The Economist article mentions that other studies have determined that alcohol is the most common factor in murders in Australia, Finland and Sweden.
This would not surprise me.
Australia, Finland and Sweden don't have significant problems with gangs or ethnic violence, however we do have very big drinking cultures. Drinking lowers inhibitions and makes it easy for someone predisposed towards violence to lose their head. Please note this is no excuse, in fact an Australian court is likely to be less lenient on you for killing whilst drunk.
A fine? And if the business is willing to pay it as the cost of doing business?
.
Hey, looks like you didn't read the article and don't know what you're on about.
First off, it's not a law. It's a legally binding agreement between an employers federation and a workers organisation. So it only covers the signatories, not all of France.
Secondly, its a private agreement. I know I mentioned it twice, but it's such a big point it's worth mentioning twice.
Thirdly, the onus to ignore work emails is placed on the employee. the boss may still send them, but if an employee reads them the employee is in violation of the agreement. The only restriction on the employer is that they cannot pressure an employee to do anything outside of work hours.
Yes, they are. Unrestrained legalism isn't the virtue that you think it is. It is the means of tyranny uses to creep into our world. But you're okay with tyranny, as long as it is your kind of tyranny, and that is a pity.
No, they aren't. Lack of labour laws have always lead to abuses in all historical examples. The abuses of employees lead to unions becoming so powerful.
Besides this, France didn't enact a law. The headline was inaccurate to make it look worse than it actually is. Libertarians and angry conservatives who hate their employees love to do this. In reality it was a private agreement but that actually sounds capitalistic and nothing to get angry about. You might want to try reading the article before launching on a badly thought out tirade.
What happened was that an employer's federation and workers organisation signed a legally binding agreement that employee's must ignore work emails after 6PM. So your boss can still send emails, the employee is in violation of the agreement by answering or even reading it.
Above this the agreement only applies to the signatories, not all French employees.
without googling, isn't that "The Sweet Life" or something like that?
I don't know any french or Italian, but it's close enough to Spanish.
Thats because French, Italian and Spanish have closer ties to the root language, Latin than English does.
English is really a mongrel language. English doesn't just borrow words from other languages, it chases them down alleys, beats them down and rifles through their pockets for new vocabulary.
If I'm willing to carry a mobile device outside of business hours, what bureaucrat's business is it to tell me I can't?
Exactly! If you choose to accept the responsibility of the job, extending to after-hours work, then you should have the right to do so unmolested. However, a business should not *require* this of anyone who is not willing to do it. If the job will need 24/7 support, then the business should be up front about that when hiring for the position.
The fundamental problem is that it's another Race to the Bottom. Once Company A demands workers do work above and beyond what fits in a workday, then Company B will feel pressed to to likewise to maintain competitiveness. Followed by Company C, and so forth until it becomes the new normal.
Once upon a time in the USA many localities had laws that forbade businesses to be open on Sundays. That went by the board because it's not just companies that compete - the work-on-Sunday towns touted their lack of restriction when wooing new business just like the South still does with regard to labor unions and right-to-work.
Those are two completely different scenarios.
The first is about employers screwing over employees.
The second is about regulation external to employers and employees.
I live in a city that did not permit Sunday trading until last year. 20-fucking-13 and we're not some backwater town in Bumfuck, Louisiana, this is a state capital and one of the largest cities in Australia. You have no idea how shit it is not to be able to go to the shop on a Sunday, out of bread, well fuck you because the politicians say a baker or supermarket is not allowed to open on a Sunday. Deregulated trading hours is overwhelmingly a good thing. Now stores aren't forced to open on a Sunday but they used to be forced to close on a Sunday. Now this is fixed.
That being said, I committed./ heresy and read the article. This isn't a law in France that applies to all companies in France, it's an agreement between an employers federation and a workers union that employees must ignore work emails (this doesn't mean the boss cant send them) after 6PM. It is legally binding but only to the signatories of the pact.
False. Auto insurance makes no guarantee to pay car repairs for people who cannot afford auto insurance. There is not even a sliding scale. Auto insurance only pays for those who pay in and the amount you pay in is determined by their statistical assessment of how much they are likely to have to pay out for you personally.
Also, before auto insurance was made mandatory, it was also a lot cheaper. I pay more per month now than I paid per year when I was 16 years old, and the car I had when I was 16 was 8 years old, versus the 13 year old car I have been driving. I have had 0 accidents in my entire lifetime, 0 hail damage, 0 payouts of any kind. When I was 16, insurance wasn't mandatory, but now it is.
