electromagnetic

It's definitely bogus. I can't dig up anything on this except reblogs of it.

The Chirac video is taken out of context, from a television interview where he says the current state of France as a first world country, and a G8 country comes directly from its former past as a colonial power.

Hmm, looks like I can dig something up:

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Afro...

> In relation with that is the translation of declaration of Mr Chirac is consciously shortened to serve the objectives of Mr. Koutonin. Chirac said ""Some of the wealth we have in our coffers, I do not say all of it, come from the exploitation of Africa. Therefore, it is only normal that we give back that money. It is not only normal, it is more sensible if we want to avoid the emergence of all kinds of social difficulties in the continent" Indicating the context of this declaration was a must that Mr Koutonin did not seem to appreciate

Not a single quote in the article is actually linked back to its source, just to wikipedia pages or websites and not even to a context in the article. His quote from Leopold Sedar Senghor comes up with 9 results in a google search, all linking back to this article. Even translated into French, the quote comes up with translations of this article.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is failing to even provide sub-par evidence.

Billions, nay near-trillions of dollars do not just magically float around the globe with no one noticing or accounting for them.

Sorry, but in a year none of this has been cited or sourced, just reposts. It's bullshit, it just got dredged up because everyone's been googling about France and Charlie Hebdo.

The issue is the engine compartments for a lot of vehicles are arranged by subcontracted firms. I know a guy who works for a company that does this for Ford, GM and Dodge, and there's not a mechanically inclined person in the bunch.

They're playing jigsaw with an engine compartment trying to get all the parts in in the most compact, but still workable, way possible.

It's sad when you think about it, because not only does it squeeze a lot of at-home maintenance out, which used to keep vehicles affordable, but now almost everyone discussing new vehicles discusses the maintenance costs.

Honestly, I'm not surprised the domestic car market essentially failed, because they're $40,000 printers. No one gives a crap about the up front price anymore, because they know they're getting screwed on the after-expenses so everyone's looking up how much their yearly maintenance expenses are going to be to make sure they don't end up paying more than the vehicle in a decade.

If we eliminated treatment with drugs with resistances against them, we'd no longer be artificially selecting for those bacteria, which would mean the bacteria that naturally performed better would be the most likely to survive.

Essentially if we stop treating with the drugs with resistances against them, we'd eventually end up with a bacteria gene pool that resembled the original pre-resistant one, where resistant bacteria were replication errors that were drowned out by natural selection.

The only issue is we can't do that without sacrificing millions of lives. So having a drug that works via completely different mechanisms would fulfil both.

If it has the same relative safety of use as penicillin lines of antibiotics, but is more robust in its method of action to prevent resistance occurring as easily, then my guess would be it would be preferable to use as widely as possible.

The idea is that drug resistance comes with a metabolic cost. We're making them do something to survive that we didn't before, and it's going to come at a cost.

If we think of them like cars--armoured ones are extremely rare. However, if we started randomly shooting at cars, and did so for a protracted period, we would eventually see them become more common. The fact they're slower, don't turn as well, and use more fuel is now negligible because of the excessive benefit of it's contents not being shredded.

If the implementation of this new antibiotic came with a moratorium on the prescription of penicillin, then we would be targeting the population as a whole with an RPG. It doesn't matter if you're armoured against bullets anymore. Both the normal and the resistant will be put under the identical survival pressures, which should mean it is more effective against the resistant strains as these won't be as fast to replicate.

The problem from what I understand is that tackling antibiotic resistant drugs with drugs designed for antibiotic bacteria, just makes super bugs.

Essentially if we cleared the roads of regular cars and left ourselves with armoured cars, and then start firing RPGs at them, we'll end up with vehicles resistant to those. We will end up with APC's on the road.

If we implemented a moratorium on penicillin strain antibiotics, we could potentially reverse the current epidemic of multi-drug resistant strains. It would be like starting anew - assuming there's no genes that are equally beneficial against both drugs.

That's my understanding of the reasoning behind suggesting broad use, but I could be way off.

I know a guy who works trucking the chemicals for the oil fracking. He makes a lot of money, and when on the job all expenses are paid.

Once his rotation is over, he hops on a plane to Thailand. He owns a house there that he paid comparatively nothing for, has a housekeeper that he pays a good wage to for the area - but really a pittance here - and he chills out drinking on the beach until his next rotation comes up.

As an aspiring writer (read as: as someone aspiring to earn less money) I've looked into this quite a bit.

