I had not read the professor's emails. I had only read the second one from the head of campus security. Campus security was wrong, but the professor could have handled it much better and made it a discussion about campus speech codes that are excessively restrictive.
The funniest part is the fact that he called them "card carrying members of the NRA" when in the basis they had for taking down his first poster suggests that they are as opposed to the NRA as he is. It is also funny because the organization that is providing him with a legal defense (FIRE) is one that I first became aware of because of promotion of it (and its mission) by a card carrying member of the NRA (Mike Adams), who appears to be an active member of FIRE (although I have been unable to find clear documentation of this, however, FIRE has a biography of him on its website and links to many of his columns).
There would be something to what you say, except that the campus administration appears to be siding with the Rent-a-cop (who happens to be a woman).
Having watched Firefly, I believe that the quote was saying that the individual would only attempt to kill someone who was in a position to defend themselves and know why that person was attempting to kill them. Even with that more hostile reading of the quote, it is not a threat. The sentiment of the quote could be restated, "I won't blind-side you or backstab you. If I decide that you need to be taken down, you will know I'm coming and will have an opportunity to defend yourself."
Well, that would be Congress (assuming that even Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so). The FCC only has the authority that Congress has given it in the form of laws that Congress passed. In the Comcast case, the judge ruled that there were no laws that gave the FCC the authority to make the regulations it was basing its fine of Comcast on. At the time, the judge asked the FCC what the statutory basis was for their regulations and they failed to give him an answer. That means that they made the rules without looking at the laws to see if they had the authority to make those rules. Considering the behavior of several other Obama Administration departments in exceeding their statutory authority (not that this is necessarily unique to this Administration, just that it is more high profile in this Administration--other Administrations that routinely exceeded their statutory authority didn't generally issue press releases saying they were doing so) it seems that there is a significant chance that this is more of the same.
You still have a much shorter window from the first steam engine cars to the Model T than from the first electric cars to the Tesla. My primary point is that electric cars have long passed the point where we can say, "This is a new idea, you need to give it a few years to iron out the kinks." 100+ years is more than a few years. When the Tesla Roadster came out, my thinking was, "Give them a few years, this looks like a good business plan." Well, it has been a few years, and Tesla does not appear to have reached a point where they can survive without government subsidies. In which case, it is time to pull the plug, either Tesla can survive on its business model, or it should go under.
My point is that EVs are a mature technology. They have been around for well over 100 years. If the technology is not there yet, get back to me when it is.
You were the one who appeared to be suggesting that the Tesla was a new technology/idea similar to the internal combustion automobile in the late 1800s to early 1900s. I was pointing out that electric cars are almost as old as internal combustion cars.
The Model T was introduced in late 1908. You're talking about where Tesla would be in nearly 2030.
Back in 1908, the Model T cost $850, or over $20k today. But remember that the part count in such a vehicle was many orders of magnitude lower than that in a modern car. Here's what a 1908 Model T looked like under the hood. Not much there! Also remember that the Model T was hardly the first gasoline car produced in America.
Of course, the Tesla is hardly the first electric car produced in America either, by over 100 years. The first successful electric car was introduced in 1891. The first successful internal combustion engine car was introduced in 1885.
You clearly don't understand this is a luxury sedan and not an everyman car.
How many years or decades was it from the introduction of the auto to the availability of the Model T? The price you quote for the Model T in 1925 is relatively accurate but the car had been in production for SEVENTEEN years by that time and its price of $850 in 1909 would be equivalent to about $22000 today
Do you seriously think the availability of a low-cost EV will take the same length of time?
Well, obviously not. Since the first successful electric car was introduced in 1891 and we still don't have a low-cost EV. While the first internal combustion engine automobile was introduced in 1885 and the Model T was introduced in 1909.
Why did it take 120 years to get from the first successful electric car (William Morrison, 1891) to the "Peugot Typ 19" for electric cars, yet it only took 14 years to get from the first successful internal combustion powered car (Karl Benz, 1885) to the actual Peugot Typ 19?
Fame is transient in the high-tech world. Screw up one generation of products, and you're history.
Unless you are IBM. IBM has been a major player in the high tech world since before WWII. There are only a handful of companies worldwide that have been major players in any industry for as long or longer than IBM has been a major player in high tech (there are a couple who have been around much longer than IBM)..
