All studies and research on the matter show you're completely wrong!
ABS is frequently (less so today) pushed as a selling point. To suggest people don't know about something which is frequently pushed as a selling point is ignorance to say the least. Not to mention, is completely contrary to just about all research on the subject.
Not true. Glass is generally profitable to recycle, and is in significant demand.
Not true in the least. Recycling glass only makes sense so long as its recycled locally, or better yet, re-used. That's why some cities offer a refunds for returning of their bottle. Recycling glass can make sense but almost universally does not.
Recycling plastic and rubber, with only a few exceptions, almost never makes sense. Same for paper.
Don't confuse demand created by false economy via subsidy with economic and environmental sense. If it made environmental sense, the business would grow without the need for subsidy. And even if the capital expense were large enough to justify subsidy to spur initial interest and growth (stimulus), the level of subsidy would continue to shrink within a few years. Unsurprisingly, the subsidy required every year continues to grow. Which directly translates to anyone with a business background, recycling is a sham on the tax payers. Even worse, its bad for the environment.
Ya, that's why I stressed "turbine", and further qualified with something like a news copter. There actually are some cheaper turbines to fly but their endurance and useful load isn't really applicable to this type of work and from what I understand, are not really common outside a select few countries in Europe. They likely lack FAA certification too.
Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables.
That seems somehow impossible or completely out of context. What's probably far, far, far more realistic is that they earn $26/ton at a cost of $120/ton. Meaning they minimized their net loss.
Recycling is bad for the environment and universally bad for the tax payer. The only exceptions to this are the recycling of metal products. Recycling tin, aluminum, iron, and steal all make sense. Recycling paper and plastic do not. Recycling most other goods is simply tax payer funded jobs program which concurrently injures the environment.
Where do you think all chemicals to process/treat/recycle paper comes from? Where do you think that ink and treatment chemicals go? Where do you think the energy required to recycle came from? If recycling made sense, it would not require any government subsidy at all. And yet, with the exception of recycling metals, it requires higher and higher subsidies every year. And this ignores the fact that we pay a premium to recycling services to find that the majority of the "recycled" products wind up in the trash with all the other trash. Meaning, we pay a 2x-5x premium to dispose of trash just so we can pay a 2x-5x premium to harm the environment.
So please explain what part of bad for the environment, rapes the tax payer, and is founded on a false report (lies - unequivocally proven to be false) published by the EPA, is actually good for the environment and tax payer?
Why is this moderated, "troll"? Everything in the post is true.
The US' prison population is the largest of any industrialized nation in the world! Over 50% of everyone in a US prison in there for drug charges. To say the US is incarcerating people because of victim-less crimes is an entirely accurate statement.
To troll moderate his post is to suggest the moderator, is blind, deaf, and/or dumb and has no clue as to what they are doing.
Obviously suggesting the US should invade itself was meant tongue in cheek but his point is entirely accurate.
"I have anti-lock brakes so I can travel closer to the vehicle in front of me because I can stop faster", logic.
The truth is, anti-lock brakes typically provide longer braking distance than capable by really good drivers and good road surfaces. Of course, that means for the average driver its better; especially when you consider most drivers are inattentive.
This, of course, ignores that anti-lock brakes require proper use (maximum pressure) to obtain maximum braking potential and that the majority of Americans still don't know how to use their brakes properly.
Making this all worse, all too often SUV/truck owners incorrectly believe that their anti-lock brakes dramatically reduce their braking distance, far below what would otherwise be possible, an so now travel closer than they would otherwise. Meaning, they are causing more accidents and because they are driving SUV/trucks, the accidents are more serious.
A "cheap", single turbine news copter can easily cost $1000/hr to operate. Imagine a large, long-range, twin turbine copter chugging along several hours, back and forth, at roughly $3000-$6000/hr. Those bills can certainly add up fast!
Now you know why helicopters are traditionally the ride for the military and/or the rich and famous.
