Slashdot Mirror

Wow, you're so fucking wrong that you aren't even in the same time zone as right. Here's the relevant chart, in case you fail at clicking provided links as bad as you fail at using Google:

Energy Source - Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average - 100,000 (41% global electricity)
Coal – China - 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. - 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil - 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas - 4,000 (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) - 440 ( 1% global electricity)
Wind - 150 (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average - 1,400 (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S. - 5 (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average - 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Nuclear – U.S. - 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)

Would have loved to format that better, but apparently the lameness filter thinks it's too much whitespace.

It's folly for society to toss someone out because they're unlucky enough to need something like that and only a fool would decline it.

Really? Why is it "folly" for society to refuse to pay millions of dollars in medical procedures for people who are never going to contribute millions of dollars of value to society?

Your also discounting the fact that many people don't make their own decisions.

Well, yes, and that's a problem. Individuals should make those decisions for themselves, and the way you make those decisions is by purchasing medical insurance that meets your needs and objectives.

End of life care on the USA is not more expensive then elsewhere. [pennmedicine.org] So there goes one of your talking points.

That's not what the study says. It's also not true: https://blogs-images.forbes.co...

I think that's the extent of this argument. (Of course, I'm right and your wrong)

Well, the difference is that I actually have first hand experience with several of these systems, whereas you (like most Americans asking for single-payer) just speak from ignorance. And while you are a fool who is never going to change his mind, fools vote, so it's important to figure out what your misconceptions actually are.

We've sure seen the results of China's forward looking environmental policies. Especially in scenic untouched places like Baotou, and in the pristine air of Beijing.

On the other hand, because they've screwed up so badly, and because poor air quality affects everyone, including the highest members of the government, they're actually doing something about it. China is the biggest investor in renewable power and has a dozen nuclear power plants under construction. They're not in a good place right now, but at least they're moving in the right direction. The same cannot be said of the US.

You realize that Medicare only covers old people and severely disabled, that accounts for the high costs.

While it's true that healthcare costs go up somewhat with age, they go up excessively in the US:

https://blogs-images.forbes.co...

That is, the data shows that the problems with costs in the US healthcare system are in large part due to excessive spending on the elderly. And that's because there is currently no political will to limit this spending: doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies make a financial killing from this population for no substantive gains in life expectancy or quality of life.

A single payer pool would include healthy people who would drive those numbers down.

Forcing young people to pay for the healthcare of old people doesn't "drive down" any costs and doesn't make healthcare "more efficient", it simply subsidizes the excessive consumption of health care by older people through imposing regressive taxes on poorer young people. It's morally wrong. In fact, I'd call it obscene. And it's politically unworkable in the long run.

I stand by my statement: any healthcare reform needs to start by sharply cutting Medicare/Medicaid costs down to European levels (contrary to what you believe, it makes little difference whether we talk about European averages or just elderly populations). Only then does it make sense to talk about extending Medicare to everybody.

and it will continue to grow.

I think it's time you update your prejudice. China is doing more to stem emissions than most of the west while still rising out of poverty and increasing its energy demand at the same time. Compared to the USA it's CO2 emissions per person are far lower. Investment in renewables dwarf the USA, as does production of renewable energy sources.

So much BS here.
1) China's electrify is around 82-85% from coal. Because china is adding 30-50 GW of NEW COAL PLANTS each year, while at the same time, adding less than 30 GW of wind/solar/hydro/nukes each year, they will actually maintain OR increase their emissions from coal by 2030. In fact, right now, they are around 1.1 TW of coal-powered electricity. In 2030, they are projecting to be ~ 1.75 TW. IOW, China will add more coal plants in the next 13 years, than America and EU28 can cut because together, we are less than 500 GW TODAY.

Yet, idiots are worried about a nation that emits less than 14%, and is dropping fast.

Nope, smart people are worrying about idiots who rest on their laurels while the rest of the world is investing in solving the problem. The idiots here are the USA, comfortable in the fact that their emissions are only 14% of the total due to the abuse of a statistic that ignores the fact that they are the 3rd largest emitter per person in the world and more than double that of China. Then these idiots (I'm talking about you here) will claim that they are dropping fast abusing the same statistic which when realised per capita actually puts you pretty damn far down on the list of countries solving the problem.

Per person you are performing worse than China. Per person you are solving the problem slower than China.