Not quite, Auto insurance is hedge against damage costs. This cost can be divided into two sections, damage to your car and damage to everything that isn't your car. This is why most countries have two levels of insurance, cover for anything you hit or cover for anything you hit and your car. Obviously the former is cheaper. So if you hit a car that isn't insured, because the accident is your fault your insurer will pay out. Before I travelled to the US, I only thought it was your health insurance system that was fucked up, when I got there I learned your auto insurance system is equally as screwed.
Insurance is a means of distributing risk, the people who pay insurance and don't claim pay for the claims that are paid out (as well as operating costs and dividends for shareholders). The more people who claim, the more premiums/tariffs will rise. This is why your auto insurance is increasing in price, there are a lot more claims with much higher payouts and this must be covered by all premiums. Insurance is quite socialist when you learn about it, well apart from the people running the scheme living high on the hog from it... wait, that's exactly how communism works in reality.
Now the insurers I use in Australia are not for profit. Meaning they don't have shareholders taking a slice of my premiums for themselves. Also, we have universal health care provided by the government which provides a minimum standard of care at the lowest cost. The lowest priced health insurance I can get in the US is US$2,500 per year. I pay for top hospital cover in Australia (the highest you can get) for A$850, the minimum cover is A$350. As Medicare levy (1.5%) is a separate line item on my tax and I earn A$70,000, the amount I pay is 1050 p/a. So for A$1900 (US$1790) I get full hospital cover with physio and major dental (basic dental is included in all plans) for 700 less than the cheapest plan for me in the US.
Universal health care done right leads to cheaper and better care for everyone. Australia is far from the only example. What the US needs to do is take it out of the hands of the politicians and hire someone who's actually worked for a universal health care provider. Even the UK's NHS for all it's flaws is so far superior to the US's system it's not funny.
Only problem is that many MDs I have met are just as muck quacks.
Maybe you need to move, my experiences are the complete opposite.
I've been to see doctors in several countries (Australia, Thailand, Singapore) and all of them were extremely good, asked a lot of questions, sent me away for tests when needed, arranged appointments to discuss test results, follow up consultations and the lot.
The problem a lot of doctors have is that their patients lie out of their arses at them. When a patient does that the doctor cant accurately gauge what's wrong with them.
People love to blame doctors, but 99 times out of 100, bad calls are made because the patient gave bad information.
The only reason why this design is even seen as useful is because of the very poor ergonomic design of autobodies that has become popular the last few years. I have a 2002 Tacoma, I can see all four corners of the vehicle. With a glance I can tell within six inches of exactly where each corner of the vehicle is.
The car maker in question is Land Rover. Land Rover dont make small cars. In fact, here is the Land Rover Discovery 4, the latest Disco. You wont have problems seeing the bonnet on that. However you will have a problem with seeing in front of it.
My wife has a new Audi, and until recently I was driving a fairly new Corolla supplied by my employer. Hate parking those things, you can't see the corners of the vehicle so can only guess as to how far away I am from the next vehicle.
This means you need to spend more time in your vehicle learning about it. It's not hard to find out where the corners of a modern car are. In fact if it takes you a while to learn this, driving is not your forte.
If you have trouble figuring out where the front of your car is, it must be nigh upon imposisble for you to figure out where the back is.
The curved bonnet gives me a better view of the road in front of me, my major gripe with cars are the ones that have massive blindspots on the B or C pillars.
What do you call "Alternative Medicine" that's actually supported via good evidence?
Medicine.
There's nothing controversial about the idea that certain herbs and natural substances, diet changes, etc. can treat illness. A doctor that doesn't use all the evidence-based approaches at his disposal is simply a bad doctor. A doctor that does use evidence-supported natural-based remedies as appropriate isn't practicing "alternative medicine", he/she is simply being a better doctor.
This.
A doctor using non pharmaceutical or therapeutic treatments isn't practising alternative medicine, he's practising medicine. A lot of minor aliments can be cured with a change in lifestyle.
The problem isn't with a doctor recommending a patient eat high vitamin C foods for a vitamin deficiency. The problem is with a quack with no medical knowledge what so ever recommending herbal tea for a symptom they have no idea what the cause of is. They dont test to see what the cause is so they end up working to treat the symptom not the cause and almost never follow up. The worst part is if the alternative medicine treats the symptom but not the cause, the problem is likely to get worse.
But won't telling the patient "the facts" diminish the placebo effect?
In the case of Homoeopathy, probably not.
Placebo's are effective because the patients believe it. People who believe in Homoeopathy over proper medicine will likely write off the report as biased and wrong on the basis that they disagree with it. If countering bad beliefs with facts were that easy, most religions would be have all but died out, racism would be a thing of the past and people would stop speeding. Sadly people who have invested a lot in their beliefs are extremely reluctant to give them up, so they'll rather attack the source of the "fact" rather than re-evaluate their beliefs.
