Trump does frighten me a little bit, because he is hitting some of the same notes. I don't think he's going to win even the primary, however.
Trump, the guy who is going to tell the world to get in line, anad do it by force of will. Yet he can't even stand up to Megan Kelly. She asks him some pointed and very good questions, and he runs away. Just one more ChickenHawk with an accent on the Chicken
Conservatives are not marked necessarily by wanting to not progress, they're marked by requiring a more deliberate pace. As long as we understand that pacing, we should be able to move forward without insurrection.
Barry Goldwater - one of my heros, along with Yogi Berra. We need a reincarnation of Barry.
One of my favorite quotes by Barry, and one that is chillingly accurate, and reflects the present day state of the party:
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
And Good buddy Yogi once said - and there is a connection!:
Actually, for many, this sort of hits it right on the head. The "Backstab" legend and the targeting of communists and other groups perceived to be fifth columnists like Jews, was a major popular idea about how Germany lost a war that they seemed to not be losing in 1918.
All just another excuse. The real reason that humans can easily be enticed into killing each other - is that they enjoy it.
Humans like to do things. So they do the things they like.
Sex - Check
Eat - Check
Accumulate wealth - Check
Very seldom have I seen any case where humans do things they hate to do. And when forced to, they tend to do it for as short a time as possible.
So here we are engages in endless warfare, And I'm supposed to believe that humanity hates making constant warfare? Not for a minute. We'll always have a reason, even if we have to make one up. Because this is just what humans do.
Killing other humans makes it's way onto that list - Check.
It is actually more simple than that. All they need to do is require the PIN to apply updates to the OS, rather than allowing automatic updates being pushed by Apple (or whomever)
Already done. Where does it say that Apple can force-update an iOS (or any) of their devices?
Quiet! Some people actually think that Apple uses Microsoft tactics. I've never had an OSX update that I didn't approve. On Windows 10? I never had a choice.
It is actually more simple than that. All they need to do is require the PIN to apply updates to the OS, rather than allowing automatic updates being pushed by Apple (or whomever)
The summary doesn't really reflect the articles findings. Yes female identified sellers received less money that sellers identified as male but once it was corrected for various things the difference was down to 97c per dollar.
They can call me back when identical articles are sold with the same reserve price and by the same group using an obviously male identifier such as "I am a male" in the first sentence of the product description, and obviously female identifier, identified the same way..
Next, we need a clear identification of the gender of the buyer of the auctioned article.
Until then - meh. a completely unscientific study.
Was there a particular psychological bent to the women who self identified as women? Were those who self identified as women actually women?
And what do we do about the many genders in use today??
This is a study looking at sale prices by gender. Which turns out to be an utter waste of time as the study notes a less than 3% (well within the margin of error) difference. How did this make Slashdot?
There is nothing new about this 'ism. Talk to any female manager, and most of them will tell you they have more problems with female subordinates than with male subordinates.
My wife agrees. The men she supervised were in construction - hardly a bastion of SNAGS (Sensitive New Age Guys) The women? Sneaky, backstabbing and gossipy. The men loved her and did what they were told. The women? Well, one did. And she was another Alpha chick. The rest were more interested in who was supposedly laying who to get ahead, and "I hate that bitch, she's so skinny and pretty!"
As I've noted before, at some point, some how some way, we're going to have to acknowledge that not only men have issues. Many women stand in the way of other women's success. How can that be fixed when we are only allowed to believe it is men.
I am pretty sure my point was clear. Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
Do you actually have any examples of Capitalism doing exactly this?
Oh, yeah. I'm gonna get the old no true Scotsman argument.
I've always wondered why the perfect economic model never survives the first round of successes.
Forbes has chosen to speed their journey into irrelevance with their policies. Don't force Slashdot to follow them down that hole by becoming dependent upon their content.
I would make a sincere request that the editors stop accepting any articles from Forbes, period.
No, not exactly an academic journal, and yeah, fuck Forbes, but I don't think it realistic to expect Slashdot (or any mostly ad supported site) to blacklist another site just because they use an anti-adblocker.
So, other than the standard "we just love to bitch", why all the hate?
Well, we can't RTFA while using an adblocker. And we should be able to RTFA, otherwise this is just clickbait and get to read someone's already formed opinion.
Or stop using an adblocker, which is a condom for my computer. Ind if I have to allow that bandwidth hogging, malware serving sewage on my computer, I'll stop using the internet.