I'm married with kids (well soon to be plural anyway) so the cheap rents are out of the question, and despite their generally lower cost apartments aren't ideal. Not only is there a high risk of bedbug infestation, which will set you back significantly if you get hit, but the costs are fixed and will increase every year.

From what I've figured out reading other peoples stories, the best way is to go nearly-off-grid. If your area allows mobile homes as a primary dwelling, then this is generally the ideal. They're generally cheaply available, they're normally of a size comparable to a single bed apartment, but they also come up to 3 and 4 bedroom models with two bath.

In rural areas these often have wood stoves as the primary heating with small propane/electric ones as backup so your pipes don't freeze if you go away for a weekend.

If you're setting up in a rural area, with 5+ acres of land you can easily be self-sustaining on your own wood supply. You can set yourself up with a small wind turbine and solar rig for your electricity.

Honestly though, the majority of my work experience is from various construction fields. I want to go this way to maximize my freedom. Cutting wood and tilling soil is just exercise to me so I don't have a problem growing my own vegetables and managing my own wood lot. The only thing I've spent money on owning my house was getting my furnace replaced, and only then because I didn't have the equipment to do the piping due to the age of my house.

My dream is to build my own house from the foundation up, and if possible using lumber I harvest myself.

So really you need to quantify what your reasons for doing this are. If it's just reduce expenses for a few years to maximize your savings you're probably best going for a college town apartment. If you want to escape the city and are merely using your skills as a means to an end to fund this endeavour, then I'd say learn the skills and go rural.

There's people in Alaska and elsewhere who can make ends meet at $10 a month. You need soap? Save your stove ashes, put them in a lye barrel and you make your own lye that you can mix with fat you've saved from cooking or - if you're really into it - your own hunting, or your own animals.

When you pay for a burger at McDonalds you're paying for the guy who grew the corn, the guy who fed the cow, the guy who drove it to the slaughter house, for the slaughter, for the processing, for the guy who drives the delivery truck, for the kid who cooks and makes the burger, and for the kid who serves you - and for every owner, manager and foreman along the way.

You can pay nothing at all for a burger by growing your own corn, raising your own cows and slaughtering them, growing your own wheat, raising your own chickens and making your own bread.

So: Earn a shit ton of money, buy a $750,000 house and never do anything around the house. Gardener does the outside, maid does the inside and takes the garbage out on garbage day. You pick up most of your food from restaurants, or you can even hire a housekeeper that does the groceries and prepares an evening meal for you.

You can earn good money, buy a $250,000 house. You'll mow your own lawn, you'll do your own cleaning and cooking. You'll do small repairs around the house, etc.

Or you can do what off-grid can do. You earn nothing, you sell what you have to. You grow your own food, hunt/raise your own meats, and you make pretty much everything you want.

The question is, how far down the rabbit hole does your happiness lie?

Well its made by Channel 4, so it's a private company that entered into the arrangement. A BUPA hospital would want to be shown in a positive light just to let a camera through the door, so I don't see why an NHS hospital should be any different.

I mean honestly, how mentally challenged do you have to be to think any organization is going to enter an agreement like that and not set restrictions on the tone.

Would you willingly let someone into your house to film you without them agreeing to make you look good? Would you agree if they told you they were going to cut it so all the audience sees is you arguing with your wife and kids?

So it's either going to be positive or not exist, and that's not because it's the NHS.

Speaking as a former game reviewer, I think Disney's inability to enter the game market with quantifiable success is that they're still being reactionary.

Games are stories, regardless of how you look at them. They're either stories you're told or stories you tell. League of Legends is a story you tell so it's the originality of the game that makes it. Starcraft is a story you're told, and truth be told in the intervening years between the original and its modern iteration the gameplay is stale and generic it's been cloned a dozen times, but the modern iterations are still fun an playable.

So I think you're right. They just don't play games.

You see a change in Disney's movies when John Lasseter takes over. He took over prior to Meet the Robinsons release, and at his behest they scrapped over 60% of the movie. It was the first thing Disney had put out in a long time that was actually a good story, and it did it by shirking conventions. He scrapped what would become Bolt entirely. From then on everything just got better.

Why? Because Lasseter loves movies, he loves stories.

Square Enix manages to use Disney characters, but they're doing it in a massively unconventional way. So the characters themselves aren't an issue, it's the way they're used in games.

Disney puts out movie tie ins and the only game that was decently received was Epic Mickey and instead of solving its flaws and building on it they tanked it with #2 by falling into sequel mania.

Honestly Disney needs to find out what story it wants to tell and tell it through a game. They've got enough franchises under their belt that they could find a story that people want to hear - they've been doing it all the time with movies lately.

