Nothing is stopping anyone from using solar.
That's not exatly true. One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. But that's forbidden by law here in FL.
"The wealthy" are the people putting solar on their roof, and net-metering pushes costs onto people less well off. So at least in this case, "the fossil fuel industry" is acting in the interests of the little guy.
One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. This means that the poor could, indeed, get solar power (and one presumes it's less expensive than grid power or no one would take the deal).
Your conclusion is based on an apparently flawed pre-condition.
The article is vague on the details but, to me, the most likely error in your assumptions is "suberbs aren't cities".
Or, another variation: "Suberbs are seperate cities".
Do you believe that the population of London is less dense now than it was 200 years ago? How tall do you think the buildings were then?
What they are actually saying is that ancient and modenr chities can *be described* by the same formula.
Referring to the article: When a modern city doubles its population, it grows 83% in size (ther than 100%); this seems to hold true for ancient cities.
When a moden city doubles its population, it's per-capita GDP (and wages) increase 15%. Using the number of monuments per-capita as a guide, the researchers found this also correlated with ancient cities.
It's an interesting article (I'd like more details) but, per Slashdot norms, a lousy title.
I think it's a step farther than that.
When you see gender, or racial, or socio-economic disparity in something you need to ask yourself *why*. If the answer is that there's inequal opportunity, then it needs to be addressed. No one should be held back because of their race, gender, etc.
If, on the other hand, there's just no interest then... well... how come no one is addressing the lack of female garbage collectors?
There's nothing particularly impressive anymore about launching a satellite into space.
I could be wrong: but I'm pretty sure that the ability to place anything into orbit shows considerable technical and engineering skill.
The ability to put even a small payload into orbit implies the ability to put a larger payload on an intercontinental suborbital arc... at least based on my time in Kerbal Space Program.
"We observe that the same objectives cannot be reached with RAID level 6 organizations and would require RAID stripes that could tolerate triple disk failures."
That's true only if you assume that three disk failures occur faster than a single disk can be rebuilt.
If you assume no more than two disk failures *during the length of time it takes to rebuild the array* then RAID 5 or RAID 6 works fine as long as you assign enough hot spares.
The airlines are not charging based on costs (since a flight *through* SF clearly costs more than one *to* SF but the ticket price is lower)
The airlines are not charging based on demand on the aircraft (since it's the same aircraft to SF whether you board another/stay on for a second leg or not).
Instead the airlines are charging arbitrary prices based on "what they can get away with" popularity matrixes... and they are upset that their customers are able to do similar manipulations back? Sucks to be them: Public data is public.
there was evidence for it, so more than hypothesis
That *is* the definition of a hypothsis. Without evidence it would be a "wild ass guess"... perhaps even a "scientific wild ass guess".
When that hypothesis makes predictions capable of falsifying the model, and those predictions are tested and shown accurate... then we can discuss "theory".
Do you want your children to be the ones dead so that the US can go avenge them? Or would you prefer they not die in the first place?
Our freedoms are, by far, our most important possession. They are more important than my life, my children's lives, your life. After 9/11, there was quite a bit of talk about us going on with our lives, still living them as we would have months earlier. If not, the terrorists get to define us. If we grant them that power, they win. This time, the terrorists won, and not because our government caved, but ball-less corporate concerns about liability. Sony was put into a bad place though; the bullshit Aurora, Colorado lawsuit is STILL ongoing. Sony didn't have a good decision to make.
That's rhetorical; unless you basically never avoid any area ever and don't want your children to either for reasons of safety.
Send your 8 year old wandering the city at night? Sure, someone may kidnap him: but his freedom is more important than his life. I suspect you are very brave on the internet. I suspect when the gun gets pointed at you, you start doing what the guy with the gun says despite it not being "free".
It's easy to sit back and arm-chair the decision when a) you don't believe it's a real threat, b) you won't be proven wrong because what you advocate will not have been tried and c) you have nothing at all on the line.
It's also a straw man. No freedom has been taken.
But of course, this is getting into rhetorical realms. Nothing would have happened. It was your usual amount of pointless North Korean bluster.
This is literally the first time I've ever discussed North Korea on Slashdot. I don't have a *usual* anything.
When Iran and Lybia were both state sponsors of terrorism against the US, what did we do?
Well in the case of Iran we funded a major war against them that killed hundreds of thousands.
How will this apply to N.Korea?
We've harmed them diplomatically and hemmed them in. We've also backed other enemies in the region like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As for Libya we hit them with sanctions weakened their influence and then just recently helped flip the government.
We are already doing all of that against N.Korea. So if that's our response: it's the same as saying "we will do nothing".
Where is our response to capture of the USS Pueblo?
Or their shoot down of the American EC-121?
Or their 1969 killing of four US soldiers?
Or the December 1994 shoot-down of a US Army helicopter?
What do you imagine we will do against (nuclear armed and sitting on the border of China right next to Russia) Korea?
They have no enemies to give support to... unless you count S.Korea and we already do that.
They have no insurgency to support (as Syria did).
Do you honestly think we will engage in a major military campaign on Russia's border? We wouldn't even do that to defend Ukrane.
We'd blame them and condemn them and attempt to get sanctions. We already do all those things so it's an empty threat.
I don't know why the Japanese are so blase about North Korea. I don't know why the South Koreans are. But I do know I don't want the USA to be if they are going to start that nonsense here.
I'd love to know where you got that knowledge. When Iran and Lybia were both state sponsors of terrorism against the US, what did we do? How about Saudi Arabia's support of Al Quieda? How about Pakistan's ongoing support of the Taliban? All of these actors kill Americans.
How about the Americans killed by the Russian military on KAL 007? How about MH17?
How about the N.Korean capture of the USS Pueblo?
Or their shoot down of the American EC-121?
Or their 1969 killing of four US soldiers?
Or the December 1994 shoot-down of a US Army helicopter?
So tell me. What is it you know we would do?
N.Korea has a long history of attacking foreign assets (mostly S.Korean ships, but also some land targets) and killing people. They are known to have Japanese captives. They have taken Americans traveling abroad captive. They sold nuclear technology to places like Iran.
Do you want your children to be the ones dead so that the US can go avenge them? Or would you prefer they not die in the first place?
More to the point: the OP is based on flawed assumptions.
Is the nation-state of North Korea capable of setting off a single bomb in a single (basically public) location in the US?
If we knew that 5 theaters were going to be attacked, but didn't know which, does that mean we should go forward with the opening?
While I agree with the concern over bending to threats, I think it's a straw man to claim that the issue is whether 18,000 locations can be attacked and so I think the claim of "incapable" is actually wrong.
Dear Sony,
Release the movie for free on the internet. Perhaps issue a bargain-rate DVD as well. If the people behind the hack really don't want this movie out there (as opposed to this being a smoke-screen), and you really are concerned that capitulation will inspire future attacks; up the ante and do the opposite.
To be sure: there is a fiscal cost... but that ship has sailed. Take more of a hit now to save ongoing bleeding.
Heck: Start a commercial campaign about how you stand up to terrorists.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
