That has nothing to do with this situation
That has nothing to do with this situation
So what happens if this intervention accidentally goes wrong and utterly destroys the entire reef? Wouldn't it be something if those who claim to be helping the reef end up killing it?
Between climate change , ocean acidification , invasIive crown of thorns starfish and an idiot government wanting to stick the worlds largest coal mine smack in the midst off if creating a giant reef-fucking shipping route over the top of it, its already at the "disaster" stage. whole regions of the reef are dying every year and thats not supposed to happen at all
Your missing the point. Theres a hell of a lot of "Originalists" who always seem to be the first to suggest changes, want clauses revoked, or happy for weird exceptions to be allowed through if thats whats required to sync their idea of politics with the constitution as written.
How many republicans still demand prayer in school or creationionism in classrooms despite the plain languaged absolute prohibition of government religion in the first ammendment.
And yeah libs arent much better on this, but at least thats not inconsistent with the interpretive school of constitutional thought
So any additional costs (such as end-of-life mechanisms designed to put it into a burn trajectory) are going to have a proportionally greater impact on that "low cost" selling point, which means the proponents have a motive to resist such extra mechanisms and costs.
Anything sold on its main benefit being "low cost" will eventually result in a race to the bottom, and the cost-cutting that entails - "hey, our module is lighter and cheaper to get into orbit (because we decided to do without expensive impact shielding/temperature control/whatever)"
I've been saying to anyone who'd listen, those cubesats are going to bite us in the arse if we're not careful. Unless we know where *every single one* is, and every single one has somebody responsible to make sure it doesnt end as spacejunk, we're going to ruin our future in space if we get run-away spacejunk. Theres *always* a cost to "cheap"
This. We have devs in the US and in South America, Eastern Europe, NA, and Asia. That doesn't stop my boss from merging bad codel
Its the worst. where I work our CEO is a business guy who runs a multi state multi million $ company with large numbers of employees aaaand he likes to code. In fairness, he's actually not a bad coder , coming from a C++ background, but hes rarely over all the issues that the engineers are over, and as a result theres always a background noise of randomness coming into the code from whenever the big boss is bored with money and meetings and all the things rich guys do. And its *strictly* non optional code. If god wants a new screen on the app, and he;s made it, well its in, and we have to stop everything and make the fucking thing work. And he doesnt know our build processes, how we stage things, how issues management works or anything. More likely I get a call at 1am saying "Hey the websites acting up can you have a look at whats going on, and I log into the production server and he's in there with vim boredom progrmaming on the principal production server. Its a nightmare.
North Korea is a credible threat because they have SLBM's (Submarine-Launched-Ballistic-Missiles.) They can get very close - they don't need the kind of range an ICMB design provides.
Those subs cant move an inch without a satelite somewhere knowning what its up to. Hell, you just get an optical camera on a satelite., look for plankton plumes, and even your best subs aren't so stealthy. Even more so if its packing nukes.
The nanosecond NK seems like it might mash the fire button, those submarines are will be blown out the water.
Ever notice how prolific JS users rarely defend the language? Of course it's badly designed. We use it because it's pragmatic to use the lingua franca of programming.
Now, sure, typescript and some of the newer 2016/2017 feature sets do go some way to fixing that, the bulk of js out there is trash and a bad trap for innexperienced coders.
That works great until there is a jammer. In other words, it works fine against small, overpowered nations against whom there are already a myriad of options.
Back in my uni days I remember asking a physicist friend how an emp device would work. He flipped over a piece of paper drew a relative simple (20-30 components, a few of which would need to be fairly large capacitors and fairly large coils) that would take out all the electronics in about a 30-40m range. He said anyone who knew their engineering could work it out, and theres not really an upper limit to scaling the things up.
The point is, I'm kind of surprised small and non state actors havent already tried to use these against UAVs. It seems like the kind of engineering problem whos answer to problems only ever would need to be "More juice".
While I do agree with the thrust of what your saying. There was a high likelyhood of Russian soldiers being at that base , so calling the Russians seems fairly prudent in terms of "let's not start thermonuclear world war 3"
Not sure about that. The case is over trade secrets , so google might be suing outside of arbitration to ensure the outcome is on public record if it needs to be referenced in a patent application they haven't made yet , to avert uber ambushing the application with (stolen) prior art
Mars can be "terra formed".
No magnetosphere. Its terraformable. Your oxygen would float odd into space, and
Courts don't work that way. Laws regularly are either poorly written or have constitutional problems and that requires a judge to either fix the law or turf it out. If a law has ambiguity , a judge will need to work out how to resolve that ambiguity. If it clashes with other laws , a judge will need to decide which law is correct , if it requires a subjective standard , a judge will need to refit that abstraction into a practical test. And if it's unconstitutional , a judge needs to kick it to the curb. Despite what people say "black letter law" tends to be incompetent law
It's pretty much standard JIT thinking which has been factory dogma since the 60s. I've worked at places like this. Management swears up and down we don't want "stock on hand" to keep costs down , so instead the entire factory goes offline because some random bearing goes fubar and the nearest replacement part is in china
Nonsense. You cannot "prove" anything with statistics. We don't know what the salary range would have been if H1B visas didn't exist. In that alternative universe American tech salaries may have been higher. Or they may have even been lower if entire teams were shifted abroad. We just don't know, and this survey "proves" nothing.
Theres no proofs in science, nor the queen of the humanities, economics. However you can make pretty good inferences, and then look how they couple with the theory. And basically immigration actually creates employment, with iron-wall countries having some of the shittiest economies. Economies need to grow to create employment, and the easiest way to grow them is by generating more mouths to feed. And if those mouths can work in high paid jobs, then their job creation potential increases due to higher consumption.
The high wages compared to europe tell two things. 1) Europes tech industry is in the sink. 2) American tech workers appear to be in high demand. When theres high wages, the bargaining power of american workers improves, pushing the market forces in favor of suppliers (workers).
Its pretty damn obvious that H-1B is not hurting american workers at all.
Self-interest is a more plausible explanation.
Racism is all about percieved self interest (That percieved bit is the operate here). I dont see any reliable evidence that its anything other than xenophobia. The immigration debate seems fueled by nonsense and fear of foreigners more than anything rational.
So, if you're a TV writer, why not negotiate a contract which takes into account the new reality of streaming and shorter seasons?
What's the big deal? Business conditions change all the time in all sorts of industries and small businesses (which is what most writers should be if they're working via contract and for various rights) adjust to it.
I mean, if they had some sort of big bureaucratic organization which they were forced to belong to and which controlled standard contract terms they might be screwed over while they waited and hoped for it to adjust to the new reality, but if they are free and work for themselves, then it's just business as usual.
They are negotiating. Its called a strike.
"Maintain an awareness for contribution -- to your schedule, your project, our company." -- A Group of Employees