I was talking about entry vehicles with a live astronaut whom you don't want to turn into toast or jelly.
Yes, because extremely heat and light sensitive film was always turned into jelly before it could be handed off to analysts. Likely the only different considerations are life support and g-forces.
So, US shit scared of the Russian with their "permissions" for overflight *YET* they managed to produce a spy plane for the explicit purpose of overflights?? Then they used such aircraft prior to the Russian Sputnik story you are spinning?
The Russians always knew when we did overflights. It pissed them off bad! Which means your idiotic counter argument is that what really happened, never happened, because creating an international indecent with a nuclear power is a good thing! Moron!
If you do a little leg work for yourself, I'm sure you can find additional information.
And if my assertion sounds so odd that you feel compelled to say, "citation needed", it strongly suggests you know nothing of history from that era. If you had known anything from that era, learning the history of events would hardly be anything more than, "neat, I didn't know that." Is allowing Russia to set space precedence really surprisingly in the least given Russia's politics and growing nuclear escalation? Most historians agree, "no", not in the least.
Rant begins...yet again...and again...and again... And for the record, this is not a research paper. This is slashdot. I have no idea how you can confuse the two. "Citation needed", makes you appear silly. It is the cry of the Internet's dumb and lazy. Ya, I know everyone is doing it... Doesn't make it right or intelligent. Given the context, you're declaring you're too lazy and ignorant of the current topic to be bothered to improve yourself. If its my job to educate you by providing references outside of reference material and researched material, as in do your research to improve your knowledge, I expect to paid. Otherwise I've done all the work to cure your ignorance and I receive nothing as a benefit. That makes me your teacher. So as your teacher, go research the topic so as to cure your ignorance. There might be a quiz later.
There are better ways to ask than to make lazy demands like, "citation needed", as if implying people owe you something while you hold steadfast to your laziness; while concurrently, impolitely, declaring, "Bullshit! Prove it!" Search engines exist for a reason. The fact this has not yet occurred to you, speaks poorly of you. I strongly suspect you can do better./rant
Isn't that why NASA was founded? To be America's 'me-too' reply to Sputnik.
Ahh - no!
NASA was founded because leaving it with the armed forces didn't make a lot of sense when you're politically saying space exploration is for peaceful purposes and that we don't want to militarize space.
And as for the "me too", the US allowed Sputnik to be launched first to specifically allow the Russians to establish a precedence of space-based overflights as not violating a countries airspace. If the US had wanted to, they could have beaten the Russian's by almost a year but were very afraid the Russians would create international ire and allow the Russians to establish space-based airspace by precedence.
You need to keep in mind, this all happened just as the nuclear arms race was just kicking into overdrive. The US President ask the Russians for unilateral overflights to monitor each other's nuclear forces as a means of nuclear arms control. Russia told the US to get bent.
When spies informed the US of Russia's Sputnik development, a plan was hatched. The US immediately mothballed Wernher von Braun's orbital plans so as to allow Russia first orbital access. At the same time, US funding for the Navy's failure of a rocket project received additional funding. The Navy's project was far, far, far behind that of both the Russian's and von Braun's efforts which means it provided for the perfect cover - the US was behind the Russians.
Their plan worked perfectly save exactly one aspect. The completely under estimated the US public's reaction to the perception the US was far behind the Russians in space technology. This ignores the fact that von Braun's rocket was removed from storage, taken directly to the launch pad, a successfully launched a satellite into orbit. The satellite, I might add, which was carried around in the back of one of von Braun's associates' car for many months prior to de-mothballing of their project.
Imagine how entirely different the world would be today if the US had not allowed the Russians to be first in orbit.
There is nothing in IPv6 which precludes the use of proxies and/or NATing. Its just that adoption of IPv6 no longer mandates the use of NAT'ing. Nothing is lost. There is only gain to be had from an IPv6 upgrade.
