Then you step up the efforts until the hitlers leave. Sooner or later, no one's left who's willing to work for the TSA. What are they gonna do then? Hire fairies and unicorns?
is not only piling on to what's probably one of the most stressful, and unsatisfying jobs in the country
And this here is precisely why people should continue to give the TSA agents as much shit as they can. Stressful, sucky job? Hey, guess what, there are other places you could have gone for a better work environment.
Keep making their lives hard and they'll leave. Keep making enough of them leave and word will get around that it's the worst possible job you can take, which will (in theory) lead to fewer people taking such jobs. Keep it up long enough and there just won't be enough people to fill those agents' shoes, and they'll have no choice but to dissolve.
The politicians aren't going to listen to us willingly, so we have to force them to listen. The ballot box is useless here, so we have to rely on the only other avenue we have that could have some impact, and that's the TSA agents who are making peoples' lives miserable by way of humiliation.
Or just include a conventional lithium or lead-acid battery that's big enough to store, oh, 10% of the energy present in the primary "battery" (though to me, if you have to keep adding water, it sounds like it acts more like a one-time-use fuel cell).
Capacitors are fine and all, but I think you underestimate how much energy will be stored, or for what length of time. Why throw away all that recovered energy at the end of the day?
If you read the fine article (yeah, right), it states that it actually is Peter Cullen. I presume he sounds like he does because he's not actually trying to do the low Optimus Prime voice we all know so well.
Comments like this (serious or not) make me wonder just how many people out there truly believe we never landed on the moon, sent those probes to mars, etc.
So let's see.. over four years we can already expect a gradual increase of 60 to 80 cents a gallon anyway, due to routine price hikes. You're proposing adding another 80 cents over four years to that figure. At the low end, that's $1.40 a gallon extra, or about $5.15 a gallon or thereabouts (using the current price of about $3.75/gal in my area).
Plus, for your plan to work, one needs to consider replacements and upgrades to the 254 million vehicles already on the road, to make them run on something other than gasoline (such as your proposed LPG or CNG), along with the infrastructure needed to make them go, the cost to recycle or dispose of the old vehicles or parts, and whatever else I'm forgetting.
Who's gonna pay for all that? Sounds like you want to put that burden onto the American public directly, on top of normal day-to-day living expenses. Um.... No, and this isn't what we need anyway (most of your proposals are still fossil-fuel-based).
What we need is strict price controls on gasoline *right now*. Get us back to something we can call "reasonable", say $2.00 a gallon. Concurrent with that, we need to dump every TAX dollar we can spare into shifting our infrastructure over to butanol or some other renewable, drop-in replacement for gasoline, so that our existing cars, both old and recent, can keep on rolling. If it's renewable, it will probably end up being very cheap eventually, and since oil companies will still want to sell what they have, they'll have to lower their prices to compete, so price controls would be more a safety catch than anything else.
We already have the technology to do this starting tomorrow if we really wanted to, and it would be cheaper than your proposal for all parties concerned. We just have to find a way around the out-of-control greed in this country. The government could spend ten times what they'd need to and still come out ahead if it wasn't busy killing people out in some desert in the middle of nowhere.
Let the private sector focus on alternative-fueled cars, electrics, etc. They'll figure that stuff out soon enough (I'm looking at you, Tesla).
"As such, I think it is responsible for us as a society to come up with the technology we will need to replace fossil fuels in the future. That does NOT mean funding electric car companies or windmill manufacturers."
Then what *does* it mean? What do you plan to use to move our cars around, if not electricty? Surely you can't expect the world to continue using liquid fuels, clean or not, renewable or not, forever?
That third door probably refers to a hatchback, not a third passenger door, since he's referring to the agility one needs to climb into the back seat, presumably via the gap between the front seats and the door frame.
Yes - human beings who have a choice whether to work for the FBI or not. If you make the choice to work for an abusive organization, you deserve every last bit of negativity that comes in your direction. The same holds true whether its the FBI, a collection agency, or some shady telemarketing firm. Don't want to be the recipient of such negativity? Find a job with a more reputable employer.