Disney isn't going to be original in game play. It's too big, it's too slow. The only way it can be successful is to tell a good story, and it just doesn't try to put even it's B-material into its games.

Starcraft 2 continued a great story. People don't play through a dozen near identical levels for nothing. They do it because it unlocks more story. It worked for Brood War. It worked for Mass Effect.

Fallout 1 and 2 are still the best games in the entire franchise because of how tight their story was. To highlight the power of a good story, TES fans still frequently call Morrowind the best game in the series. Most of the talk over Skyrim is good graphics and gameplay mechanics - lots of which were inherited from mods from Morrowind.

Ground based radar is blind below the horizon, and generally blind near the horizon.

At 3.2km (2 miles) up the horizon is 202km away. At 12m (40ft) for a ground based radar (pulled that out of my arse, just for an example) the horizon is at 12.4km.

Then we discuss things like the Clutter Zone, which is a big issue for ground based radar systems. Planes and helicopters can fly Nap-of-the-Earth - below about 500ft is the usual stated height - because everything from buildings to wind over 15mph can make it unreliable for ground based systems.

An elevated system eliminates most of these problems, and this system has a radar horizon that covers all water and land from DC out to the Atlantic coast.

There's a lot of areas where a submarine could launch from unnoticed, and I'm guessing trying to detect a sub in busy waters is a lot harder and less reliable than a radar system to target a missile launch and try to take down a short range ICBM.

Well, actually that's not a massive problem. The spans between the individual islands isn't huge. The longest bridge in the world is 164km long and built for high speed rail.

The issue is Japan is earthquake prone, and big bridges in tsunami areas is probably a bad idea.

I think this is the better approach.

My Cell provider charges me overages, I can't upgrade to a better plan - there is none (honestly, how?) - so they charge me. The result? Last time my contract ended I changed provider.

If a customer is >X% over their limits, you should be selling them something better. If they don't want to upgrade their plan then it's time to start penalizing them for abusing the boundaries of the agreement.

If my cell provider had emailed me with "Your usage has been over your bandwidth limit by >5% we have Plan X for $$$ more that gives you XX% more bandwidth if you're interested, or overage charges will start being charged if plan overage continue."

Heck, I changed internet provider to one that offered sizeable bandwidth caps when I got Netflix, and I purposefully opt to pay extra for unlimited. I've only gone over their highest cap twice in two years, but I've often skirted near the limits. I'd rather pay a little more and be a happy customer, than be price gouged on overages.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

LA-SF is the busiest air route in North America, and it's one of the busiest air routes globally regardless of how it's ranked. On the number of seats flown per month it ranks comparatively low (number 18), meaning there's a bottle-neck being demonstrated. Either driving is too viable an option, or the airports can't handle extra flights.

The US is also notorious for having poor passenger rail. Seoul-Jeju carries a lot more passengers, a couple million, but they already have high speed rail, which makes the run in a time comparable to a flight. So being able to shave a half-hour off a commute isn't going to be commercially viable when implementing an entirely new infrastructure and design. Many routes out of Tokyo carry comparable numbers to LA-SF, but again Japan also has high speed rail - I think the time saving on the Tokyo-Okinawa (1500km distance) would be the only one capable of competing against high speed rail, but Japan is highly populated so likely not suited for massive and unproven new infrastructure projects.

The next option is in Brazil, is a slightly shorter route, but the issue being the economy is less likely to be able to support such a project, and the risk of corruption and embezzlement there could tank the entire project with cost overruns.

There's really no other credible short distance option in North America. New York to Florida (Miami 5.5mil + Orlando 3.7mil) would be a credible option, NY-Miami is a 2,000km run, passes by Orlando at the 1,750km mark, and the ticket price is almost triple that of the LA-SF run.

So if LA-SF isn't an option it's "Go Big or Go Home". Crossing states would be a big issue. So we're likely going to see this proven small scale on commuter routes in and out of big cities.

I had the same experience on a keto diet. There's also nothing like the euphoria of having so much energy after a long day (I work construction) that at 2am you have to get out of bed, still wide awake, and go down stairs to do a hundred push ups to burn off some energy.

I work construction, I managed eating a very strict ketogenic diet for several months. There's a brief window where your energy is low in the beginning, but after a month I found I had far more endurance than I did before, and than I have now since stopping the diet. My job performance not only improved, but I stopped eating lunch because I no longer needed to recover energy. (edit: an extra anecdote here, it's the only time since I was a kid that I've been hyperactive in the evening. It's also the only time I've actually wanted to exercise, and often times not only wanted to but had to otherwise I'd get insomnia due to my body feeling 'too awake'. I'd be making a cup of tea and doing jumping jacks waiting for the kettle to boil. I can't count the number of times I got out of bed to go work out because I couldn't sleep.)

