You have the luxury of being 90 miles away from the nuclear plant, but I understand that you are sensitive to any remarks concerning this disaster. It's comparable to Americans being upset at people who make light of the September 11 attack on the twin towers. Fukushima is a national concern for Japan.
I don't particularly care for your "fuck yourself" comment because not only does it take away all the positive energy you projected on the people working at the site, it squashed most chances to have a positive dialog.
Some people are assholes and I experienced what you are talking about. I live on the US Gulf Coast and was in a disaster zone. I've seen comments condemning me and my neighbors for living where we do despite the fact that there are very few places that doesn't have some potential for natural disaster. There is nothing like being figuratively spit on by slashdot while you have to clean up debris, survey and repair damages, and care for your neighbors. That said I do think you are overreacting a little about the Godzilla comments.
You volunteered to be screened by the TSA. No one forces you to use commercial airlines when you travel. Also if you enter in any governmental building (federal, state, or municipal) you may see a sign informing you that by entering the building that you are subject to search.
The 4th amendment is suppose to protect you from government search and seizure in your own premise. Logically that extends to your cell phone that is on your person. As far as the 4th amendment is concerned, NSA is violating it while the TSA is "technically" not.
Kaveh Kammoneh did state that he found the officer in his car in the first article. The news article didn't include that portion in the written article even though it is in the attached video.
First did the school complain? If the school did not complain, did the officer ask the school if there was an issue?
A public school doesn't need to complain. An officer caught the guy using electricity from an outlet on public property without permission (a.k.a. theft). A police officer acts on behalf of the public. The article stated the officer checked with the school system prior to making the arrest. The guy was picked up 11 days after the incident.
If there was an issue, I am sure the officer or the school could have approached the man and asked him to stop using their plug.
From article 1 of 2 above:
Kamooneh had taken the liberty of charging the electric car with an exterior outlet at the school. Within minutes of plugging in the car, he says a Chamblee police officer appeared.
"He said that he was going to charge me with theft by taking because I was taking power, electricity from the school," Kamooneh said.
From article 2 of 2 above:
Kaveh Kamooneh plugged an extension cable from his Nissan Leaf into a 110-volt external outlet at Chamblee Middle School while his son was practicing tennis. A short time later, he noticed someone in his car and went to investigate—and found that the man was a Chamblee police officer. "He informed me he was about to arrest me, or at least charge me, for electrical theft," Kamooneh told Atlanta's Channel 11 News.
I noticed that the events leading up to the arrest are different in the two stories. The first one states that he was approached shortly after plugging it in and the second one states that he caught the officer searching his car. Which one is accurate? Both stories quote Kaveh Kamooneh.
There is a third possible scenario that the officer asked the guy to unplug the cord, the guy acted like an ass and the officer waited to confirm with the school board that the guy didn't have permission to use the outlet prior to making the arrest. You never see anyone admitting that they did something wrong to the reporters.
They could even post a sign saying "please do not use our plugs to charge your devices.".
So you believe that unless you are specifically told to not do something you are free to do as you want?
If he filled up his thermos with water from the bathroom sink, would that be theft as well?
Probably not. There are ordinances that dictate that water fountains and in your example public toilets be provided on public property. Permission to use the water for drinking is implied (or actually given by the ordinance).
Now if you connected a water hose to a spigot and filled up a water tank or washed your car then that would technically be theft.
There are no ordinances that dictate that free electricity should be provided to charge electric vehicles (or for any use). The subject of the article had no permission to use electricity and therefore committed theft.
This does not mean that the owner should be immune from criticism if the stated or actual reason is invalid or morally wrong.
I see nothing wrong with someone saying "no google glass allowed" and complain on Yelp. However I am not convinced that the act of banning someone from playing with their favorite electronic gadget rises to the level of being "morally wrong".
With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous
There are restaurants that won't allow cell phones to be used at all and this was before smartphones or phones with cameras. Patrons don't want to hear your side of a phone conversation.
