you will be hard pressed to sell it to junk yard as replacement parts for other vehicles idiots are desperate to keep on roads because they just have to be dicks making noise and generating pollution.
Or, you know, because they don't have $30k+ lying around spend on a new EV...and it saves the emissions involved in the production of any new car.
Announcing the creation of the Space Force was also a terrible idea for the same reasons, but it doesn't necessarily have to be compounded by announcing individual space weapons. The air force is public knowledge, but various aircraft and the technologies behind them have been kept secret.
And the US is spurring it further for no good reason. If they must break the space weapons treaty and respond by developing their own space weapons, they should do so with extreme secrecy, not a public announcement. They've done this properly in the past with space-based surveillance tech, so it's not like they don't know how.
Well the US is already bending to Russia's will, so...
If the US wants to be dominant in space-based weapons they should be very, very secretive about them. The fact that any are even being considered should be top secret - the secrecy that surrounded the Misty stealth spy satellite is a good starting point for the kind of secrecy that should surround a space weapon. The only thing that could do a better job of spurring on a space-based arms race (and thus reducing the US' potential dominance) than letting potential rivals know is letting the public know as well.
So this isn't strategic, this is Trump swinging his dick to make his base swoon and his schoolyard enemies (NK/Iran) angry - and, as a side-effect, advantageously informed.
Trouble is that it could be a self-defeating prophecy. Also that it's a worst-case scenario for renewable adoption - we shouldn't have waited for renewables to win over subsidized fossil fuels through sheer cheapness.
Well then good, absent any new artificial political hurdles, soon renewables will be cheaper (even including fossil fuel subsidies) and fossil fuels will be phased out, enjoy.
It's not important for politicians to be uber-l33t. They only need to know enough to hire, and not be casually bullshitted by, good expert advisors in any technical areas.
Now Beto's certainly not the worst Blue Team candidate - that would either be Amy Klobuchar or Howard Schultz, I'm not sure which - but he's a boring centrist, and the US can't afford the same old cycle of waiting in stay-the-course centrist holding patterns under Democratic administrations in between the rapid-fire devastating setbacks of Republican administrations. There are some actual radical leftists running and I hope one of them wins.
Well you're being quite presumptuous to think that I have a cushy and luxurious life or access to cheap energy, but clean energy doesn't have to be more expensive. Renewables plus storage are already at the heels of the price of fossil fuels, and that's with fossil fuel production being subsidized in many countries officially, and unofficially through "defense" spending. And again that fossil energy isn't even as cheap as it appears - part of the price is being left to accrue compound interest for future generations to pay in the form of negative climate effects.
Price isn't really the problem anymore. At this point there's more economic catastrophe in all but the most near-term on the path of fossil fuels than renewables. It's just a few entrenched interests worried about the money going through different hands.
Because he'll be dead by then, duh. Today's climate obstructionists are simply putting the pain of taking action onto future generations, multiplied many times over by the delay.
They're basically stealing shit from the future, in a very inefficient but cheap way, for their own personal gain.
It makes sense to consider those as negative points when considering Huawei equipment, it doesn't make sense for the US to pressure an ally via intelligence-sharing agreements to keep them off of Huawei equipment. The response should be proportionate.
You'd think that the Five Eyes geniuses could use their skills to find some, you know, hard evidence that Huawei is engaged in this behavior? It shouldn't be rocket science to catch Huawei smuggling these massive volumes of (meta)data back to China. When the US exerts disproportionate pressure without evidence, it just looks like the US government running a racket for American corporations (or against one close to China's government).
This stupidest part is that even if the equipment were compromised, it shouldn't matter. If Germany is sending unencrypted top secret material over a public 5G network, that's a problem no matter who makes it. Ideally no equipment outside of the machines the material is hosted or viewed on should matter.
The GPS could be used to sanity-check changes in airspeed - if there's a massive change in the airspeed reported from the pitot tubes and the plane is flying somewhere close to level, there should be a large change in ground speed as well. If there's none, then that's a red flag that the pitot tubes are acting up. GPS can also be used for reliable altitude readings, which the pitot tubes could also report incorrectly if they malfunction.
It is bad programming and unfortunately, having automatic aircraft control systems use a single sensor when many are available seems to be the norm. For example in the Air France 447 crash, the stall warning system only used the notoriously troublesome pitot tube sensors and didn't look to GPS inputs for a second opinion. Neither did the pilots...
