Once the child has unsupervised transportation, they'll need to be given permission to go complaces, prove that they do, and consistently perform before trust will be granted.
Trust has many levels.
First we'll trust you to behave when you're with friends, in public, on your own.
Later we'll trust you to ride alone with them.
We'll trust you to drive on your own place to place, later we may let you take sublings with you, and later still (if local law allows) you can drive with your friends once you've earned that trust.
We'll trust you to go to have a life on your own, but not until you've proven you actually do go where you say will all of the levels of checking and supervision be removed.
This is a process. I'm not saying the kids need this every waking day until they're off to college. I'm just saying until they prove they can be trusted with a car, friends, and a life on their own, monitoring still needs to occur.
When you have a pet, you use a leash until they obey commands, you let them off the leash in the yard to run free, but behind a fence, you walk down sidewalks and let the leash get longer and longer until they don;t pull at it anymore, eventually you don;t need the fense anymore and can trust the dog to still be there when you come home. It's steps in a process.
Are you saying that you're going to go from night to day with your kids, from supervised only handling to complete freedom with no steps in between, at only 15 years old? I think most psychologists would call that a skewed sense of personal freedom, and unsafe parenting.
The watch is an internal control. It does not prevent them from going places, it simply permits me to identify when I've been lied to about where they're going, which provides a means for accountability and traditional punishments (might be groundings, might be guilt, many different methods apply). The "watchful eye" trains them into thinking before they do things, which is an internal control. I'm not saying they can't go to parties and have fun, just only parties i know are supervised on some level, or clubs I am reasonably sure are safe, and relatively drug free.
You can let them have a life, and still be accountavble for their actions. I can't follow them places, i can't allways be sure of where they are. This is a somple device that provides a parent some accountability validation, while also doubling as a saftey system.
Ya know, there are a ton of bad parents out there who don't even take the time to care and check up at all. I'd prefer at least a computer check up on them when the parents don't. We can't make a bad parent into a better one, but we can give bad parents tools and bad kids limits. Also, how is the child to learn accountability if there's no follow up and validation of the trust?
the kids DO need to be on a leash, if there are no boundaries, then how are they to learn restrain, and to follow instructions.
I'm not talking about locking them down, I'm talking about LETTING them have a life, make their own decisions, not PESTER them about where and what they're doing, and simply trust them (but VALIDATE that trust). After a few years of them not making mistakes, and when they're mature enough to handle it, 17-18 years old, then we experiment with even less controlls.
SURE, lying is a part of life and growing up. They'll lie in lots of ways. However, they also need to learn punishment, accountability, and saccrifice, and if you can't find out when they lied, you can't punish them. I'm not talking about tracking their social activities. I'm talking about validating the truth of where they went.
As I said, if you set the device only to report manually, not automatically, and give the kids themselves a feedback mechanism to when when the monitoring occured, then the kids can push back on their own parents when the monitoring is being abused.
I'm also not suggesting kids don;t experiewnce life. Granted in most states (it;s insane, but the case) a parent can't allow their own kid to drink, so they GO off to college and get poisoned. I'm suggesting letting them HAVE the fun, enjoy youth, just put up some rules and hold them accountable. once they have a car, or their friends do, monitoring their activities becomes a difficult issue. I can't guarantee, even with the BEST parenting, that they'll be mature enough to handle being on their own unsupervised before it becomes socially unacceptible for me to keep them under supervised control. Once they getk into unsupervised situations, they may not be ready to handle it without some level of control. You can not take the leash off a chained dog, you have to make a longer leash first...
I'm not concerned with my kid getting raped or abducted (well, i am, but the chance is so rediculously remote, that worrying over it, and spending money to prevent it is honestly not worth it). What I AM worried about is being a good parent. I want my kids to see things, go places, have a life. However, there's only so much freedom you can give before they take more... Let them out, and they'll go places you don't want them to be (sneaking in underage into night clubs, wandering dangerous parts of town, hanging out a some kids house whose known to be "unsafe" for teenage girls to be around.
When you know your kid is supposed to be at someone's house, it;s easy enough to call and confirm (if you have been given the right numebr). When they're elsewhere about town, without a specific desitination, its near impossible to know what they're doing. A Watch with GPS lets me unobtrusevley have a constanbt reminder for my kid (and her friends), that they're alowed to do pretty much whatever they want, but certain things, and certain places are off limits, and with a GPS, doing those things are MUCH harder to accomplish, and I'll likely find out sooner or later I've been deceived.
I trust my kids only so much as I know what lies i told to my own parents. i was a much better kid than my sister, and rarely broke rules, but I DID break rules when i was fairly certain there were no concequences. An ordinary GPS, or even a cell phone with GPS, can easily be left places. Smart kids even forward the calls from their cell phpone to a friend's un-tracked device and leave their tracked cellphone somewhere to fool the system. A watch with an anti-removal device (or notification system) solves that issue. She can go where she wants, see new things, roam the city, but there are certain places she might try to go that she knowns I would not approve of, and that watch will keep her from going there.
Look, using a watch, cell phone, car GPS, etc to track a kids whereabouts is not a leash, it's a lie detector. It's really no different from my parents calling my friends parents to ensure I really was where I said I'd be when I said I'd be there, except now i don't have to bother them, and I don't have to give my number to 50 other parents...
