Slashdot Mirror

It's a good start but we need communication protocols so cars can talk to one another

You mean like these? Noob. You should at least give yourself a basic education in a subject before spouting.

and so traffic control devices can talk to them. We need uniform standards for road sensors, lane markers and broadcast obstruction warnings.

An AV which depends on V2X is untrustworthy. AVs have to work even when the communications network is completely down in order to be useful, because otherwise people will learn to depend on them in situations in which they are not dependable.

You have no idea what you are on about. Go away.

By complete coincidence, last week I noticed a "piece" in a Philomena Cunk spoof programme where her character is talking to Swade and - as is her schtick - getting completely the wrong, third, end of the stick.

It's Eternal September.

Back before the influx of the masses, the amount of "new guys" who had no idea how to behave and what (not) to do was manageable. And they were fewer. So they had to adapt or get out.

Now the opposite is true. The internet is overflowing with ignorant idiots and the majority sets the standard.

We thought that with everyone getting access to information, idiocy would die out because people can easily access information, learn, better themselves and become more informed than ever. We heavily overestimated the idiots' will to actually learn anything.

Musk tweeted: "Starhopper completed tethered hop. All systems green." suggesting the results were good.
A decent quality video of the test fire can be seen here. The 'hop' is presumably mere inches, as the tether has essentially no slack.

This is the first known vertical test-fire of the Raptor engine, the first engine firing at the Boca Chica facility, and AFAIK the first time a full-flow rocket engine has been test-fired while attached to a rocket of any sort.

Great progress all around.

Given the orbital hopper is planned to complete construction in June, it's likely the current one will complete its hops by then, suggesting frequent tests rather than the ~40 days inbetween tests of the original Grasshopper.

OK, I do not have experience with automotive safety standards, but they tend to be pretty much the same regardless of field.

Assuming that the responsibility is handled the same way for ISO 26262 as for industrial systems it works this way:
The standard tells you the procedure you use to develop hardware/software and what documentation you need to produce.
If the procedure wasn't followed then the engineer is criminally liable when accidents happen and there are cases of them going to jail.
If the procedure was followed you have two possible cases:
1) The user intentionally bypassed all safety mechanism to cause an "accident". In that case the user i liable.
2) The standard is flawed and needs to be updated. (Doesn't really happen, it is pretty waterproof.)

When developing a safe system you can't just throw in a transistor without the documentation showing why it won't cause any safety issue if the transistor breaks in any of the possible cases.
Integrated circuits like processors are typically too complex to make it feasible to document every transistor failure so instead you use redundancy. Ideally two different solutions that uses different components together with a failsafe system that makes sure they both behave the same way.

If you use pointers you need to explain why it is necessary in every case and that they can't possibly point to something else than desired.
Want to use dynamically allocated memory? Show that it doesn't cause any safety issues when the allocation fails.
There is a reason MISRA-C is popular in this field. It makes it so much easier.
I wouldn't want to try to bring a high level language through certification.

If you wonder about image recognition software or AI: The only way to use any of them is to show that they aren't involved in the safety critical part.
So far the automotive developers have gotten around it by brakes being the safety critical component and they require that a human monitors the situation and applies the brakes as necessary.

The only way I see fully autonomous cars being able to comply with existing safety standards is to specify that braking is the real safety critical part. (This is compliant with traffic laws. If you need to swerve you are driving too fast and if you are at a standstill you are not the one who caused the collision.)
You need both ultrasound and LIDAR to be able to trigger the brakes and they shouldn't go through anything more complex.
Once you have that, all that other stuff with lane following and smooth deceleration and other things that makes traveling feasible could be added on as non-safe parts.
If they fail the braking mechanism will prevent you from causing accidents. (However, then oncoming traffic in the lane your car went to when lane following failed might very well be driving too fast to be unable to stop.)

Eh, when you write software in ML, you obviously need to include the string 'ML' in your project's name...

Toyota is handling the braking controls. Ford is working on automatic rollover prevention. GM is developing a new system to replace ignition controls. What could go wrong?