I was thinking along the lines of something that gets the energy to do this from sunlight. Actually, there are things which do so and are being used to create biofuel. It would just be nice if we could stick something like these "leaves" in a water and CO2 bath in the sun and get complex hydrocarbons. On the other hand, the methods they have for doing that already are actually pretty good.
Actually, you bring up a decent point. Hydrogen is not very energy dense. This system would be great if we had a practical fusion reactor, but we don't. A much superior system would be one which takes sunlight, CO2 and water and produces a complex hydrocarbon that could then be used as fuel.
I know you were asking that question rhetorically, but this seems the best way to make the comment that was what first occurred to me.
As an Anonymous Coward wrote in another post, when you centralize control, you also centralize failure.
The other problem with this is that when something happens that requires a response different from any of those you planned for a system like this is unlikely to allow for the flexibility necessary for those on the ground to respond on the fly. All decisions will have to go through the central hub. It will have the same problems as reflected in the statement, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
I have no problem at all with combating irrational behavior using scientifically determined facts.
You mean like claiming that the Church taught that the Earth was flat before Christopher Columbus "proved" that it wasn't? When in fact, the Church never taught that the Earth was flat.
I am familiar with Leonardo Da Vinci, but I am unfamiliar with any persecution that he suffered from except for one incident when he was 24 in which he was charged with sodomy along with three other young men (which charges were dismissed for lack of evidence). Would you care to relate in what way Leonardo Da Vinci was persecuted for his work as a scientist? Please provide a citation.
No, I do not think that atheists are "plotting to destroy religion." I think that some atheists have an axe to grind when it comes to religion and try to use science as a means to destroy the faith of those who believe in a religion.
Please list the scientist that was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for thier work as scientists. This is exactly what I was talking about. There are a bunch of myths about the Catholic Church persecuting scientists for thier work, but if one investigates these stories one discovers that there were other issues that had nothing to do with science. I am not suggesting a conspiracy. I am saying that various atheists have repeatedly rewritten history to portray the Church as being anti-science.
Galileo did not have a problem with a conflict between religion and science. Galileo had a problem because he insulted his patron (the Pope), while in a dispute with a rival scientist who, also, had politically powerful patrons. This all happened at a time when the Pope was in a politically perilous position, a position where failing to hold onto political power would have meant not just loss of power but, also, loss of life. Galileo ran into a problem with politics, not religion.
I like that. However, if anyone calls back the fourth time, I will probably either start over at step one, or get on the phone as "so and so" and then ask them to hold on for a moment and put the phone down for five minutes.
Personally, I find robocalls to be the most obnoxious thing someone can do. Whenever I get a robocall that gives me the opportunity to actually talk to an individual, I will always give whatever response will get that person to talk to me. My favorite are the one's that ask you to leave your name and number if you would like someone to call you. I always give a fictitious name and my real number (not cellphone). Then when they call back, I tell them that that person just stepped out and should be back in 15 minutes. The second time, they just went to lunch and should be back in 30 minutes. The third time (and I have only gotten this far once), I say the person has left for the day, please try tomorrow.
I never said that atheism was supported by science, in fact, I do not believe that it is. I said that some atheists attempt to make it seem as if atheism is supported by science. I have interacted with several atheists over the years who have said something along the lines of, "Christianity is not true because science shows that there is no need for there to be a God."
You mean the case that was created to make religious people look bad? And that took place after the conflict had been started by atheists?
What happened in the Scopes Monkey Trial is that atheists found a teacher (who did not ordinarily teach science) who was willing to teach evolution in Tennesse and be arrested so as to get a court case on a law that was never enforced before that.
There are a significant number of atheists who have tried to use science to destroy religious belief in others. This practice has a history going back to, at least, the late 18th century. In the 19th century many prominent atheists promoted a view that rewrote the history of many earlier scientific conflicts as being attempts by the Church to suppress scientific knowledge, when in fact it was no such thing. As I pointed out in the post you replied to, the idea that the Church ever promoted the idea that the earth was flat was a canard created, primarily, by Washington Irving. Another was that the Church suppressed Galileo for religious reasons. Galileo was suppressed for political reasons and primarily because he was a troll (he appealed to the Pope when confronted by the politically powerful backers of his rival and then, when the Pope did not give him unconditional support, insulted the Pope).
Slashdot Mirror
School administration siding with the rent-a-cop suggests that the rent-a-cop did not overstep her bounds.
