It bs down for a certain sector. The working poor and low middle class. Who can choose between health insurance and rent/eating. A medical bill will bankrupt them and they cant afford preventive care at over 100 per doctor visit
Oh, yes, the vast majority of them can afford preventative care at $100/visit, once or twice a year per person. But they'd have to give up their iPhones, their cable or satellite TV, their Xboxes, their booze, or their cigarettes to do so.
But nuclear targeting isn't "lets just hit the biggest cities we can". Rather, you go after significant targets. You don't target the city; you target the railyards, power stations, dams, ports, airfields, and all the other infrastructure that make anything close to modern life possible. Dropping a bomb in the middle of a city isn't going to completely wipe it out, and will leave many of the functioning parts of a country intact
See, the idea behind a nuclear deterrent is that it will leave targeted national leaders with nothing to rule. Drop one bomb in the middle of each city, and you still have a bunch of people living everywhere else that can still recover. Wipe out every modern convenience and leave the country in the 17th century, and the Dear Leader has nothing left to lead. That's the (oversimplified) idea of a deterrent.
For additional clarity, I don't know much about the necessity for testing our nukes. If it is genuinely necessary, just to keep everything functional, then I can see why we'd want to avoid getting locked into a defacto disarmament treaty. If it's not, then I don't see why any nation would doubt our ability to deliver.
The problem is, nuclear devices don't have an unlimited shelf life. They decay, get old, and eventually (like any other bit of machinery) start developing latent failures.
To mitigate this, the owner of those devices will occasionally have to refurbish them, and eventually replace them, just to keep inventory levels constant. Even if they don't plan to expand the inventory, they will eventually need to develop new designs with improved safety (for those handling them) and reliability. New devices need to be tested. As any engineer who's worth a crap will tell you, tests on inert shapes and computer simulations can only get you so far.
Even if you do buy a new iDevice every year, why should the old one stop working?
From Apple's perspective, it's a good thing. It keeps sales turnover high.
Like car companies, they only want the products lasting long enough that customers won't be upset at having to buy new ones when their old ones fail. Two years seems to be the tipping point for consumer electronics (cell phones, computers, tablets, etc.). If they could make their products fall apart the day after the warranty ends without pissing off the customers, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
I've heard the statement plenty of times before, that reality has some kind of "liberal bias". Yet nobody has ever advanced any evidence, any discussion, any explanation of how reality actually has that bias or what "liberal" means in this context. And nevermind an explanation of how reality can even have a bias in the first place.
Apparently it's just another example of the adage that stating something often enough makes it true, at least in the eyes of the public.
I want one! Maybe a little bit larger battery (I'd like to be able to get about 30 miles in no-emissions mode, to cover my commute to work and back) and some cosmetic changes, but the concept is perfect.
Sadly, I don't think anything like this will ever see the light of day on this side of the pond. It makes too much sense, and the word "diesel" scares US manufacturers.
Actually, human factors studies have shown that analog-style displays are better at conveying small changes and trends than digital readouts. It's easier to notice the start of a trend or a deviation from your desired condition with an analog gauge than a digital readout, or even a tape display.
It's easier to convince our elected officials to permanently make Eastern time GMT-4 than to try and convince our faceless overlords in New York to let us start work at 10.
Or alternatively, to let us start at 6, work two extra hours, and not have to come in at all on Friday. I'm lucky enough to be able to do this, but I know plenty of others that would love to, but can't.
And if I go in and make a deposit at 8pm, or on Saturday, is that money immediately in my account? No, I have to wait till the next "business day". The same applies to many stock markets and to large companies and institutions that do business with banks; as long as the large customers still have to wait for "business hours" for their money to go through the bank or the stock exchange, then the banks own us all.
Spend anything from $10-40 per plant in potting soil, pots, cages, seedlings, etc.
Devote an hour or two of labor per plant during the first two or three months of the growing season to try and make the plants grow.
Get one or two undersized tiny fruits/leaves/whatever the plant grows.
Step outside one day and find all of the plants dead.
Seriously, pretty much everything I try to grow ends up dying. I've killed basil. I've killed peppers. I've killed cilantro, onions, fig trees, apple trees, and pumpkins. The only thing I haven't killed is the grass, and that's probably just a matter of time.
Yep, obviously the airlines don't have a good reason, they're just making up reasons because they want to piss off their customers. And the average moron traveler knows more about aviation safety than the FAA, manufacturers, and operators.
God forbid you go without your electronic toys for a few minutes...
For example: No headphones during take-off? Makes perfect sense - take-off is one of the most sensitive times of the flight. If someone needs to yell directions, you need to hear them. Reading a book on your Kindle? Not so much.
