Diablo Canyon has had a bad history from the start. The public just doesn't want nuclear power especially when there's nowhere to put the nuclear waste. Granted, the majority of the population in any state doesn't really know what it takes to get their inexpensive power, and few are left who remember the days when electricity wasn't cheap and reliable. Trying to get people to conserve electricity is as hard as it is to get people to conserve fossil fuels, but that's really going to have to be a major part of any long term solution.
Nuclear has problems, but also natural gas has problems, and hydro has problems, and so forth. Personally I would have kept the nuclear power. The location of the plants was always iffy though. They want to be close to the ocean of ready access to water for cooling, and there are way too many nearby fault lines to some of the plants, and nowhere to put any of the waste. Problems like Fukishima aren't just theoretical, they have to be planned for.
Also for the most part, the consumers are telling the utilities that they want coal-free power. There is a little government incentive within California to go with the public demand, but the interstate commerce clause says they can't forbid the importing of coal based electricity. If there's anyone coal producers should be blaming, it's tthe free market.
Yup, it's about money. The free market in action. You'd expect that the fiscal conservatives would rejoice that things are working, but I suspect they'll be asking for more coal subsidies.
Sure, soon the firemen won't go out on calls, because it's too dangerous. Police will respond to 911 calls saying "have you asked the intruder to leave nicely?"
We pay these people for a certain job, and that's to protect the public. And it's a very very good job if you can make it past middle age. It's an amazing retirement plan for many cities.
Juries are given certain instructions. Those instructions might need to say "what if it was your mother that was shot, how would you feel?"
I've been on a jury, and I'm amazed at how many people instantly and reflexively assume the police are always right. The evidence may be flimsy and torn apart, but someone will say "the police arrested him, they must have had a good reason" and refuse to budge from that position.
The police should protect the public first. They should protect themselves second. I think sometimes they have this backwards.
And the courts at the moment are biased towards the police. There's a "test" that involves what the "reasonable officer" would do. In the Supreme Court decision the juries should take into account the split moment thinking. which means juries are being instructed to focus on that primarily, and it's far too easy to sway a jury to stop thinking about what happened before and after and instead only think about "what would a reasonable officer do in that moment when he saw the suspect's hands move?" And then sway the juries into what a "reasonable officer is".
I think this is wrong. Sure, that is certainly what an average officer would do in the situation, but average is not the same as reasonable. A reasonable officer would be better trained, and would use some brains and judgement (that is what "reasonable" means). It's time for a jury to decide that the officer was not being reasonable in some of these shootings. Citizens should not have to live in fear of the people responsible for protecting them.
Maybe this is why I see the largest number of homeless people sleeping on the streets than I have ever seen, while the news programs are all proudly announcing that the unemployment rate is at a record low because the economy is totally awesome. It's bullshit. These people get written off because it makes the numbers look good.
In any event, this Finnish thing is an EXPERIMENT. It is not concluded, they want to see if this idea works or not. But no, Slashdot says experiments are stupid, just go with your gut feelings, because science isn't popular anymore.
Di the Internet Archive buy a copy of the book originally? Maybe, maybe not. Imagine there was just one universal library, and they only had to buy a single copy of a book and then could loan it to the entire world simultaneously for free. At which point the universal library buys a book for $10, the author gets a single payment of say $0.75 for royalties. After that no copies of the book will sell because everyone can just borrow it for free.
The way a real library works is that only one copy is loaned at a time. If the book is popular the library has to buy more of them so that there can be more simultaneous loans.
Just because an idea is on the internet and it's digitial doesn't make it a good idea.
Yes the money has to come from somewhere. But it's possible that this saves money elsewhere. The goal is not to give people money so that they stay home and watch cat videos, but to see if this actually gets them out and get jobs. This is an experiment only, because they have a radical idea that government should see what works and what does not work instead of relying on ideological gut feelings.
Unemployed people are a big drain on the coffers in many ways. Finland already supplies many basic services with a high tax rate. If they can save money in the long run that's a good thing.
The article also makes it clear that this idea was not a far left idea but came the center-right.
