I suppose if you're a gay male that sounds like Utopia. Welcome to Seattle, the new San Francisco.
The Space Needle will take on new allegorical significance as a monument!
Hey, George Takei is our guest of honor for the Pride Parade this year!
Why the presumption that Amazon's new hires will be 75% male?
Well, about 85% of CS grads today are male. But if it makes you feel better, they could hire more women for the packing floor.
What makes you think that new hires will be CS grads or packers? Amazon hires a great deal of buyers, marketers, project managers, facilitators, coordinators, designers, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if their normal business type people far outweigh their tech people as they are dealing with a huge number of other businesses all over the world before anything hits a web page. Of course, I've also heard that Amazon doesn't like to hire women. Then again, Amazon really doesn't like anybody. Word from my friends that work for Amazon is that the average length of employment with them is 18 months before you'll leave for someplace better or be booted out. Not only that, but the time when Amazon made people millionaires was years ago in the first.com boom. Now, it's just another large business like any other.
To expand on this for general conversation. Looking at orbital physics, it seems that a Mars mission will take about two years. 7-9 months to get to Mars, a stay of several months then another 7-9 months back at the optimal times in the Earth-Mars orbits. Leaving at other times or attempting quicker transit speeds greatly increases the distances or fuel needed as to be prohibitive. Therefore, we'll need a long term space habitat for the astronauts. How many we'll need is a questions but I would guess that three might not have all the needed skills for such a long mission. Adding more will increase the weight needed in terms of space ship, food, fuel, atmosphere, water, etc.
So, we'll need a long term space habitat for a questionable number of people. It will need to be shielded from cosmic rays and other radiation. It will be able to maintain an atmosphere for the astronauts for the entire time. As I've been told by many naval friends, all ships leak. Space ships are no different and there are loses of gas to space. The ISS has to be sent shipments of atmosphere regularly like food from what I've read. health concerns as well as other reasons, it'll probably need spin gravity. Those other reasons might include the need for things like a machine shop so they can fix anything that breaks or goes wrong. It's either that or learn how to make zero G machining equipment. They'll probably already need to know how to weld in zero G, some of which has been learned on the ISS and previous missions, but I be there is still more to learn to improve the equipment and techniques. Solar power better be able to power the mission at Mars because I doubt we have enough plutonium for such a large mission for the usual nuclear power plant, and probably not the tested tech for another type using uranium.
Anyway, once we know what tech we need, it will need to be developed and tested. I could see several tests that would take a long time. First, more testing at the ISS or other space stations to develop the needed tech to build a prototype of a long term space habitiat. Then building such a space habitat in orbit around earth farther out with people living there for long periods to see how it works and to test the tech. Another version for movement that could be tested by revisiting the moon on a long trip around it with landing mission. Studying the moon for months. Finally, something going to Mars which would be resupply mission, equipment, emergency return plans, ect. to test actually getting to Mars and the conditions there. Followed by the actual mission to Mars with a crew. Failure to learn all we think we need to learn could result in even more missions and testing.
My question is that if we, the USA or the world, had the political will to do so, how far do you think we are away from being able to send a manned mission to Mars in terms of time, money, and technology? Second, would that manned mission be cheaper than doing the same work with robotic missions?
Every time I hear about people wanting to have a manned trip to Mars, I have to roll my eyes. It seems that we are just nowhere near what is needed to actually perform one, namely a long term space habitat probably needing spin gravity, minimal leakage, and propulsion, especially assuming that such things would need to be tested and the actual Mars shot would be far down the mission scale (comparable how Apollo 11 was the one that made it to the surface of the moon). Talk of a one way trip sound even sillier to me as I figure once we have the ability to actually confidently get to Mars, getting back would be fairly trivial. My question is that if we, the USA or the world, how far do you think we are away from being able to send a manned mission to Mars in terms of time, money, and technology? Second, would that manned mission be cheaper than doing the same work with robotic missions?
Uber is doing this via providing an inferior, unregulated service, which may, or may not be competitive on price.
Which is sort of funny, because in the US, or here in Seattle at least, Uber is providing a superior (if unregulated) service that is more expensive than the cabs. They have their supporters because the normal cabs are unreliable, dirty, and more scary than an unregulated Uber.
