When I went to college I didn't have a cellphone or a laptop. I still spent plenty of time not paying attention to the lectures. For most people it is impossible to sit and listen and pay attention the whole time. The problem is the lectures, not the laptop.
The US has demonstrated a willingness to attack such facilities in the past, and has not faced much criticism for it. The think/hope minimizing civilian casualties is a priority, but I know achieving military objectives still comes first.
Are you deliberately misreading me? I said that slowly approaching you until they read the card successfully would be conspicuous. I was specifically saying that bumping up against you would be the way to go, because it would not be conspicuous.
The last time I went to Mexico, I just drove across the border. No paperwork. I didn't pay anything. I barely even had time to make eye contact with the Mexican border guard. Getting back in to the US, however, does require a passport.
I don't think I'd say that. It's been in the works for almost 100 years now. The fast track has been tried in other countries, and it hasn't turned out to be sustainable in the long run. I think they're hoping that if they do it more slowly it will work better.
It appears that these reports are measuring the dosages a TSA worker will get. I could be wrong, because the forms aren't clear on that point, but the reports only mention worker exposure, and only one field on the form mentiones exposure, and it is labeled "dose per screening." It's just bizarre to me what passes for transparency in our government. You'd have to be involved with this program to know what the report is actually saying. Everyone else has to make assumptions when reading these.
In any case, I think most people here are also worried about the dosages they will receive when they go through the scanners.
If you have an unusually thin wallet, that may work. But the attacker isn't going to get closer and closer to you until it works. That would be pretty silly, and rather conspicuous. They are going to bump up against you.
I have an RFID access key I keep in my wallet. I think if I get it within 2 or three millimeters of the reader it will work. But I never do it that way. I just slap my wallet against the reader. Suggesting that a criminal would do it differently is just silly.
And that claim is hyperbolic because when you hear the claim, its easy to imagine (as you did) that there can actually be a significant distance between you and the attacker. In reality, the reader has to be incredibly close to the card. You need to know where the card is on the person, and put the reader right next to it.
Also, I am not claiming the card is secure. I am only pointing out that the claims in the article are exaggerated for dramatic effect.
I was replying to the person before me who was saying it wasn't hyperbole to say the card could be read wirelessly. It is hyperbole because people think wireless means a signifanct distance and that's not the case here. You should always take the time to read all relevant comments before posting.
It's hyperbole because the attacker has to be incredibly close to you. They actually have to bump the device up against your wallet. While it's technically "wireless" that's not what most people have in mind when they hear the word.
Also the CVV number it gives you works for one use only. It's used to authenticate the transaction.
I'm actually an anarchist, and I'm not in favor of the government doing any of that stuff. I'd like to think we could come together and to that on our own if our circumstances were different, but I'm not entirely sure how to there get from a place where a few people own everything and seem inclined to let our infrastructure sit idle and rust away rather than put it to use.
That said, the creeping, deteriorating effect of welfare takes time to set in. Longer than 8 years (it took about 30 the last time), so you could conceivably have eliminated the debt by then. The only reason I am proposing to replace these programs at all is it's politically impossible to eliminate them if there's not a replacement ready to go, and balancing the budget is not possible with them in place. Cutting social security will eliminate about $4 trillion in debt immediately. Perhaps later on you could include a mechanism for private citizens to take over care for the people caught in the system. That way, people hopefully wouldn't have long enough to develop such a sense of entitlement that they'd start to demand more.
I don't think I have it all figured out. But I do know it's possible to pay off the debt under a single president. The only reason it doesn't happen is people aren't really committed to it.
Then you should be sure to only take classes where the teacher is organized enough to provide you with complete notes in the first place. In fact, you should probably do that anyway. What's that? Your school doesn't give you a choice? That's strange. . .
15 trillion is 2 trillion a year when spread over 8 years, so you could do it under one president. You'd have to eliminate all unessential government programs, and replace social security and medicare with government run lower cost options. For example you could offer free government housing, but make the housing all double occupancy studio apartments. And you could offer free health care, but only provide low cost proven procedures, have doctors do only work that can't be done by anyone else, and give out only generic medications. Hell, you could even throw in free food, as long as it's all long shelf-life products that are completely healthy. Do you see what I'm doing? I'm making sure the stuff I'm giving away isn't as good as the stuff people could buy for themselves. That keeps costs down and eliminates the need for costly bureaucracy to police the system for abuses.
Right. Previously Romney has called a moon base ridiculous (I don't know if those where his exact words). More recently he's said that space research would be an important priority if he were elected, and now he's accepting an endorsement from a group of engineers who are promoting a moon base.