Also:

• Toyota is handling the accelerator pedal.
• GM is developing the steering.
• Ford is developing the fuel tank and the rear bumper.

Toyota is handling the braking controls. Ford is working on automatic rollover prevention. GM is developing a new system to replace ignition controls. What could go wrong?

Also:

• Toyota is handling the accelerator pedal.
• GM is developing the steering.
• Ford is developing the fuel tank and the rear bumper.

NSA probably now has access to the direct streams telecoms use to consolidate their billing and geolocatioon data, from taps on the underlying circuits. If it's encrypted then nudge nudge wink wink here's the key. So telecoms no longer need suffer the indignity and PR risk of transmitting the data.

NSA Warrantless Wiretapping is not just an invasion of privacy. They have actually claimed to Congress that they do NOT consider information intercepted and stored indefinitely... to be unlawful at all! Until or unless someone reads it. This subverts Freedom of Association too, since any future tyrant would have access to this cradle-to-grave data of our families and friends and (now! with super-cells!) movements.

To get up to speed quickly this whitepaper by Andrew Clement seems to cover all the bases. Look past the straw man 'Metadata Collection' within it for 'NSA splitter'. Or you might start as I did years ago with James Bamford's fascinating 1982 book Puzzle Palace. While most of it dwells on what is now history and goes on at length about NSA's Charter which explicitly forbid domestic intercepts, there was a single passage in this book that revealed something else. I will quote it because I believe Bamford intended it as a dire warning: "Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."

Sure this pre-Internet quote discusses microwave, which was the long-line 'broadband' of choice in those days... but NSA's intentions to dig in at places where American citizens speak with each other is clear. Since then, Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of special note, for it is he who revealed the existence of secret Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that the Electronic Frontier Foundation took almost to the Supreme Court... who actually declined to hear the case on grounds that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. Sound normal? This was a law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even. Oh.

That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. Which also contains voice these days. Any real despot who comes to power will discover that the United States is prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave, that had been collected with no 'probable cause' whatsoever.

Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing

NSA probably now has access to the direct streams telecoms use to consolidate their billing and geolocatioon data, from taps on the underlying circuits. If it's encrypted then nudge nudge wink wink here's the key. So telecoms no longer need suffer the indignity and PR risk of transmitting the data.

NSA Warrantless Wiretapping is not just an invasion of privacy. They have actually claimed to Congress that they do NOT consider information intercepted and stored indefinitely... to be unlawful at all! Until or unless someone reads it. This subverts Freedom of Association too, since any future tyrant would have access to this cradle-to-grave data of our families and friends and (now! with super-cells!) movements.

To get up to speed quickly this whitepaper by Andrew Clement seems to cover all the bases. Look past the straw man 'Metadata Collection' within it for 'NSA splitter'. Or you might start as I did years ago with James Bamford's fascinating 1982 book Puzzle Palace. While most of it dwells on what is now history and goes on at length about NSA's Charter which explicitly forbid domestic intercepts, there was a single passage in this book that revealed something else. I will quote it because I believe Bamford intended it as a dire warning: "Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."

Sure this pre-Internet quote discusses microwave, which was the long-line 'broadband' of choice in those days... but NSA's intentions to dig in at places where American citizens speak with each other is clear. Since then, Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of special note, for it is he who revealed the existence of secret Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that the Electronic Frontier Foundation took almost to the Supreme Court... who actually declined to hear the case on grounds that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. Sound normal? This was a law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even. Oh.

That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. Which also contains voice these days. Any real despot who comes to power will discover that the United States is prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave, that had been collected with no 'probable cause' whatsoever.

Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing

January 11 was four days ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Future_launches

Every time this comes up, politicians and media minimize NSA surveillance as being all about "telephone metadata." PRISM was a hell of a lot more than that. When you hear "metedata," you're hearing a lie by omission.

