Which currently, all major carriers provide once the contract has expired.
The real problem is that the normal monthly cell phone plans that the carriers have provided for the last 10+ years all clearly are priced high enough to cover the cost of the subsidized phones everyone is getting, and you had to pay that artificially high rate even if you purchased an unlocked phone at full price. Obviously, the subsidy is the main motive the cell companies have for not letting you unlock your phone and go to another carrier.
In the last couple years, more and more carriers (Virgin mobile, Smart Talk, T-Mobile) have begun to offer cheaper monthly plans that do not include a subsidized phone. You'd probably end up paying a similar amount if you kept buying a $599 iPhone every 2 years, but this is a much better model as it a) will save a lot of money for people won DON'T buy a new phone that often, b) shifts the prices of these goods and services more into line with their actual costs, and c) precludes all questions of unlocking or other carrier restrictions since the phones are being purchased at full price before you even sign up for a plan.
Incorrect. I just finished a 2-year contract with AT&T and all I had to do was request an unlock via their website. Didn't have to go to the store or anything,
I think it's reasonable to believe that the bag scanners at security are more advanced by now, and would be more likely to detect chemicals in certain kinds of explosives.
That being said, you do raise a good point that all of the other additional security measures like full-body scanners and shoe removal would be pointless against such an attack.
It was less that two years ago that they said that the reason warming is lower than forecasts is because of pollution in China
RTFA. Your point was directly addressed in the story:
"Diesel engines can spew mostly soot, but coal burning puts out both climate-warming soot and sulfur that goes on to cool the climate by reflecting solar energy back into space."
In other words, no reversal whatsoever. The researchers simply realized that the impact of soot is much larger than previously estimated, so much so that it outweighs the potential cooling impact of sulfur emissions.
If that's the case, then the second amendment failed as soon as the military developed high-powered weapons that no average citizen could realistically have in large quantities (say, a Gatling gun). I guess that means the 2nd amendment failed about 150 years ago.
The military wouldn't have a chance...unless they wanted to just kill everyone.
So, our best weapons against total oppression by the government is the threat of mass civilian casualties? How exactly does arming the populace improve that tactical advantage?
That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. You want a military-grade semiautomatic rifle? Fine, but you have to keep popping 5-round mags in the thing every few seconds like an M1 Garand. I can't think of any legitimate need to disperse high-powered rounds more quickly than that.
Hi. I'm a person who twice voted for Obama (and by extension, the policies of "Obamacare"). According to this election we just had, there are still more of us than there were voters for the other dude (Mr. Mitt Romney)- 51% to 47.2%, to be exact.
We all know America has a wide range of problems. But so help me, if anybody starts questioning the United States' position as the #1 consumer of artificial sweeteners in the world, then by God sir, THAT IS THE LAST STRAW!
This paragraph sounds like it was written in 1956.
There are millions of American kids playing soccer (sorry, futbol) at this very moment in 100,000 schoolyards across the country. Oh, and dudes happily play with "the girls"; if you haven't noticed, ours are the best female soccer players in the entire world. Just ask team Japan.
I'm fairly certain that information is totally wrong. The GHG emissions forthe average new car are 500 g/mile according to www.fueleconomy.gov. At 15,000 miles per year, that's just over 8 tons of CO2 emissions.
A Prius gets about twice the mileage as a normal car (half the CO2 emissions), meaning that over a 10 year period, the avg car will emit an extra 40 tons of CO2 (equivalent to two years' worth for the average American). There's no way the manufacture of one Li-ion battery pack emits anywhere near that.
They not only look at upstream emissions but also the cost of drilling for oil, shipping it to you gas station, and also downstream pollution (shipping the junk car to China for recycling)
Most what you just stated is exactly what the upstream CO2 emissions are accounting for.:
"Tailpipe and Upstream Emissions
These estimates include CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide emitted from all steps in the use of a fuel, from production and refining to distribution and final use—vehicle manufacture is excluded. "
Vehicle manufacture and/or recycling are not included, but over a reasonable lifespan, the difference between any two vehicles in those areas will be minimal compared to their fuel/energy usage.
This is entirely plausible, but it depends greatly on where you live. Fortunately, thanks to the EPA that info is easily accessible, listing not only the tailpipe CO2 emissions in grams per mile, but the estimated upstream emissions for both electricity generation and gasoline production. Let's compare the 2012 Nissan Leaf, the most common EV, with the Toyota Prius C, a similarly-sized hybrid car.
