and all of America seems to be on antidepressants. How much of that would be eliminated if people could drive home in the daylight?
None, meds are overprescribed in this country mainly due to teachers, parents and others atempting to medicate away things that either aren't problems (active boys that are bored out of their asses in class) or things that the student does not have (ADD,ADHD, depresion and many others). Many think that if they aren't behaving perfectly there is something wrong with their brain and they need meds. (One of my teachers thought I had ADD/ADHD because I was staring at the walls and ceiling during class. I was bored cause the stuff was easy to me, that's why I wasn't paying attention).
On the school bus. In my area, kids are on the sidewalk at 6:30 and wake up at 5:30 to be able to shower/eat/be awak for the bus at 6:30. This is for 7th-12th graders.
Everyone should have an electric car with a max range of 30 miles
Roundtrip to closest mass transit: 20 miles
Cost per day of mass transit: $4.60 tickets+$3.75 parcking
Roundtrip distance from house to work: 42.2 miles
Car Milage in this traffic: 27 mpg
Total time taking mass transit each day+driving: 2 -3 hours.
Total time driving each way: 1.25-1.75 hours
Cost per week taking masstransit: $41.75
Cost per week Driving to work+errands: $27 @ $2.15/gallon
Proving to your coworkers that our mass transportation sucks: Priceless.
Lost GDP? I am afraid you are mistaken, GDP has nothing to do with this.
Back ontopic to this proposal, the manhours would be spent either on this or something else. Average congressmans pay is around $100k a year at most. If they all spent a total of 10,000 man hours (I'd be surprised if it was that), then total cost would be $500k (2,000 man hours=1 man year). $500k won't even build you a school, much less fund a study.
To address some of the other things they have done, they have (among others) required that when in on-use Vampire devices (VCRs, Microwaves, radio clocks, sterio systems etc...) use at most 1 watt of electricity. They use this energy for the clocks in them, among other items, even when they are 'off'. This was projected to save a lot of energy too. (Not sure if it got passed or not). They are working on this, just takes time. And you have to figure out what will actually work as well. Give em a better sugestion and they might try it. In the mean time, doesn't every little bit help?
Any and all borrowing (debt+interest) numbers would be directly proportional to the amount spent (two programs that cost equal amounts, cause equal amounts of debt). For the war spending, see here (other post). It still doesn't raise it about the Department of Health and Human services.
That may be true of older flourescents, but it is not necessarily so for the modern ones. Besides its a simple matter of requiring all new buildings to have either a timer system or motion control system installed during major renovation or initial construction. It's inexpensive and has a measureable return.
The lamp is a year old. As for a "simple matter of requiring..." There are many places where you do not want that. Both for safety reasons and other. Lets start with the offic building I am in now. We walk in, go to our cubicles, 20 minutes later cause no one has set off a sensor the lights go off in the entire area. This has happened to me in classrooms when I was in them, it can happen in an office building. That is also not only a major change in code (any change is due to the details that need to be worked out), but can add significant cost to the building/renovation of a building. The cost of an inidividual sensor is not much, but multiply that by that 100 if not 1,000 that would be needed in a moderately sized office building (many more for the larger ones [100+story building, large floor areas, many rooms]) and you are talking a significant expense. It's not the individual cost, it's the volume required plus labor for isntalation (requires licensed elctrician for commecial buildings usually). Cost jumps to (at best) $50 per sensor. Oh, and timers don't work as people do come in early/stay late.
Businesses do think about this. If it was worth the money, they would install the stuff themselves to save money. As is, it isn't worth it.
According to Cost of War.com total spending has cost 161.3 billion (over two years, caution, that link crashed mozilla). That averages out to 80.7 billion per year. Adjusting that back into the original gives:
"Department of Health and Human Services" [kowaldesign.com] (643.9 billion)
"Department of Defense"+"Department of Veterans Services" +Additional allocation(475.4+68.3+80.7=624.4 billion)
"Social Security Administration" (583.5 billion)
"Department of the Treasury" (441.2 billion)
Congradulations, it moved up to cost more than Social Security, but still less than the Department of Health and Human Services (which, btw, would cost an additional 40.2 billion if we include "Department of Housing and Urban Developement" (housing vouchers)).
Sorry, the Iraq war has not cost that much more in the scheme of things.
In very few places does the gas tax go towards transportation. In most places, the money goes into the general fund or someplace else. For example, Chicago, Illinois has a 100% gass tax that goes towards paying for the school system. None of that goes for roads. In no place do I know of is the money raised on taxing gas go, by law, directly to paying for the roads.