Your responsibility to be a decent, honest, upstanding human being and citizen of a country NEVER ENDS.
Not to mention the extremely limited number of erase cycles, though this can be improved by exchanging erase cycles for data retention time and/or storage density. At least you get per-symbol erase granularity though!
Not to mention that the whole point of grid-tied solar (et.al) is that you sell the power back to the electric co when you aren't using it - which includes times when your solar panels are cranking out the watts while you're at work.
Oh for the love of all that is sacred - must EVERY last second of time in a person's life be equated to money? Can't you just count unscheduled, spent time as wasted TIME and not lost revenue? Must every last second of your life be spent eating, sleeping, or making money!?/me loses a little more hope for the future of humanity.
And [...] ask if it's really worthwhile [...to...] inefficiently turn [the "food for humans"] into vroom vroom juice instead of people eating it
My answer: Yes.
Why? Because it's CORN, which is about as unhealthy a food as one could ask people to eat, short of noshing on bacon grease or something. Better to refine it into and burn it as fuel and find healthier ways to feed the population.
Although you're correct when you say the glasses aren't hacked, your definition of that word is slightly wrong - just enough so to change the meaning of the word "hacked".
Hacking is manipulating a system to do something it was NOT intended to do.
Moving "not" two words to the left as I did changes it from "we focused on what our system can and cannot do" to "we only focused on what it *can* do."
Plus, you're misreading the summary title: it is the glasses that are, themselves, allegedly performing the hack, not the wearer/designer/producer thereof.
Pirating IS a form of protest if you declare it as such, not that it necessarily does any good.
As for your car analogy, yours is flawed. To use your example, the more correct way to put it would be where you buy a car with OnStar, where OnStar is a feature you happen to like, but you don't like their theoretical ability to track you. So, you decide to hack[*] the car's systems to selectively disable anything that could be used to track you without compromising your ability to actually USE the rest of the service. But to do so would require changes that would put you in violation of the car's warranty, or OnStar's service agreement or acceptable usage policy (I'm sure they have one), or some obscure law.
It becomes a question of which is more ethically right: protecting your rights by any reasonable means, or only being able to use the goods you purchased according to some ridiculous, perhaps unconscionable set of rules?
[*] and I mean that in the proper sense of the word.
I had the same surgery (Roux-en-Y) about 8 months ago and I can vouch for how difficult a path it can be.
That said, I have dropped around 100 pounds so far since then, and it just keeps falling off as long as I don't get stupid. I don't react nearly as severely as she does to the wrong foods ("dumping syndrome"), but I still react, so I also had to learn what not to eat, where my limits are, etc.
On the one hand, it's not super hard to eat too much, but I feel like crap if I do. On the other hand, it's fairly easy to get the protein I need, provided I have enough of the appropriate foods on hand in the first place (eating right is comparatively expensive).
As for "nasty" protein shakes, she just needs to switch to a better brand. I use one I got at wally world called "Body Fortress" [*], peanut butter/chocolate flavor. Add two scoops of that to 6-8 ice cubes, a cup of milk, one or two spoonfuls of peanut butter, and blend until smooth. The result is quite enjoyable, takes forever to drink, it's thick, and keeps me sated for hours, sometimes all day. I'd prefer solid food of course, but when I have to resort to liquids, this is the best combination I've come up with.
It bothers me somewhat that I'm still able to eat more than I should, but it's far easier than it ever was to simply eat less, and what I do eat doesn't get nearly as much of a chance to absorb as it used to.
Plus, losing that much weight makes it possible for me to get up and around more - I've given up using my wheelchair around the house, for example.
THIS is why weight loss surgery works.
[*] I am not associated with this product. I just happen to buy it because it's the least expensive of the options available to me here, and it is palatable when mixed as above.
And if building, planning, etc. in a voxel sandbox game is the way to go, why not go with a free (as in beer and as in freedom) alternative like Minetest?
Slashdot Mirror
Then you step up the efforts until the hitlers leave. Sooner or later, no one's left who's willing to work for the TSA. What are they gonna do then? Hire fairies and unicorns?
is not only piling on to what's probably one of the most stressful, and unsatisfying jobs in the country
And this here is precisely why people should continue to give the TSA agents as much shit as they can. Stressful, sucky job? Hey, guess what, there are other places you could have gone for a better work environment.