Tailpipe Emissions:
Prius C = 177 g/mi
Leaf = 0 g/mi
Upstream Emissions:
Prius C = 45 g/mi
Nissan Leaf = 120 g/mi (Southern CA), 230 g/mi (US Average)
So, for my particular location (because our electricity is cleaner), a Leaf would emit less total CO2 than the Prius C by a score of 120 g/mi to 222. However, for the average person, the Prius would have a very slight edge of 222 g/mi to 230. Of course, the difference is that as electricity generation gets cleaner, the Leaf will emit less and less CO2 while the Prius C can only emit more.
We may drink a large quantity of piss beer here in America (bud light, coors light, etc.) but the fact of the matter is that you can easily find excellent beer, either from around the world or U.S. microbreweries, with basically zero effort.
Example #1: my local Ralph's (the biggest grocery chain in southern California) sells Franziskaner, Fin du Monde, and Rogue brewery beers, among many more.
Example #2: nearly every bar, even the most generic hole of a sports bar, has *some* kind of microbrew, be it Sierra Nevada, Fat Tire (New Belgium), Pyramid, or Shiner.
Note: the overwhelming majority of piss beer is now imported or manufactured by foreign-pwned companies such as InBev. The largest U.S.-owned breweries are now Yeunglings and Sam Adams. Sam Adams brews almost every type of ale or lager you'd want, some of which are pretty decent.
Here's my problem with this philosophy: there is no fundamental difference between the TSA and the myriad of private companies that handled airport security for decades prior to 9/11.
Clearly, the TSA procedures are somewhat more inconvenient (taking off your shoes) or somewhat more humiliating (standing in a millimeter wave scanner in the proper pose for three seconds) than they used to be (empty pockets, walk through metal detector). Fundamentally, though, you are being asked to submit to searches of your person and property in exchange for the privilege of flying a plane.
My point is, if the TSA is simply security theater and is not meant to actually prevent terrorism, how can the old system not have been as well? And more importantly, why didn't people have security theater outrage in the past?
Yet this is what it takes to power ONE BUILDING. JUST ONE
Yes, one datacenter containing what are surely thousands of AC-cooled servers. By another comparison, this 20MW solar farm would provide enough electricity to meet the annual needs of nearly 15,000 homes (in California, using about 6000 kWh per household annually. The US average is higher).
The way the California code is worded seems to imply that simply wearing a mask is not a crime. It's only a violation if it can be proven that you were wearing a mask/disguise for the purpose of evading identification while 1) committing a public offense, or 2) if you have already been charged or convicted with an offense. In other words, they'd have to prove that you committed some other crime first.
If that's the case, the mask is simply a misdemeanor add-on to whatever your initial crime is, which seems pretty reasonable to me.
The NY one on the other hand sounds a bit scarier... masks are illegal unless you're having a costume party? If so, how did this become law?
Minor correction: the FBI is part of the judicial branch, not executive.
Though to be fair, in the past (such as the warrantless wiretapping program under Bush) the executive branch has directed the Justice department to do things that contradict previously passed legislation (see FISA).
The GAO's report in 2009 stated that the Food and Nutrition Service overpaid food EBT benefits by 4.36%, which was actually a record low. It also found that in 2/3 of cases where overpayment happened, it was due to an error by the case worker.
Amtrak is a poor example. It has only existed since 1971 and was created specifically because private railroad companies were either going bankrupt or drastically cutting service. They didn't want to operate passenger trains any more.
Wiki says: "By 1965, only 10,000 rail passenger cars were in operation, 85 percent fewer than in 1929."
Congress (wisely) decided that it's in our national interest to keep trains as an alternative mode of transportation. You know, just in case something happens to airplanes (like the FAA grounding all of them for two days).
True, but particle radiation (i.e. charged electrons and protons) are just as deadly, if not moreso. The Earth's magnetic field captures those in the Van Allen Belts. Its a key reason for why our DNA wasn't mutated to oblivion long ago.
Slashdot Mirror
without carrier permission
Which currently, all major carriers provide once the contract has expired.
The real problem is that the normal monthly cell phone plans that the carriers have provided for the last 10+ years all clearly are priced high enough to cover the cost of the subsidized phones everyone is getting, and you had to pay that artificially high rate even if you purchased an unlocked phone at full price. Obviously, the subsidy is the main motive the cell companies have for not letting you unlock your phone and go to another carrier.
