You're equating a medical condition to an ideology?
Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Refusing to cover someone who is likely to cost them buttloads of money is a sound fiscal decision. Paypal is also in the business of making money. Refusing to process payments for an organization whore ideology they detest is not a fiscal decision and it doesn't save them money; it's purely political. Both companies are, of course, free to make those decisions... but let's not pretend that they're in any way equivalent.
Funny enough, when I was running the math on whether gravity would be a viable way to store energy for my household, it turned out that this would be pretty much the only way to store a significant amount of it. If I could somehow lift my entire house 100 meters in the air, it would then have enough stored energy for about 24 hours of typical electricity use.
Totally. Corporations are like Scrooge McDuck; they squirrel away all of their ill earned gains in a giant bank vault so that top executives can go swimming in it.
You could at least have used per-capita figures, dumbass. They still wouldn't have painted the full picture but at least they would have shown that you're not completely thoughtless.
Great efficiency, incredibly shit energy density. For large scale energy storage you either need a really really REALLY long slope, or you need a concrete slab the size of an office building.
Oh they haven't banned ALL dissenting voices. They're quite happy to let three Democrats dissent with each other over whether refusing to sleep with transsexuals makes you transphobic, homophobic, or a literal Nazi.
Such countries do indeed have a high fatality rate, but having spent a lot of time in such a country and survived those people learn how to watch out for vehicles and be wary of crossing the road. On the other hand, if someone from a country with strict and well enforced road laws travels to a country with very lax road rules, they can often find themselves in trouble.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but it seems to me the opposite may be the truth. I remember reading multiple times about some recent immigrant from Africa getting killed trying to cross a major 8 lane highway. I never understood why they would even try that... until I visited Africa and saw the way people cross roads there. They're used to taking such insane risks because they often have no choice. So when they arrive in Canada or America they don't think twice about trying to cross an interstate; something no sane westerner would ever attempt.
On the other hand, those of us who went to Africa from the west were so freaked out by the insanity of it all that we were super paranoid and way more careful than we would have been back at home.
In most countries, jaywalking is not even a crime.
In the country I'm currently in traffic laws in general seem to be little more than suggestions, and right-of-way is a foreign concept. So what? They also have one of the highest vehicle fatality rates in the world. What kind of idiot thinks that "it's legal in other places" is a good argument?
In America, it is mostly used by the police to target young people and minorities.
Nice theory but where I live the law says otherwise. Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way.
No, that's not what the law says. It's just that milions of ignoramuses believe that that's what it says because multiple generations of driving instructors have been misleading them. Go look through the traffic laws; you won't find anything like that.
The solutions discovered anywhere else in the world don't apply to exceptional america.
I don't think that an insanely high violent crime rate is a "solution", but you're welcome to have it and be as proud of it as you like. As for me I would much rather have a 1 in 10 million chance of being shot by a cop than a 1 in 100,000 chance of being stabbed to death in a robbery.
Let's task the police with protecting everyone's life
That is quite literally impossible.
so they get better at not killing innocents.
They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.
here is a perfect example of what happens when a countries pours huge amounts of cash into R&D and education
What, premature claims of groundbreaking discoveries? Don't worry, the USA has those too. Maybe not quite as many as China, but still enough to be annoying.
Misty eyed space elevator proponents claim $500/kilo.
You picked the highest estimate from your link instead of one of the lower ones, and then still called it's proponents "misty eyed". That's droll.
Don't forget that any mass you hoist up this mythical elevator needs to achieve orbital velocity, just like a rocket does. That takes energy. Where does that come from, who pays for it?
...
This is some kind of joke, right?
The answers are: "electricity" and "the customer".
Yeah, the 1950s, when homosexuality and abortion were illegal, divorce was a dirty word, prayer and the pledge of allegience were still a required part of the school curriculum, and "social justice" was a euphimism for the public lynchings of accused criminals. Those 1950s.