>> What kind of dumb fuck thought this was a good idea? Fire every idiot involved in this decision immediately

Systemic problem

..no, I have to disagree with you.
The problem with 'interacting' with people on the Internet ('interacting' in quotes because it's more like ersatz-interaction) is that there is no real accountability or consequences to what you say to people. It's easy to be a flaming asshole to someone when you don't have to do it to them face-to-face, where you'll be called out in a very personal way for being an asshole -- and that's even when people use their actual, in-real-life name; when people use an alias or are completely anonymous, their behavior can be at least an order of magnitude worse than just being an asshole to someone, vis-a-vis trolls that literally dogpile on someone to the point where a sensitive person has their life ruined and are driven to suicide.

Note that this isn't even a new problem; in pre-Internet days, during the dialup BBS (Bulletin Board System, for those of you too young to know what I'm talking about) era, the problem existed then, too, but since nothing was networked, each BBS being a standalone system, the behavior of some wasn't as noticeable.

Note that so far as I'm concerned what I'm talking about here is just human nature. When all you're 'relating' to is text on a screen, there's no sense of connectedness to other human beings, unless you actually know them in real life and have some sort of relationship to them. A complete stranger, who is just a name and some text on a screen? So far as your brain is concerned, that may as well be just some computer code spitting out text to you. It's only the Value and Norms associated with Social Order that keeps people in check, and as we can see that breaks down fairly easily in many peoples' cases. Consequently, like a virus, some people disregarding these Values and Norms eventually drives some people to likewise abandon Values and Norms -- and the viscious cycle continues, until either people are driven away, or people join the fray. Thus we have the Internet of 2019.

Note that none of which I speak even begins to touch on what I'll refer to as 'Intentional Bad Actors': paid trolls, political organizations, State actors, intelligence organizations, and so on, leveraging the Internet in ways similar to what I've already spoken of, but for political or monetary gain -- or even as a form of warfare.

Sadly, so-called 'social media', which ironically is rather anti-social, acts like a petrie dish for breeding all the above. As with many things, social media sites were originated in many cases with the best and brightest of intentions, but without any inkling that abuses could become so rampant and toxic, and having no real effective 'immune system' in place to prevent such abuses, other than human moderators and end-user self-policing, bad behavior, trolls, and intentional 'gaming' of the social-media system is now running out of control, and the future of social media is unclear: how do you fix this system without completely destroying any of the original value and original intent that it held? Would humanity be better off without it entirely? Or do we institute a system of legislation whereby everyone must use a legal name, prove who they are, and thus provide accountability, but at the cost of any anonymity whatsoever? Or do we insist that social media sites engage in the endless game of Whack-a-Mole that moderation of content has already become? Or some other solution yet to be devised?

..no, I have to disagree with you.
The problem with 'interacting' with people on the Internet ('interacting' in quotes because it's more like ersatz-interaction) is that there is no real accountability or consequences to what you say to people. It's easy to be a flaming asshole to someone when you don't have to do it to them face-to-face, where you'll be called out in a very personal way for being an asshole -- and that's even when people use their actual, in-real-life name; when people use an alias or are completely anonymous, their behavior can be at least an order of magnitude worse than just being an asshole to someone, vis-a-vis trolls that literally dogpile on someone to the point where a sensitive person has their life ruined and are driven to suicide.

Note that this isn't even a new problem; in pre-Internet days, during the dialup BBS (Bulletin Board System, for those of you too young to know what I'm talking about) era, the problem existed then, too, but since nothing was networked, each BBS being a standalone system, the behavior of some wasn't as noticeable.

Note that so far as I'm concerned what I'm talking about here is just human nature. When all you're 'relating' to is text on a screen, there's no sense of connectedness to other human beings, unless you actually know them in real life and have some sort of relationship to them. A complete stranger, who is just a name and some text on a screen? So far as your brain is concerned, that may as well be just some computer code spitting out text to you. It's only the Value and Norms associated with Social Order that keeps people in check, and as we can see that breaks down fairly easily in many peoples' cases. Consequently, like a virus, some people disregarding these Values and Norms eventually drives some people to likewise abandon Values and Norms -- and the viscious cycle continues, until either people are driven away, or people join the fray. Thus we have the Internet of 2019.

