Look, the NSA can at will listen in on any mobile phone. If you don't think they Verizon et. al. can instantly redirect all your calls (both in and out) to any other number - including 911, then you are a fool.
If you don't think the NSA can't call up and convince Verizon to do so, you are more a fool.
They can also call up Verizon and instantly turn off any particular cell tower - or all in a single city.
Other countries have done such things before.
This is not significantly added power to the NSA or to Verizon.
I see two basic ways this ends up being implemented (not working). Also there might be some combination of these methods.
1) You have people pick you up and take you places. This will work reasonably well for pre-planned activities - such as your commute, but be very crappy for spontaneous needs. Just like normal taxis.
2) You don't "own" the car, but it can and will stay at your home/office with no one watching it for hours before/after you use it. Some other people may use it during the hours you don't - such as while you are at work or late at night. Effectively you are the renting from a place that delivers and picks up.
Neither of these ideas seem workable to me. Both are not significantly different than existing one time use services, we are simply adding in a long term contract for the Taxis or car rental places (with delivery).
People like owning cars for many good reasons.
That said, once we have driverless cars, such a plan COULD actually work, in large part because suddenly your don't need to arrange for people to drop off your car/pick it up, it does it automatically.
1)They encourage people to break the law, and teach them that the law is not worth respecting.
2)They anger people, resulting in more road rage. The worst case scenario is the creation of a traffic jam which can cause a lot of anger.
3)When you try to interact traffic on other roads (i.e. merge - particularly onto a highway, roundabout, etc.) it is more dangerous to do so if you have to accelerate a lot. Far safer to have both roads be set to the similar speed.
Smart people design laws for how people act, not how some fool wishes people acted. That means taking into account things like emotions.
When the law says X, you break it at your own risk.
I bet most companies will follow google's plan and have autonomous automobiles (auto-autos??, auto-squared?) travel at the speed limit or lower, even if it makes things 'more dangerous'. But they should also do that only in the right lane, not blocking the left lane.
If the yard has a fence, then you legally have privacy. If it blocks light, then it officially turns anything in the yard from 'in plain sight', to covered, which means law enforcement can't use it as an excuse to enter your property.
No, it's the people with diabetes, or cancer.
You steel a record that is as close as possible to your own, and you use it.
God help the real patient, who has to worry about doctors looking at the thieves' medical results.
We have already done that. But the anti-nuke fear mongers are holding that technology back, by preventing funding for new power plants.
You can read more about it here:
http://transatomicpower.com/
No. Let me correct that bit of foolishness on your part.
While nuclear isn't perfect, the paranoia about potential nuclear accidents means it isn't commercially viable.
In fact, coal processing has killed more humans from radioactivity than nuclear power in the United States and also in the world.
Also, hydro electric dams destroy and threaten to destroy a greater ecological area than nuclear power plants do.
The problem with nuclear power is simple ignorance. Most people don't understand it, and basically just think:
Nuclear? as in the bombs? I don't want that in my back yard.
Coal is a far worse fuel. But it's deaths are spread out over the entire world and over decades, rather than all together in one lump sum. Moreover, when we have a coal accident, it kills the wildlife, while when we have a nuclear accident, it creates a wildlife preserve that the animals love:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...
Sealing the briefcase doesn't stop drug sniffing dogs.
Nor will it stop a simple chemical sensor designed to both detect carbon monoxide, explosive residue and the absence of a flow of fresh air.
Besides, I really like the idea of some hapless idiot wandering around being followed by a car screaming "HE PUT A BOMB IN ME! It's enough to make me ROFL
1) The cars will most likely be set by the company that sold it - with few if any modifications legally allowable by the owner.
2) Most likely ALL cars will be told to be mostly selfish, on the principle that they can not predict what someone else will do, and in an attempt to save an innocent pedestrian might in fact end up killing them. The article has the gall to believe the cars will have FAR greater predictive power than they will most likely have.
3) A human drivable car with a bomb and a timer in it is almost as deadly as a car that can drive into x location and explode is. The capability of moving the car another 10 feet or so into the crowd, as opposed to exploding on the street is NOT a significant difference, given a large explosion.