With regard to the lights. Flourescents use a large amount of energy when initially starting up. So much so that my UPS takes over power when I turn the floor lamp on (Lamp, computer, monitor on same UPS, monitor+computer=150watts peak). Floor lamp is a 60-90 watt flourescent. Depending on what percentage of the day you need light, it can actually be more efficient to leave the light son rather than turn them off. Additionally, those lights are helping to heat the building at night and keep the heating system from coming on (even the little bit of flourescent helps). Can also be used by the security guards when patroling (we have them at my place of business).
Another thing on the lights is that it is cheaper (in many places) to leave them on, than to pay someone to go around and turn them all on and off in the evening/morning. It also (slightly, but signifcantly enough) degrades their lifespan causing them to need to be replaced sooner. So for financial and environmental, they are essentailly the same. The more environmental (less energy) they use the less it costs. Businesses do use this when looking at the bottom line already.
If palm pilots include embeded electronics, the one I have allows me to (manually) change the dates for Daylight Savings. So probably no big deal. The main problem will come with devices that use it automatically and don't have a firmware update support for it. Which would be kind of strange since some states don't have daylight savings (Hawaii, Indiana are the two I know of off the top of my head).
The commute was 13 miles away. This took me FIFTY MINUTES to get through to be there by 8:AM.
The longest (time wise) part of my commute is the shortest (length wise). 2 miles takes me 30 minutes in the afternoon. Once I am past that it is smooth sailing. There is public transportation, but it is not reliable and actually costs me more than if I were to drive. (Trust me, I worked it out and it has surprised a lot of people, gas will hae to go up to at least $3.20/gallon before it becomes cost effective for me to take the train)(they also need to work on their QoS). Bonuses for telecomuting are fine if you don't need to go into work, have a meeting or do something that requires something at work. Reverse comutes are taking off in some places as well as modified work hours (4am-1pm) (12 noon-9pm) (8 hours work+ 1 hour lunch).
I think that patern for the traffic is normal for most people (20% of your length takes 80% time? or something like that).
Err... Highest percentage of the problem is the military, not Social Security.... The military has a retirement program on top of just social security
Er, hate to say it but it's not Military either. Highest percentage is the "Department of Health and Human Services" (643.9 billion), followed by "Social Security Administration" (583.5 billion), "Department of Defense"+"Department of Veterans Services" (475.4+68.3=543.7 billion), "Department of the Treasury" (441.2 billion). Also, that military retirement program is just like any other pension plan people recieve. It also comes out of the "Department of Defense" budget.
Stop listening to the republican on your television please.
So if they find that substance X may cause permenant brain damage they should continue to allow products with substance X to be sold?
When banning substance X, the ban USE of it is certain applications. Large quantities of iodine can kill. Yet most likely the table salt you use is iodized salt. Lead can cause problems. They baned lead paint, not lead. It's still used in many applications (solder, glass), among others). High concentrations of cholrine in water is dangerous to our health. It's used in lower concentrations in our pools. Nitrates can be used in bombs, they are a primary component in fertilizers. Almost all (if not all) weed killers are poisinous to animals and humans. We put warning labels on them so that people know to be careful with them. Sniffing gasoline fumes can kill you, we still use it. Same goes for propane, kerosene, white gass and others. Natural Gas stoves, furnaces and fireplaces can produce Carbon Monoxide. We haev an entire industry (both gas and environmental) pushing them. X-rays can cause cancer, we still use them in our x-ray machines. UV is used for killing off bacteria. Radiation is used in cancer therapies. (Oh man, that's a big one that can cause brain problems).
Most things sold for chemistry labs are controlled substances or can cause sever harm. We still teach chemistry. (Same goes for biology and physics).
Just about everything we use has something in it that can be misused dangerously. We just take precautions, give warnings and occasionaly ban a use of something, but never an outright ban on the substance itself.
Counterpoint: Immortality (by this means) would at best stop aging. People would still die by accidents and other means.
As for the world filling up, all we need to do is start spreading out off planet (and preferably out of the solar system eventualy). This is something we need to do anyway. At that point, we will need more people.
For example, the deregulation of the energy market in California was botched big time, and the energy consumers were gouged by the likes of Enron.
California was botched because the regulators kept the price controls, but eliminated most everything else. The Electric companies were by law selling electricity at less than cost. That was going from a fully regulated to partialy de-regulated system. This is the opposite (big differnece here).