Until that Kindle goes flying about in the cabin and hitting someone because you had it out when you weren't supposed to.
That is why they're all prohibited during critical phases of flight. It's not just about being able to hear instructions, but also about keeping loose objects secured in the cabin so they don't turn into small missiles and cause injuries. People can also get stupid and distracted and not put down the item they're playing with during critical situations (see people insisting on bringing their bags during evacuations).
What's "unholy" about that? I'm on the east coast and do 0600-1630. It's wonderful, and thanks to DST I can spend several hours outside after work in the summer.
Way I figure it, I'm not going to accomplish anything before work because the knowledge that I have to go to work in a short time will just hang over my head like a vague sense of impending doom (think dark clouds from Mordor). I might as well get up and go straight to work, and maximize my free time after work when the day's burden is lifted and I can get all that time consecutively.
Also, saying that we should stay on DST all year is idiotic. We should just do things an hour earlier.
No, it's not the best solution. But good luck convincing bankers and other companies that they should be continually rotating their hours (a timekeeping nightmare for payroll) and doing everything else in their lives at different times. And as long as any critical public institution (government, banks, etc.) insists on keeping 8-to-5 hours all year (which they can do; particularly the banks because they have everyone by the balls), everyone else is going to be stuck on their schedule.
Are we going to abolish the stupidity of the concept of Daylight Savings Time? It saves no daylight.
It is an effective way to keep the daylight hours after work, when productive things can be done, rather than before work when nothing useful can be done because you're just going to have to go to work in a short time. We're stuck with the kludgy method of flipping clocks back and forth because we, as a society, are still wedded to the stupid 8-to-5 workday and the bankers that hold everyone else by the balls with their hours.
Full disclosure: I love DST and wish we'd stay on it all year. Light early in the morning is useless to me; I'm already at work in a windowless office by the time the sun comes up. I like having a lot of time to do things after work, and I don't get that at all in the winter--the sun's setting when I leave. If DST went on all year, I'd at least have a little light to do things first.
I live down south, and I still love DST. It maximizes the time I have for doing things outside after work. I'm at work before sunrise year-round, DST or not, so earlier daylight is useless to me. If I wasn't hamstrung by other societal stuff (damn bankers and their hours...), I'd structure my day so I'm going to bed about an hour after sunset year-round. That happens in the summer, but not so much in the winter--I'd be getting to work at 0230.
Or we could use regular "dumb" sprinklers at a tiny fraction of the cost of automated robot arms and "smart" sensors in each compartment. Anything that renders these inoperative would have done in a "smart" robotic arm sprinkler already.
I would like it to also tell me what asile the peanut butter is in
I could have sworn that Kroger or Publix tried a system like that a few years ago. It didn't work too well at the time. The devices mounted to the handles and remind me of the "find your oil filter/wiper blade" devices in the auto section.
Also, it seems like the drone that crash landed is Iran had self-destruct mechanisms which didn't work.
The self-destruct may have just been inside the electronics instead of thorughout the entire (relatively low-value) airframe. That would leave something looking intact on the outside but with useless innards.
Bleach diluted in water is a good sanitizer too; that's what I usually use. I save the star-san for kegging and for de-odorizing athletic clothing when a sanitary cycle in the washing machine doesn't do the trick.
A lot of those have been going in around town lately. I love them. Takes out all the guesswork. Unfortunately, we won't see such a system implemented for the lights themselves; as other posters mention, it interferes with revenue generation.
Getting groped and felt up just to get on a plane and go from one city to another is just as unacceptable as getting virtually strip-searched to do the same.
Would it be acceptable to undergo these invasive procedures every time you got on a bus or train? What about every time you went to work? Or every time your kids went to school? Would it be acceptable for the police to stop and search anyone operating a vehicle at any time?
If I walked up to any random person on the street and started feeliing around like the TSA does, I'd be locked up and labeled a sex offender for life. If I ran a business and started searching my customers or my employees this way, the same thing would probably happen, and I'd also be facing a bunch of sexual harassment suits.
And yet, if a bunch of government thugs do that to me for simply trying to board an airplane on a legitimate ticket, I'm supposed to smile happily and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" I'm supposed to stand by and watch contentedly as some goon in light blue touches my kid in a performance that would be considered child porn if I recorded it.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Yes, according to the article, they WILL refund billions of dollars in taxes when that happens. This has problems of its own, but it does answer your objection.
