While technically true that anything becoming less alkaline is becoming more acidic, it is deceptive wording chosen to cause alarm.
It should also be pointed out that the oceans are not of a uniform pH and can vary from 7.5 to 8.4. Saltwater aquariums can similarly vary in pH in about the same range. To say that the last time the pH was this low all the life died out in the oceans is disingenuous. There are already parts of the ocean where the pH is much lower than 8.1 and life continues to thrive in those parts of the ocean, and parts of the ocean where the pH is much higher as well.
Overfishing is a more likely cause of doom than the lowered alkalinity.
One must note that this is yet *another* shift in fearspeak. First it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Then it was "climate change". Now it's acidification.
Ahh, but the "new ice age" scientists were not "peer reviewed", and in 20 or 30 years when they new disaster theory comes out, we will find out that global warming was not "super dipsoluscious peer reviewed".
I know that people are concerned, but the people crying doom has been going on probably since people learned how to write. So far as I can see the only difference between the crackpot on the corner with the cardboard sign and distinguished scientists is that it takes decades of research to determine that the scientists were crackpots.
I just can't see dropping everything I am doing and freaking out just because they are really quite certain that they are right this time. Sorry about being wrong those thousand times before. Really. Trust us.
I agree with AC. I can't figure out which one of the the thousands of manmade global catastrophes is going to be the one to take us out any moment now.
That's okay, though, I'm sure that 5,000 years ago they weren't able to figure out which manmade global catastrophe was going to take them out any minute now either.
As long as the drones are FAA certified and the operators are properly certificated and obey all of the FARs, including minimum altitudes and separation from buildings, people, and other aircraft, then I don't have an issue with it.
About 15 years ago I was working at a large Agricultural and Construction Equipment Manufacturer in the International Corporate Finance Center. My job was outsourced to a consulting company that only hired H1b.
Here is an example of a man in jail serving a life sentence for self defense. Of course you said an example where the man didn't go overboard in defending himself. Of course, there is no such thing as overboard when someone is pointing a gun at you. Only judges, jurists and armchair quarterbacks think that there is such a thing is restraint when someone has a gun in your face. Well, not all judges, jurists and armchair quarterbacks. Some of them have had guns thrust in their faces and understand what that does to a person's sense of self preservation.
Well, I will admit that if people were not allowed to carry guns, the criminals would be a lot safer in their chosen line of work. however, ordinary citizens would not be safer. There is no guarantee that cooperating with an armed criminal will result in you living through the day. I can point to two instances in the last five years in my city of only 20,000 people where an armed man demanded money of an unarmed person, the unarmed person cooperated fully, and then was shot dead.
It's just as easy to lie with a video as it is verbally. Remember that video of the police officer pepper spraying a protester in their car? It had purposely been cut so that it didn't show the preceding altercation that justified the officer's actions.
That happened with this one as well. It doesn't show the previous action which led up to the officer and the suspect being out in the middle of the grass after a traffic stop. It doesn't show where the officer and the suspect were involved in a tussle as claimed by the officer, during which the suspect reportedly took the officer's stun gun.
But it does raise public awareness. Thank goodness it was a white on black action or we would not have even heard about it.
When someone points a gun at you, they begin a chain of events which you did not ask for, and the adrenaline begins to flow, clouding judgment and causing you to defend yourself at all costs. Despite what the law says, when put in that situation, you will do what is necessary to defend yourself. Judges and jurists seem to think differently, but if they were put in the same situation, they would keep shooting until the person stopped moving or the gun ran out of bullets.
Exactly. People miss the point of this all the time. The rights you see granted to criminals aren't there for the benefit of the criminals. They're for YOUR benefit in the event you are brought up on charges but are actually innocent. Which actually happens sometimes.
YOU have the right of appeal in case you, innocent of any crime, are charged and convicted because someone screwed up. It's a consequence, not the intent, that the legitimately guilty also have that right. We can't take it from them without taking it from you because we don't know which is which. If we did have infallible knowledge of who is guilty and who is innocent, we wouldn't need to bother with trials.
