I am not arguing the temperature will not rise. The temperature will continue to rise and there will be negative effects. I just don't think they will be catastrophic for me.
How much are you willing to pay to attempt to reduce those negative effects? How much are you willing to force others to pay?
Fear mongering about environmental catastrophes, the extinction of the human race, and ad hominem attacks on those who question the appropriate response to climate change is why there continues to be inaction. In this case, I like inaction (it keeps my energy costs low).
That is a good point. I am not looking for something that is completely known. But I would like to see more of a consensus on the costs/benefits before making major changes to energy policy.
Nobody wants to be the guy who actually sacrifies anything.
I don't mind making sacrifices in the short term to improve something in the long term. However, in this case I don't think the payoff is worth it. The long term consequences of climate change are unknown. The amount of short term pain required to affect the long term consequences are also unknown. Given the unknowns, I am happy to continue not making sacrifices.
A potential environmental catastrophe is impending. Why concentrate on who's guilty? The interesting question is, what are we going to do about it?
Nothing. Which is the correct thing to do. As you put it, there is a potential environmental catastrophe. The emphasis should be on the word potential. I believe the earth is changing. I believe humans are the main cause for these changes. I believe these changes will have some negative impacts. However, I am not willing to spend a large amount of money or impose taxes on carbon to avoid these unknown negative impacts. I haven't been convinced the money we spend on prevention will be less than the money spent on dealing with the changes.
Parent is correct. The primary market of this kind of weapon is for military and law enforcement because there's a lot of fatalities/serious injuries caused by the bad guy grabbing the weapon from the police officer.
That may be true, but the police unions will never let this happen. The NJ law referenced in the article exempts the police from this requirement.
And yet the most common firearm for police officers doesn't have an external safety. Glock pistols have some internal safety's that prevent mechanical failures or dropping it from causing the gun to fire, but there is no external mechanical safety. When you pull the trigger it fires, when you don't pull the trigger it doesn't fire. Exactly the way it should be.
Uh, that's a pretty disgustingly American viewpoint of the issue. Can't we all agree that if you didn't come in first, then you can still be a winner? This has been taught in schools for a long time now, it still hasn't been internalized?
No, this was a contest to see who could improve the algorithm the most. There can be only a single winner. If the contest was to improve the algorithm by x%, then there might be multiple winners. If you start calling everyone a "winner", you just cheapen the experience for the true winner.
That is a very well written post. Unfortinately that is not what happened. But good job bashing Airbus.
Re:At all skynet references:
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 1
The US already uses weapon systems that once they are turned on, make the decision about when to shoot and what direction to shoot. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM There are situations where human beings can not make decisions fast enough. Shooting down incoming artillery is one of those situations.
Why does the FAA have web based air traffic control applications?!
It makes it easier to file a flight plan. Instead of calling up a flight service station on the phone and going through the error prone process of giving them my flight plan, I can do it online. I find it to be easier and the government likes it because it is cheaper.
Who are you to decide whether or not you'll abide by that ruling?
If I am on the jury, then I am one of the citizens who will be deciding the outcome of the case. If I am going to be deciding something, I would like to be able to hear all of the facts. Let me decide how much weight to give each piece of biased information.
- The increased precision required of aviation units.
When everything it working, an aviation GPS that is used for IFR approaches is not any more accurate than a consumer grade GPS. But the aviation GPS does more checking to determine if the navigation information can be trusted.
- Added features such as standby power that are unique to aviation.
No, not really.
- The fact that they are programmed with all sorts of aeronautical information (positions of beacons, approach patterns, etc). It costs money to license this information and include it in each unit.
This doesn't increase the initial cost, but it is a pain to constantly be updating the GPS database.
- Additional cost to ensure each unit complies with FAA regs.
This is the key point. I own 25% of a plane and occasionally get comments about how it must be nice to be rich. But my non-aviation expenses are significantly less than anyone else I work with. I value having a plane more than I value having a nice car, house, being able to eat out frequently, etc.
