The barrier is a data plan or a data link that does not use cellular bandwidth. The only difference between Wikipedia Zero and the rest of the web is that you don't get charged data rates for Wikipedia Zero in some countries. India is not even one of those countries.
Wikipedia Zero is an agreement between Wikimedia and certain carriers to not charge for data coming from certain IPs/URLs. It is far from a walled garden.
That was because the world then sat on the sidelines when Czechoslovakia was invaded. This time may be different. It is not inevitable.
Wikipedia Zero has not been launched in India. Check the map.
The article does not say that Wikipedia Zero is their only connection to the internet just that it is free. If one has enough money to spend on tuition to a business school one probably has enough money to do a Google search to verify a Wikipedia entry.
they also had been led to believe that they had researched by drinking from the unerring fountain of all human knowledge.
Anyone who still believes that needs help.
In eastern Ukraine there is a large Russian ethnic demographic. Putin is using that as a pretext to "free" his people. This pretext does not hold for central or western Ukraine. Ukraine will exist but it may be smaller.
Comparing precision guided bombs to nuclear bombs is like comparing a spring shower to a force 5 hurricane. Precision guided bombs do not kill whole cities and the millions of people in them in one shot.
Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.
what we have is a world where people like yourself take all of your outrage, and point it at the victim for being "stupid"
The world is not a black and white as you seem to see it. In most cases both parties carry some blame with the majority going to the perp.
all crimes can be described in a manner where the victim has done something stupid along the way and so they "deserve" it
Sorry but leaving a car with the engine running outside a store while one goes shopping is stupid. If the car gets stolen the driver is at least partially to blame.
because you further victimize the victim
We also teach the victim ways to avoid the issue in the future.
and you let the perp get away without any blame or focus.
No, the perp needs to have consequences for his bad act.
some even laud the criminal for being strong and tough for picking on the stupid and the weak.
Rarely does that happen.
The problem with the "victim" attitude is the lack of personal responsibility and illusion of control. By putting the blame completely on the perp the victim appears completely helpless. That is often not true. There are many things a victim could do to avoid the situation. In this case a little more research could have avoided the issue. Being a powerless victim can lead to depression and suicide. The other issue is the illusion of control. I can only control myself, and sometimes not very well at that. I have no control over what other people do. When I get into an issue all I can do is figure out what I can do in the future to avoid other situations. All we are doing is explaining what could be done in the future to avoid such scams.
just take solace in the knowledge there are a hell of a lot of douchebags out there like yourself who blame the victim all the fucking time
There is a problem with using terms like "all the time". Most people do things "most of the time" and extremely rarely "all the time". Absolutes rarely apply. For example I doubt many people would blame an innocent bystander who was killed in a drive by shooting. Each instance has to be analyzed on it's own merits.
Sorry but your idea of the victim always being blameless and the perp always being completely to blame does not work in the real world.
there should be a morality iq test in this world.
There are different morals in the world. Your seem to be that there are powerless, innocent victims and powerful, evil perps and nothing in between. Other people have different views. Personally I see victims that can learn from their or others' experiences and fight against the evil perps. Whose morality should we measure against?
Since the concrete production is centralized, it can be sequestered on site, and concrete naturally re-absorbs that carbon over the decades.
The same can be said for fossil fuel powered generators.
since concrete production is a mere 1% or so of total CO2 output by the US
Where does this number come from? All the articles I have seen put that number at 5% of world CO2 emissions.
concrete naturally re-absorbs that carbon over the decades.
How much does it absorb and what consequences?
So, how much calcium dioxide is absorbed in concrete and how long does it take? The answer is that we do not know.
Here is a quote from the article you referenced;
The exact amount of emissions depends greatly on site-specific characteristics. However, current estimates suggest that life-cycle emissions can be over 0.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [5,6].
To put this into context, estimates of life-cycle global warming emissions for natural gas generated electricity are between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour and estimates for coal-generated electricity are 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour [7].
The 0.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour for hydro is not one tenth that of the 0.6-2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour of natural gas.
The problem is in america, we are still stuck on the idea of Big Energy large grids covering the nation.
There is a reaso behind that; 81% of the US polulation lives in urban/suburban environments. Small communities make up a very small proportion of the US population.