From behalf of the rest of the world: Fuck you for even daring to compare yourself to a country like China who are actually making an effort.

America continues to develop the majority of AE that is going on. Far far more than China does. FOr example, the vast majority of the companies in China that do solar, were basically stolen from the US to China.
In addition, idiots, like you, will use emissions per capita as a line which is a joke. In the first case, America has NEVER been in the top 3 per capita. Many other nations emit a lot more than America does, in Per capita.
We regularly rate in the top 10-15, but top 3? Nope. As it is, America's per capita continues to drop, while China's grows massively. They are just under America as it is

But, per capita is about the worst normalization going. WHy? Because ppl in general do not decide what plants utilities will use. Basically, gov and businesses decide this. As such, emissions per $ GDP (real) is a superior measure. And it turns out that America was in the middle, with China at the bottom clear back in 200*s time. Now, America is in the top 25% for low emission, while China remains in the bottom 5 nations.

In fact, even in per capita, America continues DOWNWARD, while CHina continues upwards.
And one reason why you idiots LOVE to use 10 year old data, or just make wild claims with nothing to back it up, is that America continues to lower our output, while Europe and CHina continue to grow theirs.

Businesses should not switch to biometric passwords. They could use biometry for convenience paired with password for security, but biometry isn't enough for one main reason: if someone figures a way of replicating even a single biometric identification, the whole system is defeated.
It's a difference between replacing a single user password versus possibly having to recall and replace all hardware, and the entire system behind it.

You can easily replace passwords. Biometrics cannot be replaced.
It uniquely identifies people and is uniquely tied to each one, which also creates a problem regarding privacy.
It's always a bad idea to use something that is uniquely identifiable as a password, because you end up running in scenarios where anonymity becomes impossible.

And in the end, the problem with security systems is that they are prone to failure due to a bunch of different factors.
Smartphone fingerprint readers were easily defeated just recently because they were implemented to work faster.
http://www.computerworld.com/a...
Technology catches on. We'll always be one step from a scanner with high enough resolution and a printer of some sort with high enough definition and usage of the right materials.

You know what people said about fingerprint readers in the past? That it would be close to impossible to replicate because of how complex our fingerprints are. That argument being made by Harvard Business Review in the end of the quote is just the same. We can't assume how hard it's gonna be to replicate even if you are tying a bunch of biometrics together because it hasn't been out yet, nor there's any incentive for people to break it just yet. If someone haphazardly implements it through a wide range of businesses, then all bets are off.

Also, companies behind such systems will always fail to recognize the problem because recalling and replacing devices will always be impossibly expensive, and in several instances we're basically relying on security through obscurity.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

https://hackaday.com/2015/11/1...

Now, with things as they stand, imagine this scenario: as we all know, several companies nowadays are basically building entire dossiers about each and every costumer with all sorts of information about them to sell for advertisers and whatnot. Imagine if biometrics got into that, and then innevitably one of those companies gets hacked or leaks their entire databases. Instead of people scrambling to reset and change their passwords, we'd get people who could do nothing about it, biometrics in the wild, just waiting for someone to come up with a way to use/replicate them. This happens to enough businesses and enough databases, biometric data becomes something as easy to find out as an address or name.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...

Examples? No problem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

http://reason.org/blog/show/tw...

The EPA has a terrible track record with the SCOTUS, repeatedly getting slapped down often with scathing words about their nonsense.

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

no need to post anonymously just because you want to be a racist jerk, there are so many on /. these days that noone even lifts an eyebrow anymore...

Indian software engineers and their "executives" are all terrible. Anytime you have an Indian who finds himself in some sort of executive role, you will have a front row seat to watching half or more of your native country men become unemployed and the amount of "needfulls" working on your project grow exponentially.

...that is exactly what happened in all these companies: https://www.forbes.com/2009/12... (granted its a few years old but still).
I guess you also predicted the future of Microsoft employees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Not posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

I'm ambivalent about Forbes, but if you and Antifoidulus trust them so much, how come you ignored this little gem

Damn Forbes and their idiotic "infinite" article stream. The "gem" I was referring to is this: "The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy"

because you don't like the fact that statistics

Antifoidulus claimed, incorrectly, that Forbes is the source of the data — it was important to his argument, that the stats come not from a "liberal rag", as he put it, but a respectable publication. He was wrong, and I pointed it out — Forbes, whatever their credentials, did not put the data together themselves. They simply wrote about stats collected by a highly liberal organization.