I'm unsure. I will pay more in taxes because my income will likely go up, that's one factor. But I will not get the same tax breaks I used to. My best guess is that I will pay slightly more, but it'll be small enough that it won't matter. Most charts I see out there show that the larger your itemized deduction, the more likely the taxes will go up, and people taking the standard deduction will benefit the most. I haven't used the standard deduction in years.
That's ok if your deductions are high because you're rich and are more able to absorb it, but there's a lot of people who may be relatively poor but with high deductions for miscellaneous reasons (medical for example). And anyone with high state and local taxes will lose out as only a fraction of that will be deductible.
Stackoverflow has stopped being a site where you can expect to find informed experts. The experts don't have enough points to correct the wrong answers that are passed out, and don't have the desire to play the social media game to get them. When it was new, Stackoverflow seemed to have a lot of interesting stuff going on. Today it's mostly about helping people with their homework.
Crowd sourcing does not auytomatically result in a high quality result. You actually need some experts in the mix and not just karma miners.
Meanwhile, I came in this weekend to fix a bug involving a corrupted stack and am going to be digging through cores and assembler to figure it out. I am amazed (and dismayed?) at the vast gulf of distance between what I do as a programmer and what a web developer does.
You also have to distinguish between all the shows and where they come from. There's NPR, APR, the local stations themselves, and so forth. I don't like Michael Krasny from KQED (San Francisco) often as things just get too liberal or too parochial, but that's his own show and not officially sponsored by NPR, PBS or anything but the local station.
There used to be a nice show where they would have two people with very opposed views talk things out, and the moderator mostly sat back. It wasn't run as a set of quips and soundbites getting equal time, there was actual discussion of ideas from guests who don't act like stereotypes. It was the opposite of an echo chamber, the whole point of the show was to expose people to other ideas and viewpoints. Sure, there are some listeners who will never get past their own ideas that all liberals are empty headed hippies and all conservatives are racist bigots, but public radio and television is trying hard to disabuse those notions. Other US media seem to be playing up those stereotypes to attract viewers and advertising dollars.
As for Terry Gross, she's not a reporter an editorialist. 90% or more of her interviews are with entertainers, authors, musicians, comedians, and so forth. When she does an interview with a politician, it's usually because that politician just wrote a book. Whether she has political leanings or not is irrelevant, because there is no person on the planet who is not in a coma that has no political opinions.
When a show takes a political bent, we know it has a political bent. The average NPR listener is not so stupid as to believe it all. And the people who are talking on the radio are not trying to present themselves as the source of all truth.
Most listeners are on NPR because there is no better alternative out there.
True, I am always surprised by how much shouting and mudslinging there is on some mainstream news outlets. And when it's not there, there is still the louder volume than normal. It feels a bit like they're channeling the "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" line from Network. But on NPR it remains much more civilized even on controversial topics, and if the show is a call-in show the moderator works to keep things cordial. And it works.
Sure, NPR in San Francisco has a more leftish bent, especially with its local shows. But NPR is also a mainstay in a lot of rural area and red states, and the programming varies. But if a listener blows up if someone criticizes either Trump or Obama, then the problem is with the listener.
As for being balanced, when the same program gets complaints that it was pro-Palestinian and also complaints that it was pro-Israel, then it's a good sign that it's in the middle and isn't bowing to pressure to keep one side quiet.
I think there's a group of FUD people out there with regards to SCADA, smart grids, or even embedded systems in general. So we see these sorts of doom and gloom stories quite often that turn out to not have much to them except for the initial panic.
Too short a period of time. Even if it wasn't, there are so many variables that happen during childbirth that focusing in on just one and assuming it's the cause doesn't make sense.
Sort of like the people who start exercising more, eating less, getting a good night's sleep, and start taking some special vitamin, who then proclaim that it's vitamin that is making them lose weight.
Slashdot Mirror
Diablo Canyon has had a bad history from the start. The public just doesn't want nuclear power especially when there's nowhere to put the nuclear waste. Granted, the majority of the population in any state doesn't really know what it takes to get their inexpensive power, and few are left who remember the days when electricity wasn't cheap and reliable. Trying to get people to conserve electricity is as hard as it is to get people to conserve fossil fuels, but that's really going to have to be a major part of any long term solution.