My kids not old enough to be out on her own yet, but be damned, i will have SOME way of making sure I know where she is. Not for fear she'll be abducted, but for proof she's not deceiving me, doing things she should not be, and with people she should not be. If she's claimed to be going to a movie, I'd expect I'd not find her across town at a night club having lied about her age to get in...
If the kids know they're being tracked, they don't do stupid shit. A cell phone they can forget somewhere, smarter kids even set up call forwarding to leave the GPS cell phone in one place and have call routed to their friend's non-tracked phone so they can still get out and about without the parent's knowledge. Cars are equally easy to leave somewhere.
A watch is a simple device, especially with removal detection. It's even better if it would have an accelerometer, as a watch that doesn't move for 10 minutes is either on a sleeping person, or not on a writs at all.... that would guarantee it had not been taken off. If it's stylish enough, it should not be an issue for the kids to wear (especially if they want me to buy them a car and trust them to drive around and see who they want to see, and have freedom in their lives).
The only thing I'd like to see with this device is a way to have the child notified (maybe a vibrate mechanism, or some on-screen indicator, but in a way noone else can notice) that when a parent does track the device manually, the kid is notified they're being actively tracked. Such an inclusion should keep parental interference to a minimum as truly obnoxious parents would be lectured by their kids.
Good parenting does NOT prevent peer pressure, or kids telling white lies and disobeying orders when they know they can get away with it.
If you want to call it a leash, fine. My parents had a leash on me equally the same, it just required a few phone calls... Having the GPS means i can not only call at the moment, but if I'm not able to, i still have log I can check later...
Apparently the seller clarified later today. Some form of hardware modification was made or something. Anyway, he WAS given this first one, this isn't it...
The process ITSELF is carbon nuetral, as in NO NEW CARBON IS GENERATED. That is the DEFINITION of Carbon Nuetral! If it SAVED carbon, it would be carbon NEGATIVE...
You can look at it as an improved efficiency of coal, but that's just a marketing spin from a different angle. We can still sequester to CO2, but then we'd need to drill for more oil, which would be carbon positive again. This is nuetral... Plus, then you fail to note that the coal can be replaced by the fuel generated in later itterations of the cycle, turning a 2 stage release into a full cyclic system and becoming 0 emission (which is a differnt term).
The new result, about 30 years from now when this is near 100% of our fuel supply, will be a 60% reduction in CO2 output, which is carbon negative, and the process itself if carbon nuetral, as opposed to burning platics, which comes from oil, which is carbon positive.
Your first link was about paper. Your second link shown a massive decline in china's recycling centers Your 3rd link refered to brittain, not the USA Your 4th link supported my argument on #5 and 7 plastics not being a source of oil and going to landfills.
None of your links provided detail;s on the percentage of material being sent to china out of the total sum cheated in the USA, so I don't care if a few tens of millions of tons go there and come back if it;s part of 20 billion tons... I need STATISTICS, not glory numbers...
To put it into perspective, the non-lethal microwave "pain" guns developed by the military run at approx 100,000 watts. A microwave communications signal that can reach 22.5 THOUSAND miles into space requires about 100 watts. Our point 2 point microwave system connecting our building to one about 2 miles from here runs on 7w. The above noted pain gun still, at more than 10,000 times the energy, does not cause DNA damage, it's still only exciting water molocules to create basic heat and pain sensation in nerves responding to it. After long exposure it can cause burns. (quite similar actually to standing near 1000x 100w light bulbs, that's a lot of heat!
A typical microwasve is non-directional, and in the range of 650-1800w. Directional microwaves, like those from a microwave anteana or sattelite, carry for thousands of miles (far less in atmosphere). Radial energy however, follows the law of cubes, and is reduced in intencity not by an order of magnitude, but by CUBE ROOT at each doubling of distance. A mere 3 feet from a microwave oven, the energy is less than 1w/cm.
I did not intend to argue his kitchen microwave could cause DNA shift in his garlic, only that his Microwave put mor low power, non-ionizing, radiation into the soil than the P2P microwave beam on the tower.....
And who's to say the sun does not also emit the same microwave band (since it emits nearly ALL bands, being a yellow star).
Might have been the first one ISSUED by Apple. I'm sure they ran a few hundred through the manufacturing process in testing of the line and systems, not to mention internal units distributed for various reasons and software testing.
Also, they likey made a few hundred, and had them all packed to ship out to retailers, and on a day a few days before they gave away the first one, but it was not necessarily the first one off the line...
Then again, we have a family friend with the very first car from Dodge of some particular model of a Hemi in some year (can't remember which, might be a Road Runner), and he has the documentation to confirm it was in fact #1, but it;s seriel number (VIN) actually indicates it was #26. About 20 went to demolition and saftey testing, and a couple of them came off the line with "defects". #26 was the first one sold, including that noone on the team, not even dodge, kept one of them prior to #26 for their own use. It reall is the first one (all 25 previous were destroyed or dissasembled before #26 was sold).
Well, actually, the microwave internet system is a Line-of-sight point to point beam, so the amount getting to his crops in the ground is actually a number approaching zero. The microwave in his KITCHEN probaly puts more energy into his field than that tower would, not to mention the dozens of sattelites beaming down microwave radiation as well.
Also, if the atmosphere was THAT good at shielding that radiation, then why would Microwave solar orbital power even be a consideration? If the atmosphere only blocks 30% of visible light, but far more microwave was blocked, then how would that system be a net gain?
Of course, Microwave radiation is not ionizing radiation anyway, so the argument is completely moot... Mutation from microwave exposure would require rediculous doses of concentrated radiation, far, far more than it would take to cook the garlic outright.
