I have said this for years! Imagine you've been on a very long cross-country drive. You come across a small town. What are your priorities? Get gas, Get food, go to the bathroom and dump your trash. A basic pit stop.

Well this is exactly the case with interstellar travel. It isn't easy! You're limited by the speed of light. To get from one system to the next takes a long time. And when they get here they're gonna do the same thing... To get "gas" they're gonna drain of the sun of all its hydrogen. Food... Us. All of it. All the plants, all the animals all the humans... It's a very, very long trip to the next system; gonna need more than a snack to tie them over. The only thing they're gonna leave behind is their trash.

We do not want to meet an alien race because all it is going to mean to them is a pit stop.

Some insight here... The rules I explained is for the passing of measures and motions. Not for the election of representatives. Motions and measures can only be passed or defeated. Either in favor of against. Only two choices. In these cases majority and 2/3 are well defined and useful.

What you complain of is the problems associated with plurality voting systems such as used to elect representatives in the United States. The voting population typically misunderstands and believes that their votes are governed by (or should be by) a majority. However, the reality is that the bylaws of these bodies have adopted policies by which a vote is won by plurality; not majority. Thus it is valid for Texas (or anywhere else in the US) to be governed by somebody who failed to attract the majority of votes.

2/3 votes are defined as passing if the number of votes in favor is greater than or equal to twice the number of votes against. Period. No need to dick around with fractions at all. Take the number votes against and double it. Is that greater than the number of votes in favor? Yes. it is defeated. No. It passes. So double 70... 140. That is greater than 136. So defeated. In the original vote however... 64 against doubled is 128 which is less than 139 and so it passes. I'm not certain why they needed a recount at all?

Other things that people screw up: It is the count of votes in favor and against that matter. It has nothing to do with the number of representatives. So the fact that at least three members didn't vote the first time doesn't matter. Also, there is never a need to call for or count "those abstaining." The fact that they did not vote in favor of or for against implies abstention. Abstention votes have no bearing on a motion. Lastly, as long as a quorum is reached (minimum number of representatives present is met) then it doesn't matter how many vote... You could have a quorum of 150 people and if only two vote in favor and 1 votes against while the remaining 147 have decided not to vote or have fallen asleep... the motion passes.

This damn topic comes up all the time... Faster driving equals {more deaths, higher fuel consumption, etc}. And it's crap. Let's see... Even if given our current conditions deaths were reduced by slower average speeds the proposition of the article would not necessarily save lives.

Fine, build tighter setbacks... That means bringing the buildings closer to the road. This would lead to people living, playing and existing closer to the road. This means people stepping off their front porch and WHAM! Basically, were is the study that shows that bringing the buildings closer doesn't increase deaths more than is decreased by the reduction of velocity?

Do you REALLY want to decrease traffic fatalities? Fine.. Kill drunk drivers. No you don't get a second chance. Next, require driver road tests for licensing... EVERY year. Not just a "sign here on the dotted line"... but a god-damn TEST! Do it in a simulator. Simulate stalling an engine. Simulate a blown tire. Simulate a skid on ice. Simulate a 5 yr old jumping in front of you. Measure reaction times. Basically do for drivers what airline pilots have to go through. You don't have to handle everything 100% but you do need to achieve some sort of success to pass. No this is not insane. Pilots have to do it and the probability of them harming someone is far less than the operator of a motor vehicle. Thus we should actually require more of a motor vehicle operator. This would either weed out EVERYONE who is a poor driver or force them to educate and train themselves well enough to be acceptable drivers.

Yes, it is partially a function of government vs private.

There is no reward, profit or other motivation to cause a government to be efficient. In fact, the opposite is true. A government which fails to be efficient is rewarded with an increase in size in order to cope with its assigned workload. Being wasteful is rewarded by being able to tax/collect/acquire more resources.

Private sector on the other hand is required by definition to be self-sufficient. They cannot acquire more resources without paying for it. They must trade one resource for another. In order to grow they must add value to the resources they already have (which can be argued a trade of effort, time or creativity) or become more efficient with what they already have.