Keep in mind there are many reasons to enter airplane mode. Camping in areas without coverage one such reason. When in areas without coverage the phone typically cranks up to maximum TX power in hopes it can establish communication with a tower. This typically drains a battery extremely quickly.
On Android devices, the radios which are affected by airplane mode are programmatically configurable.
My android-based smart phone has an FM tuner (HTC Incredible) but why on earth would I use it when I can use pandora?
Simple. Very simple. Power. Coverage. Period.
I would personally love to see both AM and FM included in more smart phones. I do not want to see it mandated. That's dumb. This is clearly one of those places where the market is very capable of regulating itself.
AM/FM radio reception has clear advantages of services like Pandora in that AM/FM radio is everywhere. On the other hand, data services are not yet everywhere. And ignoring issues of data coverage, the power required to process an audio stream versus simple AM/FM can be huge. To process an audio stream you need a data network, a radio receiver, a CPU (its data at this point), decompression (CPU and/or dedicated hardware), and a speaker. To process simple AM/FM, you can use a very small, low power, dedicated circuit. And technically, an AM/FM radio could still be used when in airplane mode, which can provided yet additional power savings while still providing for an audio solution.
And even when on the nation's largest carrier, I still regularly find pockets having no data services.
Judges are free to toss out jury findings at any time, when it is felt it is in conflict with justice, or if its felt the jury did not understand what it is they were to do. In a courtroom, where its obvious the prosecution is extremely biased, has reason to be biased, a judge has an obligation. That's exactly why he's there in the first place.
The fact the judge didn't do his job absolutely means he is part of the problem. As you rightly point out, other areas need to be addressed, but when a judge is actually doing his job, by in large, everything else tends to fall into place, or at a minimum, not fall so far astray.
Removing unfit judges would go a long, long, long way toward fixing the US' broken legal system.
That's likely the root of the problem. Even a hint of truism brings ire and censorship rather than a spotlight for humor. Coincidentally, its probably censorship from the same people who like to complain about censorship on slashdot.
Welcome to the best, broken, judicial system in the world! When, seemingly, most of our judges seem unable to read and comprehend, which is both the easiest to understand and the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, how can you expect any other result?
As an interesting note, previously our federal courts have been so screwed up, over half of them were dissolved (firing the judges) at one time (I no longer remember all the details). It seems such a firing is in dire need; and then again at the state level.
The courts are for justice, not politics. When the two are confused or conflated, justice becomes impossible. Lady Justice can not serve her purpose when politics is her eyes. She's supposed to be blind, and by design.
I like the, "redundant", moderation which implies its obviously the truth, and therefore redundant.
The moderators have really become insanely ignorant these days. I wonder if the demographic has profoundly changed in recent times. Based on comments and moderations, it suggests both lower IQs and the far less learned haunt slashdot these days.
Oh my gawd! Solar cooling! Won't someone thinking of the children! This is obviously the work of man and industry. According to all known publications on global warming, any deviation from historic trends means man is completely behind the deviation.
We should immediately start nuking the sun to spur increased solar activity.
I sincerely hope moderators understand tongue in cheek humor.
To infringe on trademark you must be in the same line of business, or at least be in competition, in which potential customers can be confused by the competing similarity in trademark.
When they can prove customers are calling him to get their computers excised, then they have a legitimate case. Until such time, they have no legal leg to stand on. Tech support and theology, as far as I know, have absolutely nothing in common.
Slashdot Mirror
All studies and research on the matter show you're completely wrong!
ABS is frequently (less so today) pushed as a selling point. To suggest people don't know about something which is frequently pushed as a selling point is ignorance to say the least. Not to mention, is completely contrary to just about all research on the subject.
Not true. Glass is generally profitable to recycle, and is in significant demand.
Not true in the least. Recycling glass only makes sense so long as its recycled locally, or better yet, re-used. That's why some cities offer a refunds for returning of their bottle. Recycling glass can make sense but almost universally does not.
