What evidence is there that it's becoming poisonous at all to humans?
And please don't cite one of those long since debunked stories claiming that GMOs cause cancer, because not one of those studies has ever made it past peer review, and all of them have been since discredited as junk science, even by other anti-GMO advocates.
Actually that's not a bad idea at all. In Mexico where people are supposedly poorer, they actually own their houses without a mortgage.
I don't advocate banning mortgages (that would just substitute dickwad banks with legal accountability for loan sharks with zero legal accountability...really not a better situation to be in) However I do think that government policies forcing banks to make loans more readily available can definitely be done away with. The idea was that more loan availability means more people own houses...which is technically true, but that also means houses are more expensive and people are perpetually in debt.
The same rule applies to student loans, of which I think we have too many (and the government should discontinue issuing student loans immediately IMO, which would not only solve the tuition rate hike problem, but would solve the student loan default problem.) Would there be less people in college? Probably, though I doubt you'd see much less. Not only that, but a few of those who probably shouldn't be in college to begin with wouldn't go either. College really isn't for everyone, and I think we need to stop pretending it is.
Actually no I don't live in a basement (I don't even have one.) Do I live with my mom? Yep, no qualms about it either. I pay for everything but the mortgage, so it's not as if it's a one way deal. In fact it's really not much different from having a roommate, except there's no risk of anything being stolen.
"Normal way"? Do you speak Cherokee by any chance? This is a country that was founded by and is composed of people who immigrated here without asking the existing residents their opinion on the matter. Anyone who complains about it now is pretty much a hypocrite because most of us have ancestors that came here without asking permission.
He's from India, first generation. I'd like to hear about which of his ancestors came here without asking permission.
I don't recall advocating such a system. Seriously, what the fuck is with me taking one position and not one but five of you automatically assume I have yet another almost unrelated (and sometimes totally unrelated) position? The poster below you even seems to believe that I watch Sean Hannity, which I have no idea how that even relates to this (I have no idea what the fuck he thinks about immigration, nor do I really care.) Try to state your position on an issue and the self righteous types try to turn you into something you aren't while trying to make themselves look good. Sadly they often call this being "progressive." The prohibitionists called themselves progressive, and so did Hitler. Probably not a good label to take IMO.
Anyways my ancestry traces back sometime prior to the revolutionary war (in fact two of them fought in it.)
And no, that's not the reason it's still around. And your fear mongering of that scenario doesn't happen in most countries where there's no birthright citizenship.
Also before anybody asks, the reason I'm leaving the US has nothing to do with politics. In fact the place I'm going to (New South Wales) I already know to have political views I like even less (such as believing in internet and video game censorship) but that doesn't change my opinion of it. I just want to see another place and another culture; nothing more really. I'd choose a more exotic location, but unfortunately I'm a kidney transplant candidate, and virtually all first world country transplant teams balk at the idea of even going to some place like Mexico for so much as a milisecond, so I'll avoid it.
Oh, here's one! [oecd.org] Apparently the average family household unit size in the entire OECD (basically, the community of industrialized nations) is about 2.6
Hmm...you really pulled a stupid there. Try reading your report again. It breaks down households by family nucleus, not by physical dwelling, for all but one category, and it specifically notes (see the bottom of the first page) that they separate averages by category. I don't know where you pulled that 2.6 figure from, but that would only be from among one of those categories according to that report, and I highly doubt it would have been from the category that counted extended families.
I don't recall saying that (and they're certainly around; I hear complaints all the time from a friend of mine who is himself an immigrant and always sees patients who are birthright citizens, which he commonly complains about because he had to go through hell to get here the normal way.)
Anyways I don't really view it as my problem. I intend on expatriating myself, so I'm not going to bother fighting it. It's actually a problem that those who are intending to stay here are going to have to deal with after so many years of turning a blind eye to it (people like you telling themselves that it's racism when race has nothing to do with it -- never mind that Mexico isn't a race, nor are Mexicans, many of which are whiter than I am.)
At the rate climate change is occuring we're seeing a mass extinction event. This is because whilst yes, nature can quite happily have a thriving ecosystem in warmer climates, it takes time for that to evolve - millions of years in fact.
Sorry, but that's a load of crap, it doesn't take anywhere close to that long. We've already seen dramatic shifts in climate in isolated areas that life adapts to within one or two generations. Not necessarily in animals, but in humans as well. It's actually well documented that the indigenous people in the Andes adapted to that climate (and atmosphere, which is much thinner) within 1-2 generations (increased lung capacity, shorter in stature, thicker skin to the point that they can comfortably walk barefoot in freezing temperatures.)