Keep making their lives hard and they'll leave. Keep making enough of them leave and word will get around that it's the worst possible job you can take, which will (in theory) lead to fewer people taking such jobs. Keep it up long enough and there just won't be enough people to fill those agents' shoes, and they'll have no choice but to dissolve.
The politicians aren't going to listen to us willingly, so we have to force them to listen. The ballot box is useless here, so we have to rely on the only other avenue we have that could have some impact, and that's the TSA agents who are making peoples' lives miserable by way of humiliation.
Or just include a conventional lithium or lead-acid battery that's big enough to store, oh, 10% of the energy present in the primary "battery" (though to me, if you have to keep adding water, it sounds like it acts more like a one-time-use fuel cell).
Capacitors are fine and all, but I think you underestimate how much energy will be stored, or for what length of time. Why throw away all that recovered energy at the end of the day?
If you read the fine article (yeah, right), it states that it actually is Peter Cullen. I presume he sounds like he does because he's not actually trying to do the low Optimus Prime voice we all know so well.
Comments like this (serious or not) make me wonder just how many people out there truly believe we never landed on the moon, sent those probes to mars, etc.
So let's see.. over four years we can already expect a gradual increase of 60 to 80 cents a gallon anyway, due to routine price hikes. You're proposing adding another 80 cents over four years to that figure. At the low end, that's $1.40 a gallon extra, or about $5.15 a gallon or thereabouts (using the current price of about $3.75/gal in my area).
Plus, for your plan to work, one needs to consider replacements and upgrades to the 254 million vehicles already on the road, to make them run on something other than gasoline (such as your proposed LPG or CNG), along with the infrastructure needed to make them go, the cost to recycle or dispose of the old vehicles or parts, and whatever else I'm forgetting.
Who's gonna pay for all that? Sounds like you want to put that burden onto the American public directly, on top of normal day-to-day living expenses. Um.... No, and this isn't what we need anyway (most of your proposals are still fossil-fuel-based).
What we need is strict price controls on gasoline *right now*. Get us back to something we can call "reasonable", say $2.00 a gallon. Concurrent with that, we need to dump every TAX dollar we can spare into shifting our infrastructure over to butanol or some other renewable, drop-in replacement for gasoline, so that our existing cars, both old and recent, can keep on rolling. If it's renewable, it will probably end up being very cheap eventually, and since oil companies will still want to sell what they have, they'll have to lower their prices to compete, so price controls would be more a safety catch than anything else.
We already have the technology to do this starting tomorrow if we really wanted to, and it would be cheaper than your proposal for all parties concerned. We just have to find a way around the out-of-control greed in this country. The government could spend ten times what they'd need to and still come out ahead if it wasn't busy killing people out in some desert in the middle of nowhere.
Let the private sector focus on alternative-fueled cars, electrics, etc. They'll figure that stuff out soon enough (I'm looking at you, Tesla).
"As such, I think it is responsible for us as a society to come up with the technology we will need to replace fossil fuels in the future. That does NOT mean funding electric car companies or windmill manufacturers."
Then what *does* it mean? What do you plan to use to move our cars around, if not electricty? Surely you can't expect the world to continue using liquid fuels, clean or not, renewable or not, forever?
That third door probably refers to a hatchback, not a third passenger door, since he's referring to the agility one needs to climb into the back seat, presumably via the gap between the front seats and the door frame.
Oh, if only I had modpoints and the score could exceed +5. You deserve to be modded infinitely high.
Yes - human beings who have a choice whether to work for the FBI or not. If you make the choice to work for an abusive organization, you deserve every last bit of negativity that comes in your direction. The same holds true whether its the FBI, a collection agency, or some shady telemarketing firm. Don't want to be the recipient of such negativity? Find a job with a more reputable employer.
Your responsibility to be a decent, honest, upstanding human being and citizen of a country NEVER ENDS.