1) the recycleables we send them are for various reasons. A) we don't have a facility to reprocess ALL kinds of plastics, b) they have lower standards for what much of that is reused for, and a lot of it actually does not come back to us, c) we have a shrtage of landfill; not because we don;t want to build more, but because we actually do not have enough trash to fill them, they are actually HIGHLY profitable http://msl1.mit.edu/TPP12399/casenotes/recyc.pdf. My local recycling center processes over 80% of the plastics taken in into reusable products. Most of what is not recycled are type 5 and 7 plastics, which both have low petroleum content, and high chlorine content, and would be virtually useless to this plastic to oil process, and it is the bulk of this plastic that we send overseas, a lot of which is processed into plastic boards, insulation filler, and other substances that are made from shredded plastics. Type 1, 2, and 6 plastics are recylced right here, most of which is sent to our local bottling plants and never leaves the state (unless the newly filled bottle does).
Doty has a proven process, they just don't have a facility. This has been proven in lab scale system, and the mathematics and physics are all known variables. There's no guesswork, it;s not vaporware. They're in the works to have a facility operational in less than 3 years. They are working with multiple investors. This will happen.
It IS carbon nuetral. The CO2 input into the gas is from already expelled CO2. They are not using any stored source of CO2 in the process, so they are not introducing CO2 that would not already have been released. That is the scientific definition of carbon nuetral! The energy in the system is entirely from wind. No additional oil or energy is required, nor does it remove from the economy another product that reqwuires more oil.
If you turn plastic into oil, plastic that was previously recycled into other plastic, now you need to drill for MORE OIL, that is clearly not the same, and clearly not carbon nuetral. unl;ess you can also reduce the demand for plastic and close the loop, this is not a green process, in fact, based on the math it will actually increase the pace and demand for oil. Every piece of plastic we throw in a landfill DOES NOT GET BURNED, and thus releases no CO2. Though it;s bad for the oil supply industry, banning plastic recyling and ENFORCING disposal actually puts more oil back in the gound and could be considdered carbon negative, since oil dis a fixed comodity, and that meansd we'd run out sooner and burn less of it, forcing the adoption af an alternative sooner with lower CO2 counts in the air at that time.
Oil $ != Gas $. Refining costs are relatively fixed, transporttation costs are relatively fixed, storage costs are relativley fixed, RFG additives fluctuate a bit by season and by the price of oil but are predictable.
Of a gallon of gas, $0.25-0.45 is TAX! So, at $0.89, which i was paying in the late 90s, the GAS cost was only about half that, so lets say $0.50. Refining, pipelining, trucking, etc are overhead. Maybe the gasoline produced was sold to the local station, all costs removed, for $0.20-0.30 per gallon. Now we're paying $2.65. That's a 9x increase, not a 3X increase...
No, we have pleanty of uses for the recuycled plastic.
First, very little of it goes overseas, it's used here, in thousands of products.
next, to replace that plastic China (and our industries) would not get from recycling, we'd NEED TO DRILL FOR MORE OIL! If you;re only getting 70% of the oil back out, and it took energy to make the plastic in the first place, not to mention cleaning, compression, transportation, waste disposal, and more, how is it not better to simply make plastic into plastic, and oil into gas?
It's cheap energy, but then we have to replace the plastic, which costs MORE... This small PART of the process is cheap and produces energy, but you have to account for the ENTIRE process end to end, and that's where this fails.
If you want a REAL process, read http://www.dotyenergy.com./ RWGS/RFTS processing of CO2 waste from coal plats into usable fuels for $60-80/barrel, completely competitive with oil at about $3/gallon, clean, unlimited, and actually 100% carbon nuetral...
Wrong, all this plastic was going to be made into NEW plastics....
So instead, we'll have to pull MORE oil out of the ground to make THAT plastic, and since this process of converting plastic to oil expended some 20-30% of the stored energy, not to mention the neergy wasted making plastic to begin with, the oil you got as a result is worth less than the oil you could have otherwise started with.
We have NO shortage of things to do with plastic. All the plastic submnitted for recycling has a place to go, so their only input would be by diving into the trash that was NOT already sorted. If they're going to do that, have we accounted for the energy wasted doing so per ton colelcted from the unsorted trash? no. Transportation of the tons of plastic? no. Energy wasted cleaning, chopping, and compacting the plastic? no.
Make gasoline from CO2 (RFTS). A similar facility, powered by off-peak wind, can make gasoline 100% carbon nuetral by taking CO2 and CO waste gasses from coal plats and converting that into gas for $60-80/barrel, which in a year or two wioll be cheaper than oil. Check out http://www.dotyenergy.com./
I really don't care that this is possible (it is).
WTF are we taking oil, making it into plastic, then making it BACK into Oil? This is counter productive, and does NOT solve the issue that we're STILL TAKING OIL OUT OF THE GROUND! This is not only not carbon nuetral, it;s worse.
Make plastic into other plastics (recycle!) We need plastic either way. We need fuel either way. Until DotyEnergy has a hundred or so RWGS/RFTS plants built, and we can reliably stop using oil for fuel in mass quantity, we need to use the oil we have in the most efficient way. Wasting energy to turn waste plastic into fuel, which extracts less thah 100% of the stored energy and creates a MASS of toxic waste, is less efficint than turning oil into fuel directly. We have pleanty of things to do with the wasted plastic, including things like making insulation out of it further reducing our dependency on energy to heat/cool homes.
