Not sure that I'd call it trivial, but from what one can gather, using the panel of known colors as a calibrant for correction during processing does seem like an obvious approach. I'm assuming that the newsworthiness of this is in the trick or complexity of the post-processing - removing scatter, haze, correcting the full color spectrum with multiple calibration points - it won't be a simple linear correction. I ain't no expert, but have spent oodles of time trying to color correct videos and stills from our scuba trips, and the *automatic* color correction in current software is still pretty poor IMO, relying often on a single color as the calibrant (so, a "pure" white region in the photo, a "pure" black region in the photo etc.). Manual adjustment of the photo color balance for UW vids and photos is on my list of "What Hell must be like".

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

Since you are ignorant of the law and incapable of finding it yourself, here is section 7214 ....read it and get back to me, I'll explain how it applies.



26 U.S. Code § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States

(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents
Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—
(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or
(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or
(4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or
(5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or
(6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud the United States; or
(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or
(8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary; or
(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do;
shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution.


Edit: I'll save time, here's the other law he's violating which unambiguously states he had no choice but to turn them over immediately.

26 U.S. Code § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(11) Disclosure of information regarding status of investigation of violation of this section
(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Edit: allow me to save time again, by not following 6103 (11) (f) and furnishing the return requested in writing by the chairman of the Ways and Means committee, he undeniably violates 7214 (a) (3), which comes with a 5 year sentence. Understand now?

Bob-o-Bob-o-Bobby-Bob.....
Trump is an admitted, convicted actual criminal fraud after pleading guilty to it, serial philanderer, and totally disloyal narcissist.
Hillary, much as I dislike her, has been loyal to a fault, and was never convicted of anything, investigated 10 times as long as Trump wasting well over 3 times the money without adjusting for inflation....nothing...zero proof of any crime, she's just a narcissist.
Oh Bobby Bob. Sometimes you just can't help putting your foot in your mouth.

In my scenario people/businesses are all taxed the same, regardless of their wealth, but only when purchasing something. Gov't adjusts the "sales tax" % as needed.

Click on settings. Click Speed. Adjust to taste.

What I mean is that space debris travels at speeds up to 17,500 mph or slightly more, depending on what height it is orbiting at. If you place this device in the path (or near it) of a known mass of debris, it is going to have to adjust and fire that net at a speed relative to the debris. If you have the device speed up or slow down to try and match the debris speed, it is going to rise or drop it's orbit height comparatively to the adjusted speed.

That is what I am wondering, will this device be able to catch something travelling at that speed? I'm assuming it would have to try without excessive movement changes or it would require too much fuel.

Insurance Adjusters at Farmers say they have seen it all.

I thought this lends itself to a spring loaded spiral shaft automatic transmission, where the more torque applied, the more it compresses the spring towards the front crank, lowering the gear you're in. This could be adjustable, allowing a rider to select how hard they want to pedal and automatically adjusting the gears to keep that force stable at any speed.
A second gear in the rear, rotating in the opposite direction and sandwiching the drive gear, would go a long way towards stopping slippage and gear wear. They certainly need to ditch the aluminum gears, though.
Just what sprang to mind when I saw it.

Oh yeah -- non-Thais generally don't have to worry about the "attitude adjustment" camps etc. Deportations are a possibility, but like you said you have to be really pushing it.

I've tried to put my controllers onto a virtual windowsill so that I could adjust my headset mid game.... so I'm not surprised this would happen after a drink or two.

It's not that VR looks real or anything, but something in the brain just accepts it as real, particularly for automatic actions, such as wanting reach out to touch etc.

Sadly, that's mostly correct.
There is no legal requirement to treat your children fairly, or to raise well adjusted, humane, empathetic children that love and respect their parents, only a moral one.
To pick nits, people aren't totally free to make their own choices regarding their own affairs, and their personal part of any relationship with others. Parents must supply a certain minimum by law, no choice involved. Beyond basic needs, I agree, people are free to be as douchey as they choose.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

Morgan adjusts her paws, moves gears into high, Georgia is the first to get sucked in and as Dean tries to saves Georgia he to succumbs to the unforgiving auger. Morgan has a tasty treat.