Perhaps I am just jaded, but I don't think that the legal system would go to any great lengths to try to protect me if I was wrongly accused. Not unless I spent a boatload of money. Criminals, on the other hand, get to have all kinds of appeals. This guy, who harmed almost 300 people and killed 3 people will probably get appeal after appeal, paid for by you and me. Meanwhile, a guy rots in prison for life for shooting and killing a guy who was attempting to rob him at gunpoint. Where is the appeal after appeal for this guy who was just defending himself?
Call it anecdotal, but it happens over and over and over again. Criminals are hard to catch and convict. Far easier to catch and convict honest law-abiding citizens.
The other trick is that the law says that H-1Bs have to be paid "prevailing wages". But if you look at most large companies' salary bands, the bottom end of each band is often barely half of the top. So an H-1B can make, say, $60K, in the same position where the average employee makes $85K-$90K, with some making $110K, but since they're all within that position's stated salary range, the company is still not technically "underpaying" the H-1Bs.
The other problem is that most company's salary bands for a particular skillset are too low. Whenever somebody wants a raise, they can't get one because that would put them outside their salary band. So to get a raise, they are promoted to management, even though they don't manage anybody and they do the same job as before. Now they have a different job title. As an added bonus, the old position average salary and the new position average salary now both go down because you went from being the highest paid X to the lowest paid Y.
I'm really not sure how it is in the USA, but I'm working in Canada on a work permit: After working up the courage to ask a few colleagues, I found out that I'm earning about the same or more than other Canadians in most cases.
Are H1b visa employees really that much cheaper than true red blooded Americans?
No, but they are willing to work cheaper and so everybody has to work cheaper in order to compete.
Well see , that is the amazing thing about a software engineering education. Just because someone hasn't done low level coding on the specific processor you are working on, or worked with your specific rendering package does not mean that the person cannot do so. The qualifications required on most Software positions is kind of like requiring a Math PhD but turning down anybody who hasn't specifically multiplied 123789 by 456908 in their professional career.
Where do you live in Oklahoma? I live near Oklahoma City. Most of the quakes are happening about 10 to 30 miles away from here. I've yet to see any damage from any of them. Do you work out in McLoud or somewhere closer to the epicenter?
I'm not sure why she would encourage you to get insurance for 3.0 level quakes anyway. A good solid roll of thunder shakes the house more than a 3.0 earth quake. We have quakes every day, and I usually miss them unless they happen at night when the rest of the world is relatively quiet.
You misunderstand. The point is that at moderate screen sizes and viewing distance greater resolution than 4K is superfluous. Sure there is discernible improvement from 1080p, but one cannot readily distinguish between 4K and anything with more pixels.
I determined that I sit 24 inches from my computer monitor. It is a 30" monitor. It is currently running 2560X1600. This gives me 40.1 pixels per degree. It is quite easy to make out individual pixels on this monitor at the distance I sit.
If this were a 4k monitor, it would have 67.2 pixels per degree. The visual acuity limit for average vision is 80 pixels per degree. A 4k does not get you there.
If I had an 8k monitor, it would have 134.4 pixels per degree. This is better than the visual acuity for average vision, but the theoretical limit for visual acuity is 150 pixels per degree. So 8k doesn't get you there.
What the parent was talking about was how you could even tell from the door to the store a 4k TV versus a 1080p. This is because high contrast feature detection is very fine. The approximate guess at how fine we can tell high contrast features is 2400 pixels per degree.
To reach the point where the human eye could no longer tell the difference in resolution, I would have to have a 138k monitor.
I agree that pixels per degree of view is the correct measurement, there is no way for a manufacture to know how far away from your monitor you are going to sit. They could come up with a standard which all manufacturers adhere to, and the consumer could then understand that if they sit closer or farther from the device that their experience will differ.