Not to mention the extremely limited number of erase cycles, though this can be improved by exchanging erase cycles for data retention time and/or storage density. At least you get per-symbol erase granularity though!
Because the advertizer is worth even less?
Not to mention that the whole point of grid-tied solar (et.al) is that you sell the power back to the electric co when you aren't using it - which includes times when your solar panels are cranking out the watts while you're at work.
$100k? My husband and I would be ecstatic to have that kind of income - we get by "just okay" on less than $25k/yr.
Oh for the love of all that is sacred - must EVERY last second of time in a person's life be equated to money? Can't you just count unscheduled, spent time as wasted TIME and not lost revenue? Must every last second of your life be spent eating, sleeping, or making money!? /me loses a little more hope for the future of humanity.
Sure it would be hard, but at least we're not talking about doing that while blindfolded and riding a horse.
My answer: Yes.
Why? Because it's CORN, which is about as unhealthy a food as one could ask people to eat, short of noshing on bacon grease or something. Better to refine it into and burn it as fuel and find healthier ways to feed the population.
Although you're correct when you say the glasses aren't hacked, your definition of that word is slightly wrong - just enough so to change the meaning of the word "hacked".
Hacking is manipulating a system to do something it was NOT intended to do.
Moving "not" two words to the left as I did changes it from "we focused on what our system can and cannot do" to "we only focused on what it *can* do."
Plus, you're misreading the summary title: it is the glasses that are, themselves, allegedly performing the hack, not the wearer/designer/producer thereof.
I would guess the plate read "SN DREK", since the Yiddish for "eat" is "essen".
apropos: http://xkcd.com/1105/
What is this thing you call an "ad"? Is it contagious?
Pirating IS a form of protest if you declare it as such, not that it necessarily does any good.
As for your car analogy, yours is flawed. To use your example, the more correct way to put it would be where you buy a car with OnStar, where OnStar is a feature you happen to like, but you don't like their theoretical ability to track you. So, you decide to hack[*] the car's systems to selectively disable anything that could be used to track you without compromising your ability to actually USE the rest of the service. But to do so would require changes that would put you in violation of the car's warranty, or OnStar's service agreement or acceptable usage policy (I'm sure they have one), or some obscure law.
It becomes a question of which is more ethically right: protecting your rights by any reasonable means, or only being able to use the goods you purchased according to some ridiculous, perhaps unconscionable set of rules?
[*] and I mean that in the proper sense of the word.
I had the same surgery (Roux-en-Y) about 8 months ago and I can vouch for how difficult a path it can be.
That said, I have dropped around 100 pounds so far since then, and it just keeps falling off as long as I don't get stupid. I don't react nearly as severely as she does to the wrong foods ("dumping syndrome"), but I still react, so I also had to learn what not to eat, where my limits are, etc.
On the one hand, it's not super hard to eat too much, but I feel like crap if I do. On the other hand, it's fairly easy to get the protein I need, provided I have enough of the appropriate foods on hand in the first place (eating right is comparatively expensive).
As for "nasty" protein shakes, she just needs to switch to a better brand. I use one I got at wally world called "Body Fortress" [*], peanut butter/chocolate flavor. Add two scoops of that to 6-8 ice cubes, a cup of milk, one or two spoonfuls of peanut butter, and blend until smooth. The result is quite enjoyable, takes forever to drink, it's thick, and keeps me sated for hours, sometimes all day. I'd prefer solid food of course, but when I have to resort to liquids, this is the best combination I've come up with.
It bothers me somewhat that I'm still able to eat more than I should, but it's far easier than it ever was to simply eat less, and what I do eat doesn't get nearly as much of a chance to absorb as it used to.
Plus, losing that much weight makes it possible for me to get up and around more - I've given up using my wheelchair around the house, for example.
THIS is why weight loss surgery works.
[*] I am not associated with this product. I just happen to buy it because it's the least expensive of the options available to me here, and it is palatable when mixed as above.
make that http://minetest.net.. stupid slashdot pointed the link wrong.
And if building, planning, etc. in a voxel sandbox game is the way to go, why not go with a free (as in beer and as in freedom) alternative like Minetest?
(and yes, I contribute to that project)