Nuclear has problems, but also natural gas has problems, and hydro has problems, and so forth. Personally I would have kept the nuclear power. The location of the plants was always iffy though. They want to be close to the ocean of ready access to water for cooling, and there are way too many nearby fault lines to some of the plants, and nowhere to put any of the waste. Problems like Fukishima aren't just theoretical, they have to be planned for.
Also for the most part, the consumers are telling the utilities that they want coal-free power. There is a little government incentive within California to go with the public demand, but the interstate commerce clause says they can't forbid the importing of coal based electricity. If there's anyone coal producers should be blaming, it's tthe free market.
Yup, those subsidies for coal aren't creating jobs but enriching the owners and executives.
Yup, it's about money. The free market in action. You'd expect that the fiscal conservatives would rejoice that things are working, but I suspect they'll be asking for more coal subsidies.
I see your point, but I'm just hoping that sometime, somewhere, there's a third option.
Swatting is a prank in the same way that disconnecting someone's brake lines is a prank.
Sure, soon the firemen won't go out on calls, because it's too dangerous. Police will respond to 911 calls saying "have you asked the intruder to leave nicely?"
We pay these people for a certain job, and that's to protect the public. And it's a very very good job if you can make it past middle age. It's an amazing retirement plan for many cities.
Juries are given certain instructions. Those instructions might need to say "what if it was your mother that was shot, how would you feel?"
I've been on a jury, and I'm amazed at how many people instantly and reflexively assume the police are always right. The evidence may be flimsy and torn apart, but someone will say
"the police arrested him, they must have had a good reason" and refuse to budge from that position.
At the very least they should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony.
Brain surgeons are people too, and they make mistakes. Why blame them when they sneezed at the critical part of the surgery?
The police should protect the public first. They should protect themselves second. I think sometimes they have this backwards.
And the courts at the moment are biased towards the police. There's a "test" that involves what the "reasonable officer" would do. In the Supreme Court decision the juries should take into account the split moment thinking. which means juries are being instructed to focus on that primarily, and it's far too easy to sway a jury to stop thinking about what happened before and after and instead only think about "what would a reasonable officer do in that moment when he saw the suspect's hands move?" And then sway the juries into what a "reasonable officer is".
I think this is wrong. Sure, that is certainly what an average officer would do in the situation, but average is not the same as reasonable. A reasonable officer would be better trained, and would use some brains and judgement (that is what "reasonable" means). It's time for a jury to decide that the officer was not being reasonable in some of these shootings. Citizens should not have to live in fear of the people responsible for protecting them.
Maybe this is why I see the largest number of homeless people sleeping on the streets than I have ever seen, while the news programs are all proudly announcing that the unemployment rate is at a record low because the economy is totally awesome. It's bullshit. These people get written off because it makes the numbers look good.
In any event, this Finnish thing is an EXPERIMENT. It is not concluded, they want to see if this idea works or not. But no, Slashdot says experiments are stupid, just go with your gut feelings, because science isn't popular anymore.
Di the Internet Archive buy a copy of the book originally? Maybe, maybe not. Imagine there was just one universal library, and they only had to buy a single copy of a book and then could loan it to the entire world simultaneously for free. At which point the universal library buys a book for $10, the author gets a single payment of say $0.75 for royalties. After that no copies of the book will sell because everyone can just borrow it for free.
The way a real library works is that only one copy is loaned at a time. If the book is popular the library has to buy more of them so that there can be more simultaneous loans.
Just because an idea is on the internet and it's digitial doesn't make it a good idea.
Yes the money has to come from somewhere. But it's possible that this saves money elsewhere. The goal is not to give people money so that they stay home and watch cat videos, but to see if this actually gets them out and get jobs. This is an experiment only, because they have a radical idea that government should see what works and what does not work instead of relying on ideological gut feelings.
Unemployed people are a big drain on the coffers in many ways. Finland already supplies many basic services with a high tax rate. If they can save money in the long run that's a good thing.