Your suggestion assumes that someone would not disable the LED (easily done with black paint) in order to record without being detected.
Privacy is important, but you don't have an unlimited expectation of privacy everywhere you go. It is balanced against the rights of others, including, for example, the right to take photos or video recordings of public places - you don't get to demand that they stop doing so just because you happen to be in the picture, unless you're specifically being the target.
If I own a restaurant and I do not want to allow Google glass to worn inside then that is MY right. You can always vote with your feet and find another restaurant.
You implied that the insurance companies don't take climate change into consideration yet. I pointed out that they've been doing that for years (actually over a decade).
"If I was Salesforce, I’d be pissed an employee was so bad at his job he left a gaping hole in the product, then he leaves and starts a company that conveniently fills that hole? Yet, Salesforce gives him a million dollars. Either Salesforce is an investor in Upshot, or they’re dumb."
Unless she has proof then it's nothing but a sour grapes speaking. How do we know that the employee left the company because his ideas were constantly shot down by management, and it was only after he was able to make the product that his old employer saw the potential in that feature being provided? This happens all the time in the technology sector.
We got the bill years ago. We not only got the high premiums but we also have unbelievably high deductibles which makes insurance payout much less likely. Insurance companies looking for a reason to cancel policies or raise premiums is old news. Where have you been?
That's a nice little oversimplification of the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't censor rich people from communicating via media campaigns, films, etc.
That's the Citizen's United ruling. Just wait until the SCOTUS rules on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Then the politicians will be completely up for sale.
Scalia's argument sarcastic comment about finance reform:
a law that only prohibits the speech of 2 percent of the country is O.K.
I'm glad he's looking out for the 98% that will be out spent. *cgh cgh*
I think the timing of his articles are based on his attendance at the OpenStack Summit. Since he is writing the articles after only a week, I don't think the timing is "convenient" but rather "coincidental". Now if he wrote this article 4 months from now and talks about his observation at this conference, I would have been more inclined to believe that they withheld his article until it could be used to counter some major announcement.
2010-2012: 93 insured Ford Fusions caught fire (3-yr period, so 31 per year) without even being involved in crashes or vandalism.
You misread the table. From the report: The results in Table 2 are presented in descending order of relative claim frequency within each size class. For an individual vehicle series to appear, the vehicle had to have at least 20,000 insured vehicle years or 100 claims. Coverage results in this report have been standardized for driver age and deductible. To provide information on as many vehicle series as possible, noncrash fire comprehensive data for model years 2010-12 are combined in this report for those vehicles with basic designs that remained unchanged. Some individual series also are grouped into com- bined series when these vehicles are similar except for a different engine. These combinations are listed in Appendix A.
I interpret that the figures included in the report not only auto claims resulting from a crash but also non-auto accident related fires.
It's worse than that. According to the "Topical Fire Report Series" from which we have to guess the slideshow that Musk referenced is based, the definition of a "highway vehicle" is pretty broad as quoted below:
Highway vehicle fires include fires in passenger road vehicles (e.g., cars, motorcycles and off-road recreational vehicles), freight road transport vehicles (e.g., dump trucks, fire apparatus and tank trucks), and agricultural and construction vehicles.
How many of those 1 out of 1350 gasoline-powered cars are from low-income drivers who are driving cars which became unsafe many years ago? We already know that the 1 out of 6,333 Teslas that caught fire were new and driven by someone affluent enough to keep the car maintained.
But let's try to match something similar like Tesla's fires versus Toyota Camry Fires due to defective door switches. There have been six complaints for the entire 830,000 vehicles produced and sold. This gives us figure of 1 out of 138,333 cars sold. So by Elon Musk's measure you would be safer in a 2012 Toyota Camry than a Tesla.
Don't you think someone would have done it by now if it were feasible?
The reason is cost. It is MUCH cheaper to use overhead transmission lines than it is to go underground. Suppliers for HV underground power distributions include Borealis and ABB.