Personally, I can't speak for London Black Cabs as when I'm there I just take the underground or walk everywhere.
Lebensraum? A gravity well with magnetic shield in the range where water is liquid might be worth fighting over. If they can make it here, they can probably build space habitats, but like ships, all space habitats are going to leak. The Earth is quite simply a cheap and easy place to live, especially in the long run of thousands of years. Terraforming another planet like Mars will take a lot of energy, something like three days output of the sun last time I did the numbers. If they got here in a generation ship or have technical troubles that would prevent them from going anywhere else, they might not have a choice as to what to do, especially if we are competing for the same resources.
Can't offer you reliable evidence that people ordering well done steaks get less desirable cuts of meat, but considering that the only people I've heard mention this before have been my friends who say they actually do it in restaurants. Nice restaurants at that. They don't order special cheap meat for well done, but those will get the older and less desirable steaks because the flaws won't be detected as they would be with a rare steak. They, in effect said, that ordering your steak well done is a chance for the restaurant to get rid of older meat before they throw it away.
Of course, if you like eating out, don't even work in a restaurant or listen to the stories of those who do. A place one of them worked had a large window for people outside to see them cook. They explained all the ways they had to distract people when they did something like dropped an expensive steak on the floor and had to pick it up so they could wash, cook, and serve it.
I bet some geniouses do think well done is done well. But where do you go to order something and they ask you, "would you like a cup of our crapiest water?"
Thats why I never interview with offers from places in the valley. They would have to double my salary just to maintain the same standard of living, let alone add on more on top of it to even make it enticing to move.
There. You just answered why businesses show up where they are. It's because most people decide where they want to live first, move there, and then look for a job. Deal is that the people working in tech companies aren't living in SF because that's where the jobs are, but the jobs are there because that's where the people are. Lots of colleges, lots of night life, lots of things that attract 20 somethings looking for jobs. In the first.com boom, Nashville tried very hard to get those tech companies to locate there. They were somewhat successful, but what was much harder was getting the people that those companies needed for employees to move to Nashville. Some people will prefer it, like how you prefer Denver, but many others, the majority, prefer moving to places like SF or Seattle because it offers them the standard of living they desire.
Those are long-service regulars. Later on in the movie they've had to resort to conscription.
Shit, I can't believe I'm trying to make sense out of star Wars.
If you really want to make sense of the movie, just realize that the scenes where they can't hit anything is where they are actively trying to let the rebel princess escape so they can get onto a ship with a tracking beacon to lead them to the rest base which they really want. That plan couldn't work if the stormtroopers actually hit and killed everybody. Even Leia said the escape had been too easy. face it, all those stormtroopers had orders to miss.
Does something similar apply to Stromtroopers and their weapons as well? After all, all they ever hit with those blasters was Luke's aunt and uncle.
They hit plenty when they aren't actively trying to let people escape. Boarding Leia's ship, on Tattoine, etc. they are effectivel fighters. The point they were missing everybody was when the said rebels were escaping to the Falcon. After which Leia said "That was too easy. They must be tracking us." Which they were. The plan from fairly early was to let them escape from the Death Star and follow them to the rest of the rebels. A plan that would only work, if they lived to escape.
I think reboots are for successive generations of moviegoers, moreso than for lifelong fans of a given franchise. If that were not true, the characters and plots would age and mature. (And by "generation," I just mean "people too young to see the previous iteration when it was new", not necessarily the children of the people who watched it new).
Thing is that there's no reason to do a reboot. The people already know the character. They don't need another origin story. They don't need to have things rehashed any more than they need to have things based on previous movies. Just do a new movie with a new take on the character already if you want. The only reason to do a reboot where they retell or change the origin story is for somebody to piss all over it and call it theirs. Probably because they can't otherwise come up with a memorable script otherwise.
ISS isn't space. It's a LEO publicity stunt. The moon is space. Mars is space. ISS is just a jobs program, and a way to justify funding.
The ISS is a research platform we need because there is a lot of things we need to know how to do before we can go to "space". If we were serious about getting to "space" we'd double our efforts at the ISS and probably have to build an ISS2. Once we've learned enough to actually build a deep space habitat, then we can look at going to "space".
