Okay, so, of 1005 deaths following tasing, only 153 are even partly attributed to the taser? That statistic doesn't pass the smell test. Something is almost certainly wrong with the presented figures.
You know the guy who shot and killed Philandro Castile for no apparent reason, after he was stopped for driving while black? He got a $48K settlement to be removed from the force.
How important is it to stop someone doing what they're doing? If the someone is being dangerous to people around, sure, tase them. Otherwise, there's almost certainly other ways to handle the situation.
I was with my family and a friend, and we had rooms in a motel in Columbia, Missouri. (My friend bought the eclipse glasses, and almost forgot them.) We'd had the rooms reserved since March. We arrived on Sunday.
On Monday, another couple of friends in an RV joined us, as their planned viewing spot had clouds forecast. We took up spots in the parking lot.
It was hazy, and I was looking at the partial through the glasses. Then it cleared, about a minute to totality. My friends were looking for heat wave shadows on the parking lot, but I didn't pick out any. It started getting cooler (which was welcome; the heat and humidity were pretty bad).
The corona was beautiful, but I liked the 1979 corona (seen from Winnipeg) better. A wisp of cloud drifted across, which was kinda neat. At the end, we saw the chromosphere, a beautiful reddish color with (I think) some sort of irregularities.
Then, immediately after totality ended, the clouds rolled in in force and I couldn't even see the partial eclipse through my glasses. About three minutes of clear atmosphere, timed extremely well.
I'd wanted to take my wife and son to a total eclipse for years, and I finally got to. I asked my son whether it was worth the drive, and he didn't even bother to come up with a smartass answer (I have raised him well). He's moving to Indianapolis in a few weeks to start a job. If he stays there, we'll visit him in 2024, because that track goes right over Indianapolis.
Look on the dark side. If you live in Indianapolis, you're in great shape for the 2024 eclipse. My son is moving there in mid-September, so if he stays there my wife and I can visit him.
Yeah. If you want to delete anything from a svn repository, you serialize the repository to a readable form, remove what you don't want, and put what's left back into what's essentially a new repository. (Or have they finally implemented the -obliterate subcommand that spent so much time on the bug list?)
My personal stuff is done in my Dropbox account. When I have connectivity, which is most of the time, I have almost instant backups. I don't see why something like this can't exist for work environments. Instead, it's typically a matter of workstation drives not being backed up, and you have to remember to copy something to a shared drive somewhere if you don't want to lose it, and even then you can lose a day or week of stuff.
If you leave your car unlocked and someone steals your laptop from the passenger seat, it really is the fault of the thief. You've been sufficiently stupid that your insurance company probably won't reimburse under any policy, but I don't think it's your fault.
A backup is a copy that won't go away for the same reason as the primary copy. A cloud provider is unlikely to fail or screw up or drop your account at the same time you lose your primary copy. Depending on what you're doing and how safe you want your stuff to be, it might be just fine.
That isn't direct economic benefit. It assumes that life itself has value. Typically this is judged by trying to figure out how much society spends to prevent each death, or possibly by offering hypothetical situations to people (which of these increasingly risky situations would you put yourself in for $100?). It's nowhere near exact, but we need some figure for planning purposes. If we don't spend enough on safety, too many people die. If we spend too much, people have less money. Somewhere in there is an optimum range.
When Mom was retired and collecting Social Security, she spent a lot of years working something like 60-70 hour weeks on worthwhile things, just not getting paid for it. She's something of an extreme case, but I'd suggest researching economic contributions of retired people before generalizing.
Economics comes up every time we have limited resources, and resources are always limited. Spending money on renewable energy is the right thing to do, but it means we're not spending that money on, say, youth programs or better schools or other productive uses.
Economics is not how to spend the least amount of money. It's how to use what we've got to the best effect. It isn't going to go away as we get richer as a society; if it was, it would already have done so. I'm fantastically wealthier than anyone in the Neolithic. By the standards of two hundred years ago, we've basically got a post-scarcity economy,
Okay, I'm a nice liberal environmentally-minded software developer.