But I still don't think it's a good idea to let a computer silently take control of an airplane from the pilot, even without a sensor as a single point of failure.
Not only those, they need to change how this feature works. The system is simply too dangerous as-is.
I'm shocked that this idiotic "feature" wasn't disabled on all 737 Max 8s after the first crash. This is a system that will override the pilot's inputs to use the elevator to pitch the aircraft downward at any time, it's normally on. There's no indication to let the pilot know that this system is doing this. If one sensor glitches out it will cause a crash rather quickly unless the pilot knows how to recognize the malfunction and how to turn the system off, and does so before the plane gets into an unrecoverable state.
So it should also have a visible and audible indicator to let the pilot know when the system is taking action, and a button the pilot can hit to disable it.
This was made to prevent another Air France 447 type crash, but instead it merely gives the computer the opportunity to cause similar crashes due to similar sensor malfunctions all by itself - diving into the ground instead of stalling into it.
A few years ago? They've been getting far too much attention since at least the late '90s, although that's around the time that shameful fraud Andrew Wakefield kicked this trainwreck into high gear.
40 years of generously giving these nutjobs a seat at the debate table under the "marketplace of ideas" school of thought, and then social media connecting these sparsely spread nutjobs together and giving them a megaphone.
My "why do it" is because I think it's good and it's clearly effective. I'm not going to not do something that furthers my goals because I think there's some tiny chance I might be completely wrong despite my best judgement and most careful consideration.
So if deplatforming isn't inherently evil, and we can reasonably tell right from wrong, why not do it? Because racists and bigots used the same tactic? They've marched with signs and chants too, are those tactics similarly tainted? If so, we'd be edging into "Hitler drank water" territory.
I'm aware that another apparent pet peeve conservatives have with corporations in general is their desire to import infinite numbers of cheap foreign laborers and illegally hire non-citizens. But if they really want to stop this, it should be fairly easy to get their lawmakers, particularly Mr. loose-cannon answers-to-noone President Tweety, to limit this and put employer-side legal consequences for illegally hiring non-citizens. That would end it quickly and easily, but they don't. So if they're honestly against corporate control, they're doing a really bad job of it. It's hard to imagine a group so incompetent would direct any violent urges effectively.
Perhaps, but even so, it's a better set of rules to protect us against monopoly control of public discussion. Facebook does not currently have liability in the US for pretty much anything unless they're told to take it down and fail to do so. Publishers are different. They're liable immediately for libel, obscenity, copyright violation, you name it. Facebook is not held to that standard, but it should be if they're going to censor their platform beyond what's legally required.
Facebook is nowhere near a monopoly player in online discussion or even general-purpose social media. You could argue that there's a social media oligopoly. Also, again the idea that Facebook should be held to the standard of a publisher if they're going to censor beyond what's legally required is a false dichotomy. To make it real would require sweeping free speech restrictions, in the proper legal sense of the word. I'm not for that.
Meaning you seem to be expecting bad ideas to be debunked in a short time, not in a generation or two as is normal.
It doesn't take a generation or two to debunk bad or factually wrong ideas after they're introduced or repopularized, and that's a great thing because we wouldn't have made it this far as a civilization otherwise - we'd drown in every lie and prejudice ever invented. This is a relatively modern problem with relatively modern causes.
So you appear to be arguing that deplatforming is inherently evil, and also that it's impossible to discern good from evil. The first point is highly questionable and the second is utterly ludicrous. The fact that most people who have done evil didn't realize that they were being evil in no way makes it harder to tell that they were being evil.
I also didn't say that the people who can't tell real from fake or logical from illogical are people who can't tell good from evil. They could. There are some who can't, but they're not the same people, and neither are majorities.
If we can't discern right from wrong, then why take any action to correct wrong? It's a recipe not merely for societal stagnation, but moral backsliding. You know the quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Slashdot Mirror
you will be hard pressed to sell it to junk yard as replacement parts for other vehicles idiots are desperate to keep on roads because they just have to be dicks making noise and generating pollution.
Or, you know, because they don't have $30k+ lying around spend on a new EV...and it saves the emissions involved in the production of any new car.
