I've got two children and have been in a situation similar to the one in question here. You are an idiot.
You think that the kids seeing mommy have a seizure will sprint to the kitchen to burn the house down? In practice, they will act more like dogs, hanging around their master and licking his face if they perceive a problem.
And daddy with the webcams has the numbers for the police and a helpful stay-at-home neighbor on speeddial. Someone can be there helping out at a moment's notice. He's just looking for help identifying the moments that's necessary.
You've never had a life have you? Never been in the situation where the parents must either quit their job, or leave the children alone for 2 hours? Or are you a stay at home mom who hates anyone who can't make the 100% dedication to their kids that you did and you regret now, having lost a chunk of life to the kids, you'll never have a real job?
My kids have *never* stuck a toy in an electrical socket. And the 8 year old can make dinner like mommy and daddy now, but never tried without supervision until he was old enough to do it. That you raise your children so poorly also says plenty about you. Perhaps you aren't the best person to take advice from.
I did some research. Perhaps it's all uninformed '50s era fearmongering that's still around, but a low-orbit EMP would have the strength and angle to burn out power lines. The pulse would build up over-current that would cause massive failures of the lines themselves. Also, the pulse through IC would not only cause computers that are running to crash, but would leave scarring from the damage that would likely prevent them from ever running again. The more resistant transistors and tubes would not be as effected.
Long, roughly parallel conductors (like power lines) would be one of the things hardest hit, and this includes a number of antennae. Tight tolerance ICs would also receive damage.
Why don't you do some research before whining about other's opinions?
Even the Tzar Bomba the Soviets let off had only MINOR effects.
The size of the nuke is less important than the location. There has never been an orbital detonation. So you are saying that surface or sub-surface detonations have the same destructive power as orbital detonations? It's obvious that you are the one that needs to do more research.
with that kind of population why would anyone need to invade if it would be in worse condition than a war would bring just from rioting due to loss of electricity?
You are allowed to use proper punctuation and such to allow others to parse your sentences (or whatever you call them).
puh plze what would be the benefit anyhow?
So, nobody out there would like to see the US burn? Really? Because the news tells us the opposite every day.
and would these two unknown effect nukes somehow stop the retaliation?
So, with domestic conditions deteriorating and more military personnel out of the US than in, rather than stabilizing the country, you think the first priority would be to retaliate? I am glad you aren't in charge of anything larger than picking which shoe goes on which foot every morning.
what's stopping russians from doing it then?
They are our allies, and have been since the late '80s. Before that, both were so worried about nuclear war. North Korea has nothing to fear from that. We can't nuke them without nuking South Korea and China.
seriously, much worse condition than combined ground attack from rest of the world? what the fuck man, what the fuck. americans are not that kind of gods and hundred million+ troops would CERTAINLY cause much more havoc.
The US military budget is roughly equal to the rest of the world combined, along with the most heavily armed civilian populations (yes, I except the places where the guns are essentially government issued as no longer being civilian).
And you do know that there's more than one gun per adult in the USA. When every civilian is armed, the invading army is limited to armored vehicles, making the invading force tanks and not much else. Last I saw it compared this way, LAPD was in the top 10 militaries in the world. So how would you expect Australia to invade LA, when LAPD outguns them, and the gangs outgun LAPD, and about the only thing that would get the two working together would be an invasion? The US is impervious to a land war because there's no other military force on the continent, and China (or anyone else) can't extend it's sphere of influence outside the South China Sea.
Whichever cities are chosen as the landing points would be devastated, but the damage would be very localized, and the cities would be quickly rebuilt after. The results of a power outage that's projected to last months would cause a panic that would cause much more damage.