STOP THIS NONSENSE!
RFTS makes gasoline at between $60 and 80 a barel (depending on local markets), uses off-peak wind and wasted CO2 as inputs, and is completely carbon nuetral without using a drop of fossil fuels. These are NOT vaporware either, the process has been used since WWII. It's been refined far enough that it's competitive to oil, runs in our current cars, ships via our current infrastricuture, Doty is simply lacking investors and governemtninterest to buiold facilities (since big oil sees this as an actual threat, every alternative fuel grant in existance misses the mark and can not be used for this ACTUAL alternative, and since it;s not talked baout by the news either, investors have no clue, lets help them...). https://www.dotyenergy.com/
I agree. For anything interest bearing, anytime I have a billing dispute, for purchase records, and more, I print most of my bills anyway. I keep all copies in file for 5-7 years after the account is closed. (only 3 years for my utilities regular bills).
Many companies have tried to make me switch to electronic invoices. I only accept where they automatically send a complete invoice as a non-editable file that can be saved (and printed) seperate from e-mail (aka, not embeded HTML), i do not accept from companies that send me a "reminder" as I'll NEVER go there just to print the bill... and why should I at my time and my expense if I'm not getting discounted for the trouble?
CUT DOWN THE TREES, they're a 100% renewable resource, reduce CO2, and I don't even want to HEAR about landfill space (we have a national shortage of landfills with a multi-hundred year waiting list, and could use as much trash as we can generate that's non-toxic...)
Exactly. I'm under a 2 year contract, and have agreed to pay for the service, which INCLUDES a paper bill. If they're taking it away, not just for environmental reasons, but primarily to save the printing and stamp costs (about $0.56 for a typical mailer if their bill costs as much as our company to mail - we send about 5 billion health statements out anually...) that I expect at the least they'll cut my service costs by an amount appropriate vs their profit margin (if they're clearing 10%, I'd expect not a $0.56 reduction, but more like $0.50).
Charging me more to get a bill? not on your life.
Even for the companies for which I do NOT have a contract, like credit cards, utility bills, etc, my current billed rate included a hard copy. Take that away, and i want a discount. You're saving, I get nothing, does not compute, especially for inductires that have to get my written permission (credit companies), or that of a geverning body (utilities) to change my rates, annual fees, charges, etc.
I'm all for reduction of environmental waste, but trees are 100% renewable, and clean CO2 out of the air. I'm for cutting down MORE of them, not less (provide we replant, which actually, we do.)
the FTC gets one more reason why the merger of these two companies should be raising eyebrows... We were worried anouhg about anticompetitive issues that might bubble to the surface, here;'s one that DID.
Yup, certain. Parent's have a base plan, 450 minites, no text plan. Wife has no text plan either. Bill never shows charges from me sending her messages.
Yes, you need to know the provider, but that's actually nice since it prevents completely random "wrong number" messages in most cases.
Both tethering and MMS were promies "late summer" I'd expect it to follow shortly, as soon as their systems are updated to handle how to collect tethering usage vs regular data use from the iPhone,
They have not announced formal pricing, but a top level AT&T exec assured us it was not $55 "extra" for tethering, and that the total of the data plan and tethering combined would be "far less," and though an exact price would not be commented on he suggested it mioght even be lower than $55 total.
Current rumors are a $10-15 additional monthly charge, based on iPhone plans in Australia, Finland, and France which will all be that low (and free in Austria). Also, Verizon is apparently poised to offer a $14 a month limited tether plan (likely below 5GB cap).
Since 3.1 offers tethering data figures seperate from 3G data figures, its possible AT&T could offer a tiered option, where $10 gets a capped plan, and $25 ($55 total) gets unlimited, and that could be the source of the leaked figure
Crackberry data plans are $30 extra, if you already have the data plan, but it's capped, LOW. $60 is the unlimited tethering plan. This is what I was told recently by Verizon before I got a new iPhone 3GS from AT&T.
Sans tethering the iPhone plan is $30. With it it's reportedly $55, but there's a lot of speculation it will be lower...
I know tethering is available on AT&T, just not the iPhone. That's not the point, its the price.
I only bought an iPhone 2G at the time (which was when it was still a $400 device), because over a 2 year plan, it was cheaper than either Win Mobile or Blackberry, regardless of the carrier. (and if I wanted GPS, that was EXTRA). I bought a 3GS recently to replace my original iPhone and again, given I don't use unlimited minutes, the iPhone was still the cheapest over 2 years for my uses, and even cheaper once tethering was included (which I'm still on the fence if I'll activate since WiFi is prevalent here, and I rarely do anything with a PC outside of a coffee shop, McDonalds, office, or home).
btw, the BIS plans are $40 here, not 30. Must be a local market thing... basic tethering (5GB cap) is another $30, making the data plans $70.
nope, shown up in an app on the phne called "email" on her phone. On my parent's devices it shows up under "messages" in a subfolder for e-mail. No MMS message fees (or data charges) hit either of their accounts.
Same on my Sprint phone years ago, it didn't even support MMS...
Once the phones GET and e-mail, they can reply. My wife can't "create" an e-mail on her phone withotu a data plan, but for the $10 a month, she uses that instead of txt/mms and then she gets the mobile browser too.
Slashdot Mirror
permission is granted, trust is earned.
