Excellent question. I would add to the list above the issue of food sources, as in animals in factory settings not getting food sources that are natural for them and cause digestion issues (e.g., cows eating soy, and I'm sure there are probably even better examples). A lot of people think diet/gut health may have some relations to autism, maybe not as a cause but as an exacerbating factor that can make symptoms better or worse. With her close connection with animals, has she observed that eating certain diets has affected anxiety levels or other behaviors in factory animals?
I would also be very interested in her thoughts on large-scale (industrial) versus small-scale (family) farming.
I feel like you're probably just trolling, but I can tell you that my chickens definitely have a concept of social justice. One is the alpha female, and if one of the non-alphas starts picking on another chicken, the alpha will basically step in and do what needs to be done to restore order. Usually this just entails her standing up really tall and flapping her wings a few times right in front of the bully as a warning. And chickens aren't even very smart.
Apes and chimps also have established social orders and conventions within their groups that include concepts of justice and fairness. There has been a lot of anthropological research on this.
This is an absolutely fantastic idea.
Of course, there is no way the lobbyists for the publishers would every allow it to happen.
Millions of people across the country drink recycled sewage every day. That's the nature of water--it just gets recycled.
Maybe I just find this odd because I was always under the impression that every city did it this way. When I was little, one of my uncles worked at the waste water treatment plant in a small city on a small river in the middle of the country. I thought it was common knowledge that the water flowing in the water treatment plant (for city taps) came from the river, and the water flowing from the waste water treatment plant flowed back into the river. So we were drinking the treated waste water from towns and cities upriver, and the towns and cities downriver were drinking ours. So we had a valid interest in the proper operation of treatment plants upriver, and those downriver had a valid interest in ours.
My uncle used to tell me how he would sometimes have to give tours, which were billed as sort of educational exchanges, for people from other treatment plants in the state who wanted to visit. But they were always only from the treatment plants down-river--it was sort of spy/audit trip. And that was considered okay, our city did the same thing. Keep in mind this is a pretty small river, not an extreme amount of dilution going on here.
Are there any cities that truly have a landfill of sorts for treated sewage water? A place where it can go that it will not end up back in the drinking water? Because I think that is what would be extremely rare.
I think CA politicians are marketing this all wrong and causing resistance where there shouldn't be any. This is just how it's done. Water gets recycled. There is no absolutely pure water source unless you create it in a lab. How the water you intend to drink is treated is the key.
In some places in the US, this is the case with water rights, but not in any place I know of in the Bay Area. Berkeley and Oakland actively support the installation of rainwater recapture systems.
How is this modded as flamebait? What is wrong with new Slashdotters?
Mobile sites suck. Many people agree. This is the reason Apple implemented the iOS 8 feature "Request Desktop Site" in Safari. So that people can manually bypass crappy mobile sites. They didn't bother to implement the feature just for the hell of it. It was because people wanted it. Badly.
Not only do mobile sites suck, they are obsolete except perhaps on newer platforms, like a watch or augmented reality (remains to be seen). Phones and tablets now have both the screen space and processing power to handle a real web site. "Request Desktop Site" is pretty much automatic for me these days.
I think this really is the important question. Tech visionaries often fall into the trap of not figuring what people actually want into their estimates of how quickly and widely a new technology will be adapted. The politicians who make these rules (or appoint the people who do) are in the business of being re-elected. They are going to go with what the majority wants on this issue, and right now, the vast majority or non-techie people are very, very afraid of self-driving technology. Yes, I agree that will eventually change, but it will likely be very slow. Many, many regulatory decisions have been made not based on the prevailing science of the time, but on what people were willing to accept. Nuclear power has a lot of benefits, but it is not widely adapted because people don't want it anywhere near them. When it comes to drugs, alcohol is perfectly legal while pot (in most states, and for many years) is not. Based on science? Nope, just based on what the majority of people want at the time.
GP answered that question: FreeBSD
Hmm... Steam has actually had in-home streaming out of beta and available to the masses for quite some time. I use it all the time to stream from my desktop computer to my media computer so that I can play games in the living room.
It's generally a good idea to cultivate good relationships with a few key headhunters, even if you love your job and have no interest in leaving. You never know when things might change and you will need those relationships. After you get passed over for that promotion you feel you deserved, or after you get assigned a complete jerk as a boss, or after you don't get a raise, or after the company folds...those are not good times to be reaching out to a headhunter for the first time, especially if you've been rude to them in the past. This means (gasp) accepting a phone call and chatting for a few minutes. Some of them are nice folks. You learn a little about them, you tell them a little bit about yourself and why you like your current job. If they have an open position, maybe you give them the contact info of one or two of your buddies who are not so lucky to be currently in a job they love. You give them a heads up if your company is actively recruiting for a role. Maybe drop the name of the hiring manager. They will appreciate it, and they will remember you.
Some people like to complain that getting good jobs is "more about who you know than what you know." This is true, but nothing is stopping anyone from cultivating those same relationships. It is fair game. It doesn't require superpower social skills. You don't have to be an extrovert. I certainly am not. Just, you know, be a decent human being and take the time to talk to people for a few minutes. I did not get my current job (which I love) through a headhunter, but I know my current boss is friendly with a particular headhunter who is pretty big in my niche and ran my name past them before I got hired. I got the thumbs up. What goes around comes around.
Directors have certain fiduciary duties to all shareholders of a company. One type of breach of those fiduciary duties is usurpation of a corporate opportunity. The idea is that you can't use your position on a board to benefit yourself or your other business interests, to the detriment of the company or its shareholders. There are definitely potential legal issues here.
This is just ridiculous. I used to walk or ride my bike to and from school every day from when I was in third grade onward, so about the same age. The distance was about a mile. I remember the library being within the limits set of where I could bike by myself, and that was probably about a mile, if not a little more. This was in a suburban area.
This relates to a previous story I posted in an unrelated thread about the police: I live in an urban area, and I've been stopped more than once by police who warned me that it was dangerous to walk alone, in the middle of the day, IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD (I guess because I'm white). I'm clearly a grown woman, in my thirties. Let individuals make their own choices. Sheesh. We don't need all these danger mongers. Yes, bad things DO happen, but in reality it's just not that often.
I'm not a doubter on climate change, but I definitely approach all scientific studies with skepticism these days. Business school professors are the absolute worst. They are almost all for sale. I remember talking to an economics professor at Columbia Business School named Charlie Calomiris. It was late in summer of 2007, and I remember the conversation well because he was trying to argue that home prices at the time were not going to go down despite the early subprime issues (Countrywide, Bear Sterns hedge funds, etc.) In fact, he was planning to write a paper explaining this, and the co-author was to be none other than Glenn Hubbard, the dean at the time and also an economist. Of course, the bottom fell out of the market before they could publish the paper. The sponsor of this "research" was the The National Association of Realtors. Go figure. And yes, I'm naming names here because it was absolutely egregious. I was embarrassed to be associated with the university. And this BS happens ALL the time.
Yeah, in the US at least, the tax ruling that explicitly categorizes bitcoin as a security and not currency puts bitcoin squarely within the jurisdiction of the SEC. Not to mention that any single state attorney general could take up the issue if he/she chose to do so.