The idea of self-replicating small entities is the same, but that bacteria is micrometer scale not nanoscale aside, the difference is the scenario where gray goo consume everything. Virus replicate only within living cells, and most of them in a non-deadly (even if somewhat harmful) symbiosis with the host. Grey goo nano-machines consume raw materials, not only us, but all the stuff around us (including what we try to contain them with).
The idea that they can construct nano-scaled machines that can consume everything is right up there with Ice-9 and being able to teach water to freeze at a temperature higher than room temperature. Sounds good, but the idea that man could improve on what nature has been trying to do in billions of years is pretty laughable. We can make nano-machines, but I bet that once they make them able to survive in a non-specialized evironment, self reproducing and add in the ability to feed off of a wider range of materials, we'll be lucky to have them in the bacteria range.
Big Bang Theory is like blackface comedy. It's not for nerds, but for people who want to laugh at nerds.
yes because it is never a good thing to laugh at ones self
Ya, but it helps to be funny first. I watched the first four or five episodes and there were some funny bits, but the matter of the fact is that nerds were not their target audience.
A trained physicist has many useful skills most people completely lack. For example, the ability to test hypotheses and perform quantitative reasoning would come in handy to many people working jobs unrelated to hamburgers and fries.
Actually those qualities come in very handy in computer related fields as does all the higher math if you go into coding. It looks good on your resume and impresses employers over those without degrees, and you end up with a career that no longer requires brain melting math. It's like hardly working at all compared to actually doing physics.
GP was asking why producing full length tv shows is expensive and you retort with why shouldn't it be expensive without giving any lead as to why it must be
Care to provide us with _at least_ one credible answer, please ?
Ever stopped and watched the credits on a TV show or Movie? Ever thought about what it takes to pay all those people? Now add in equipment, studio, and location costs. Add in all the other costs that somebody who isn't in the industry of filming something wouldn't think of off the top of their heads. You now have a seriously large amount of money. Could it be produced for less? Yes, but you get what you pay for. The GP was specifically wanting "incredibly great TV shows" and not some kid with a hand held camera. Simple answer is that professional results requires hiring professionals using professional equipment which costs an amount of money that most people are not used to dealing with. I see this all the time with people complaining about various jobs from the arts and programming. You want hand made art that took an artist two months to build, then you're going to be paying two months contract salary plus studio rental plus materials for that piece of art. Most people balk at the costs of paying two months of somebodies salary let alone all those other costs.
No, you are meaning "spin" to mean viewpoint. He means left-leaning to mean issues important to left-leaning people, not "spun" in any direction. He seems quite clear on that point, and insistence on arguing makes the arguer look dumb for not understanding.
Still not buying it. A station can still vet the news and spin it by showing its watchers only what they want to see. It's a lot of what Fox does. If a left news channel tells nothing but stories on police brutality, even if all true, then the watchers are shown that police brutality is out of control and growing, even if it is actually getting less and less common.
There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there. The American stations are all still too capitalist.
You don't want news. You want talking heads to tell you that your currently held notions are correct.
If you honestly want news, then actually, the best places to go are the financial sources such as the Wall Street Journal and The Economist. (Used to also be the New York Times.) These are what people read to make money. They buy them because they need real news, not people telling them they are right, because if they make a judgement on "news" that is wrong, then people lose lots of money and they will then find a place to get real news.
You really want to know why Americans hate so much the French ? By the way it's the same reason the French hate so much the Americans. Because deep deep down where the sun doesn't shine, France and the US of A are the 2 sides of the same coin. Much more so than the US and the UK. Ironic isn't ?
From what I could figure out in trying to track down the "French are surrender monkeys" trope, hatred of the French pretty much all goes back to post WW2 DeGaulle government. France pulls out of NATO. States that the USSR is going to win the cold war. Generally insults England at every chance by saying that all their achievments were given to them by the US. Annexes Algeria and calls it France while others are trying to end the colonial era. Starts nuclear testing while even the US and USSR and agreeing to limit it. This was all pretty much done because France wanted to still be considered a superpower and was willing to piss people off to try and prove it. Pretty much what Russia is doing now.