Recycling plastic and rubber, with only a few exceptions, almost never makes sense. Same for paper.
Don't confuse demand created by false economy via subsidy with economic and environmental sense. If it made environmental sense, the business would grow without the need for subsidy. And even if the capital expense were large enough to justify subsidy to spur initial interest and growth (stimulus), the level of subsidy would continue to shrink within a few years. Unsurprisingly, the subsidy required every year continues to grow. Which directly translates to anyone with a business background, recycling is a sham on the tax payers. Even worse, its bad for the environment.
Ya, that's why I stressed "turbine", and further qualified with something like a news copter. There actually are some cheaper turbines to fly but their endurance and useful load isn't really applicable to this type of work and from what I understand, are not really common outside a select few countries in Europe. They likely lack FAA certification too.
Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables.
That seems somehow impossible or completely out of context. What's probably far, far, far more realistic is that they earn $26/ton at a cost of $120/ton. Meaning they minimized their net loss.
Recycling is bad for the environment and universally bad for the tax payer. The only exceptions to this are the recycling of metal products. Recycling tin, aluminum, iron, and steal all make sense. Recycling paper and plastic do not. Recycling most other goods is simply tax payer funded jobs program which concurrently injures the environment.
Where do you think all chemicals to process/treat/recycle paper comes from? Where do you think that ink and treatment chemicals go? Where do you think the energy required to recycle came from? If recycling made sense, it would not require any government subsidy at all. And yet, with the exception of recycling metals, it requires higher and higher subsidies every year. And this ignores the fact that we pay a premium to recycling services to find that the majority of the "recycled" products wind up in the trash with all the other trash. Meaning, we pay a 2x-5x premium to dispose of trash just so we can pay a 2x-5x premium to harm the environment.
So please explain what part of bad for the environment, rapes the tax payer, and is founded on a false report (lies - unequivocally proven to be false) published by the EPA, is actually good for the environment and tax payer?
Why is this moderated, "troll"? Everything in the post is true.
The US' prison population is the largest of any industrialized nation in the world! Over 50% of everyone in a US prison in there for drug charges. To say the US is incarcerating people because of victim-less crimes is an entirely accurate statement.
To troll moderate his post is to suggest the moderator, is blind, deaf, and/or dumb and has no clue as to what they are doing.
Obviously suggesting the US should invade itself was meant tongue in cheek but his point is entirely accurate.
Or even worse.
"I have anti-lock brakes so I can travel closer to the vehicle in front of me because I can stop faster", logic.
The truth is, anti-lock brakes typically provide longer braking distance than capable by really good drivers and good road surfaces. Of course, that means for the average driver its better; especially when you consider most drivers are inattentive.
This, of course, ignores that anti-lock brakes require proper use (maximum pressure) to obtain maximum braking potential and that the majority of Americans still don't know how to use their brakes properly.
Making this all worse, all too often SUV/truck owners incorrectly believe that their anti-lock brakes dramatically reduce their braking distance, far below what would otherwise be possible, an so now travel closer than they would otherwise. Meaning, they are causing more accidents and because they are driving SUV/trucks, the accidents are more serious.
But I digress...
A "cheap", single turbine news copter can easily cost $1000/hr to operate. Imagine a large, long-range, twin turbine copter chugging along several hours, back and forth, at roughly $3000-$6000/hr. Those bills can certainly add up fast!
Now you know why helicopters are traditionally the ride for the military and/or the rich and famous.
I was talking about entry vehicles with a live astronaut whom you don't want to turn into toast or jelly.
Yes, because extremely heat and light sensitive film was always turned into jelly before it could be handed off to analysts. Likely the only different considerations are life support and g-forces.
Surprising? Sure. Different history than taught in school? Yep! Extraordinary? Hardly.
US's actions seem to contradict your story,
Only if you're an idiot.