Note that none of which I speak even begins to touch on what I'll refer to as 'Intentional Bad Actors': paid trolls, political organizations, State actors, intelligence organizations, and so on, leveraging the Internet in ways similar to what I've already spoken of, but for political or monetary gain -- or even as a form of warfare.

Sadly, so-called 'social media', which ironically is rather anti-social, acts like a petrie dish for breeding all the above. As with many things, social media sites were originated in many cases with the best and brightest of intentions, but without any inkling that abuses could become so rampant and toxic, and having no real effective 'immune system' in place to prevent such abuses, other than human moderators and end-user self-policing, bad behavior, trolls, and intentional 'gaming' of the social-media system is now running out of control, and the future of social media is unclear: how do you fix this system without completely destroying any of the original value and original intent that it held? Would humanity be better off without it entirely? Or do we institute a system of legislation whereby everyone must use a legal name, prove who they are, and thus provide accountability, but at the cost of any anonymity whatsoever? Or do we insist that social media sites engage in the endless game of Whack-a-Mole that moderation of content has already become? Or some other solution yet to be devised?

..no, I have to disagree with you.
The problem with 'interacting' with people on the Internet ('interacting' in quotes because it's more like ersatz-interaction) is that there is no real accountability or consequences to what you say to people. It's easy to be a flaming asshole to someone when you don't have to do it to them face-to-face, where you'll be called out in a very personal way for being an asshole -- and that's even when people use their actual, in-real-life name; when people use an alias or are completely anonymous, their behavior can be at least an order of magnitude worse than just being an asshole to someone, vis-a-vis trolls that literally dogpile on someone to the point where a sensitive person has their life ruined and are driven to suicide.

Note that this isn't even a new problem; in pre-Internet days, during the dialup BBS (Bulletin Board System, for those of you too young to know what I'm talking about) era, the problem existed then, too, but since nothing was networked, each BBS being a standalone system, the behavior of some wasn't as noticeable.

Note that so far as I'm concerned what I'm talking about here is just human nature. When all you're 'relating' to is text on a screen, there's no sense of connectedness to other human beings, unless you actually know them in real life and have some sort of relationship to them. A complete stranger, who is just a name and some text on a screen? So far as your brain is concerned, that may as well be just some computer code spitting out text to you. It's only the Value and Norms associated with Social Order that keeps people in check, and as we can see that breaks down fairly easily in many peoples' cases. Consequently, like a virus, some people disregarding these Values and Norms eventually drives some people to likewise abandon Values and Norms -- and the viscious cycle continues, until either people are driven away, or people join the fray. Thus we have the Internet of 2019.

Note that none of which I speak even begins to touch on what I'll refer to as 'Intentional Bad Actors': paid trolls, political organizations, State actors, intelligence organizations, and so on, leveraging the Internet in ways similar to what I've already spoken of, but for political or monetary gain -- or even as a form of warfare.

Sadly, so-called 'social media', which ironically is rather anti-social, acts like a petrie dish for breeding all the above. As with many things, social media sites were originated in many cases with the best and brightest of intentions, but without any inkling that abuses could become so rampant and toxic, and having no real effective 'immune system' in place to prevent such abuses, other than human moderators and end-user self-policing, bad behavior, trolls, and intentional 'gaming' of the social-media system is now running out of control, and the future of social media is unclear: how do you fix this system without completely destroying any of the original value and original intent that it held? Would humanity be better off without it entirely? Or do we institute a system of legislation whereby everyone must use a legal name, prove who they are, and thus provide accountability, but at the cost of any anonymity whatsoever? Or do we insist that social media sites engage in the endless game of Whack-a-Mole that moderation of content has already become? Or some other solution yet to be devised?

Are you referring to this:
The Masses

??? Tell me more??

I'm wondering if you have a definition of "Space Force" that isn't shared by... anyone else.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

The more you know, amirite???

Yw!

BTW, what round for dinosaur?

.577 Tyrannosaur?

Might be related to the Fort McMurray fire from 2016 and burning some 1.5 million acres of trees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

TFA actually does a good job of discussing it in layman's terms. It's surprisingly devoid of hype and hyperbole.

