Having them randomly selected, like the jury pool, might not be a bad idea.
That would be an awful idea. We would lose crucial protections within 10 years because these untrained judges would have no conception of the reason for things like "double jeopardy" and "protection from self incrimination".
The only reason we have a 2nd amendment still is because SCOTUS is filled with old people who dont GAF what Chicago and DC have to say about the dangers of guns; they know the law, and they know overreach when they see it. You think a randomly elected individual would have the fortitude to back laws he doesnt like on principle, because its the correct ruling?
If you ever need proof that the average individual is not educated enough to interpret "what the law is", just frequent reddit. Your average person would shred the fourth and fifth amendments the first time a rapist was going to use them to get away with their crime. Your average person doesnt even understand the reason why we allow racist speech to be legal, and would probably shred the first amendment the first time a neo-nazi strolled into a jewish community in Illinois.
Heck, I doubt if your average person even knows what the amendments ARE. It is 100% appropriate for someone who does know these things, and is as unbiased as one can be in todays society (as they dont have to care what anyone else thinks), to instruct the jury on matters of law. Thats a good deal of the judge's job description, actually.
I have see no evidence that appointed judges are "better" than elected judges in any significant way,
The idea is to remove them from external influence. Once appointed, you cannot be fired for a ruling people dont like, which makes it far easier to rule on "what the law is" rather than "what someone else wants it to be".
Elected judges would be an absolutely abysmal idea. Judges being elected is why theyre able to continually smack down overreach in areas of first, second, and fourth amendments. They dont always make the right call-- but they arent in lock-step with the other two branches, which is an incredibly important thing.
Your data plan doesnt take into account advertisements which are basically subsidized at your expense. It doesnt count the silent data collection performed by most apps, or silent updates performed in the background.
Those updates offer you the option to defer them till Wifi.
More to the point, most geeks object vocally when carriers try to look at what you're doing. T-Mobile doesnt. They provide a pipe. What sites you visit, how big their ads are, and what apps you download-- none of that is their problem. If you use their pipe, they count the data.
Its worth noting though that they dont charge overages, you just lose LTE access when you cross your limit. Oh no, cry me a river. Maybe you want to look at deferring those updates till wifi, or quit watching youtube over LTE, or (gasp) upgrade your plan. T-Mobile's plan is so much better than any other carrier, its laughable, and here you are complaining that theyre not DPI'ing you to detect what the ads are.
Power companies don't measure a power plant with a CF. A CF does not help you in any way to plan how much power you want to generate tomorrow with your fleet of plants.
Capacity factor is a compiled statistic from past data. It is useful for determining the performance of a particular form of energy, and for predicting future output. If for the past 20 years your 20MW solar farm has gotten a 0.2 capacity factor, its a pretty safe bet that you're going to generate somewhere in the range of ~4MWh every hour of the year.
Plants arent "rated" in capacity factor because it isnt a static piece of datum. If you have 5 nuclear plant shutdowns over the year, that will impact that year's capacity factor.
You're essentialy arguing that statistics like the GDP are worthless because theyre not a hard, fixed number. But compiled statistics like the GDP measure past performance and are a good measure of relative strength of a country; in the same way, capacity factor combined with "cost per mwh" and "average plant size" are very helpful for understanding what scale of generation we are talking about. If I tell you that a 1GW nuclear plant was just built, that really doesnt help you determine how much power it will likely produce unless I also tell you that nuclear plants in the area generally hit 0.65 capacity factor.
The reason people bring it up with solar is because solar averages an extremely low 0.2 capacity factor. So when someone mentions that a 10MW solar farm was built for ~1/100th the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant, it sounds really viable (equal cost per MWh)-- until you realize that the solar farm will generate, on average, 1/3rd the power of the nuclear plant because solar has an inherently lower capacity factor.
What about the trustworthiness of your own senses? What about the idea that our universe is an inherently logical and rule-following one?