So, US shit scared of the Russian with their "permissions" for overflight *YET* they managed to produce a spy plane for the explicit purpose of overflights?? Then they used such aircraft prior to the Russian Sputnik story you are spinning?
The Russians always knew when we did overflights. It pissed them off bad! Which means your idiotic counter argument is that what really happened, never happened, because creating an international indecent with a nuclear power is a good thing! Moron!
The Navy's rocket in development was called, Vanguard. You can read the teaser from NOVA which also documents the actual events rather than the widely known and incorrect version of history. Last time I looked, there was also some of this video on You Tube, but I'm not sure what all is included in those videos. There are also several books on the topic. IIRC, the documentary also has a couple of the authors/historians that wrote some of those books. So sources can likely be obtained.
If you do a little leg work for yourself, I'm sure you can find additional information.
And if my assertion sounds so odd that you feel compelled to say, "citation needed", it strongly suggests you know nothing of history from that era. If you had known anything from that era, learning the history of events would hardly be anything more than, "neat, I didn't know that." Is allowing Russia to set space precedence really surprisingly in the least given Russia's politics and growing nuclear escalation? Most historians agree, "no", not in the least.
Rant begins...yet again...and again...and again...
And for the record, this is not a research paper. This is slashdot. I have no idea how you can confuse the two. "Citation needed", makes you appear silly. It is the cry of the Internet's dumb and lazy. Ya, I know everyone is doing it... Doesn't make it right or intelligent. Given the context, you're declaring you're too lazy and ignorant of the current topic to be bothered to improve yourself. If its my job to educate you by providing references outside of reference material and researched material, as in do your research to improve your knowledge, I expect to paid. Otherwise I've done all the work to cure your ignorance and I receive nothing as a benefit. That makes me your teacher. So as your teacher, go research the topic so as to cure your ignorance. There might be a quiz later.
There are better ways to ask than to make lazy demands like, "citation needed", as if implying people owe you something while you hold steadfast to your laziness; while concurrently, impolitely, declaring, "Bullshit! Prove it!" Search engines exist for a reason. The fact this has not yet occurred to you, speaks poorly of you. I strongly suspect you can do better. /rant
Isn't that why NASA was founded? To be America's 'me-too' reply to Sputnik.
Ahh - no!
NASA was founded because leaving it with the armed forces didn't make a lot of sense when you're politically saying space exploration is for peaceful purposes and that we don't want to militarize space.
And as for the "me too", the US allowed Sputnik to be launched first to specifically allow the Russians to establish a precedence of space-based overflights as not violating a countries airspace. If the US had wanted to, they could have beaten the Russian's by almost a year but were very afraid the Russians would create international ire and allow the Russians to establish space-based airspace by precedence.
You need to keep in mind, this all happened just as the nuclear arms race was just kicking into overdrive. The US President ask the Russians for unilateral overflights to monitor each other's nuclear forces as a means of nuclear arms control. Russia told the US to get bent.
When spies informed the US of Russia's Sputnik development, a plan was hatched. The US immediately mothballed Wernher von Braun's orbital plans so as to allow Russia first orbital access. At the same time, US funding for the Navy's failure of a rocket project received additional funding. The Navy's project was far, far, far behind that of both the Russian's and von Braun's efforts which means it provided for the perfect cover - the US was behind the Russians.
Their plan worked perfectly save exactly one aspect. The completely under estimated the US public's reaction to the perception the US was far behind the Russians in space technology. This ignores the fact that von Braun's rocket was removed from storage, taken directly to the launch pad, a successfully launched a satellite into orbit. The satellite, I might add, which was carried around in the back of one of von Braun's associates' car for many months prior to de-mothballing of their project.
Imagine how entirely different the world would be today if the US had not allowed the Russians to be first in orbit.
There is nothing in IPv6 which precludes the use of proxies and/or NATing. Its just that adoption of IPv6 no longer mandates the use of NAT'ing. Nothing is lost. There is only gain to be had from an IPv6 upgrade.