As a starting point that's not TFA, Formal Verification is the sub-field of CS that this is based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

-Chris

You think yor're joking, but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS

"TempleOS was written in a programming language developed by Davis in C and C++, called "HolyC"."

The systematic reviews I linked to seem to each be based on a huge body of evidence. Individual studies can point either way, and be of different methodological quality, hence the preference for secondary sources to sum up the evidence. If you know of any reviews or assessments of greater than or equal quality then I would be excited to read it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There is a verified compiler, if they made their language compiler with that then your argument falls apart. Care to detail your knowledge outside of this particular article?

> Oh? Who said that's the "whole" purpose of an OS?

"An operating system (OS) is system software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs"

> It'd seem to me that for major players it's most definitely not the case.

You're probably right; based on number of cycles, most OS's are probably mainly used for running screen savers. :)

The SPARK community has been doing this for A Long Time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm reminded of a quote from "Soul of a new machine" where another vendor (IBM?) 'legitimized' minicomputers. Data General ran an ad that said, "The Bastards say 'welcome'!"

Would you like some cock down your throat too? Aw hell, why not...
It's not like I'll run out of copy/paste any time soon while you try to block me for calling you out as sniveling racist cunts that you are.
Anyway... as I was saying to that racist scumbag Penguinisto up there...

Would you like some cock with that strawman?
And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling?
Well, ready or not, open wide...

First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" clearly shows that you are scum.
That you're also setting that up as a strawman shows signs of mental retardation and sociopathy, as well.
You think that you are smarter than the average bear, but you're actually so pathetic that you don't even realize how epic your dumbness and ignorance truly are.

See... the actual issue is with the severity of the crime due to its premeditated nature (there are no accidental hate crimes) AND the presented lack of remorse.
You don't shoot up a synagogue, a mosque, a church, a gay wedding, an abortion clinic etc. due to a momentary lapse of reason - you do it because you believe such an act to be morally RIGHT.

That is why people who commit hate crimes deserve a harsher sentence. It has nothing to do with the "value of the victim".
But thanks for pointing out to everyone that YOU believe it to be so.
I.e. That lives of some people ARE inherently "more valuable" - and that said value revolves around hate crime issues.
Like race, religion, sex, ethnicity etc.

Oh and that's not a real cock I just showed down your throat. It's a catheter for artificially inseminating swine.
Only been used once.
On your mom.

As for motive determining guilt or innocence... Do you even language motherfucker?

motive
noun: motive; plural noun: motives

                1.
                a reason for doing something.

These things might actually start closing the gap with GPUs and then have all the great general purpose advantage of CPUs.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Yeah. Intel already attempted that and it was an abysmal failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(microarchitecture)

They’ve had it in some form for over a decade but it was an option and not standard. It’s how they knew where Air France 447 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean.

It's getting higher and higher. Look at the trend.

2011 -> 1.6%
2012 -> 3.1%
2013 -> 5.6%
2014 -> 13.8%
2015 -> 22.4%
2016 -> 29.1%
2017 -> 39.2%
2018 -> 60.2%

If you want more metrics, or a handy graph, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

India is being called out or this *now* because they have only just joined the 'blowing satellites up' club. Meanwhile America (among others) developed this tech back in the 1950s and developed their own test program that deposited a fair chunk of space debris as a result (Weapon System WS-199A).

The space debris scenario is valid : The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading or ablation cascade), proposed by the NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade where each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges impractical for many generations.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The only infectious human disease we have ever eradicated is smallpox, which was eradicated way back in the 1970s. From an eradication point of view, measles and smallpox are very similar: they are viruses, they are highly infectious, they do not mutate super-fast, they infect only humans, it is obvious when someone has the disease, there is a very effective vaccine. From a technical point of view, eradicating measles is a very similar task to eradicating smallpox.

However, there is one significant difference: measles is a fairly worrying disease, whereas smallpox is absolutely terrifying. This means there hasn't been the social and political will to push an eradication program. If the will did exist, we could wrap it up in about 10 years (wild guess on my part), and then nobody would ever need a measles vaccination ever again. Don't like vaccinations? Push for eradication. Your kids will get the jab, but your grandkids, great-grandkids, etc. forever, will not.

