Furthermore... why murder the leaker now? What would be gained by such a profound risk? IF he actually was the leaker, and there's no evidence of that either... well, it's leaked. The damage is done. You'd murder him before he got the chance, not after.
The only thing that would support this is the reason why Putin had some of his critics murdered in a spectacular manner -- he wants people to know it's him while claiming he had nothing to do with it.
Ah, so legal immigrants only have to not send money back home, which is a major motivator for many of them to work in America, in order to avoid having their money stolen from them. Got it. That's totally reasonable. (Sarcasm).
If their only reason for being in this country is to siphon money out of it, then I'm not nearly as sympathetic.
His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general [donaldjtrump.com] is not [nationalinterest.org] supported [nytimes.com] by [usnews.com] most [nationalreview.com] economists.
I think at this point, we can see that most economists know jack shit. They haven't exactly done terribly well, have they, nor have their theories seemed to pan out. Hell, if Paul Krugman can get a Nobel Prize, the damned thing is worthless.
"Free Trade" was, surprise surprise, yet another scam to transfer money from the working class to the wealthy. Send all the jobs over the borders, then... somehow mysteriously new and better jobs should appear... strange that we NEVER got to that second part. The jobs are just gone. But corporate profits are up, and hedge fund managers are doing better than ever, hooray!
How could those clips possibly be taken out of context?
Sometimes Trump walks back from them, and his supporters lap up the bullshit argument. Oh, the Obama founded ISIS was sarcasm. "But not that sarcastic." What fucking nonsense.
I'm no Trump supporter, but the media and especially the print media seems to massively misquote and misinterpret him
I don't see him being misquoted a lot. I do see a lot of people trying to apologize for and cover for him, though, this comment section obviously as well.
Yes, yes, you have your vaporware, I mean breeder reactors, but when alternatives are much cheaper, why bother?
Your alternatives are natural gas and coal. No, not solar, and not wind either. Those are contributing sources of power and they reduce the amount of coal and gas you'll need, but they don't provide nearly enough and are unreliable. Even their proponents admit that they are not suitable for baseload power generation. Hydro is fantastic in areas where you can get it, and geothermal can be pretty good as well.
Get rid of nuclear, and you'll replace some of it with wind, solar, and tidal, and you'll replace a lot more of it with the super-dirty sources of energy.
I've never liked the "winner-take-all" system that most states have. It disenfranches a lot of people. It does, of course, directly benefit whomever is the majority, so good luck on that changing.
About the only thing Saint Reagan and the modern republicans have in common is the cold-war militarist mentality and their hatred of the GLBT community
Meh, it's a human thing. There are a lot of modern Christians who love Christ but would never follow his examples of non-violence and poverty.
She says both, so of course people on both sides can claim her for her own. She uses dog-whistle terms to appeal to the anti-vaxxers, while also saying that vaccines have been critical in disease eradication.
A PC has third-party virtual machines into which old software can be loaded, usually with no need to re-buy the software.
If you want to spend the extra money, yes. That's not free, Microsoft no longer distributes that functionality in the 'home' editions. It comes with the 'professional' editions of Windows.
Hell, I can still install and run DOS natively on the latest Core i7 series CPUs. What little kids like "phresno" don't get is that backward compatibility is and always has been one of the strengths of x86 PCs.
Yeah, it's SO backwards-compatible, you only need to jump through FOUR flaming hoops to run a 16-bit installer.
To this day, I still can't run Civilization II on a 64-bit OS. You first have to patch it to the 32-bit multiplayer client, but of course, that happens to be extremely crashy as well (and the code that crashes it is embedded in the save file. So if it crashed in 2500BC, then your save from 2520BC will be useless because the game will ALWAYS crash in the next turn. So it's random, yet predictable).
I ended up installing my old 32-bit copy of Windows XP in VirtualBox and running the old 16-bit game under that. Works perfectly.
Holy smokes, I thought Chrome was freaking out for awhile and not drawing things right (it tends to that if I have way too many things open). I didn't think Slashdot supported... well, really anything outside of a href tags. I posted an ordered list the other day, and of course it didn't make one, but it did intent each list item (in a much different way than the preview showed, unfortunately).
The new "family of devices" will be pretty much like PCs, but far more top-down controlled. They won't be multi-user, multi-application machines where you can run whatever you want, it's an environment that was intended to be strictly controlled, something they always wanted but couldn't achieve in the PC world.
There are just too many bodies in the Clintons' past to say it's all coincidence
There are a LOT of live bodies in the Clintons' past. They knew a ton of people (well, not really, "interacted with" a lot of people is more like it). I've yet to hear that the people who died that the Clintons' once knew is abnormally high compared with other national politicians.
