Grandma's still got a chance of being raped if those frat boys are drunk enough and high enough.
... Which pretty much explains every 'Enterprise IT' purchasing decision ever.
the seller has no clue about what Zorro cards are inside
I can understand the display cards and SCSI cards - those have function - but everything else (framegrabber cards and such) seems like rather hopelessly outclassed stuff?
230,000 were killed by the Banquiao hydroelectric dam disaster.
Not quite. 20,000 were killed in the immediate flooding. The rest were killed in the epidemics, famines, etc that followed.
Even if the worst nuclear accident in history happened EVERY YEAR, it would still be safer than hydroelectric.
If you're going to claim indirect deaths as you did above, then I'm going to claim indirect deaths too.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_ra...
Chernobyl didn't kill that many people directly/immediately, but it has impacted the health of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. It will continue to do so, for generations. Nuclear disasters never go away.
Where X is 10-100 times larger than Y: Increasing the cancer risks for X people isn't 'better' than immediately wiping Y people off the map.
I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."
200+ chemicals found in samples of people's blood: http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/...
200+ chemicals found in newborn's umbilical core blood: http://www.scientificamerican....
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurerep...
These chemicals by and large don't go away...and time after time, we find chemicals that were thought to be "safe"...aren't. When are we going to learn that? When are we going to require chemicals be considered dangerous until proven otherwise, instead of the present situation, where chemicals are only later shown to be dangerous once scientists and environmental groups collect a mountain of evidence?
Free TV in my country (Denmark) is mostly free of advertising.
Are you one of the people who pays no taxes?
" Do you seriously think they are going to produce coal at a loss? "
Yup. One of the ways the coal industry has been fighting "green" technologies? Plunging the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
The coal industry has a century or two of establishment. They have no startup or R&D costs; everything is amortized; they have a heavily legislative-friendly environment.
Johhny Come Lately Solar And Wind is counting on profits within a certain time period to become profitable.
All the coal company has to do is undercut them on price long enough to bleed them dry...or endanger investments enough that further investment dries up.
A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.
But it will generally affect competitors equally. Two different taxi companies, or two different electricity generating companies that use coal. Or two different hotels of the same class and size in the same city.
And since competing businesses tend to have to lower prices in order to remain competitive in the same market as they pursue the same prospective customer, the tax burden is going to raise costs (and lower margins) more or less the same for both (or several) parties.
The entire idea is that businesses will strive to become more efficient such that they produce less pollution so that they'll be taxed less.
But because such penalties impact all businesses in whatever country is collecting them, it won't really change things - because all of those businesses will simply pass along the new government-mandated increase in their overhead along in the form of higher prices. To the businesses in question, it just goes in one door and out the other. You want to use the heavy hand of the tax collector to damage people's behavior in a way that makes them go out less, drive less, spend less, do less? Tax citizens directly, with a very special line item they can't miss, that says "carbon tax, because you exist" - and they'll act. Well, mostly they'll act to elect people who will undo that tax, but they'll act.
Well it runs on Windows obviously. With the number of reported infections, the speed with which it happened, and the fact that it is a Trojan (meaning you need to trick the user into running it), it can only be Windows.
This propagation rate is positively tiny. Honestly, I don't know why it's even part of the headline. For context, this paper (PDF, sorry) shows Code Red infecting over 500,000 machines in an hour.
If 11,000 machines in a day is an event, then we should all be sitting back and breathing a sigh of relief that the bad old days are over....
(Not that I believe that they are. I just don't see any reason for the breathless headline.)
Citation required (seriously, you couldn't be bothered?)
I can't find anything to back your claim.
You are a citizen who cares more about your children's survival than the survival of Freedom and the well being of millions. In other words you aren't merely part of the problem, you are the problem.
You could happily sit in the company of many of history's great men. The too were willing to sacrifice countless lives for some lofty goal.