Once the child has unsupervised transportation, they'll need to be given permission to go complaces, prove that they do, and consistently perform before trust will be granted.
Trust has many levels.
First we'll trust you to behave when you're with friends, in public, on your own.
Later we'll trust you to ride alone with them.
We'll trust you to drive on your own place to place, later we may let you take sublings with you, and later still (if local law allows) you can drive with your friends once you've earned that trust.
We'll trust you to go to have a life on your own, but not until you've proven you actually do go where you say will all of the levels of checking and supervision be removed.
This is a process. I'm not saying the kids need this every waking day until they're off to college. I'm just saying until they prove they can be trusted with a car, friends, and a life on their own, monitoring still needs to occur.
When you have a pet, you use a leash until they obey commands, you let them off the leash in the yard to run free, but behind a fence, you walk down sidewalks and let the leash get longer and longer until they don;t pull at it anymore, eventually you don;t need the fense anymore and can trust the dog to still be there when you come home. It's steps in a process.
Are you saying that you're going to go from night to day with your kids, from supervised only handling to complete freedom with no steps in between, at only 15 years old? I think most psychologists would call that a skewed sense of personal freedom, and unsafe parenting.
The watch is an internal control. It does not prevent them from going places, it simply permits me to identify when I've been lied to about where they're going, which provides a means for accountability and traditional punishments (might be groundings, might be guilt, many different methods apply). The "watchful eye" trains them into thinking before they do things, which is an internal control. I'm not saying they can't go to parties and have fun, just only parties i know are supervised on some level, or clubs I am reasonably sure are safe, and relatively drug free.
You can let them have a life, and still be accountavble for their actions. I can't follow them places, i can't allways be sure of where they are. This is a somple device that provides a parent some accountability validation, while also doubling as a saftey system.
Ya know, there are a ton of bad parents out there who don't even take the time to care and check up at all. I'd prefer at least a computer check up on them when the parents don't. We can't make a bad parent into a better one, but we can give bad parents tools and bad kids limits. Also, how is the child to learn accountability if there's no follow up and validation of the trust?
the kids DO need to be on a leash, if there are no boundaries, then how are they to learn restrain, and to follow instructions.
I'm not talking about locking them down, I'm talking about LETTING them have a life, make their own decisions, not PESTER them about where and what they're doing, and simply trust them (but VALIDATE that trust). After a few years of them not making mistakes, and when they're mature enough to handle it, 17-18 years old, then we experiment with even less controlls.
SURE, lying is a part of life and growing up. They'll lie in lots of ways. However, they also need to learn punishment, accountability, and saccrifice, and if you can't find out when they lied, you can't punish them. I'm not talking about tracking their social activities. I'm talking about validating the truth of where they went.
As I said, if you set the device only to report manually, not automatically, and give the kids themselves a feedback mechanism to when when the monitoring occured, then the kids can push back on their own parents when the monitoring is being abused.
I'm also not suggesting kids don;t experiewnce life. Granted in most states (it;s insane, but the case) a parent can't allow their own kid to drink, so they GO off to college and get poisoned. I'm suggesting letting them HAVE the fun, enjoy youth, just put up some rules and hold them accountable. once they have a car, or their friends do, monitoring their activities becomes a difficult issue. I can't guarantee, even with the BEST parenting, that they'll be mature enough to handle being on their own unsupervised before it becomes socially unacceptible for me to keep them under supervised control. Once they getk into unsupervised situations, they may not be ready to handle it without some level of control. You can not take the leash off a chained dog, you have to make a longer leash first...
and, like I said, how is this different than making phone calls behind their back to check on them?
If your not at least VALIDATING the trust relationship works, then you are not parenting.
I'm not concerned with my kid getting raped or abducted (well, i am, but the chance is so rediculously remote, that worrying over it, and spending money to prevent it is honestly not worth it). What I AM worried about is being a good parent. I want my kids to see things, go places, have a life. However, there's only so much freedom you can give before they take more... Let them out, and they'll go places you don't want them to be (sneaking in underage into night clubs, wandering dangerous parts of town, hanging out a some kids house whose known to be "unsafe" for teenage girls to be around.
When you know your kid is supposed to be at someone's house, it;s easy enough to call and confirm (if you have been given the right numebr). When they're elsewhere about town, without a specific desitination, its near impossible to know what they're doing. A Watch with GPS lets me unobtrusevley have a constanbt reminder for my kid (and her friends), that they're alowed to do pretty much whatever they want, but certain things, and certain places are off limits, and with a GPS, doing those things are MUCH harder to accomplish, and I'll likely find out sooner or later I've been deceived.
I trust my kids only so much as I know what lies i told to my own parents. i was a much better kid than my sister, and rarely broke rules, but I DID break rules when i was fairly certain there were no concequences. An ordinary GPS, or even a cell phone with GPS, can easily be left places. Smart kids even forward the calls from their cell phpone to a friend's un-tracked device and leave their tracked cellphone somewhere to fool the system. A watch with an anti-removal device (or notification system) solves that issue. She can go where she wants, see new things, roam the city, but there are certain places she might try to go that she knowns I would not approve of, and that watch will keep her from going there.
Look, using a watch, cell phone, car GPS, etc to track a kids whereabouts is not a leash, it's a lie detector. It's really no different from my parents calling my friends parents to ensure I really was where I said I'd be when I said I'd be there, except now i don't have to bother them, and I don't have to give my number to 50 other parents...