In fact, to someone who believes in Homoeopathy, the cognitive dissonance created by this report will end up bolstering their beliefs and improve the placebo effect because admitting the pain/health deterioration is a result of homoeopathy is unconscionable to them.
Homeopathy is pure bullshit beyond any redemption. It's physically impossible.
Homeopathy != nonindustrial medicine
This
Some forms of herbal medicines work (kind of) because they use the same source ingredients as proper pharmaceuticals except they haven't been tested as rigorously or have the dosage controlled. The big risk with herbal and other alternative medicines that have some effectiveness is that the "provider" rarely knows how to diagnose the real problem, let alone which medicine to actually prescribe and almost never follows up with tests. If a doctor in Australia recommends something non-medicinal/therapeutic, chances are he doesn't need to see you again and the problem will be taken care of by time or a minor lifestyle change.
However Homoeopathy is the belief that what made you sick in the first place will fix you if it's diluted and taken. That is utter bullshit.
It's like telling a life long smoker who's got lung cancer that their cancer will be cured by smoking 1/10th of a cigarette per day.
This is a political topic, whether you want it to be or not. It's politics that allows this sort of crap to persist in the US because people should be allowed to do whatever they want, up to and including completely ripping off their fellow man.
You see, in Australia there are no restrictions on practising or using homoeopathy, however you are no longer permitted to call it any form of medicine or claim it has any medicinal value. We haven't stopped the practice of homoeopathy, we've stopped the practice of homoeopaths lying and claiming that homoeopathy works.
It's still as legal here as any other kooky and ineffective practice like crystal healing, prayer or using a Mac.
This is a political topic in Australia too, but there is nothing to stop people from using homoeopaths as they can do so on the basis of their beliefs, the report just says it doesn't work in reality. This does not matter to the people who believe in Homoeopathy as they've never been dissuaded by evidence and will continue to spend money on cures that have no medical value.
The range means you can fire it from beyond the horizon, so radar can never spot the firing. The speed means you have no way in hell of dodging it or shooting it down. And the kinetic energy of it means no armor will block it, short of armoring the ship to the point it can't move.
Just take aim at the power plant or armory of the other ship and you get a guaranteed kill. I think the key advantage is the inability to be dodged or shot down like a shell, but the range of a missile. Also, I imagine detecting a missile launch is easier then detecting a railgun firing.
If it's over the horizon, as you say then the projectile must be on a ballistic trajectory in which case it's going to have some inaccuracy. Not exactly a weapon you can use for pinpoint accuracy. You'll be trying just to hit the ship, not a precision strike against the armoury to power plant. There's a reason we eschewed big guns for guided missiles, a guided missile can be directed to hit a vulnerable point and has a significantly higher chance of hitting the target.
Given the fact that the only big military ships left on the ocean are traditional aircraft carriers and these will get a lot smaller as drones take place of manned strike craft, its unlikely this is going to be useful as an anti-ship weapon. It might be useful to bombard land targets, but you'll need more than one to be more effective than traditional or rocket artillery which will be a hell of a lot more portable.
As far as detection goes, the firing event isn't the most detectable thing, it's the ship itself. If you've got an over the horizon radar system (like a radar equipped plane) then you'll detect the ship before it fires. If you haven't, firing from over the horizon wont be that detectable (both missiles and ballistic projectiles fired from outside detection range can be traced back to their point of origin, however the missile can change course, so you can fire it at a right angle to the target to prevent it being traced back).
My question is, what is the power requirements and how big is the actual canon. I wonder this because most navies in the world operate mostly frigates with smallish guns and guided missiles. Could this be fitted to something like the Australian ANZAC class frigate in lieu of the vertical launch system or 54 mm autocannon? What is the recharge time and will it require an extra generator?
So one could say that the UK had that "brilliant" idea of introducing a secound unit of the same name and dimensions but different sizes:/
or you could say that the British had the brilliant idea of replacing several measurements called "gallon" with a single measurement called gallon... Which is what actually happened.
Prior to that, a gallon had different measurements depending on where you were or what you were measuring.
Also, the Smart "automatic" a)isn't really; it's an "automated manual" with a clutch, and b) is absolutely terrible compared to either a torque-converter automatic or a manually-operated clutch.