The problem is that there isn't anything wrong with global warming science (beyond the kinds of errors you find in all branches of science). But there is something wrong with the rhetoric you find coming from supposedly scientific sources.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
This is obviously not a reasoned scientific statement. Yet many people seems to have accepted it as such simply because it was published by the American Physical Society. This statement belongs in a WSJ op-ed, not in a scientific publication. That's what these scientists are saying. And they are rightly saying it in a WSJ op-ed.
It sounds like you are you paraphrasing this part of the article:
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
It makes a number of key points that have been left out of the public debate.
There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
That's right, climate scientists are generally not keen to study economic effects, which means they are not any more qualified than anyone else to propose economic solutions. Most economists believe eliminating carbon emissions today would be disastrous, well beyond the scale of that climate scientists have predicted.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Even though we've learned a lot about the climate in the last 30 years, we still know next to nothing about it. We shouldn't be accepting the results essentially heuristic computer models as rock solid predictions for the future, and we should still be working to understand the climate better first and foremost.
I would like to add that improving the water infrastructure in most of the world would go a long way toward mitigating the effects of global warming, and that it's something that is badly needed today in any case. So if they wan't to put money into that, that would probably be ok too.
I'm going to have do disagree with George Carlin on the last part of that. What they want is more than enough for themselves, and less than enough for everybody else. That way the can live high on the hog while being securely in charge of everything because everyone else is scrambling to get by. For our parents generation, this meant making people believe they needed more stuff, because there was just way to much of it. But it will not be the same for us. We will all be working our fingers to be bone while our parents retire in relative comfort. Retirement funds and social security will be protected, but younger people will work themselves to death for it. The last round of economic bailouts proved that strategy would work, so we'll probably seeing more of it over the next couple decades.
Toughness is highly desirable in body armour. If you could afford it, a bullet proof vest made from spider silk would weigh 1/5 to 1/10 as much as a comparable Kevlar Vest. Since you can't domesticate these spiders, there's no way to make production of these fibers cost effective at this time. But there certainly is a lot of interest in it.
Being weaker than steel, it's hard to imagine it would ever be used in structural applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Many publishers will release a new edition every year to prevent you from selling it used (and and significant cost) anyway.
When I went to college I didn't have a cellphone or a laptop. I still spent plenty of time not paying attention to the lectures. For most people it is impossible to sit and listen and pay attention the whole time. The problem is the lectures, not the laptop.
Oh, but they can.
I'm pretty sure those tin foil hats don't actually work.
The US has demonstrated a willingness to attack such facilities in the past, and has not faced much criticism for it. The think/hope minimizing civilian casualties is a priority, but I know achieving military objectives still comes first.
Are you deliberately misreading me? I said that slowly approaching you until they read the card successfully would be conspicuous. I was specifically saying that bumping up against you would be the way to go, because it would not be conspicuous.
The last time I went to Mexico, I just drove across the border. No paperwork. I didn't pay anything. I barely even had time to make eye contact with the Mexican border guard. Getting back in to the US, however, does require a passport.
I don't think I'd say that. It's been in the works for almost 100 years now. The fast track has been tried in other countries, and it hasn't turned out to be sustainable in the long run. I think they're hoping that if they do it more slowly it will work better.
It appears that these reports are measuring the dosages a TSA worker will get. I could be wrong, because the forms aren't clear on that point, but the reports only mention worker exposure, and only one field on the form mentiones exposure, and it is labeled "dose per screening." It's just bizarre to me what passes for transparency in our government. You'd have to be involved with this program to know what the report is actually saying. Everyone else has to make assumptions when reading these.
In any case, I think most people here are also worried about the dosages they will receive when they go through the scanners.
If you have an unusually thin wallet, that may work. But the attacker isn't going to get closer and closer to you until it works. That would be pretty silly, and rather conspicuous. They are going to bump up against you.
I have an RFID access key I keep in my wallet. I think if I get it within 2 or three millimeters of the reader it will work. But I never do it that way. I just slap my wallet against the reader. Suggesting that a criminal would do it differently is just silly.
And that claim is hyperbolic because when you hear the claim, its easy to imagine (as you did) that there can actually be a significant distance between you and the attacker. In reality, the reader has to be incredibly close to the card. You need to know where the card is on the person, and put the reader right next to it.
Also, I am not claiming the card is secure. I am only pointing out that the claims in the article are exaggerated for dramatic effect.
I was replying to the person before me who was saying it wasn't hyperbole to say the card could be read wirelessly. It is hyperbole because people think wireless means a signifanct distance and that's not the case here. You should always take the time to read all relevant comments before posting.