This project is a prime candidate for liability insurance. Purchasing liability insurance is a good decision, even if nothing bad happens. Purchasing liability insurance with parameters as described above is a bad decision--even if you're unlucky, not purchasing it is usually a good decision (unless risk appetite is extremely low).
You're forgetting that insurance comes out of operations budget which is a given known cost ahead of time and replacing above computers would come out of Capital Budget which is planned out a year in advance, not a given, and hard to get. Thus it's a good plan to get the insurance all the time because replacing the failed equipment will be a quicker, easier given rather than a political nightmare which might cost you your job.
LOL... all these fancy city slickers with their fancy weird haircuts and their fancy weird rock and roll music driving their fancy weird imported cars. People had wires sticking out of their ears for some reason.
Why I saw guys not wearing plaid shirts, belt buckles or hats, and sipping on some kinda weird foamy coffee things... and they was holdin' hands! Bubba was practically beside himself when he saw the girl with the blue hair and the safety pin through her nose.
I went into a Japanese bait shop, and the guy kept rolling it up with rice... fish don't eat rice! I have no idea how I was supposed to catch a fish with two sticks.
Then I went to this Eye-talian place, and they kept grating something that smelled like my daddy's socks over my food.
I keed, I keed... I know Texans usually carry guns.
Suddenly Austin sounds like an interesting place.
Except for the first line, I'd joke about you having met my father. It's not that Texas is all rural (like Kansas, hell even Kansas City is in Missouri), but most of Texas that is not Austin is Texas. Your city slicker business men will be there with expensive Western suits complete with cowboy hat and boots. It's fairly conservative including the hispanic population which has their own clothes and social mores. If you've ever watched King of the Hill, that's about as realistic as Texas is going to get on the TV. As for guns, I have actually seen AKs in the rifle racks in the back of pickup windows before.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose if you're a gay male that sounds like Utopia. Welcome to Seattle, the new San Francisco. The Space Needle will take on new allegorical significance as a monument!
Hey, George Takei is our guest of honor for the Pride Parade this year!
Why the presumption that Amazon's new hires will be 75% male?
Well, about 85% of CS grads today are male. But if it makes you feel better, they could hire more women for the packing floor.
What makes you think that new hires will be CS grads or packers? Amazon hires a great deal of buyers, marketers, project managers, facilitators, coordinators, designers, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if their normal business type people far outweigh their tech people as they are dealing with a huge number of other businesses all over the world before anything hits a web page. Of course, I've also heard that Amazon doesn't like to hire women. Then again, Amazon really doesn't like anybody. Word from my friends that work for Amazon is that the average length of employment with them is 18 months before you'll leave for someplace better or be booted out. Not only that, but the time when Amazon made people millionaires was years ago in the first .com boom. Now, it's just another large business like any other.
To expand on this for general conversation. Looking at orbital physics, it seems that a Mars mission will take about two years. 7-9 months to get to Mars, a stay of several months then another 7-9 months back at the optimal times in the Earth-Mars orbits. Leaving at other times or attempting quicker transit speeds greatly increases the distances or fuel needed as to be prohibitive. Therefore, we'll need a long term space habitat for the astronauts. How many we'll need is a questions but I would guess that three might not have all the needed skills for such a long mission. Adding more will increase the weight needed in terms of space ship, food, fuel, atmosphere, water, etc.
So, we'll need a long term space habitat for a questionable number of people. It will need to be shielded from cosmic rays and other radiation. It will be able to maintain an atmosphere for the astronauts for the entire time. As I've been told by many naval friends, all ships leak. Space ships are no different and there are loses of gas to space. The ISS has to be sent shipments of atmosphere regularly like food from what I've read. health concerns as well as other reasons, it'll probably need spin gravity. Those other reasons might include the need for things like a machine shop so they can fix anything that breaks or goes wrong. It's either that or learn how to make zero G machining equipment. They'll probably already need to know how to weld in zero G, some of which has been learned on the ISS and previous missions, but I be there is still more to learn to improve the equipment and techniques. Solar power better be able to power the mission at Mars because I doubt we have enough plutonium for such a large mission for the usual nuclear power plant, and probably not the tested tech for another type using uranium.
