What crazy-ass font license does not allow derivative works? I can understand if it's a web font or PDFs or something where you are distributing copies of the font itself - but t-shirts, logos, and images? That's ridiculous.
The only huge messes are from the early days and from weapons production/reprocessing. The commercial electric plants have a pad filled with dry casks of spent fuel. I don't see how that's enormous.
Yeah, but Facebook is useless without an internet connection anyway, so I really don't see the need for hundreds of megabytes of persistent and cache storage. I'm mostly only interested in the newest content, so why so much cache?
Yeah, about a year ago I got fed up with the Facebook app using up hundreds of megabytes of space without really adding anything above and beyond the mobile web version. Still use Facebook, though - just through the web browser.
Just having fun - you are right of course. In my neighborhood, the safe probably only needs to last about 10 minutes or so to deter the thieves. Once the alarm goes off, they aren't going to stick around long because the police are pretty responsive. If I was in one of these 4-hour response time neighborhoods (and why would I be?), I need a better safe.
What does "not anywhere near 100% effective" mean?
As in, some years only 20-ish% effective (flu) - this year flu was 50% effective. But for most vaccines, without the numbers in front of me I think they run in the 85-99% range. The important number is what is necessary to make sure that the vaccine works - add the effectiveness to the can't-or-won't be vaccinated number and if that number is too big we are sunk. For the most part, everyone who can be vaccinated should be.
Sure, but we were kind of musing on how you might apply libertarian principles to the problems of vaccination. I don't think anyone would claim that health care currently meets that definition:)
If you don"t vaccinate without a very good reason, you are a murderer by proxy plain and simple.
I wouldn't go that far, as the intent is important. But I would support making it a crime for a person to deliberately avoid vaccination and then transmit a disease.
Agreed, but the other part is that suing a big company is easy - there is no problem finding a lawyer to work on contingency and discovery will be pretty easy as they no doubt keep good records. It's also a single entity to deal with. If your kid dies in a measles outbreak, you could theoretically sue every other person who was infected during the outbreak who was negligent in getting vaccinated. This would be a massive undertaking. First you'd need to pay a lawyer out of pocket because only a lunatic would work on contingency. Second, you'd need to somehow obtain a list of measles patients. Then you'd need to sue each in turn so that you could discover whether or not they were vaccinated. Maybe someday a billionaire will do this, but it just doesn't seem realistic and even if it were feasible seems like a crazy way to run a system. We just need to accept that diseases do not fit neatly into the "personal responsibility" ideal that I think works well in most other human endeavors.
Alternatively we can educate people about the utility of vaccines so they will choose to get them.
That's just as un-Libertarian. The only difference is that you added a step (compulsory education). Either way, we as a society need to force/compel people to do something that they aren't currently doing. I like the Libertarian ideology as a general way to understand people and set up our society to take advantage of our strengths and minimize our weaknesses. Germs are not people, and they do not adhere to Libertarian notions of right and wrong. As such, we need to be pragmatic, step away from our ideology, and deal with reality.
Ayn Rand devotees are "Objectivists". There is a lot of cross-pollination, but one can certainly be Libertarian and think she was a crackpot. You don't even need to necessarily support strong property rights, though again the vast majority of Libertarians consider property a "right". Personally I think it's a stretch to call it a natural right.
It would be great if libertarian principles applied to vaccines (my base ideology is libertarian), but: 1. Vaccines are not anywhere near 100% effective, so even a fully vaccinated person may be relying on herd immunity. 2. You can't vaccinate a newborn, so everyone relies on herd immunity for the first 6 months or so of their life. 3. Some people can't be vaccinated at all.
So we're left with a social solution, which is vaccinating everyone who can be vaccinated, whether they like it or not.
Thanks. One of the great parts about Slashdot is that when you get corrected, it's likely to be by someone who actually knows what they are talking about:)
Yup, you need price comparison extensions in your browser if you want to only shop Amazon. If you can't install those, then you really need an extra tab open to a price comparison site. The irony is that their worst prices are for typical household items that they are pushing with their "Dash" buttons and subscriptions. Cleaning products are typically 50-100% more expensive than at Home Depot.