I would think that the optimal resolution would be just higher than the eye could individually make out. If it looks like a smooth image with no discernible pixels making up the jaggies on a not-quite-horizontal line, then we have reached perfection. I haven't seen a 4k screen yet. I can tell you on my screen, which is running 2560X1600, I can definitely see individual pixels and jaggies on lines. Just guessing by the pixel size on my screen, I believe I would easily be able to discern a pixel on a 4k screen, and probably an 8k screen, but without having one to make the actual comparison, I can't be sure. Can someone send me a 4k screen, so I can test?
Seems that being a dick and making it so people can't find you does not get you out of your responsibilities.
While that is certainly true, being a dick and not properly serving a notice does get you out of your responsibilities. Or at least it should. Millions in foreclosure in California never received any notices of foreclosure proceedings.
I have been served before as well. I was served for not properly the garnishing the wages of somebody who had a standing wage garnishment order. The fact that the person never worked for me and was not known to me was apparently not a valid excuse.
Not that it matters much. If he doesn't see it in his inbox wherever the paperwork gets sent, too bad so sad for him. Courts routinely consider that if the notice is sufficiently displayed in a public forum where it's presumed the other party would be privy to it, then that party has been properly served and as such if they do not appear in court on the specified date then the judgement is defaulted in favor of the party who did appear.
If he doesn't see it in his inbox, then it has not been sufficiently served. You can't hold someone responsible to show up for a court date for which you have not made sufficient effort to make sure that the person is aware. I for one hardly ever glance at my inbox on Facebook as it is full of people re-re-re-re-forwarding things and blathering about what they had for dinner or other such useless nonsense. If anybody ever posts a personal message I will certainly miss it.
If the person is arrested for missing a court date, he has a valid excuse in that he was not properly served. The judge says he was, but the judge is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but in 30 to 40 years, the science will turn out to not be acceptable by current standards, and therefore the scientists were cranks.
While technically true that anything becoming less alkaline is becoming more acidic, it is deceptive wording chosen to cause alarm.
It should also be pointed out that the oceans are not of a uniform pH and can vary from 7.5 to 8.4. Saltwater aquariums can similarly vary in pH in about the same range. To say that the last time the pH was this low all the life died out in the oceans is disingenuous. There are already parts of the ocean where the pH is much lower than 8.1 and life continues to thrive in those parts of the ocean, and parts of the ocean where the pH is much higher as well.
Overfishing is a more likely cause of doom than the lowered alkalinity.
Exactly. More fear mongering = more funding.
One must note that this is yet *another* shift in fearspeak. First it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Then it was "climate change". Now it's acidification.
Ahh, but the "new ice age" scientists were not "peer reviewed", and in 20 or 30 years when they new disaster theory comes out, we will find out that global warming was not "super dipsoluscious peer reviewed".
I know that people are concerned, but the people crying doom has been going on probably since people learned how to write. So far as I can see the only difference between the crackpot on the corner with the cardboard sign and distinguished scientists is that it takes decades of research to determine that the scientists were crackpots.
I just can't see dropping everything I am doing and freaking out just because they are really quite certain that they are right this time. Sorry about being wrong those thousand times before. Really. Trust us.
I agree with AC. I can't figure out which one of the the thousands of manmade global catastrophes is going to be the one to take us out any moment now.
That's okay, though, I'm sure that 5,000 years ago they weren't able to figure out which manmade global catastrophe was going to take them out any minute now either.
As long as the drones are FAA certified and the operators are properly certificated and obey all of the FARs, including minimum altitudes and separation from buildings, people, and other aircraft, then I don't have an issue with it.
About 15 years ago I was working at a large Agricultural and Construction Equipment Manufacturer in the International Corporate Finance Center. My job was outsourced to a consulting company that only hired H1b.