The list of diseases considered eradicable (as of 2008) is quite short. For example, influenza is not - it readily jumps species (so eradication from humans would require vaccinating wild ducks, for example) and it mutates rapidly, so new vaccines are constantly needed.

The list:
Smallpox (eradicated)
Polio (on the verge of eradication, probably 5 to 10 years off)
Dracunculiasis/Guinea worm (on the verge of eradication)
Yaws (on the verge of eradication)
Malaria (eradication still decades away)
Hookworm
Lymphatic filariasis
Measles
Mumps
Rubella
Lymphatic filariasis
Cysticercosis

You need to be mindful of the difference between assault and battery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Note that in most jurisdictions both are crimes as well as instigating or encouraging others to engage in these crimes. This is similar to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. So starting from #7; #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14 are all already crimes. #14 is a special type of assault "uttering death threats" which is far more severe.

This line is not at all subjective or arbitrary as you claim. You are wrong.

And that ignoratio elenchi you're peddling?
Well, ready or not, open wide...

First of all, setting the argument as if it is about the "value of the victim" clearly shows that you are scum.
That you're also setting that up as a strawman shows also signs of mental retardation and sociopathy.
You think that you are smarter than the average bear, but you're actually so pathetic that you don't even realize how epic your dumbness and ignorance truly are.

See... the actual issue is with the severity of the crime due to its premeditated nature (there are no accidental hate crimes) AND the presented lack of remorse.
You don't shoot up a synagogue, a mosque, a church, a gay wedding, an abortion clinic etc. due to a momentary lapse of reason - you do it because you believe such an act to be morally RIGHT.

That is why people who commit hate crimes deserve a harsher sentence. It has nothing to do with the "value of the victim".
But thanks for pointing out to everyone that YOU believe it to be so.
I.e. That lives of some people ARE inherently "more valuable" - and that said value revolves around hate crime issues.
Like race, religion, sex, ethnicity etc.

Oh and that's not a real cock I just showed down your throat. It's a catheter for artificially inseminating swine.
Only been used once.
On your mom.

As for motive determining guilt or innocence... Do you even language motherfucker?

motive
noun: motive; plural noun: motives

        1.
        a reason for doing something.

Or even eukaryotes, of some stripe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Or did you mean terrorists? The sad thing is you got modded up +5 with that little Freudian slip. Or did you mean videos recruiting to Islam? Ok, should we pull the 700 club's channel?

Anyway, terrorists videos get pulled when reported, Linda Sarsour seems to just advocate for Palestine (I don't know that much about here, but I couldn't find anything antisemitic there), Pallywood is a pretty controversial concept in and of itself and Communists are generally a pretty peaceable bunch on YouTube, certainly not what I'd called Toxic.

Also, anyone else notice that whenever anyone says "incendiary & toxic" people's thoughts immediately turn to the Alt-Right? I'm not trying to troll here, it's just a fact (facts don't care about you're feelings... ok, I'm trolling a little with that last one :) ).

I will say this: If I follow the far left rabbit hole all the way down I find a few anarchists yelling "Punch Nazis". If I follow the alt-right rabbit hole down I end up at a white ethno-state with hints of genocide. What I'm saying is the two are not even remotely equivalent.

According to this documentary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., the high tension lines you find in Norway are there to fence the trolls in.

Nothing to do with delivering power to remote cabins.

And you put your fingerprints into their system. Then there's a crime committed. They get a partial match against thousands. Somebody wins the lottery. Maybe it's you.

The people who know how accurate & unique fingerprints actually are won't talk about it. The Birthday Paradox makes perfect collisions seem unavoidable. Go down to matching just a tiny fragment.... False positives are soo much easier. Police are judged based on their number of convictions. Guilty. Innocent. That's irrelevant.