Hell, the last Ice Age wasn't even one million years ago, never mind millions. In fact it was only 12,000 years ago before the climate became dramatically warmer to what it is now. If your "millions of years" model was correct, everything should be extinct already.
Chernobyl and Pripyat are practically a zoo now, and that incident only occurred about 30 years ago.
We're not talking about adaptations along the scale of say going from gills to lungs - not anywhere close to that. Mammals in particular are extremely resilient to all sorts of changes and can literally be found in every climate and ecosystem that exists on this planet.
Well if you want to get that technical, I don't think subsonic works either as that is referring to the speed of an object in relation to the sound barrier.
However I am indeed referring to tones that exist below the range of what you can sense with your cochlea (unless you're an elephant and you can hear down to 5hz.)
it's the same as taxi cabs lining up for pick ups at a bus station...they are not allowed & neither should google busses
There are a few reason why the taxi argument doesn't apply and is invalid: (and hence I ignored it)
1. Google isn't offering bus services to the public. Instead the purpose is to reduce the need for separate commutes, and provide added convenience for the employees. It is a private function much in the same as if the employee were driving their own cars. 2. It's already pretty well established that San Francisco is actually running a racket when it comes to taxi's. Recall the ride sharing apps that the city is trying to fight because it isn't able to charge businesses up the nose for them (it costs somewhere north of $300,000 just to be able to have a permit to operate a cab there.) 3. In light of it being completely private, do you also propose that SF add daily fees and permit requirements for people driving their own cars? I'm guessing the answer is no, and if so, then why the fuck would that not apply to them but would apply to Google's buses?
Rather it is actually very myopic of you to suggest that Google's actions of reducing the use of public roadways is somehow taxing everything else. It's doing the opposite if anything.
Which is fine and all, until you consider that most games only use one or two cores anyways (typically just heavy use on one core with very little use on a second one.) If you have a quad core machine, two of those cores are going to be mostly idle unless something else is running in the background.
That's a common argument I see against immigration, but the fact is that immigration allows the economy to expand. (Immigrants don't steal your job, rather their mere presence permits the addition of new ones.)
The only problem I have with immigration is non-working ones who effectively leech off of the dole system and take advantage of our birthright citizenship loophole (which few countries have.) So called anchor babies by being a citizen automatically entitle their parents to welfare benefits (For example, current medicaid rules stipulate that anybody who merely has a child under 18 that is a US citizen are themselves eligible for full healthcare benefits, which are actually way better than you can buy in from private insurance, and are also completely free. They're also eligible for TANF where the T doesn't actually apply to them, in addition to being eligible for SNAP.)
The above is a very real problem that Arizona tried to deal with by simply enforcing federal immigration rules at the local level, but the federal government has effectively stopped it. In addition to that, the federal government also doesn't permit Arizona to deport known drug cartel members. (That and Phoenix is also the kidnapping capital of the world, another problem that the federal government won't allow Arizona to deal with.)
One perfect example of this I see on a daily basis is the expectation that one should either live independently or live in a single family household. This is a common thing in the US, but it is extremely uncommon throughout most of the world, even in other first world countries. In most of the world it is rather common to have 2 or more families to a single household, and generally that household will be physically smaller than the typical US household.
People sometimes wonder why rent is high in some areas (see the whole Google bus thing.) That's why (well that and SF refuses to permit building more real estate or even building upwards to meet the growth needs of the population, which is really a bonehead move.)
That doesn't make any sense. Why not offer an install option to decompress the audio if that is the case?
I could see them wanting lossless audio, but FLAC isn't very computationally expensive, and fuck we have so many cores these days you could just dedicate one of them to this and only this and you wouldn't lose anything. It is also quite literally impossible to improve audio quality beyond 48/16 FLAC if you have normal human ears, and it costs all of nothing to implement.
Why not just have a separate transponder that is located say on the highest point of the aircraft with something analogous to a Faraday cage below it?
Unless they're Tom Cruise with special scientology mind powers to do a mission impossible task, they aren't going to be able to do anything to disable it.
Actually I really like the way the freeware router firmware Tomato is designed. It uses AJAX, which is primarily javascript driven, but it works quite well. The UI alone makes Tomato a great firmware, but it's also more powerful feature wise than the competition (e.g. DD-WRT.)
it's part of a **system** and it taxes **other parts of the system**
Ok this should be good: Tell me, in what way does it tax it?
If anything, it is very much doing the opposite: Where you have upwards of 10 or maybe 30 cars driving around, you've replaced them with a single bus. That is reducing the strain on the public roadways, effectively doing the opposite of taxing them. In other words, Google is helping make traffic less problematic for the city.
