This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.
Your comment is illogical given that divorce lawyers who suspect a spouse is cheating on their client will recommend that the client hire a PI to get evidence of infidelity. This increases the chances of a favorable settlement for their client.
Suspicious spouses are usually suspicious for a reason.
This is just another case of the judge getting it completely wrong and where the rest of us ultimately suffer. Thankfully, I'm smart enough not to live in NJ, but if this gets appealed, which it ought to, it could very easily wind up applying beyond NJ.
How exactly do you suffer by giving your spouse the ability to track your movements? If this is something you worry about, you should reconsider marriage. Because, once married, you will find they spouses are able to track lots of other things in your life as well.
The wife should certainly use the fact that her husband was spying on her in divorce court to get a better settlement, though.
Did you read the article? The ex-WIFE hired the PI to track her husband, who incidentally was a sheriff and who kept evading the PI's attempts to physically follow him. The PI eventually found the husband traveling in his car with a woman who was not his wife. The husband is now suing the PI for invasion of privacy and ”substantial and permanent emotional distress.” He also tried to sue his ex-wife, but eventually dropped the claim, probably because she used the PI's info to financially rape him in court.
I agree that it is invasion of privacy, but that's kind of what happens when you get married. If you want to keep banging different women, it's probably a good idea not to financially tie yourself to a single woman unless you've gotten her to agree to an open relationship beforehand.
1 gram of Moonstone is worth $1000 ?! So... 1 kg is therefore worth $1M ??!!! How expensive is a space rocket and other things needed for aggresive Moon mining ?/s
You need to spend some time reading the space technology news.
It turns out that getting into space is quite expensive. And getting stuff back from space is too.
In 2003, Russia was charging ~$20M for a person to stay on the ISS for 10 days. Getting back to the moon would involve redeveloping the technology and traveling further. So it might cost around $100M, but it would take billions of dollars to develop and proof the technology.
Also, once you brought back a ton of moon rocks to sell on the open market, their price would plummet due to availability. So traveling to the moon solely to sell moon rocks is not really a profitable venture.
Correct. It's a prototype singular transport vehicle!
I'll take 1.
Yeah, you'll take one 4x4 tire to the chest when a drunk pickup driver doesn't see you and your "car" and drives right over you.
Part of the reason that road-legal cars are so heavy today, is because of all the government-mandated features stuffed into them. I doubt that this car will still get 1325 mpg when it is made road legal. Or that it will be able to achieve minimum highway speeds.
And if it can't go on the highway, it's not a functional car.
That's not cramming, that's scamming. And by entering your phone number on their site, you're essentially authorizing the charges.
Cramming is when, as described in the article, your carrier adds bogus charges to your account. Now, we can sit here & debate whether or not the carriers themselves are behind the scamming sites, but that's not the point.
It seems strange that my phone number should be equivalent to a credit card number.
Just go to about any Asian country and you'll be quick to find store shelves packed with products NOT designed or invented in the US or Europe, and the products from the US and Europe will be things that aren't really all that great - like garlic peelers, microfiber towels, and plastic containers you can use to cook pasta in the microwave...
You seem to be forgetting a few other inventions from the US and Europe like: automobiles, airplane, helicopters, computers, telephones, fiber optics, microwaves, the transistor, and nuclear power.
Your post (and general thought process) is playing into the GP's point. Many countries in Asia are fantastic at adapting existing technology into cost-effective products, but not so great at developing pioneering modern technology. Japan and Korea are leading the Asian pack, but they still have a long way to go before they can compete with Europe and the US on the groundbreaking discovery front.
I am not trying to be offensive to any culture. China had some amazingly novel inventions several thousand years ago like paper and gunpowder, but recent history speaks for itself.
Just think if we would have followed the French's lead on Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded and wasted trillions of dollars in a war that we get absolutely NOTHING from. Leave it to the Right wingers to smear them after they didn't play ball with them. AND leave it to capitalists to make every socialist country a villain.