Lovers of this grain will be happy to learn that it is a good source of some important nutrients, including several B vitamins, fiber, phosphorus, manganese, and vitamin C. It is also free of unhealthy saturated or trans fats.
Despite the website claims, the USDA shows a medium ear of corn has no vitamin B or B-6, only 10% dv of vitamin C, 2% dv of iron, and 8% dv of magnesium. Also that ear of corn had 1.1g of fat with 0.2g of saturated fat. Corn does have 243mg of potassium and 2.4g of dietary fiber (9% dv).
Now compare this with turnip greens which has 127% dv of vitamin A, 55% dv of vitamin C, 10% dv of calcium, and 3% dv of iron. Turnip greens have 0g of fat. 2g dietary fiber (7% dv) and 1g of protein.
Compared to other vegetables, there are better alternatives to corn.
Actually the reason we have a rural utility coop here is because there wasn't enough people to entice the power company to run power lines. The cooperative installed the power lines and purchases the power from the electric company at wholesale and then bills each coop customer based on usage (basically a community owned power company). Technically there is nothing preventing them from using those same lines to do what the GP proposed.
Slashdot Mirror
You have the luxury of being 90 miles away from the nuclear plant, but I understand that you are sensitive to any remarks concerning this disaster. It's comparable to Americans being upset at people who make light of the September 11 attack on the twin towers. Fukushima is a national concern for Japan.
I don't particularly care for your "fuck yourself" comment because not only does it take away all the positive energy you projected on the people working at the site, it squashed most chances to have a positive dialog.
Some people are assholes and I experienced what you are talking about. I live on the US Gulf Coast and was in a disaster zone. I've seen comments condemning me and my neighbors for living where we do despite the fact that there are very few places that doesn't have some potential for natural disaster. There is nothing like being figuratively spit on by slashdot while you have to clean up debris, survey and repair damages, and care for your neighbors. That said I do think you are overreacting a little about the Godzilla comments.
You volunteered to be screened by the TSA. No one forces you to use commercial airlines when you travel. Also if you enter in any governmental building (federal, state, or municipal) you may see a sign informing you that by entering the building that you are subject to search.
The 4th amendment is suppose to protect you from government search and seizure in your own premise. Logically that extends to your cell phone that is on your person. As far as the 4th amendment is concerned, NSA is violating it while the TSA is "technically" not.
Kaveh Kammoneh did state that he found the officer in his car in the first article. The news article didn't include that portion in the written article even though it is in the attached video.
A public school doesn't need to complain. An officer caught the guy using electricity from an outlet on public property without permission (a.k.a. theft). A police officer acts on behalf of the public. The article stated the officer checked with the school system prior to making the arrest. The guy was picked up 11 days after the incident.
From article 1 of 2 above:
From article 2 of 2 above:
I noticed that the events leading up to the arrest are different in the two stories. The first one states that he was approached shortly after plugging it in and the second one states that he caught the officer searching his car. Which one is accurate? Both stories quote Kaveh Kamooneh.
There is a third possible scenario that the officer asked the guy to unplug the cord, the guy acted like an ass and the officer waited to confirm with the school board that the guy didn't have permission to use the outlet prior to making the arrest. You never see anyone admitting that they did something wrong to the reporters.
So you believe that unless you are specifically told to not do something you are free to do as you want?
IANAL.
Probably not. There are ordinances that dictate that water fountains and in your example public toilets be provided on public property. Permission to use the water for drinking is implied (or actually given by the ordinance).
Now if you connected a water hose to a spigot and filled up a water tank or washed your car then that would technically be theft.
There are no ordinances that dictate that free electricity should be provided to charge electric vehicles (or for any use). The subject of the article had no permission to use electricity and therefore committed theft.
I see nothing wrong with someone saying "no google glass allowed" and complain on Yelp. However I am not convinced that the act of banning someone from playing with their favorite electronic gadget rises to the level of being "morally wrong".
There are restaurants that won't allow cell phones to be used at all and this was before smartphones or phones with cameras. Patrons don't want to hear your side of a phone conversation.