Also, doing a 100km bike ride with fat as the main fuel would actually be exceptionally easy if you used the proper technique, because the entire purpose of the gearing system on racing bikes is to ensure your exertion remains the same. It would just require training with this goal in mind, like Timothy Oslon who's a successful ultramarathon runner.

> I suggest you actually go ahead and try it, before thinking you've formed any sort of informed opinion on the subject.

I would suggest you do the same, because you don't seem too well informed either.

That's easily shielded against by use of an aperture, where as RF interference is not nearly as easily shielded against.

If you've got a remote with a good quality IR LED you can point it just about anywhere.

You don't even know what the Gambler's Fallacy is! Gambler's Fallacy is betting according to a limited collection of statistics (red came up 5 times in a row, bet on black!) and not to true probability.

I didn't intend to refer to you personally as an idiot, but turing a phrase however that appears very lost on you.

I'm certain you're just intentionally being a troll, because you're unwilling to make a single basis of an argument or even support your reasoning and can't even use your terms correctly, and now you're attempting to bait me with condescension.

I'm not even going to attempt to argue this, because I sense I'm simply going to be banging my head against the wall because you're going to be locked into semantics and obsessing over "unguided".

Convergent evolution, and history argue against you. C4 photosynthesis evolved independently 60 times. There's no guarantee it will, and I'm not arguing it will. However, the weight of evidence argues that if there's a readily available niche it is a matter of time.

If you argue I won't win the jackpot, you're likely right - in fact I'd put money on my probability of losing. However, if you argue no one will win the jackpot in the next 100 years you're an idiot.

Yes, except even herbivores occasionally show evidence of eating meat. Deers are occasionally seen eating birds, similar has been seen in Cows (IIRC Lal the cow was documented eating its owners chickens from the coop) and in fact all Bovid species occasionally show eating birds.

If there's a world of untapped food, this exceptionally rare behaviour would rapidly become advantageous, especially when the prey isn't adapted to the unusual predator.

Evolution has no guide, but all evidence shows it evolves into almost every available niche and quite specifically that any large available resource will be tapped.

I think that's why the Mafia used to just threaten them. When you've got pictures of a guy sleeping with prostitutes and they got elected on "family focus" and do photo ops outside church with their wife of 14 years and fives kids, it suddenly becomes easy to "buy" politicians. Or, the old balls and the literal vice.

To be fair "You don't go to jail for using child labour" is a good reason to me. Also tack on "and my rate just went up £10 for hearing your stupid comment."

Cows. No one suspects something so docile and they outweigh us as a species by about 50%. We bred them to be tasty, but they were the ones using us.

One great visualization of the principles here is this:http://sajri.astronomy.cz/asteroidgroups/hildatroj.gif

The pink/purple ones bounce between the L3, L4 and L5 points. The green ones are in orbits of the L4 or L5 points and have an orbital period that should be the same as jupiter itself.

Well there's a big issue here.

If they have labourers, they're 5-10 years away from an end to their problem. If they have organized labourers, they're 5-10 years away from their end.

Uber is facing union efforts. If they go through, Uber will end in 5-10 years. Autonamous transit will deploy far faster than Uber will be able to shirk off any unionized labour.

If they get unionized labour, their first attempt to implement autonanous vehicles will lead to a strike, meaning a competitor can swoop in and replace them.

I imagine as wireless technologies improve we'll see a reduced barrier to entry.

I remember as a kid having to run downstairs to grab the hardwired phone. Then we got wireless ones (one for downstairs and one on the second line for my dads office). Then we got wireless ones in every room of the house.

Now in my house we don't have a single one, we have cell phones.

Computers followed the same trend in my parents house too. We ended up with 3 desktops and a laptop, from our beginnings with an old IMB running DOS.

Now I have one on my phone I carry everywhere.

We're now seeing cable companies releasing boxes that stream TV over wifi. We've got chromecast.

It honestly looks like the "smart home" market is too growth stagnant that technology is going to supplant it.

Markets are supposed to grow, but I've been hearing of "Jetson" homes since I was a kid and it never came true.

All it needs is a plug-and-play system that anyone can install and the market would see an explosion.

I've got a couple of wireless light switches in my house, which given enough frequencies could be used to do remote switching of every light in your house from a central transmitter.

Without intervention this is going to be one of those "singularity techs" where all the parts just converge on this use from the existing divergence of other technologies.