An "automated manual" is still an automatic gearbox as it's a robotised clutch controlled by a computer, gear changes are still computerised (even if directed by the driver, you're asking the computer to change gear for you). Same as Dual Clutch Tranny's, they're automatics as well. A manual has a direct link between the gear shifter and the gear selector, torque converters, automated manuals and DCT's have the shifters connected to a computer (they send an electronic signal these days, drive-by-wire) and the computer decides when to change gear making them automatic transmissions.
Finally, I consider all automatics to be terrible, your best auto is barely compatible to the worst manual.
Just to be clear - it's the same as 6.5 L/100 km rigth?
Who's brilliant idea was it to have two slightly different gallons, or to use a different gallon than the one already invented?
Well you see the Imperial system was first defined in the Weights and Measures Act of 1824, some 50 years after the US had their revolution, so it's a misnomer to say that the US is still on the Imperial system, the fact of the matter is they aren't even that advanced, they're still on a pre-imperial system.
20 some years ago when toyota and honda started becoming popular, a few of us in highschool would pick one end of those cars up and turn them sideways in thier psrking spots. We never caused any damage though. We sometimes would knock on the owners door and tell them a strong gust of wind did it.
Yes,
In America you never really had the smaller cars like the Mini (The Morris/Austin marque, not that crappy BMW) or the Hillman Imp. these cars weight between 600 and 800 KG, so four schoolkids could lift it and place it between two trees for shits and giggles. Of course we never had the problem with Xenophobia that the Americans did.
What caused the decline of the big three was bad management, not necessarily GREED.
Which is a lesson GM is still yet to learn.
The Holden (GM) and Ford factories in Australia are shutting down because they didn't bother looking at the market and adjusting their products. People are buying an entry level Merc or BMW (which are very overpriced here) over a top of the line Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore (which costs less). Did GM change to produce more luxury cars rather than overpowered boats, nope, they just kept their hand out for more (Australian) government money and when it stopped, they closed the factories (announced the closure for 2017). GM are doing this in Australia today, they'll be doing it in the US tomorrow... The day after that they'll be selling the individual brands off in a vain effort to avoid being put into administration.
Yeah, EA is a gaming company, that survives by taking money from people in exchange for shitty, overhyped products
As opposed to financial companies that survive by taking money from people in exchange for ruining the global economy.
The award was for the worst company in America, not the most evil. By the sounds of it, this bank you're talking about has been quite successful in its goals.
It's a learn-as-you-go sort of deal. Don't start off with the end boss and you'll be okay. I would be pants-pissingly terrified in some of the situations described here, but some of the situations I've been in would make you at least a little queasy, I wager.
This.
I was riding a motorbike in Thailand, now McAffee points out that corruption is a finely honed system in Latin/South America. South East Asia have refined it to a weapons grade level.
I was pulled over into a police checkpoint, being albino I'm obviously not Thai so the officer knows he can score a few bucks out of the Farang (westerner). Basically he said to me:
"You are not wearing helmet".
Which was a complete lie, it was on my head at the time, but in SE Asia pointing out a lie no matter how obvious will get you into even more trouble than doing the same in South America due to the face issue. So basically I replied,
"Sorry Officer, how forgetful of me"
And pulled out 200 Baht (about $6.00 at the time). He waved me off, content with his takings.
You've got to remember that the police are using intimidation, but what they really want is just a few bucks. Hurting you takes time, effort, the cop might break a sweat so the cop will only do this if you make trouble for him. This is your advantage in negotiations to get away with paying as little as possible. I probably could have gotten away with 100 Baht in the above example but I simply wasn't in the mood to play games with a Thai copper (mostly due to a hangover). McAffee is 100% spot on when he says you should take the heat off by being friendly, cracking a joke or giving the officer a cool drink, however ultimately all the copper wants is some cash.
A lot of people from western nations will consider this kind of "corruption" to be an affront, but in reality it's just how things work in SE Asia. You pay little or no tax (as my good friend and business owner in the Philipines says, you pay them enough so they leave you alone) but you have to pay indirect taxes to the police and political establishment to keep your business operating smoothly. OTOH the upside of this corruption is that if you want your property to be secure, you just pay the cops and they make sure it's left alone (if they don't keep things secure, people will stop paying them for protection so they take a very vested interest and people who cross the police or their protected properties tend to end up in a bad way).
Slashdot Mirror
The Economist article mentions that other studies have determined that alcohol is the most common factor in murders in Australia, Finland and Sweden.
This would not surprise me.
Australia, Finland and Sweden don't have significant problems with gangs or ethnic violence, however we do have very big drinking cultures. Drinking lowers inhibitions and makes it easy for someone predisposed towards violence to lose their head. Please note this is no excuse, in fact an Australian court is likely to be less lenient on you for killing whilst drunk.
man on LGBT violence appears more prevalent because it always makes the evening news...because the victim always looks Faaaabulous
Erm.. fixed that for you.
