" if it impacted the correct function of the software.
Legal problems do not impact function.
"..or what intermediate steps have to be taken.."
This is always a problem: incrementalist thinking, the idea that one can achieve the revolutionary through small intermediate steps with an evolutionary process. This is very limited (and limiting) thinking, and people who think that way will never achieve anything truly revolutionary. If you think like this, you should probably get the hell out of the way of those of us who don't. We'll come back for you. Some day. Maybe.
The typical reason to keep code secret from everybody is because it is of abysmally bad quality or there are other severe problems hidden in there.
That's not the reason.
A lot of code violates copyright, patents, and license agreements like the GPL. You would *not* believe what some of the ATI and nVidia code looks like, and you would *not* believe the number of USB keyboards running firmware that one manufacturer pretty much copied wholesale from another, and you would not believe the number of companies that sell "sanitized" open source software as proprietary code to third parties.
$$$$$$$$
Yes, I realize that the entire paper was a coded message that read "give us a bigger budget, please, or we are going to prevent your business from growing at the rate that it is currently growing, with nothing more than our 'correlation is causation' argument".
I guess I was too subtle in my jab at them to work smarter (i.e.: with a smaller budget), rather than harder (i.e.: with a huge budget).
The main problem is finding a disposable expert.
The people who originally clean-roomed the IBM BIOS for Compaq were split into two teams, with a Chinese wall between them: the analysis team, and the implementation team. The analysis team analyzed the IBM BIOS, wrote a specification, and then the implementation team implemented a BIOS to that specification. At which point the analysis team were effectively "burned", as in being forever barred from ever working on an implementation team in the future. They were highly paid for this, but they were disposable.
As with clean-room engineering, this expert would not be permitted to work on any software covered by the trade secret in the future. In an expert witness situation, you might be able to get away with disposing of the expert, if all they did was witnessing, rather than actually coding in the field of expertise themselves. However, how likely is it that you can find someone like that who also qualifies as an expert?
Further complication: Having testified (presumably in favor of the prosecution, in this case), would the expert witness be permitted to testify on similar goal programs in the future, given what the [now] knows about the process and techniques of the one they testify about today? Would exposure to multiple, competing trade secrets, damage their ability to perform an unbiased analysis, given what they knew from earlier experience? In general, I think you [as the defense] could argue that it, in fact, did damage their impartiality in their analysis.
I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of those were the paid moderators charged with investigating flagged tweets and suspected code of conduct violations. A lot of that can't be automated, so it must be one of their more labor-intensive tasks.
Actually, it *could* be automated. What we are probably seeing is them about to do a roll-out of exactly that, and the current moderator staff scaled back to the point that they only have to deal with explicit moderation and tweaking of the automoderation software, for things which fall through the filters in the wrong direction, either pro or con.
My suspicion is that there was an internal "secret project team" utilizing "big data" techniques until they ended up with a trained-up model that (mostly) ended up with the same answers as the human moderation teams, and they are doing this concurrent with a roll-out, and will decide how many people to let go, subsequent to growing pains.
We've had this in major cities in Denmark for years.
We have? Not aware of any ..
There are *plenty* of major cities in Denmark...
Your suggestion is that somebody should go retrofit extensive tracts of abandoned buildings, most of which were built many decades ago, instead of simply turning the water off?
Since the technologies have all been available since 1972, for the latest one (the mechanical excessive flow shutoff valve)... unless the thing was built more than 43 years ago, yeah, they should have had the damn things since day one.
But if it was built more than 43 years ago... are you saying that things like plumbing and seismic retrofits of *in use at the time* buildings couldn't have been accomplished over a period of more than four decades?!?
The most important part of this system is the issue tracking feedback, as it provides positive reinforcement to the reporting party, and it provides incentive to not just blow off the report to the city.
Systems such as this, but without the feedback loop, exist in many cities; without the feedback loop, there's no way to detect the difference between an ignored report and one which is scheduled for a fix (including a "cable TV guy" style estimate as to when).
Then they are using the wrong technology.
They should have cold temperature relief valves, and use PEX piping, so that it can freeze without damage. The building itself should be equipped with an excessive flow shut-off valve, such as the Dorot 100FE (which is an entirely mechanical design, mediated by water pressure differential over time).
Then they could leave the water on, and not have a problem.
BTW: if they had excessive flow shut-off valves throughout the system, the broken water lines would never have risen to the level of a problem in the first place; the first they would have heard about it would have been complaints of not water.
The reason that a fire hydrant doesn't freeze is that there's no water in it; it's called an "anti-siphon valve" and it's located below the frost line. When water is shut off, the valve drains the water out of the plug; the same thing should be employed in structures so that when the excessive flow cut-off triggers, the water drains out of the system, and it's protected against freezing.
You could literally abandon a properly equipped building for yeas, it'd get close to the freeze point, and the entire plumbing system would protect itself.
Such systems are common in areas where a power failure could result in a loss of heating; I've seen them used in Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (among others) for apartment complexes and horse stables. You'd think that Detroit, having so many mechanical engineers at one point, would have adopted this into their building code already.
“The growth in the fracking industry has gotten way out ahead of our ability to assess what the environmental and, just as importantly, public health impacts are,”
So fix your ability to assess the impacts. Clearly it's broken, if it can't scale.
There is some truth to that. Republicans hate children. Just look at what they want to do to WIC.
Is this why they are such strong supporters of Planned Parenthood?
Seriously, quit ascribing properties to the right wing nutjobs that are even nuttier than reality, or no one is going to believe you when you cry "Wolf!" and there's actually a wolf there...
So did they shut off the water to the buildings... because it was wasting water, or because there were squatters living in the buildings, and they wanted to render them uninhabitable, instead of providing city services in the area?
But the Republican's thugs in blue are the Republican's thugs in blue.
Pretty sure you're wrong... the Omni Consumer Products cops uniforms were actually black.