Slashdot Mirror
It bs down for a certain sector. The working poor and low middle class. Who can choose between health insurance and rent/eating. A medical bill will bankrupt them and they cant afford preventive care at over 100 per doctor visit
Oh, yes, the vast majority of them can afford preventative care at $100/visit, once or twice a year per person. But they'd have to give up their iPhones, their cable or satellite TV, their Xboxes, their booze, or their cigarettes to do so.
But nuclear targeting isn't "lets just hit the biggest cities we can". Rather, you go after significant targets. You don't target the city; you target the railyards, power stations, dams, ports, airfields, and all the other infrastructure that make anything close to modern life possible. Dropping a bomb in the middle of a city isn't going to completely wipe it out, and will leave many of the functioning parts of a country intact
See, the idea behind a nuclear deterrent is that it will leave targeted national leaders with nothing to rule. Drop one bomb in the middle of each city, and you still have a bunch of people living everywhere else that can still recover. Wipe out every modern convenience and leave the country in the 17th century, and the Dear Leader has nothing left to lead. That's the (oversimplified) idea of a deterrent.
For additional clarity, I don't know much about the necessity for testing our nukes. If it is genuinely necessary, just to keep everything functional, then I can see why we'd want to avoid getting locked into a defacto disarmament treaty. If it's not, then I don't see why any nation would doubt our ability to deliver.
The problem is, nuclear devices don't have an unlimited shelf life. They decay, get old, and eventually (like any other bit of machinery) start developing latent failures.
To mitigate this, the owner of those devices will occasionally have to refurbish them, and eventually replace them, just to keep inventory levels constant. Even if they don't plan to expand the inventory, they will eventually need to develop new designs with improved safety (for those handling them) and reliability. New devices need to be tested. As any engineer who's worth a crap will tell you, tests on inert shapes and computer simulations can only get you so far.
Even if you do buy a new iDevice every year, why should the old one stop working?
From Apple's perspective, it's a good thing. It keeps sales turnover high.
Like car companies, they only want the products lasting long enough that customers won't be upset at having to buy new ones when their old ones fail. Two years seems to be the tipping point for consumer electronics (cell phones, computers, tablets, etc.). If they could make their products fall apart the day after the warranty ends without pissing off the customers, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
I've heard the statement plenty of times before, that reality has some kind of "liberal bias". Yet nobody has ever advanced any evidence, any discussion, any explanation of how reality actually has that bias or what "liberal" means in this context. And nevermind an explanation of how reality can even have a bias in the first place.
Apparently it's just another example of the adage that stating something often enough makes it true, at least in the eyes of the public.
I want one! Maybe a little bit larger battery (I'd like to be able to get about 30 miles in no-emissions mode, to cover my commute to work and back) and some cosmetic changes, but the concept is perfect.
Sadly, I don't think anything like this will ever see the light of day on this side of the pond. It makes too much sense, and the word "diesel" scares US manufacturers.
Actually, human factors studies have shown that analog-style displays are better at conveying small changes and trends than digital readouts. It's easier to notice the start of a trend or a deviation from your desired condition with an analog gauge than a digital readout, or even a tape display.
It's easier to convince our elected officials to permanently make Eastern time GMT-4 than to try and convince our faceless overlords in New York to let us start work at 10.
Or alternatively, to let us start at 6, work two extra hours, and not have to come in at all on Friday. I'm lucky enough to be able to do this, but I know plenty of others that would love to, but can't.
And if I go in and make a deposit at 8pm, or on Saturday, is that money immediately in my account? No, I have to wait till the next "business day". The same applies to many stock markets and to large companies and institutions that do business with banks; as long as the large customers still have to wait for "business hours" for their money to go through the bank or the stock exchange, then the banks own us all.
My gardening experience goes like this:
Spend anything from $10-40 per plant in potting soil, pots, cages, seedlings, etc.
Devote an hour or two of labor per plant during the first two or three months of the growing season to try and make the plants grow.
Get one or two undersized tiny fruits/leaves/whatever the plant grows.
Step outside one day and find all of the plants dead.
Seriously, pretty much everything I try to grow ends up dying. I've killed basil. I've killed peppers. I've killed cilantro, onions, fig trees, apple trees, and pumpkins. The only thing I haven't killed is the grass, and that's probably just a matter of time.
Yep, obviously the airlines don't have a good reason, they're just making up reasons because they want to piss off their customers. And the average moron traveler knows more about aviation safety than the FAA, manufacturers, and operators.
God forbid you go without your electronic toys for a few minutes...
For example: No headphones during take-off? Makes perfect sense - take-off is one of the most sensitive times of the flight. If someone needs to yell directions, you need to hear them. Reading a book on your Kindle? Not so much.
Until that Kindle goes flying about in the cabin and hitting someone because you had it out when you weren't supposed to.