4) The cars will be so trackable and with the kind of active, real time security monitoring, that we will know who programmed it and when, probably before the bomb goes off. These are expensive, large devices that by their very nature will be wired into a complex network. It is more likely the cars will turn around and follow the idiot, all the time it's speakers screaming out "ARREST THAT GUY HE PUT A BOMB IN ME!"
Maybe you are right. But you don't answer the real issues.
Issue #1. I (and other people over 40) do not see a radical shift in adult behavior. That means either a) It is what used to be called 'a phase that the kid will grow out of', or b) the 'disease' is basically nothing new or that bad - just slightly bad behavior that we not as bad put a new label on it or c) It is over diagnosed despite what you think.
Issue #2. Ritalin and the other drugs that affect ? They only work on some of the kids diagnosed. As in there are really two disease (just like cancer is multiple disease). One of those diseases - the one the drugs work on is confirmed as real (by the fact that the drugs work on it.) The other 'disease' is as likely to exist in the mind of the adults, as in the kids. That is, there is no evidence at all that the second disease is real and you can't use the existence of the first disease to prove the second disease.
These two issues are the real problem your argument, not the reporting done by a newspaper.
But nuclear would also work. Massive wind and solar farms are not commercially viable - when compared to natural gas. If you compare them to coal, they sometimes make sense.
But solar's real benefit is not massive farms, but instead point of use installations in high sunlight areas. This save the transmission wastage (use lose significant amount of power per mile transmitted), which can often just make it viable. The only real thing holding that back is the utilities, as the people that use it often need a utility hookup for times when the sun is not shining, like night time.
In Florida, the utilities have successfully sued people over installing solar power, but that is beginning to change as the laws were altered to stop them from doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't think the NSA can't call up and convince Verizon to do so, you are more a fool.
They can also call up Verizon and instantly turn off any particular cell tower - or all in a single city.
Other countries have done such things before.
This is not significantly added power to the NSA or to Verizon.
Also, which model of Kindle? There are a distressing number of options:
e -ink or LCD?
With advertisements or without?
Large or small sized?
I mean really, calling your company rapiscan? Do they not care at all about public opinion?
1) You have people pick you up and take you places. This will work reasonably well for pre-planned activities - such as your commute, but be very crappy for spontaneous needs. Just like normal taxis.
2) You don't "own" the car, but it can and will stay at your home/office with no one watching it for hours before/after you use it. Some other people may use it during the hours you don't - such as while you are at work or late at night. Effectively you are the renting from a place that delivers and picks up.
Neither of these ideas seem workable to me. Both are not significantly different than existing one time use services, we are simply adding in a long term contract for the Taxis or car rental places (with delivery).
People like owning cars for many good reasons.
That said, once we have driverless cars, such a plan COULD actually work, in large part because suddenly your don't need to arrange for people to drop off your car/pick it up, it does it automatically.
Tapeworms eat your nutrients, but they don't make the matter vanish. The tapeworm grows by X ounces for every X ounce you 'lose'.
They do however, cause multiple health issues. (Unlike certain other parasites that some believe trigger helpful immune responses).
I am going to have to insist on a refund!
Stop laughing, I'm serious!
1)They encourage people to break the law, and teach them that the law is not worth respecting.
2)They anger people, resulting in more road rage. The worst case scenario is the creation of a traffic jam which can cause a lot of anger.
3)When you try to interact traffic on other roads (i.e. merge - particularly onto a highway, roundabout, etc.) it is more dangerous to do so if you have to accelerate a lot. Far safer to have both roads be set to the similar speed.
Smart people design laws for how people act, not how some fool wishes people acted. That means taking into account things like emotions.
Correction, I meant most companies will NOT follow google's plan and make the speed limit the max.
I bet most companies will follow google's plan and have autonomous automobiles (auto-autos??, auto-squared?) travel at the speed limit or lower, even if it makes things 'more dangerous'. But they should also do that only in the right lane, not blocking the left lane.
Yes, why Joe's jail has decreased, whoops, I mean INCREASED crime in the serviced area.
If the yard has a fence, then you legally have privacy. If it blocks light, then it officially turns anything in the yard from 'in plain sight', to covered, which means law enforcement can't use it as an excuse to enter your property.