You're right. The French wanted to save their bullets to invade the countries that they actually get oil from. Like Libya.
Schools in North America at least--if not everywhere in the West--seem to think that their disciplinary powers extend to any actions committed by students anywhere during their years of attendance.
In my opinion, the only time a school should have the ability to initiate disciplinary action for an act committed off school premises should be after trial and conviction of a crime. Free speech protections often don't apply in schools (don't get me started on that), but a school has absolutely no right to restrict a student's speech off school grounds, and this would be aptly enforced by requiring disciplinary sanctions for off ground behavior be the result of a conviction in a court of law. This school would get laughed at if they even mentioned prosecution of this student for this behavior to a DA, so there's no reason they should be allowed to do this.
Does that opinion extend to what teachers do during their off-work time as well (e.g. drugs, stripping)?
Of course after all the Californians move there it won't be a low tax, low regulation state for long.
Luckily, only a small percentage of Californians can survive the withdrawal symptoms associated with leaving their fabled ground. Your state's finances may be able to absorb the impact.
Their constant whining about the weather, however, will drive you absolutely insane!
Group 2B simply means "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.
So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?
Your post had me feeling good until I clicked on the Group 2B link and saw nasty materials like lead, DDT, heavy hydrocarbons, and hydrazine.
You don't have to choose between coal and nuclear. Since they are both bad, you should choose renewable (solar and wind). These are both viable alternatives whose cost (even without considering the environmental impact) is becoming competitive with coal and nuclear.
I have to disagree with your overly optimistic post.
Solar and wind are still boutique energy-generation technologies that are not ready for full-scale use. In no way do they approach the reliability, output, or efficiency of nuclear power at this time. Perhaps a large investment from the Germans will fix this issue though.
Great news! The human species has suffered with health problems since we
left the trees. However since the invention of radioactivity, there has been
a direct link between the amount of radiation used in the world and spinal
subluxations which cause ill health.
Hopefully Germany is just the
first in a long long of countries dumping radioactivity!
Less nuclear power means more power from burning coal.
You should read about the health effects associated with the uptake of the heavy metals released from burning coal. Spinal sublaxations will be the least of your problems if the world continues to increase their coal consumption.
When it comes to voting, the American people are between a rock and a hard place. The two major political parties collude to prevent any sweeping change because the status quo benefits them.
And politicians aren't salesmen. They are professional spindoctors, whose only goal is to get themselves elected and keep themselves in power.
As a voting American, you can do nothing to stop the direction the country is going because they quash those proposals before they even make it to a vote. And if you try any sort of significant dissent, you will be labelled as a terrorist by the patriots.
Does Mozilla really think that their average user base has gotten dumb enough to not understand the URL bar? I find their logic a bit insulting.
For one, it’s always visible and constantly takes up a large amount of space.
How about enabling a toggle button to hide/show it at will?
Secondly, it’s hard to read, since people don’t really understand URLs.
Wha...? Sure, there can be a lot of complexity to understand every nuance of URL structure. But you can understand 90% of the structure with a few simple concepts.
Moreover, it’s modal: it has a mode for displaying the current page’s location and a mode for entering your next destination. It’s not always immediately obvious which mode you’re in and what the current text is indicating, and switching modes is not easy either.
As a devout Christian, I agree, sex is a natural, good, and God ordained act - between a husband and wife. As the previous poster mentioned, it is there to strengthen the bonds of marriage between husband and wife. Pornography makes light of and perverses this special and sacred act. Sacred because it is also the process of being like God - creating life.
As a practical Catholic, I feel compelled to point out that your explanation about strengthening bonds is complete crap. The only reason the church espouses sex is because it produces more Christian children. That is why the church is against pornography, contraception, masturbation, sodomy, and homosexuality... all of those hinder the production of more Christians. Such a pro-reproductive theme is common among all religions in order to grow the religion.
