When you have no choice but to sign something, and later on you get screwed because you signed it, that's getting screwed. What was this hypothetical smoker supposed to do, not get a job? Quit? Sure, the latter is a good idea, but one that is apparently very difficult to follow through on over time—perhaps they quit smoking to get the job, but couldn't stay off of it.
Huh. I have a dear friend who was into coke for quite a while during her thirties, and was a really nice person to be around the whole time (I didn't know until later that she'd been doing coke). Whether your friend the coke fiend is an asshole or not really depends on them, not on their drug of choice. I have no idea how she did it, mind you, but at least anecdotally, I've seen no correlation like the one you're reporting. I suspect the bad behavior associated with coke has as much to do with money (lack of) as the drug.
That's not really it. It depends on where your generating capacity is coming from. If it's coming from coal plants, you shouldn't buy an electric car—gas is cleaner. If it's coming from wind, you should definitely buy an electric car if it makes economic sense to you personally. The Chevy Volt is a nice compromise if you have a sub-30-mile commute. It would be nice if generation source information were readily available, but of course nobody has any incentive to publish it—electric car manufacturers want you to buy the car, and power companies want you to buy the power. I suppose oil companies would want you to not buy the electric car, but their incentive exists regardless of what the local generating capacity comes from. Government could do it, but they're busy being drowned in a bathtub at the moment.
I think the idea is that the employer wants cheaper health insurance. I wonder how many of the smokers never voted against politicians who made the war on drugs, and particularly drug testing in the workplace, part of their campaign platform.
Unfortunately, what could happen here is that the employee continues to smoke, but signs the affidavit, qualifying for the lower insurance rate, and then gets dropped and fired as soon as an encounter with the health care system reveals the lie. In this situation, the employer is happy, because insurance rates are low, and the employee gets screwed.
A heat recovery ventilation system would be a really good idea—improves air quality, saves energy. I put Cat6A shielded in the walls of my house; not sure you'd need that in this environment, but it might be helpful.
Puhleez, don't fall for that trick. GlaDOS always promises cake, but does she deliver? Wake up and smell the coffee, dear. She's leading you down the garden path.
Equal protection under the law is a principle that's been abused pretty badly, but it is codified in the constitution. If you let anyone drive, then in principle you have to let everyone drive, unless there is some generally applicable rule that, if broken, would have the result that anyone who broke it lost their driving privilege. As long as that's the case, equal protection under the law is being observed. In order to observe it, there have to be legal proceedings. So that's why your driving privilege can only be revoked with due process.
Hopeful. People who are younger think that they are immortal, and will always have good reflexes; as you get older you realize that at some point you're going to be a danger to society if you keep driving. Self-driving cars will help a _lot_ of people, including your parents and, later on, you. And if they get bad drivers off the road, that will help even more people, because motor vehicle accidents are a _really_ major cause of preventable death in the U.S.
I think that the way it will play out is that as self-driving cars become a real and viable option, the penalties for bad driving will go up—drive drunk once, and you lose your license permanently, because why not—you can just use a self-driving car. Driver's tests will get harder, because why not—if you fail, you can just use a self-driving car. It will start with really egregious behavior, because voters won't feel threatened by it in sufficient numbers to cause a problem. Over time, the standards for human drivers will go up; at some point driving your own car will be about as common as flying your own airplane. We'll also probably stop giving licenses or learners' permits to teenagers, because they don't have the vote, and their parents would prefer to avoid a teenage testosterone tragedy.
Of course, a really spectacular failure on the part of a self-driving car could put that whole scenario off by a generation.
We're paying typically about $10 (the bulbs are subsidized here). At $30/pop, I guess we'd think about it a bit harder, but even at $30/pop, they're a better deal over the life of the bulb. So if you are living paycheck to paycheck, I guess you might be tempted to go with the incandescent bulbs, but you're basically just using your electric bill as a credit card if you do that.
That's a pretty expensive way to heat your house, and you'd need to use a lot of bulbs to get the effect of a single 1200-watt space heater. Seems like a solution in search of a problem.
To break habits and unseat the market incumbent. It's terribly anti-capitalist, and so people get upset about that, but it's quite practical, and it's working—if you go to Home Despot or your local hardware store, you now can get good LED and CFL lights, where five years ago incandescents were your only option.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It astounds me that businesses aren't lobbying for this. I guess health insurance is a useful whip to crack.
When you have no choice but to sign something, and later on you get screwed because you signed it, that's getting screwed. What was this hypothetical smoker supposed to do, not get a job? Quit? Sure, the latter is a good idea, but one that is apparently very difficult to follow through on over time—perhaps they quit smoking to get the job, but couldn't stay off of it.
Huh. I have a dear friend who was into coke for quite a while during her thirties, and was a really nice person to be around the whole time (I didn't know until later that she'd been doing coke). Whether your friend the coke fiend is an asshole or not really depends on them, not on their drug of choice. I have no idea how she did it, mind you, but at least anecdotally, I've seen no correlation like the one you're reporting. I suspect the bad behavior associated with coke has as much to do with money (lack of) as the drug.