But anyways I want to hear this, how exactly is Google bogging down the public transportation system in SF?
Here's an important distinction: The US seizes domains that it has jurisdiction over, but nothing else, mainly because it can't under IANA's current rules. Notice how thepiratebay.com still points to the actual pirate bay, and not some DOJ or (laughably) ICE portal?
But now suppose somebody like the UK suddenly has voting authority over IANA actions. The current ironclad foundation of non-interference that IANA has would suddenly be shaken.
It's as if one of the biggest private tennis academies in the city decided to use all public courts for its tennis lessons.
Are there buses at these stops 24/7? Do the Google buses occupy space at the same time that public buses would otherwise occupy? No? Then how the fuckin shit is that a valid comparison?
Pardon the language, but your argument is beyond absurd, effectively just grasping at straws.
The reason I prefer it remain under US control is because the internet is almost pure speech, and the US, in spite of all of its flaws, is perhaps THE biggest protector of free speech. I'm a bit concerned that some countries (even some traditionally free countries such as the UK) won't protect free speech as well as the US does. For example, it is already easy enough in Europe to simply label something as hate speech in order to have it censored. The UK already has filters for the pirate bay and pornography.
Presently in the US, there are no official filters for anything. Yes, Hollywood is trying its damnedest to change that, but so far they are failing quite spectacularly in the US (whereas they've succeeded elsewhere.) It might become easier for them to succeed with an international body.
Since IANA regulates IP address assignment, they could effectively establish filters that apply globally. The NSA is the "rest of the world"'s (by that I mean Europe, who tends to refer to themselves as "the rest of the world" quite often) best argument against the US having the keys to IANA, but the NSA has no need for that. Not a single thing they have ever done, or probably will ever do, has required IANA to change any of its rules in their favor. Even give IANA control to China if you'd like, and the NSA will still be able to do everything it does. Pleas against the NSA by foreign governments for non-US governance of IANA are just preying on those who have no fucking clue about how the internet actually works, but think they should have a say in how it is run anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
What evidence is there that it's becoming poisonous at all to humans?
And please don't cite one of those long since debunked stories claiming that GMOs cause cancer, because not one of those studies has ever made it past peer review, and all of them have been since discredited as junk science, even by other anti-GMO advocates.
Actually that's not a bad idea at all. In Mexico where people are supposedly poorer, they actually own their houses without a mortgage.
I don't advocate banning mortgages (that would just substitute dickwad banks with legal accountability for loan sharks with zero legal accountability...really not a better situation to be in) However I do think that government policies forcing banks to make loans more readily available can definitely be done away with. The idea was that more loan availability means more people own houses...which is technically true, but that also means houses are more expensive and people are perpetually in debt.
The same rule applies to student loans, of which I think we have too many (and the government should discontinue issuing student loans immediately IMO, which would not only solve the tuition rate hike problem, but would solve the student loan default problem.) Would there be less people in college? Probably, though I doubt you'd see much less. Not only that, but a few of those who probably shouldn't be in college to begin with wouldn't go either. College really isn't for everyone, and I think we need to stop pretending it is.
Actually no I don't live in a basement (I don't even have one.) Do I live with my mom? Yep, no qualms about it either. I pay for everything but the mortgage, so it's not as if it's a one way deal. In fact it's really not much different from having a roommate, except there's no risk of anything being stolen.
"Normal way"? Do you speak Cherokee by any chance? This is a country that was founded by and is composed of people who immigrated here without asking the existing residents their opinion on the matter. Anyone who complains about it now is pretty much a hypocrite because most of us have ancestors that came here without asking permission.
He's from India, first generation. I'd like to hear about which of his ancestors came here without asking permission.
Go on, tell me.
I don't recall advocating such a system. Seriously, what the fuck is with me taking one position and not one but five of you automatically assume I have yet another almost unrelated (and sometimes totally unrelated) position? The poster below you even seems to believe that I watch Sean Hannity, which I have no idea how that even relates to this (I have no idea what the fuck he thinks about immigration, nor do I really care.) Try to state your position on an issue and the self righteous types try to turn you into something you aren't while trying to make themselves look good. Sadly they often call this being "progressive." The prohibitionists called themselves progressive, and so did Hitler. Probably not a good label to take IMO.
Anyways my ancestry traces back sometime prior to the revolutionary war (in fact two of them fought in it.)
And no, that's not the reason it's still around. And your fear mongering of that scenario doesn't happen in most countries where there's no birthright citizenship.