Pushing for as many children as possible in the past was an important concept when mortality rates were high due to poor medical practices, poor hygiene, and high conflict rates. However today it is irresponsible to both your existing children and to the world population. Having more children than you can afford to raise properly decreases their quality of life and sucks up excess resources.
There's nothing wrong with being devout, but couple it with some realism. God gave you a brain so you could think for yourself. And he gave you a name so you could stop posting anonymously.
Reality IS complex; people in general don't turn to crime or become terrorists simply because they are evil - if you start smply killing "the evildoers" without addressing the reason why they got to be that. And the solution is not likely to involve dumping an American style reality-show democracy on them. We really need to solve issues of social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa.
I think Africa needs to help itself. Why should the United States have to solve another entire continent's political and socio-economic problems?!
Have you not gotten your fill of that in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because I guarantee that trying to help all of Africa will be a lot messier!
IMO, we should first offer the new Somali government assistance with patrolling their coastlines in the form of US forces, training for Somali coast guards, and then boats. The assistance should be delivered in that order as well and we should expect to derive some benefits from that assistance (natural resources, military bases, Navy port, etc.) . If they don't want our help, that's fine... but when their citizens continue to attack US interests in international waters, it is within our rights to (1) kill the offending citizens and leave their dead bodies on shore as a warning to other pirates and (2) hold the country's government responsible for the attacks.
As a country, the US needs to stop offering no-strings-attached assistance to every underprivileged nation in the world. We simply can't afford it.
Don't do this. As illogical as uppity Slashdot "power users" think it is, IT departments hate it when people upgrade their machines without consulting them. Full-time employees, they'd probably be willing to let it slide after a stern talk, but for interns? No guarantees.
Ha ha. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. What kind of a dipshit IT department is issuing computers with 512 MB of RAM in 2011?
If the company can't afford decent hardware, they are probably expanding too fast. My advice would be to find a company that actually has the funding to support their employees salary and materials & supplies. Barring that, I would accidentally dump a cup of coffee onto the motherboard and then ask them for a new computer.
The article never actual states that the insulation has been shown to interfere with WiFi. It just says "might" and "maybe" a lot.
This is an example of the typical shitty reporting being published nowdays. Next time, sit down and look at the wavelength and the penetration depth into the foil. Then do an actual test with the insulation and a wifi router BEFORE publishing the article. PC Pro should be embarrassed.
Most probably, space travel is not worth the energy required for propulsion. What would we need to find out there? Why would anyone want to be there? For all the answers you might have come up with, I think virtual realities are a solution that is much cheaper to deploy and maintain.
Using the same logic, I would argue that most humans are not worth the resources required to sustain them. And if we spent less resources supporting those humans, we would have more resources for space travel.
Pointless. A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Every single branch of the U.S. military dearly wants guided lasers to be able to disable incoming mortar rounds, missiles, aircraft, boats and enemy personnel. They have been actively testing these devices for the past several years by removing the guns off of their radar-guided mounts and replacing them with these high-energy lasers.
The lasers are appealing because they make it easier to hit the target. With conventional ballistics, you have to consider both the target's trajectory and that of your interceptor. Additionally, your interceptor has a finite size, so you not only need to line up its path with that of the target, but you also need to coordinate the arrival times of both objects at that point in space. With a light-speed weapon, you just point at where the target is currently. Additionally, if you miss in a populated area, you do not have to worry about your interceptor causing collateral damage. The military currently uses self-deflagrating rounds to address this issue, so that they will burn up before they hit the ground. If you have ever watched a mortar defense system in action, you'll notice it takes A LOT of rounds to hit the mortar.
Finally, your concerns about tracking and auto-correcting are unfounded. These systems use an IR laser and an IR camera to guide it. The system can see the target, the laser beam (due to scattered light), and the hit-region illuminated by the laser. There is no longer any radar needed.
You may not be excited about this system, but the US soldiers deployed overseas are.
