You can get justice - if you are an important person.
Indeed. According to the summary, the judge slapped an extra two years onto the sentence because of who the perp targeted.
So we are willing to devote lots of taxpayer funded resources to prosecuting this one guy for targeting a VIP, but doing something about the millions of scammy phone calls that little people face everyday remains a low priority.
How much extra is it going to cause the greedy carriers to remove the caps for a couple of days?
The monetary cost is not the issue. Congestion is. A disaster area is the place where caps are most justified. When disasters strike, there is often a surge of network traffic, beyond the normal level the infrastructure is designed to handle. The caps are needed to keep bandwidth available for emergency personnel.
Which is the shorter list - Democratic politicians who are (or are expected to be soon) running for president, or those who are not planning to run for president?
The really short list is the announced candidates with an actual shot at winning.
A longitudinal study by the NIH found that vaping is a gateway to smoking, and it is likely that access to vapers increases tobacco use among adolescents.
Nearly all caffeine users have little difficulty keeping their use in the "good" range. But for nicotine, there is no "good" range, and it is far more addictive.
As well, the puritans who are shitting their pants because the tobacco users have found a loophole in vaping
Nonsense. We are only shitting our pants over kids getting ahold of vaping devices. Adults can do what they want.
Do you really think that putting a highly addictive and harmful product into the hands of kids is acceptable? They are too stupid and naive to understand the consequences.
the FDA should actually regulate the things properly so we can ensure that they don't have unsafe chemicals in them.
Uhh, the "harmful chemical" is nicotine, and is the ENTIRE POINT of vaping.
The problem is the harmless chemicals that give it flavors like candy, and make it appealing to kids. We don't need "cherry cola" and "bubble gum" flavored nicotine.
They are certainly better that tobacco. Nicotine is bad, but the other stuff in tobacco smoke is worse, and you avoid that with vaping.
The problem is that kids are stupid and naive, and they don't realize that vaping is just as addictive as tobacco. By the time they realize how stupid it is, they are hooked.
We need to find a way to keep vaping devices away from pre-18ers. Maybe move to a prescription model. But that might mean less harm reduction for smokers. It is a difficult issue.
Jack Thompson told me that video games turn kids into real-life killers!!!/s
Video games became widespread in the 1990s, and were correlated with a dramatic decline in violent crime.
There were other factors at play, such as a reduction in environmental lead contamination, but video games likely contributed. Young males in their prime crime years were in Mom's basement playing games instead of out on the street with a gang.
I have my doubts that it would be feasible with the wind conditions on gas giants.
The wind is not much of an issue, because the city would float along with it. Go for a balloon ride: Once you are aloft, it is incredibly peaceful and quiet, with zero-delta wind.
The problems with a gas giant are the incredibly frigid temperatures, and that lack of other resources: There is no "surface" to mine. Solar energy is very weak.
These problems don't exist on Venus. The temperatures in the upper atmosphere are mild, the surface is in easy reach, and solar is twice as bright as on earth.
I've not seen where any one is talking about floating cities in the sky on Venus.
Then you aren't hanging out in the right forums. Floating Venusian cities are a perfectly plausible idea. The atmosphere there is much denser than earth's. Our atmosphere composition of 80/20 N2/O2 would provide plenty of buoyancy without any pressurization, and at a level where the temperature is right at a comfortable level. The external surface would need to be designed to withstand sulfuric acid gas, but plenty of cheap substances, including many polymers, can do that. Tethered shuttles down to the surface could retrieve building materials.
The technical challenges would be WAY easier than a Martian settlement.
There has been some talk of letting lose some floating balloons to study the planet.
The earth's crust is made of 5% iron. It's cheaper to dig some up here than get it down safely from low earth orbit.
You are completely missing the point: YOU DON'T BRING IT DOWN. You use it to build a new civilization in space.
So the proper comparison is not the cost to bring orbiting iron down, but the cost to bring terrestrial iron UP. Which is currently about $5000 per kg.
But the beauty of colonizing an asteroid is that we don't have to go to the asteroid. We can bring the asteroid to earth, or at least earth orbit.