That is why they're all prohibited during critical phases of flight. It's not just about being able to hear instructions, but also about keeping loose objects secured in the cabin so they don't turn into small missiles and cause injuries. People can also get stupid and distracted and not put down the item they're playing with during critical situations (see people insisting on bringing their bags during evacuations).
I think Dale Brown had something like this in some of his novels... called them NIRTSsats or something.
unholy hours like 7am-4pm
What's "unholy" about that? I'm on the east coast and do 0600-1630. It's wonderful, and thanks to DST I can spend several hours outside after work in the summer.
Way I figure it, I'm not going to accomplish anything before work because the knowledge that I have to go to work in a short time will just hang over my head like a vague sense of impending doom (think dark clouds from Mordor). I might as well get up and go straight to work, and maximize my free time after work when the day's burden is lifted and I can get all that time consecutively.
Also, saying that we should stay on DST all year is idiotic. We should just do things an hour earlier.
No, it's not the best solution. But good luck convincing bankers and other companies that they should be continually rotating their hours (a timekeeping nightmare for payroll) and doing everything else in their lives at different times. And as long as any critical public institution (government, banks, etc.) insists on keeping 8-to-5 hours all year (which they can do; particularly the banks because they have everyone by the balls), everyone else is going to be stuck on their schedule.
Are we going to abolish the stupidity of the concept of Daylight Savings Time? It saves no daylight.
It is an effective way to keep the daylight hours after work, when productive things can be done, rather than before work when nothing useful can be done because you're just going to have to go to work in a short time. We're stuck with the kludgy method of flipping clocks back and forth because we, as a society, are still wedded to the stupid 8-to-5 workday and the bankers that hold everyone else by the balls with their hours.
Full disclosure: I love DST and wish we'd stay on it all year. Light early in the morning is useless to me; I'm already at work in a windowless office by the time the sun comes up. I like having a lot of time to do things after work, and I don't get that at all in the winter--the sun's setting when I leave. If DST went on all year, I'd at least have a little light to do things first.
I always await DST with bated breath every year.
And I rue its passing every fall
I live down south, and I still love DST. It maximizes the time I have for doing things outside after work. I'm at work before sunrise year-round, DST or not, so earlier daylight is useless to me. If I wasn't hamstrung by other societal stuff (damn bankers and their hours...), I'd structure my day so I'm going to bed about an hour after sunset year-round. That happens in the summer, but not so much in the winter--I'd be getting to work at 0230.
Or we could use regular "dumb" sprinklers at a tiny fraction of the cost of automated robot arms and "smart" sensors in each compartment. Anything that renders these inoperative would have done in a "smart" robotic arm sprinkler already.
I would like it to also tell me what asile the peanut butter is in
I could have sworn that Kroger or Publix tried a system like that a few years ago. It didn't work too well at the time. The devices mounted to the handles and remind me of the "find your oil filter/wiper blade" devices in the auto section.
Also, it seems like the drone that crash landed is Iran had self-destruct mechanisms which didn't work.
The self-destruct may have just been inside the electronics instead of thorughout the entire (relatively low-value) airframe. That would leave something looking intact on the outside but with useless innards.
Bleach diluted in water is a good sanitizer too; that's what I usually use. I save the star-san for kegging and for de-odorizing athletic clothing when a sanitary cycle in the washing machine doesn't do the trick.
A lot of those have been going in around town lately. I love them. Takes out all the guesswork. Unfortunately, we won't see such a system implemented for the lights themselves; as other posters mention, it interferes with revenue generation.
I'm wondering when doctors will start firing patients who demand antibiotics to treat viral infections...
Why isn't it acceptable?
Getting groped and felt up just to get on a plane and go from one city to another is just as unacceptable as getting virtually strip-searched to do the same.
Would it be acceptable to undergo these invasive procedures every time you got on a bus or train? What about every time you went to work? Or every time your kids went to school? Would it be acceptable for the police to stop and search anyone operating a vehicle at any time?
If I walked up to any random person on the street and started feeliing around like the TSA does, I'd be locked up and labeled a sex offender for life. If I ran a business and started searching my customers or my employees this way, the same thing would probably happen, and I'd also be facing a bunch of sexual harassment suits.
And yet, if a bunch of government thugs do that to me for simply trying to board an airplane on a legitimate ticket, I'm supposed to smile happily and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" I'm supposed to stand by and watch contentedly as some goon in light blue touches my kid in a performance that would be considered child porn if I recorded it.
Yes, according to the article, they WILL refund billions of dollars in taxes when that happens. This has problems of its own, but it does answer your objection.
And you seriously believe them?