And that, Charlie Brown, is the real reason for all the hate. The internet is broken. We're trying to help fix it. That television in the living room - I'm not required to be restrained and wired up like Robot Chicken, forced to watch everything on it. If I have to watch the 5th catheter or mesothelioma ad in the last hour, I can leave the room and grab a beer, pee, or whatever else. The advertiser's plan is to make the advertisements the actual product of the internet, and make the content some sort of wasted space they would love to squeeze a few more ads into. No thank you.
But it appears that much of the technical community on Slashdot will keep working away until terrorists communications are solid, strongly encrypted, and foolproof, and will feel no small amount of self-satisfaction in doing it.
If I may, attempts to avoid making encryption illegal are going to be what gets the bad guys to become experts at it.
As I was reading in a magazine for scientists a few years back, America had a strong policy against sharing almost any technical info with China. We could go to prison for it. No rocketry data sharing. So what happened? The Chinese developed it by themselves. Took a few years longer.
Rocket science or encryption is not anything that only Americans can do. So if we make encryption illegal for Americans, and if indeed it is critical for the bad guys, the bad guys will not only get encryption and use it, but eventually get really good at it. So unless we are planning on droning any addresses we note encrypted traffic coming from, this will probably just make the enemy stronger.
there are always methods of getting something done in secrecy.
Humans have managed to be in a constant state of war even before the intertubez.
Sometimes I wonder if getting along with people might work better than constant low level warfare?
Now granted, my method is to leave everyone alone, but if they attack me, I'll wipe them from the face of the earth. But I suspect that leaving people alone might be an interesting experiment,
Not surprisingly after about 5 years the public had had enough of all the hassles and limitations and stopped installing CNG in vehicles and the 20% of stations selling it rapidly fell to zero again.
Aside from the buses, My little city has one CNG dispensing station. It already has many more EV charging stations. I've never seen the CNG station in use.
Back to hydrogen. Look at the performance and cost curves of batteries, extrapolate over the next 10 year and it is clear EV will out perform IC vehicles in more and more cases. I have used an EV when I was living in China, I loved plugging in at work and never having to visit a gas station. I have electricity at home so I am EV ready, when I can afford one. Where is that hydrogen I would need going to come from if I went down that path? EVs are so simple, is a hydrogen solution going to be able to match that over the long term?
I don't think it's logic or anything like it. It's something visceral. Something that makes reviewers fake problems, and people standing up for their fraud. It's people claiming no infrastructure when its obviously there. Its declaring EVs as fatally flawed when one catches fire, and ignoring that petrol fueled ones do. They hate em.
as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.
HAHAHA.
No, No it has virtually no potential.
According to the wikipedia page, the hydrogen vehicles are at a terrible disadvantage to electric cars because hydrogen generating systems are horribly inefficient, and there is no real infrastructure to support hydrogen.
Is it not amazing? I suspect the same Slashdotters that spew hate and venom when Tesla is mentioned, get all moon eyed when talking about things like hydrogen. I can look outside and see electric vehicle infrastructure all over the place. Deliverable any place there are power lines.
Nope. A taxi company picks up people on the street by hail. Uber doesn't. By definition it isn't a taxi company, no matter what your personal hatred of them warps your beliefs to.
Our local taxi companies use Apps. Does your definition mean they are no longer a taxi company? They call themselves a taxi company, Do you want their number to them them they aren't?
I think its pretty important you set them straight.
Why don't you just add one finger to her list? My partner and I each have one finger that unlocks the other's phone. My passcode is well over 10 digits, and it would be a pain for her to remember it in an emergency.
You see, there is a problem here, you want to legislate for everyone, that which you are unwilling to do for yourself. I have a problem with that on principle.
Do you know one of the biggest reasons there is a big push to make more efficient devices abd decrease energy consumption per capita?
Hint, it isn't nebby nosed people who want to ram regulations up other people's keisters.
I'm not an expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. One thing about solenoids is that they are either on or off or at least the times to actually activate the push on the valve to full open or release its force for full close are pretty short.
The WVU version of camless engine uses rwo solenoids per valve. one to open, and one to close.
Cam shafts are shaped for a more controlled valve action. I would guess that one could control the current through the solenoid coils to match that of the cam action. All this would mean computer activity, control circuits and a substantial increase in electric energy use.
Pulse shape probably. Pulse shape is already used to control fuel injectors - and oddly enough one of those adjustments is sometimes made for RFI abatement.. A square wave pulse on a fuel injector generates a lot of Radio frequency interference But you can make an a valve actuator timing adjustment the same way.
Also, there needs to be a serious comparison for failure modes between the two systems for reliability purposes. There are some common failure points such as a broken valve spring,
Non interference engines would be a must.
