Think you should go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act. Sure there are criticisms, but the program was not without merit. And if you're just going after it because it was a Bush program, don't forget that it had widespread bipartisan support, passing the House 384-45, and Senate 91-8.
A true Michgander will tell you where they're from by pointing to somewhere on the palm of their right hand. Or the back of their left. I was born down near the base of the thumb.
A true Michigander wouldn't be so biased as to forget the UP.;-)
I spent many years living in Europe and Asia, and when asked where I was from (born in Detroit), there was nearly always immediate recognition, most likely because of the auto industry. When I lived in Germany, I could hop in the car and be in England, Spain, or Italy in a days drive. And with so many cultures located so close, it becomes more important to know and understand your neighbors. Traveling a similar distance here, is more likely to only change your free (as in) beer from Coors, to Strohs, to PBR.
Ok, well the model you and I are working from is obviously not the same. I'm roughly 30 miles from the areas you are speaking of, but it's much more suburbia than country.
Obviously, nobody is going to base their decision of where to live on a single parameter (in your model: fuel efficiency), so it's a pointless argument. Let me know if you'd like to discuss it on a more practical basis.
So, we should all change our expectations and live in shitholes and raise our kids in one of the highest crime rate areas in the country, right?
Let's not ASSumptions. I don't work in DC, I work in the northern VA suburbs, which still have incredibly high costs, and so I have a home 15 miles away that I can (barely) afford. My wife and I both have well paying jobs, and only one kid (off to college). I'm sure that we're better off than most, and that the majority of people making long commutes here aren't sitting in traffic for a couple of hours per day by choice.
Studies done in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.
Daylight Savings has had numerous studies showing reduced electricity consumption.
Yes, the question is more if there's more or less hassle to have summer and winter opening hours than to change "time" itself.
Recommend you go look at the first.gov site you come across in Google, and read the amount of energy consumption they've shown saved by DST. Other than getting off our asses twice a year to change all the clocks & watches we own, what hassle is there?
Exactly. There's more though: many people are just people who don't want to live in big cities,...and complain about gas prices.
Let's not assume that's the case for all. I live in the Washington DC suburbs, with a 30 mile daily round trip commute. Moving closer to work is not a matter of choice for many here, but a matter of affordable housing. A home (of the same type) within five miles of my office would easily cost 20-50% more. And yes, I do complain about gas prices.
So, would there be any difference if google or this "artist" were supplying a live feed video of public places? By the logic of some posters, I don't think there would be. Would it be fine with you if you had a webcam pointed at your residence 24/7? It would have all kinds of implications, and make burglary much easier. I think if you swapped this discussion between stills and live video many folks would pause a bit more, and lean toward privacy. Are there any different legal implications between the two technologies? How many of you walk around at home not fully clothed, and maybe by a curtain that's not entirely shut. Nobody's likely to notice, but have a camera cruise by at the wrong instant, and you're liable to regret it.
I'm seriously fine with google's approach, but our laws have not kept up with tech, and the implications.
That was never the objective. The objective is to make everyone else pay to support disabled access no matter what the cost or actual situational necessity.
The classic example I've seen was the Handicapped parking spaces next to a fighter squadron Ops building. There are no handicapped F-16 fighter pilots.
I've seen some that I thought were silly also. My gym had about six handicapped parking spots. Much to my surprise, they had several folks in wheelchairs that came in regularly...live and learn. I wouldn't be surprised to find disabled vets working on fighter jets at an F-16 squadron.
Well, instead of answering the question, you decided to be insulting. There is a serious question that needs to be discussed and debated here, and you just decided to make an ass of yourself instead of addressing it. I'm sure that nobody here is against helping the disabled, but funds are not unlimited, and you can't simply direct every business to lay out money without forcing some of them to close shop. The question is how much accommodation is appropriate? Should it be based on the size or type of facility? The size of the business? Or are we going to say that the cost of starting up a business automatically requires you to put in lifts if you have more than one floor, handicapped spots if you have any parking, etc.? Balance please, not knee-jerk reactions.