Here is an example of a man in jail serving a life sentence for self defense. Of course you said an example where the man didn't go overboard in defending himself. Of course, there is no such thing as overboard when someone is pointing a gun at you. Only judges, jurists and armchair quarterbacks think that there is such a thing is restraint when someone has a gun in your face. Well, not all judges, jurists and armchair quarterbacks. Some of them have had guns thrust in their faces and understand what that does to a person's sense of self preservation.
Well, I will admit that if people were not allowed to carry guns, the criminals would be a lot safer in their chosen line of work. however, ordinary citizens would not be safer. There is no guarantee that cooperating with an armed criminal will result in you living through the day. I can point to two instances in the last five years in my city of only 20,000 people where an armed man demanded money of an unarmed person, the unarmed person cooperated fully, and then was shot dead.
It's just as easy to lie with a video as it is verbally. Remember that video of the police officer pepper spraying a protester in their car? It had purposely been cut so that it didn't show the preceding altercation that justified the officer's actions.
That happened with this one as well. It doesn't show the previous action which led up to the officer and the suspect being out in the middle of the grass after a traffic stop. It doesn't show where the officer and the suspect were involved in a tussle as claimed by the officer, during which the suspect reportedly took the officer's stun gun.
But it does raise public awareness. Thank goodness it was a white on black action or we would not have even heard about it.
When someone points a gun at you, they begin a chain of events which you did not ask for, and the adrenaline begins to flow, clouding judgment and causing you to defend yourself at all costs. Despite what the law says, when put in that situation, you will do what is necessary to defend yourself. Judges and jurists seem to think differently, but if they were put in the same situation, they would keep shooting until the person stopped moving or the gun ran out of bullets.
Exactly. People miss the point of this all the time. The rights you see granted to criminals aren't there for the benefit of the criminals. They're for YOUR benefit in the event you are brought up on charges but are actually innocent. Which actually happens sometimes.
YOU have the right of appeal in case you, innocent of any crime, are charged and convicted because someone screwed up. It's a consequence, not the intent, that the legitimately guilty also have that right. We can't take it from them without taking it from you because we don't know which is which. If we did have infallible knowledge of who is guilty and who is innocent, we wouldn't need to bother with trials.
Perhaps I am just jaded, but I don't think that the legal system would go to any great lengths to try to protect me if I was wrongly accused. Not unless I spent a boatload of money. Criminals, on the other hand, get to have all kinds of appeals. This guy, who harmed almost 300 people and killed 3 people will probably get appeal after appeal, paid for by you and me. Meanwhile, a guy rots in prison for life for shooting and killing a guy who was attempting to rob him at gunpoint. Where is the appeal after appeal for this guy who was just defending himself?
Call it anecdotal, but it happens over and over and over again. Criminals are hard to catch and convict. Far easier to catch and convict honest law-abiding citizens.
The other trick is that the law says that H-1Bs have to be paid "prevailing wages". But if you look at most large companies' salary bands, the bottom end of each band is often barely half of the top. So an H-1B can make, say, $60K, in the same position where the average employee makes $85K-$90K, with some making $110K, but since they're all within that position's stated salary range, the company is still not technically "underpaying" the H-1Bs.
The other problem is that most company's salary bands for a particular skillset are too low. Whenever somebody wants a raise, they can't get one because that would put them outside their salary band. So to get a raise, they are promoted to management, even though they don't manage anybody and they do the same job as before. Now they have a different job title. As an added bonus, the old position average salary and the new position average salary now both go down because you went from being the highest paid X to the lowest paid Y.
I'm really not sure how it is in the USA, but I'm working in Canada on a work permit: After working up the courage to ask a few colleagues, I found out that I'm earning about the same or more than other Canadians in most cases. Are H1b visa employees really that much cheaper than true red blooded Americans?
No, but they are willing to work cheaper and so everybody has to work cheaper in order to compete.
Well see , that is the amazing thing about a software engineering education. Just because someone hasn't done low level coding on the specific processor you are working on, or worked with your specific rendering package does not mean that the person cannot do so. The qualifications required on most Software positions is kind of like requiring a Math PhD but turning down anybody who hasn't specifically multiplied 123789 by 456908 in their professional career.