Is there any benefit too small, in your mind, for my kids to die supporting it?
It's worth noting that most revolutions happen when the only way remaining to provide for and protect one's children is to take up arms or man the barricades.
... And most of them are won by the side most able to protect its children.
...and a negative one at that.
Could it ever possibly be that these scientists who "dominate" the scientific publishing are actually worthy of such a thing?
Indeed. And besides, compared to the star system in Hollywood, for example, this is downright democratic.
The intellectual penury that comes with serving with a leader in a given field seems to be gladly endured by most young researchers. This story ignores the fact that, although the senior researcher's name may be at the top of the paper, the junior researcher's name is right there below it.
It's a bit like an actor accepting a lesser credit in order to appear in a bigger film.
I doubt there are any safe uses for a drone. Do we really want a remotely controlled small aircraft flying around our homes and communities?
You're right. You're definitely on to something there. And while we're making sure that a professional real estate photographer with his reputation on the line is not to be trusted with a three and a half pound quadcopter, we should be even MORE restrictive of the OTHER dangerous stuff that's moving around our homes and communities. Like, pre-occupied 19 year olds driving cars. Like large dogs on cheap leashes. Like idiots on mountain bikes hopping curbs and cutting through read lights. Definitely start with the Evil Drones, but please don't stop there! There are so many dangers! Oh, definitely don't forget steak knives and riding lawnmowers.
How do you know that all those real estate agents are using the drones safely?
Never mind the tiny number of people shooting a few real estate stills from treetop level. How do you know that the many, many thousands of people who are flying around for fun are being safe? But the FAA (so far) is honoring congress's mandate that hobbyists be left alone, even though they just said that hobbyists flying FPV style are no longer allowed. Regardless, the hobby drone market has hundreds of thousands of customers. There might be a few hundred people shooting real estate. Can you explain why you think it's a good thing to hurt them, but not to care about all sorts of reckless hobby newbies (just search on YouTube)? Please be specific.
How do you know that the real estate agent really knows how to fly one of the drones
How do you know that your neighor, who just had a ready-to-fly quad dropped off by UPS and who's in the air 30 minutes later, is safe? Really. How do you know? And why do you think that people who are doing it professionally, with their businesses and reputations on the line, are more dangerous than a 12 year old kid next door who's on his third quad having crashed the first two in spectacular fashion? How do you know? Please be specific. Because the FAA thinkks the 12 year old kid is fine, but the person who takes great care to avoid endangering their real estate business liability coverage while shooting the occasional photo should be stopped. An odd thing for you to support.
But one could describe yours as being backwards just as easily as mine. It's simply a matter of perspective.
If by that you mean that clearly written words in the English language have no actual meaning, then sure, I guess. If you mean that the Constitution, and the countless supporting documents and correspondence written to, between and about its authors and the large groups of representatives that agreed on its purpose and amendments to it were just setting us with something that had no actual meaning, then sure. But that's BS, and you know it.
No, I never said "every" anything. I said drones. Period.
The Constitution makes no such distinctions between one tool and the next. But of course the people who wrote it were very clear that there were some tools that some people would - given a period of power in the congress - try to deny to the public, and so they added amendment that explicitly reminded the government that it cannot act in those areas. The Constitution is built around the concept that the government's powers over what you may or may not do it inherently limited to the things that are enumerated therein, and generally prohibited otherwise, with the states having all such other authority. This isn't a matter of "perspective," and it isn't true for certain tools, and false for other tools. If you think that "drones" (but not, say, chain saws) should be singled out for capricious bans by the federal government despite laws recently passed by the congress explicitly to the contrary, then you're completely missing the point.
Personally I'd say they were flying model aircraft not drones.
Semantic games like that show how completely unserious you are.
A matter decided upon, legislatively. at the municipal, county, and (rarely) state level. Not by capricious extra-legal, counter-constitutional fiat from a political appointee of the White House, as in the case at hand.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