There is even more to diesel than just the German car companies. The kind of crude that Europe gets is very high-quality and can be fed right into a fractional distillation facility. That's very economical, but also limits your choices in what comes out - you get whatever proportion of products happened to be in the crude. Usually this means quite a bit of diesel. As a result, diesel tends to be priced pretty well since there is plenty of supply. In North America, the crude is terrible - it needs to be "cracked" with catalysts into smaller chains to produce the desired product mix. This is expensive and complex, but the upshot is that once you've built these multi-billion-dollar facilities, you can tweak the mix quite a bit. If the market price for diesel is high, you can make more diesel. If it's gasoline you want, just change the recipe a bit. In North America, diesel tends to cost more, reflecting its higher energy (and carbon!) content per unit volume and therefore larger proportion of crude required to make it.
If Europe gives up on diesel, they will need to spend billions to build new or to retrofit refineries, or else take a hit and export the diesel. I'm sure the oil companies and governments would rather not. "Clean diesel" was very alluring to everyone - economical cars for consumers, high profits for car makers, lower capital costs for oil companies, and no fights over refinery construction for governments. Environmentalists were excited over the false claims as well.
I rented a car in the UK and got exceedingly lucky when they sold out of automatics and were forced to give me a Mercedes GLA diesel. Aside from the annoying stall-out feature at every light that needs to be disabled every time you start the car, it was not a bad driver. Indeed it did not put out a typical diesel smell, but to say that it does not produce any odors is not quite right. If you were idling in one place long enough with the windows down, you definitely could smell the combustion products. I'm not sure it smells any worse than a gasoline engine, but the first time I smelled it I was a bit alarmed since I didn't recognize the smell and thought something was burning. It was very economical and had a good range, but I still prefer the gasoline version which is lighter and faster. And if you are buying such an expensive car, I'm not sure why you'd get hung up on a slight difference in fuel economy (though UK fuel prices were on the obscene side). Environmentally it's probably 10-15% better than the same car in gasoline, but not as good as an economy car and probably no better than a hybrid. The roughly $5k premium will buy you a lot of carbon credits...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I used to get teased for my vocabulary. When I was 10.
What crazy-ass font license does not allow derivative works? I can understand if it's a web font or PDFs or something where you are distributing copies of the font itself - but t-shirts, logos, and images? That's ridiculous.
I'd say what happened to that is reduced demand as internet has become more ubiquitous.
The only huge messes are from the early days and from weapons production/reprocessing. The commercial electric plants have a pad filled with dry casks of spent fuel. I don't see how that's enormous.
Yeah, but Facebook is useless without an internet connection anyway, so I really don't see the need for hundreds of megabytes of persistent and cache storage. I'm mostly only interested in the newest content, so why so much cache?
Yeah, about a year ago I got fed up with the Facebook app using up hundreds of megabytes of space without really adding anything above and beyond the mobile web version. Still use Facebook, though - just through the web browser.
I still see an awful lot of glass there.
Concrete tends to be where it gets wet :)
Just having fun - you are right of course. In my neighborhood, the safe probably only needs to last about 10 minutes or so to deter the thieves. Once the alarm goes off, they aren't going to stick around long because the police are pretty responsive. If I was in one of these 4-hour response time neighborhoods (and why would I be?), I need a better safe.
Key to this is to make sure its bolted to the floor.
Great, then if they find my sawzall it'll really get expensive...
Wow, not an AC comment - just good ol' fashioned flamebait!
The US Constitution is indeed not going to last more that 10 or 20 years, tops. Libertarian ideals just can't work in the real world.
What does "not anywhere near 100% effective" mean?
As in, some years only 20-ish% effective (flu) - this year flu was 50% effective. But for most vaccines, without the numbers in front of me I think they run in the 85-99% range. The important number is what is necessary to make sure that the vaccine works - add the effectiveness to the can't-or-won't be vaccinated number and if that number is too big we are sunk. For the most part, everyone who can be vaccinated should be.
Sure, but we were kind of musing on how you might apply libertarian principles to the problems of vaccination. I don't think anyone would claim that health care currently meets that definition :)
If you don"t vaccinate without a very good reason, you are a murderer by proxy plain and simple.
I wouldn't go that far, as the intent is important. But I would support making it a crime for a person to deliberately avoid vaccination and then transmit a disease.
Agreed, but the other part is that suing a big company is easy - there is no problem finding a lawyer to work on contingency and discovery will be pretty easy as they no doubt keep good records. It's also a single entity to deal with. If your kid dies in a measles outbreak, you could theoretically sue every other person who was infected during the outbreak who was negligent in getting vaccinated. This would be a massive undertaking. First you'd need to pay a lawyer out of pocket because only a lunatic would work on contingency. Second, you'd need to somehow obtain a list of measles patients. Then you'd need to sue each in turn so that you could discover whether or not they were vaccinated. Maybe someday a billionaire will do this, but it just doesn't seem realistic and even if it were feasible seems like a crazy way to run a system. We just need to accept that diseases do not fit neatly into the "personal responsibility" ideal that I think works well in most other human endeavors.