What is needed to judge how much this would help or not is if we knew the amount of horsepower the standard camshaft and valves steal form the engine. This is probably not insignificant. I cannot believe they didn't pt this critical percentage in the story.
Working on the engines mechanicals would be easier. Back in my more gearhead rebuilding days, the camshaft bearings were the bugaboo for us all. Camshafts gears, and chains can be eliminated, and now we can even talk about not having headpans and oil flying around inside them.
Imagine a valve/fuel injector/igniter assembly replaceable as a a unit. Imagine it replacing the heads. Imagine the water galleys that can be made a more integral part of the engine.
It might be possible to get horsepower reclamation, efficiency and possible major reliability improvements by eliminating all that extraneous stuff on top of the engine.
You mean like how NASA got caught falsifying data on AGW and how their confidence levels were only something like 40%. They gotta do something for an excuse to continue receiving funding. Might as well lie about the cause of climate change.
I always invite people to provide me the citation on that. Because it almost always turns out to be the case I cited, and turns out the condemning evidence was incorrect and then reconciled. Considering the author of the evidence agreed with the reconciliation, - it's old and incorrect news.
But just in case it's new, tell me, and I'll investigate and report back.
Even the fact that 2015 was a global record setter - that doesn't prove that the world is getting warmer. That's just one year. That's weather.
No it is not weather. Weather phenomena don't cover the whole globe or big parts of it.
Unless you made some sort of mistake in typing - I'm parsing that as you are saying some parts of the globe don't experience weather? All weather is phenomena.
One year doesn't mean much. A decade or so is much more interesting.
And if over many years, if the trend is upwards or downwards, more precipitation or less, it means the climate is altering.
Why are people assuming I'm some "denialist"? I've already been modded down a couple of times as "overrated", which is shorthand for "I disagree with you and wish to silence you". It's hilarious... the slightest hint of wishing to validate claims with actual evidence and the pitchforks come out. And really... you must have a rather low opinion of my faculties if you seriously felt the need to point out that burning fossil fuels create the excess CO2, not the humans themselves.
To be certain, I didn't call you a denialist. If I assumed you were one, my response would have been much more pointed. Because in my book, Global warming denialists are in teh same camp as young esrth c reationists, tobacco industry lawyerists, and anti-vaxxers.
Okay, I apologize, didn't mean to upset you. And won't bother you any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump does frighten me a little bit, because he is hitting some of the same notes. I don't think he's going to win even the primary, however.
Trump, the guy who is going to tell the world to get in line, anad do it by force of will. Yet he can't even stand up to Megan Kelly. She asks him some pointed and very good questions, and he runs away. Just one more ChickenHawk with an accent on the Chicken
Conservatives are not marked necessarily by wanting to not progress, they're marked by requiring a more deliberate pace. As long as we understand that pacing, we should be able to move forward without insurrection.
Barry Goldwater - one of my heros, along with Yogi Berra. We need a reincarnation of Barry.
One of my favorite quotes by Barry, and one that is chillingly accurate, and reflects the present day state of the party:
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
And Good buddy Yogi once said - and there is a connection!:
If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be.
Actually, for many, this sort of hits it right on the head. The "Backstab" legend and the targeting of communists and other groups perceived to be fifth columnists like Jews, was a major popular idea about how Germany lost a war that they seemed to not be losing in 1918.
All just another excuse. The real reason that humans can easily be enticed into killing each other - is that they enjoy it.
Humans like to do things. So they do the things they like.
Sex - Check
Eat - Check
Accumulate wealth - Check
Very seldom have I seen any case where humans do things they hate to do. And when forced to, they tend to do it for as short a time as possible.
So here we are engages in endless warfare, And I'm supposed to believe that humanity hates making constant warfare? Not for a minute. We'll always have a reason, even if we have to make one up. Because this is just what humans do.
Killing other humans makes it's way onto that list - Check.
It is actually more simple than that. All they need to do is require the PIN to apply updates to the OS, rather than allowing automatic updates being pushed by Apple (or whomever)
Already done. Where does it say that Apple can force-update an iOS (or any) of their devices?
Quiet! Some people actually think that Apple uses Microsoft tactics. I've never had an OSX update that I didn't approve. On Windows 10? I never had a choice.
It is actually more simple than that. All they need to do is require the PIN to apply updates to the OS, rather than allowing automatic updates being pushed by Apple (or whomever)
You don't have an Apple device do you?
The summary doesn't really reflect the articles findings. Yes female identified sellers received less money that sellers identified as male but once it was corrected for various things the difference was down to 97c per dollar.