Hell, I've had two friends commit suicide, my circle has to be just a tiny fraction of theirs, and no one's coming after me, I hope.But everyone loves to make up bullshit against the Clintons because they're so hateable.
I find it sort of interesting how uncomfortable hijabs make people. I also find it interesting how many people don't believe women who wear hijabs do so voluntarily.
It's because the hijab is the symbol of the oppression of women. Sure, a number of muslim women will convince themselves that it's good for them and they do so voluntarily. But it's still a reflection of age-old prejudices that women should not be seen, that the sight of women will corrupt a man. It is, of course, then woman's fault, and the woman's obligation to correct.
Really, so when you plug it in, and a few seconds later I come by and unplug it you'll have gotten enough charge for a few days? I think not. The fact that you're even making this argument shows that you really haven't bothered to think through the ramifications. The gas station by my house has 16 pumps. It can service all fuel needs for several thousand people. Will 16 charge stations handle the needs for several thousand EVs? Judging by the fact that my office has 8 charging stations and has issues dealing with the 12 EVs in our lot, I'm guessing not.
The analogy to the gas station is the fast charger or supercharger. I very much doubt that the chargers you have at your work are the fast chargers; they're likely they 3.3kW/6.6kW chargers which charge at 11/22 miles in an hour, rather than, say, Tesla's supercharger which will charge 175 miles in 30 minutes.
the first car anyone thinks of when they say electric car: The Tesla
The Nissan Leaf is the best-selling electric car in the world. There are far more of them out on the road than the Tesla. The Tesla is the luxury brand of the electric car market, for now.
And most people will not have the luxury to buy a second car for those extra times. Erm... the money you safe on fuel alone is enough to pay for the extra car.
If you compare the prices of electricity vs gas over a 10 year period and then compare it to the price of a car, it's almost never the case that gas savings pay for a second car. Some day if gas in the US reaches like.. $8+/gallon, sure. But those days are far on the horizon, well after the current generation of cars will leave the road.
Who are you that 17 minutes (the time for a Tesla supercharger to charge a Model S 100 miles) is a "pretty damn long wait"?
Most people can't afford the $70k Tesla. Yeah yeah, the Model 3 will be here in a few years, but it's not here yet, and it won't have free supercharger access either. Though you will be able to pay for them, and it's not yet announced how much that will cost. But today, now, people have cars which charge 100 miles in maybe half an hour. Oh, it doesn't sound so bad until you take a long trip and you need to charge 5+ times in a day. Then that adds up to a "pretty damn long wait."
They're good for commuter driving, not for trips.
A switch to an EV only increases the time for the "filling" part
I've gotten lucky, I suppose -- when I find a charger, it's unoccupied. But charge areas tend to have, at the most, two of any type of plug. What happens if other people are there? It's not a 5-minute charge like it is a 5-minute fillup. If it takes half an hour to charge and you have to wait for other people to clear out before you can move in, then you've REALLY got a time problem.
Is it? Everyone seems to be so convinced that it MUST be the future...
A lot of things have to happen to make that future a reality, and there is no assurance those things will happen.
I think it HAS to be the future. If nothing else, fossil fuels are a limited resource. They're not going to last forever. We're not going to run out of them tomorrow, or the next decade, or probably the next 50 years. But we WILL run out of them at some point, and IMO we have better uses for fossil fuels (like plastics) than just burning them to power vehicles. Not to mention that our atmosphere and oceans can only absorb so much carbon before their character changes. Obviously life will go on, the Earth will survive, but life will start to suck a lot more at that point.
When you do the math on global warming, assuming the CO2 numbers are a problem, we are in serious trouble, because there is no realistic way to stop it at this point, or even slow it down all that much, we're decades too late...
I've not heard that expressed by mainstream climate scientists, but even if that's the case.. what... fuck it? Just damn it all and we'll do what we want, regardless of the consequences? There is no point where "permanent damage" is done. The Earth has been far hotter before, and it's had far more carbon in the atmosphere before. Anything we can do can be corrected, given time and work, but the further down one path you go, the harder it becomes to backtrack back to your starting point.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore... why murder the leaker now? What would be gained by such a profound risk? IF he actually was the leaker, and there's no evidence of that either... well, it's leaked. The damage is done. You'd murder him before he got the chance, not after.
The only thing that would support this is the reason why Putin had some of his critics murdered in a spectacular manner -- he wants people to know it's him while claiming he had nothing to do with it.
