So, this is how women pee nowadays?

Sterendude · 2 days

I'm totally jealous og Barbara Loomis' job on that site. I so want to have "Alignment Monkey" on my business cards.

Sterendude · 2 days

I'm from Canada and my high school also had metal detectors. Of course they were the kind you use to look for coins on the beach and we used them in science class for learning science.

nomdeweb · 2 days

The reports on lithium scarcity seem a little unfounded. While a 2007 report suggested a problem (Tahil, 2007, "The Trouble With Lithium"), a more thorough estimate shows it to be unfounded. (The link has a summary but you can read the full paper, "An Abundance of Lithium", here.)

However, the vast majority of the sources are in lithium carbonate (150 million tonnes) which is the output result of the OP chemical reaction, so it's useless in such a process to capture CO2 or produce net energy. The other 28 million tonnes seems to be more useful, but it's still unclear what the energy costs are to extract it and produce Li3N. I'm assuming the researchers in the article took that into account since they explicitly address that problem in other ways of capturing carbon. But, I don't see it in the article.

RyanOnymous · 10 days

Systems containing really sensitive information are not connected to a network with external access.

That's a bit of a strawman, and perhaps inaccurate. The quote says "secure databases", not "really sensitive information". He does say above it that "we have access to every classified database in the U.S. government", which would seem to be impossible to know, but I do know many classified databases are indeed accessible over the internet. Really, "classified" doesn't mean all that much. It could be Confidental or Secret. (I have Canadian and NATO Secret level clearance. It's not hard to get.) I'm betting it needs to be Top Secret before they start disconnecting it from remote access, although I can't even guarantee that.

Plus he did refer to Manning who send out data by CD, not remote access.

So you're not necessarily wrong; you've just interpreted him overly narrow.

veoeluz · 13 days

And then what is the difference? Are you suggesting that the government have two separate names for the exact same thing under the law? Under what conditions would they use the word "marriage" versus "civil union"? What feature would actually differentiate them?

Or are you suggesting the government stop using the word marriage and completely replace it with "civil union", and then gays can get the same "civil union" as everybody else.

I think rights activists would be fine with the latter. Just do a "find a replace" for the word "marriage" with the words "civil unions" for everybody. Of course that would feel odd since everybody just calls this thing a marriage anyway.

But, do you really think the whole issue is the word? Heck, the bible doesn't even use the word "marriage" or "married". Those are English words, and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Koine Greek. Why not just get religious people to use the original words from the bible in the original languages? That would solve the whole problem, assuming it's just the word.

But it's not the word, and it's not gay marriage in a church that anti-gays are against. They are against gays having the same thing that heterosexuals have, no matter what name you give it. The idea that the union of two men or women as a family could be considered as equal under the law as a man and woman is their problem.

kungfugroundsquirrel · 13 days

because his taxes would go up

Where did it say taxes would go up? It would replace programs with inefficient overhead like welfare and EI. That would shrink government (a more conservative policy) and possibly reduce taxes. Plus, if it reduced health care costs and crime that would further reduce taxes, and if it increased education as suggested then incomes would tend to be higher and the same total costs could be covered with a lower tax rate.

That's if. The evidence here isn't conclusive, but there is fairly solid reasoning and a little bit of evidence.

kungfugroundsquirrel · 13 days

What does any of the things listed in Mitterand's policies have to do with a guaranteed minimum income?

kungfugroundsquirrel · 13 days

what's my incentive to produce anything of worth

Essentially the same thing as now. You can get by with welfare. Is your current ambition in life to live at the bare minimum of surviving in society? Once you can answer why you aren't currently aiming for the bottom rung, you'll be able to answer your own question.

As a hint, incentives actually work best in relative terms, not in absolutes. In absolutes, desperation is the biggest incentive and it creates less wise choices (like turning to crime, or to drugs for avoid the despair). Once you can stop worrying about survival you can make wiser choices for making improvements to your life.

kungfugroundsquirrel · 13 days

I agree the data from this experiment cannot be interpreted as simply as it appears to be here. The evidence it presents is mediocre.