Also before anybody asks, the reason I'm leaving the US has nothing to do with politics. In fact the place I'm going to (New South Wales) I already know to have political views I like even less (such as believing in internet and video game censorship) but that doesn't change my opinion of it. I just want to see another place and another culture; nothing more really. I'd choose a more exotic location, but unfortunately I'm a kidney transplant candidate, and virtually all first world country transplant teams balk at the idea of even going to some place like Mexico for so much as a milisecond, so I'll avoid it.
Why not just raise the emissions standards?
Citation please?
Oh, here's one! [oecd.org] Apparently the average family household unit size in the entire OECD (basically, the community of industrialized nations) is about 2.6
Hmm...you really pulled a stupid there. Try reading your report again. It breaks down households by family nucleus, not by physical dwelling, for all but one category, and it specifically notes (see the bottom of the first page) that they separate averages by category. I don't know where you pulled that 2.6 figure from, but that would only be from among one of those categories according to that report, and I highly doubt it would have been from the category that counted extended families.
I don't recall saying that (and they're certainly around; I hear complaints all the time from a friend of mine who is himself an immigrant and always sees patients who are birthright citizens, which he commonly complains about because he had to go through hell to get here the normal way.)
That is also ignoring acts of terror:
http://www.reuters.com/article...
Anyways I don't really view it as my problem. I intend on expatriating myself, so I'm not going to bother fighting it. It's actually a problem that those who are intending to stay here are going to have to deal with after so many years of turning a blind eye to it (people like you telling themselves that it's racism when race has nothing to do with it -- never mind that Mexico isn't a race, nor are Mexicans, many of which are whiter than I am.)
They're not here illegally if they have a kid who is a citizen.
At the rate climate change is occuring we're seeing a mass extinction event. This is because whilst yes, nature can quite happily have a thriving ecosystem in warmer climates, it takes time for that to evolve - millions of years in fact.
Sorry, but that's a load of crap, it doesn't take anywhere close to that long. We've already seen dramatic shifts in climate in isolated areas that life adapts to within one or two generations. Not necessarily in animals, but in humans as well. It's actually well documented that the indigenous people in the Andes adapted to that climate (and atmosphere, which is much thinner) within 1-2 generations (increased lung capacity, shorter in stature, thicker skin to the point that they can comfortably walk barefoot in freezing temperatures.)
Hell, the last Ice Age wasn't even one million years ago, never mind millions. In fact it was only 12,000 years ago before the climate became dramatically warmer to what it is now. If your "millions of years" model was correct, everything should be extinct already.
Chernobyl and Pripyat are practically a zoo now, and that incident only occurred about 30 years ago.
We're not talking about adaptations along the scale of say going from gills to lungs - not anywhere close to that. Mammals in particular are extremely resilient to all sorts of changes and can literally be found in every climate and ecosystem that exists on this planet.
Well if you want to get that technical, I don't think subsonic works either as that is referring to the speed of an object in relation to the sound barrier.
However I am indeed referring to tones that exist below the range of what you can sense with your cochlea (unless you're an elephant and you can hear down to 5hz.)
it's the same as taxi cabs lining up for pick ups at a bus station...they are not allowed & neither should google busses
There are a few reason why the taxi argument doesn't apply and is invalid: (and hence I ignored it)
1. Google isn't offering bus services to the public. Instead the purpose is to reduce the need for separate commutes, and provide added convenience for the employees. It is a private function much in the same as if the employee were driving their own cars.
2. It's already pretty well established that San Francisco is actually running a racket when it comes to taxi's. Recall the ride sharing apps that the city is trying to fight because it isn't able to charge businesses up the nose for them (it costs somewhere north of $300,000 just to be able to have a permit to operate a cab there.)
3. In light of it being completely private, do you also propose that SF add daily fees and permit requirements for people driving their own cars? I'm guessing the answer is no, and if so, then why the fuck would that not apply to them but would apply to Google's buses?
Rather it is actually very myopic of you to suggest that Google's actions of reducing the use of public roadways is somehow taxing everything else. It's doing the opposite if anything.
Which is fine and all, until you consider that most games only use one or two cores anyways (typically just heavy use on one core with very little use on a second one.) If you have a quad core machine, two of those cores are going to be mostly idle unless something else is running in the background.
No that guy is still around, and still posts that stuff. I'm really not sure what his deal is, or why he targeted me in particular.
That's a common argument I see against immigration, but the fact is that immigration allows the economy to expand. (Immigrants don't steal your job, rather their mere presence permits the addition of new ones.)