My kids not old enough to be out on her own yet, but be damned, i will have SOME way of making sure I know where she is. Not for fear she'll be abducted, but for proof she's not deceiving me, doing things she should not be, and with people she should not be. If she's claimed to be going to a movie, I'd expect I'd not find her across town at a night club having lied about her age to get in...
If the kids know they're being tracked, they don't do stupid shit. A cell phone they can forget somewhere, smarter kids even set up call forwarding to leave the GPS cell phone in one place and have call routed to their friend's non-tracked phone so they can still get out and about without the parent's knowledge. Cars are equally easy to leave somewhere.
A watch is a simple device, especially with removal detection. It's even better if it would have an accelerometer, as a watch that doesn't move for 10 minutes is either on a sleeping person, or not on a writs at all.... that would guarantee it had not been taken off. If it's stylish enough, it should not be an issue for the kids to wear (especially if they want me to buy them a car and trust them to drive around and see who they want to see, and have freedom in their lives).
The only thing I'd like to see with this device is a way to have the child notified (maybe a vibrate mechanism, or some on-screen indicator, but in a way noone else can notice) that when a parent does track the device manually, the kid is notified they're being actively tracked. Such an inclusion should keep parental interference to a minimum as truly obnoxious parents would be lectured by their kids.
Good parenting does NOT prevent peer pressure, or kids telling white lies and disobeying orders when they know they can get away with it.
If you want to call it a leash, fine. My parents had a leash on me equally the same, it just required a few phone calls... Having the GPS means i can not only call at the moment, but if I'm not able to, i still have log I can check later...
Apparently the seller clarified later today. Some form of hardware modification was made or something. Anyway, he WAS given this first one, this isn't it...
The process ITSELF is carbon nuetral, as in NO NEW CARBON IS GENERATED. That is the DEFINITION of Carbon Nuetral! If it SAVED carbon, it would be carbon NEGATIVE...
You can look at it as an improved efficiency of coal, but that's just a marketing spin from a different angle. We can still sequester to CO2, but then we'd need to drill for more oil, which would be carbon positive again. This is nuetral... Plus, then you fail to note that the coal can be replaced by the fuel generated in later itterations of the cycle, turning a 2 stage release into a full cyclic system and becoming 0 emission (which is a differnt term).
The new result, about 30 years from now when this is near 100% of our fuel supply, will be a 60% reduction in CO2 output, which is carbon negative, and the process itself if carbon nuetral, as opposed to burning platics, which comes from oil, which is carbon positive.
Your first link was about paper.
Your second link shown a massive decline in china's recycling centers
Your 3rd link refered to brittain, not the USA
Your 4th link supported my argument on #5 and 7 plastics not being a source of oil and going to landfills.
None of your links provided detail;s on the percentage of material being sent to china out of the total sum cheated in the USA, so I don't care if a few tens of millions of tons go there and come back if it;s part of 20 billion tons... I need STATISTICS, not glory numbers...
To put it into perspective, the non-lethal microwave "pain" guns developed by the military run at approx 100,000 watts. A microwave communications signal that can reach 22.5 THOUSAND miles into space requires about 100 watts. Our point 2 point microwave system connecting our building to one about 2 miles from here runs on 7w. The above noted pain gun still, at more than 10,000 times the energy, does not cause DNA damage, it's still only exciting water molocules to create basic heat and pain sensation in nerves responding to it. After long exposure it can cause burns. (quite similar actually to standing near 1000x 100w light bulbs, that's a lot of heat!
A typical microwasve is non-directional, and in the range of 650-1800w. Directional microwaves, like those from a microwave anteana or sattelite, carry for thousands of miles (far less in atmosphere). Radial energy however, follows the law of cubes, and is reduced in intencity not by an order of magnitude, but by CUBE ROOT at each doubling of distance. A mere 3 feet from a microwave oven, the energy is less than 1w/cm.
I did not intend to argue his kitchen microwave could cause DNA shift in his garlic, only that his Microwave put mor low power, non-ionizing, radiation into the soil than the P2P microwave beam on the tower.....
And who's to say the sun does not also emit the same microwave band (since it emits nearly ALL bands, being a yellow star).
Might have been the first one ISSUED by Apple. I'm sure they ran a few hundred through the manufacturing process in testing of the line and systems, not to mention internal units distributed for various reasons and software testing.
Also, they likey made a few hundred, and had them all packed to ship out to retailers, and on a day a few days before they gave away the first one, but it was not necessarily the first one off the line...
Then again, we have a family friend with the very first car from Dodge of some particular model of a Hemi in some year (can't remember which, might be a Road Runner), and he has the documentation to confirm it was in fact #1, but it;s seriel number (VIN) actually indicates it was #26. About 20 went to demolition and saftey testing, and a couple of them came off the line with "defects". #26 was the first one sold, including that noone on the team, not even dodge, kept one of them prior to #26 for their own use. It reall is the first one (all 25 previous were destroyed or dissasembled before #26 was sold).
Well, actually, the microwave internet system is a Line-of-sight point to point beam, so the amount getting to his crops in the ground is actually a number approaching zero. The microwave in his KITCHEN probaly puts more energy into his field than that tower would, not to mention the dozens of sattelites beaming down microwave radiation as well.
Also, if the atmosphere was THAT good at shielding that radiation, then why would Microwave solar orbital power even be a consideration? If the atmosphere only blocks 30% of visible light, but far more microwave was blocked, then how would that system be a net gain?