In the last couple years, more and more carriers (Virgin mobile, Smart Talk, T-Mobile) have begun to offer cheaper monthly plans that do not include a subsidized phone. You'd probably end up paying a similar amount if you kept buying a $599 iPhone every 2 years, but this is a much better model as it a) will save a lot of money for people won DON'T buy a new phone that often, b) shifts the prices of these goods and services more into line with their actual costs, and c) precludes all questions of unlocking or other carrier restrictions since the phones are being purchased at full price before you even sign up for a plan.
Incorrect. I just finished a 2-year contract with AT&T and all I had to do was request an unlock via their website. Didn't have to go to the store or anything,
I think it's reasonable to believe that the bag scanners at security are more advanced by now, and would be more likely to detect chemicals in certain kinds of explosives.
That being said, you do raise a good point that all of the other additional security measures like full-body scanners and shoe removal would be pointless against such an attack.
It was less that two years ago that they said that the reason warming is lower than forecasts is because of pollution in China
RTFA. Your point was directly addressed in the story:
"Diesel engines can spew mostly soot, but coal burning puts out both climate-warming soot and sulfur that goes on to cool the climate by reflecting solar energy back into space."
In other words, no reversal whatsoever. The researchers simply realized that the impact of soot is much larger than previously estimated, so much so that it outweighs the potential cooling impact of sulfur emissions.
If that's the case, then the second amendment failed as soon as the military developed high-powered weapons that no average citizen could realistically have in large quantities (say, a Gatling gun). I guess that means the 2nd amendment failed about 150 years ago.
The military wouldn't have a chance...unless they wanted to just kill everyone.
So, our best weapons against total oppression by the government is the threat of mass civilian casualties? How exactly does arming the populace improve that tactical advantage?
That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. You want a military-grade semiautomatic rifle? Fine, but you have to keep popping 5-round mags in the thing every few seconds like an M1 Garand. I can't think of any legitimate need to disperse high-powered rounds more quickly than that.
Hi. I'm a person who twice voted for Obama (and by extension, the policies of "Obamacare"). According to this election we just had, there are still more of us than there were voters for the other dude (Mr. Mitt Romney)- 51% to 47.2%, to be exact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_US_election
I think you need to widen the pool of Americans you are speaking to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Current_availability
We all know America has a wide range of problems. But so help me, if anybody starts questioning the United States' position as the #1 consumer of artificial sweeteners in the world, then by God sir, THAT IS THE LAST STRAW!
This paragraph sounds like it was written in 1956.
There are millions of American kids playing soccer (sorry, futbol) at this very moment in 100,000 schoolyards across the country. Oh, and dudes happily play with "the girls"; if you haven't noticed, ours are the best female soccer players in the entire world. Just ask team Japan.
I'm fairly certain that information is totally wrong. The GHG emissions forthe average new car are 500 g/mile according to www.fueleconomy.gov. At 15,000 miles per year, that's just over 8 tons of CO2 emissions.
A Prius gets about twice the mileage as a normal car (half the CO2 emissions), meaning that over a 10 year period, the avg car will emit an extra 40 tons of CO2 (equivalent to two years' worth for the average American). There's no way the manufacture of one Li-ion battery pack emits anywhere near that.
They not only look at upstream emissions but also the cost of drilling for oil, shipping it to you gas station, and also downstream pollution (shipping the junk car to China for recycling)
Most what you just stated is exactly what the upstream CO2 emissions are accounting for.:
"Tailpipe and Upstream Emissions
These estimates include CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide emitted from all steps in the use of a fuel, from production and refining to distribution and final use—vehicle manufacture is excluded. "
Vehicle manufacture and/or recycling are not included, but over a reasonable lifespan, the difference between any two vehicles in those areas will be minimal compared to their fuel/energy usage.
This is entirely plausible, but it depends greatly on where you live. Fortunately, thanks to the EPA that info is easily accessible, listing not only the tailpipe CO2 emissions in grams per mile, but the estimated upstream emissions for both electricity generation and gasoline production. Let's compare the 2012 Nissan Leaf, the most common EV, with the Toyota Prius C, a similarly-sized hybrid car.
