Are you sure of that? Last time I flew Southwest (just weeks ago), it was $8 per device per day, with no cap, though it's slow enough that you're not going to download huge amounts of data anyway.
I suspect those rules aren't hard-wired into the aircraft.
I'm mostly with you on this but I'm going to suggest a compromise. Allow people to make calls for the first and last 30 minutes of the flight. That way people can still make their teary farewells to relatives who missed (or couldn't be bothered) seeing them off, and they can make arrangements for people to pick them up or meet them after the flight. I think that's reasonable. Anything more that that, and they will have to provide quiet sections on flights, or else I'm just not going.
Huh? They couldn't do that in the terminal?
We need to make it a social norm to punch people in the face if they pull a phone out on an aircraft.
It's actually a thing, Google "elective cesarean birth".
Women want to plan their expensive baby-party for a particular day, etc. You can't leave that to chance, not when you need to book the venue and the catering.
A lot of women also don't want to go through all that scary 'labor'' business or get their prize-winning vagina all stretched out.
My only point was that anecdotal evidence is completely worthless.
Weed is bad, weed kills, it's just a question of percentages.
Some people are OK on weed, some turn into worthless stoners with mental health problems. I don't know the relative proportions but saying weed is 100% harmless is dumb as fuck.
nb. I personally think it's less harmful than alcohol, most other people probably agree. I'll vote for total legalization of weed just as soon as a good roadside weed-detection kit has been widely deployed to the police.
I know lots of people who drink and this doesn't seem right. Sure, they can be a little goofy at the time of use, but other than that they are completely functional. They're productive, have high paying challenging jobs, one is a biochemist, and their recreational use of drink doesn't seem to make life difficult for them. If the study is looking at impairment at the time of use, how do they equate this to, say marijuana. If someone is really high, I doubt there brain is fully functional at the time either. I don't think drinking is detrimental in any way.
My mother and sister _both_ died from drink. Is that enough anecdotal evidence for you?
Christians often get criticized for saying evolution is only a theory. When a theory is really very well supported by evidence, as evolution is. But can we really complain when something like this, which is clearly an hypothesis, is called a theory. "String theory" seems the biggest offender to me. No wonder people tend to describe any idea they have as a theory.
Huh?
"Theory" is simply the name given to the second step of the Scientific Method. That's it.
Christians are criticized because they don't understand that the method doesn't stop there, that there's still a couple of steps to go ("prediction" and "experiment"). It's these other two steps that make the difference between proper science and woo-woo.
With the fact that solar panels require more energy to make frames, fab the PV junctions, and make the inverters, then move to a site and install, than they ever will gain back in their usable (20 year) lifespan, how is this a net gain?
Maybe they'll build a solar panel factory right next to it. 648MW ought to be good for a few solar panels per day.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure of that? Last time I flew Southwest (just weeks ago), it was $8 per device per day, with no cap, though it's slow enough that you're not going to download huge amounts of data anyway.
I suspect those rules aren't hard-wired into the aircraft.
I'm mostly with you on this but I'm going to suggest a compromise. Allow people to make calls for the first and last 30 minutes of the flight. That way people can still make their teary farewells to relatives who missed (or couldn't be bothered) seeing them off, and they can make arrangements for people to pick them up or meet them after the flight. I think that's reasonable. Anything more that that, and they will have to provide quiet sections on flights, or else I'm just not going.
Huh? They couldn't do that in the terminal?
We need to make it a social norm to punch people in the face if they pull a phone out on an aircraft.
What's the big deal? Remember when planes had those obnoxious pay phones in every seat? No one had a choice then???
They were expensive and worked with credit cards. I don't recall ever seeing one in use. Not once.
I don't buy this for a moment. Microsoft "telemetry" is several gigabytes per month. No existing data plan could cope.
I'm curious about the vagina stretching.
Rule 34...
It's actually a thing, Google "elective cesarean birth".