Your suggestion assumes that someone would not disable the LED (easily done with black paint) in order to record without being detected.
If I own a restaurant and I do not want to allow Google glass to worn inside then that is MY right. You can always vote with your feet and find another restaurant.
You implied that the insurance companies don't take climate change into consideration yet. I pointed out that they've been doing that for years (actually over a decade).
Unless she has proof then it's nothing but a sour grapes speaking. How do we know that the employee left the company because his ideas were constantly shot down by management, and it was only after he was able to make the product that his old employer saw the potential in that feature being provided? This happens all the time in the technology sector.
We got the bill years ago. We not only got the high premiums but we also have unbelievably high deductibles which makes insurance payout much less likely. Insurance companies looking for a reason to cancel policies or raise premiums is old news. Where have you been?
They being 23andMe. If they market it as a diagnostic service then they are providing a medical test regulated by the FDA.
Careful. You're flirtin' with disaster!
AMEN! I'll never forget my wife suggesting I watch "City of Angels" before she returned the DVD.
That's the Citizen's United ruling. Just wait until the SCOTUS rules on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Then the politicians will be completely up for sale.
Scalia's argument sarcastic comment about finance reform:
I'm glad he's looking out for the 98% that will be out spent. *cgh cgh*
Why use experts that are already familiar with a product when you can spend money trying to get your own group of people up to speed?
I think the timing of his articles are based on his attendance at the OpenStack Summit. Since he is writing the articles after only a week, I don't think the timing is "convenient" but rather "coincidental". Now if he wrote this article 4 months from now and talks about his observation at this conference, I would have been more inclined to believe that they withheld his article until it could be used to counter some major announcement.
You misread the table. From the report: The results in Table 2 are presented in descending order of relative claim frequency within each size class. For an individual vehicle series to appear, the vehicle had to have at least 20,000 insured vehicle years or 100 claims. Coverage results in this report have been standardized for driver age and deductible. To provide information on as many vehicle series as possible, noncrash fire comprehensive data for model years 2010-12 are combined in this report for those vehicles with basic designs that remained unchanged. Some individual series also are grouped into com- bined series when these vehicles are similar except for a different engine. These combinations are listed in Appendix A.
I interpret that the figures included in the report not only auto claims resulting from a crash but also non-auto accident related fires.
Two types of burning sensations prevented!
How many of those 1 out of 1350 gasoline-powered cars are from low-income drivers who are driving cars which became unsafe many years ago? We already know that the 1 out of 6,333 Teslas that caught fire were new and driven by someone affluent enough to keep the car maintained.
But let's try to match something similar like Tesla's fires versus Toyota Camry Fires due to defective door switches. There have been six complaints for the entire 830,000 vehicles produced and sold. This gives us figure of 1 out of 138,333 cars sold. So by Elon Musk's measure you would be safer in a 2012 Toyota Camry than a Tesla.
The reason is cost. It is MUCH cheaper to use overhead transmission lines than it is to go underground. Suppliers for HV underground power distributions include Borealis and ABB.
Despite the website claims, the USDA shows a medium ear of corn has no vitamin B or B-6, only 10% dv of vitamin C, 2% dv of iron, and 8% dv of magnesium. Also that ear of corn had 1.1g of fat with 0.2g of saturated fat. Corn does have 243mg of potassium and 2.4g of dietary fiber (9% dv).
Now compare this with turnip greens which has 127% dv of vitamin A, 55% dv of vitamin C, 10% dv of calcium, and 3% dv of iron. Turnip greens have 0g of fat. 2g dietary fiber (7% dv) and 1g of protein.
Compared to other vegetables, there are better alternatives to corn.
Actually the reason we have a rural utility coop here is because there wasn't enough people to entice the power company to run power lines. The cooperative installed the power lines and purchases the power from the electric company at wholesale and then bills each coop customer based on usage (basically a community owned power company). Technically there is nothing preventing them from using those same lines to do what the GP proposed.
Better yet Instead of corn, grow something actually nutritious to feed to people.