However, your response is 100% speculation with zero evidence and hence the article is a lot more convincing than you are. I must say I've studied a lot of economics and politics and I don't recall the "bloody murder" model.

You seem to be a cynic, and perhaps a bit ideological. Far left groups would love such a program, not scream bloody murder. You seem to think that left-wing is synonymous with lazy, greedy, and poor, and that they'd want to have it all with no costs to themselves. If that's true, it's ignorant of left-wing principles. The economics is the same whether using left or right-wing policies, just with different trade-offs.

I don't think your response it that well thought out, frankly. Really, what you have to compare such a program with is other programs (or having none at all). It would replace welfare and EI, for instance. It would be far more efficient as it would have significantly lower overhead.

You're playing a bit with wording too. You're right it probably isn't 8.5% of costs, but is also isn't fixed. It's not hospital costs, it's healthcare costs. None are really fixed. If there are 8% fewer visits, you can have 8% smaller hospitals, or 8% fewer hospitals, though that would obviously lag changes by years. Doctors usually get paid by the procedure, not by salary, so that scales too. Nursing is typically based on core staff augmented by part-time and casual, and overtime. That 8% reduction in calls. Considering we have a serious nursing shortage that will improve things considerably in nursing and produce better care.

As far as the program itself, even if there was a push for differentiate rates, that exists now too. Would it be worse than it is now? Your final argument makes no economic sense at all either. If there were higher amounts for living in Toronto or Vancouver that would only happen if it cost more to live there. The added income would be offset by the added cost, so there is no incentive to flock there at all. Generally speaking, and differential would be based on equalizing such incentives anyway so that no area is particularly more or less attractive. Then, there's the cost of moving. If somebody is living off this base income then then moving is an inefficient cost to them.

I'm not saying this is a good program, but I don't see that any of your objections are based on any evidence or solid reasoning.

bracomadar · 13 days

I am a proud centrist* and I agree too much tax is a bad thing. Of course this is really begging the question because what makes it bad is that it is too much.

The question is, how do you define what is too much? I don't think any particular amount or percentage can be justified on its own. It really depends on what the tax is being spend on, how much value that produces to the people paying the taxes, how that return on investment is distributed across the population, and the long-term economic effects of tax and the thing it is spend on. A tax that is spent on something that pays back many times its cost to all citizens is a good tax, and increasing it should be seriously considered, at least to the point it stops paying itself back.

So how would you define too much?

*Actually, I prefer to call myself an adaptable pragmatist. Every issue and policy requires independent evaluation based on evidence. Ideologies are the ingredients, not the recipe.

Generique · 16 days

Ottawa, Ontario. Landscaping/renos. Anytime this summer.

Here's the situation. My wife and I just had a baby 6 months ago. Our house has no back yard and the front yard is open to traffic and is crap. We got landscaping plans done for us already (fence, sod, stone walkway, plants). Also our side alley has a small deck for story garbage but it is attached to neighbour's fence and they are tearing it down so we need to re-build it properly. The total estimate for all work comes in at ~$40K.

Then I got laid off last week. And we found out we're 10 weeks pregnant, due when our son is 13 months. And since my wife is on maternity leave she won't have any pay when the second comes along.

So, while I look for work I'm doing as much of the deck & landscaping work as I can. My wife is a great cook and help is always welcome, especially if you have relevent skills (landscaping, carpentry, vasectomies, ...)

KeiranLee · 19 days

And just like that, celery sales throughout the world set cum skyrocketing overnight.

FTFY

rytis · 20 days

As an engineer with 13 years experience in the aerospace industry (not including the Ph.D. before that), I concur.

It is infeasible that regular consumer electronics can interfere with an airplane's operations. The first thing to think about is that our own electronic devices don't interfere with each other even. On top of that, no airplane would enter service without proper EMI shielding. There have also been a fair number of demonstrations that these electronics cannot interfere with an airplane. Even cell phones don't. An e-book reader has no hope of interfering.