Ok, I was about to call BS too, but I went and did some searching. From Wikipedia: Physiology
Dental fluorosis occurs because of the excessive intake of fluoride, either through fluoride in the water supply, naturally occurring or added to it; or through other sources. The damage in tooth development occurs between the ages of 3 months to 8 years, from the overexposure to fluoride. Teeth are generally composed of hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite; when fluoride is present, some fluorapatite is generated. Excessive fluoride can cause white spots, and in severe cases, brown stains or pitting or mottling of enamel. Fluorosis cannot occur once the tooth has erupted into the oral cavity. At this point, fluorapatite is beneficial because it is more resistant to dissolution by acids (demineralization). Although it is usually the permanent teeth which are affected, occasionally the primary teeth may be involved.
From an NIH govt study... CONCLUSION Drinking water sources available to North Americans may contain high levels of Ca2+, Mg2+, and Na+ and may provide clinically important portions of the recommended dietary intake of these minerals. Physicians should encourage patients to check the mineral content of their drinking water, whether tap or bottled, and choose water most appropriate for their needs.
Why not just get rid of patents? I've never seen any evidence that they actually help with innovation, they just help big companies stop other people from innovating.
Then you've never looked for any evidence. My father is the holder of several patents, and owned a small specialty packaging business. Without the patents, the companies he sold to would simply have taken his ideas and had someone else implement them at a lower price, screwing him out of all the development work that him and my brother did. You don't have to be a big business to have patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Think you should go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act. Sure there are criticisms, but the program was not without merit. And if you're just going after it because it was a Bush program, don't forget that it had widespread bipartisan support, passing the House 384-45, and Senate 91-8.
A true Michgander will tell you where they're from by pointing to somewhere on the palm of their right hand. Or the back of their left. I was born down near the base of the thumb.
A true Michigander wouldn't be so biased as to forget the UP. ;-)
I spent many years living in Europe and Asia, and when asked where I was from (born in Detroit), there was nearly always immediate recognition, most likely because of the auto industry. When I lived in Germany, I could hop in the car and be in England, Spain, or Italy in a days drive. And with so many cultures located so close, it becomes more important to know and understand your neighbors. Traveling a similar distance here, is more likely to only change your free (as in) beer from Coors, to Strohs, to PBR.
Ok, well the model you and I are working from is obviously not the same. I'm roughly 30 miles from the areas you are speaking of, but it's much more suburbia than country.
Obviously, nobody is going to base their decision of where to live on a single parameter (in your model: fuel efficiency), so it's a pointless argument. Let me know if you'd like to discuss it on a more practical basis.
So, where does this prohibition originate from, and how can it be corrected, because it's obviously a flawed system.
So, we should all change our expectations and live in shitholes and raise our kids in one of the highest crime rate areas in the country, right?
Let's not ASSumptions. I don't work in DC, I work in the northern VA suburbs, which still have incredibly high costs, and so I have a home 15 miles away that I can (barely) afford. My wife and I both have well paying jobs, and only one kid (off to college). I'm sure that we're better off than most, and that the majority of people making long commutes here aren't sitting in traffic for a couple of hours per day by choice.
citation needed.
Here, I'll save you the trouble...
From http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html
Studies done in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.
Daylight Savings has had numerous studies showing reduced electricity consumption.
Yes, the question is more if there's more or less hassle to have summer and winter opening hours than to change "time" itself.
Recommend you go look at the first .gov site you come across in Google, and read the amount of energy consumption they've shown saved by DST. Other than getting off our asses twice a year to change all the clocks & watches we own, what hassle is there?
...programmers in modern times should be heading to wikipedia almost constantly anyway.
LostMyBeaver has LostHisMind
Seriously, why would I rely on wikipedia for critical information? It's nice and all, but it's NOT something you want to refer to when fact checking.
Daylight Savings has had numerous studies showing reduced electricity consumption.
Exactly. There's more though: many people are just people who don't want to live in big cities,...and complain about gas prices.
Let's not assume that's the case for all. I live in the Washington DC suburbs, with a 30 mile daily round trip commute. Moving closer to work is not a matter of choice for many here, but a matter of affordable housing. A home (of the same type) within five miles of my office would easily cost 20-50% more. And yes, I do complain about gas prices.