It's really hard to make tactical nuclear weapons. If it were a tac-nuke test on the smaller side, it'd have the results observed if it were a success. If that were true, then they are decades above where we think they are. So we now assert it was a dud or a hoax, which are both more comforting. When North Korea makes an "average" size nuke, the US is finished. There is nothing the US has that could even theoretically stop a ballistic nuke from NK fired east, aimed at, say, somewhere in Africa, that is detonated as it passes over the USA. The EMP of a low-orbit detonation should just about knock out all non-hardened electronics, and most power generation/distribution. And if NK wants to be sure nobody will mess with it, announce it as a moon probe before launch. Sure, everyone will notice it's not reaching stable orbit, but it'll be close enough we'll assume it's a failure, at least until it's too late.
One nuke would just about end the entire USA without a single direct fatality. Aimed properly, if it fails, nobody would ever be able to prove what's on it. If they had two, rather than one over Kansas, they could blow up two at the same time over Nevada and Kentucky, guaranteeing a 100% coverage of the 48 states. Chicago's blast would be a little weaker, but LA, NYC, and DC would have stronger blasts. Either way, the loss of power for weeks across most of the US would lead to rioting and looting that would leave the US in much worse condition than if the rest of the world combined attempted a ground invasion.
I'm claiming that you are being an idiot if you claim adult supervision is "unsupervised" because you can conceive of some scenario where something bad could happen.
Nobody is asking for the nurse for the adult with epilepsy.
What, you can't be bothered to read the post I'm replying to?
"Leaving your children in a home where the "responsible adult" really needs a live-in nurse. "
It's not like everyone on the planet can't just scroll up and see that you are 100% provably wrong.
People are asking for an adult because of the sole 2 year old at home with an epileptic currently having difficulties with their medication and suffering seizures.
So an adult isn't an adult if they have epilepsy. Would you prefer he quit his job so he can stay home and go on welfare? Or should they hire adults to be there at all times, bankrupting them? Really, which works best? Forced sterilization of everyone with epilepsy would fix this problem. Would that work for you?
The video will let him watch the cameras to keep an eye on the children. He can then summon assistance if a situation requires it. Why is trying to keep your family safe a bad thing?
The father is watching them through web cams. But he's nervous about missing something, so he's looking for another backup plan. Apparently looking into a second (or third or fourth) backup plan is the same as not having a plan at all. At least to the lying A/Cs.
Nobody said to use the infant for the caretaker for a sick parent. Why do so many people blantently lie to make someone who's trying to improve a situation seem bad?
The mother is watching the kid, and the kid is watching the parent. The issue is that sometimes the mother can't be a panic button, and so the 2 year old can help.
There's nothing in this that screams "horrible parent."
Your logic doesn't work. Sometimes the sum of worthless has worth. If I were given 1 lb of pure copper, it'd be worthless. I'd pay more in fuel to sell it than it'd get me back. So, I'd pay to store it, or pay to throw it away. Worth less than $0 to me. But 100,000,000 lbs of copper? That's something that I'd get back more than fuel cost to take to a scrap yard, and at those volumes, they'd pay me and come collect it. So 100,000,000 times -$0.10 is not a negative number, but a large positive number.
For all the complaints about property tax, they rarely go up much more than inflation. But a "fixed income" that sees inflation hit it every year will be worth less when you die than when you started collecting it, so the old complain. It's not like they have anything else to do.
Wait, so you are now lying about arguing with me? What are the past 10 posts? They are all argument. All you are doing is lying, and lying about lying.
Most "good" science fiction has things that are true, but just not known yet. Jules Verne has a list of predicted inventions too long for me to list here (I'm sure someone would be offended I left off their favorite). Like good science, if it isn't predictive, it isn't useful. Much of Heinlein and Hubbard is provably impossible now, but was used as plot devices. Star Trek is splitting the difference, a little predictive, a little impossible. Niven liked aliens a little too much to be testable, though Ringworld is proven impossible, without materials we can't even conceive of yet.
Your ignorance of names and people doesn't make you an expert. I don't know any black people named Tyyrone either. What would you be saying if he used then name Shaniqua instead? I've never met anyone name Shaniqua. Would you be claiming no gender or race is attached to that name?