The only problem I have with immigration is non-working ones who effectively leech off of the dole system and take advantage of our birthright citizenship loophole (which few countries have.) So called anchor babies by being a citizen automatically entitle their parents to welfare benefits (For example, current medicaid rules stipulate that anybody who merely has a child under 18 that is a US citizen are themselves eligible for full healthcare benefits, which are actually way better than you can buy in from private insurance, and are also completely free. They're also eligible for TANF where the T doesn't actually apply to them, in addition to being eligible for SNAP.)
The above is a very real problem that Arizona tried to deal with by simply enforcing federal immigration rules at the local level, but the federal government has effectively stopped it. In addition to that, the federal government also doesn't permit Arizona to deport known drug cartel members. (That and Phoenix is also the kidnapping capital of the world, another problem that the federal government won't allow Arizona to deal with.)
One perfect example of this I see on a daily basis is the expectation that one should either live independently or live in a single family household. This is a common thing in the US, but it is extremely uncommon throughout most of the world, even in other first world countries. In most of the world it is rather common to have 2 or more families to a single household, and generally that household will be physically smaller than the typical US household.
People sometimes wonder why rent is high in some areas (see the whole Google bus thing.) That's why (well that and SF refuses to permit building more real estate or even building upwards to meet the growth needs of the population, which is really a bonehead move.)
That doesn't make any sense. Why not offer an install option to decompress the audio if that is the case?
I could see them wanting lossless audio, but FLAC isn't very computationally expensive, and fuck we have so many cores these days you could just dedicate one of them to this and only this and you wouldn't lose anything. It is also quite literally impossible to improve audio quality beyond 48/16 FLAC if you have normal human ears, and it costs all of nothing to implement.
Why not just have a separate transponder that is located say on the highest point of the aircraft with something analogous to a Faraday cage below it?
Unless they're Tom Cruise with special scientology mind powers to do a mission impossible task, they aren't going to be able to do anything to disable it.
If somebody is willing to ripoff a hundred million dollar plane, as the OP mentions, they are also willing to invest millions in stealing it.
I dunno, there isn't exactly a black market for stolen jumbo jets.
How's this for a religious headline:
In other news, another muslim uses a plane to commit suicide.
Actually I really like the way the freeware router firmware Tomato is designed. It uses AJAX, which is primarily javascript driven, but it works quite well. The UI alone makes Tomato a great firmware, but it's also more powerful feature wise than the competition (e.g. DD-WRT.)
it's part of a **system** and it taxes **other parts of the system**
Ok this should be good: Tell me, in what way does it tax it?
If anything, it is very much doing the opposite: Where you have upwards of 10 or maybe 30 cars driving around, you've replaced them with a single bus. That is reducing the strain on the public roadways, effectively doing the opposite of taxing them. In other words, Google is helping make traffic less problematic for the city.
But anyways I want to hear this, how exactly is Google bogging down the public transportation system in SF?
Here's an important distinction: The US seizes domains that it has jurisdiction over, but nothing else, mainly because it can't under IANA's current rules. Notice how thepiratebay.com still points to the actual pirate bay, and not some DOJ or (laughably) ICE portal?
But now suppose somebody like the UK suddenly has voting authority over IANA actions. The current ironclad foundation of non-interference that IANA has would suddenly be shaken.
It's as if one of the biggest private tennis academies in the city decided to use all public courts for its tennis lessons.
Are there buses at these stops 24/7? Do the Google buses occupy space at the same time that public buses would otherwise occupy? No? Then how the fuckin shit is that a valid comparison?
Pardon the language, but your argument is beyond absurd, effectively just grasping at straws.
The reason I prefer it remain under US control is because the internet is almost pure speech, and the US, in spite of all of its flaws, is perhaps THE biggest protector of free speech. I'm a bit concerned that some countries (even some traditionally free countries such as the UK) won't protect free speech as well as the US does. For example, it is already easy enough in Europe to simply label something as hate speech in order to have it censored. The UK already has filters for the pirate bay and pornography.
Presently in the US, there are no official filters for anything. Yes, Hollywood is trying its damnedest to change that, but so far they are failing quite spectacularly in the US (whereas they've succeeded elsewhere.) It might become easier for them to succeed with an international body.
Since IANA regulates IP address assignment, they could effectively establish filters that apply globally. The NSA is the "rest of the world"'s (by that I mean Europe, who tends to refer to themselves as "the rest of the world" quite often) best argument against the US having the keys to IANA, but the NSA has no need for that. Not a single thing they have ever done, or probably will ever do, has required IANA to change any of its rules in their favor. Even give IANA control to China if you'd like, and the NSA will still be able to do everything it does. Pleas against the NSA by foreign governments for non-US governance of IANA are just preying on those who have no fucking clue about how the internet actually works, but think they should have a say in how it is run anyways.