You cannot "prove" those. You cannot even prove that everything out of your perceptive range continues to exist for the time that you cannot perceive it. Heck, one cant even really prove that their entire experience is not a simulation or dream.
These are all assumptions, not axioms; they cannot be proven, and must be accepted.
But more than that, I would wager that you would call racism or cowardice or sexism or unprovoked violence "wrong" in some sense. This, too, is predicated on an unproveable assumption that there is some higher set of values to which we should all abide (even if you were to say "its merely rational to do what is in society's interest", that assumes that "benefiting society" is itself a value; you cannot escape the problem that way).
That "metric" is provided by every national agency that studies / regulates energy. I linked you directly to a.gov address, which indicates that it comes from a US federal agency.
Im also not interested in what the "industry" says, Im interested in the facts as compiled by reputable agencies. The facts show that solar is a great supplement, and that nuclear is the most cost effective and scalable energy source if you want "carbon neutral". If you dont, it falls back to coal and natural gas.
The problem basically is that laymen believe you can simply set up two "57% capacity factor" plants and then you have up to 114% power available.
I dont know of anyone who thinks that. Capacity factor simply means you may have a 1GW nuclear plant-- that is, at peak it can generate 1GW (what its rated at)-- but over the course of the year it may generate an average of 700MW/h for every hour of the year. This would represent a 0.70 capacity factor.
If you have 2 0.57 capacity factor plants, you will get 114% of the capacity of one plant, or 0.57 of the two combined.
No idea why a.gov site suddenly uses that term, too.
Ive been having these discussions for years, and linking to the same wikipedia articles for years which use that term. Some quick googling indicates that its been tracked since at least the 90s for at least coal power. Theres a good article on it here.
Hmm, an underdesigned dam in China initially constructed in the 1950's
Why doesnt this argument fly when people apply it to Chernobyl?
Fact is, generating energy kills people. Around 1000 coal miners die a year. Less than 500 die a year from nuclear if you annualize all expected future deaths from Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI. If you DONT annualize it, less than 100 die a year.
The only rational conclusion one could form from looking at the facts and listening to the arguments used against nuclear is that there is a phenomenal amount of FUD.
'Capacity' factor is a word that is only used in the climate denier scene and recently by marketing droids.
I know you have a massive anti-nuclear streak, but lets be real here. Solar couldnt cope with the storm either, gets awful generation during winter especially at latitutes where these types of storms are common due to insolation, and cant provide base load.
Nuclear on the other hand has caused-- past, present, and anticipated future-- FAR fewer deaths than hydro or coal. Heres a question for you: Do you protest as vigorously when a new hydro plant opens? Because a single dam event around 20 years ago killed ~triple the number of people expected to die from Chernobyl, and well over double the number of people who have died or are expected to die from nuclear since its inception till now.
A plant has no capacity factor.
From the Energy Information Administration: Capacity factor is a measure of how often an electric generator runs for a specific period of time. It indicates how much electricity a generator actually produces relative to the maximum it could produce at continuous full power operation during the same period.
For example, if a one megawatt generator produced 5,000 megawatthours the entire year, its capacity factor would be 0.57 or 57%
In fact they provide capacity factor information for various technologies if you so desire.
Im really not sure where you get your information but it seems terribly off.
In other words, the battleship is better once you've established dominance of sea and air, but you wont establish dominance without the carriers and once you have dominance you've already won, regardless of the battleships.
The SR-71 was shot at too many times to count. Never once shot out of the sky. RADAR? Sure, they may have known she was there, and wasn't nothing to be done about it, as nothing could catch it.
Technically an AA missile could catch it as those go mach 7+
Everything is useless in a nuclear war. Everything can be expected to be destroyed, including the submarines.
Thats not really true, unless everyone fired "all of the missles" and did a perfect blanket pattern. At that point you might manage to destroy part of europe.