Of course, Microwave radiation is not ionizing radiation anyway, so the argument is completely moot... Mutation from microwave exposure would require rediculous doses of concentrated radiation, far, far more than it would take to cook the garlic outright.
1) the recycleables we send them are for various reasons. A) we don't have a facility to reprocess ALL kinds of plastics, b) they have lower standards for what much of that is reused for, and a lot of it actually does not come back to us, c) we have a shrtage of landfill; not because we don;t want to build more, but because we actually do not have enough trash to fill them, they are actually HIGHLY profitable http://msl1.mit.edu/TPP12399/casenotes/recyc.pdf.
My local recycling center processes over 80% of the plastics taken in into reusable products. Most of what is not recycled are type 5 and 7 plastics, which both have low petroleum content, and high chlorine content, and would be virtually useless to this plastic to oil process, and it is the bulk of this plastic that we send overseas, a lot of which is processed into plastic boards, insulation filler, and other substances that are made from shredded plastics. Type 1, 2, and 6 plastics are recylced right here, most of which is sent to our local bottling plants and never leaves the state (unless the newly filled bottle does).
Doty has a proven process, they just don't have a facility. This has been proven in lab scale system, and the mathematics and physics are all known variables. There's no guesswork, it;s not vaporware. They're in the works to have a facility operational in less than 3 years. They are working with multiple investors. This will happen.
It IS carbon nuetral. The CO2 input into the gas is from already expelled CO2. They are not using any stored source of CO2 in the process, so they are not introducing CO2 that would not already have been released. That is the scientific definition of carbon nuetral! The energy in the system is entirely from wind. No additional oil or energy is required, nor does it remove from the economy another product that reqwuires more oil.
If you turn plastic into oil, plastic that was previously recycled into other plastic, now you need to drill for MORE OIL, that is clearly not the same, and clearly not carbon nuetral. unl;ess you can also reduce the demand for plastic and close the loop, this is not a green process, in fact, based on the math it will actually increase the pace and demand for oil. Every piece of plastic we throw in a landfill DOES NOT GET BURNED, and thus releases no CO2. Though it;s bad for the oil supply industry, banning plastic recyling and ENFORCING disposal actually puts more oil back in the gound and could be considdered carbon negative, since oil dis a fixed comodity, and that meansd we'd run out sooner and burn less of it, forcing the adoption af an alternative sooner with lower CO2 counts in the air at that time.
You assume oil does not have fixed costs...
Oil $ != Gas $. Refining costs are relatively fixed, transporttation costs are relatively fixed, storage costs are relativley fixed, RFG additives fluctuate a bit by season and by the price of oil but are predictable.
Of a gallon of gas, $0.25-0.45 is TAX! So, at $0.89, which i was paying in the late 90s, the GAS cost was only about half that, so lets say $0.50. Refining, pipelining, trucking, etc are overhead. Maybe the gasoline produced was sold to the local station, all costs removed, for $0.20-0.30 per gallon. Now we're paying $2.65. That's a 9x increase, not a 3X increase...
No, we have pleanty of uses for the recuycled plastic.
First, very little of it goes overseas, it's used here, in thousands of products.
next, to replace that plastic China (and our industries) would not get from recycling, we'd NEED TO DRILL FOR MORE OIL! If you;re only getting 70% of the oil back out, and it took energy to make the plastic in the first place, not to mention cleaning, compression, transportation, waste disposal, and more, how is it not better to simply make plastic into plastic, and oil into gas?
It's cheap energy, but then we have to replace the plastic, which costs MORE... This small PART of the process is cheap and produces energy, but you have to account for the ENTIRE process end to end, and that's where this fails.
If you want a REAL process, read http://www.dotyenergy.com./ RWGS/RFTS processing of CO2 waste from coal plats into usable fuels for $60-80/barrel, completely competitive with oil at about $3/gallon, clean, unlimited, and actually 100% carbon nuetral...
Wrong, all this plastic was going to be made into NEW plastics....
So instead, we'll have to pull MORE oil out of the ground to make THAT plastic, and since this process of converting plastic to oil expended some 20-30% of the stored energy, not to mention the neergy wasted making plastic to begin with, the oil you got as a result is worth less than the oil you could have otherwise started with.
We have NO shortage of things to do with plastic. All the plastic submnitted for recycling has a place to go, so their only input would be by diving into the trash that was NOT already sorted. If they're going to do that, have we accounted for the energy wasted doing so per ton colelcted from the unsorted trash? no. Transportation of the tons of plastic? no. Energy wasted cleaning, chopping, and compacting the plastic? no.
Make gasoline from CO2 (RFTS). A similar facility, powered by off-peak wind, can make gasoline 100% carbon nuetral by taking CO2 and CO waste gasses from coal plats and converting that into gas for $60-80/barrel, which in a year or two wioll be cheaper than oil. Check out http://www.dotyenergy.com./
I really don't care that this is possible (it is).
WTF are we taking oil, making it into plastic, then making it BACK into Oil? This is counter productive, and does NOT solve the issue that we're STILL TAKING OIL OUT OF THE GROUND! This is not only not carbon nuetral, it;s worse.
Make plastic into other plastics (recycle!) We need plastic either way. We need fuel either way. Until DotyEnergy has a hundred or so RWGS/RFTS plants built, and we can reliably stop using oil for fuel in mass quantity, we need to use the oil we have in the most efficient way. Wasting energy to turn waste plastic into fuel, which extracts less thah 100% of the stored energy and creates a MASS of toxic waste, is less efficint than turning oil into fuel directly. We have pleanty of things to do with the wasted plastic, including things like making insulation out of it further reducing our dependency on energy to heat/cool homes.