OK, If you were down under, I'd be asking for directions to your current shooting club, if any. Some raids and then shut down is what I'd expect to see happen here, if the safety record were as you describe.
In comparison, the cop could have taken his weapon out and aimed at his foot and then fired. The root cause of his injury would still be negligence, but the action would be intentional and not accidental.
Negligence: "The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm."
As such, that wouldn't be negligent, but would be intentional. An "accident" is something unforseeable. Perhaps a well-cared for gun has a sudden and unpredictable mechanical failure that results in an accidental discharge. But a deliberate isn't the opposite of accident. The dictionary definition of "accident" can include "unfortunate" which would include the deliberate self-inflicted wound. That's why I didn't go to the dictionary to define "accident." But negligent is a legal term, so is 100% descriptive, not proscriptive, as are all technical terms, at least when used in their technical domain.
A cop shooting himself in the leg because he holstered his weapon with his finger inside the trigger guard (what I believe to be the #1 source of such incidents) is 100% preventable, and careless (thus negligent), but not an "accident" in the sense that "accident" implies blamelessness.
Where was this? From the word choice, I'd guess not the US, but I can't tell which Commonwealth country by word choice alone, as they are similar enough to be confusable.
Depends on whether you use the dictionary definition of accident, or the vernacular definition. Common usage has "accident" mean "blameless" and "unforseeable". The dictionary would include negligence (sometimes deliberate negligence) as an accident.
A cop shooting himself is negligence. They have the training and equipment to avoid such incidents in all cases. That it happens means it was preventable, thus negligence, not "accidental".
I've never seen a remote kill that couldn't be by-passed at the manufacturer level. The criminals won't walk into an official dealer with 2-forms of ID that match the owner, and request a reset. A legitimate user will *never* have a device permanently broken by such kill switches. So I find your complaint unrelated to the real world and cite reality for my source.
So he's a "he"? You are assuming the historically-male name Tyyrone to be male, but not that the historically Black name is Black? Not only are you a racist troll, but a hypocritical racist troll.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got two children and have been in a situation similar to the one in question here. You are an idiot.
You think that the kids seeing mommy have a seizure will sprint to the kitchen to burn the house down? In practice, they will act more like dogs, hanging around their master and licking his face if they perceive a problem.
And daddy with the webcams has the numbers for the police and a helpful stay-at-home neighbor on speeddial. Someone can be there helping out at a moment's notice. He's just looking for help identifying the moments that's necessary.
You've never had a life have you? Never been in the situation where the parents must either quit their job, or leave the children alone for 2 hours? Or are you a stay at home mom who hates anyone who can't make the 100% dedication to their kids that you did and you regret now, having lost a chunk of life to the kids, you'll never have a real job?
My kids have *never* stuck a toy in an electrical socket. And the 8 year old can make dinner like mommy and daddy now, but never tried without supervision until he was old enough to do it. That you raise your children so poorly also says plenty about you. Perhaps you aren't the best person to take advice from.
Long, roughly parallel conductors (like power lines) would be one of the things hardest hit, and this includes a number of antennae. Tight tolerance ICs would also receive damage.
Why don't you do some research before whining about other's opinions?
Even the Tzar Bomba the Soviets let off had only MINOR effects.
The size of the nuke is less important than the location. There has never been an orbital detonation. So you are saying that surface or sub-surface detonations have the same destructive power as orbital detonations? It's obvious that you are the one that needs to do more research.
with that kind of population why would anyone need to invade if it would be in worse condition than a war would bring just from rioting due to loss of electricity?
You are allowed to use proper punctuation and such to allow others to parse your sentences (or whatever you call them).
puh plze what would be the benefit anyhow?
So, nobody out there would like to see the US burn? Really? Because the news tells us the opposite every day.
and would these two unknown effect nukes somehow stop the retaliation?
So, with domestic conditions deteriorating and more military personnel out of the US than in, rather than stabilizing the country, you think the first priority would be to retaliate? I am glad you aren't in charge of anything larger than picking which shoe goes on which foot every morning.
what's stopping russians from doing it then?
