Even though this might be a troll, the writer actually has some point here. Its a fact, that mental problems are hugely more common among the homeless, drug addicts and the other people at the bottom of the society. I think this holds even if we factor out the depression caused by their miserable lives.
The problem, however, isn't that they're too free to roam free. I don't know about USA, but here in Europe people are actually lining to get into the mental hospitals. Due to the lack of funding, there are not enough resources to get all of them in. The majority of these cases wanted to get in for their own best, but its quite hard if you have any hope of surviving outside.
For example in Sweden half of the homicides are committed by people requiring treatment in closed institution, but left free because of the economical reasons.
And they might have some weapons of mass destruction.
Re:What happens to Farts in weightlessness ???????
on
Space Blog
·
· Score: 1
I don't know if farts have a different weight from the weight of air, (or do they use pure oxygen in space stations?) farts down here either fly away or fall to the ground. So the smell seems to fade away even in small rooms with poor ventilation.
In zero gravity, however, it would mix perfectly to the air, and maybe the stink would last indefinitely. If I remember correctly, farts consist most of methane, but the stinking ingredients are some sodium compounds. Maybe I'm wrong.
Think about if water on earth would be capable of exothermic reactions. I'd say we'd then have one huge problem. All those "no smoking" signs at the seashores...
I'm sorry to say, but USA really seems to suck big time. A town of >50k inhabitants with a city of 500k only 80 km away and no public transport between? Sounds plain absurd. How doea it always sound like that americans need cars because they live so far away of everything, except when thay need the car because the cities there are so large and distances long? No matter where and how you live, it always seems to make you need cars even more.
Actually americans pay for their lifestyle. While public transport costs and very often needs governmental support, building the infrastructure for heavy passenger car traffic costs too. Even if the traffic streams can do without broadening the roads, the denser traffic wears them faster. Plus how much the deaths, pollution and handicaps cost to the people.
The automobile industry seems quite reluctant to talk about the real costs of driving. Hmm, its my first day on Slashdot and my writings already seem quite paranoid.
I think the reason why the fastest roads are the safest is that they are motorways: no traffic lights, pedestrians and level crossings.
Slowing down would of course increase the traffic density, but I think it doesn't make any difference, while the speeds are low anyway in traffic jams and on the other hand driving fast in a heavy traffic is very dangerous. Think about the possible crashes when somebody loses the control of his vehicle in a speed of over 110 km/h in a full motorway. At least in Germany tens of human beings get killed in one blow at such occasions.
It is also true, that modern cars are not very effective at low speeds, but the real problem is that they are built for high speeds in the first place. They are too convenient to drive in high speeds, have far too powerful engines and even the roads are built for fast driving.
As for the holiday driving I don't see why it should make a difference if your speed is 80 and not 130 km/h if you are driving just for fun.
I am new here, so this might too be quite familiar to you all, but basically there are no (at least I can't see) rational reasons why a modern car should weight more than 500 kg or move faster than 80 km/h.
We could do every important thing we do with cars with slower and lighter vehicles. Remember, the kinetic energy grows as a square of speed, and human beings still have a reaction speed of approximately one second.
With smaller and slower cars we could reduce the pollution, crashes and other downsides of motorised society without too utopian moralism and giving up the good things cars bring to society.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though this might be a troll, the writer actually has some point here. Its a fact, that mental problems are hugely more common among the homeless, drug addicts and the other people at the bottom of the society. I think this holds even if we factor out the depression caused by their miserable lives.
The problem, however, isn't that they're too free to roam free. I don't know about USA, but here in Europe people are actually lining to get into the mental hospitals. Due to the lack of funding, there are not enough resources to get all of them in. The majority of these cases wanted to get in for their own best, but its quite hard if you have any hope of surviving outside.
For example in Sweden half of the homicides are committed by people requiring treatment in closed institution, but left free because of the economical reasons.
I remember high altitude arctic (or antarctic) clouds have something to do with ozone depletion.
No no, the metallic table is cold and bad for the wrists, which are already strained when using the mouse.
And they might have some weapons of mass destruction.
In zero gravity, however, it would mix perfectly to the air, and maybe the stink would last indefinitely. If I remember correctly, farts consist most of methane, but the stinking ingredients are some sodium compounds. Maybe I'm wrong.
Think about if water on earth would be capable of exothermic reactions. I'd say we'd then have one huge problem. All those "no smoking" signs at the seashores...
I'm sorry to say, but USA really seems to suck big time. A town of >50k inhabitants with a city of 500k only 80 km away and no public transport between? Sounds plain absurd. How doea it always sound like that americans need cars because they live so far away of everything, except when thay need the car because the cities there are so large and distances long? No matter where and how you live, it always seems to make you need cars even more.
Actually americans pay for their lifestyle. While public transport costs and very often needs governmental support, building the infrastructure for heavy passenger car traffic costs too. Even if the traffic streams can do without broadening the roads, the denser traffic wears them faster. Plus how much the deaths, pollution and handicaps cost to the people.
The automobile industry seems quite reluctant to talk about the real costs of driving. Hmm, its my first day on Slashdot and my writings already seem quite paranoid.
I think the reason why the fastest roads are the safest is that they are motorways: no traffic lights, pedestrians and level crossings.
Slowing down would of course increase the traffic density, but I think it doesn't make any difference, while the speeds are low anyway in traffic jams and on the other hand driving fast in a heavy traffic is very dangerous. Think about the possible crashes when somebody loses the control of his vehicle in a speed of over 110 km/h in a full motorway. At least in Germany tens of human beings get killed in one blow at such occasions.
It is also true, that modern cars are not very effective at low speeds, but the real problem is that they are built for high speeds in the first place. They are too convenient to drive in high speeds, have far too powerful engines and even the roads are built for fast driving.
As for the holiday driving I don't see why it should make a difference if your speed is 80 and not 130 km/h if you are driving just for fun.
I am new here, so this might too be quite familiar to you all, but basically there are no (at least I can't see) rational reasons why a modern car should weight more than 500 kg or move faster than 80 km/h. We could do every important thing we do with cars with slower and lighter vehicles. Remember, the kinetic energy grows as a square of speed, and human beings still have a reaction speed of approximately one second. With smaller and slower cars we could reduce the pollution, crashes and other downsides of motorised society without too utopian moralism and giving up the good things cars bring to society.