I had not read the professor's emails. I had only read the second one from the head of campus security. Campus security was wrong, but the professor could have handled it much better and made it a discussion about campus speech codes that are excessively restrictive.
The funniest part is the fact that he called them "card carrying members of the NRA" when in the basis they had for taking down his first poster suggests that they are as opposed to the NRA as he is. It is also funny because the organization that is providing him with a legal defense (FIRE) is one that I first became aware of because of promotion of it (and its mission) by a card carrying member of the NRA (Mike Adams), who appears to be an active member of FIRE (although I have been unable to find clear documentation of this, however, FIRE has a biography of him on its website and links to many of his columns).
Only if Congress has granted them the authority to do so and only for the reasons that Congress specified as grounds to do so.
There would be something to what you say, except that the campus administration appears to be siding with the Rent-a-cop (who happens to be a woman).
Having watched Firefly, I believe that the quote was saying that the individual would only attempt to kill someone who was in a position to defend themselves and know why that person was attempting to kill them. Even with that more hostile reading of the quote, it is not a threat. The sentiment of the quote could be restated, "I won't blind-side you or backstab you. If I decide that you need to be taken down, you will know I'm coming and will have an opportunity to defend yourself."
Well, that would be Congress (assuming that even Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so). The FCC only has the authority that Congress has given it in the form of laws that Congress passed. In the Comcast case, the judge ruled that there were no laws that gave the FCC the authority to make the regulations it was basing its fine of Comcast on. At the time, the judge asked the FCC what the statutory basis was for their regulations and they failed to give him an answer. That means that they made the rules without looking at the laws to see if they had the authority to make those rules. Considering the behavior of several other Obama Administration departments in exceeding their statutory authority (not that this is necessarily unique to this Administration, just that it is more high profile in this Administration--other Administrations that routinely exceeded their statutory authority didn't generally issue press releases saying they were doing so) it seems that there is a significant chance that this is more of the same.
You still have a much shorter window from the first steam engine cars to the Model T than from the first electric cars to the Tesla. My primary point is that electric cars have long passed the point where we can say, "This is a new idea, you need to give it a few years to iron out the kinks." 100+ years is more than a few years. When the Tesla Roadster came out, my thinking was, "Give them a few years, this looks like a good business plan." Well, it has been a few years, and Tesla does not appear to have reached a point where they can survive without government subsidies. In which case, it is time to pull the plug, either Tesla can survive on its business model, or it should go under.
My point is that EVs are a mature technology. They have been around for well over 100 years. If the technology is not there yet, get back to me when it is.
You were the one who appeared to be suggesting that the Tesla was a new technology/idea similar to the internal combustion automobile in the late 1800s to early 1900s. I was pointing out that electric cars are almost as old as internal combustion cars.
The Model T was introduced in late 1908. You're talking about where Tesla would be in nearly 2030.
Back in 1908, the Model T cost $850, or over $20k today. But remember that the part count in such a vehicle was many orders of magnitude lower than that in a modern car. Here's what a 1908 Model T looked like under the hood. Not much there! Also remember that the Model T was hardly the first gasoline car produced in America.
Of course, the Tesla is hardly the first electric car produced in America either, by over 100 years. The first successful electric car was introduced in 1891. The first successful internal combustion engine car was introduced in 1885.
You clearly don't understand this is a luxury sedan and not an everyman car. How many years or decades was it from the introduction of the auto to the availability of the Model T? The price you quote for the Model T in 1925 is relatively accurate but the car had been in production for SEVENTEEN years by that time and its price of $850 in 1909 would be equivalent to about $22000 today Do you seriously think the availability of a low-cost EV will take the same length of time?
Well, obviously not. Since the first successful electric car was introduced in 1891 and we still don't have a low-cost EV. While the first internal combustion engine automobile was introduced in 1885 and the Model T was introduced in 1909.
Why did it take 120 years to get from the first successful electric car (William Morrison, 1891) to the "Peugot Typ 19" for electric cars, yet it only took 14 years to get from the first successful internal combustion powered car (Karl Benz, 1885) to the actual Peugot Typ 19?
Fame is transient in the high-tech world. Screw up one generation of products, and you're history.
Unless you are IBM. IBM has been a major player in the high tech world since before WWII. There are only a handful of companies worldwide that have been major players in any industry for as long or longer than IBM has been a major player in high tech (there are a couple who have been around much longer than IBM)..