They are our allies, and have been since the late '80s. Before that, both were so worried about nuclear war. North Korea has nothing to fear from that. We can't nuke them without nuking South Korea and China.
seriously, much worse condition than combined ground attack from rest of the world? what the fuck man, what the fuck. americans are not that kind of gods and hundred million+ troops would CERTAINLY cause much more havoc.
The US military budget is roughly equal to the rest of the world combined, along with the most heavily armed civilian populations (yes, I except the places where the guns are essentially government issued as no longer being civilian).
And you do know that there's more than one gun per adult in the USA. When every civilian is armed, the invading army is limited to armored vehicles, making the invading force tanks and not much else. Last I saw it compared this way, LAPD was in the top 10 militaries in the world. So how would you expect Australia to invade LA, when LAPD outguns them, and the gangs outgun LAPD, and about the only thing that would get the two working together would be an invasion? The US is impervious to a land war because there's no other military force on the continent, and China (or anyone else) can't extend it's sphere of influence outside the South China Sea.
Whichever cities are chosen as the landing points would be devastated, but the damage would be very localized, and the cities would be quickly rebuilt after. The results of a power outage that's projected to last months would cause a panic that would cause much more damage.
It's really hard to make tactical nuclear weapons. If it were a tac-nuke test on the smaller side, it'd have the results observed if it were a success. If that were true, then they are decades above where we think they are. So we now assert it was a dud or a hoax, which are both more comforting. When North Korea makes an "average" size nuke, the US is finished. There is nothing the US has that could even theoretically stop a ballistic nuke from NK fired east, aimed at, say, somewhere in Africa, that is detonated as it passes over the USA. The EMP of a low-orbit detonation should just about knock out all non-hardened electronics, and most power generation/distribution. And if NK wants to be sure nobody will mess with it, announce it as a moon probe before launch. Sure, everyone will notice it's not reaching stable orbit, but it'll be close enough we'll assume it's a failure, at least until it's too late.
One nuke would just about end the entire USA without a single direct fatality. Aimed properly, if it fails, nobody would ever be able to prove what's on it. If they had two, rather than one over Kansas, they could blow up two at the same time over Nevada and Kentucky, guaranteeing a 100% coverage of the 48 states. Chicago's blast would be a little weaker, but LA, NYC, and DC would have stronger blasts. Either way, the loss of power for weeks across most of the US would lead to rioting and looting that would leave the US in much worse condition than if the rest of the world combined attempted a ground invasion.
I'm claiming that you are being an idiot if you claim adult supervision is "unsupervised" because you can conceive of some scenario where something bad could happen.
Nobody is asking for the nurse for the adult with epilepsy.
What, you can't be bothered to read the post I'm replying to?
"Leaving your children in a home where the "responsible adult" really needs a live-in nurse. "
It's not like everyone on the planet can't just scroll up and see that you are 100% provably wrong.
People are asking for an adult because of the sole 2 year old at home with an epileptic currently having difficulties with their medication and suffering seizures.
So an adult isn't an adult if they have epilepsy. Would you prefer he quit his job so he can stay home and go on welfare? Or should they hire adults to be there at all times, bankrupting them? Really, which works best? Forced sterilization of everyone with epilepsy would fix this problem. Would that work for you?
The video will let him watch the cameras to keep an eye on the children. He can then summon assistance if a situation requires it. Why is trying to keep your family safe a bad thing?
The father is watching them through web cams. But he's nervous about missing something, so he's looking for another backup plan. Apparently looking into a second (or third or fourth) backup plan is the same as not having a plan at all. At least to the lying A/Cs.
Nobody said to use the infant for the caretaker for a sick parent. Why do so many people blantently lie to make someone who's trying to improve a situation seem bad?
I know lots of epileptics. I've never known a single one with a live-in nurse. Even the blind one I know lives alone.
The mother is watching the kid, and the kid is watching the parent. The issue is that sometimes the mother can't be a panic button, and so the 2 year old can help.
