You're just paying for that through increased prices on the products you buy. You're not beating any system, no one beats the system except for the top .001%.
That's not the question, the question is "was it morally wrong to drop the nukes?"
My position, based on my classes on the rule of law in warfare from a US service academy, is that civilians are an illegal target for the military and using a nuke on several hundred thousand people to take out a handful of industry is definitely outside of acts of legal warfare. It's different to target a manufacturing facility directly, even with civilians inside.
So, this isn't an argument, my position is the correct one. Even a US service academy teaches its officer candidates that the nukes were objectively wrong. The lives of civilians are more sacred than the lives of soldiers during wartime, legally.
They're way better than what came before (like PS/2 plugs, those connectors with the dumb screws (DB9 and such), etc.).
Edit: I can't post a reply to the comment below me because HN thinks I am posting "too fast", so here's an update to more thoughts I had on this:
It's also age because USB-A is like 20 years old or more. Back then you didn't plug and unplug USB stuff as often, but today we use it as a charging port more or less, so it's use-case was different when it was designed. Look at USB-C which is for today's "plug and unplug often" use case, it's fucking awesome for that. USB-A was more of a "this is mechanically better than DB9 or whatever" connector than a "this thing is intended to be transitioned at least 20 times per day" connector.
Here's a trick I use: most PC ports have the flat plastic (inside) on the top half [0], I have noticed. So, if you look at the USB dongle/stick/cord it will have some small holes punched in either flat side usually. Just look for the holes that aren't blocked by the flat plastic part [1] and make sure those are up, then you should get 95 percent of them correct.
>I don't know if the bombings were morally right or wrong and can see the argument both ways. But from at least one drafted soldier's perspective they were a good thing.
Soldiers volunteer to fight a war, civilians don't. If the Japanese had bombed LA, we wouldn't be having this conversation, every American would understand why this was morally wrong.
That might be true, but it's still fucked up to not pay them, and you guys are being crass by saying this stuff right now. They're people just like you and I, and the TSA front line employees aren't the problem, it's the security theatre that's become the norm that's the issue. Please consider separating your hate for the TSA from the individuals doing their jobs each day.
I don't expect substance from Hacker News capitalists, they're the type of people who buy into the whole "if it's legal, it's ethical" stance of SV tech companies like Google and Facebook. I expect down votes and logical fallacy when I spout my pinko commie drivel here.
I have an alias for cd which prints any file called '.cd-reminder' in a directory. I make notes like "pull and rebase daily!" in my work repos. I'll post it later from my laptop. It's just an if statement in a function, though, so not hard to reproduce yourself.
I'd like to see all of these features, but within the git repo. Are there solutions where I can use git to sync my issues, boards, etc., then have a local server to display it in my browser?
Well, one answer is to use IEEE 1788 interval arithmetic, which will at least give you IEEE 754 high and low bounds for a calculation, rather than one answer that's clearly wrong. Otherwise, some inaccuracy is the trade-off for fast floating point calculations.
The problem is that every normal person is just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, so they don't want to raise taxes on themselves in the future. This is not more evident elsewhere than here on HN, where everyone is a possible startup billionaire.
No, that's clearly censorship. Climate change had a different contextual meaning than extreme weather. One indicates that the climate is on a path towards something different, the other indicates events outside the norm but no overall change. This is an attempt by the Trump administration to cover up the fact that humans are fucking ourselves, so that their corporate overlords may continue to reverse-Robinhood the masses.
I didn't see anything in the article stating we shouldn't do other things as well. Of course this article is saying we should not eat meat, that's the point of the article. If the article was called "how to stop global climate change" and then said nothing but "don't eat meat", I would have more issues with it, but it is specifically focused on the issue of emissions from agricultural mammals.
I hate when people say that people with a valid viewpoint/lifestyle (vegetarianism, homosexuality, atheism) has an "agenda", it's disingenuous and biasing. Attack the methods and conclusions of the article, you're getting pretty close to ad-hominem.
> This is a multi-factored problem with numerous areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
So why do you immediately throw out "eating less meat" as one way to reduce some emissions? I'm not saying it's a big part, but it's pretty easy to not eat as much meat. I am a meat eater, but I don't understand why every other meat eater has to treat vegans/vegetarians like they want to take away your ability to breath oxygen.
The first thing I want to see on a high-security product web site (literally, the first item I see with my eyes) is a list of the individuals putting their names on the line backing up this security claim and a paragraph of why I should trust those specific people. Outside of that, this "phone" could be developed by the [insert TLA agency here] and released in order to gain access to highly sensitive communications from people who don't know better. I can't seem to find a single person's name or references on this site anywhere, so I would never trust that this device isn't wildly insecure.
Japan has a long, long history of tiny restaurants and food carts. Most areas in Tokyo have many times more [0] restaurants than worldwide cities, just for this reason. There might be 20 small 8-seat ramen places in the same alleyway, whereas in other cities you'd have 2 or 3 larger restaurants spread out further.
Imagine if housing was affordable somewhere other than Stockton. Then maybe people would live in SF and the South Bay (aka: "Silicon Valley") rather than huddling together on the BART and Caltrain. If we had housing closer to our work and commercial areas, people could walk more, too. Instead, folks travel for 1-2 hours each way because they can only afford to live far into the East Bay. I don't know for sure if this would work, but it seems logical that people want to live closer to work, if possible.
Compare the serving sizes and caloric intakes at a USA restaurant with those in Japan, for example, and you'll see why. It's not hard to figure out, we put HFCS and sugar in everything now and people eat 2x as much as they used to.
I lost 30 pounds over 2 years by being hungry non-stop and walking about 3 miles per day to work, so losing weight isn't just a "pill disease" that we can solve with a pill, it requires a person to have the self-control to be hungry and exercise, and (from experience) over-eaters don't tend to have much self-control in that area.
I think obesity should be treated more as a mental health issue than physical (for most people, there are exceptions), because there is no better way to lose weight than diet and exercise and doing it at a slow rate.
Obesity is an example of a problem like climate change. We know how to solve it (less sugar, better food, less calories, more moving) but no one wants to take those steps. I feel like this will also fall back onto the food companies, who will probably be reviled in 50 years like the tobacco companies are today.
Do a thing for yourself, not others, and most of the reasons not to do the thing seem to fade away. If I truly want to write another Scheme interpreter for fun I just do it now, instead of thinking "several thousand people have already done this, it's useless to do again."
I just sync everything important (laptop, phone) to a couple of cloud providers and an additional home server (so it's in 4-5 places) and figure that at least one of those will be okay. Physical items are kept locked in my desk at work inside a second locked container (U2F backup token, 2FA codes, etc.) If I lost everything, it would suck, but it's happened before and I was fine.
I always remember how they used to nickel and dime me about hotels and flights (I couldn't even get the "comfort" seat on two 9 hour flights in a row), however the Director positions and up (about 20 people at my office) used to fly First Class everywhere. I had to fly from SF to Germany to India in the worst, smallest, most uncomfortable seat for 18 hours in a row, but they could spring for First Class from SF to LA!
I'd like to see a technology explanation (in gory detail, and open sourced would be better) for how you keep the genome data ephemeral and secure and how you comply with HIPAA laws as well as the FDA. This software has features for which you very likely need to submit a 510k and associated regulatory paperwork, especially if you provide the data to a doctor to use to prescribe any sort of medical care.
I don't even see a name of the creator on this site. Personally, I won't ever submit personal genome data to an anonymous site like this, and no one else should either. Aren't there also legal implications to hosting personal health data online like this? I understand they claim to delete the data after the processing, but can we really trust an opaque process like this?