In Enron, the company was speculating in the energy business and covering up it's tracks. Also, they illegaly manipulated the market. Pretty much everything Enron did was illegal and had nothing to do with deregulation.
I'm sick of these thinly veiled propaganda pieces that take selective examples of private success and government failure to back up their market fundamentalist ideas.
As for Regulation success? The best (as in closest and only) example (I can think of) would be AT&T before MCI came along and the breakup. The provided great quality of service and kept investing their money in ways to make it better. The primary problem was that the local governments regualted the price of local phone service to below costs and the loss had to be made up with high longdistance fees.
Provide me a better example of a government regulation success. I have yet to hear one.
if it's potentially dangerous, of course, its growth should be stifled until we know how to mitigate the dangers.
If you stifle something, nothing gets done. Not even research. Therefroe, you won't know how to mitigate any dangers and won't ever unstifle it. Great way to kill off all industry. How about we stifle fusion research until we know how dangerous an exploding reactor is? Or Wind until we know the dangers it will cause on the world air flow? Could end up stoping the jet stream. Or how about gene therapy? Could cause some nasty mutations (Or cure all genetic diseases).
Stifling an industry efectively kills research in it. Without research, you don't learn anything about it. And remember, some are asking for a moratorium on use of nanotech in the lab so until we learn more about it. Meaning we would never learn more about it becuase (gasp) research is done in the lab!
the same group that had lobbied against Monsanto's genetically engineered crops in the 1990s--has called for nothing less than a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in commercial products.
So before we even know even a fraction of the possible benifits and dangers, they wan't an outright ban on anything that would let us find out what the good or bad is? Banning it from commercial products means it doesn't get used in anything, banning it from the lab means we won't ever find out more on it until the moratorium is lifted. Which probably wouldn't happen until we found out more about it. Catch-22.
When they run the pipeline they are planning on putting in a big fiber optic line. So Inuvik could have cheap power, cheap cooling, and a big fat pipe. The only things that would keep it from being a good place for a server farm is the cost of transportation, food, construction, and personal.
Sounds like it would be a great place to put a datacenter for disaster recovery. Only problem is that since it is so far north, it won't have any access to the geostationary satelites (angle of sight to the dish above the horizon would be very small, if it could even see it). And yes, satelite access helps for some companies where it is cheaper to rent some uplink time (or temporarily repoint a dish) rather than use an OC-3 year round.
As for the fibre, if they do it hopefully the will put in a nice ig trunk of, say, a thousand strands at least? It is a rather insane amount of possible bandwidth, but could later be used for distribution along that route. (FYI, maximum theoretical bandiwdth of a single fibre strand is 20Terrabits, using all available optical frequencies)
Most (if not all) European countries have national exams. Why does the US public have such a problem with them?
Lets take out national exams and insert state exams (as that is a better comparison in size of population). I think the main problem is that some people just don't like competition. That and the supposed "bad feelings" that come with knowing that you are not at the top of your class and how it wouldn't be fair and/or hurts the feelings of those who aren't doing as well. Japan publicly posts the school rankings of the students. In the US they are a closely gaurded secret it seems. You only find out how people are doing publicly by who is on the honor roll and the Valordictorian and whatever the word is for the person after valordictorian (don't remember, haven't used it much). Same reason appears to be used for not failing students. I have also heard some describe tests that a supposed disproportionate of minorities failed called racist. (Typically the people I see arguing these two lean left btw.) Same arguments are used for not holding students back and for not breaking students up into "tracks". I.E. fast, normal slow for those of similar abilities.
I don't agree with those, especially given how much my high school with had something similar to tracks helped me (I was taking 10th grade math in 8th, and I had the option to have skipped it and taken 11th grade math instead). (Disclaimer on the left leaning comment above, I lean a bit to the right)
Maybe Inuvik will be the new server center capital? How much bandwidth do they have up there?
Having to have looked this up recently, almost none. lines are very expensive to most places in the state and I do not think any backbones go through there. They are generally limited in most places to modems and in some cases 128k DSL at best. This is from when I had to look up internet connections for some businesses up there, and may not reflect some places in Alaska.
Slashdot Mirror
and all of America seems to be on antidepressants. How much of that would be eliminated if people could drive home in the daylight?