STOP THIS NONSENSE!
RFTS makes gasoline at between $60 and 80 a barel (depending on local markets), uses off-peak wind and wasted CO2 as inputs, and is completely carbon nuetral without using a drop of fossil fuels. These are NOT vaporware either, the process has been used since WWII. It's been refined far enough that it's competitive to oil, runs in our current cars, ships via our current infrastricuture, Doty is simply lacking investors and governemtninterest to buiold facilities (since big oil sees this as an actual threat, every alternative fuel grant in existance misses the mark and can not be used for this ACTUAL alternative, and since it;s not talked baout by the news either, investors have no clue, lets help them...). https://www.dotyenergy.com/
I agree. For anything interest bearing, anytime I have a billing dispute, for purchase records, and more, I print most of my bills anyway. I keep all copies in file for 5-7 years after the account is closed. (only 3 years for my utilities regular bills).
Many companies have tried to make me switch to electronic invoices. I only accept where they automatically send a complete invoice as a non-editable file that can be saved (and printed) seperate from e-mail (aka, not embeded HTML), i do not accept from companies that send me a "reminder" as I'll NEVER go there just to print the bill... and why should I at my time and my expense if I'm not getting discounted for the trouble?
CUT DOWN THE TREES, they're a 100% renewable resource, reduce CO2, and I don't even want to HEAR about landfill space (we have a national shortage of landfills with a multi-hundred year waiting list, and could use as much trash as we can generate that's non-toxic...)
Exactly. I'm under a 2 year contract, and have agreed to pay for the service, which INCLUDES a paper bill. If they're taking it away, not just for environmental reasons, but primarily to save the printing and stamp costs (about $0.56 for a typical mailer if their bill costs as much as our company to mail - we send about 5 billion health statements out anually...) that I expect at the least they'll cut my service costs by an amount appropriate vs their profit margin (if they're clearing 10%, I'd expect not a $0.56 reduction, but more like $0.50).
Charging me more to get a bill? not on your life.
Even for the companies for which I do NOT have a contract, like credit cards, utility bills, etc, my current billed rate included a hard copy. Take that away, and i want a discount. You're saving, I get nothing, does not compute, especially for inductires that have to get my written permission (credit companies), or that of a geverning body (utilities) to change my rates, annual fees, charges, etc.
I'm all for reduction of environmental waste, but trees are 100% renewable, and clean CO2 out of the air. I'm for cutting down MORE of them, not less (provide we replant, which actually, we do.)
the FTC gets one more reason why the merger of these two companies should be raising eyebrows... We were worried anouhg about anticompetitive issues that might bubble to the surface, here;'s one that DID.
Yup, certain. Parent's have a base plan, 450 minites, no text plan. Wife has no text plan either. Bill never shows charges from me sending her messages.
Yes, you need to know the provider, but that's actually nice since it prevents completely random "wrong number" messages in most cases.
Both tethering and MMS were promies "late summer" I'd expect it to follow shortly, as soon as their systems are updated to handle how to collect tethering usage vs regular data use from the iPhone,
They have not announced formal pricing, but a top level AT&T exec assured us it was not $55 "extra" for tethering, and that the total of the data plan and tethering combined would be "far less," and though an exact price would not be commented on he suggested it mioght even be lower than $55 total.
Current rumors are a $10-15 additional monthly charge, based on iPhone plans in Australia, Finland, and France which will all be that low (and free in Austria). Also, Verizon is apparently poised to offer a $14 a month limited tether plan (likely below 5GB cap).
Since 3.1 offers tethering data figures seperate from 3G data figures, its possible AT&T could offer a tiered option, where $10 gets a capped plan, and $25 ($55 total) gets unlimited, and that could be the source of the leaked figure
Crackberry data plans are $30 extra, if you already have the data plan, but it's capped, LOW. $60 is the unlimited tethering plan. This is what I was told recently by Verizon before I got a new iPhone 3GS from AT&T.
Sans tethering the iPhone plan is $30. With it it's reportedly $55, but there's a lot of speculation it will be lower...
I know tethering is available on AT&T, just not the iPhone. That's not the point, its the price.
I only bought an iPhone 2G at the time (which was when it was still a $400 device), because over a 2 year plan, it was cheaper than either Win Mobile or Blackberry, regardless of the carrier. (and if I wanted GPS, that was EXTRA). I bought a 3GS recently to replace my original iPhone and again, given I don't use unlimited minutes, the iPhone was still the cheapest over 2 years for my uses, and even cheaper once tethering was included (which I'm still on the fence if I'll activate since WiFi is prevalent here, and I rarely do anything with a PC outside of a coffee shop, McDonalds, office, or home).
btw, the BIS plans are $40 here, not 30. Must be a local market thing... basic tethering (5GB cap) is another $30, making the data plans $70.
nope, shown up in an app on the phne called "email" on her phone. On my parent's devices it shows up under "messages" in a subfolder for e-mail. No MMS message fees (or data charges) hit either of their accounts.
Same on my Sprint phone years ago, it didn't even support MMS...
Once the phones GET and e-mail, they can reply. My wife can't "create" an e-mail on her phone withotu a data plan, but for the $10 a month, she uses that instead of txt/mms and then she gets the mobile browser too.