This image says it all really - http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2011-spending-trillion-cartoon.jpg. As an outsider looking in, it's obvious to me the government really needs to cut military funding. Our UK government has done. Apart from a cool info graphic on the NYT a few months back where you could pretend to make the necessary cuts yourself I've never see this mentioned anywhere else in the US media.
It's not as obvious to me.
People love to target the defense spending when they feel safe. But often they feel safe because their country has a strong military. But when an enemy is knocking on your doorstep and wants to kill you, all of a sudden it is the government's fault for not protecting you. Like it or not, defense requires sustained funding to keep soldiers trained, military surveillance operational, invasion/defense plans in place, and cutting-edge hardware developed and maintained. You can't just turn that on in a short period of time (i.e. less than a decade) and expect it to work.
Let's take the UK for example, since you live there. Let's say Russia decides that it wants your country and that their military capabilities far exceed yours. Or maybe they just don't like your foreign policy program (against Libya for example). What is really to stop them from just rolling into London if they know you can mount no retaliation? (Look at the Russia-Georgia conflict in 2008.) Maybe your US and European allies would defend you, but what if they also cut all of their defense budget and were unable to defend you?
Countries may be acting more civilized lately, but don't forget that at the core of international relations, "might makes right." The only reason the civil veneer exists between the big players is because they all have comparable military strength. The countries that don't (or don't have strong allies) are consistently steamrolled.
If it wasn't Propecia, maybe it was a different anti-baldness pill, but I remember a coworker commenting about it back in the ?late 90s?. I don't remember whether he decided to take the pill or not, though.
Your coworker was probably commenting on the possibility of temporary impotence while taking the medication. That can be a common side effect with medication and especially when a person is on multiple medications at once.
Permanent impotence after you stop taking the medication is a big difference.
It's somewhat ironic that you can get that result from a lifestyle drug designed only to fill out your hair and highlights why medication should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. (And it sucks for the men taking it for enlarged prostate.)
I'd say you haven't thought this through, or you wouldn't have raised the point at all (and you should have used a more honest term like "the unwashed masses" instead of hiding your elitist and condescending view of people behind the "general public" label).
Of course people can handle this - they have always been able to do so. Just look at who is being dragged kicking/screaming into the future and who is doing the dragging. Hint: The "general public" are doing the dragging. Follow the sound of kicking and screaming to identify who can't handle the possibility of greater choice. This is about control, not the ability of people to choose for themselves.
First off, stop trying to pick a fight. You are putting words in my mouth, coming across as a douche, and also appear both condescending and elitist.
Secondly, I know personal experience that many of my co-workers and family members do not like to select their TV shows from an infinite list as they have told me that. They like to choose from a subset of all available shows... usually whatever is currently playing on the network TV channels so that they can feel connected to pop culture.
Thirdly, I am not the general public with regards to TV show preferences. I do not like reality series or hospital/doctor series. I abhor soap operas, talk shows, and the news. I only like a few detective series. I think that the PBS offerings are boring. The fact that these shows are being shown indicates that a good portion of the TV-watching public (defined as the "general public") likes them, or advertisers and networks would not sponsor them. Therefore, it is appropriate for me to consider myself different from the general public. Not better or worse, but different.
And finally, the implicit point in my last post was that many people are used to the network or pop culture controlling what they watch. Currently many people just use the internet to catch a network show that they missed earlier, but their choices are still governed by what is currently showing this season. An entirely "pull-based" TV system would revolutionize TV media. Networks would no longer have a stranglehold on what is produced. The variety of offerings would explode. And the users would have to find a way to parse all this information to select what shows make them happy. This will require a more active mindset than simply turning the TV on and flipping through less than 50 channels of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.
Your comment is illogical given that divorce lawyers who suspect a spouse is cheating on their client will recommend that the client hire a PI to get evidence of infidelity. This increases the chances of a favorable settlement for their client.
Suspicious spouses are usually suspicious for a reason.