I'm ambivalent about Forbes, but if you and Antifoidulus trust them so much, how come you ignored this little gem?

But that's not how statistics work - the numbers don't lie

People putting the numbers together lie all the time. Here is just one example of such lying.

life expectancy in Europe was higher

Stipulating that's really true, is it because or despite government forcing citizens to pay for other people's healthcare?

What about the CIA?

-1 redundant.

Straight from the liberal rag known as Forbes

I mean, I know you are a Republican and thus dimwitted and gullible, but even a Trumpanzee can at least use a keyboard. Maybe next time think before opening your mouth(other than perhaps to stuff opioids in it)

"Satya Nadella ($18 million), who is successfully steering the company back towards growth."

Ah, now I know the story is complete fiction

I had a negative reaction to that, also. Maybe Nadella is merely not as destructive as Steve Ballmer. Ballmer was rated the worst CEO in the United States.

Quote from an article in Forbes Magazine about Steve Ballmer: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today." Another quote: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs." (May 12, 2012)

Those claims are ridiculous in light of what actually happened:

Hillary Clinton, with her sophisticated, very expensive data analytics machine, won the popular vote by the slimmest of margins on Election Day. But Donald Trump, with his reality-TV-tested, carnival-barker sense of what people wanted to hear, was able to find a path through America’s Rust Belt to a stunning electoral college victory.

He did it by tapping into emotion, not by mapping data points.

Hillary's data-driven campaign:

Kriegel’s anodyne title is Clinton’s director of analytics, but it’s a job that makes him, and his team of more than 60 mathematicians and analysts, something of the central nervous system for the campaign: charged with sensing, even predicting, the first tinglings of electoral trouble and then sending instructions to everyone on how to respond.

When Clinton operatives talk about their “data-based” campaign, it’s invariably Kriegel’s data, and perhaps more importantly his models interpreting that data, they are talking about.

Hillary was clearly targeting individual voters and groups.

... You have stupid companies willing to risk money on betting prediction AI, which is nowhere near even as good as what a person and a spreadsheet can do. Both of these things make uninformed people start to think, oh, AI is right around the corner. It's not. We are a century away from hard AI, if ever.

I'm an ML researcher, so I'm totally with you on the overall sentiment. We don't even know the right questions to ask, let along solve, in hard AI. However, the notion that a prediction AI is nowhere near as good as what a person can do is now behind us for a lot of tasks and what's happening now is deployment. For instance, a number of trained systems are better than humans at diagnosing radiology results:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/...

Strong AI is going to be garbage for a while, but whatever the name, machine learning doesn't have to be hard AI to change a lot our everyday lives.

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

Your first example is so completely off base I'm not even sure how to respond, but I'll give it a shot. Parts of the US Constitution do only apply to American citizens, and the Constitution always only applies within American borders. The First Amendment and free speech are not the same thing, however.

I am aware. The fact that executions do occur does not mean they are glorified, and properly administered, there is no "flipping around". When it's done properly, loss of consciousness is extremely quick and death occurs within ten minutes. Now, it certainly doesn't always go as it should, but mistakes don't appear to be common. Stealing a chocolate bar 3 times does not result in a life in solitary.

"Government is already providing oil subsidies."

That is straight up false. There is exactly $0 in oil subsidies as defined by dictionary.com:

-a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
-a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
-a grant or contribution of money.
-money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

Oil companies are allowed to deduct their operating costs just like any other company and not pay taxes on losses JUST LIKE ANY OTHER COMPANY, including the one that you work for. They are further allowed to use the same tax structure that all US corporations are subject to to maximize their deductions and minimize their tax liability. Unless you don't take any deductions on your taxes every year (I know you take deductions you are eligible for because you are not a drooling idiot), don't expect others to not take deductions that they are eligible for. Also don't try to redefine an existing word to mean something that it clearly does not in common usage just to make your argument sound valid, that is underhanded and deceitful.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/d...

Furthermore, consumers are basing their purchases of energy based largely on cost. When the cost of solar is less than the cost from the utility, they switch (as I have done) to solar. If gas becomes expensive, they want to know why and lightweight, less safe vehicles that get better mileage start to sell better. The economy is made up of millions of intelligent beings making billions of deciscions every day, which is why free market forces quickly shift to new optimums far faster than government regulation ever could (just look at the adoption rates of smart phones since 2007 that incorporate features that the public wanted, including web browsing, camera and video, music playback etc.)