Anyway, once we know what tech we need, it will need to be developed and tested. I could see several tests that would take a long time. First, more testing at the ISS or other space stations to develop the needed tech to build a prototype of a long term space habitiat. Then building such a space habitat in orbit around earth farther out with people living there for long periods to see how it works and to test the tech. Another version for movement that could be tested by revisiting the moon on a long trip around it with landing mission. Studying the moon for months. Finally, something going to Mars which would be resupply mission, equipment, emergency return plans, ect. to test actually getting to Mars and the conditions there. Followed by the actual mission to Mars with a crew. Failure to learn all we think we need to learn could result in even more missions and testing.
My question is that if we, the USA or the world, had the political will to do so, how far do you think we are away from being able to send a manned mission to Mars in terms of time, money, and technology? Second, would that manned mission be cheaper than doing the same work with robotic missions?
Every time I hear about people wanting to have a manned trip to Mars, I have to roll my eyes. It seems that we are just nowhere near what is needed to actually perform one, namely a long term space habitat probably needing spin gravity, minimal leakage, and propulsion, especially assuming that such things would need to be tested and the actual Mars shot would be far down the mission scale (comparable how Apollo 11 was the one that made it to the surface of the moon). Talk of a one way trip sound even sillier to me as I figure once we have the ability to actually confidently get to Mars, getting back would be fairly trivial. My question is that if we, the USA or the world, how far do you think we are away from being able to send a manned mission to Mars in terms of time, money, and technology? Second, would that manned mission be cheaper than doing the same work with robotic missions?
If you want affordable, good sounding speakers, you have to build them yourself. Get one of versions of these: https://sites.google.com/site/...
I'm going to look really funny wearing those on the bus though.
Uber is doing this via providing an inferior, unregulated service, which may, or may not be competitive on price.
Which is sort of funny, because in the US, or here in Seattle at least, Uber is providing a superior (if unregulated) service that is more expensive than the cabs. They have their supporters because the normal cabs are unreliable, dirty, and more scary than an unregulated Uber.
Personally, I can't speak for London Black Cabs as when I'm there I just take the underground or walk everywhere.
Lebensraum? A gravity well with magnetic shield in the range where water is liquid might be worth fighting over. If they can make it here, they can probably build space habitats, but like ships, all space habitats are going to leak. The Earth is quite simply a cheap and easy place to live, especially in the long run of thousands of years. Terraforming another planet like Mars will take a lot of energy, something like three days output of the sun last time I did the numbers. If they got here in a generation ship or have technical troubles that would prevent them from going anywhere else, they might not have a choice as to what to do, especially if we are competing for the same resources.
I'd like to see reliable evidence of this.
Can't offer you reliable evidence that people ordering well done steaks get less desirable cuts of meat, but considering that the only people I've heard mention this before have been my friends who say they actually do it in restaurants. Nice restaurants at that. They don't order special cheap meat for well done, but those will get the older and less desirable steaks because the flaws won't be detected as they would be with a rare steak. They, in effect said, that ordering your steak well done is a chance for the restaurant to get rid of older meat before they throw it away.
Of course, if you like eating out, don't even work in a restaurant or listen to the stories of those who do. A place one of them worked had a large window for people outside to see them cook. They explained all the ways they had to distract people when they did something like dropped an expensive steak on the floor and had to pick it up so they could wash, cook, and serve it.
I bet some geniouses do think well done is done well. But where do you go to order something and they ask you, "would you like a cup of our crapiest water?"
Anyplace that serves Budweiser or Coors.
Thats why I never interview with offers from places in the valley. They would have to double my salary just to maintain the same standard of living, let alone add on more on top of it to even make it enticing to move.
There. You just answered why businesses show up where they are. It's because most people decide where they want to live first, move there, and then look for a job. Deal is that the people working in tech companies aren't living in SF because that's where the jobs are, but the jobs are there because that's where the people are. Lots of colleges, lots of night life, lots of things that attract 20 somethings looking for jobs. In the first .com boom, Nashville tried very hard to get those tech companies to locate there. They were somewhat successful, but what was much harder was getting the people that those companies needed for employees to move to Nashville. Some people will prefer it, like how you prefer Denver, but many others, the majority, prefer moving to places like SF or Seattle because it offers them the standard of living they desire.
