They're drinking beer out of a can?? Well I guess that makes since. You have to keep the standard mainstream American beer very cold so you can't taste it.
Color me shocked. Money and power attracts money and power. This whole sordid episode is an exercise in trying to determine which scumbag is the least scumbaggy.
You may not realize this, but you haven't contradicted with the person you are arguing with said. S/he didn't say that fertilizer doesn't work. S/he said that it's environmentally destructive. How much starvation are you willing to put up with in 25 years to get that 25% improvement now? Particularly given that we don't need it to feed the world?
She also complained about lime. LIME! Sorry, but the US has some of the most abundant limestone deposits in the world, it doesn't import lime. So that's wrong. Also, lime (calcium carbonate) is used in agriculture to adjust the Ph. It doesn't now and never has caused any environmental issue whatsoever. To suggest so is just ignorant.
What is causing environmental issues is the over use and mis-application of nitrogen fertilizer (but the US is a net exporter of that, too, not an importer). That's what causes coastal and brackish oxygen depletion and problems with marine life. Too much mass-production, GMO and chemical-based factory farming.
It's also what caused the problem with the Snail Darter population in the San Fransisco Bay. And how was that solved? Well, thanks to people too ignorant about the real issues, like you and the OP, instead of reigning in the over-use of nitrogen fertilizer at the corporate farms in the watershed, they turned OFF the water to the lush (and family-owned) farmland in the San Joaquin valley, turning it into desert and forcing a lot of family farms into bankruptcy. THAT is what ignorance from environmentalists does. It causes more damage by focusing on symptoms and never treating the disease.
That was sure a long post with little more than "La la la I can't hear you" head-in-the-sand reaction. There is a lot more to the story that you could have found if you hadn't latched on to the first denial you had found and dismissed anything said by people that you have ideological differences with. The New American has some good coverage of the whole story. Whatever you heard about something "misreported", you have characterized it in an even less true way. The fact is, the guy had to appeal to the Supreme Court of New York to get his gun back and his permit restored. So, yea, after the slap-down by the court in this particular case the state police said they should not have targeted that guy, which doesn't mean there aren't others. So they found some ignorant local police "representative" to disavow any knowledge of how the SAFE act works, which is only credible because it's a new law and the bureaucrats haven't distributed guidance yet. But the law can be interpreted to allow it, and clearly will utilize local police ("issuing agency") to do the confiscations.
There are solutions to this conundrum: Supersymmetry makes all the corrections to the Higgs mass cancel precisely (above some energy scale) and Large Extra Dimensions lowers the scale where gravity becomes important considerably.
That's what's so odd to me about Steve Forbes' comments. He seems to be a proponent of the gold standard. Well, gold is very similar to bitcoins (i.e. a fixed total amount, people mining to get more, etc.) If anything, I view the wild fluctuations of bitcoin a function of it being new and people not knowing quite what to make of it yet, and to some extent the opposite of the natural fluctuation of fiat currencies like the dollar and the euro.
Yes, but he's quite right that this means that BitCoin is not money now. Partly that's because of all this speculation, and partly it's because there is a limited community that will actually accept is for goods and services. I'm sure you can point out some websites and businesses that do, but what percentage of all people and businesses in the world that accept US Federal Reserve Notes would it be. A very small number. Probably less than 1%. So compared to the acceptance of that (the most widely accepted currency), or the Euro or the Yen or the Yuan, in today's it's absolutely not money. That may change (I hope it will), but it has a long way to go.
This attempt to build an unified Europe is coming to the same end all the previous ones have. The only question is: how chaotic will the collapse be?
It won't be a collapse, it will be a war, actually a civil war similar to the mid-19th century civil war in the United States. The United States of Europe will go through the same thing. The wealthy productive states will impose more and more requirements on the indebted states, the indebted states rebel, the wealthy states resentful that their money would be used to bail out the states that spent more than they had, and it will come to a head.
So which are the wealthy states? Well, at the top is Germany. And many in Europe see Germany as attempting to implement the "Fourth Reich" to take over Europe through financial means. That may be a little over-the-top, but the political climate there is growing heated. Germany and the EU will use this crisis to press for greater central control, and in fact are already doing so. Countries that don't like giving up more sovereignty balk, and more financial pressure is applied. We can only hope it doesn't turn into a shooting war. Already a lot of street-level violence going on.
This is a serious question, I don't know the answer. Does HIPAA protect pharmaceutical purchases?