Not many of the new 406 ELTs contain a GPS receiver. Some are able to accept GPS information from a separate GPS receiver, but they are more expensive and installation is also more expensive. When I had a 406 ELT installed, I did not get the GPS option. The shop that did the work, said that only about 10% of his customers have gone for the GPS option.
You are probably looking at hand held beacons that you manually activate. An ELT that mounts in your aircraft costs significantly more because it has G sensors to detect a crash and because it is a certified part. Also, installation is not cheap. It cost me $1500 to put one in my C-172. $1000 for the ELT and $500 for labor.
Yes, it is the definition of accident. However, most deaths that result from a firearm are suicides. Only a small percentage of firearm deaths are accidents. The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths could be prevented by a little common sense.
I don't understand why people think non-violent crime does not negatively affect society as much as violent crime. Financial crimes can affect a much larger number of people and jail time is required. A fine does not do much to prevent a white-collar crime from ocuring. Just look at the recent Scooter Libby case. He doesn't care about the fine or probation, the man wants to stay out of jail and that is exactly what the president did for him.
Yes, I realize that this post is US centric and that if I lived in a third world country, violent crime would be a much bigger concern.
Are you under the mistaken impression that there are senior leaders of large corporations who are concerned with anything other than money? Power. Money is just a convenient way to measure it.
"I would like to ask why those permanent members should be permanent and why they should have the veto power - I think the UN would function much better if all members had equal rights and equal representation."
The UN would not exist at all if all the members had equal power. Equal power works great if you are a small powerless country. But if you are large powerfull country (USA, China, Russia, etc), then why would you want to be part of an organization that gives small countries the same power?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not arguing the temperature will not rise. The temperature will continue to rise and there will be negative effects. I just don't think they will be catastrophic for me.
How much are you willing to pay to attempt to reduce those negative effects? How much are you willing to force others to pay?
Fear mongering about environmental catastrophes, the extinction of the human race, and ad hominem attacks on those who question the appropriate response to climate change is why there continues to be inaction. In this case, I like inaction (it keeps my energy costs low).
That is a good point. I am not looking for something that is completely known. But I would like to see more of a consensus on the costs/benefits before making major changes to energy policy.
Nobody wants to be the guy who actually sacrifies anything.
I don't mind making sacrifices in the short term to improve something in the long term. However, in this case I don't think the payoff is worth it. The long term consequences of climate change are unknown. The amount of short term pain required to affect the long term consequences are also unknown. Given the unknowns, I am happy to continue not making sacrifices.
A potential environmental catastrophe is impending. Why concentrate on who's guilty? The interesting question is, what are we going to do about it?
Nothing. Which is the correct thing to do. As you put it, there is a potential environmental catastrophe. The emphasis should be on the word potential. I believe the earth is changing. I believe humans are the main cause for these changes. I believe these changes will have some negative impacts. However, I am not willing to spend a large amount of money or impose taxes on carbon to avoid these unknown negative impacts. I haven't been convinced the money we spend on prevention will be less than the money spent on dealing with the changes.
For flying the limit is zero as well, with the requirement of eight hours from the last drink to takeoff.
In the US, the limit for flying is not zero. The limit is 0.04 and 8 hours since your last drink.
Parent is correct. The primary market of this kind of weapon is for military and law enforcement because there's a lot of fatalities/serious injuries caused by the bad guy grabbing the weapon from the police officer.
That may be true, but the police unions will never let this happen. The NJ law referenced in the article exempts the police from this requirement.
And yet the most common firearm for police officers doesn't have an external safety. Glock pistols have some internal safety's that prevent mechanical failures or dropping it from causing the gun to fire, but there is no external mechanical safety. When you pull the trigger it fires, when you don't pull the trigger it doesn't fire. Exactly the way it should be.