The article also makes it clear that this idea was not a far left idea but came the center-right.
I'm unsure. I will pay more in taxes because my income will likely go up, that's one factor. But I will not get the same tax breaks I used to. My best guess is that I will pay slightly more, but it'll be small enough that it won't matter. Most charts I see out there show that the larger your itemized deduction, the more likely the taxes will go up, and people taking the standard deduction will benefit the most. I haven't used the standard deduction in years.
That's ok if your deductions are high because you're rich and are more able to absorb it, but there's a lot of people who may be relatively poor but with high deductions for miscellaneous reasons (medical for example). And anyone with high state and local taxes will lose out as only a fraction of that will be deductible.
Stackoverflow has stopped being a site where you can expect to find informed experts. The experts don't have enough points to correct the wrong answers that are passed out, and don't have the desire to play the social media game to get them. When it was new, Stackoverflow seemed to have a lot of interesting stuff going on. Today it's mostly about helping people with their homework.
Crowd sourcing does not auytomatically result in a high quality result. You actually need some experts in the mix and not just karma miners.
Meanwhile, I came in this weekend to fix a bug involving a corrupted stack and am going to be digging through cores and assembler to figure it out. I am amazed (and dismayed?) at the vast gulf of distance between what I do as a programmer and what a web developer does.
You also have to distinguish between all the shows and where they come from. There's NPR, APR, the local stations themselves, and so forth. I don't like Michael Krasny from KQED (San Francisco) often as things just get too liberal or too parochial, but that's his own show and not officially sponsored by NPR, PBS or anything but the local station.
There used to be a nice show where they would have two people with very opposed views talk things out, and the moderator mostly sat back. It wasn't run as a set of quips and soundbites getting equal time, there was actual discussion of ideas from guests who don't act like stereotypes. It was the opposite of an echo chamber, the whole point of the show was to expose people to other ideas and viewpoints. Sure, there are some listeners who will never get past their own ideas that all liberals are empty headed hippies and all conservatives are racist bigots, but public radio and television is trying hard to disabuse those notions. Other US media seem to be playing up those stereotypes to attract viewers and advertising dollars.
As for Terry Gross, she's not a reporter an editorialist. 90% or more of her interviews are with entertainers, authors, musicians, comedians, and so forth. When she does an interview with a politician, it's usually because that politician just wrote a book. Whether she has political leanings or not is irrelevant, because there is no person on the planet who is not in a coma that has no political opinions.
When a show takes a political bent, we know it has a political bent. The average NPR listener is not so stupid as to believe it all. And the people who are talking on the radio are not trying to present themselves as the source of all truth.
Most listeners are on NPR because there is no better alternative out there.
True, I am always surprised by how much shouting and mudslinging there is on some mainstream news outlets. And when it's not there, there is still the louder volume than normal. It feels a bit like they're channeling the "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" line from Network. But on NPR it remains much more civilized even on controversial topics, and if the show is a call-in show the moderator works to keep things cordial. And it works.
Sure, NPR in San Francisco has a more leftish bent, especially with its local shows. But NPR is also a mainstay in a lot of rural area and red states, and the programming varies. But if a listener blows up if someone criticizes either Trump or Obama, then the problem is with the listener.
As for being balanced, when the same program gets complaints that it was pro-Palestinian and also complaints that it was pro-Israel, then it's a good sign that it's in the middle and isn't bowing to pressure to keep one side quiet.
This will raise the value of my APKoin!
The economy of scale will still apply to many of the parts that can be expensive. RAM, Flash, high density displays, etc.
I think there's a group of FUD people out there with regards to SCADA, smart grids, or even embedded systems in general. So we see these sorts of doom and gloom stories quite often that turn out to not have much to them except for the initial panic.
Too short a period of time. Even if it wasn't, there are so many variables that happen during childbirth that focusing in on just one and assuming it's the cause doesn't make sense.
Sort of like the people who start exercising more, eating less, getting a good night's sleep, and start taking some special vitamin, who then proclaim that it's vitamin that is making them lose weight.
I just had a sedative, so I got to watch all the twists and turns on a video screen.