Canada, Germany, Norway, etc. have higher tax rates for the wealthy

Top marginal income tax rates are about 53% in the US, significantly higher than both Germany and Norway. Worse yet, top marginal income tax rates in Europe start applying to people in the middle class, often barely above the median. Furthermore, comparisons to Canada and Norway, two resource-rich countries in favorable locations and with small populations, are invalid anyway; we couldn't run the US like Canada or Norway if we wanted to. The only really valid comparison of the US is to the EU as a whole, rather than cherry-picking the wealthiest European states. Otherwise, you ought to compare the US to at least the larger countries, like France and Germany.

and their MEDIAN incomes are about the same or higher than USA

Among industrialized Western nations, the US has some of the highest pre-tax MEDIAN incomes in the world. More importantly, the income tax burden on low and average income earners is substantially lower in the US than in Europe, and Europeans pay massive and regressive VAT taxes on top of that. German/Scandianvian style social welfare states are paid for by the middle class. (Note that the Tax Foundation actually understates US taxes.)

and WITH better social safety nets.

The US has one of the highest amounts of per capita social spending in the world, higher than all of Europe and most of the Nordic countries. Even as percentage of GDP (an invalid comparison because it's absolute spending in $PPP that actually matters), US spending is very high. Countries like Germany have cut their social safety nets massively because they found that generous social safety nets result in people staying out of the workforce. And the services you get from the government in Europe are shitty: long wait times, limited choices, demeaning rules.

We don't have to theorize, their middle is doing better.

No, we don't need to theorize. Have you actually lived in Europe? And I don't mean as an American expat with full access to American opportunities whenever you want to? I have. The European middle class is highly taxed, has limited economic opportunities, and is less economically well off than the US middle class. Much of the European middle class lives below the US poverty line (that is, when you don't cherry-pick Norway and Luxembourg for your comparisons.) The situation in Europe is grim, both economically and politically. And if the US were really as repressive and miserly towards the working class and the middle class, it wouldn't be the migration destination of choice for so many people.

Why would the rich want to redistribute anything at all?

I dunno. But they do. If you look at a list of the wealthiest zipcodes in America, you will see that most of them vote Democratic, which is a pretty good proxy for supporting redistribution.

Check out FreedomBox, an open source hardware & software solution under development

https://www.freedomboxfoundati...

A mass mesh network is one of the few methods society can ensure the tyranny of centralization does not continue.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

A solution to congestion is forming nodes with polygonal faces, each face mounted with it's own independent antenna, thus enabling more broad point to point communications as opposed to radial transmittance.

While you're technically correct, LTE has approximately zero things in common with plain-jane 2G GSM from an air-interface perspective.

3G GSM/UMTS uses a Wideband CDMA interface, and you'd better believe there are some Qualcomm patents involved there. 4G LTE is an OFDMA based technology, and Qualcomm definitely has some (albeit less) intellectual property involved there as well.

In short, Qualcomm is going to have less weight to throw around going forward, but it's definitely a non-zero amount of influence.

This explains it a little bit more in-depth

... the act of planning has value

in the long tradition of "if there is a question in the /. title - the answer is yes" - yes "accurate" software development time predictions are myths

of course "accurate time predictions" are going to be "myths" for any massive project (a google search for "defense project over budget" produces interesting results - like this)

the fact that people tend to get better at "estimating" anything the more experience they get at "estimating" is a big part of the reason why "lead software engineers" make more money than "junior software developers" ...