Announcing the creation of the Space Force was also a terrible idea for the same reasons, but it doesn't necessarily have to be compounded by announcing individual space weapons. The air force is public knowledge, but various aircraft and the technologies behind them have been kept secret.
And the US is spurring it further for no good reason. If they must break the space weapons treaty and respond by developing their own space weapons, they should do so with extreme secrecy, not a public announcement. They've done this properly in the past with space-based surveillance tech, so it's not like they don't know how.
Well the US is already bending to Russia's will, so...
If the US wants to be dominant in space-based weapons they should be very, very secretive about them. The fact that any are even being considered should be top secret - the secrecy that surrounded the Misty stealth spy satellite is a good starting point for the kind of secrecy that should surround a space weapon. The only thing that could do a better job of spurring on a space-based arms race (and thus reducing the US' potential dominance) than letting potential rivals know is letting the public know as well.
So this isn't strategic, this is Trump swinging his dick to make his base swoon and his schoolyard enemies (NK/Iran) angry - and, as a side-effect, advantageously informed.
Trouble is that it could be a self-defeating prophecy. Also that it's a worst-case scenario for renewable adoption - we shouldn't have waited for renewables to win over subsidized fossil fuels through sheer cheapness.
Well then good, absent any new artificial political hurdles, soon renewables will be cheaper (even including fossil fuel subsidies) and fossil fuels will be phased out, enjoy.
It's not important for politicians to be uber-l33t. They only need to know enough to hire, and not be casually bullshitted by, good expert advisors in any technical areas.
Now Beto's certainly not the worst Blue Team candidate - that would either be Amy Klobuchar or Howard Schultz, I'm not sure which - but he's a boring centrist, and the US can't afford the same old cycle of waiting in stay-the-course centrist holding patterns under Democratic administrations in between the rapid-fire devastating setbacks of Republican administrations. There are some actual radical leftists running and I hope one of them wins.
People who never did anything for anyone want to decide things.
What does that have to do with 16-year-olds voting in particular?
When there's a crisis and you need people to come together to achieve a common goal, they won't. Better hope nothing ever goes wrong.
As opposed to the status quo? Again, show me a downside of letting 16-year-olds vote compared to not letting them vote.
Well you're being quite presumptuous to think that I have a cushy and luxurious life or access to cheap energy, but clean energy doesn't have to be more expensive. Renewables plus storage are already at the heels of the price of fossil fuels, and that's with fossil fuel production being subsidized in many countries officially, and unofficially through "defense" spending. And again that fossil energy isn't even as cheap as it appears - part of the price is being left to accrue compound interest for future generations to pay in the form of negative climate effects.
Price isn't really the problem anymore. At this point there's more economic catastrophe in all but the most near-term on the path of fossil fuels than renewables. It's just a few entrenched interests worried about the money going through different hands.
I say why the hell not, plenty of old people vote like children anyway.
Because he'll be dead by then, duh. Today's climate obstructionists are simply putting the pain of taking action onto future generations, multiplied many times over by the delay.
They're basically stealing shit from the future, in a very inefficient but cheap way, for their own personal gain.
It makes sense to consider those as negative points when considering Huawei equipment, it doesn't make sense for the US to pressure an ally via intelligence-sharing agreements to keep them off of Huawei equipment. The response should be proportionate.
You'd think that the Five Eyes geniuses could use their skills to find some, you know, hard evidence that Huawei is engaged in this behavior? It shouldn't be rocket science to catch Huawei smuggling these massive volumes of (meta)data back to China. When the US exerts disproportionate pressure without evidence, it just looks like the US government running a racket for American corporations (or against one close to China's government).
That sounds like the Five Eyes saying "nobody spies on our populations, except us!"
And it's really the same problem - people shouldn't be sending sensitive info unencrypted over public networks, especially cell networks.
This stupidest part is that even if the equipment were compromised, it shouldn't matter. If Germany is sending unencrypted top secret material over a public 5G network, that's a problem no matter who makes it. Ideally no equipment outside of the machines the material is hosted or viewed on should matter.
Yeah, it's better to live in the US where...they've had similar laws for years now...shit...
The GPS could be used to sanity-check changes in airspeed - if there's a massive change in the airspeed reported from the pitot tubes and the plane is flying somewhere close to level, there should be a large change in ground speed as well. If there's none, then that's a red flag that the pitot tubes are acting up. GPS can also be used for reliable altitude readings, which the pitot tubes could also report incorrectly if they malfunction.
