Some of their first goals make sense.... light weight material that is potentially easy to manufacture without using all the energy inherent in using metals, but maybe stronger than a lot of plastics? If they can achieve that, then great. However.... as usual, the implications needs work.... since even without this drones are already disposable enough to be worth losing them in operations like, surveying fires etc.

"Oh noes in surveying the millions in property damage and saving lives, we lost a $1000 drone".... um.... bfd, totally worth it....NOW, with todays materials.

> Democrats in Congress want to move the program around, so they can say they got rid of the section 215
> authorization. Republicans have refused to do that, some like Paul want to let the whole thing expire. Others say
> the Democrat smokescreen plan only makes it harder to perform legitimate national security activities, without
> actually doing anything good for privacy.

This is what I have come to expect on matters of personal privacy. Republicans hate your privacy and don't know why you think you should have it... Democrats hate that you might suspect they are the same as the republicans, and really want to implement the same policy while looking like they care about your privacy.

Not true at all.

If the data is in the hands of a third party, the demand goes to the third party and the party in question has no standing to even be told about it; never mind defend himself from it. It is 100% in the hands of the third party to fight any such request, which, they have little incentive to do.

If the demand must come through me then, at the very least, I have to be notified AND I have standing to challenge the demand. That, alone, is a HUGE difference.

Whats so funny? Of course Privacy is their top priority.... they always want to seek out and destroy it wherever they find it. Its enemy #1

No statistically speaking at least one of them was most probably gay and its likely more than one were. Statistically speaking nothing is ruled out, including that they were all gay or none of them were.

Lets say it was completely random selection of individuals, and 10% of the population is gay. Since no one selection decreases the population significantly, each choice has a 9 out of 10 chance of not being gay. Which maybe my math is wrong but (9/10)^12 is .28, or 28% or about 1 in 3 chance of picking an all straight group of appostles.

I wouldn't place many bets on a 1 in 3 chance, but, I wouldn't bet much against it either.

This of course assumes that there is no bias that would say, make gay men more available or more likely to want to be apostles, which, is hard to quantify, and might skew things a bit, but its hard to imagine enough to offset the starting 1/10 starting proportion.

No he just has enough money to afford both drugs and food. While many stimulant do have an effect on appetite, its never really been a panacea for those looking to lose weight. Much of the stereotype of emaciated drug users is a direct result of the ravages of the policy of increasing the price of drugs based on some misguided notion that if you can do anything you want in the name of helping someone who doesn't want your help, even if its not the least bit effective.

> There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's
> considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.

Actually I ran into this concept through my wife's family: her grandfather recently developed leukemia and the doctors said it wasn't a cause for concern because at his age they expect it to progress slowly enough that something else is almost certainly going to kill him first.

Though as I read all this it reminds me of an older story where some segments of human DNA have actually been traced back not to other mammals but to viruses which infected our ancestors and managed to make their way into the reproduction pipeline and become part of our genome.

Theres rules that govern how bitcoin are created as well. whether you like them or not, they are self-enforcing.

I never once claimed the rules, as they are for US currency were not followed.... the whole point of pointing out what they are is because people deserve to know how corrupt the rules that are followed really are.

Just because they are being followed, doesn't mean I have to like them; and I encourage others to learn about them and not like them either; because unless you are a billionaire, it really should piss you off.

No you are pulling them out of an agreement protocol by its rules. It may not seem like an important difference to you but, it does mean you can't pull out more of them than the protocol allows for based on how much you have participated.

Even that however isn't the important part, the important part is that you can't just do it arbitrarily for arbitrary amounts.

If you wanted, say, to give 10 million dollars to your friend by loaning it to his wife in a no recourse loan (which is a very accurate description of how money routinely enters the US economy), as a fed regulator, you can do that.

As a bitcoin miner....you can do that too but, you are strictly limited to the bitcoins that you have already mined, and in no way are you adding in more bitcoins than had previously existed except for as allowed by what you already did and everybody else already knew about.

Except without the ability to designate a group to invent money out of thin air by lending it to your friend's wives with no-recourse loans. I mean, you can still do that but, you have to actually get the bitcoins first before you can give out those no-recourse loans and, in the end, only you lose out when they don't pay you back, since you had to actually have the bitcoins to lend out in the first place.

But other than that, yup exactly like it.

You are entirely missing the point though, even when only compared against other sources of efficiency loss.

Its absolutely correct, air resistance results in more loss at higher speed. That doesn't mean its actually a significant factor in actual driving on real roads where most cars actually are.

Yes, the few people who live in montana will likely burn a bit more gas. However, they likely mostly drove those speeds anyway so it wont even be more burnt gas but maybe a handful less tickets for doing so. In many cities you could eliminate speed limits all together and the net result would be nothing at all since there are so many other limiting factors on how fast you can drive most of the time when a lot of cars are out anyway.

Here in MA the max is still 65 but, simple speeding of 10 mph is hardly ever enforced. (seriously, you can pass a cop doing 5 over and he wont even stop sipping his coffee, I know thats not true in some states at all). Result? If there is not too much congestion lowering the speeds with jams, then the traffic speed is right about 75 and seems to be about where most drivers are comfortable driving.

Our problem is that we only just recently instituted "left lane for passing", so we have people who just saunter along like rolling road blocks in the left and middle lanes causing periodic backups as 8 cars out of 10 are trying to squeeze around the other two who are skipping down the road hand in hand at 55, and don't even feel like they should be over to the right.

While undeniably true, I think this is a misapplied fact since, while wind resistance may be a major factor in and of itself for car gas miliage and thus emissions, since my car has an MFI display that can show average miliage and instantaneous, I have been using it and, overall, do NOT find it to be the most major factor that actually influences my end gas miliage.

The difference in gas miliage between 45-50 MPH and 70-75 seems to be far more influenced by traffic conditions, which can easily result in a difference of over 5-7 miles per gallon difference, because so much of that gas is used not in maintaining higher speeds so much as accelerating back up from lower speeds over and over again.

Its congestion, not top speed which is the real problem with emissions.

I see what you are saying; and on a simplistic level sure it makes sense to consider but, that is a pretty radical proposition, especially when you would essentially be asking the aristocrats to implement it and enforce it.

It means you are asking everyone to put their complete trust in the system as it will exist. Frankly, I don't see a system I would ever have that level of trust in. It sounds like you just want to be slave to the most powerful and generous master.

I find it hillarious that they so easily conclude tor doesn't fill these gaps because they deem it too easy to break. That right there is some pretty extraordinary claim, I would want to see them do it if its so easy.

I don't think there is any evidence that tor, in this particular use case, is actually so easy to break. So far all evidence is that weaknesses lie in the services behind hidden services, in browsers used to use web based services in particular, and potentially in hidden services themselves.

A bitcoin node transmitting transactions really should be pretty safe, and if they have any evidence to the contrary, that would be much more interesting than their hand waving clickbait claims.