I does now. But it won't after the gun control "universal background" check gets passed. There is an explicit exemption in there for all medical providers to share information with the background check system. So if you're prescribed anything from Haldol to Ritalin to Prozac (and any other flavor of SSRI), or even Wellbutrin, you'll be flagged as having a mental illness and unable to purchase a gun, and probably have any you own confiscated. They already do that in New York and California.
It's a good idea, but a bad implementation. It's a sledgehammer approach better implemented by relying on psychiatrists and psychologists evaluations. It will sweep up a lot of veterans that are no danger to anyone but the bad actors on the streets.
To clarify something here, it's easy for people on/. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.
Do you have a reference for that? I've always heard that the vast majority is held in retirement account trusts, which would be a hell of a lot more than "the 1%", it would include everyone with anything other than SS to retire on.
This bill sucks. The supposed "veto threat" is just a way to make it more to his liking. He'll sign it no matter what. We should have learned by now that, in spite of Obama's rhetoric to the contrary, he consistently supports every initiative that supports or helps big corporations that gets to his desk. The only exception I can think of is the Keystone Pipeline, and even with that he claimed it was someone else's decision.
But this idea also seems to have some improbable time scales. The summary says "just before" the earth formed, but in fact they are claiming that life is more than twice as old as the earth. And that would be an earth that was pretty inhospitable to life until another billion years or so.
I find the idea quite incredible:
Time 0: big bang
Time 4 billion years: Life emerges
Time 9.3 billion years: Earth forms
Time 13.8 billion years: Current diversity of life on earth
And yet they claim this finding with scant evidence that there is life anywhere else. Maybe there was some ancient life on Mars, but nothing more complex than bacteria, and even in this theory there could be nothing more complex than bacteria (that can survive in space rocks), and some version of that is floating around all over the place and somehow we're isolated from anything that could have evolved to our level of complexity after having more than twice the time to do so.
Really? The FAA says you are wrong in respect to the 2004 application limit. I am sure some of the active agencies didn't apply until after drones were a reality for them (2007 or later)... http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153
From your link:
There are currently two ways to get FAA approval to operate a UAS. The first is to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for private sector (civil) aircraft to do research and development, training and flight demonstrations. The second is to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft. Routine operation of UAS over densely-populated areas is prohibited.
In other words, to experiment in a local area (experimental airworthiness), or actually fly the drone around remotely (COA), which is currently what DHS and the DoD can do. They don't give dates, but the next paragraph is very explicit:
Obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS.
And if you follow the "more info" links from that page, you will reach this:
There is also a pretty clearly worded "clarification" statement from the FAA, distributed as a PDF.
Finally, your link below describes only applications, which, as I mentioned above and pointed out in the previous post, have all been on hold since 2004.
He's not full of crap but merely wanting to protect himself and his family/houseguests.
Well he can do that with his own money, instead of demanding the government do it with mine.
I think you misunderstand the issue. He's not asking the govt "to spend your money". He's asking Washington to write laws establsighing the boundaries of legal use of civilian drones. If you have a problem with your money being spent to write laws, which is the Constitutional duty of the Congress, then you need a successful revolution and replacement of the US Constitution. That's a separate topic entirely and unrelated to the issue at hand.
You, sir, are full of shit. He's asking for police protection. That costs money. And he's got plenty of money to hire private security. Why should my hard-earned money be spent to cover for his wild sex parties because he wants to have them outdoors in his big walled garden?
He already has a law - it's called trespassing. A drone flying over his property is just as much trespassing and a photographer hopping over the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
They're drinking beer out of a can?? Well I guess that makes since. You have to keep the standard mainstream American beer very cold so you can't taste it.
PBL
Color me shocked. Money and power attracts money and power. This whole sordid episode is an exercise in trying to determine which scumbag is the least scumbaggy.
You forgot to pay your protection money to the organization that allows you to send emails.
I hope they hang this piece of shit up to dry and his scummy, criminal "hosting company" fades into history.
Are you talking about the guy running the hosting service that helped host Wikileaks, or the guy running the SpamWhores protection racket?
There is only so much fertilizer around the world.
BZZZZT! Use all you want, I'll shit out some more.
You may not realize this, but you haven't contradicted with the person you are arguing with said. S/he didn't say that fertilizer doesn't work. S/he said that it's environmentally destructive. How much starvation are you willing to put up with in 25 years to get that 25% improvement now? Particularly given that we don't need it to feed the world?