This is just another case of the judge getting it completely wrong and where the rest of us ultimately suffer. Thankfully, I'm smart enough not to live in NJ, but if this gets appealed, which it ought to, it could very easily wind up applying beyond NJ.
How exactly do you suffer by giving your spouse the ability to track your movements? If this is something you worry about, you should reconsider marriage. Because, once married, you will find they spouses are able to track lots of other things in your life as well.
The wife should certainly use the fact that her husband was spying on her in divorce court to get a better settlement, though.
Did you read the article? The ex-WIFE hired the PI to track her husband, who incidentally was a sheriff and who kept evading the PI's attempts to physically follow him. The PI eventually found the husband traveling in his car with a woman who was not his wife. The husband is now suing the PI for invasion of privacy and ”substantial and permanent emotional distress.” He also tried to sue his ex-wife, but eventually dropped the claim, probably because she used the PI's info to financially rape him in court.
I agree that it is invasion of privacy, but that's kind of what happens when you get married. If you want to keep banging different women, it's probably a good idea not to financially tie yourself to a single woman unless you've gotten her to agree to an open relationship beforehand.
1 gram of Moonstone is worth $1000 ?! So... 1 kg is therefore worth $1M ??!!! How expensive is a space rocket and other things needed for aggresive Moon mining ? /s
You need to spend some time reading the space technology news.
It turns out that getting into space is quite expensive. And getting stuff back from space is too.
In 2003, Russia was charging ~$20M for a person to stay on the ISS for 10 days. Getting back to the moon would involve redeveloping the technology and traveling further. So it might cost around $100M, but it would take billions of dollars to develop and proof the technology.
Also, once you brought back a ton of moon rocks to sell on the open market, their price would plummet due to availability. So traveling to the moon solely to sell moon rocks is not really a profitable venture.
Correct. It's a prototype singular transport vehicle!
I'll take 1.
Yeah, you'll take one 4x4 tire to the chest when a drunk pickup driver doesn't see you and your "car" and drives right over you.
Part of the reason that road-legal cars are so heavy today, is because of all the government-mandated features stuffed into them. I doubt that this car will still get 1325 mpg when it is made road legal. Or that it will be able to achieve minimum highway speeds.
And if it can't go on the highway, it's not a functional car.
That's not cramming, that's scamming. And by entering your phone number on their site, you're essentially authorizing the charges.
Cramming is when, as described in the article, your carrier adds bogus charges to your account. Now, we can sit here & debate whether or not the carriers themselves are behind the scamming sites, but that's not the point.
It seems strange that my phone number should be equivalent to a credit card number.
... with a piece of tape when I am not using it.
You can also open up the laptop and physically disconnect the camera and internal microphone.
Such behavior used to be considered paranoid, now it's necessary.
Just go to about any Asian country and you'll be quick to find store shelves packed with products NOT designed or invented in the US or Europe, and the products from the US and Europe will be things that aren't really all that great - like garlic peelers, microfiber towels, and plastic containers you can use to cook pasta in the microwave...
You seem to be forgetting a few other inventions from the US and Europe like: automobiles, airplane, helicopters, computers, telephones, fiber optics, microwaves, the transistor, and nuclear power.
Your post (and general thought process) is playing into the GP's point. Many countries in Asia are fantastic at adapting existing technology into cost-effective products, but not so great at developing pioneering modern technology. Japan and Korea are leading the Asian pack, but they still have a long way to go before they can compete with Europe and the US on the groundbreaking discovery front.
I am not trying to be offensive to any culture. China had some amazingly novel inventions several thousand years ago like paper and gunpowder, but recent history speaks for itself.
Just think if we would have followed the French's lead on Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded and wasted trillions of dollars in a war that we get absolutely NOTHING from. Leave it to the Right wingers to smear them after they didn't play ball with them. AND leave it to capitalists to make every socialist country a villain.
You're right. The French wanted to save their bullets to invade the countries that they actually get oil from. Like Libya.