Nukes do a lot of damage but people have a tendency to vastly overstate their destructive power. There arent enough nukes in the world to "destroy" all of the contiguous US-- the cities and military bases, perhaps, if we contributed our own stockpile to our own destruction.
Like cloud computing and synergy, big data is thrown around as if it is some magic pixie dust that can solve anything. Will Big Data solve poverty int he world? New models allow us to better target malnutrition! Will Big Data solve crime? New models allow us to figure out socioeconomic causes of crime!
I am skeptical that "big data" means that subs are now as easily detectable as a a missile frigate, or as easily targetable. Most likely there are methods of detecting them but not from 100 or 200 miles away.
The author doesnt even seem to give any references for experts making this claim, nor am I able to find any actual credentials for him. Who is Brian Clark, and why does he think hes a qualified defense analyst?
WPA uses rc4 encryption - which can be cracked by collecting enough packets encypted with the same key
Unless Im mistaken, RC4 is not in itself vulnerable or broken; it was used very widely in 2011 when AES was under siege by the BEAST attack (Google.com actually used it). The worst that could be said for it (as I understand) is that its a little too simple and fast for people to have full confidence in it, not to mention its age.
Based on my limited understanding of it, your statement about rotation is sort of kind of correct, but misleading in that it implies that the issue is with RC4 itself and not the specific way that it was implemented.
WPA uses portions from WEP, but AFAIK its not terribly vulnerable because it was designed better. There are "weaknesses" but as I recall current attacks on WPA basically boil down to bruteforce.
Slashdot Mirror
Having them randomly selected, like the jury pool, might not be a bad idea.
That would be an awful idea. We would lose crucial protections within 10 years because these untrained judges would have no conception of the reason for things like "double jeopardy" and "protection from self incrimination".
The only reason we have a 2nd amendment still is because SCOTUS is filled with old people who dont GAF what Chicago and DC have to say about the dangers of guns; they know the law, and they know overreach when they see it. You think a randomly elected individual would have the fortitude to back laws he doesnt like on principle, because its the correct ruling?
If you ever need proof that the average individual is not educated enough to interpret "what the law is", just frequent reddit. Your average person would shred the fourth and fifth amendments the first time a rapist was going to use them to get away with their crime. Your average person doesnt even understand the reason why we allow racist speech to be legal, and would probably shred the first amendment the first time a neo-nazi strolled into a jewish community in Illinois.
Heck, I doubt if your average person even knows what the amendments ARE. It is 100% appropriate for someone who does know these things, and is as unbiased as one can be in todays society (as they dont have to care what anyone else thinks), to instruct the jury on matters of law. Thats a good deal of the judge's job description, actually.
I have see no evidence that appointed judges are "better" than elected judges in any significant way,
The idea is to remove them from external influence. Once appointed, you cannot be fired for a ruling people dont like, which makes it far easier to rule on "what the law is" rather than "what someone else wants it to be".
Elected judges would be an absolutely abysmal idea. Judges being elected is why theyre able to continually smack down overreach in areas of first, second, and fourth amendments. They dont always make the right call-- but they arent in lock-step with the other two branches, which is an incredibly important thing.
Your data plan doesnt take into account advertisements which are basically subsidized at your expense. It doesnt count the silent data collection performed by most apps, or silent updates performed in the background.
Those updates offer you the option to defer them till Wifi.
More to the point, most geeks object vocally when carriers try to look at what you're doing. T-Mobile doesnt. They provide a pipe. What sites you visit, how big their ads are, and what apps you download-- none of that is their problem. If you use their pipe, they count the data.
Its worth noting though that they dont charge overages, you just lose LTE access when you cross your limit. Oh no, cry me a river. Maybe you want to look at deferring those updates till wifi, or quit watching youtube over LTE, or (gasp) upgrade your plan. T-Mobile's plan is so much better than any other carrier, its laughable, and here you are complaining that theyre not DPI'ing you to detect what the ads are.