They can call me back when identical articles are sold with the same reserve price and by the same group using an obviously male identifier such as "I am a male" in the first sentence of the product description, and obviously female identifier, identified the same way..
Next, we need a clear identification of the gender of the buyer of the auctioned article.
Until then - meh. a completely unscientific study.
Was there a particular psychological bent to the women who self identified as women? Were those who self identified as women actually women?
And what do we do about the many genders in use today??
This is a study looking at sale prices by gender. Which turns out to be an utter waste of time as the study notes a less than 3% (well within the margin of error) difference. How did this make Slashdot?
Because........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There is nothing new about this 'ism. Talk to any female manager, and most of them will tell you they have more problems with female subordinates than with male subordinates.
My wife agrees. The men she supervised were in construction - hardly a bastion of SNAGS (Sensitive New Age Guys) The women? Sneaky, backstabbing and gossipy. The men loved her and did what they were told. The women? Well, one did. And she was another Alpha chick. The rest were more interested in who was supposedly laying who to get ahead, and "I hate that bitch, she's so skinny and pretty!"
As I've noted before, at some point, some how some way, we're going to have to acknowledge that not only men have issues. Many women stand in the way of other women's success. How can that be fixed when we are only allowed to believe it is men.
I am pretty sure my point was clear. Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
Do you actually have any examples of Capitalism doing exactly this?
Oh, yeah. I'm gonna get the old no true Scotsman argument.
I've always wondered why the perfect economic model never survives the first round of successes.
Forbes has chosen to speed their journey into irrelevance with their policies. Don't force Slashdot to follow them down that hole by becoming dependent upon their content.
I would make a sincere request that the editors stop accepting any articles from Forbes, period.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
http://www.extremetech.com/int...
http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
One of these sweet bits of kit was the angler exploit kit.
http://researchcenter.paloalto...
Just imagine, 90,000 plus websites out there, just waiting for me to disable my adblocker in order to get some of their yummy ransomware.
Anyhow, take this in the spirit it's given, in case the editors didn't know what Forbes stands for these days. Forced malware.
No, not exactly an academic journal, and yeah, fuck Forbes, but I don't think it realistic to expect Slashdot (or any mostly ad supported site) to blacklist another site just because they use an anti-adblocker.
So, other than the standard "we just love to bitch", why all the hate?
Well, we can't RTFA while using an adblocker. And we should be able to RTFA, otherwise this is just clickbait and get to read someone's already formed opinion.
Or stop using an adblocker, which is a condom for my computer. Ind if I have to allow that bandwidth hogging, malware serving sewage on my computer, I'll stop using the internet.
And that, Charlie Brown, is the real reason for all the hate. The internet is broken. We're trying to help fix it. That television in the living room - I'm not required to be restrained and wired up like Robot Chicken, forced to watch everything on it. If I have to watch the 5th catheter or mesothelioma ad in the last hour, I can leave the room and grab a beer, pee, or whatever else. The advertiser's plan is to make the advertisements the actual product of the internet, and make the content some sort of wasted space they would love to squeeze a few more ads into. No thank you.
But it appears that much of the technical community on Slashdot will keep working away until terrorists communications are solid, strongly encrypted, and foolproof, and will feel no small amount of self-satisfaction in doing it.
If I may, attempts to avoid making encryption illegal are going to be what gets the bad guys to become experts at it.
As I was reading in a magazine for scientists a few years back, America had a strong policy against sharing almost any technical info with China. We could go to prison for it. No rocketry data sharing. So what happened? The Chinese developed it by themselves. Took a few years longer.
Rocket science or encryption is not anything that only Americans can do. So if we make encryption illegal for Americans, and if indeed it is critical for the bad guys, the bad guys will not only get encryption and use it, but eventually get really good at it. So unless we are planning on droning any addresses we note encrypted traffic coming from, this will probably just make the enemy stronger.
there are always methods of getting something done in secrecy.
Humans have managed to be in a constant state of war even before the intertubez.
Sometimes I wonder if getting along with people might work better than constant low level warfare?
Now granted, my method is to leave everyone alone, but if they attack me, I'll wipe them from the face of the earth. But I suspect that leaving people alone might be an interesting experiment,
They did use guns, however.
They also wore clothing,
I like where this is going, at least for the hot babes. We need security through nudity!
You have taps in your house right?
(It's a joke, don't kill me)
Absolutely!
And if I ever hear of an EV Jeep, I'm going to get one, and since I love to tinker, plan on charging it solar only when at home.
Ohhh, two mortal sins in slashdot-land! An EV, and solar.