What's next? Treating restless leg syndrome?*
I only hope they can one day come up with a treatment for, Restless Penis Syndrome.
Keep in mind there are many reasons to enter airplane mode. Camping in areas without coverage one such reason. When in areas without coverage the phone typically cranks up to maximum TX power in hopes it can establish communication with a tower. This typically drains a battery extremely quickly.
On Android devices, the radios which are affected by airplane mode are programmatically configurable.
My android-based smart phone has an FM tuner (HTC Incredible) but why on earth would I use it when I can use pandora?
Simple. Very simple. Power. Coverage. Period.
I would personally love to see both AM and FM included in more smart phones. I do not want to see it mandated. That's dumb. This is clearly one of those places where the market is very capable of regulating itself.
AM/FM radio reception has clear advantages of services like Pandora in that AM/FM radio is everywhere. On the other hand, data services are not yet everywhere. And ignoring issues of data coverage, the power required to process an audio stream versus simple AM/FM can be huge. To process an audio stream you need a data network, a radio receiver, a CPU (its data at this point), decompression (CPU and/or dedicated hardware), and a speaker. To process simple AM/FM, you can use a very small, low power, dedicated circuit. And technically, an AM/FM radio could still be used when in airplane mode, which can provided yet additional power savings while still providing for an audio solution.
And even when on the nation's largest carrier, I still regularly find pockets having no data services.
Judges are free to toss out jury findings at any time, when it is felt it is in conflict with justice, or if its felt the jury did not understand what it is they were to do. In a courtroom, where its obvious the prosecution is extremely biased, has reason to be biased, a judge has an obligation. That's exactly why he's there in the first place.
The fact the judge didn't do his job absolutely means he is part of the problem. As you rightly point out, other areas need to be addressed, but when a judge is actually doing his job, by in large, everything else tends to fall into place, or at a minimum, not fall so far astray.
Removing unfit judges would go a long, long, long way toward fixing the US' broken legal system.
That's likely the root of the problem. Even a hint of truism brings ire and censorship rather than a spotlight for humor. Coincidentally, its probably censorship from the same people who like to complain about censorship on slashdot.
Welcome to the best, broken, judicial system in the world! When, seemingly, most of our judges seem unable to read and comprehend, which is both the easiest to understand and the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, how can you expect any other result?
As an interesting note, previously our federal courts have been so screwed up, over half of them were dissolved (firing the judges) at one time (I no longer remember all the details). It seems such a firing is in dire need; and then again at the state level.
The courts are for justice, not politics. When the two are confused or conflated, justice becomes impossible. Lady Justice can not serve her purpose when politics is her eyes. She's supposed to be blind, and by design.
"rogue IT admins" are the only thing worse than, "mall ninjas." *Dunt, dunt, duuuuunt!*
I like the, "redundant", moderation which implies its obviously the truth, and therefore redundant.
The moderators have really become insanely ignorant these days. I wonder if the demographic has profoundly changed in recent times. Based on comments and moderations, it suggests both lower IQs and the far less learned haunt slashdot these days.
Class ignorance.
Sometimes the best humor is humor which makes light of strawmen.
Probably best to simply say, "Whoosh!", in your case. Dry humor is not for everyone.
You made me laugh out loud! Thanks!
Oh my gawd! Solar cooling! Won't someone thinking of the children! This is obviously the work of man and industry. According to all known publications on global warming, any deviation from historic trends means man is completely behind the deviation.
We should immediately start nuking the sun to spur increased solar activity.
I sincerely hope moderators understand tongue in cheek humor.
I can see how this would be infringing.
To infringe on trademark you must be in the same line of business, or at least be in competition, in which potential customers can be confused by the competing similarity in trademark.
When they can prove customers are calling him to get their computers excised, then they have a legitimate case. Until such time, they have no legal leg to stand on. Tech support and theology, as far as I know, have absolutely nothing in common.