Its not that at all. If FED 'sets' interest it also sets a component of inflation in the economy. Business leverages/expands credit to operate, if the baseline interest is raised this follows through to increased cost to build things and increased cost of living so the net effect is zero. The problem is that there is not enough real value adding being done in capitalism. Eg: where work builds something that makes profit. The private sector looks for investment and ultimately government spending creates areas where profit is higher yield than other areas. Eg: Lucrative profit for companies in China is not just operating costs its government creating money by keystroke to grow the economy. Now look at the efficiency of the financial sector that is supposed to make retirement stable: "The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year in IPO's and secondary offerings" "What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about 32 trillion a year. So by the way i calculate it, 99% of what we do in the industry is people trading with one another, with a gain only to the middleman.It's a waste of resources" -john bogle. Public pensions where the aggregate savings expand M1 of the money supply, where people DONT Have to take risks with a financial system that does not invest in real production or innovation IS THE PROBLEM nothing to do with interest rates. Also here are facts about millenials savings. They cant save enough because they dont earn enough. NO matter how you partition the income one of the basic living expenses is going to be defficient. https://www.principal.com/abou... https://www.forbes.com/sites/m... Employment participation rate is worse in the USA after every recession: https://i0.wp.com/bilbo.econom... http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... https://i2.wp.com/bilbo.econom... https://i1.wp.com/bilbo.econom... People are poorer/earn less/more part time work replacing full time work: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... Not JUST evident in the USA: https://i2.wp.com/bilbo.econom...

But Energy Star is neither common nor a measuring stick.

You can get any sort of device an Energy Star rating, you don't even have to submit any testing to the EPA, it's much like the FCC certifications, you can get a Chinese company to certify your product by a "certified" lab in China.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
http://gizmodo.com/a-fake-gas-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

Actually it's not as expensive as you believe. It's actually cheaper than the already existing social support services. UBI isn't a drag on the economy it's actually an enabler. So many very expensive societal problems run lock-step with poverty; crime, health, education, pollution, geopolitical stability, etc.. History is replete with examples of economic disenfranchisement being at the root of the fall of a great many empires. UBI removes the boot from the neck of the people.

WATSON also needs to have access to the communication of political leaders to avoid their insider trading related to political decision making.

You're hilarious. Do you actually expect that politicians have to follow the same rules as you? Congress and the President are exempt from insider trading laws. They make the laws and there is a shitload of money to be made so they just exempted themselves. Because fuck you, that's why.

Yet JC Penny tried a marketing strategy they called something like the "Square Deal" with fixed prices (no amazing looking sales) and no $x.99 prices; the idea failed miserably https://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/06/15/jc-penneys-epic-rebranding-fail/#3506bad29e8f

Apparently many consumers DO want to believe that they are buying merchandise at 40% 50% 60% off and more!

I happen to like fixed pricing because there are so many ways in which variable pricing can be abused... today it might be whether you have an Apple product. Tomorrow it might be deliberate race-based, gender-based, etc. Careful studies to show what physical/psychological characteristics indicate buyers who are less sensitive to price, for whatever reason.

In the end the market becomes a lot less efficient (because buyers AND sellers are spending so much time trying to outwit each other) and perhaps people stop buying as much. I know that I would rather just not buy some of the things I buy if I have to spend hours trying to make sure I'm not getting screwed by pricing. Whether this ultimate effect would be a good thing or not can be debated, but I'm going to lean towards it not being good. Having a vibrant market that encourages economic exchanges seems to be a net good (I am not an economist, however).

I know what you're saying. But the big question is, why did the Yahoo Board of Directors make such a HUGE mistake.

A few of the Marissa Meyer stories, over several years. Major problems were reported almost 5 years ago:

The Truth About Marissa Mayer: She Has Two Contrasting Reputations (Jul. 17, 2012) Quote: "She used to make people line up outside of her office, sit on couches and sign up with office hours with her. Then everybody had to publicly sit outside her office and she would see people in five minute increments. She would make VPs at Google wait for her. It's like you've got to be kidding."

Yahoo! CEO Mayer Is Delusional and Must Go - RealMoney.com (Oct. 21, 2015)

Marissa Mayer: A Case Study In Poor Leadership - Forbes (Nov. 20, 2015) Five reasons people don't like Yahoo's Marissa Mayer (Oct. 7, 2016)

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led illegal purge of male employees, lawsuit charges (Oct. 6, 2016)

How was Marissa Mayer viewed within Google? - Quora

What made Marissa Mayer an incompetent CEO? - Quora

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Thoroughly Failed on Promise to Not Screw Up Tumblr (Jun. 16 2016)

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Last year Amazon changed the job title of Andy Jassy and Jeff Wilke to CEO along with Jeff Bezos.

As far as I can tell, in reality Andy Jassy is still VP of AWS and Jeff Wilke is VP of everything else ("Worldwide Consumer") and Jeff Bezos is still CEO. Calling a VP a CEO is stupid IMO.

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/a...
http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/...