No, it's the people with diabetes, or cancer. You steel a record that is as close as possible to your own, and you use it. God help the real patient, who has to worry about doctors looking at the thieves' medical results.
Your information is correct for plants built in the 1970s It is incorrect for modern plants built using everything we learned from Russia, Japan, etc.
Your information is correct for plants built in the 1970s It is incorrect for modern plants built using everything we learned from Russia, Japan, etc.
That is, any email that can be deleted like this should never have been sent.
We have already done that. But the anti-nuke fear mongers are holding that technology back, by preventing funding for new power plants. You can read more about it here: http://transatomicpower.com/
While nuclear isn't perfect, the paranoia about potential nuclear accidents means it isn't commercially viable.
In fact, coal processing has killed more humans from radioactivity than nuclear power in the United States and also in the world.
Also, hydro electric dams destroy and threaten to destroy a greater ecological area than nuclear power plants do.
The problem with nuclear power is simple ignorance. Most people don't understand it, and basically just think: Nuclear? as in the bombs? I don't want that in my back yard.
Coal is a far worse fuel. But it's deaths are spread out over the entire world and over decades, rather than all together in one lump sum. Moreover, when we have a coal accident, it kills the wildlife, while when we have a nuclear accident, it creates a wildlife preserve that the animals love: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...
The same thing however, killed a videogame company or two. It's not the maker that suffers, it's the market.
Nor will it stop a simple chemical sensor designed to both detect carbon monoxide, explosive residue and the absence of a flow of fresh air.
Besides, I really like the idea of some hapless idiot wandering around being followed by a car screaming "HE PUT A BOMB IN ME! It's enough to make me ROFL
1) The cars will most likely be set by the company that sold it - with few if any modifications legally allowable by the owner.
2) Most likely ALL cars will be told to be mostly selfish, on the principle that they can not predict what someone else will do, and in an attempt to save an innocent pedestrian might in fact end up killing them. The article has the gall to believe the cars will have FAR greater predictive power than they will most likely have.
3) A human drivable car with a bomb and a timer in it is almost as deadly as a car that can drive into x location and explode is. The capability of moving the car another 10 feet or so into the crowd, as opposed to exploding on the street is NOT a significant difference, given a large explosion.
4) The cars will be so trackable and with the kind of active, real time security monitoring, that we will know who programmed it and when, probably before the bomb goes off. These are expensive, large devices that by their very nature will be wired into a complex network. It is more likely the cars will turn around and follow the idiot, all the time it's speakers screaming out "ARREST THAT GUY HE PUT A BOMB IN ME!"
http://www.offthegridnews.com/...
Issue #1. I (and other people over 40) do not see a radical shift in adult behavior. That means either a) It is what used to be called 'a phase that the kid will grow out of', or b) the 'disease' is basically nothing new or that bad - just slightly bad behavior that we not as bad put a new label on it or c) It is over diagnosed despite what you think.
Issue #2. Ritalin and the other drugs that affect ? They only work on some of the kids diagnosed. As in there are really two disease (just like cancer is multiple disease). One of those diseases - the one the drugs work on is confirmed as real (by the fact that the drugs work on it.) The other 'disease' is as likely to exist in the mind of the adults, as in the kids. That is, there is no evidence at all that the second disease is real and you can't use the existence of the first disease to prove the second disease.
These two issues are the real problem your argument, not the reporting done by a newspaper.
But nuclear would also work. Massive wind and solar farms are not commercially viable - when compared to natural gas. If you compare them to coal, they sometimes make sense.
But solar's real benefit is not massive farms, but instead point of use installations in high sunlight areas. This save the transmission wastage (use lose significant amount of power per mile transmitted), which can often just make it viable. The only real thing holding that back is the utilities, as the people that use it often need a utility hookup for times when the sun is not shining, like night time.
In Florida, the utilities have successfully sued people over installing solar power, but that is beginning to change as the laws were altered to stop them from doing this.
http://imgur.com/a/OLfQ5 Interesting, but probably a bit more work than you wanted. But I liked the flip up set up.
Perhaps a self-referential one: "My dad took me to a war zone and all I got was this stolen T-Shirt?"