The main reason larger installations are used is called economy of scale. As things get bigger they generally get cheaper. Sure one could run a lot of smaller installations but they would be more expensive and less reliable. Why do we have such a big grid? Reliability. As one plant goes down for immanence there is always another to take up the slack.
Then there is a case to be made for Hydro electricity not being NCE. First the huge amounts of concrete involved that take lots of emissions and the area that used to be covered with foliage that is now under water and no longer sequestering CO2. Then there is the fact that many dams silt up and have reduced capacity or do not work after a number of decades,
There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere in their attempts.
How about this quote from an article dated March 16 2015.
So, here are the facts as we understand them: Mars One has almost no money. Mars One has no contracts with private aerospace suppliers who are building technology for future deep-space missions. Mars One has no TV production partner. Mars One has no publicly known investment partnerships with major brands. Mars One has no plans for a training facility where its candidates would prepare themselves. Mars One’s candidates have been vetted by a single person, in a 10-minute Skype interview.
What more evidence do you need?
Lets look at the article "refuting" the criticisms.
This is simply a polite request asking them to continue their support of Mars One, as they are now very close to being part of their project.
The subtext being that if they do not donate they will become less " close to being part of their project".
Even though it would be desirable that Mars One corrected every false statement, they cannot be held responsible for how the media interpret and phrase their reports about Mars One.
For statements like this it is the responsability of Mars One to correct such big misconceptions. But they will not as te false information helps them.
Whether they completed the application process to the video stage may be where you begin to see different numbers.
So anyone who clicked on "apply here" is counted in their numbers. That is completely skewing the numbers and they know it.
It would have consumed inordinate amounts of time and money to go through rigorous testing for 660 Round 2 candidates.
It is strange that the couple of million dollars to interview 600 candidates is too high but the 3,000 time that amount to get to Mars is not. They also told round 2 candidates there would be interview and then changed. That is a classic bait and switch.
The primary source of finance is to be an investment firm in the first stages of the mission (leading up to and including the first manned mission).
Where is this investment firm? Why won't you name them? Do they even exist?
The $6 billion in revenue was never stated to be entirely funded from one source.
While this is factually true, it plays on the use of absolutes. If even 0.1% of revenue comes from other sources that statement is true. According to the Mars One site their major sources of income would be Media and IP. Notice they never say just how much they expect to receive from each source. They just show the numbers for the Olympics. Had they shown the number for Big Brother it would be more accurate.
Scam implies profit. If Mars One is a scam, show who you think is getting rich.
The executives running Mars one are getting paid an unknown amount.
Show who is being cheated/harmed when all of the candidates are participating voluntarily and are aware of the low probability of success?
Here are some things and people being harmed;
Other space programs who's funding is being wasted on Mars One.
Future similar projects will always have to deal with the "Mars One" stigma.
Any future large crowd funding will have to deal with the "Mars One" stigma.
Anyone who was ever on the list will be ridiculed for falling for the "Mars One" scam.
I guess you didn't read the summary of the first study;
There were no significant effects from glyphosate observed in brood survival, development, and mean pupal weight. Additionally, there were no biologically significant levels of adult mortality observed in any glyphosate treatment group.
A government is not allowed to fix prices in a free market but they can institute competition laws. The problem was the car companies were competing unfairly so the government chose to not allow them to compete. What would your suggestion be for a replacement law?
You might have some points, but none of the issues you raise are show-stoppers.
How about these?
Inability to find road edge without pre-scanning and/or a white line
Inability to differentiate between a plastic bag and a rock on the road.
Inability to operate when road covered in snow or ice
Inability to operate at night in heavy rain.
Other companies' cars could as far back as 2013 detect those things in real-time on their first exposure to the road.
Detection is only part of the issue. Differentiation is the issue. Currently all the Google car can detect is a blob of pixels. That blob could be a mailbox, a child, a policeman, a deer, an elderly person, etc. A driver reacts to these items differently. Since the car can not differentiate between them it reacts the same. One of the reasons the roads have to be pree-scanned is so the Google car can differentiate between stationary objects and people who just happen to be standing still. By the way, could you supply references to these other companies' cars that could detect those things?
That will only get better, making your concerns less valid as time goes on.
As I said it is a matter of time. The crux being how much time.
it's just round the corner.
How long have flying cars and fusion power been "just around the corner"?
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