Women want to plan their expensive baby-party for a particular day, etc. You can't leave that to chance, not when you need to book the venue and the catering.
A lot of women also don't want to go through all that scary 'labor'' business or get their prize-winning vagina all stretched out.
I'm not sure that the worldwise increase in Caesarians is related to baby size. It's more a fashion thing.
If they had to go all the way back to 1972 to find an example then they just proved their own example is crap.
PS: Try Formula1 next time.
... when you factor the fact that THE FULL FAMILY (or a bunch of friends) can watch the movie for the price of one and save $$$ on food & drinks.
Aaaaand, that's the reason it WON'T be the price of a normal movie ticket.
Please visit my eBay store for a variety of astronaut food and genuine space clothing (as worn on the ISS!)
http://www.ebay.com/stores/roc...
when is brittain planning to copy this one?
Maybe they could add a spelling corrector while they're at it.
Frankly, possessing that shouldn't be illegal either.
Unless you paid money for it, in which case you need locking up.
That totally applies in the USA as well.
Please tell us how you'd go about getting off the "no-fly" list, and how people get on it in the first place.
Is this because people are being forced to sit and watch Facebook videos?
They're incapable of averting their own eyes?
I would like to expand on your point; it's not wrong, it's as Science Wonks like to say, incomplete:
""Theory" is simply the name given to the second step of the Scientific Method. That's it."
So: Theory, Hypothesis, Research, Experiment, Conclusion
Not to nitpick, but ... "Theory" is the second step. The first step is "Observation".
Also, what happened to "Prediction"? A theory is worthless unless it makes predictions about the outcomes of future experiments.
Yep, this is just a distraction. The magician's assistant. Something people will focus on while he does the switcheroo.
Scott Adams?
My only point was that anecdotal evidence is completely worthless.
Weed is bad, weed kills, it's just a question of percentages.
Some people are OK on weed, some turn into worthless stoners with mental health problems. I don't know the relative proportions but saying weed is 100% harmless is dumb as fuck.
nb. I personally think it's less harmful than alcohol, most other people probably agree. I'll vote for total legalization of weed just as soon as a good roadside weed-detection kit has been widely deployed to the police.
I know lots of people who drink and this doesn't seem right. Sure, they can be a little goofy at the time of use, but other than that they are completely functional. They're productive, have high paying challenging jobs, one is a biochemist, and their recreational use of drink doesn't seem to make life difficult for them. If the study is looking at impairment at the time of use, how do they equate this to, say marijuana. If someone is really high, I doubt there brain is fully functional at the time either. I don't think drinking is detrimental in any way.
My mother and sister _both_ died from drink. Is that enough anecdotal evidence for you?
Christians often get criticized for saying evolution is only a theory.
When a theory is really very well supported by evidence, as evolution is.
But can we really complain when something like this, which is clearly an hypothesis, is called a theory.
"String theory" seems the biggest offender to me.
No wonder people tend to describe any idea they have as a theory.
Huh?
"Theory" is simply the name given to the second step of the Scientific Method. That's it.
Christians are criticized because they don't understand that the method doesn't stop there, that there's still a couple of steps to go ("prediction" and "experiment"). It's these other two steps that make the difference between proper science and woo-woo.
Gee, let's build a concrete, 58-story tower on top of landfill. No problem!
I can't wait for the engineering reports that said it was unsafe to be leaked.
Then again, those reports are probably somewhere in the foundations of the building.
With the fact that solar panels require more energy to make frames, fab the PV junctions, and make the inverters, then move to a site and install, than they ever will gain back in their usable (20 year) lifespan, how is this a net gain?
Maybe they'll build a solar panel factory right next to it. 648MW ought to be good for a few solar panels per day.
'Free', democratic Britain now has the tools the Stasi could only dream of
At least they're doing it openly, they've got that going for them.
Most other countries deny doing it at all.
(and don't think for a minute that means they aren't...)
Citation needed.
Here's a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I've got a tiger-repelling rock you might be interested in.