Comment Re:Alternatives? Same problem.. (Score 1) 572
If they're re-using FTDI's manufacturer ID, then they're counterfeit.
No, at most it is a trademark violation.
Counterfeit goods are trademark violations.
If they're re-using FTDI's manufacturer ID, then they're counterfeit.
No, at most it is a trademark violation.
Counterfeit goods are trademark violations.
$15/hr minimum wage simply drove the innovation. It became very profitable to use the kiosk over the human element. If it is being deployed elsewhere then the minimum wage is still more expensive than the kiosks but cost savings weren't very high or the kiosks will be more expensive but they're anticipating greater customer satisfaction from having the kiosks over humans.
If you're going to be pedantic us proper terms. Tanks are armored fighting vehicles. The specific vehicle in the article is an infantry fighting vehicle which is also an armored fighting vehicle. Armored fighting vehicles basically include anything that is motorized and used in combat so tanks, IFVs, APCs, armored cars, self-propelled artillery, and others.
A crew of 6 for an IFV is bizzare. 3 is usually sufficient (commander, driver, gunner) but they contain room for usually 6 soldiers as well for 9 men in the vehicle.
IFV vs APC is a function of the purpose of the armament on the vehicle. For something to be classed as an IFV is must have a 20mm armament and its armament must be used in a direct fire support role. APCs are unarmed or have armament for self-defense.
A commercial vehicle is any vehicle owned by company or used to transport passengers. The limitations only apply to vehicles with a GVW over 10,000 lbs. BNSF, Union Pacific, and Norfolk Sourthern all have hundred of commercial vehicles in their fleet but only a fraction of that number require log books. Every pickup truck you see with their logo is a commercial vehicle that probably has a GVW between 9,000 and 9,500.
Little to no good? Incorrect. It actually does harm by increasing the exposure risk. Passenger densities have increased when attempting to get into terminals which makes the TSA screening lines the second most densly packed area after the planes themselves. Additionally, having replaced the old metal-detector lines has caused the amount of wait time to increase which means that travellers are now spending even more time in the 2nd most densely packed region.
But the CDC needs to handle the message to the public and proper guidance of control and treatment procedures; in this case they made enough mistakes that it muddled the issue, confusing the populace and creating mistrust and fear when trust and faith in the medical community is exactly what needs to happen right now.
Muddied the issue is an understatement. When Tom Frieden goes out and says, "you cannot get ebola from travelling on public transportation," and then within 30 seconds says, "people with ebola shouldn't use public transportation to avoid infecting others," you have a big fucking problem with communication and message. I get what he was trying to say but the message is self-contradictory on the surface and that's what matters to most people that are hearing it.
You didn't read the summary or the article as the line...
During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day.
Was in both places.
Assemble pedants! Which is it?
Least active female versus most active male. The comparison isn't useful as you need comparable activity levels in order to generate comparable data. Comparing least active female against most active male is dishonest spin meant to feed an agenda.
Slashdot hates dealerships because Tesla Motors.
And you, like all the other fools, think that the terrorists fail if they fail to blow up airplanes. If you would note I used the term air travellers which is a term that is not limited to passengers on the plane but also inclusive of all individuals in the terminal that have recently debarked from flights or are waiting to board flights. Additionally this also includes all the air travellers who are packed into the lines at the TSA security check points. There has been a very minor decrease in risk exposure for air travellers on planes and in the terminal however there has been a massive increase in the risk exposure of air travellers in the TSA lines compared against the metal detector lines that used to be utilized. You can also verify this by looking at the average time spent to get into the terminals being greater than from before the TSA and that's with the policy changes that only permitted air travellers to enter the terminal while family was forced to wait outside. This has caused a significant risk exposure that more than offsets the decrease in risk exposure elsewhere. A terrorist doesn't even need a boarding pass to be a threat to the air travellers in the TSA line. All he needs to do is have an explosive strapped to him and wait until he's in a sufficient pack of air travellers to detonate. Air travellers are only most densely packed while on the plane itself. The damage and loss of life in these lines will be greater than anything that could be done in the terminal.
How do you counteract that? Pray tell.
You jest but just wait until we run into our first WAAAAAAAAGHHHH! out in the cold cold reachs of space. You'll be glad we sent those space dwarves.
TSA security checkpoints have only made it easier for terrorists to kill air travelers.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