So, would there be any difference if google or this "artist" were supplying a live feed video of public places? By the logic of some posters, I don't think there would be. Would it be fine with you if you had a webcam pointed at your residence 24/7? It would have all kinds of implications, and make burglary much easier. I think if you swapped this discussion between stills and live video many folks would pause a bit more, and lean toward privacy. Are there any different legal implications between the two technologies? How many of you walk around at home not fully clothed, and maybe by a curtain that's not entirely shut. Nobody's likely to notice, but have a camera cruise by at the wrong instant, and you're liable to regret it.
I'm seriously fine with google's approach, but our laws have not kept up with tech, and the implications.
Looked at it, tried it...no data prior to Jan 08 will plot
Offense is in the eye of the beholder, and is also the fault of the beholder. It is best ignored.
That is the most insightful comment I've seen posted on Slashdot in recent memory. Bravo sir!
I learned somethin' new. ;-)
That was never the objective. The objective is to make everyone else pay to support disabled access no matter what the cost or actual situational necessity.
The classic example I've seen was the Handicapped parking spaces next to a fighter squadron Ops building. There are no handicapped F-16 fighter pilots.
I've seen some that I thought were silly also. My gym had about six handicapped parking spots. Much to my surprise, they had several folks in wheelchairs that came in regularly...live and learn. I wouldn't be surprised to find disabled vets working on fighter jets at an F-16 squadron.
Well, instead of answering the question, you decided to be insulting. There is a serious question that needs to be discussed and debated here, and you just decided to make an ass of yourself instead of addressing it. I'm sure that nobody here is against helping the disabled, but funds are not unlimited, and you can't simply direct every business to lay out money without forcing some of them to close shop. The question is how much accommodation is appropriate? Should it be based on the size or type of facility? The size of the business? Or are we going to say that the cost of starting up a business automatically requires you to put in lifts if you have more than one floor, handicapped spots if you have any parking, etc.? Balance please, not knee-jerk reactions.
The irony is that as much as the right whines about elitism, they're the worst in that respect.
Stereotype much? Seriously, I was right there with you until you went off into that asinine rant.
Now all of those things are fine but suddenly WIFI just goes to far?
See, it removed an "o" right off of your "too".
Ducking back into the grammer nazi closet. :-))
From Wikipedia:Barrie...
It has a population of 128,430 residents, making it the 35th largest city in Canada.
Damn city slickers. ;-)
FWIW, I spent a lot of my youth in Hepworth (about 100km west of you)...we didn't even rate a wiki page (you get redirected).
While you're correct about the lack of yuppies, the yuppie mentality is alive and well.
About 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
What do the other 50% end in?
Misery?
you'd have know you don't need to sign or initial posts on message boards when your name is clearly displayed at the top.
But hey, we'll let it slide ... no matter how much it irritates the fuck out of us.
Thanks,
DCW3
Ok, I was about to call BS too, but I went and did some searching. From Wikipedia:
Physiology
Dental fluorosis occurs because of the excessive intake of fluoride, either through fluoride in the water supply, naturally occurring or added to it; or through other sources. The damage in tooth development occurs between the ages of 3 months to 8 years, from the overexposure to fluoride. Teeth are generally composed of hydroxyapatite and carbonated hydroxyapatite; when fluoride is present, some fluorapatite is generated. Excessive fluoride can cause white spots, and in severe cases, brown stains or pitting or mottling of enamel. Fluorosis cannot occur once the tooth has erupted into the oral cavity. At this point, fluorapatite is beneficial because it is more resistant to dissolution by acids (demineralization). Although it is usually the permanent teeth which are affected, occasionally the primary teeth may be involved.
From an NIH govt study...
CONCLUSION
Drinking water sources available to North Americans may contain high levels of Ca2+, Mg2+, and Na+ and may provide clinically important portions of the recommended dietary intake of these minerals. Physicians should encourage patients to check the mineral content of their drinking water, whether tap or bottled, and choose water most appropriate for their needs.
Why not just get rid of patents? I've never seen any evidence that they actually help with innovation, they just help big companies stop other people from innovating.
Then you've never looked for any evidence. My father is the holder of several patents, and owned a small specialty packaging business. Without the patents, the companies he sold to would simply have taken his ideas and had someone else implement them at a lower price, screwing him out of all the development work that him and my brother did. You don't have to be a big business to have patents.