Schools in North America at least--if not everywhere in the West--seem to think that their disciplinary powers extend to any actions committed by students anywhere during their years of attendance. In my opinion, the only time a school should have the ability to initiate disciplinary action for an act committed off school premises should be after trial and conviction of a crime. Free speech protections often don't apply in schools (don't get me started on that), but a school has absolutely no right to restrict a student's speech off school grounds, and this would be aptly enforced by requiring disciplinary sanctions for off ground behavior be the result of a conviction in a court of law. This school would get laughed at if they even mentioned prosecution of this student for this behavior to a DA, so there's no reason they should be allowed to do this.
Does that opinion extend to what teachers do during their off-work time as well (e.g. drugs, stripping)?
Or do you have a double-standard?
Of course after all the Californians move there it won't be a low tax, low regulation state for long.
Luckily, only a small percentage of Californians can survive the withdrawal symptoms associated with leaving their fabled ground. Your state's finances may be able to absorb the impact.
Their constant whining about the weather, however, will drive you absolutely insane!
Group 2B simply means "possibly carcinogenic to humans." I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets. So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?
Your post had me feeling good until I clicked on the Group 2B link and saw nasty materials like lead, DDT, heavy hydrocarbons, and hydrazine.
You don't have to choose between coal and nuclear. Since they are both bad, you should choose renewable (solar and wind). These are both viable alternatives whose cost (even without considering the environmental impact) is becoming competitive with coal and nuclear.
I have to disagree with your overly optimistic post.
Solar and wind are still boutique energy-generation technologies that are not ready for full-scale use. In no way do they approach the reliability, output, or efficiency of nuclear power at this time. Perhaps a large investment from the Germans will fix this issue though.
Great news! The human species has suffered with health problems since we left the trees. However since the invention of radioactivity, there has been a direct link between the amount of radiation used in the world and spinal subluxations which cause ill health. Hopefully Germany is just the first in a long long of countries dumping radioactivity!
Less nuclear power means more power from burning coal.
You should read about the health effects associated with the uptake of the heavy metals released from burning coal. Spinal sublaxations will be the least of your problems if the world continues to increase their coal consumption.
You're deluding yourself.
When it comes to voting, the American people are between a rock and a hard place. The two major political parties collude to prevent any sweeping change because the status quo benefits them.
And politicians aren't salesmen. They are professional spindoctors, whose only goal is to get themselves elected and keep themselves in power.
As a voting American, you can do nothing to stop the direction the country is going because they quash those proposals before they even make it to a vote. And if you try any sort of significant dissent, you will be labelled as a terrorist by the patriots.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
The location bar has to go. It has many problems.
Does Mozilla really think that their average user base has gotten dumb enough to not understand the URL bar? I find their logic a bit insulting.
For one, it’s always visible and constantly takes up a large amount of space.
How about enabling a toggle button to hide/show it at will?
Secondly, it’s hard to read, since people don’t really understand URLs.
Wha...? Sure, there can be a lot of complexity to understand every nuance of URL structure. But you can understand 90% of the structure with a few simple concepts.
Moreover, it’s modal: it has a mode for displaying the current page’s location and a mode for entering your next destination. It’s not always immediately obvious which mode you’re in and what the current text is indicating, and switching modes is not easy either.
Again, a toggle switch would be good.
As a devout Christian, I agree, sex is a natural, good, and God ordained act - between a husband and wife. As the previous poster mentioned, it is there to strengthen the bonds of marriage between husband and wife. Pornography makes light of and perverses this special and sacred act. Sacred because it is also the process of being like God - creating life.
As a practical Catholic, I feel compelled to point out that your explanation about strengthening bonds is complete crap. The only reason the church espouses sex is because it produces more Christian children. That is why the church is against pornography, contraception, masturbation, sodomy, and homosexuality... all of those hinder the production of more Christians. Such a pro-reproductive theme is common among all religions in order to grow the religion.