A fine? And if the business is willing to pay it as the cost of doing business?
.
Hey, looks like you didn't read the article and don't know what you're on about.
First off, it's not a law. It's a legally binding agreement between an employers federation and a workers organisation. So it only covers the signatories, not all of France.
Secondly, its a private agreement. I know I mentioned it twice, but it's such a big point it's worth mentioning twice.
Thirdly, the onus to ignore work emails is placed on the employee. the boss may still send them, but if an employee reads them the employee is in violation of the agreement. The only restriction on the employer is that they cannot pressure an employee to do anything outside of work hours.
Here's the article
Hey, but the actual problem sounds like employers and employees getting along... That doesn't make for good news for angry conservatives.
Yes, they are. Unrestrained legalism isn't the virtue that you think it is. It is the means of tyranny uses to creep into our world. But you're okay with tyranny, as long as it is your kind of tyranny, and that is a pity.
No, they aren't. Lack of labour laws have always lead to abuses in all historical examples. The abuses of employees lead to unions becoming so powerful.
Besides this, France didn't enact a law. The headline was inaccurate to make it look worse than it actually is. Libertarians and angry conservatives who hate their employees love to do this. In reality it was a private agreement but that actually sounds capitalistic and nothing to get angry about. You might want to try reading the article before launching on a badly thought out tirade.
What happened was that an employer's federation and workers organisation signed a legally binding agreement that employee's must ignore work emails after 6PM. So your boss can still send emails, the employee is in violation of the agreement by answering or even reading it.
Above this the agreement only applies to the signatories, not all French employees.
without googling, isn't that "The Sweet Life" or something like that?
I don't know any french or Italian, but it's close enough to Spanish.
Thats because French, Italian and Spanish have closer ties to the root language, Latin than English does.
English is really a mongrel language. English doesn't just borrow words from other languages, it chases them down alleys, beats them down and rifles through their pockets for new vocabulary.
If I'm willing to carry a mobile device outside of business hours, what bureaucrat's business is it to tell me I can't?
Exactly! If you choose to accept the responsibility of the job, extending to after-hours work, then you should have the right to do so unmolested. However, a business should not *require* this of anyone who is not willing to do it. If the job will need 24/7 support, then the business should be up front about that when hiring for the position.
The fundamental problem is that it's another Race to the Bottom. Once Company A demands workers do work above and beyond what fits in a workday, then Company B will feel pressed to to likewise to maintain competitiveness. Followed by Company C, and so forth until it becomes the new normal.
Once upon a time in the USA many localities had laws that forbade businesses to be open on Sundays. That went by the board because it's not just companies that compete - the work-on-Sunday towns touted their lack of restriction when wooing new business just like the South still does with regard to labor unions and right-to-work.
Those are two completely different scenarios.
./ heresy and read the article. This isn't a law in France that applies to all companies in France, it's an agreement between an employers federation and a workers union that employees must ignore work emails (this doesn't mean the boss cant send them) after 6PM. It is legally binding but only to the signatories of the pact.
The first is about employers screwing over employees.
The second is about regulation external to employers and employees.
I live in a city that did not permit Sunday trading until last year. 20-fucking-13 and we're not some backwater town in Bumfuck, Louisiana, this is a state capital and one of the largest cities in Australia. You have no idea how shit it is not to be able to go to the shop on a Sunday, out of bread, well fuck you because the politicians say a baker or supermarket is not allowed to open on a Sunday. Deregulated trading hours is overwhelmingly a good thing. Now stores aren't forced to open on a Sunday but they used to be forced to close on a Sunday. Now this is fixed.
That being said, I committed
Also, this is EXACTLY how car insurance works.
False. Auto insurance makes no guarantee to pay car repairs for people who cannot afford auto insurance. There is not even a sliding scale. Auto insurance only pays for those who pay in and the amount you pay in is determined by their statistical assessment of how much they are likely to have to pay out for you personally.
Also, before auto insurance was made mandatory, it was also a lot cheaper. I pay more per month now than I paid per year when I was 16 years old, and the car I had when I was 16 was 8 years old, versus the 13 year old car I have been driving. I have had 0 accidents in my entire lifetime, 0 hail damage, 0 payouts of any kind. When I was 16, insurance wasn't mandatory, but now it is.