I was thinking along the lines of something that gets the energy to do this from sunlight. Actually, there are things which do so and are being used to create biofuel. It would just be nice if we could stick something like these "leaves" in a water and CO2 bath in the sun and get complex hydrocarbons. On the other hand, the methods they have for doing that already are actually pretty good.
Actually, you bring up a decent point. Hydrogen is not very energy dense. This system would be great if we had a practical fusion reactor, but we don't. A much superior system would be one which takes sunlight, CO2 and water and produces a complex hydrocarbon that could then be used as fuel.
I know you were asking that question rhetorically, but this seems the best way to make the comment that was what first occurred to me.
As an Anonymous Coward wrote in another post, when you centralize control, you also centralize failure.
The other problem with this is that when something happens that requires a response different from any of those you planned for a system like this is unlikely to allow for the flexibility necessary for those on the ground to respond on the fly. All decisions will have to go through the central hub. It will have the same problems as reflected in the statement, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
I have no problem at all with combating irrational behavior using scientifically determined facts.
You mean like claiming that the Church taught that the Earth was flat before Christopher Columbus "proved" that it wasn't? When in fact, the Church never taught that the Earth was flat.
I am familiar with Leonardo Da Vinci, but I am unfamiliar with any persecution that he suffered from except for one incident when he was 24 in which he was charged with sodomy along with three other young men (which charges were dismissed for lack of evidence). Would you care to relate in what way Leonardo Da Vinci was persecuted for his work as a scientist? Please provide a citation.
No, I do not think that atheists are "plotting to destroy religion." I think that some atheists have an axe to grind when it comes to religion and try to use science as a means to destroy the faith of those who believe in a religion.
Please list the scientist that was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for thier work as scientists. This is exactly what I was talking about. There are a bunch of myths about the Catholic Church persecuting scientists for thier work, but if one investigates these stories one discovers that there were other issues that had nothing to do with science. I am not suggesting a conspiracy. I am saying that various atheists have repeatedly rewritten history to portray the Church as being anti-science.
Galileo did not have a problem with a conflict between religion and science. Galileo had a problem because he insulted his patron (the Pope), while in a dispute with a rival scientist who, also, had politically powerful patrons. This all happened at a time when the Pope was in a politically perilous position, a position where failing to hold onto political power would have meant not just loss of power but, also, loss of life. Galileo ran into a problem with politics, not religion.
I like that. However, if anyone calls back the fourth time, I will probably either start over at step one, or get on the phone as "so and so" and then ask them to hold on for a moment and put the phone down for five minutes.
Personally, I find robocalls to be the most obnoxious thing someone can do. Whenever I get a robocall that gives me the opportunity to actually talk to an individual, I will always give whatever response will get that person to talk to me. My favorite are the one's that ask you to leave your name and number if you would like someone to call you. I always give a fictitious name and my real number (not cellphone). Then when they call back, I tell them that that person just stepped out and should be back in 15 minutes. The second time, they just went to lunch and should be back in 30 minutes. The third time (and I have only gotten this far once), I say the person has left for the day, please try tomorrow.
I never said that atheism was supported by science, in fact, I do not believe that it is. I said that some atheists attempt to make it seem as if atheism is supported by science. I have interacted with several atheists over the years who have said something along the lines of, "Christianity is not true because science shows that there is no need for there to be a God."
You mean the case that was created to make religious people look bad? And that took place after the conflict had been started by atheists?
What happened in the Scopes Monkey Trial is that atheists found a teacher (who did not ordinarily teach science) who was willing to teach evolution in Tennesse and be arrested so as to get a court case on a law that was never enforced before that.
There are a significant number of atheists who have tried to use science to destroy religious belief in others. This practice has a history going back to, at least, the late 18th century. In the 19th century many prominent atheists promoted a view that rewrote the history of many earlier scientific conflicts as being attempts by the Church to suppress scientific knowledge, when in fact it was no such thing. As I pointed out in the post you replied to, the idea that the Church ever promoted the idea that the earth was flat was a canard created, primarily, by Washington Irving. Another was that the Church suppressed Galileo for religious reasons. Galileo was suppressed for political reasons and primarily because he was a troll (he appealed to the Pope when confronted by the politically powerful backers of his rival and then, when the Pope did not give him unconditional support, insulted the Pope).