Uh, that's a pretty disgustingly American viewpoint of the issue. Can't we all agree that if you didn't come in first, then you can still be a winner? This has been taught in schools for a long time now, it still hasn't been internalized?
No, this was a contest to see who could improve the algorithm the most. There can be only a single winner. If the contest was to improve the algorithm by x%, then there might be multiple winners. If you start calling everyone a "winner", you just cheapen the experience for the true winner.
That is a very well written post. Unfortinately that is not what happened. But good job bashing Airbus.
The US already uses weapon systems that once they are turned on, make the decision about when to shoot and what direction to shoot. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM There are situations where human beings can not make decisions fast enough. Shooting down incoming artillery is one of those situations.
Laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on sex don't apply to the military. In the US, only guys are required to register for the draft.
Why does the FAA have web based air traffic control applications?!
It makes it easier to file a flight plan. Instead of calling up a flight service station on the phone and going through the error prone process of giving them my flight plan, I can do it online. I find it to be easier and the government likes it because it is cheaper.
Who are you to decide whether or not you'll abide by that ruling?
If I am on the jury, then I am one of the citizens who will be deciding the outcome of the case. If I am going to be deciding something, I would like to be able to hear all of the facts. Let me decide how much weight to give each piece of biased information.
- The increased precision required of aviation units.
When everything it working, an aviation GPS that is used for IFR approaches is not any more accurate than a consumer grade GPS. But the aviation GPS does more checking to determine if the navigation information can be trusted.
- Added features such as standby power that are unique to aviation.
No, not really.
- The fact that they are programmed with all sorts of aeronautical information (positions of beacons, approach patterns, etc). It costs money to license this information and include it in each unit.
This doesn't increase the initial cost, but it is a pain to constantly be updating the GPS database.
- Additional cost to ensure each unit complies with FAA regs.
This is the big one!
It all depends on what you value.
This is the key point. I own 25% of a plane and occasionally get comments about how it must be nice to be rich. But my non-aviation expenses are significantly less than anyone else I work with. I value having a plane more than I value having a nice car, house, being able to eat out frequently, etc.
Not many of the new 406 ELTs contain a GPS receiver. Some are able to accept GPS information from a separate GPS receiver, but they are more expensive and installation is also more expensive. When I had a 406 ELT installed, I did not get the GPS option. The shop that did the work, said that only about 10% of his customers have gone for the GPS option.
You are probably looking at hand held beacons that you manually activate. An ELT that mounts in your aircraft costs significantly more because it has G sensors to detect a crash and because it is a certified part. Also, installation is not cheap. It cost me $1500 to put one in my C-172. $1000 for the ELT and $500 for labor.
Every country has there own kind of censorship. Try denying the holocaust in Germany or France.
Yes, it is the definition of accident. However, most deaths that result from a firearm are suicides. Only a small percentage of firearm deaths are accidents. The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths could be prevented by a little common sense.
I don't understand why people think non-violent crime does not negatively affect society as much as violent crime. Financial crimes can affect a much larger number of people and jail time is required. A fine does not do much to prevent a white-collar crime from ocuring. Just look at the recent Scooter Libby case. He doesn't care about the fine or probation, the man wants to stay out of jail and that is exactly what the president did for him.
Yes, I realize that this post is US centric and that if I lived in a third world country, violent crime would be a much bigger concern.
"I would like to ask why those permanent members should be permanent and why they should have the veto power - I think the UN would function much better if all members had equal rights and equal representation."
The UN would not exist at all if all the members had equal power. Equal power works great if you are a small powerless country. But if you are large powerfull country (USA, China, Russia, etc), then why would you want to be part of an organization that gives small countries the same power?
It would be useful to you and me. But it is not useful to google to release that information.
From the article: "Blankfein earned a cash bonus of $27.3 million, $10.5 million in options and the rest in restricted stock."
Half of his bonus was in stock and options, so he has a lot invested in the company.