Power companies don't measure a power plant with a CF. A CF does not help you in any way to plan how much power you want to generate tomorrow with your fleet of plants.
Capacity factor is a compiled statistic from past data. It is useful for determining the performance of a particular form of energy, and for predicting future output. If for the past 20 years your 20MW solar farm has gotten a 0.2 capacity factor, its a pretty safe bet that you're going to generate somewhere in the range of ~4MWh every hour of the year.
Plants arent "rated" in capacity factor because it isnt a static piece of datum. If you have 5 nuclear plant shutdowns over the year, that will impact that year's capacity factor.
You're essentialy arguing that statistics like the GDP are worthless because theyre not a hard, fixed number. But compiled statistics like the GDP measure past performance and are a good measure of relative strength of a country; in the same way, capacity factor combined with "cost per mwh" and "average plant size" are very helpful for understanding what scale of generation we are talking about. If I tell you that a 1GW nuclear plant was just built, that really doesnt help you determine how much power it will likely produce unless I also tell you that nuclear plants in the area generally hit 0.65 capacity factor.
The reason people bring it up with solar is because solar averages an extremely low 0.2 capacity factor. So when someone mentions that a 10MW solar farm was built for ~1/100th the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant, it sounds really viable (equal cost per MWh)-- until you realize that the solar farm will generate, on average, 1/3rd the power of the nuclear plant because solar has an inherently lower capacity factor.
What about the trustworthiness of your own senses? What about the idea that our universe is an inherently logical and rule-following one?
You cannot "prove" those. You cannot even prove that everything out of your perceptive range continues to exist for the time that you cannot perceive it. Heck, one cant even really prove that their entire experience is not a simulation or dream.
These are all assumptions, not axioms; they cannot be proven, and must be accepted.
But more than that, I would wager that you would call racism or cowardice or sexism or unprovoked violence "wrong" in some sense. This, too, is predicated on an unproveable assumption that there is some higher set of values to which we should all abide (even if you were to say "its merely rational to do what is in society's interest", that assumes that "benefiting society" is itself a value; you cannot escape the problem that way).
Fun fact: Everything you know is predicated on some set of assumptions.
Im a little baffled, which of the policies he has put in place have surprised you?
So if you ate it it might give you cancer. That IS scary, can you imagine having a substance in your house that could be harmful if you ingested it?
I think theres a slight difference between "multi-layer" and polymer.
Actually theyre almost antonyms.
If I had the understanding of an electrical engineer, I wouldnt have posed post as a query (albeit without a question mark).
WHY cant you just dump it into the ground?
That "metric" is provided by every national agency that studies / regulates energy. I linked you directly to a .gov address, which indicates that it comes from a US federal agency.
Im also not interested in what the "industry" says, Im interested in the facts as compiled by reputable agencies. The facts show that solar is a great supplement, and that nuclear is the most cost effective and scalable energy source if you want "carbon neutral". If you dont, it falls back to coal and natural gas.
The problem basically is that laymen believe you can simply set up two "57% capacity factor" plants and then you have up to 114% power available.
I dont know of anyone who thinks that. Capacity factor simply means you may have a 1GW nuclear plant-- that is, at peak it can generate 1GW (what its rated at)-- but over the course of the year it may generate an average of 700MW/h for every hour of the year. This would represent a 0.70 capacity factor.
If you have 2 0.57 capacity factor plants, you will get 114% of the capacity of one plant, or 0.57 of the two combined.
No idea why a .gov site suddenly uses that term, too.
Ive been having these discussions for years, and linking to the same wikipedia articles for years which use that term. Some quick googling indicates that its been tracked since at least the 90s for at least coal power. Theres a good article on it here.
Hmm, an underdesigned dam in China initially constructed in the 1950's
Why doesnt this argument fly when people apply it to Chernobyl?
Fact is, generating energy kills people. Around 1000 coal miners die a year. Less than 500 die a year from nuclear if you annualize all expected future deaths from Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI. If you DONT annualize it, less than 100 die a year.