Ah, so legal immigrants only have to not send money back home, which is a major motivator for many of them to work in America, in order to avoid having their money stolen from them. Got it. That's totally reasonable. (Sarcasm).
If their only reason for being in this country is to siphon money out of it, then I'm not nearly as sympathetic.
His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general [donaldjtrump.com] is not [nationalinterest.org] supported [nytimes.com] by [usnews.com] most [nationalreview.com] economists.
I think at this point, we can see that most economists know jack shit. They haven't exactly done terribly well, have they, nor have their theories seemed to pan out. Hell, if Paul Krugman can get a Nobel Prize, the damned thing is worthless.
"Free Trade" was, surprise surprise, yet another scam to transfer money from the working class to the wealthy. Send all the jobs over the borders, then... somehow mysteriously new and better jobs should appear... strange that we NEVER got to that second part. The jobs are just gone. But corporate profits are up, and hedge fund managers are doing better than ever, hooray!
How could those clips possibly be taken out of context?
Sometimes Trump walks back from them, and his supporters lap up the bullshit argument. Oh, the Obama founded ISIS was sarcasm. "But not that sarcastic." What fucking nonsense.
I'm no Trump supporter, but the media and especially the print media seems to massively misquote and misinterpret him
I don't see him being misquoted a lot. I do see a lot of people trying to apologize for and cover for him, though, this comment section obviously as well.
Yes, yes, you have your vaporware, I mean breeder reactors, but when alternatives are much cheaper, why bother?
Your alternatives are natural gas and coal. No, not solar, and not wind either. Those are contributing sources of power and they reduce the amount of coal and gas you'll need, but they don't provide nearly enough and are unreliable. Even their proponents admit that they are not suitable for baseload power generation. Hydro is fantastic in areas where you can get it, and geothermal can be pretty good as well.
Get rid of nuclear, and you'll replace some of it with wind, solar, and tidal, and you'll replace a lot more of it with the super-dirty sources of energy.
In 2010 Democrats were dismayed at Obama's unkept promises and didn't bother to vote
Democrats weren't that disenchanted with Obama, especially not in 2010. It's just that many, many of them never vote except in presidential elections.
I've never liked the "winner-take-all" system that most states have. It disenfranches a lot of people. It does, of course, directly benefit whomever is the majority, so good luck on that changing.
About the only thing Saint Reagan and the modern republicans have in common is the cold-war militarist mentality and their hatred of the GLBT community
Meh, it's a human thing. There are a lot of modern Christians who love Christ but would never follow his examples of non-violence and poverty.
For the millionth time, Jill Stein is not anti-vax.
She says both, so of course people on both sides can claim her for her own.
She uses dog-whistle terms to appeal to the anti-vaxxers, while also saying that vaccines have been critical in disease eradication.
Congress hates both Trump and Clinton enough to seriously consider Johnson as president.
You think the Democrats in Congress would just happily vote for a Libertarian over the Democratic nominee??
A PC has third-party virtual machines into which old software can be loaded, usually with no need to re-buy the software.
If you want to spend the extra money, yes. That's not free, Microsoft no longer distributes that functionality in the 'home' editions. It comes with the 'professional' editions of Windows.
Hell, I can still install and run DOS natively on the latest Core i7 series CPUs. What little kids like "phresno" don't get is that backward compatibility is and always has been one of the strengths of x86 PCs.
Yeah, it's SO backwards-compatible, you only need to jump through FOUR flaming hoops to run a 16-bit installer.
To this day, I still can't run Civilization II on a 64-bit OS. You first have to patch it to the 32-bit multiplayer client, but of course, that happens to be extremely crashy as well (and the code that crashes it is embedded in the save file. So if it crashed in 2500BC, then your save from 2520BC will be useless because the game will ALWAYS crash in the next turn. So it's random, yet predictable).
I ended up installing my old 32-bit copy of Windows XP in VirtualBox and running the old 16-bit game under that. Works perfectly.
He was pointing out that the original poster really was comparing apples to oranges.
Holy smokes, I thought Chrome was freaking out for awhile and not drawing things right (it tends to that if I have way too many things open).
I didn't think Slashdot supported... well, really anything outside of a href tags. I posted an ordered list the other day, and of course it didn't make one, but it did intent each list item (in a much different way than the preview showed, unfortunately).
The new "family of devices" will be pretty much like PCs, but far more top-down controlled. They won't be multi-user, multi-application machines where you can run whatever you want, it's an environment that was intended to be strictly controlled, something they always wanted but couldn't achieve in the PC world.