(It looks like the NY Times' data source was the Union of Concerned Scientists; unfortunately, their map is also static.)
That's not really it. It depends on where your generating capacity is coming from. If it's coming from coal plants, you shouldn't buy an electric car—gas is cleaner. If it's coming from wind, you should definitely buy an electric car if it makes economic sense to you personally. The Chevy Volt is a nice compromise if you have a sub-30-mile commute. It would be nice if generation source information were readily available, but of course nobody has any incentive to publish it—electric car manufacturers want you to buy the car, and power companies want you to buy the power. I suppose oil companies would want you to not buy the electric car, but their incentive exists regardless of what the local generating capacity comes from. Government could do it, but they're busy being drowned in a bathtub at the moment.
The NY Times did a pretty good map of the carbon impact of electrical generation sources back in April, but I don't think they're maintaining it.
I think the idea is that the employer wants cheaper health insurance. I wonder how many of the smokers never voted against politicians who made the war on drugs, and particularly drug testing in the workplace, part of their campaign platform.
Unfortunately, what could happen here is that the employee continues to smoke, but signs the affidavit, qualifying for the lower insurance rate, and then gets dropped and fired as soon as an encounter with the health care system reveals the lie. In this situation, the employer is happy, because insurance rates are low, and the employee gets screwed.
A heat recovery ventilation system would be a really good idea—improves air quality, saves energy. I put Cat6A shielded in the walls of my house; not sure you'd need that in this environment, but it might be helpful.
Puhleez, don't fall for that trick. GlaDOS always promises cake, but does she deliver? Wake up and smell the coffee, dear. She's leading you down the garden path.
If you're above your execution rate for the week, isn't the reward that you don't get executed?
You can actually get windows with vacuum between the panes. They have fantastic R-values. Unfortunately, the sash will still carry sound.
No problem; the car pulls over and requests assistance. Probably the guys at OnStar take over and drive your car home for you by remote control.
Equal protection under the law is a principle that's been abused pretty badly, but it is codified in the constitution. If you let anyone drive, then in principle you have to let everyone drive, unless there is some generally applicable rule that, if broken, would have the result that anyone who broke it lost their driving privilege. As long as that's the case, equal protection under the law is being observed. In order to observe it, there have to be legal proceedings. So that's why your driving privilege can only be revoked with due process.
Hopeful. People who are younger think that they are immortal, and will always have good reflexes; as you get older you realize that at some point you're going to be a danger to society if you keep driving. Self-driving cars will help a _lot_ of people, including your parents and, later on, you. And if they get bad drivers off the road, that will help even more people, because motor vehicle accidents are a _really_ major cause of preventable death in the U.S.
Because it pays the rent.
Oh please. This is a lame argument against these scanners. There are two good arguments against them:
1. They don't work.
2. They are more likely to kill you than a terrorist.
Do you honestly think anyone wants to see your junk on one of these things? Have you seen the images they produce? _Not_ chubby-inducing.
I think that the way it will play out is that as self-driving cars become a real and viable option, the penalties for bad driving will go up—drive drunk once, and you lose your license permanently, because why not—you can just use a self-driving car. Driver's tests will get harder, because why not—if you fail, you can just use a self-driving car. It will start with really egregious behavior, because voters won't feel threatened by it in sufficient numbers to cause a problem. Over time, the standards for human drivers will go up; at some point driving your own car will be about as common as flying your own airplane. We'll also probably stop giving licenses or learners' permits to teenagers, because they don't have the vote, and their parents would prefer to avoid a teenage testosterone tragedy.
Of course, a really spectacular failure on the part of a self-driving car could put that whole scenario off by a generation.
Both are crimes?
How do you know he's not sitting on a recumbent bicycle?
Remember, kids: extremism in the defense of democracy is no vice.
Oh come on, if you aren't amused by yellow journalism, what are you doing here?
Holy Crap, Batman! I think I see The Penguin's evil fingerprints on this computer!
Yuck. Anyway, I think the problem here is that they keep using the word "beer." I think the word does not mean what they think it means.
We're paying typically about $10 (the bulbs are subsidized here). At $30/pop, I guess we'd think about it a bit harder, but even at $30/pop, they're a better deal over the life of the bulb. So if you are living paycheck to paycheck, I guess you might be tempted to go with the incandescent bulbs, but you're basically just using your electric bill as a credit card if you do that.
That's a pretty expensive way to heat your house, and you'd need to use a lot of bulbs to get the effect of a single 1200-watt space heater. Seems like a solution in search of a problem.
To break habits and unseat the market incumbent. It's terribly anti-capitalist, and so people get upset about that, but it's quite practical, and it's working—if you go to Home Despot or your local hardware store, you now can get good LED and CFL lights, where five years ago incandescents were your only option.