Thus, it IS a function of government vs private. Your example of multinationals or large companies only serves to show that some private operations also fail to be efficient. If they were government entities then they would prove to be even less efficient.

And this theory is utter crap. An error rate of 1:10,000 (yes, that's the rate given about 200 complaints in 2M cars) is way too high to be caused by random electromagnetic interference. When was the last time you saw your processor kick out a wrong bit? Yes, it could be happening but not by EMF. But let us assume EMF is changing bits... The entire automotive industry uses CAN bus for inter-process communication and CAN bus has CRC built into it's frames. In fact it has a Hamming distance of 6 and so can detect up to 5 erroneous bits in a packet. So the chances of acting upon "corrupt data" is rediculously low. Much, much lower than 1:10,000. If they don't use CAN in this particular instance then are certainly using a similar protocol and they ALL have CRC capabilities.

This problem is a simple "software making the wrong decision" problem. It's a software bug. period.

Yes, I think people are idiots. lots of accidents are cause by poorly maintained floormats, doing your lipstick, texting, etc. This isn't the problem here. There are way too many incidents of various natures to be accounted for by this.

Yes, I think electromagnetic radiation exists. Yes, it can produce measurable effects. This, is also, not the problem here. EMF does not cause motors to turn with any appreciable torque. Modern electronics are sufficiently robust to this type of sporadic interference to account for this.

The problem here is in the code. I have written embedded software. It is WAAAY too easy to make a subtle mistake in an embedded environment that has limited processing power, highly asynchronous processing and a multitude of cooperating software and hardware modules. Further more, it can be a total bitch to debug these environments and the faults that they can exhibit can be nearly impossible to reproduce. And in EVERY case where I've seen "Hey, it shouldn't do that. The code doesn't have it doing that!" it turns that yes, it was doing exactly what the code had it do under those circumstances.
So, Want to save time and money? Ignore looking at anything other than code. Analyze the hell out of the software and you will find the culprit lurking there. You can put me on record for predicting this. (if they even 'fess up to the cause once found.)

"All men are created equal" is bullshit, and you know it. Some people ARE superior to others. Name whatever metric you wish but you will find success and failure. Don't believe me? Then what is the point of dating? Why not just marry the first person you meet after age 18? (Answer: because I'm correct.)

So where is the law of nature that prohibits the superior from living while the inferior die off? Oh, wait... that's right, in fact the opposite rule exists.

I fucking hate this crippled socialist thinking that says if everybody can't have something then nobody gets it. Utter crap.

This is totally true! Alfred Kinsey used it to great affect in his landmark survey on sexual practices. When he interviewed a person he didn't ask "Have you ever kissed somebody of the same sex?" which is a straightforward clinical question to figure out how many people have had a homosexual kiss. Instead he asked "How old were you when you first kissed somebody of the same sex?"

The difference is huge. The first can be considered accusatory, similar to "Have you ever robbed a gas station?". Whether the person has ever done this or not doesn't matter; they want to avoid being blamed as it seems the question is trying to uncover a secret. But the second approach starts with a question that assumes that everybody does it; that the "secret" is in fact well known. In other words... "How old were you when you robbed your first store?" has two benefits A) it presents the person with a question that assumes that he has already done it. So there is less benefit to lying. B) it implies that everybody does it at some age and therefore it is an acceptable behavior. Including the interviewer, thus answering truthfully appears to gain you allies or a supportive group.

Repeat after me...

Natural Gas is NOT independently explosive.

I'm sick of bad movies propagating bad thought and fears about some item. You can unplug your stove and set the stream of gas on fire. You will NOT cause your neighbor's house to explode. The flame will NOT travel back through the pipe. Natural Gas (Methane, but also propane, butane, etc) need to be within the Lower and Upper Flammability limits in order to ignite. (These limits are the faction of flammable gas to oxygen ratio that must be present to support a flame.)