None, meds are overprescribed in this country mainly due to teachers, parents and others atempting to medicate away things that either aren't problems (active boys that are bored out of their asses in class) or things that the student does not have (ADD,ADHD, depresion and many others). Many think that if they aren't behaving perfectly there is something wrong with their brain and they need meds. (One of my teachers thought I had ADD/ADHD because I was staring at the walls and ceiling during class. I was bored cause the stuff was easy to me, that's why I wasn't paying attention).
On the school bus. In my area, kids are on the sidewalk at 6:30 and wake up at 5:30 to be able to shower/eat/be awak for the bus at 6:30. This is for 7th-12th graders.
Everyone should have an electric car with a max range of 30 miles
Roundtrip to closest mass transit: 20 miles
Cost per day of mass transit: $4.60 tickets+$3.75 parcking
Roundtrip distance from house to work: 42.2 miles
Car Milage in this traffic: 27 mpg
Total time taking mass transit each day+driving: 2 -3 hours.
Total time driving each way: 1.25-1.75 hours
Cost per week taking masstransit: $41.75
Cost per week Driving to work+errands: $27 @ $2.15/gallon
Proving to your coworkers that our mass transportation sucks: Priceless.
Hippies believe in Gun Control, I want to be able to blow your stupid head off when you come to my door to shove your point of view down my throat.
I like that point of view. Must remember it. Thanks for the quote.
Lost GDP? I am afraid you are mistaken, GDP has nothing to do with this.
Back ontopic to this proposal, the manhours would be spent either on this or something else. Average congressmans pay is around $100k a year at most. If they all spent a total of 10,000 man hours (I'd be surprised if it was that), then total cost would be $500k (2,000 man hours=1 man year). $500k won't even build you a school, much less fund a study.
To address some of the other things they have done, they have (among others) required that when in on-use Vampire devices (VCRs, Microwaves, radio clocks, sterio systems etc...) use at most 1 watt of electricity. They use this energy for the clocks in them, among other items, even when they are 'off'. This was projected to save a lot of energy too. (Not sure if it got passed or not). They are working on this, just takes time. And you have to figure out what will actually work as well. Give em a better sugestion and they might try it. In the mean time, doesn't every little bit help?
Any and all borrowing (debt+interest) numbers would be directly proportional to the amount spent (two programs that cost equal amounts, cause equal amounts of debt). For the war spending, see here (other post). It still doesn't raise it about the Department of Health and Human services.
That may be true of older flourescents, but it is not necessarily so for the modern ones. Besides its a simple matter of requiring all new buildings to have either a timer system or motion control system installed during major renovation or initial construction. It's inexpensive and has a measureable return.
The lamp is a year old. As for a "simple matter of requiring..." There are many places where you do not want that. Both for safety reasons and other. Lets start with the offic building I am in now. We walk in, go to our cubicles, 20 minutes later cause no one has set off a sensor the lights go off in the entire area. This has happened to me in classrooms when I was in them, it can happen in an office building. That is also not only a major change in code (any change is due to the details that need to be worked out), but can add significant cost to the building/renovation of a building. The cost of an inidividual sensor is not much, but multiply that by that 100 if not 1,000 that would be needed in a moderately sized office building (many more for the larger ones [100+story building, large floor areas, many rooms]) and you are talking a significant expense. It's not the individual cost, it's the volume required plus labor for isntalation (requires licensed elctrician for commecial buildings usually). Cost jumps to (at best) $50 per sensor. Oh, and timers don't work as people do come in early/stay late.
Businesses do think about this. If it was worth the money, they would install the stuff themselves to save money. As is, it isn't worth it.
According to Cost of War.com total spending has cost 161.3 billion (over two years, caution, that link crashed mozilla). That averages out to 80.7 billion per year. Adjusting that back into the original gives:
"Department of Health and Human Services" [kowaldesign.com] (643.9 billion)
"Department of Defense"+"Department of Veterans Services" +Additional allocation(475.4+68.3+80.7=624.4 billion)
"Social Security Administration" (583.5 billion)
"Department of the Treasury" (441.2 billion)
Congradulations, it moved up to cost more than Social Security, but still less than the Department of Health and Human Services (which, btw, would cost an additional 40.2 billion if we include "Department of Housing and Urban Developement" (housing vouchers)).
Sorry, the Iraq war has not cost that much more in the scheme of things.
In very few places does the gas tax go towards transportation. In most places, the money goes into the general fund or someplace else. For example, Chicago, Illinois has a 100% gass tax that goes towards paying for the school system. None of that goes for roads. In no place do I know of is the money raised on taxing gas go, by law, directly to paying for the roads.