Pushing for as many children as possible in the past was an important concept when mortality rates were high due to poor medical practices, poor hygiene, and high conflict rates. However today it is irresponsible to both your existing children and to the world population. Having more children than you can afford to raise properly decreases their quality of life and sucks up excess resources.
There's nothing wrong with being devout, but couple it with some realism. God gave you a brain so you could think for yourself. And he gave you a name so you could stop posting anonymously.
Reality IS complex; people in general don't turn to crime or become terrorists simply because they are evil - if you start smply killing "the evildoers" without addressing the reason why they got to be that. And the solution is not likely to involve dumping an American style reality-show democracy on them. We really need to solve issues of social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa.
I think Africa needs to help itself. Why should the United States have to solve another entire continent's political and socio-economic problems?!
Have you not gotten your fill of that in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because I guarantee that trying to help all of Africa will be a lot messier!
IMO, we should first offer the new Somali government assistance with patrolling their coastlines in the form of US forces, training for Somali coast guards, and then boats. The assistance should be delivered in that order as well and we should expect to derive some benefits from that assistance (natural resources, military bases, Navy port, etc.) . If they don't want our help, that's fine... but when their citizens continue to attack US interests in international waters, it is within our rights to (1) kill the offending citizens and leave their dead bodies on shore as a warning to other pirates and (2) hold the country's government responsible for the attacks.
As a country, the US needs to stop offering no-strings-attached assistance to every underprivileged nation in the world. We simply can't afford it.
Don't do this. As illogical as uppity Slashdot "power users" think it is, IT departments hate it when people upgrade their machines without consulting them. Full-time employees, they'd probably be willing to let it slide after a stern talk, but for interns? No guarantees.
Ha ha. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. What kind of a dipshit IT department is issuing computers with 512 MB of RAM in 2011?
If the company can't afford decent hardware, they are probably expanding too fast. My advice would be to find a company that actually has the funding to support their employees salary and materials & supplies. Barring that, I would accidentally dump a cup of coffee onto the motherboard and then ask them for a new computer.
...stating that the insulation is a problem.
The article never actual states that the insulation has been shown to interfere with WiFi. It just says "might" and "maybe" a lot.
This is an example of the typical shitty reporting being published nowdays. Next time, sit down and look at the wavelength and the penetration depth into the foil. Then do an actual test with the insulation and a wifi router BEFORE publishing the article. PC Pro should be embarrassed.
Total number of Fukushima victims : 0 (1 worker wounded, and given that their facility had an 8 meter high wave smash into the outer walls ... )
It takes longer than three weeks for cancer to manifest itself.
Most probably, space travel is not worth the energy required for propulsion. What would we need to find out there? Why would anyone want to be there? For all the answers you might have come up with, I think virtual realities are a solution that is much cheaper to deploy and maintain.
Using the same logic, I would argue that most humans are not worth the resources required to sustain them. And if we spent less resources supporting those humans, we would have more resources for space travel.
Pointless. A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Every single branch of the U.S. military dearly wants guided lasers to be able to disable incoming mortar rounds, missiles, aircraft, boats and enemy personnel. They have been actively testing these devices for the past several years by removing the guns off of their radar-guided mounts and replacing them with these high-energy lasers.
The lasers are appealing because they make it easier to hit the target. With conventional ballistics, you have to consider both the target's trajectory and that of your interceptor. Additionally, your interceptor has a finite size, so you not only need to line up its path with that of the target, but you also need to coordinate the arrival times of both objects at that point in space. With a light-speed weapon, you just point at where the target is currently. Additionally, if you miss in a populated area, you do not have to worry about your interceptor causing collateral damage. The military currently uses self-deflagrating rounds to address this issue, so that they will burn up before they hit the ground. If you have ever watched a mortar defense system in action, you'll notice it takes A LOT of rounds to hit the mortar.