Look at the number of people lost every day on the roads: in the US alone that's 92.

Look at the number of people who've died during space flights: 18 total; 7 from Challenger and 7 from Columbia, 3 from a decompression in a Soyuz 11 and 1 cosmonaut from a failure in a parachute system.

More people die during the "safe" operation of tested equipment like cars, trains, boats, planes and helicopters.

The biggest issue in space flight is the inbetween. You're strapping yourself to a rocket that with a very small flaw turns into a bomb, or you're hitting the atmosphere at upwards of Mach 10 and expected to stop in what amounts to about 10m of water (that's the rough measure used for meteorite impacts).

By the realities, space flight is extremely safe because we do take so many precautions.

Possession is illegal, albeit laxly enforced. Drug use has never been illegal in Canada.

Also in other countries (like Canada) police don't even care about drug use as it's not illegal. So purchasing grams of a substance wouldn't even be worth a raid as they'll not find anything to charge you with and the fallout would be greater than the reward.

The political fallout in Canada for running a raid where nothing is found is massive. Warrant mistakes have landed police agencies on the front pages for weeks, if it came out they were doing raids based on next to no police work, not only would the police be under fire but the judges would be too.

I once read a theory that depression is an adaptive mechanism linked with neural plasticity and our bodies way to relearn how to behave under drastically changed circumstances.

Think, the most common causes for depression are serious loss. I lost one of my pets and it was crushing, even though it really wasn't a significant life, it was a pet I cared for every single day. That actually lead me to buying a house, I literally couldn't deal with the fact that in an apartment I had to garbage can something I loved and couldn't bury it in a grave.

When my childhood dog passed away, I hadn't seen it in three years as I'd moved continent. It was sad, but it didn't alter my life in any way.

> I am a monkey, living in a capitalist dream... or nightmare.

It sounds like you underwent a major paradigm shift, which could be the cause of your depression.

Personally I've found myself far less hateful. I can empathise with anyone and everything when I want to (which is a super-bonus for the writer in me). Like the shooting in Ottawa, I found myself feeling sorry for the shooter and his family as much or more than the victim. They're going to receive a lot of unfair attention and treatment, only because the guy was a convert to Islam and no one's going to pay attention to the grievous failures of the system that at every stage of failure could have potentially stopped this event ever being a possibility. Maybe instead of kicking a crack addict who didn't know how to get the right help, had been helped we wouldn't have two dead and lives torn apart.

My mind never once thought that way before I used psychedelics. I was intelligent, but my ability to project my understanding onto others was all but non-existent.

You mention your outlook on life changed, would you mind elaborating on this? What influence has this altered outlook had on your life and goals?

Speaking from personal experience, my use of psychedelics has profoundly realigned my goals.

One of my earliest goals was to become a clinical psychologist. I like people and I like how they tick, but my first use of LSD caused a reevaluation on that.

I hate giving advice that gets ignored, and I was entering a profession where this is the majority of what happens. You have to be nice and calm and keep repeating steps until people finally get the picture and listen to you.

Not only was that not for me, but I didn't even want to stay where I lived. It not only made me reevaluate my goals but my perception of risk.

I wanted to travel and visit friends I had made online, so I did. I was 18 and did it alone, friends said I was insane for taking such a "risk". I'm now living in a different country (continent too) and married to one of those friends I visited.

Recently I took a strong dose of magic mushrooms and it had an unusual response. Normally I experience what I call uber-Ego. It's a solipstic euphoria where I feel like I'm God and my subconscious created everything to entertain me. However, this time it felt like something dealt a death blow to my soul.

This last time, I realized I hated my life. I live in an urban area, which I hate. I'm a country boy, I always wanted to live in the country. Now with a 18 month old, I'm dealing with hating the life he has and is going to have.

Me and my wife are never home because cost of living is so high. I see my son between 5pm and 7pm on weeknights, so does my wife. He spends almost 5/6ths of his waking time with other people.

We're now planning on selling up and moving to the country where her family lives. Within a couple years we can quarter our living expenses, which would put our costs low enough that I could be a career writer - something I gave up because I had to pay exorbitant expenses to hate my life.

This last time made me depressed, and I still feel it. I've been working almost every night from when my kid goes to bed until I do on writing.

I don't think the mushrooms made me depressed, not one bit. I think the mushrooms made me bypass my superego that was blocking me from seeing my wants whilst catering to my needs.

I definitely changed personality wise afterward, but I know I had been annoyed and angry for months for reasons I couldn't explain, and in hindsight I'd been annoyed ever since we put our son into daycare.