With regard to the lights. Flourescents use a large amount of energy when initially starting up. So much so that my UPS takes over power when I turn the floor lamp on (Lamp, computer, monitor on same UPS, monitor+computer=150watts peak). Floor lamp is a 60-90 watt flourescent. Depending on what percentage of the day you need light, it can actually be more efficient to leave the light son rather than turn them off. Additionally, those lights are helping to heat the building at night and keep the heating system from coming on (even the little bit of flourescent helps). Can also be used by the security guards when patroling (we have them at my place of business).
Another thing on the lights is that it is cheaper (in many places) to leave them on, than to pay someone to go around and turn them all on and off in the evening/morning. It also (slightly, but signifcantly enough) degrades their lifespan causing them to need to be replaced sooner. So for financial and environmental, they are essentailly the same. The more environmental (less energy) they use the less it costs. Businesses do use this when looking at the bottom line already.
If palm pilots include embeded electronics, the one I have allows me to (manually) change the dates for Daylight Savings. So probably no big deal. The main problem will come with devices that use it automatically and don't have a firmware update support for it. Which would be kind of strange since some states don't have daylight savings (Hawaii, Indiana are the two I know of off the top of my head).
The commute was 13 miles away. This took me FIFTY MINUTES to get through to be there by 8:AM.
The longest (time wise) part of my commute is the shortest (length wise). 2 miles takes me 30 minutes in the afternoon. Once I am past that it is smooth sailing. There is public transportation, but it is not reliable and actually costs me more than if I were to drive. (Trust me, I worked it out and it has surprised a lot of people, gas will hae to go up to at least $3.20/gallon before it becomes cost effective for me to take the train)(they also need to work on their QoS). Bonuses for telecomuting are fine if you don't need to go into work, have a meeting or do something that requires something at work. Reverse comutes are taking off in some places as well as modified work hours (4am-1pm) (12 noon-9pm) (8 hours work+ 1 hour lunch).
I think that patern for the traffic is normal for most people (20% of your length takes 80% time? or something like that).
Err... Highest percentage of the problem is the military, not Social Security.... The military has a retirement program on top of just social security
Er, hate to say it but it's not Military either. Highest percentage is the "Department of Health and Human Services" (643.9 billion), followed by "Social Security Administration" (583.5 billion), "Department of Defense"+"Department of Veterans Services" (475.4+68.3=543.7 billion), "Department of the Treasury" (441.2 billion). Also, that military retirement program is just like any other pension plan people recieve. It also comes out of the "Department of Defense" budget.
Stop listening to the republican on your television please.
Stop listening to the democrat on yours.
So if they find that substance X may cause permenant brain damage they should continue to allow products with substance X to be sold?
When banning substance X, the ban USE of it is certain applications. Large quantities of iodine can kill. Yet most likely the table salt you use is iodized salt. Lead can cause problems. They baned lead paint, not lead. It's still used in many applications (solder, glass), among others). High concentrations of cholrine in water is dangerous to our health. It's used in lower concentrations in our pools. Nitrates can be used in bombs, they are a primary component in fertilizers. Almost all (if not all) weed killers are poisinous to animals and humans. We put warning labels on them so that people know to be careful with them. Sniffing gasoline fumes can kill you, we still use it. Same goes for propane, kerosene, white gass and others. Natural Gas stoves, furnaces and fireplaces can produce Carbon Monoxide. We haev an entire industry (both gas and environmental) pushing them. X-rays can cause cancer, we still use them in our x-ray machines. UV is used for killing off bacteria. Radiation is used in cancer therapies. (Oh man, that's a big one that can cause brain problems).
Most things sold for chemistry labs are controlled substances or can cause sever harm. We still teach chemistry. (Same goes for biology and physics).
Just about everything we use has something in it that can be misused dangerously. We just take precautions, give warnings and occasionaly ban a use of something, but never an outright ban on the substance itself.
Counterpoint: Immortality (by this means) would at best stop aging. People would still die by accidents and other means.
As for the world filling up, all we need to do is start spreading out off planet (and preferably out of the solar system eventualy). This is something we need to do anyway. At that point, we will need more people.
For example, the deregulation of the energy market in California was botched big time, and the energy consumers were gouged by the likes of Enron.
California was botched because the regulators kept the price controls, but eliminated most everything else. The Electric companies were by law selling electricity at less than cost. That was going from a fully regulated to partialy de-regulated system. This is the opposite (big differnece here).