Tailpipe Emissions:
Prius C = 177 g/mi
Leaf = 0 g/mi
Upstream Emissions:
Prius C = 45 g/mi
Nissan Leaf = 120 g/mi (Southern CA), 230 g/mi (US Average)
So, for my particular location (because our electricity is cleaner), a Leaf would emit less total CO2 than the Prius C by a score of 120 g/mi to 222. However, for the average person, the Prius would have a very slight edge of 222 g/mi to 230. Of course, the difference is that as electricity generation gets cleaner, the Leaf will emit less and less CO2 while the Prius C can only emit more.
Chrome for iOS exists. Fail.
We may drink a large quantity of piss beer here in America (bud light, coors light, etc.) but the fact of the matter is that you can easily find excellent beer, either from around the world or U.S. microbreweries, with basically zero effort.
Example #1: my local Ralph's (the biggest grocery chain in southern California) sells Franziskaner, Fin du Monde, and Rogue brewery beers, among many more.
Example #2: nearly every bar, even the most generic hole of a sports bar, has *some* kind of microbrew, be it Sierra Nevada, Fat Tire (New Belgium), Pyramid, or Shiner.
Note: the overwhelming majority of piss beer is now imported or manufactured by foreign-pwned companies such as InBev. The largest U.S.-owned breweries are now Yeunglings and Sam Adams. Sam Adams brews almost every type of ale or lager you'd want, some of which are pretty decent.
The TSA has nothing to do with terrorism.
Here's my problem with this philosophy: there is no fundamental difference between the TSA and the myriad of private companies that handled airport security for decades prior to 9/11.
Clearly, the TSA procedures are somewhat more inconvenient (taking off your shoes) or somewhat more humiliating (standing in a millimeter wave scanner in the proper pose for three seconds) than they used to be (empty pockets, walk through metal detector). Fundamentally, though, you are being asked to submit to searches of your person and property in exchange for the privilege of flying a plane.
My point is, if the TSA is simply security theater and is not meant to actually prevent terrorism, how can the old system not have been as well? And more importantly, why didn't people have security theater outrage in the past?
Yet this is what it takes to power ONE BUILDING. JUST ONE
Yes, one datacenter containing what are surely thousands of AC-cooled servers. By another comparison, this 20MW solar farm would provide enough electricity to meet the annual needs of nearly 15,000 homes (in California, using about 6000 kWh per household annually. The US average is higher).
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/actions/HouseholdEnergy.html
The way the California code is worded seems to imply that simply wearing a mask is not a crime. It's only a violation if it can be proven that you were wearing a mask/disguise for the purpose of evading identification while 1) committing a public offense, or 2) if you have already been charged or convicted with an offense. In other words, they'd have to prove that you committed some other crime first.
If that's the case, the mask is simply a misdemeanor add-on to whatever your initial crime is, which seems pretty reasonable to me.
The NY one on the other hand sounds a bit scarier... masks are illegal unless you're having a costume party? If so, how did this become law?
Agreed, and that's coming from somebody who thinks it's pretty shameful that Romney won't release his returns.
Vigilantism does not spread democracy or freedom, whether you do it in person or on the internet. Just ask John Brown.
Minor correction: the FBI is part of the judicial branch, not executive.
Though to be fair, in the past (such as the warrantless wiretapping program under Bush) the executive branch has directed the Justice department to do things that contradict previously passed legislation (see FISA).
I wish to rephrase my original comment:
/thankyou.
"Where's my +5, Unit Conversion Joke????"
Is this a unit conversion joke?
The GAO's report in 2009 stated that the Food and Nutrition Service overpaid food EBT benefits by 4.36%, which was actually a record low. It also found that in 2/3 of cases where overpayment happened, it was due to an error by the case worker.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T
That wouldn't seem to support your claim that masses of people driving luxury cars are defrauding the program
Amtrak is a poor example. It has only existed since 1971 and was created specifically because private railroad companies were either going bankrupt or drastically cutting service. They didn't want to operate passenger trains any more.
Wiki says: "By 1965, only 10,000 rail passenger cars were in operation, 85 percent fewer than in 1929."
Congress (wisely) decided that it's in our national interest to keep trains as an alternative mode of transportation. You know, just in case something happens to airplanes (like the FAA grounding all of them for two days).
True, but particle radiation (i.e. charged electrons and protons) are just as deadly, if not moreso. The Earth's magnetic field captures those in the Van Allen Belts. Its a key reason for why our DNA wasn't mutated to oblivion long ago.