Here is how we do it: Find a nice sized asteroid in a earth-crossing orbit, maybe a few cubic kilometers. Nudge it a bit with a fusion warhead, so that it veers closer to earth. Then adjust the orbit, so that it juuuust skims through the upper atmosphere. This will slow it enough to go into an eccentric elliptical orbit. A few more passes through the atmosphere at perigee, and it will settle down into a circular orbit, maybe about 500 km up.
If it is, say, 10 km^3, that is 50 billion tonnes of iron, nickel, and other siderophile elements, including gold, platinum, iridium, etc. It will pay for itself in no time.
This is a good thing. We need to stop obsessing about Mars. Once humanity moves off-earth, the dumbest thing we could do is settle onto another planetary surface. We would just be moving from one gravity well to another. The asteroids should be our colonial target.
or maybe if you cant even remember to take your child out of the car you put them in, don't have children.
Don't underestimate the value of absent minded Aspies. We may not remember to take our kids from the back seat or wear matching socks, but we are responsible for most progress in the world. Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Adam Smith, were all absent minded.
NYC is the second biggest tech cluster in the world, bested only by the SF Bay Area. The heaviest concentrations are in the Flatiron District of Manhattan, and around the multiple world class universities, including Columbia and NYU.
so the talent pool is not that deep.
There are more than 300,000 tech workers in NYC, one of the deepest and widest talent pools in the world.
I still fail to see how NY would lose.
Look at the history of corporate welfare. Count the successes. Count the failures. Apply evidence-based reasoning.
How many $100-$150k software engineers in NYC are currently unemployed?
Most of these employees will just be shifted from other businesses, which aren't being subsidized, forcing them to either cut back or leave the city. There may be some net job growth, but it is unlikely it is going to be worth $3 billion.
Most tech companies in NYC are already desperate for talent. The limit on creating high paying jobs is not companies willing to hire them, but housing available for people to move to the city. Approving new building permits (cost: ~$0) would do WAY more to grow the NYC economy that this handout to Amazon.
But there is one thing you can be certain of: The politicians are going to label this as a "success" by highlighting every job at Amazon, while ignoring the equivalent number of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the city.
According to TFA, there is a sensor to detect if a dog is in the car. It isn't clear if it would also detect a baby. But dogs and babies should have similar sensor profiles, so you should be fine. So, sure, feel free to leave your baby in the hot car. What could go wrong?
If you can't afford a Tesla, here is a low tech trick to avoid killing your baby: When you put the kid in the carseat, put your wallet & cellphone on the floor next to the baby. Then when you get where you are going and reach into your pocket for your cellphone to check your Facebook status, the phone is NOT THERE! Then you remember that you left your baby in the car. Broiled infant brain avoided!
It hardly matters since there is no available expertise in the government for any of these things
Most scientific funding decisions are not made at the political level. NSF and NIH funding decisions are made by scientists themselves. DARPA funding is usually goal-directed rather than basic research, but the decisions there are also made by subject matter experts, and they have a good track record.
More spending on science and R&D will bring us more prosperity, better health, and cleaner air. It is something we should be doing regardless of AGW.
Spending on science should be increased by 5-10% per year over the next decade, to double current spending levels. There is nothing better than we can do for global warming, national security, or our own prosperity and well-being.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get justice - if you are an important person.
Indeed. According to the summary, the judge slapped an extra two years onto the sentence because of who the perp targeted.
So we are willing to devote lots of taxpayer funded resources to prosecuting this one guy for targeting a VIP, but doing something about the millions of scammy phone calls that little people face everyday remains a low priority.
How much extra is it going to cause the greedy carriers to remove the caps for a couple of days?
The monetary cost is not the issue. Congestion is. A disaster area is the place where caps are most justified. When disasters strike, there is often a surge of network traffic, beyond the normal level the infrastructure is designed to handle. The caps are needed to keep bandwidth available for emergency personnel.
Many bills are hundreds of pages in length, and changes and amendments are made right up to the vote.
Most congresspeople have only a hazy idea of what they are voting for, and "understanding the issues" makes little difference.