Carbon taxes are a great idea, as far as I can tell. We can manipulate them to be revenue-neutral by reducing other taxes, and they put the question of how to reduce CO2 emissions square into the marketplace, which will find a solution that's fairly close to optimal. Unfortunately, whenever they come up, other people malign them, claiming they're a massive increase in government control.
It's politically easier to give subsidies to certain industries. It's politically difficult to subsidize nuclear power (a shame, since I think it a good idea). Therefore, we have subsidies for renewable energy.
Renewable energy is a meaningful term. It isn't exactly what I want, but too many people think clean energy means dumping more CO2 and less other crap into the atmosphere.
Modern economies lose quite a bit of wealth due to worker sickness. If a good amount of the sickness is due to pollution, it would have a significant economic impact.
The cases in the past where the Earth was much warmer aren't really comparable. That's tens of millions of years ago, and the sun wasn't quite as bright then as it is now. (It's part of a process that will result in boiling off the oceans and reduce Earth to an airless and waterless rock unless we do something about it in the next few hundred million years.) Given the same amount of warming stuff in the atmosphere, we'd be hotter nowadays.
Subsidies serve two purposes. They can help useful industries get going, and they can balance out market externalities. It's really not possible to eliminate externalities, and trying to directly internalize them, and the administrative cost of allotting them can be excessive, not to mention some people will always accuse the allotments of being wrong and biased. TFA is saying that renewable energy subsidies aren't high enough to quite balance out the externalities of fossil fuel. I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but if so the subsidies go some way to make the market work better.
Slashdot Mirror
The NZ court found that "this shit" was illegal already. If there hadn't already been a law against this, they wouldn't have ruled like that.
Laws only work when respected and/or enforced, and government goons don't respect the law.
If you actually know that tapping the phone would help stop something illegal, you go to a judge and explain. Simple.
Why? Seriously, why? Could it be that people get unjustly arrested and pressured to plead guilty to something more in the US?
Okay, so, of 1005 deaths following tasing, only 153 are even partly attributed to the taser? That statistic doesn't pass the smell test. Something is almost certainly wrong with the presented figures.
In far too many cases, they are on paid administrative leave (i.e., paid vacation) until their buddies can find a way to exonerate them.
You know the guy who shot and killed Philandro Castile for no apparent reason, after he was stopped for driving while black? He got a $48K settlement to be removed from the force.
How important is it to stop someone doing what they're doing? If the someone is being dangerous to people around, sure, tase them. Otherwise, there's almost certainly other ways to handle the situation.
I was with my family and a friend, and we had rooms in a motel in Columbia, Missouri. (My friend bought the eclipse glasses, and almost forgot them.) We'd had the rooms reserved since March. We arrived on Sunday.
On Monday, another couple of friends in an RV joined us, as their planned viewing spot had clouds forecast. We took up spots in the parking lot.
It was hazy, and I was looking at the partial through the glasses. Then it cleared, about a minute to totality. My friends were looking for heat wave shadows on the parking lot, but I didn't pick out any. It started getting cooler (which was welcome; the heat and humidity were pretty bad).
The corona was beautiful, but I liked the 1979 corona (seen from Winnipeg) better. A wisp of cloud drifted across, which was kinda neat. At the end, we saw the chromosphere, a beautiful reddish color with (I think) some sort of irregularities.
Then, immediately after totality ended, the clouds rolled in in force and I couldn't even see the partial eclipse through my glasses. About three minutes of clear atmosphere, timed extremely well.
I'd wanted to take my wife and son to a total eclipse for years, and I finally got to. I asked my son whether it was worth the drive, and he didn't even bother to come up with a smartass answer (I have raised him well). He's moving to Indianapolis in a few weeks to start a job. If he stays there, we'll visit him in 2024, because that track goes right over Indianapolis.
Look on the dark side. If you live in Indianapolis, you're in great shape for the 2024 eclipse. My son is moving there in mid-September, so if he stays there my wife and I can visit him.