The only rational conclusion one could form from looking at the facts and listening to the arguments used against nuclear is that there is a phenomenal amount of FUD.
'Capacity' factor is a word that is only used in the climate denier scene and recently by marketing droids.
I know you have a massive anti-nuclear streak, but lets be real here. Solar couldnt cope with the storm either, gets awful generation during winter especially at latitutes where these types of storms are common due to insolation, and cant provide base load.
Nuclear on the other hand has caused-- past, present, and anticipated future-- FAR fewer deaths than hydro or coal. Heres a question for you: Do you protest as vigorously when a new hydro plant opens? Because a single dam event around 20 years ago killed ~triple the number of people expected to die from Chernobyl, and well over double the number of people who have died or are expected to die from nuclear since its inception till now.
A plant has no capacity factor.
From the Energy Information Administration:
Capacity factor is a measure of how often an electric generator runs for a specific period of time. It indicates how much electricity a generator actually produces relative to the maximum it could produce at continuous full power operation during the same period.
For example, if a one megawatt generator produced 5,000 megawatthours the entire year, its capacity factor would be 0.57 or 57%
In fact they provide capacity factor information for various technologies if you so desire.
Im really not sure where you get your information but it seems terribly off.
I would think if you had nowhere else to send it, you could dump it into ground. Surely theres sufficient capacity there.
The plant will be back online well before that though. Theres no "problem" here.
In other words, the battleship is better once you've established dominance of sea and air, but you wont establish dominance without the carriers and once you have dominance you've already won, regardless of the battleships.
The SR-71 was shot at too many times to count. Never once shot out of the sky. RADAR? Sure, they may have known she was there, and wasn't nothing to be done about it, as nothing could catch it.
Technically an AA missile could catch it as those go mach 7+
Everything is useless in a nuclear war. Everything can be expected to be destroyed, including the submarines.
Thats not really true, unless everyone fired "all of the missles" and did a perfect blanket pattern. At that point you might manage to destroy part of europe.
Nukes do a lot of damage but people have a tendency to vastly overstate their destructive power. There arent enough nukes in the world to "destroy" all of the contiguous US-- the cities and military bases, perhaps, if we contributed our own stockpile to our own destruction.
Like cloud computing and synergy, big data is thrown around as if it is some magic pixie dust that can solve anything. Will Big Data solve poverty int he world? New models allow us to better target malnutrition! Will Big Data solve crime? New models allow us to figure out socioeconomic causes of crime!
I am skeptical that "big data" means that subs are now as easily detectable as a a missile frigate, or as easily targetable. Most likely there are methods of detecting them but not from 100 or 200 miles away.
The author doesnt even seem to give any references for experts making this claim, nor am I able to find any actual credentials for him. Who is Brian Clark, and why does he think hes a qualified defense analyst?
WPA uses rc4 encryption - which can be cracked by collecting enough packets encypted with the same key
Unless Im mistaken, RC4 is not in itself vulnerable or broken; it was used very widely in 2011 when AES was under siege by the BEAST attack (Google.com actually used it). The worst that could be said for it (as I understand) is that its a little too simple and fast for people to have full confidence in it, not to mention its age.
Based on my limited understanding of it, your statement about rotation is sort of kind of correct, but misleading in that it implies that the issue is with RC4 itself and not the specific way that it was implemented.
WPA uses portions from WEP, but AFAIK its not terribly vulnerable because it was designed better. There are "weaknesses" but as I recall current attacks on WPA basically boil down to bruteforce.
Because this would be a really stupid way to do an attack.
If you don't believe me, ask the previous Powerball winners.
Whose lives are probably miserable at this point.
Id be much more inclined to play the lottery if the pot were between 50k and 1m, as it would have a far lesser chance of ruining my life.
There are possibly retransmits after a collision on a half-duplex connection
Its been a long time since the "CD" in CSMACD has been relevant (or the "MA"!)