Google basically did the same thing when it re-organized under Alphabet where Larry Page still oversees all the "CEOs" that are actually VPs of Calico, CapitalG, DeepMind, Google, Google Fiber, GV, Jigsaw, Nest, Sidewalk Labs, Verily, Waymo, and X.

There are companies with more than one CEO who actually share the job. Whole Foods and Chipotle tried it, but it didn't work out for them and they switched back to a single CEO. Oracle has two CEOs in name atm, but from what I've heard Larry Ellison is still running the show and its another case of bad titles. I don't think there are any major American businesses that still have multiple CEOs, but it apparently is more common in other countries like Germany. I don't really know anything about German business though.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...
https://www.fool.com/investing...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...

Jill Stein and husband together: 302,258

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/0...

It takes "at least $389,000 to make the club".

Where are you getting 90% efficient electrolysis from? In the PDF article you linked, it says cell voltage efficiency is up to 90%, but that's not for the entire process. PEM electrolysis has a theoretical efficiency of 94%, but even the best projections are 74% in a decade or more. So again, where did you get "The efficiency of electrolysis is very high today, approaching 90%."?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for PEM electrolyzers, "Ranges in 2014 were 43–67% for the alkaline and 40–67% for the PEM, they should progress in 2030 to 53–70% for the alkaline and 62–74% for the PEM"

So Toyota definitely seems to back this, but they can't give any reasons other than 5 minute fill-ups and range, advantages that are diminishing as BEVs increase in range and decrease charge times. Battery tech is far from its theoretical limits, so we can expect further range increases. That leaves only fill-up time. For those with home charging, EVs arguably already beat out gasoline on that front, especially when coupled with DC fast charging for extended trips. The only areas HFCV possibly holds an advantage over BEV (assuming infrastructure rollout) is for those without home charging. Porsche is claiming 15 minutes charges using an 800V system and it's certainly possibly to add 200 miles in 10 minutes with 350 kW charging. Toyota's case for the FCEV is looking shaky, they've even reversed course and are now developing an EV of their own: https://www.forbes.com/sites/b...

Article from 2011 The Four Companies That Control the 147 Companies That Own Everything

- McGraw-Hill (owns Standard & Poor's)
- Northwestern Mutual (owns Russell Investments)
- CME Group (owns 90% of Dow Jones Indexes)
- Barclay's (owns Lehman Aggregate Bond Index)

Does that first one sound familiar? Also, Pearson Education is pretty big, too.

He has a 50% approval rating. Sorry to let you know that.

Nope.

Of course, we're looking for people who can recognize that he's a boor, a buffoon, and an embarrassment to the country, which doesn't preclude approval, so that's not exactly meaningful.

It is telling that he is lying, the same as he lied about a landslide.

Let me give you a clue - it got so bad that the President of the Philippines - long considered a vassal state to the US - openly mocked Obama last year.

Oh my, you mean that reprobate thug? Exactly why would we want his approval? That's baffling. Then again, you seem to want the Phillipines to be a subject of the US for some reason.

I'm not a Trump fan but I recognize why he won (clue: Hillary) and I have no delusions that we would have been better off in *any* way with Hillary in the White House.

Trump won because running, as a Republican, he could have been a brain-eating space alien, and have a chance to win. Sheer chance let him through, and we'd have been better off without the learning experience of Trump in office.

If they've automated such detection, they're already 'hacking' your site by violating your implied TOS.

Thank you IANAL for attempting to give legal advice.

There are no "implied TOS". If you do not make an effort to hide your site behind a click acceptance, it is fair game. What you are talking about is known as "browsewrap"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - There is no hard and fast rules about browsewraps being enforceable. It's done on a case-by-case basis. So unless the legal text is on the same page (and not just "by reading this you agree to the TOS found on this other page") as the data you're trying to protect, and most likely would have to appear earlier on the page, not in a footer, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

What sites are doing now is making obvious and unavoidable blockers (whole pages, modals, pop overs, etc) that will only go away with user interaction. These are referred to as "clickwrap". They are enforceable. The user (be it person or bot) had to perform an action acknowledging that they are aware and will abide by the policies.

For legal reference, I would look at Zappos' legal failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

They tried to force customers into using arbitration in any legal matters. But there was nothing stopping a customer from making a purchase without ever seeing the TOS. Since the TOS was not obvious, and nothing could prove the customer saw it, it was not legally binding and Zappos' lost big.