She also complained about lime. LIME! Sorry, but the US has some of the most abundant limestone deposits in the world, it doesn't import lime. So that's wrong. Also, lime (calcium carbonate) is used in agriculture to adjust the Ph. It doesn't now and never has caused any environmental issue whatsoever. To suggest so is just ignorant.
What is causing environmental issues is the over use and mis-application of nitrogen fertilizer (but the US is a net exporter of that, too, not an importer). That's what causes coastal and brackish oxygen depletion and problems with marine life. Too much mass-production, GMO and chemical-based factory farming.
It's also what caused the problem with the Snail Darter population in the San Fransisco Bay. And how was that solved? Well, thanks to people too ignorant about the real issues, like you and the OP, instead of reigning in the over-use of nitrogen fertilizer at the corporate farms in the watershed, they turned OFF the water to the lush (and family-owned) farmland in the San Joaquin valley, turning it into desert and forcing a lot of family farms into bankruptcy. THAT is what ignorance from environmentalists does. It causes more damage by focusing on symptoms and never treating the disease.
... one country that represents only 4.5% of the total population,
And produces over 25% of the world's food supply, and growing.
... idiots who feel it is their manifest destiny to kill everybody who doesn't agree with them
[rant of disagreement]
You are still a stupid, misogynistic misanthrope whose euthanasia would improve the gene pool.
That was sure a long post with little more than "La la la I can't hear you" head-in-the-sand reaction. There is a lot more to the story that you could have found if you hadn't latched on to the first denial you had found and dismissed anything said by people that you have ideological differences with. The New American has some good coverage of the whole story. Whatever you heard about something "misreported", you have characterized it in an even less true way. The fact is, the guy had to appeal to the Supreme Court of New York to get his gun back and his permit restored. So, yea, after the slap-down by the court in this particular case the state police said they should not have targeted that guy, which doesn't mean there aren't others. So they found some ignorant local police "representative" to disavow any knowledge of how the SAFE act works, which is only credible because it's a new law and the bureaucrats haven't distributed guidance yet. But the law can be interpreted to allow it, and clearly will utilize local police ("issuing agency") to do the confiscations.
They already do what in NY and California? An SSRI prescription doesn't stop people (at least in CA) from getting a gun.
It seems that with the new law in New York, they are not only blocked from buying guns, but having their guns confiscated.
There are solutions to this conundrum: Supersymmetry makes all the corrections to the Higgs mass cancel precisely (above some energy scale) and Large Extra Dimensions lowers the scale where gravity becomes important considerably.
I thought that LHC and other recent experiments have gotten close to entirely ruling out most Supersymmetry theories.
That's what's so odd to me about Steve Forbes' comments. He seems to be a proponent of the gold standard. Well, gold is very similar to bitcoins (i.e. a fixed total amount, people mining to get more, etc.) If anything, I view the wild fluctuations of bitcoin a function of it being new and people not knowing quite what to make of it yet, and to some extent the opposite of the natural fluctuation of fiat currencies like the dollar and the euro.
Yes, but he's quite right that this means that BitCoin is not money now. Partly that's because of all this speculation, and partly it's because there is a limited community that will actually accept is for goods and services. I'm sure you can point out some websites and businesses that do, but what percentage of all people and businesses in the world that accept US Federal Reserve Notes would it be. A very small number. Probably less than 1%. So compared to the acceptance of that (the most widely accepted currency), or the Euro or the Yen or the Yuan, in today's it's absolutely not money. That may change (I hope it will), but it has a long way to go.
This attempt to build an unified Europe is coming to the same end all the previous ones have. The only question is: how chaotic will the collapse be?
It won't be a collapse, it will be a war, actually a civil war similar to the mid-19th century civil war in the United States. The United States of Europe will go through the same thing. The wealthy productive states will impose more and more requirements on the indebted states, the indebted states rebel, the wealthy states resentful that their money would be used to bail out the states that spent more than they had, and it will come to a head.
So which are the wealthy states? Well, at the top is Germany. And many in Europe see Germany as attempting to implement the "Fourth Reich" to take over Europe through financial means. That may be a little over-the-top, but the political climate there is growing heated. Germany and the EU will use this crisis to press for greater central control, and in fact are already doing so. Countries that don't like giving up more sovereignty balk, and more financial pressure is applied. We can only hope it doesn't turn into a shooting war. Already a lot of street-level violence going on.