It's hyperbole because the attacker has to be incredibly close to you. They actually have to bump the device up against your wallet. While it's technically "wireless" that's not what most people have in mind when they hear the word.
Also the CVV number it gives you works for one use only. It's used to authenticate the transaction.
I'm actually an anarchist, and I'm not in favor of the government doing any of that stuff. I'd like to think we could come together and to that on our own if our circumstances were different, but I'm not entirely sure how to there get from a place where a few people own everything and seem inclined to let our infrastructure sit idle and rust away rather than put it to use.
That said, the creeping, deteriorating effect of welfare takes time to set in. Longer than 8 years (it took about 30 the last time), so you could conceivably have eliminated the debt by then. The only reason I am proposing to replace these programs at all is it's politically impossible to eliminate them if there's not a replacement ready to go, and balancing the budget is not possible with them in place. Cutting social security will eliminate about $4 trillion in debt immediately. Perhaps later on you could include a mechanism for private citizens to take over care for the people caught in the system. That way, people hopefully wouldn't have long enough to develop such a sense of entitlement that they'd start to demand more.
I don't think I have it all figured out. But I do know it's possible to pay off the debt under a single president. The only reason it doesn't happen is people aren't really committed to it.
Then you should be sure to only take classes where the teacher is organized enough to provide you with complete notes in the first place. In fact, you should probably do that anyway. What's that? Your school doesn't give you a choice? That's strange. . .
15 trillion is 2 trillion a year when spread over 8 years, so you could do it under one president. You'd have to eliminate all unessential government programs, and replace social security and medicare with government run lower cost options. For example you could offer free government housing, but make the housing all double occupancy studio apartments. And you could offer free health care, but only provide low cost proven procedures, have doctors do only work that can't be done by anyone else, and give out only generic medications. Hell, you could even throw in free food, as long as it's all long shelf-life products that are completely healthy. Do you see what I'm doing? I'm making sure the stuff I'm giving away isn't as good as the stuff people could buy for themselves. That keeps costs down and eliminates the need for costly bureaucracy to police the system for abuses.
Right. Previously Romney has called a moon base ridiculous (I don't know if those where his exact words). More recently he's said that space research would be an important priority if he were elected, and now he's accepting an endorsement from a group of engineers who are promoting a moon base.
This guy will literally say anything to get elected.
It the models are wrong, the error bars are wrong too.
The problem is that there isn't anything wrong with global warming science (beyond the kinds of errors you find in all branches of science). But there is something wrong with the rhetoric you find coming from supposedly scientific sources.
This is obviously not a reasoned scientific statement. Yet many people seems to have accepted it as such simply because it was published by the American Physical Society. This statement belongs in a WSJ op-ed, not in a scientific publication. That's what these scientists are saying. And they are rightly saying it in a WSJ op-ed.
It sounds like you are you paraphrasing this part of the article:
I think it's been pretty well established that we don't care what happens to people in the 3rd world. That's why it's called the 3rd world.
It makes a number of key points that have been left out of the public debate.
That's right, climate scientists are generally not keen to study economic effects, which means they are not any more qualified than anyone else to propose economic solutions. Most economists believe eliminating carbon emissions today would be disastrous, well beyond the scale of that climate scientists have predicted.
Even though we've learned a lot about the climate in the last 30 years, we still know next to nothing about it. We shouldn't be accepting the results essentially heuristic computer models as rock solid predictions for the future, and we should still be working to understand the climate better first and foremost.
I would like to add that improving the water infrastructure in most of the world would go a long way toward mitigating the effects of global warming, and that it's something that is badly needed today in any case. So if they wan't to put money into that, that would probably be ok too.
How am I supposed to build a webpage, when I have no clue what hyperlinked content will actually be available to the viewer? This is ridiculous.
I'm going to have do disagree with George Carlin on the last part of that. What they want is more than enough for themselves, and less than enough for everybody else. That way the can live high on the hog while being securely in charge of everything because everyone else is scrambling to get by. For our parents generation, this meant making people believe they needed more stuff, because there was just way to much of it. But it will not be the same for us. We will all be working our fingers to be bone while our parents retire in relative comfort. Retirement funds and social security will be protected, but younger people will work themselves to death for it. The last round of economic bailouts proved that strategy would work, so we'll probably seeing more of it over the next couple decades.
Toughness is highly desirable in body armour. If you could afford it, a bullet proof vest made from spider silk would weigh 1/5 to 1/10 as much as a comparable Kevlar Vest. Since you can't domesticate these spiders, there's no way to make production of these fibers cost effective at this time. But there certainly is a lot of interest in it.
Being weaker than steel, it's hard to imagine it would ever be used in structural applications.