Not quite, Auto insurance is hedge against damage costs. This cost can be divided into two sections, damage to your car and damage to everything that isn't your car. This is why most countries have two levels of insurance, cover for anything you hit or cover for anything you hit and your car. Obviously the former is cheaper. So if you hit a car that isn't insured, because the accident is your fault your insurer will pay out. Before I travelled to the US, I only thought it was your health insurance system that was fucked up, when I got there I learned your auto insurance system is equally as screwed.
Insurance is a means of distributing risk, the people who pay insurance and don't claim pay for the claims that are paid out (as well as operating costs and dividends for shareholders). The more people who claim, the more premiums/tariffs will rise. This is why your auto insurance is increasing in price, there are a lot more claims with much higher payouts and this must be covered by all premiums. Insurance is quite socialist when you learn about it, well apart from the people running the scheme living high on the hog from it... wait, that's exactly how communism works in reality.
Now the insurers I use in Australia are not for profit. Meaning they don't have shareholders taking a slice of my premiums for themselves. Also, we have universal health care provided by the government which provides a minimum standard of care at the lowest cost. The lowest priced health insurance I can get in the US is US$2,500 per year. I pay for top hospital cover in Australia (the highest you can get) for A$850, the minimum cover is A$350. As Medicare levy (1.5%) is a separate line item on my tax and I earn A$70,000, the amount I pay is 1050 p/a. So for A$1900 (US$1790) I get full hospital cover with physio and major dental (basic dental is included in all plans) for 700 less than the cheapest plan for me in the US.
Universal health care done right leads to cheaper and better care for everyone. Australia is far from the only example. What the US needs to do is take it out of the hands of the politicians and hire someone who's actually worked for a universal health care provider. Even the UK's NHS for all it's flaws is so far superior to the US's system it's not funny.
Maybe you need to move, my experiences are the complete opposite.
I've been to see doctors in several countries (Australia, Thailand, Singapore) and all of them were extremely good, asked a lot of questions, sent me away for tests when needed, arranged appointments to discuss test results, follow up consultations and the lot.
The problem a lot of doctors have is that their patients lie out of their arses at them. When a patient does that the doctor cant accurately gauge what's wrong with them.
People love to blame doctors, but 99 times out of 100, bad calls are made because the patient gave bad information.
The only reason why this design is even seen as useful is because of the very poor ergonomic design of autobodies that has become popular the last few years. I have a 2002 Tacoma, I can see all four corners of the vehicle. With a glance I can tell within six inches of exactly where each corner of the vehicle is.
The car maker in question is Land Rover. Land Rover dont make small cars. In fact, here is the Land Rover Discovery 4, the latest Disco. You wont have problems seeing the bonnet on that. However you will have a problem with seeing in front of it.
My wife has a new Audi, and until recently I was driving a fairly new Corolla supplied by my employer. Hate parking those things, you can't see the corners of the vehicle so can only guess as to how far away I am from the next vehicle.
This means you need to spend more time in your vehicle learning about it. It's not hard to find out where the corners of a modern car are. In fact if it takes you a while to learn this, driving is not your forte.
If you have trouble figuring out where the front of your car is, it must be nigh upon imposisble for you to figure out where the back is.
The curved bonnet gives me a better view of the road in front of me, my major gripe with cars are the ones that have massive blindspots on the B or C pillars.
Haven't you heard the joke?
What do you call "Alternative Medicine" that's actually supported via good evidence?
Medicine.
There's nothing controversial about the idea that certain herbs and natural substances, diet changes, etc. can treat illness. A doctor that doesn't use all the evidence-based approaches at his disposal is simply a bad doctor. A doctor that does use evidence-supported natural-based remedies as appropriate isn't practicing "alternative medicine", he/she is simply being a better doctor.
This.
A doctor using non pharmaceutical or therapeutic treatments isn't practising alternative medicine, he's practising medicine. A lot of minor aliments can be cured with a change in lifestyle.
The problem isn't with a doctor recommending a patient eat high vitamin C foods for a vitamin deficiency. The problem is with a quack with no medical knowledge what so ever recommending herbal tea for a symptom they have no idea what the cause of is. They dont test to see what the cause is so they end up working to treat the symptom not the cause and almost never follow up. The worst part is if the alternative medicine treats the symptom but not the cause, the problem is likely to get worse.
Surely I can pay for homeopathic medicine by simply rubbing money on the seller?
More like I can pay with a 5 cent coin and a large handful of rust.
But won't telling the patient "the facts" diminish the placebo effect?
In the case of Homoeopathy, probably not.
Placebo's are effective because the patients believe it. People who believe in Homoeopathy over proper medicine will likely write off the report as biased and wrong on the basis that they disagree with it. If countering bad beliefs with facts were that easy, most religions would be have all but died out, racism would be a thing of the past and people would stop speeding. Sadly people who have invested a lot in their beliefs are extremely reluctant to give them up, so they'll rather attack the source of the "fact" rather than re-evaluate their beliefs.
