Right. In many cases, a truck delivery also involves a transaction between multiple parties. You need someone there from both parties to check the transaction and verify the paperwork. This is especially true if the truck needs to deliver to multiple different parties. You can't have people from destination A unloading destination B's stuff.
Boiling isn't to remove the lead, but to kill pathogens and remove some dissolved solvents and possibly some of that corrosive stuff that caused the lead to leach into the water.
It seems a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to test the water supply than to test the blood of people who have lived with the water supply. How did this get missed? Was it intentionally neglected?
Sure, they might be useful at some point, but do you really need your emails from 20 years ago? Life is temporary. All things decay. Attachment causes suffering.
Any person who hasn't grown up in a hippie commune can tell you that people are selfish assholes and will not pay for measures to improve safety for other people, so the market won't come up with a nice solution. We have drivers who run over people and back up and run over them again to make sure they're dead. A free market solution will be to put spikes on the cars to make it easier to kill pedestrians. Any safety options will be geared towards protecting the occupants of the vehicle.
Technology is improving, so it becomes practical to address safety measures which were too difficult to approach before. Computers and sensors are smaller and faster, so we don't have to rely on meatbags to prevent every accident.
The problem with a harder driving test is that people are going to be more careful and attentive during the test than in real life. I don't see how education is supposed to stop the stupid things you've listed. There isn't a person who doesn't know that texting and driving is stupid and they do it anyway. Engineering guards are more effective than protective policies because people don't and won't follow policies even if they know what they are.
progressive prresiv/ adjective 2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas. "a relatively progressive governor"
That was a silly move that doesn't make any sense. If I had design documents and requirement specs for ICBMs, I'm pretty sure the gov't wouldn't let me just publish them in a book under the guise of free speech.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if it gets developed for computing bomb trajectories or for computing consumer spending habits. Technology is fucking awesome and can be re-purposed to make our lives better. Even the atomic bomb gave us insight into construction of a nuclear reactor.
Environmental groups may have influenced public opinion, but I don't think they have had a huge effect on actual policies which are basically set by the elites. I mean, seriously, look at the world. Does it resemble at all what environmentalists are asking for?
Come on, if you are doing a study of dice fairness, I expect better statistics. What is your statistical error? Do you just think that 8000 rolls is enough to pick out errors of this level, or do you have stats to back that up?
I think there must be some kind of grouping fallacy here. Just because you can divide a big number by a big number and get a small number, doesn't mean that it isn't a big number. You can make anything small that way. I could steal 6 billion dollars from somewhere. But no, I'm hardly stealing since it's less than $1 per person. Through your ridiculous classification scheme, you have created a class of one person (the CEO) and another class of 2.2M people and treated them as coherent entities.
Details matter. You are looking to build a fusion reactor, and this reaction is far more difficult than the DT reaction that the fusion community is focusing on.
How do you internalize the cost of a rare catastrophe (which would probably bankrupt any insurance company)? Why don't we start by internalizing the external costs of fossil fuels? That will drive us to alternatives REALLY quick.
After all, if I were at war with the United States, they would be legitimate targets. And presumably, if they didn't wear uniforms and hid among civilians, then US is to blame for any "collateral damage" from bombing civilian centers. After all, there are unlawful combatants hiding among them.
Slashdot Mirror
MOND is largely discredited by the bullet cluster measurements.
Right. In many cases, a truck delivery also involves a transaction between multiple parties. You need someone there from both parties to check the transaction and verify the paperwork. This is especially true if the truck needs to deliver to multiple different parties. You can't have people from destination A unloading destination B's stuff.
Boiling isn't to remove the lead, but to kill pathogens and remove some dissolved solvents and possibly some of that corrosive stuff that caused the lead to leach into the water.
It seems a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to test the water supply than to test the blood of people who have lived with the water supply.
How did this get missed? Was it intentionally neglected?
Sure, they might be useful at some point, but do you really need your emails from 20 years ago? Life is temporary. All things decay. Attachment causes suffering.
You can't have free trade without open borders. If this is what you are calling for, then I agree.
There's a bunch of nationalists who don't want foreigners in the US regardless of the effect on wages, although few will say so directly.
Any person who hasn't grown up in a hippie commune can tell you that people are selfish assholes and will not pay for measures to improve safety for other people, so the market won't come up with a nice solution. We have drivers who run over people and back up and run over them again to make sure they're dead. A free market solution will be to put spikes on the cars to make it easier to kill pedestrians. Any safety options will be geared towards protecting the occupants of the vehicle.
Technology is improving, so it becomes practical to address safety measures which were too difficult to approach before. Computers and sensors are smaller and faster, so we don't have to rely on meatbags to prevent every accident.
The problem with a harder driving test is that people are going to be more careful and attentive during the test than in real life. I don't see how education is supposed to stop the stupid things you've listed. There isn't a person who doesn't know that texting and driving is stupid and they do it anyway. Engineering guards are more effective than protective policies because people don't and won't follow policies even if they know what they are.
progressive
prresiv/
adjective
2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
"a relatively progressive governor"
Well if the law is unjust then a recourse is to break the law. And make a big a big fuss of it.
That was a silly move that doesn't make any sense. If I had design documents and requirement specs for ICBMs, I'm pretty sure the gov't wouldn't let me just publish them in a book under the guise of free speech.
If you include the total cost of maintenance and construction, the bikes will come out way ahead.
The thing is, it doesn't matter if it gets developed for computing bomb trajectories or for computing consumer spending habits. Technology is fucking awesome and can be re-purposed to make our lives better. Even the atomic bomb gave us insight into construction of a nuclear reactor.
Sounds like something a Luddite would say.
Environmental groups may have influenced public opinion, but I don't think they have had a huge effect on actual policies which are basically set by the elites. I mean, seriously, look at the world. Does it resemble at all what environmentalists are asking for?
Come on, if you are doing a study of dice fairness, I expect better statistics. What is your statistical error? Do you just think that 8000 rolls is enough to pick out errors of this level, or do you have stats to back that up?
Please study some before coming up with ideas.
I think there must be some kind of grouping fallacy here. Just because you can divide a big number by a big number and get a small number, doesn't mean that it isn't a big number. You can make anything small that way. I could steal 6 billion dollars from somewhere. But no, I'm hardly stealing since it's less than $1 per person. Through your ridiculous classification scheme, you have created a class of one person (the CEO) and another class of 2.2M people and treated them as coherent entities.
But nuclear is the best thing for the environment. Just look at Pripyat today. It's a lush natural preserve.
Details matter. You are looking to build a fusion reactor, and this reaction is far more difficult than the DT reaction that the fusion community is focusing on.
How do you internalize the cost of a rare catastrophe (which would probably bankrupt any insurance company)?
Why don't we start by internalizing the external costs of fossil fuels? That will drive us to alternatives REALLY quick.
Traditional energy sources will get more expensive as they run out. Simple as that.
After all, if I were at war with the United States, they would be legitimate targets. And presumably, if they didn't wear uniforms and hid among civilians, then US is to blame for any "collateral damage" from bombing civilian centers. After all, there are unlawful combatants hiding among them.