Who sets something up to expire on a weekend, anyway?
Where do you live in Oklahoma? I live near Oklahoma City. Most of the quakes are happening about 10 to 30 miles away from here. I've yet to see any damage from any of them. Do you work out in McLoud or somewhere closer to the epicenter?
I'm not sure why she would encourage you to get insurance for 3.0 level quakes anyway. A good solid roll of thunder shakes the house more than a 3.0 earth quake. We have quakes every day, and I usually miss them unless they happen at night when the rest of the world is relatively quiet.
Actually, in Oklahoma, it was no earthquakes until fracking stopped.
You misunderstand. The point is that at moderate screen sizes and viewing distance greater resolution than 4K is superfluous. Sure there is discernible improvement from 1080p, but one cannot readily distinguish between 4K and anything with more pixels.
I determined that I sit 24 inches from my computer monitor. It is a 30" monitor. It is currently running 2560X1600. This gives me 40.1 pixels per degree. It is quite easy to make out individual pixels on this monitor at the distance I sit.
If this were a 4k monitor, it would have 67.2 pixels per degree. The visual acuity limit for average vision is 80 pixels per degree. A 4k does not get you there.
If I had an 8k monitor, it would have 134.4 pixels per degree. This is better than the visual acuity for average vision, but the theoretical limit for visual acuity is 150 pixels per degree. So 8k doesn't get you there.
What the parent was talking about was how you could even tell from the door to the store a 4k TV versus a 1080p. This is because high contrast feature detection is very fine. The approximate guess at how fine we can tell high contrast features is 2400 pixels per degree.
To reach the point where the human eye could no longer tell the difference in resolution, I would have to have a 138k monitor.
I agree that pixels per degree of view is the correct measurement, there is no way for a manufacture to know how far away from your monitor you are going to sit. They could come up with a standard which all manufacturers adhere to, and the consumer could then understand that if they sit closer or farther from the device that their experience will differ.
I would think that the optimal resolution would be just higher than the eye could individually make out. If it looks like a smooth image with no discernible pixels making up the jaggies on a not-quite-horizontal line, then we have reached perfection. I haven't seen a 4k screen yet. I can tell you on my screen, which is running 2560X1600, I can definitely see individual pixels and jaggies on lines. Just guessing by the pixel size on my screen, I believe I would easily be able to discern a pixel on a 4k screen, and probably an 8k screen, but without having one to make the actual comparison, I can't be sure. Can someone send me a 4k screen, so I can test?
Bill was right. 640k is enough for anybody. We just haven't got there yet.
Seems that being a dick and making it so people can't find you does not get you out of your responsibilities.
While that is certainly true, being a dick and not properly serving a notice does get you out of your responsibilities. Or at least it should. Millions in foreclosure in California never received any notices of foreclosure proceedings.
I have been served before as well. I was served for not properly the garnishing the wages of somebody who had a standing wage garnishment order. The fact that the person never worked for me and was not known to me was apparently not a valid excuse.
Not that it matters much. If he doesn't see it in his inbox wherever the paperwork gets sent, too bad so sad for him. Courts routinely consider that if the notice is sufficiently displayed in a public forum where it's presumed the other party would be privy to it, then that party has been properly served and as such if they do not appear in court on the specified date then the judgement is defaulted in favor of the party who did appear.
If he doesn't see it in his inbox, then it has not been sufficiently served. You can't hold someone responsible to show up for a court date for which you have not made sufficient effort to make sure that the person is aware. I for one hardly ever glance at my inbox on Facebook as it is full of people re-re-re-re-forwarding things and blathering about what they had for dinner or other such useless nonsense. If anybody ever posts a personal message I will certainly miss it.
If the person is arrested for missing a court date, he has a valid excuse in that he was not properly served. The judge says he was, but the judge is wrong.