In fact, to someone who believes in Homoeopathy, the cognitive dissonance created by this report will end up bolstering their beliefs and improve the placebo effect because admitting the pain/health deterioration is a result of homoeopathy is unconscionable to them.
Homeopathy is pure bullshit beyond any redemption. It's physically impossible.
Homeopathy != nonindustrial medicine
This
Some forms of herbal medicines work (kind of) because they use the same source ingredients as proper pharmaceuticals except they haven't been tested as rigorously or have the dosage controlled. The big risk with herbal and other alternative medicines that have some effectiveness is that the "provider" rarely knows how to diagnose the real problem, let alone which medicine to actually prescribe and almost never follows up with tests. If a doctor in Australia recommends something non-medicinal/therapeutic, chances are he doesn't need to see you again and the problem will be taken care of by time or a minor lifestyle change.
However Homoeopathy is the belief that what made you sick in the first place will fix you if it's diluted and taken. That is utter bullshit.
It's like telling a life long smoker who's got lung cancer that their cancer will be cured by smoking 1/10th of a cigarette per day.
This is a political topic, whether you want it to be or not. It's politics that allows this sort of crap to persist in the US because people should be allowed to do whatever they want, up to and including completely ripping off their fellow man.
You see, in Australia there are no restrictions on practising or using homoeopathy, however you are no longer permitted to call it any form of medicine or claim it has any medicinal value. We haven't stopped the practice of homoeopathy, we've stopped the practice of homoeopaths lying and claiming that homoeopathy works.
It's still as legal here as any other kooky and ineffective practice like crystal healing, prayer or using a Mac.
This is a political topic in Australia too, but there is nothing to stop people from using homoeopaths as they can do so on the basis of their beliefs, the report just says it doesn't work in reality. This does not matter to the people who believe in Homoeopathy as they've never been dissuaded by evidence and will continue to spend money on cures that have no medical value.
The range means you can fire it from beyond the horizon, so radar can never spot the firing. The speed means you have no way in hell of dodging it or shooting it down. And the kinetic energy of it means no armor will block it, short of armoring the ship to the point it can't move. Just take aim at the power plant or armory of the other ship and you get a guaranteed kill. I think the key advantage is the inability to be dodged or shot down like a shell, but the range of a missile. Also, I imagine detecting a missile launch is easier then detecting a railgun firing.
If it's over the horizon, as you say then the projectile must be on a ballistic trajectory in which case it's going to have some inaccuracy. Not exactly a weapon you can use for pinpoint accuracy. You'll be trying just to hit the ship, not a precision strike against the armoury to power plant. There's a reason we eschewed big guns for guided missiles, a guided missile can be directed to hit a vulnerable point and has a significantly higher chance of hitting the target.
Given the fact that the only big military ships left on the ocean are traditional aircraft carriers and these will get a lot smaller as drones take place of manned strike craft, its unlikely this is going to be useful as an anti-ship weapon. It might be useful to bombard land targets, but you'll need more than one to be more effective than traditional or rocket artillery which will be a hell of a lot more portable.
As far as detection goes, the firing event isn't the most detectable thing, it's the ship itself. If you've got an over the horizon radar system (like a radar equipped plane) then you'll detect the ship before it fires. If you haven't, firing from over the horizon wont be that detectable (both missiles and ballistic projectiles fired from outside detection range can be traced back to their point of origin, however the missile can change course, so you can fire it at a right angle to the target to prevent it being traced back).
My question is, what is the power requirements and how big is the actual canon. I wonder this because most navies in the world operate mostly frigates with smallish guns and guided missiles. Could this be fitted to something like the Australian ANZAC class frigate in lieu of the vertical launch system or 54 mm autocannon? What is the recharge time and will it require an extra generator?
So one could say that the UK had that "brilliant" idea of introducing a secound unit of the same name and dimensions but different sizes :/
or you could say that the British had the brilliant idea of replacing several measurements called "gallon" with a single measurement called gallon... Which is what actually happened.
Prior to that, a gallon had different measurements depending on where you were or what you were measuring.
Torture an animal long enough and it will bite you. Humans are no different, we're just better at it.
The biting or the torturing?
Yes.
You can't master a game, you get pissed.
Big surprise!
It's a lot like bad drivers getting road rage more often.
Other reports coming out from the Obvious Research Institute are believed to include findings that indicate water may be wet.
Stop comparing to Civics; they're overpriced too.