My wife had video going on her iPhone 5S. It still seems to work.
Yeah. If you want to delete anything from a svn repository, you serialize the repository to a readable form, remove what you don't want, and put what's left back into what's essentially a new repository. (Or have they finally implemented the -obliterate subcommand that spent so much time on the bug list?)
My personal stuff is done in my Dropbox account. When I have connectivity, which is most of the time, I have almost instant backups. I don't see why something like this can't exist for work environments. Instead, it's typically a matter of workstation drives not being backed up, and you have to remember to copy something to a shared drive somewhere if you don't want to lose it, and even then you can lose a day or week of stuff.
If you leave your car unlocked and someone steals your laptop from the passenger seat, it really is the fault of the thief. You've been sufficiently stupid that your insurance company probably won't reimburse under any policy, but I don't think it's your fault.
A backup is a copy that won't go away for the same reason as the primary copy. A cloud provider is unlikely to fail or screw up or drop your account at the same time you lose your primary copy. Depending on what you're doing and how safe you want your stuff to be, it might be just fine.
Most people do not have an effectively unlimited number of fingers, and hence it's possible for the police to try all of them.
So you've automated your ad hominems?
That isn't direct economic benefit. It assumes that life itself has value. Typically this is judged by trying to figure out how much society spends to prevent each death, or possibly by offering hypothetical situations to people (which of these increasingly risky situations would you put yourself in for $100?). It's nowhere near exact, but we need some figure for planning purposes. If we don't spend enough on safety, too many people die. If we spend too much, people have less money. Somewhere in there is an optimum range.
When Mom was retired and collecting Social Security, she spent a lot of years working something like 60-70 hour weeks on worthwhile things, just not getting paid for it. She's something of an extreme case, but I'd suggest researching economic contributions of retired people before generalizing.
Economics comes up every time we have limited resources, and resources are always limited. Spending money on renewable energy is the right thing to do, but it means we're not spending that money on, say, youth programs or better schools or other productive uses.
Economics is not how to spend the least amount of money. It's how to use what we've got to the best effect. It isn't going to go away as we get richer as a society; if it was, it would already have done so. I'm fantastically wealthier than anyone in the Neolithic. By the standards of two hundred years ago, we've basically got a post-scarcity economy,
Perhaps we could make something useful out of their bodies. What to call it..."soy" sounds friendly, maybe we should base something on that.
Okay, I'm a nice liberal environmentally-minded software developer.
Carbon taxes are a great idea, as far as I can tell. We can manipulate them to be revenue-neutral by reducing other taxes, and they put the question of how to reduce CO2 emissions square into the marketplace, which will find a solution that's fairly close to optimal. Unfortunately, whenever they come up, other people malign them, claiming they're a massive increase in government control.
It's politically easier to give subsidies to certain industries. It's politically difficult to subsidize nuclear power (a shame, since I think it a good idea). Therefore, we have subsidies for renewable energy.
Renewable energy is a meaningful term. It isn't exactly what I want, but too many people think clean energy means dumping more CO2 and less other crap into the atmosphere.
Modern economies lose quite a bit of wealth due to worker sickness. If a good amount of the sickness is due to pollution, it would have a significant economic impact.
For statistical analysis, assuming a uniform value makes sense.
The cases in the past where the Earth was much warmer aren't really comparable. That's tens of millions of years ago, and the sun wasn't quite as bright then as it is now. (It's part of a process that will result in boiling off the oceans and reduce Earth to an airless and waterless rock unless we do something about it in the next few hundred million years.) Given the same amount of warming stuff in the atmosphere, we'd be hotter nowadays.
Subsidies serve two purposes. They can help useful industries get going, and they can balance out market externalities. It's really not possible to eliminate externalities, and trying to directly internalize them, and the administrative cost of allotting them can be excessive, not to mention some people will always accuse the allotments of being wrong and biased. TFA is saying that renewable energy subsidies aren't high enough to quite balance out the externalities of fossil fuel. I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but if so the subsidies go some way to make the market work better.