In terms of libertarianism (personal liberty) the US is way behind Canada and Finland.
lol. The rest of your comment was pretty silly, but you have to be completely delusional to believe that this specific part is even remotely true. I say that as a Canadian who's spent months at a time living and working in the US.
The far left is now everybody slightly to the right of center.
That's an absolutely idiotic claim. Unless you've redefined "center" to mean "slightly left of Fidel Castro".
If you took the average left-leaning person from the 1950s and brought them to present-day america, they'd be voting Republican in no time. If you took the average left leaning person from today and transported them back to the 50's, they'd be seen as dangerous lunatic. Even the commies of yonder-year weren't on board with much of what the left espouses these days; the only commonality they have is wanting to steal and redistribute other peoples money.
So you are arguing in effect that people shouldn't be required to wear seat belts either?
It very much depends on the people, and the circumstances. If you're driving your family around on public roads, yeah, obviously you should use your seatbelts. In other circumstances seatbelts are not required and may hamper your ability to function. I've worked in several fields where seatbelts were routinely ignored, for good reasons.
Same goes with these pesticides. Banning them for residential use? Sure, probably a good idea, which is why most places have already done so. Banning them for agricultural use? Probably a horrible idea, unless we get some much better evidence showing that the risk outweighs the benefits.
If the extra cost isn't a barrier for you, buying organic produce is a rational cost/quality calculation.
Organic is a useless label which tells you absolutely nothing about the quality. While it does tell you that an arbitrary list of pesticides weren't used, it tells you absolutely nothing about which pesticides WERE used. As such it's very far removed from being a rational individual choice, let alone a practical solution on a global level.
Slashdot Mirror
You're equating a medical condition to an ideology?
Insurance companies are in the business of making money. Refusing to cover someone who is likely to cost them buttloads of money is a sound fiscal decision. Paypal is also in the business of making money. Refusing to process payments for an organization whore ideology they detest is not a fiscal decision and it doesn't save them money; it's purely political. Both companies are, of course, free to make those decisions ... but let's not pretend that they're in any way equivalent.
Funny enough, when I was running the math on whether gravity would be a viable way to store energy for my household, it turned out that this would be pretty much the only way to store a significant amount of it. If I could somehow lift my entire house 100 meters in the air, it would then have enough stored energy for about 24 hours of typical electricity use.
Totally. Corporations are like Scrooge McDuck; they squirrel away all of their ill earned gains in a giant bank vault so that top executives can go swimming in it.
You could at least have used per-capita figures, dumbass. They still wouldn't have painted the full picture but at least they would have shown that you're not completely thoughtless.
Great efficiency, incredibly shit energy density. For large scale energy storage you either need a really really REALLY long slope, or you need a concrete slab the size of an office building.
Oh they haven't banned ALL dissenting voices. They're quite happy to let three Democrats dissent with each other over whether refusing to sleep with transsexuals makes you transphobic, homophobic, or a literal Nazi.
Such countries do indeed have a high fatality rate, but having spent a lot of time in such a country and survived those people learn how to watch out for vehicles and be wary of crossing the road.
On the other hand, if someone from a country with strict and well enforced road laws travels to a country with very lax road rules, they can often find themselves in trouble.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but it seems to me the opposite may be the truth. I remember reading multiple times about some recent immigrant from Africa getting killed trying to cross a major 8 lane highway. I never understood why they would even try that ... until I visited Africa and saw the way people cross roads there. They're used to taking such insane risks because they often have no choice. So when they arrive in Canada or America they don't think twice about trying to cross an interstate; something no sane westerner would ever attempt.
On the other hand, those of us who went to Africa from the west were so freaked out by the insanity of it all that we were super paranoid and way more careful than we would have been back at home.
In the UK pedestrians make up 22% of road traffic deaths. In the US it's 12%. Maybe the UK should think about passing some jaywalking laws.
In most countries, jaywalking is not even a crime.