In Enron, the company was speculating in the energy business and covering up it's tracks. Also, they illegaly manipulated the market. Pretty much everything Enron did was illegal and had nothing to do with deregulation.
I'm sick of these thinly veiled propaganda pieces that take selective examples of private success and government failure to back up their market fundamentalist ideas.
As for Regulation success? The best (as in closest and only) example (I can think of) would be AT&T before MCI came along and the breakup. The provided great quality of service and kept investing their money in ways to make it better. The primary problem was that the local governments regualted the price of local phone service to below costs and the loss had to be made up with high longdistance fees.
Provide me a better example of a government regulation success. I have yet to hear one.
if it's potentially dangerous, of course, its growth should be stifled until we know how to mitigate the dangers.
If you stifle something, nothing gets done. Not even research. Therefroe, you won't know how to mitigate any dangers and won't ever unstifle it. Great way to kill off all industry. How about we stifle fusion research until we know how dangerous an exploding reactor is? Or Wind until we know the dangers it will cause on the world air flow? Could end up stoping the jet stream. Or how about gene therapy? Could cause some nasty mutations (Or cure all genetic diseases).
Stifling an industry efectively kills research in it. Without research, you don't learn anything about it. And remember, some are asking for a moratorium on use of nanotech in the lab so until we learn more about it. Meaning we would never learn more about it becuase (gasp) research is done in the lab!
the same group that had lobbied against Monsanto's genetically engineered crops in the 1990s--has called for nothing less than a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in commercial products.
So before we even know even a fraction of the possible benifits and dangers, they wan't an outright ban on anything that would let us find out what the good or bad is? Banning it from commercial products means it doesn't get used in anything, banning it from the lab means we won't ever find out more on it until the moratorium is lifted. Which probably wouldn't happen until we found out more about it. Catch-22.
Don't forget that either we should be suffering from another global ice age with everyone under ice, or drowning under 300 feet of water.
When they run the pipeline they are planning on putting in a big fiber optic line. So Inuvik could have cheap power, cheap cooling, and a big fat pipe. The only things that would keep it from being a good place for a server farm is the cost of transportation, food, construction, and personal.
Sounds like it would be a great place to put a datacenter for disaster recovery. Only problem is that since it is so far north, it won't have any access to the geostationary satelites (angle of sight to the dish above the horizon would be very small, if it could even see it). And yes, satelite access helps for some companies where it is cheaper to rent some uplink time (or temporarily repoint a dish) rather than use an OC-3 year round.
As for the fibre, if they do it hopefully the will put in a nice ig trunk of, say, a thousand strands at least? It is a rather insane amount of possible bandwidth, but could later be used for distribution along that route. (FYI, maximum theoretical bandiwdth of a single fibre strand is 20Terrabits, using all available optical frequencies)
Inuvik is not in Alaska it is in Canada in the North West Territories.
Sorry, since you mentioned Alaska earlier in the post, I thought you were still refering to Alaska. My bad.
Most (if not all) European countries have national exams. Why does the US public have such a problem with them?
Lets take out national exams and insert state exams (as that is a better comparison in size of population). I think the main problem is that some people just don't like competition. That and the supposed "bad feelings" that come with knowing that you are not at the top of your class and how it wouldn't be fair and/or hurts the feelings of those who aren't doing as well. Japan publicly posts the school rankings of the students. In the US they are a closely gaurded secret it seems. You only find out how people are doing publicly by who is on the honor roll and the Valordictorian and whatever the word is for the person after valordictorian (don't remember, haven't used it much). Same reason appears to be used for not failing students. I have also heard some describe tests that a supposed disproportionate of minorities failed called racist. (Typically the people I see arguing these two lean left btw.) Same arguments are used for not holding students back and for not breaking students up into "tracks". I.E. fast, normal slow for those of similar abilities.
I don't agree with those, especially given how much my high school with had something similar to tracks helped me (I was taking 10th grade math in 8th, and I had the option to have skipped it and taken 11th grade math instead). (Disclaimer on the left leaning comment above, I lean a bit to the right)
Maybe Inuvik will be the new server center capital? How much bandwidth do they have up there?
Having to have looked this up recently, almost none. lines are very expensive to most places in the state and I do not think any backbones go through there. They are generally limited in most places to modems and in some cases 128k DSL at best. This is from when I had to look up internet connections for some businesses up there, and may not reflect some places in Alaska.
That believes that they are going to horibly and completely fuck this up?
How about this cluestick.