As a website owner, I talked with a lawyer in how to handle this. I added a checkbox to the end of the membership registration that must be checked before creating the account. I then save the language that was used ("I agree...") and a date/time stamp of the event along with their account details. So if anyone comes back and says they never agreed to the TOS and Privacy Policy, I have proof that they did.

I've never quite understood why Microsoft wants to go to a monthly subscription service for non-enterprise (Volume Licensing) end users.

I haven't read up on their official positions, but there are a couple of obvious answers. Because it makes more people willing to buy their products and computers that include their products. Because it lets them get a direct revenue stream from consumers of sold machines. There are hundreds of millions of people who find it much easier to pay a small amount every month than to pay a larger amount up front, even if the up front amount is only a hundred bucks. It also probably reduces their taxes and makes their quarterly figures more reliable by normalizing their income.

So if I get you straight, I'm going to dump my Linux and Apple machines because it's easy to pay for an operating systemI don't want?

Sounds legit.

I've never quite understood why Microsoft wants to go to a monthly subscription service for non-enterprise (Volume Licensing) end users.

I haven't read up on their official positions, but there are a couple of obvious answers. Because it makes more people willing to buy their products and computers that include their products. Because it lets them get a direct revenue stream from consumers of sold machines. There are hundreds of millions of people who find it much easier to pay a small amount every month than to pay a larger amount up front, even if the up front amount is only a hundred bucks. It also probably reduces their taxes and makes their quarterly figures more reliable by normalizing their income.

I've never quite understood why Microsoft wants to go to a monthly subscription service for non-enterprise (Volume Licensing) end users. The worst part, is that they are going to start a marketing campaign that says it's the consumer's fault for not upgrading.

I'd like to see the DoJ get involved here, as this represents negligence on the part of Microsoft. Failure to update operating systems that are in use by some XX% of the computers on the internet provides the basis for botnet ecosystems. Manufactures of other consumer products (ex. automobiles) are required to recall products and repair them when they are a safety issue. Unpatchedable zero-day exploits are consumer safety issues.

I feel no sympathy or mercy for them. It's under five hours to Louisville from Chicago DRIVING, and they sold those seats to paying customers. Then United violated their contract for a *very* minor purported savings, which is going to cost them untold millions now. You may say that under a capitalist system, they can do what they did and it's expected. Perhaps it *is* expected at this point, but it certainly wasn't *rational* of them to do if they were acting in their own best interests. After all, failing to live up to your agreements given that you have the ability to do so is normally pretty damning, whether you're an individual or business - just look at Sears, where upon merely the FEAR that they won't be able to pay their suppliers we find that their suppliers are reducing shipments.

If it was SO important to have those employees in Louisville, BUS them, or rent a car, or ANYTHING but what they did. It's fine to *offer* to have people give up their seats - see Delta instead when they had storms and issues - but United showed horrible judgement and exemplified just how atrocious they can be (link).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/l...

I continue to hope that United becomes embroiled in a messy, public lawsuit where the public sees how they behave and they suffer dearly for it. We'll see how negative the amount "saved" by flying those employees can go.

God, I love liberals posting something that can be fact checked. They ALWAY have to lie.
First link I found. I know this is the case for Florida (I've looked for it before) and suspected it is the case for all states. Forbes pretty much says it is.

So PUBLIC information available to EVERYONE (for about $350 in Florida) was "hacked" by Russians and secretly given to Trump in return for future policy favors, secretly?

You realize you are an imbicle? Don't you?

The left has literally lost their mind. They no longer even care if they tell the truth at this point. They are just making stuff up and hoping to see some of it on the news. They have been so successful at it, most people no longer believe CNN anymore. Congratulations!

It would be nice if you had backed that up with something verifiable.
One thing about millennials is that they have massive student loan debt compared to previous generations.
And the ones living at home tend to be the ones who didn't even complete college.

Snopes? not a chance

You mean the site whose owner hired prostitutes to do their fact checking for them? Top notch. Oh, that's just "fake news". Or maybe not.

Poltifact? Proof offered has been, to be generous, lacking.

The site owned by a liberal-leaning newspaper, the Tampa Bay Times, that endorsed Clinton and consistently endorsed other Democrats running for office? The site that consistently finds Republicans lie more and more severely? Well, of course! I mean it can't be that they are injecting their own bias into the mix, right?

