Speaking as someone comfortable with the outback night sky I'm fine without it thanks. So are pretty much all the locals and traditional owners of the Murchison Quiet Zone which is focused more toward radio silence overhead for SKA and such things .. so that all dovetails together.
If you're relying on starlink via a smartphone, you're basically unprepared in any case.
Against all that it seems miserly to complain about the costs of destroyed, seized, lost drones, equipment, gates, doors et al that will never be reimbursed.
It's not miserly, rather it's recognizing the exact line the government steps over when causing harm and then refusing to compensate its victims. This is the longstanding perverse incentive that has led to this specific development, the murders of Pretti/Good/Taylor (et al), "can't beat the ride", forced plea bargaining, and so on. The very idea of sovereign immunity for executive/administrative actions needs to be wholly repudiated.
My bad, it's late in the evening here and I typed something that works when spoken with emphasis and timing (at least in my head).
I added quotes, it should say that Pakistan's weapons program is one that is outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as Pakistan is not a party to it.
Its a pakistani submarine, with exclusive saudi-royalty members on the bridge.
We should build a city that is a statistical bunker- basically a line, for the edge case of jihadist insurgents getting the forbidden eggs in the cake.
Less a f-u-view, more a f-u-world, the above is pragmatic advice about the actual IRL challenges of keeping data secure.
Further, a view that ignores many real world digital data risks faced by those considered to be useful targets; eg: compromised supply chains delivering "pre hacked" hardware with discreet wifi chips or hidden out of band comms, etc.
> But per-capita greenhouse emissions have been falling in much of the developed world?
Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world".
If you include all the emissions that prop up the highest per capita consumption patterns on the planet then you see the highest per capita emissions attached to the highest consumers.
>Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world".
That does increase US's emissions, but not enough to change the conclusion:
I have no argument, just an observation that for six decades I've always taken multiplier to possibly mean any positive, negative, or zero value, rational or irrational, etc.
Real farmers, all 3,500 of them in local coop, take careful measures to control everything on large farms- spraying is generaly done at night for the cooler temps, rates are watched as over spray costs $$'s etc. Seed volumes are manually run through air seeder calibrate seed weight per acre, etc.
The trend today is toward AgBot / SwarmBot type boom sprayers with onboard weather stations for wind speed and air temp, coupled with computer vision to limit spray to actual weeds rather than broad area even spray for weed / non weed alike.
> so it's very hard to tell how many of these are actual DUIs vs cops deciding to pull over a (usually black)
It's easier if you look at (say) Australian road traffic enforcement statistics; they have different rules than the US, have the "right" to check for DUI without having to make up a reason, and operate by funnelled road blocks that check everybody (or every second car, etc, depending on flow rates and breath check speeds).
They also 'verify' in the sense that any driver can challenge and get a "better than road side" test back at the station under supervision (blood tests with saved samples for court challenges, etc).
> They also 'verify' in the sense that any driver can challenge and get a "better than road side" test back at the station under supervision (blood tests with saved samples for court challenges, etc).
DUI (in Australia) refers to "Driving under influence" and focuses on threshold detection rather than degree of impairment (although relying upon other studies that allege to correlate the two).
In the case of drug impairment, "better than roadside swabs" evidence for court challenges includes samples of urine, breath, hair, saliva or sweat.
Blood samples, rather than breath tests, are typically for alcohol.
Independent of roadside pass / fail on swabs for drug / alcohol levels Australian RTA can still ask drivers to complete an impairment test; assessing balance, coordination, and overall behaviour.
On challenge, this is something that can also be further assessed for court evidence; eg: are their perceptions of impairment because (various) medical conditions that cause slurred words, etc.
If you're relying on starlink via a smartphone, you're basically unprepared in any case.
Nice to have, better to be better prepared.
reply