The gas in the pipe is 100% natural gas. WAY above the UFL. Thus it will NOT burn. As it exits the pipe it mixes with the atmosphere which has oxygen. At some point it does fall below the UFL and will support a flame. But since the pipe has a positive pressure the atmosphere will not enter the pipe. Thus the gas in the pipe remains 100% natural gas and thus the flame will not travel down the pipe as the contents cannot support a flame at that concentration.

Yes, you will burn your own house down from the heat from the fame at the end of the pipe but everyone else in the neighborhood is safe.

So is everybody from the pipeline should one of the mines go off. Since it is underwater even the supply side pipe will not ignite or support a flame because there is no oxygen to oxidize the gas. The destination side is safe because no more gas will enter into it and it will fill with sea water. What will happen is that somewhere out to sea... you'll get bubbles.

The discussion that these bubbles are 20x more harmful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is left for another time.

Awesome! I love when somebody brings in the Bill of Rights to support their lame argument! Because almost everybody is an idiot when it comes to constitutional law. You, sir, do not disappoint either!

The idiots fail in two ways: A) That haven't actually read it themselves, or B) they cherry pick it or interpret in such a way that it comforts them instead of using a judicial eye.

The wording of the fourth amendment includes: "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Please carefully note the inclusion of the word "unreasonable". Unlike the 2nd amendment which is absolute, the fourth amendment is conditional.

The judicial system has already decided that an arrest provides the probable cause necessary to deem search and seizure of the suspect's property REASONABLE and therefore permissible. Good job. you sunk your own argument.

So, yes, the police can take away the suspect's cell phone. I still contend that isn't a punishment; no more than taking away the suspect's watch is.

Are you ready for this bad news... Life is tough. Everything unpleasant can be described as a "punishment" using your logic. So, again, cry all you want for your blanky; you don't have a right to it as you imply.

P.S. Santa doesn't exist either.

Noteworthy in that it exemplifies a very real problem with DRM. They did pay for the licenses but the supplier of the license basically withheld the license and therefore the customer got screwed. This has come up many times as a theoretical question: What do you do when the validator of the license no longer exists, changes their rules or is unwilling to validate your license (or in this case incapable of) ?

You're screwed. That's the answer.

What people have to understand is what "Digital Rights Management" actually means. When we hear the word "right" we always think about "our rights" not the other party's rights (unless they belong to the same peer group.) So for instance, if I talk about providing "right to free speech" you are happy because you assume it includes you as a recipent of that right. We are biased to assume that rights are universal. (inalienable, etc.) That we all share the same rights. That an increased number, strength or quality of rights is better.Basically we will tend to support any right because we are subconciously programmed to believe it benefits us.

The proponents of DRM are specifically using this psychology against us. They market their product with the term "rights" in order to make the intended audience/mark comfortable with their sales pitch/con game. Their "rights" yield to you NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. What it does do is guarantee specifics rights for them which you cannot circumvent or otherwise deny or share in. What they ARE selling to you is "Digital *Restriction* management". In otherwords, you are agreeing to allow them to restrict what you can do with the product that you buy. And there is nothing that you can do to improve your position in the future should they change their mind or cease to exist. This is true whether or not legal issues change as well. For instance, let's say that you were convicted and jail for alcohol sales during prohibition. The law changes and it is no longer a crime. However you don't get let out of jail because your key/license was crafted without that right. Basically if things change in your favor the license does not automatically change for you.

The United States has a Bill of Rights and the citizens generally hold this to be a significant factor in the quality and justice of the United States. Imagine how low we would think of a country who's government was based on a "Bill of Restrictions". A description of limited abilities that the government allows, arbitrarily or to the benefit of its politicians/dictators. Well that is *exactly* the relationship of DRM. It is truly Digital Restriction Management.

Because you hold a vision of what your rights are and what a punishment is that is in-congruent with that of the justice system. (and, frankly, the justice system is right.) Nobody has a right to a phone, or a laptop, or a sandwich, etc. Taking away a phone in such situations is, at worst, an inconvenience; not a punishment.

basically... quit crying about your blanky being taken away.