There's nothing in this that screams "horrible parent."
Your logic doesn't work. Sometimes the sum of worthless has worth. If I were given 1 lb of pure copper, it'd be worthless. I'd pay more in fuel to sell it than it'd get me back. So, I'd pay to store it, or pay to throw it away. Worth less than $0 to me. But 100,000,000 lbs of copper? That's something that I'd get back more than fuel cost to take to a scrap yard, and at those volumes, they'd pay me and come collect it. So 100,000,000 times -$0.10 is not a negative number, but a large positive number.
For all the complaints about property tax, they rarely go up much more than inflation. But a "fixed income" that sees inflation hit it every year will be worth less when you die than when you started collecting it, so the old complain. It's not like they have anything else to do.
Wait, so you are now lying about arguing with me? What are the past 10 posts? They are all argument. All you are doing is lying, and lying about lying.
Again, you ASSUMED this character was black based on his description of his behaviors alone.
Nope. Your lies are lying again.
Most "good" science fiction has things that are true, but just not known yet. Jules Verne has a list of predicted inventions too long for me to list here (I'm sure someone would be offended I left off their favorite). Like good science, if it isn't predictive, it isn't useful. Much of Heinlein and Hubbard is provably impossible now, but was used as plot devices. Star Trek is splitting the difference, a little predictive, a little impossible. Niven liked aliens a little too much to be testable, though Ringworld is proven impossible, without materials we can't even conceive of yet.
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Your ignorance of names and people doesn't make you an expert. I don't know any black people named Tyyrone either. What would you be saying if he used then name Shaniqua instead? I've never met anyone name Shaniqua. Would you be claiming no gender or race is attached to that name?
OK, If you were down under, I'd be asking for directions to your current shooting club, if any. Some raids and then shut down is what I'd expect to see happen here, if the safety record were as you describe.
In comparison, the cop could have taken his weapon out and aimed at his foot and then fired. The root cause of his injury would still be negligence, but the action would be intentional and not accidental.
Negligence: "The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm."
As such, that wouldn't be negligent, but would be intentional. An "accident" is something unforseeable. Perhaps a well-cared for gun has a sudden and unpredictable mechanical failure that results in an accidental discharge. But a deliberate isn't the opposite of accident. The dictionary definition of "accident" can include "unfortunate" which would include the deliberate self-inflicted wound. That's why I didn't go to the dictionary to define "accident." But negligent is a legal term, so is 100% descriptive, not proscriptive, as are all technical terms, at least when used in their technical domain.
A cop shooting himself in the leg because he holstered his weapon with his finger inside the trigger guard (what I believe to be the #1 source of such incidents) is 100% preventable, and careless (thus negligent), but not an "accident" in the sense that "accident" implies blamelessness.
Where was this? From the word choice, I'd guess not the US, but I can't tell which Commonwealth country by word choice alone, as they are similar enough to be confusable.
Depends on whether you use the dictionary definition of accident, or the vernacular definition. Common usage has "accident" mean "blameless" and "unforseeable". The dictionary would include negligence (sometimes deliberate negligence) as an accident.
A cop shooting himself is negligence. They have the training and equipment to avoid such incidents in all cases. That it happens means it was preventable, thus negligence, not "accidental".
I've never seen a remote kill that couldn't be by-passed at the manufacturer level. The criminals won't walk into an official dealer with 2-forms of ID that match the owner, and request a reset. A legitimate user will *never* have a device permanently broken by such kill switches. So I find your complaint unrelated to the real world and cite reality for my source.
So he's a "he"? You are assuming the historically-male name Tyyrone to be male, but not that the historically Black name is Black? Not only are you a racist troll, but a hypocritical racist troll.
So https://mybitcoinsaver.com/ is a scam?
They haven't broken the law.
They committed fraud.
And, their product (most likely) meets and exceeds ethernet specifications.
Is it "better"? If not, they they are lying for profit, and that's fraud.