Also, the Smart "automatic" a)isn't really; it's an "automated manual" with a clutch, and b) is absolutely terrible compared to either a torque-converter automatic or a manually-operated clutch.
An "automated manual" is still an automatic gearbox as it's a robotised clutch controlled by a computer, gear changes are still computerised (even if directed by the driver, you're asking the computer to change gear for you). Same as Dual Clutch Tranny's, they're automatics as well. A manual has a direct link between the gear shifter and the gear selector, torque converters, automated manuals and DCT's have the shifters connected to a computer (they send an electronic signal these days, drive-by-wire) and the computer decides when to change gear making them automatic transmissions.
Finally, I consider all automatics to be terrible, your best auto is barely compatible to the worst manual.
Just to be clear - it's the same as 6.5 L/100 km rigth?
Who's brilliant idea was it to have two slightly different gallons, or to use a different gallon than the one already invented?
Well you see the Imperial system was first defined in the Weights and Measures Act of 1824, some 50 years after the US had their revolution, so it's a misnomer to say that the US is still on the Imperial system, the fact of the matter is they aren't even that advanced, they're still on a pre-imperial system.
20 some years ago when toyota and honda started becoming popular, a few of us in highschool would pick one end of those cars up and turn them sideways in thier psrking spots. We never caused any damage though. We sometimes would knock on the owners door and tell them a strong gust of wind did it.
Yes,
In America you never really had the smaller cars like the Mini (The Morris/Austin marque, not that crappy BMW) or the Hillman Imp. these cars weight between 600 and 800 KG, so four schoolkids could lift it and place it between two trees for shits and giggles. Of course we never had the problem with Xenophobia that the Americans did.
What caused the decline of the big three was bad management, not necessarily GREED.
Which is a lesson GM is still yet to learn.
The Holden (GM) and Ford factories in Australia are shutting down because they didn't bother looking at the market and adjusting their products. People are buying an entry level Merc or BMW (which are very overpriced here) over a top of the line Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore (which costs less). Did GM change to produce more luxury cars rather than overpowered boats, nope, they just kept their hand out for more (Australian) government money and when it stopped, they closed the factories (announced the closure for 2017). GM are doing this in Australia today, they'll be doing it in the US tomorrow... The day after that they'll be selling the individual brands off in a vain effort to avoid being put into administration.
Yeah, EA is a gaming company, that survives by taking money from people in exchange for shitty, overhyped products
As opposed to financial companies that survive by taking money from people in exchange for ruining the global economy.
The award was for the worst company in America, not the most evil. By the sounds of it, this bank you're talking about has been quite successful in its goals.
It can still get you killed!
A 53KW Mazda 121 can get you killed. Cars aren't safe, attentive and disciplined drivers make them safe.
It's a learn-as-you-go sort of deal. Don't start off with the end boss and you'll be okay. I would be pants-pissingly terrified in some of the situations described here, but some of the situations I've been in would make you at least a little queasy, I wager.
This. I was riding a motorbike in Thailand, now McAffee points out that corruption is a finely honed system in Latin/South America. South East Asia have refined it to a weapons grade level.
I was pulled over into a police checkpoint, being albino I'm obviously not Thai so the officer knows he can score a few bucks out of the Farang (westerner). Basically he said to me:
"You are not wearing helmet".
Which was a complete lie, it was on my head at the time, but in SE Asia pointing out a lie no matter how obvious will get you into even more trouble than doing the same in South America due to the face issue. So basically I replied,
"Sorry Officer, how forgetful of me"
And pulled out 200 Baht (about $6.00 at the time). He waved me off, content with his takings.
You've got to remember that the police are using intimidation, but what they really want is just a few bucks. Hurting you takes time, effort, the cop might break a sweat so the cop will only do this if you make trouble for him. This is your advantage in negotiations to get away with paying as little as possible. I probably could have gotten away with 100 Baht in the above example but I simply wasn't in the mood to play games with a Thai copper (mostly due to a hangover). McAffee is 100% spot on when he says you should take the heat off by being friendly, cracking a joke or giving the officer a cool drink, however ultimately all the copper wants is some cash.
A lot of people from western nations will consider this kind of "corruption" to be an affront, but in reality it's just how things work in SE Asia. You pay little or no tax (as my good friend and business owner in the Philipines says, you pay them enough so they leave you alone) but you have to pay indirect taxes to the police and political establishment to keep your business operating smoothly. OTOH the upside of this corruption is that if you want your property to be secure, you just pay the cops and they make sure it's left alone (if they don't keep things secure, people will stop paying them for protection so they take a very vested interest and people who cross the police or their protected properties tend to end up in a bad way).