There are just too many bodies in the Clintons' past to say it's all coincidence
There are a LOT of live bodies in the Clintons' past. They knew a ton of people (well, not really, "interacted with" a lot of people is more like it). I've yet to hear that the people who died that the Clintons' once knew is abnormally high compared with other national politicians.
Hell, I've had two friends commit suicide, my circle has to be just a tiny fraction of theirs, and no one's coming after me, I hope.But everyone loves to make up bullshit against the Clintons because they're so hateable.
I find it sort of interesting how uncomfortable hijabs make people. I also find it interesting how many people don't believe women who wear hijabs do so voluntarily.
It's because the hijab is the symbol of the oppression of women. Sure, a number of muslim women will convince themselves that it's good for them and they do so voluntarily. But it's still a reflection of age-old prejudices that women should not be seen, that the sight of women will corrupt a man. It is, of course, then woman's fault, and the woman's obligation to correct.
If only SH had kept his damn army in Iraq
If only! Though maybe the US telling them they didn't particularly care if he squabbled with Kuwait or not influenced his decision..
Really, so when you plug it in, and a few seconds later I come by and unplug it you'll have gotten enough charge for a few days? I think not. The fact that you're even making this argument shows that you really haven't bothered to think through the ramifications. The gas station by my house has 16 pumps. It can service all fuel needs for several thousand people. Will 16 charge stations handle the needs for several thousand EVs? Judging by the fact that my office has 8 charging stations and has issues dealing with the 12 EVs in our lot, I'm guessing not.
The analogy to the gas station is the fast charger or supercharger. I very much doubt that the chargers you have at your work are the fast chargers; they're likely they 3.3kW/6.6kW chargers which charge at 11/22 miles in an hour, rather than, say, Tesla's supercharger which will charge 175 miles in 30 minutes.
the first car anyone thinks of when they say electric car: The Tesla
The Nissan Leaf is the best-selling electric car in the world. There are far more of them out on the road than the Tesla.
The Tesla is the luxury brand of the electric car market, for now.
Unless one of them is broken, then you're kindof screwed.
And most people will not have the luxury to buy a second car for those extra times. ... the money you safe on fuel alone is enough to pay for the extra car.
Erm
If you compare the prices of electricity vs gas over a 10 year period and then compare it to the price of a car, it's almost never the case that gas savings pay for a second car. Some day if gas in the US reaches like.. $8+/gallon, sure. But those days are far on the horizon, well after the current generation of cars will leave the road.
Who are you that 17 minutes (the time for a Tesla supercharger to charge a Model S 100 miles) is a "pretty damn long wait"?
Most people can't afford the $70k Tesla. Yeah yeah, the Model 3 will be here in a few years, but it's not here yet, and it won't have free supercharger access either. Though you will be able to pay for them, and it's not yet announced how much that will cost. But today, now, people have cars which charge 100 miles in maybe half an hour. Oh, it doesn't sound so bad until you take a long trip and you need to charge 5+ times in a day. Then that adds up to a "pretty damn long wait."
They're good for commuter driving, not for trips.
A switch to an EV only increases the time for the "filling" part
I've gotten lucky, I suppose -- when I find a charger, it's unoccupied. But charge areas tend to have, at the most, two of any type of plug. What happens if other people are there? It's not a 5-minute charge like it is a 5-minute fillup. If it takes half an hour to charge and you have to wait for other people to clear out before you can move in, then you've REALLY got a time problem.
Is it? Everyone seems to be so convinced that it MUST be the future...
A lot of things have to happen to make that future a reality, and there is no assurance those things will happen.
I think it HAS to be the future. If nothing else, fossil fuels are a limited resource. They're not going to last forever. We're not going to run out of them tomorrow, or the next decade, or probably the next 50 years. But we WILL run out of them at some point, and IMO we have better uses for fossil fuels (like plastics) than just burning them to power vehicles. Not to mention that our atmosphere and oceans can only absorb so much carbon before their character changes. Obviously life will go on, the Earth will survive, but life will start to suck a lot more at that point.
When you do the math on global warming, assuming the CO2 numbers are a problem, we are in serious trouble, because there is no realistic way to stop it at this point, or even slow it down all that much, we're decades too late...
I've not heard that expressed by mainstream climate scientists, but even if that's the case.. what... fuck it? Just damn it all and we'll do what we want, regardless of the consequences? There is no point where "permanent damage" is done. The Earth has been far hotter before, and it's had far more carbon in the atmosphere before. Anything we can do can be corrected, given time and work, but the further down one path you go, the harder it becomes to backtrack back to your starting point.