The right, however, drools, as Conservapedia proves so very well

The right has Conservapedia, and the left has "Rational" Wiki, a cesspit of feminism and other progressive causes.

See, I can smell the bullshit coming from both sides. It's just the mainstream media, as a matter of fact, leans to the left but likes to pretend they are non-partisan.

To show that this is not new, look back at the first reporting of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case by NBC. Who was caught editing audio to make George appear to be racist instead of answering a dispatcher's question, they lightened his photos to make him appear to be white instead of Hispanic, and instead of displaying current pictures of Trayvon Martin pulled pictures of him as an elementary school kid instead of a 17 year old 6'1" young man who enjoyed MMA.

Oh my, you can go back further than that. Like with OJ Simpson, and at least you'll have an older example. Or even further.

Besides, Zimmerman? He is a racist. There's a reason he lost his suit. Seriously, that idiot could have avoided being a killer of another human being if all he'd done was gone to the pharmacy instead.

Cherry picking and editing are common tactics for media propagandists in the US. If you were fooled, shame on you.

You forgot law enforcement. And other forms of Planting evidence and corruption.

I'm sure you meant nothing by the oversight.

Plenty of lawsuits have been won against these media outlets for various civil reasons. Off the top of my head, ABC and CNN have both had to issue public apologies and retractions in the last month and a half for doing this, or would have faced even more civil suits.

Oh, you should learn about Fox.. So bad, the White House had to apologize to a foreign country for believing Fox News. Editing video since 1984.

You know, a company that hired a PR firm to slut shame people critical of one of their hosts. Looks like that is getting out.

So are you happy yet?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...

What sort of backwater third world dictatorship do you think you live in where vocal criticism of the dear leader amounts to treason?

Russia.

Mothers in Russia can face jail time for speaking out about their sons who are being killed in the Ukraine. Uzak of the President of the Russian Federation, No. 237 makes it a crime to talk about the deaths of soldiers. If you criticize the government for not telling you where and how your son died, the government will withhold death benefits. And put you in jail.

Legally, at least in the US, if they deny you the opportunity to take your vacation they must pay it out in a use it or lose it system. Just some food for thought.

That is part of the reason for the current HR corporate trend of unlimited vacation... Of course, just like unlimited data, unlimited vacation doesn't mean what you think it means, it means your manager has to agree. As part of this HR fad, my company made this transition to unlimited a many years ago. They dutifully bought off all of our unused vacation and initiated this "unlimited vacation" policy.

Since the company "wins" by not booking future liabilities, it's only fair that the employee gets an equitable benefit otherwise, it's just stealing a benefit (reducing your compensation and padding their bottom line). The problem with this policy (or any other policy) often isn't the company, the HR folks, or the other "suits". The problem is that many of the managers do not understand how to apply policies like unlimited vacation in a way that would make it better than fixed vacation policies for employees because it is not uncommon for managers to only look out for themselves.

I suspect this is generally true with most companies, and is why managers need to be "forced" to do the right thing (by the company, or by the law), because left to their own devices, they are often less than competent at the "management" aspect of their jobs (I'm sure we've all worked for examples of this at one time or another).

Another possible explanation for this misguided manager behavior is that those managers are playing out some weird real-life variant of the Stanford prison experiment, or perhaps they are trying in desperation to please some "god" by sacrificing the lives of their employees (the sad part is generally that such a "god" is totally indifferent either way).

You do not need a smartphone to hail an Uber.
You can summon it with a text msg from a $15 flip-phone.

I don't who will win in the end, but as of now, Tesla's competitors are not sitting around on the sidelines.

Facts say otherwise about who the wealthy support. And I know it's popular to talk about "rich don't pay taxes" even though data says otherwise. The claim about "they earn money in different ways" is about capital gains taxes, which are taxed, for the rich, at 20%, which is a tax rate solidly in the top 10% of all payers. Essentially - everything you posted is wrong.

For me it has little to do with privacy and a lot to do with engineered stimulus response loops and habit manipulation.

Articles like the one I will link at the end of this post will give you a small idea about how people are trying to create incisive stimulus/response situations which result in cascades of behavior changes.

I would rather not participate in this kind of manipulation. It is one reason why I quit Facebook. It will also similarly reduce my internet usage at home. The last thing I want is to provide these Pavlovian marketeers with the data they need to sell us back our own asses. No thank you.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/...