To date I have yet to hear an explanation why the FAA has these rules. I suspect it is not at all related to any rational concerns of interference from commercial devices. I suspect it is simply that if somebody wanted to build an interference device, which may be possible, the flight crew wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Therefore they just get everyone to turn everything off.

TL;DR: I suspect it's based on proactive security from intentional interference, not worry of unintentional interference from consumer electronics.

himel412 · 22 days

Are you, by any chance, white? And middle class?

darr123 · 22 days

I've learned from experience it doesn't work as well as a pick-up line though.

DashingLeech · 23 days

For those who haven't seen it, I do highly recommend Lawrence Krauss' video lecture referenced in the article. It's one of my favorites on the origins of the universe.

DashingLeech · 1 month

For the TL;DR or TL;DW (didn't watch the 2+ hours of videos -- but you should), this article argues they aren't really that different. It's just different definitions.

skywalker-vn · 1 month

I have both Foscam FI8917W (PTU) and FI8905 (fixed), both with night-time IR imaging and WiFi. There's lots of software available for watching, including the Foscam software that comes with them, Blue Iris, various open source ones. I have a Synology NAS so I use the built-in Synology Surveillance Station and iPod Touch app (DS Cam). But it doesn't support their audio so I'm now using Eggman Technologies Live Cam Pro ($3.99) on iOS and soon Android and PlayBook. Love it.

Where this doesn't fit is that both cameras are plug-ins. But they use an inserted wall-wart adapter so you can buy the appropriate battery pack to plug it into if need-be.

mepper · 1 month

Interesting point. In order to recognize that it has violated the first amendment, the government must recognize what is or isn't a religion. Yet, the very recognition of what is or isn't a religion may violate the first amendment. Quite the paradox.

Of course, I suspect that fact alone means that judges would rule such a process must be allowed under the first amendment.

dmitrijev · 1 month

The issue here was why somebody would consider she looks ridiculous, not whether she should be publicly humiliated.

The tendency to humiliate people like this is a factor in social norming. There are pros and cons with social norming. For example, pretty much everybody who sees her in that outfit will think she looks bad regardless of whether anyone publicly says something. If she knew that's what people though, she might not wear that next time.

Social politeness can be as much an enabler of humiliation as social bluntness. It's like that "you've got something in your teeth" issue. Do you say something and embarrass them, but have everyone think they look stupid, or tell them and allow them to save face.

With strangers it can be harder. If you approach them and say something, that can be far more embarrassing. There is no simple answer. Being too polite isn't any better than being blunt.

qwertyuiop54213 · 1 month

Pretty good story, though it does have some inconsistencies. Like, he says he was a "forever-alone nerdy guy" before this yet he had just broken up with his high-school girlfriend and claims he was a good-looking guy, and had a very attractive woman all over him. None of that fits "forever-alone".

Also, he thinks she might have been a Redditor -- 4 years ago in early 2008. I've been that long (plus lurking before that) and it wasn't exactly something a 16 year old girl would have been on at that time. (OK, perhaps he's joking.)

But that being said, it could still be true. Hard to write that much that fast while making it up. Plus I've had very weird dating adventures that could easily sound just as crazy (stalker, cross-country flight for a date, shaving body hair, Maxim model). Weird date stories are best when told well, and he certainly tells it well.

dmitrijev · 1 month

She only looks ridiculous to you because she is not what you see as attractive (or you think she should dress in such a way so that you find her attractive). That is unfair.

She looks ridiculous to most people (men and women) because she has features that we have evolved to find unattractive and her clothing serves to emphasize those unattractive features. Nobody chooses what they find to be attractive or not. Try telling that to homosexuals.

Life is unfair. Some are blessed with genes that make life easier, some are not. Some have motivation to change what they've got, some do not. Social norming helps as much as it hurts.

Nature simply doesn't care.

Biology.

DashingLeech

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login