It is bad programming and unfortunately, having automatic aircraft control systems use a single sensor when many are available seems to be the norm. For example in the Air France 447 crash, the stall warning system only used the notoriously troublesome pitot tube sensors and didn't look to GPS inputs for a second opinion. Neither did the pilots...
But I still don't think it's a good idea to let a computer silently take control of an airplane from the pilot, even without a sensor as a single point of failure.
Not only those, they need to change how this feature works. The system is simply too dangerous as-is.
I'm shocked that this idiotic "feature" wasn't disabled on all 737 Max 8s after the first crash. This is a system that will override the pilot's inputs to use the elevator to pitch the aircraft downward at any time, it's normally on. There's no indication to let the pilot know that this system is doing this. If one sensor glitches out it will cause a crash rather quickly unless the pilot knows how to recognize the malfunction and how to turn the system off, and does so before the plane gets into an unrecoverable state.
So it should also have a visible and audible indicator to let the pilot know when the system is taking action, and a button the pilot can hit to disable it.
This was made to prevent another Air France 447 type crash, but instead it merely gives the computer the opportunity to cause similar crashes due to similar sensor malfunctions all by itself - diving into the ground instead of stalling into it.
This open info-warfare suggests that the endgame of American democracy is at hand, finally we'll see a resolution.
A few years ago? They've been getting far too much attention since at least the late '90s, although that's around the time that shameful fraud Andrew Wakefield kicked this trainwreck into high gear.
40 years of generously giving these nutjobs a seat at the debate table under the "marketplace of ideas" school of thought, and then social media connecting these sparsely spread nutjobs together and giving them a megaphone.
My "why do it" is because I think it's good and it's clearly effective. I'm not going to not do something that furthers my goals because I think there's some tiny chance I might be completely wrong despite my best judgement and most careful consideration.
So if deplatforming isn't inherently evil, and we can reasonably tell right from wrong, why not do it? Because racists and bigots used the same tactic? They've marched with signs and chants too, are those tactics similarly tainted? If so, we'd be edging into "Hitler drank water" territory.
I'm aware that another apparent pet peeve conservatives have with corporations in general is their desire to import infinite numbers of cheap foreign laborers and illegally hire non-citizens. But if they really want to stop this, it should be fairly easy to get their lawmakers, particularly Mr. loose-cannon answers-to-noone President Tweety, to limit this and put employer-side legal consequences for illegally hiring non-citizens. That would end it quickly and easily, but they don't. So if they're honestly against corporate control, they're doing a really bad job of it. It's hard to imagine a group so incompetent would direct any violent urges effectively.
Perhaps, but even so, it's a better set of rules to protect us against monopoly control of public discussion. Facebook does not currently have liability in the US for pretty much anything unless they're told to take it down and fail to do so. Publishers are different. They're liable immediately for libel, obscenity, copyright violation, you name it. Facebook is not held to that standard, but it should be if they're going to censor their platform beyond what's legally required.
Facebook is nowhere near a monopoly player in online discussion or even general-purpose social media. You could argue that there's a social media oligopoly. Also, again the idea that Facebook should be held to the standard of a publisher if they're going to censor beyond what's legally required is a false dichotomy. To make it real would require sweeping free speech restrictions, in the proper legal sense of the word. I'm not for that.
Meaning you seem to be expecting bad ideas to be debunked in a short time, not in a generation or two as is normal.
It doesn't take a generation or two to debunk bad or factually wrong ideas after they're introduced or repopularized, and that's a great thing because we wouldn't have made it this far as a civilization otherwise - we'd drown in every lie and prejudice ever invented. This is a relatively modern problem with relatively modern causes.
So you appear to be arguing that deplatforming is inherently evil, and also that it's impossible to discern good from evil. The first point is highly questionable and the second is utterly ludicrous. The fact that most people who have done evil didn't realize that they were being evil in no way makes it harder to tell that they were being evil.
I also didn't say that the people who can't tell real from fake or logical from illogical are people who can't tell good from evil. They could. There are some who can't, but they're not the same people, and neither are majorities.
If we can't discern right from wrong, then why take any action to correct wrong? It's a recipe not merely for societal stagnation, but moral backsliding. You know the quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."