Alternatively we can educate people about the utility of vaccines so they will choose to get them.
That's just as un-Libertarian. The only difference is that you added a step (compulsory education). Either way, we as a society need to force/compel people to do something that they aren't currently doing. I like the Libertarian ideology as a general way to understand people and set up our society to take advantage of our strengths and minimize our weaknesses. Germs are not people, and they do not adhere to Libertarian notions of right and wrong. As such, we need to be pragmatic, step away from our ideology, and deal with reality.
Ayn Rand devotees are "Objectivists". There is a lot of cross-pollination, but one can certainly be Libertarian and think she was a crackpot. You don't even need to necessarily support strong property rights, though again the vast majority of Libertarians consider property a "right". Personally I think it's a stretch to call it a natural right.
convince everyone
I think I spotted the flaw in your plan. I can, at times, be convincing. But I'm no Jenny McCarthy.
I think your numbers square with mine - until 6 months a baby is not fully vaccinated.
There's a lot of vaccinations because there's a lot of diseases.
It would be great if libertarian principles applied to vaccines (my base ideology is libertarian), but:
1. Vaccines are not anywhere near 100% effective, so even a fully vaccinated person may be relying on herd immunity.
2. You can't vaccinate a newborn, so everyone relies on herd immunity for the first 6 months or so of their life.
3. Some people can't be vaccinated at all.
So we're left with a social solution, which is vaccinating everyone who can be vaccinated, whether they like it or not.
Thanks. One of the great parts about Slashdot is that when you get corrected, it's likely to be by someone who actually knows what they are talking about :)
Intel does contract manufacturing now.
Yup, you need price comparison extensions in your browser if you want to only shop Amazon. If you can't install those, then you really need an extra tab open to a price comparison site. The irony is that their worst prices are for typical household items that they are pushing with their "Dash" buttons and subscriptions. Cleaning products are typically 50-100% more expensive than at Home Depot.
Yeah, I guess the timing for this diesel mess is very poor. Had it been discovered 10 years later maybe electrics would be a drop-in replacement.
There is even more to diesel than just the German car companies. The kind of crude that Europe gets is very high-quality and can be fed right into a fractional distillation facility. That's very economical, but also limits your choices in what comes out - you get whatever proportion of products happened to be in the crude. Usually this means quite a bit of diesel. As a result, diesel tends to be priced pretty well since there is plenty of supply. In North America, the crude is terrible - it needs to be "cracked" with catalysts into smaller chains to produce the desired product mix. This is expensive and complex, but the upshot is that once you've built these multi-billion-dollar facilities, you can tweak the mix quite a bit. If the market price for diesel is high, you can make more diesel. If it's gasoline you want, just change the recipe a bit. In North America, diesel tends to cost more, reflecting its higher energy (and carbon!) content per unit volume and therefore larger proportion of crude required to make it.
If Europe gives up on diesel, they will need to spend billions to build new or to retrofit refineries, or else take a hit and export the diesel. I'm sure the oil companies and governments would rather not. "Clean diesel" was very alluring to everyone - economical cars for consumers, high profits for car makers, lower capital costs for oil companies, and no fights over refinery construction for governments. Environmentalists were excited over the false claims as well.
I rented a car in the UK and got exceedingly lucky when they sold out of automatics and were forced to give me a Mercedes GLA diesel. Aside from the annoying stall-out feature at every light that needs to be disabled every time you start the car, it was not a bad driver. Indeed it did not put out a typical diesel smell, but to say that it does not produce any odors is not quite right. If you were idling in one place long enough with the windows down, you definitely could smell the combustion products. I'm not sure it smells any worse than a gasoline engine, but the first time I smelled it I was a bit alarmed since I didn't recognize the smell and thought something was burning. It was very economical and had a good range, but I still prefer the gasoline version which is lighter and faster. And if you are buying such an expensive car, I'm not sure why you'd get hung up on a slight difference in fuel economy (though UK fuel prices were on the obscene side). Environmentally it's probably 10-15% better than the same car in gasoline, but not as good as an economy car and probably no better than a hybrid. The roughly $5k premium will buy you a lot of carbon credits...