As Paul Krugman points out..
"We need more stimulus!"
This is a serious question, I don't know the answer. Does HIPAA protect pharmaceutical purchases?
I does now. But it won't after the gun control "universal background" check gets passed. There is an explicit exemption in there for all medical providers to share information with the background check system. So if you're prescribed anything from Haldol to Ritalin to Prozac (and any other flavor of SSRI), or even Wellbutrin, you'll be flagged as having a mental illness and unable to purchase a gun, and probably have any you own confiscated. They already do that in New York and California.
It's a good idea, but a bad implementation. It's a sledgehammer approach better implemented by relying on psychiatrists and psychologists evaluations. It will sweep up a lot of veterans that are no danger to anyone but the bad actors on the streets.
To clarify something here, it's easy for people on /. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.
Do you have a reference for that? I've always heard that the vast majority is held in retirement account trusts, which would be a hell of a lot more than "the 1%", it would include everyone with anything other than SS to retire on.
This bill sucks. The supposed "veto threat" is just a way to make it more to his liking. He'll sign it no matter what. We should have learned by now that, in spite of Obama's rhetoric to the contrary, he consistently supports every initiative that supports or helps big corporations that gets to his desk. The only exception I can think of is the Keystone Pipeline, and even with that he claimed it was someone else's decision.
I can't believe that developers at Microsoft are really using Win8 + Metro on regular desktops, or do they?
No, they all use Macs.
I have yet to see an automatic trans of any type that does not have manually adjustable down-shift.
But this idea also seems to have some improbable time scales. The summary says "just before" the earth formed, but in fact they are claiming that life is more than twice as old as the earth. And that would be an earth that was pretty inhospitable to life until another billion years or so.
I find the idea quite incredible:
And yet they claim this finding with scant evidence that there is life anywhere else. Maybe there was some ancient life on Mars, but nothing more complex than bacteria, and even in this theory there could be nothing more complex than bacteria (that can survive in space rocks), and some version of that is floating around all over the place and somehow we're isolated from anything that could have evolved to our level of complexity after having more than twice the time to do so.
Not buying it at all.
Really? The FAA says you are wrong in respect to the 2004 application limit. I am sure some of the active agencies didn't apply until after drones were a reality for them (2007 or later)... http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153
From your link:
There are currently two ways to get FAA approval to operate a UAS. The first is to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for private sector (civil) aircraft to do research and development, training and flight demonstrations. The second is to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft. Routine operation of UAS over densely-populated areas is prohibited.
In other words, to experiment in a local area (experimental airworthiness), or actually fly the drone around remotely (COA), which is currently what DHS and the DoD can do. They don't give dates, but the next paragraph is very explicit:
Obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate for a particular UAS is currently the only way civil operators of unmanned aircraft are accessing the NAS.
And if you follow the "more info" links from that page, you will reach this:
Can I fly a UAS under a COA or experimental certificate for commercial purposes? No. Currently, there are no means to obtain an authorization for commercial UAS operations in the NAS. However, manufacturers may apply for an experimental certificate for the purposes of R&D, market survey and crew training.
There is also a pretty clearly worded "clarification" statement from the FAA, distributed as a PDF.
Finally, your link below describes only applications, which, as I mentioned above and pointed out in the previous post, have all been on hold since 2004.
He's not full of crap but merely wanting to protect himself and his family/houseguests.
Well he can do that with his own money, instead of demanding the government do it with mine.
I think you misunderstand the issue. He's not asking the govt "to spend your money". He's asking Washington to write laws establsighing the boundaries of legal use of civilian drones. If you have a problem with your money being spent to write laws, which is the Constitutional duty of the Congress, then you need a successful revolution and replacement of the US Constitution. That's a separate topic entirely and unrelated to the issue at hand.
You, sir, are full of shit. He's asking for police protection. That costs money. And he's got plenty of money to hire private security. Why should my hard-earned money be spent to cover for his wild sex parties because he wants to have them outdoors in his big walled garden?
He already has a law - it's called trespassing. A drone flying over his property is just as much trespassing and a photographer hopping over the wall.
He's not full of crap but merely wanting to protect himself and his family/houseguests.
Well he can do that with his own money, instead of demanding the government do it with mine.
So you can't do it, but still refuse to acknowledge your error. Stunning.