"Laws are like sausages. It is better to not watch them being made." -- Otto von Bismarck
Which is the shorter list - Democratic politicians who are (or are expected to be soon) running for president, or those who are not planning to run for president?
The really short list is the announced candidates with an actual shot at winning.
If a politician doesn't demonstrate a deep understanding of something ...
As long as a politician votes the way you want, why do you care if they understand the issues?
You need to have realistic expectations. 99% of the bills are not even read before they vote on them.
A longitudinal study by the NIH found that vaping is a gateway to smoking, and it is likely that access to vapers increases tobacco use among adolescents.
In moderation though
Nearly all caffeine users have little difficulty keeping their use in the "good" range. But for nicotine, there is no "good" range, and it is far more addictive.
As well, the puritans who are shitting their pants because the tobacco users have found a loophole in vaping
Nonsense. We are only shitting our pants over kids getting ahold of vaping devices. Adults can do what they want.
Do you really think that putting a highly addictive and harmful product into the hands of kids is acceptable? They are too stupid and naive to understand the consequences.
the FDA should actually regulate the things properly so we can ensure that they don't have unsafe chemicals in them.
Uhh, the "harmful chemical" is nicotine, and is the ENTIRE POINT of vaping.
The problem is the harmless chemicals that give it flavors like candy, and make it appealing to kids. We don't need "cherry cola" and "bubble gum" flavored nicotine.
I personally doubt they are any better for you
They are certainly better that tobacco. Nicotine is bad, but the other stuff in tobacco smoke is worse, and you avoid that with vaping.
The problem is that kids are stupid and naive, and they don't realize that vaping is just as addictive as tobacco. By the time they realize how stupid it is, they are hooked.
We need to find a way to keep vaping devices away from pre-18ers. Maybe move to a prescription model. But that might mean less harm reduction for smokers. It is a difficult issue.
it's that no one wants to buy these
My local grocery store stocks compostable cups and utensils, so someone is buying them.
They are more expensive, but mass production could reduce the price.
Disclaimer: I use glass and metal, and rinse them for reuse.
I grew up on Pac-Man and Asteroids. Different world.
Sure, because cannibalism is so much more moral than shooting someone. Whatever.
Jack Thompson told me that video games turn kids into real-life killers!!! /s
Video games became widespread in the 1990s, and were correlated with a dramatic decline in violent crime.
There were other factors at play, such as a reduction in environmental lead contamination, but video games likely contributed. Young males in their prime crime years were in Mom's basement playing games instead of out on the street with a gang.
I have my doubts that it would be feasible with the wind conditions on gas giants.
The wind is not much of an issue, because the city would float along with it. Go for a balloon ride: Once you are aloft, it is incredibly peaceful and quiet, with zero-delta wind.
The problems with a gas giant are the incredibly frigid temperatures, and that lack of other resources: There is no "surface" to mine. Solar energy is very weak.
These problems don't exist on Venus. The temperatures in the upper atmosphere are mild, the surface is in easy reach, and solar is twice as bright as on earth.
Piece of cake.
I've not seen where any one is talking about floating cities in the sky on Venus.
Then you aren't hanging out in the right forums. Floating Venusian cities are a perfectly plausible idea. The atmosphere there is much denser than earth's. Our atmosphere composition of 80/20 N2/O2 would provide plenty of buoyancy without any pressurization, and at a level where the temperature is right at a comfortable level. The external surface would need to be designed to withstand sulfuric acid gas, but plenty of cheap substances, including many polymers, can do that. Tethered shuttles down to the surface could retrieve building materials.
The technical challenges would be WAY easier than a Martian settlement.
There has been some talk of letting lose some floating balloons to study the planet.
Sure, that is a first step, but not the end goal.
The earth's crust is made of 5% iron. It's cheaper to dig some up here than get it down safely from low earth orbit.
You are completely missing the point: YOU DON'T BRING IT DOWN. You use it to build a new civilization in space.
So the proper comparison is not the cost to bring orbiting iron down, but the cost to bring terrestrial iron UP. Which is currently about $5000 per kg.