Finally, your concerns about tracking and auto-correcting are unfounded. These systems use an IR laser and an IR camera to guide it. The system can see the target, the laser beam (due to scattered light), and the hit-region illuminated by the laser. There is no longer any radar needed.
You may not be excited about this system, but the US soldiers deployed overseas are.
This image says it all really - http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2011-spending-trillion-cartoon.jpg. As an outsider looking in, it's obvious to me the government really needs to cut military funding. Our UK government has done. Apart from a cool info graphic on the NYT a few months back where you could pretend to make the necessary cuts yourself I've never see this mentioned anywhere else in the US media.
It's not as obvious to me.
People love to target the defense spending when they feel safe. But often they feel safe because their country has a strong military. But when an enemy is knocking on your doorstep and wants to kill you, all of a sudden it is the government's fault for not protecting you. Like it or not, defense requires sustained funding to keep soldiers trained, military surveillance operational, invasion/defense plans in place, and cutting-edge hardware developed and maintained. You can't just turn that on in a short period of time (i.e. less than a decade) and expect it to work.
Let's take the UK for example, since you live there. Let's say Russia decides that it wants your country and that their military capabilities far exceed yours. Or maybe they just don't like your foreign policy program (against Libya for example). What is really to stop them from just rolling into London if they know you can mount no retaliation? (Look at the Russia-Georgia conflict in 2008.) Maybe your US and European allies would defend you, but what if they also cut all of their defense budget and were unable to defend you?
Countries may be acting more civilized lately, but don't forget that at the core of international relations, "might makes right." The only reason the civil veneer exists between the big players is because they all have comparable military strength. The countries that don't (or don't have strong allies) are consistently steamrolled.
If it wasn't Propecia, maybe it was a different anti-baldness pill, but I remember a coworker commenting about it back in the ?late 90s?. I don't remember whether he decided to take the pill or not, though.
Your coworker was probably commenting on the possibility of temporary impotence while taking the medication. That can be a common side effect with medication and especially when a person is on multiple medications at once.
Permanent impotence after you stop taking the medication is a big difference.
It's somewhat ironic that you can get that result from a lifestyle drug designed only to fill out your hair and highlights why medication should not be taken unless absolutely necessary. (And it sucks for the men taking it for enlarged prostate.)
I'd say you haven't thought this through, or you wouldn't have raised the point at all (and you should have used a more honest term like "the unwashed masses" instead of hiding your elitist and condescending view of people behind the "general public" label).
Of course people can handle this - they have always been able to do so. Just look at who is being dragged kicking/screaming into the future and who is doing the dragging. Hint: The "general public" are doing the dragging. Follow the sound of kicking and screaming to identify who can't handle the possibility of greater choice. This is about control, not the ability of people to choose for themselves.
First off, stop trying to pick a fight. You are putting words in my mouth, coming across as a douche, and also appear both condescending and elitist.
Secondly, I know personal experience that many of my co-workers and family members do not like to select their TV shows from an infinite list as they have told me that. They like to choose from a subset of all available shows... usually whatever is currently playing on the network TV channels so that they can feel connected to pop culture.
Thirdly, I am not the general public with regards to TV show preferences. I do not like reality series or hospital/doctor series. I abhor soap operas, talk shows, and the news. I only like a few detective series. I think that the PBS offerings are boring. The fact that these shows are being shown indicates that a good portion of the TV-watching public (defined as the "general public") likes them, or advertisers and networks would not sponsor them. Therefore, it is appropriate for me to consider myself different from the general public. Not better or worse, but different.
And finally, the implicit point in my last post was that many people are used to the network or pop culture controlling what they watch. Currently many people just use the internet to catch a network show that they missed earlier, but their choices are still governed by what is currently showing this season. An entirely "pull-based" TV system would revolutionize TV media. Networks would no longer have a stranglehold on what is produced. The variety of offerings would explode. And the users would have to find a way to parse all this information to select what shows make them happy. This will require a more active mindset than simply turning the TV on and flipping through less than 50 channels of interest.