Those are long-service regulars. Later on in the movie they've had to resort to conscription.
Shit, I can't believe I'm trying to make sense out of star Wars.
If you really want to make sense of the movie, just realize that the scenes where they can't hit anything is where they are actively trying to let the rebel princess escape so they can get onto a ship with a tracking beacon to lead them to the rest base which they really want. That plan couldn't work if the stormtroopers actually hit and killed everybody. Even Leia said the escape had been too easy. face it, all those stormtroopers had orders to miss.
Does something similar apply to Stromtroopers and their weapons as well? After all, all they ever hit with those blasters was Luke's aunt and uncle.
They hit plenty when they aren't actively trying to let people escape. Boarding Leia's ship, on Tattoine, etc. they are effectivel fighters. The point they were missing everybody was when the said rebels were escaping to the Falcon. After which Leia said "That was too easy. They must be tracking us." Which they were. The plan from fairly early was to let them escape from the Death Star and follow them to the rest of the rebels. A plan that would only work, if they lived to escape.
I think reboots are for successive generations of moviegoers, moreso than for lifelong fans of a given franchise. If that were not true, the characters and plots would age and mature. (And by "generation," I just mean "people too young to see the previous iteration when it was new", not necessarily the children of the people who watched it new).
Thing is that there's no reason to do a reboot. The people already know the character. They don't need another origin story. They don't need to have things rehashed any more than they need to have things based on previous movies. Just do a new movie with a new take on the character already if you want. The only reason to do a reboot where they retell or change the origin story is for somebody to piss all over it and call it theirs. Probably because they can't otherwise come up with a memorable script otherwise.
ISS isn't space. It's a LEO publicity stunt. The moon is space. Mars is space. ISS is just a jobs program, and a way to justify funding.
The ISS is a research platform we need because there is a lot of things we need to know how to do before we can go to "space". If we were serious about getting to "space" we'd double our efforts at the ISS and probably have to build an ISS2. Once we've learned enough to actually build a deep space habitat, then we can look at going to "space".
The idea of self-replicating small entities is the same, but that bacteria is micrometer scale not nanoscale aside, the difference is the scenario where gray goo consume everything. Virus replicate only within living cells, and most of them in a non-deadly (even if somewhat harmful) symbiosis with the host. Grey goo nano-machines consume raw materials, not only us, but all the stuff around us (including what we try to contain them with).
The idea that they can construct nano-scaled machines that can consume everything is right up there with Ice-9 and being able to teach water to freeze at a temperature higher than room temperature. Sounds good, but the idea that man could improve on what nature has been trying to do in billions of years is pretty laughable. We can make nano-machines, but I bet that once they make them able to survive in a non-specialized evironment, self reproducing and add in the ability to feed off of a wider range of materials, we'll be lucky to have them in the bacteria range.
Big Bang Theory is like blackface comedy. It's not for nerds, but for people who want to laugh at nerds.
yes because it is never a good thing to laugh at ones self
Ya, but it helps to be funny first. I watched the first four or five episodes and there were some funny bits, but the matter of the fact is that nerds were not their target audience.
A trained physicist has many useful skills most people completely lack. For example, the ability to test hypotheses and perform quantitative reasoning would come in handy to many people working jobs unrelated to hamburgers and fries.
Actually those qualities come in very handy in computer related fields as does all the higher math if you go into coding. It looks good on your resume and impresses employers over those without degrees, and you end up with a career that no longer requires brain melting math. It's like hardly working at all compared to actually doing physics.
GP was asking why producing full length tv shows is expensive and you retort with why shouldn't it be expensive without giving any lead as to why it must be
Care to provide us with _at least_ one credible answer, please ?