There's only a small portion of the population in their fingerprint database. Anyone outside their database is excluded. If you don't accept their guilty plea-bargain they will throw the book at you! And you will be judged by a jury. Have you ever seen the folks on a jury? Not Fortune 500 CEOs.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

Reminder: Atmospheric carbon PPM is all that separates Earth and Venus.

No, not at all. First, there is the distance to the sun: Venus is about 100e6 km vs. Earth 150e6 km which means Venus receives about twice the intensity of solar radiation. Then there is the atmospheric pressure on Venus which is about 90 times higher than Earth's.

You cannot generate a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth by burning all the fossil fuel reserves because they simply do not contain enough carbon, which is not surprising since this carbon originally came from the atmosphere in the first place. If you look at this article then the current estimate is that you would need to burn about ten times the amount of carbon locked away in coal and oil to generate a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth and even then it is not certain.

Climate change is a serious problem because it will lead to rapid changes in which areas of the planet are habitable both for humans and for the crops we depend on. This will lead to political instability as well as potential deaths due to famines and droughts. Not to mention the damage to ecosystems which may have repercussions we have not yet figured out. That list of dire results should be enough to motivate anyone to action without the need to invent fictitious rubbish about runaway greenhouse effects which, because it is so obviously wrong, undermines the message about the real and still disastrous implications of rapid global warming.

I don't think you have really "tested" an EV unless you have lived with it for a month in -30C weather.

Perhaps not but where I live -30C (-22F) is a fairly routine occurrence and I drive an EV in such weather. I'm pretty sure the weather in Norway is at least as cold if not worse. It's certainly further north by a substantial distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

No, depending how you do it it is between 65% and 70%

Between 65% and 70% would necessitate both the electrolyser and the fuel cell to be on average 82% efficient. This is simply not happening with existing technology. Practical fuel cells reach 50%-60% efficiency. Meanwhile, practical electrolyzers need around 45 kWh per kg of generated hydrogen, so they're around 70%-75% efficient. So the overall roundtrip from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is between 35%-45% for pure hydrogen.

high end systems obviously reaching over 90%.

I'm not even going to comment on that.

Actually, Al Jazeera's "sin" was simply being funded by Qatar, a state that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, and others are trying to strangle for doing business with regional nemesis Iran.

Tesla is not doing well and is not important at all when compared to actual mass electric car markets like China. It is half the entire EV market and there Tesla is a low selling brand with only 2% share far below Chinese brands and only really comparable to Volkswagen. They are a minor player in niche countries for the EV market. BYD and SAIC are much more important.

Oh, a bit of digging says that they are almost entirely hydroelectric production, so this is an actual real reduction in fossil fuel dependance. Awesome!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Good luck getting more dams built in the US to provide more hydroelectric power....

The same folks pining for all electric cars and who hate fossil fuels will also do anything and everything they can to block new dams.

Oh, a bit of digging says that they are almost entirely hydroelectric production, so this is an actual real reduction in fossil fuel dependance. Awesome!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But this is entirely offset by Norway being one of the biggest net contributors to CO2 emissions world wide through their oil exports.

Oh, a bit of digging says that they are almost entirely hydroelectric production, so this is an actual real reduction in fossil fuel dependance. Awesome!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Some places are not warming at all. Look at the white blob in the north Atlantic. This is possibly a sign that the Atlantic Ocean’s Meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) may be weakening as a result of increased fresh water due to Greenland glacier melt. This was the premise of "day after tomorrow".

If the AMOC were disrupted, it could divert the Gulf Stream waters that usually flow northward, past the British Isles and Norway, and cause them to instead circulate toward the equator. If this were to happen, Europe's climate would be seriously impacted

The National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB) is a semi-autonomous U.S. Government agency housed within the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that is responsible for conducting security clearance investigations into individuals who need to hold security clearances for employment purposes. Creation of the agency was announced in January 2016.[1] NBIB is the primary service provider of background investigations for the U.S. Government and conducts approximately 95 percent of government-wide background investigations for more than 100 federal agencies.[2] The agency's background investigation information technology (IT) systems will be designed, built, secured, and operated by the United States Department of Defense.[3]

Why you always so clueless liar?