But the beauty of colonizing an asteroid is that we don't have to go to the asteroid. We can bring the asteroid to earth, or at least earth orbit.
Here is how we do it: Find a nice sized asteroid in a earth-crossing orbit, maybe a few cubic kilometers. Nudge it a bit with a fusion warhead, so that it veers closer to earth. Then adjust the orbit, so that it juuuust skims through the upper atmosphere. This will slow it enough to go into an eccentric elliptical orbit. A few more passes through the atmosphere at perigee, and it will settle down into a circular orbit, maybe about 500 km up.
If it is, say, 10 km^3, that is 50 billion tonnes of iron, nickel, and other siderophile elements, including gold, platinum, iridium, etc. It will pay for itself in no time.
The "Mars One" people are just being unrealistic.
Their invent-new-month-names department blew up their budget.
The needed a lot of names. On Mars, there is a new month every seven hours and 40 minutes.
This is a good thing. We need to stop obsessing about Mars. Once humanity moves off-earth, the dumbest thing we could do is settle onto another planetary surface. We would just be moving from one gravity well to another. The asteroids should be our colonial target.
or maybe if you cant even remember to take your child out of the car you put them in, don't have children.
Don't underestimate the value of absent minded Aspies. We may not remember to take our kids from the back seat or wear matching socks, but we are responsible for most progress in the world. Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Adam Smith, were all absent minded.
Actually, there are plenty of successes. Boeing, SpaceX, Tesla - all got big in part because of corporate welfare.
Good job! Now count the failures.
It's also not known for its software companies
NYC is the second biggest tech cluster in the world, bested only by the SF Bay Area. The heaviest concentrations are in the Flatiron District of Manhattan, and around the multiple world class universities, including Columbia and NYU.
so the talent pool is not that deep.
There are more than 300,000 tech workers in NYC, one of the deepest and widest talent pools in the world.
I still fail to see how NY would lose.
Look at the history of corporate welfare. Count the successes. Count the failures. Apply evidence-based reasoning.
Other than coasting on other people's work, what has he actually managed to accomplish?
Successful people delegate. Failing to leverage the work and expertise of others is the shortest path to entrepreneurial failure.
I don't see any way for it to NOT work.
PT Barnum loved people like you.
How many $100-$150k software engineers in NYC are currently unemployed?
Most of these employees will just be shifted from other businesses, which aren't being subsidized, forcing them to either cut back or leave the city. There may be some net job growth, but it is unlikely it is going to be worth $3 billion.
Most tech companies in NYC are already desperate for talent. The limit on creating high paying jobs is not companies willing to hire them, but housing available for people to move to the city. Approving new building permits (cost: ~$0) would do WAY more to grow the NYC economy that this handout to Amazon.
But there is one thing you can be certain of: The politicians are going to label this as a "success" by highlighting every job at Amazon, while ignoring the equivalent number of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the city.
Is it dog only, or will it work with a baby?
According to TFA, there is a sensor to detect if a dog is in the car. It isn't clear if it would also detect a baby. But dogs and babies should have similar sensor profiles, so you should be fine. So, sure, feel free to leave your baby in the hot car. What could go wrong?
If you can't afford a Tesla, here is a low tech trick to avoid killing your baby: When you put the kid in the carseat, put your wallet & cellphone on the floor next to the baby. Then when you get where you are going and reach into your pocket for your cellphone to check your Facebook status, the phone is NOT THERE! Then you remember that you left your baby in the car. Broiled infant brain avoided!
It hardly matters since there is no available expertise in the government for any of these things
Most scientific funding decisions are not made at the political level. NSF and NIH funding decisions are made by scientists themselves. DARPA funding is usually goal-directed rather than basic research, but the decisions there are also made by subject matter experts, and they have a good track record.
More spending on science and R&D will bring us more prosperity, better health, and cleaner air. It is something we should be doing regardless of AGW.
Spending on science should be increased by 5-10% per year over the next decade, to double current spending levels. There is nothing better than we can do for global warming, national security, or our own prosperity and well-being.