In the country I'm currently in traffic laws in general seem to be little more than suggestions, and right-of-way is a foreign concept. So what? They also have one of the highest vehicle fatality rates in the world. What kind of idiot thinks that "it's legal in other places" is a good argument?
In America, it is mostly used by the police to target young people and minorities.
Ah. That kind of idiot.
Nice theory but where I live the law says otherwise. Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way.
No, that's not what the law says. It's just that milions of ignoramuses believe that that's what it says because multiple generations of driving instructors have been misleading them. Go look through the traffic laws; you won't find anything like that.
You've convinced me; the next building I design will use rockets instead of elevators.
The solutions discovered anywhere else in the world don't apply to exceptional america.
I don't think that an insanely high violent crime rate is a "solution", but you're welcome to have it and be as proud of it as you like. As for me I would much rather have a 1 in 10 million chance of being shot by a cop than a 1 in 100,000 chance of being stabbed to death in a robbery.
Let's task the police with protecting everyone's life
That is quite literally impossible.
so they get better at not killing innocents.
They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.
here is a perfect example of what happens when a countries pours huge amounts of cash into R&D and education
What, premature claims of groundbreaking discoveries? Don't worry, the USA has those too. Maybe not quite as many as China, but still enough to be annoying.
Are there any other non-SI units I should be aware of?
AmiMoJos for density.
Misty eyed space elevator proponents claim $500/kilo.
You picked the highest estimate from your link instead of one of the lower ones, and then still called it's proponents "misty eyed". That's droll.
Don't forget that any mass you hoist up this mythical elevator needs to achieve orbital velocity, just like a rocket does. That takes energy. Where does that come from, who pays for it?
...
This is some kind of joke, right?
The answers are: "electricity" and "the customer".
I can count ZERO government agencies whom use encrypted mail, support digital encrypted signatures
Guess you never heard of the military.
Nonsense. They don't need a firewall as long as they have APKs hosts file engine.
Yeah, the 1950s, when homosexuality and abortion were illegal, divorce was a dirty word, prayer and the pledge of allegience were still a required part of the school curriculum, and "social justice" was a euphimism for the public lynchings of accused criminals. Those 1950s.
In terms of libertarianism (personal liberty) the US is way behind Canada and Finland.
lol. The rest of your comment was pretty silly, but you have to be completely delusional to believe that this specific part is even remotely true. I say that as a Canadian who's spent months at a time living and working in the US.
The far left is now everybody slightly to the right of center.
That's an absolutely idiotic claim. Unless you've redefined "center" to mean "slightly left of Fidel Castro".
If you took the average left-leaning person from the 1950s and brought them to present-day america, they'd be voting Republican in no time. If you took the average left leaning person from today and transported them back to the 50's, they'd be seen as dangerous lunatic. Even the commies of yonder-year weren't on board with much of what the left espouses these days; the only commonality they have is wanting to steal and redistribute other peoples money.
So you are arguing in effect that people shouldn't be required to wear seat belts either?
It very much depends on the people, and the circumstances. If you're driving your family around on public roads, yeah, obviously you should use your seatbelts. In other circumstances seatbelts are not required and may hamper your ability to function. I've worked in several fields where seatbelts were routinely ignored, for good reasons.
Same goes with these pesticides. Banning them for residential use? Sure, probably a good idea, which is why most places have already done so. Banning them for agricultural use? Probably a horrible idea, unless we get some much better evidence showing that the risk outweighs the benefits.
If the extra cost isn't a barrier for you, buying organic produce is a rational cost/quality calculation.
Organic is a useless label which tells you absolutely nothing about the quality. While it does tell you that an arbitrary list of pesticides weren't used, it tells you absolutely nothing about which pesticides WERE used. As such it's very far removed from being a rational individual choice, let alone a practical solution on a global level.
and the fucking body.
They don't have to send _video_ of you back. They only have to send back the results of the analysis of the video.
And this requires 5G does it?