Ever stopped and watched the credits on a TV show or Movie? Ever thought about what it takes to pay all those people? Now add in equipment, studio, and location costs. Add in all the other costs that somebody who isn't in the industry of filming something wouldn't think of off the top of their heads. You now have a seriously large amount of money. Could it be produced for less? Yes, but you get what you pay for. The GP was specifically wanting "incredibly great TV shows" and not some kid with a hand held camera. Simple answer is that professional results requires hiring professionals using professional equipment which costs an amount of money that most people are not used to dealing with. I see this all the time with people complaining about various jobs from the arts and programming. You want hand made art that took an artist two months to build, then you're going to be paying two months contract salary plus studio rental plus materials for that piece of art. Most people balk at the costs of paying two months of somebodies salary let alone all those other costs.
No, you are meaning "spin" to mean viewpoint. He means left-leaning to mean issues important to left-leaning people, not "spun" in any direction. He seems quite clear on that point, and insistence on arguing makes the arguer look dumb for not understanding.
Still not buying it. A station can still vet the news and spin it by showing its watchers only what they want to see. It's a lot of what Fox does. If a left news channel tells nothing but stories on police brutality, even if all true, then the watchers are shown that police brutality is out of control and growing, even if it is actually getting less and less common.
There is not a good left-leaning news channel out there. The American stations are all still too capitalist.
You don't want news. You want talking heads to tell you that your currently held notions are correct.
If you honestly want news, then actually, the best places to go are the financial sources such as the Wall Street Journal and The Economist. (Used to also be the New York Times.) These are what people read to make money. They buy them because they need real news, not people telling them they are right, because if they make a judgement on "news" that is wrong, then people lose lots of money and they will then find a place to get real news.
In other words, what keeps the hydrogen from floating away into space?
Being bound to much heavier oxygen and carbon atoms mostly.
You really want to know why Americans hate so much the French ? By the way it's the same reason the French hate so much the Americans. Because deep deep down where the sun doesn't shine, France and the US of A are the 2 sides of the same coin. Much more so than the US and the UK. Ironic isn't ?
From what I could figure out in trying to track down the "French are surrender monkeys" trope, hatred of the French pretty much all goes back to post WW2 DeGaulle government. France pulls out of NATO. States that the USSR is going to win the cold war. Generally insults England at every chance by saying that all their achievments were given to them by the US. Annexes Algeria and calls it France while others are trying to end the colonial era. Starts nuclear testing while even the US and USSR and agreeing to limit it. This was all pretty much done because France wanted to still be considered a superpower and was willing to piss people off to try and prove it. Pretty much what Russia is doing now.
This project is a prime candidate for liability insurance. Purchasing liability insurance is a good decision, even if nothing bad happens. Purchasing liability insurance with parameters as described above is a bad decision--even if you're unlucky, not purchasing it is usually a good decision (unless risk appetite is extremely low).
You're forgetting that insurance comes out of operations budget which is a given known cost ahead of time and replacing above computers would come out of Capital Budget which is planned out a year in advance, not a given, and hard to get. Thus it's a good plan to get the insurance all the time because replacing the failed equipment will be a quicker, easier given rather than a political nightmare which might cost you your job.
LOL ... all these fancy city slickers with their fancy weird haircuts and their fancy weird rock and roll music driving their fancy weird imported cars. People had wires sticking out of their ears for some reason.
Why I saw guys not wearing plaid shirts, belt buckles or hats, and sipping on some kinda weird foamy coffee things ... and they was holdin' hands! Bubba was practically beside himself when he saw the girl with the blue hair and the safety pin through her nose.
I went into a Japanese bait shop, and the guy kept rolling it up with rice ... fish don't eat rice! I have no idea how I was supposed to catch a fish with two sticks.
Then I went to this Eye-talian place, and they kept grating something that smelled like my daddy's socks over my food.
I keed, I keed ... I know Texans usually carry guns.
Suddenly Austin sounds like an interesting place.
Except for the first line, I'd joke about you having met my father. It's not that Texas is all rural (like Kansas, hell even Kansas City is in Missouri), but most of Texas that is not Austin is Texas. Your city slicker business men will be there with expensive Western suits complete with cowboy hat and boots. It's fairly conservative including the hispanic population which has their own clothes and social mores. If you've ever watched King of the Hill, that's about as realistic as Texas is going to get on the TV. As for guns, I have actually seen AKs in the rifle racks in the back of pickup windows before.