Not surprisingly after about 5 years the public had had enough of all the hassles and limitations and stopped installing CNG in vehicles and the 20% of stations selling it rapidly fell to zero again.
Aside from the buses, My little city has one CNG dispensing station. It already has many more EV charging stations. I've never seen the CNG station in use.
Back to hydrogen. Look at the performance and cost curves of batteries, extrapolate over the next 10 year and it is clear EV will out perform IC vehicles in more and more cases. I have used an EV when I was living in China, I loved plugging in at work and never having to visit a gas station. I have electricity at home so I am EV ready, when I can afford one. Where is that hydrogen I would need going to come from if I went down that path? EVs are so simple, is a hydrogen solution going to be able to match that over the long term?
I don't think it's logic or anything like it. It's something visceral. Something that makes reviewers fake problems, and people standing up for their fraud. It's people claiming no infrastructure when its obviously there. Its declaring EVs as fatally flawed when one catches fire, and ignoring that petrol fueled ones do. They hate em.
As it's including all repairs and fuel, it's pretty competitive to petrol based cars.
Made up numbers.
as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.
HAHAHA.
No, No it has virtually no potential.
According to the wikipedia page, the hydrogen vehicles are at a terrible disadvantage to electric cars because hydrogen generating systems are horribly inefficient, and there is no real infrastructure to support hydrogen.
Is it not amazing? I suspect the same Slashdotters that spew hate and venom when Tesla is mentioned, get all moon eyed when talking about things like hydrogen. I can look outside and see electric vehicle infrastructure all over the place. Deliverable any place there are power lines.
And this hydrogen delivery system?
The true business model of the Internet of Things.
Nope. A taxi company picks up people on the street by hail. Uber doesn't. By definition it isn't a taxi company, no matter what your personal hatred of them warps your beliefs to.
Our local taxi companies use Apps. Does your definition mean they are no longer a taxi company? They call themselves a taxi company, Do you want their number to them them they aren't?
I think its pretty important you set them straight.
Why don't you just add one finger to her list? My partner and I each have one finger that unlocks the other's phone. My passcode is well over 10 digits, and it would be a pain for her to remember it in an emergency.
My wife shows me one finger all the time.
You see, there is a problem here, you want to legislate for everyone, that which you are unwilling to do for yourself. I have a problem with that on principle.
Do you know one of the biggest reasons there is a big push to make more efficient devices abd decrease energy consumption per capita?
Hint, it isn't nebby nosed people who want to ram regulations up other people's keisters.
It's an actual, and real issue.
I'm not an expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. One thing about solenoids is that they are either on or off or at least the times to actually activate the push on the valve to full open or release its force for full close are pretty short.
The WVU version of camless engine uses rwo solenoids per valve. one to open, and one to close.
Cam shafts are shaped for a more controlled valve action. I would guess that one could control the current through the solenoid coils to match that of the cam action. All this would mean computer activity, control circuits and a substantial increase in electric energy use.
Pulse shape probably. Pulse shape is already used to control fuel injectors - and oddly enough one of those adjustments is sometimes made for RFI abatement.. A square wave pulse on a fuel injector generates a lot of Radio frequency interference But you can make an a valve actuator timing adjustment the same way.
Also, there needs to be a serious comparison for failure modes between the two systems for reliability purposes. There are some common failure points such as a broken valve spring,
Non interference engines would be a must.
What is needed to judge how much this would help or not is if we knew the amount of horsepower the standard camshaft and valves steal form the engine. This is probably not insignificant. I cannot believe they didn't pt this critical percentage in the story.
Working on the engines mechanicals would be easier. Back in my more gearhead rebuilding days, the camshaft bearings were the bugaboo for us all. Camshafts gears, and chains can be eliminated, and now we can even talk about not having headpans and oil flying around inside them.
Imagine a valve/fuel injector/igniter assembly replaceable as a a unit. Imagine it replacing the heads. Imagine the water galleys that can be made a more integral part of the engine.
It might be possible to get horsepower reclamation, efficiency and possible major reliability improvements by eliminating all that extraneous stuff on top of the engine.
You mean like how NASA got caught falsifying data on AGW and how their confidence levels were only something like 40%. They gotta do something for an excuse to continue receiving funding. Might as well lie about the cause of climate change.
I always invite people to provide me the citation on that. Because it almost always turns out to be the case I cited, and turns out the condemning evidence was incorrect and then reconciled. Considering the author of the evidence agreed with the reconciliation, - it's old and incorrect news.
But just in case it's new, tell me, and I'll investigate and report back.
Even the fact that 2015 was a global record setter - that doesn't prove that the world is getting warmer. That's just one year. That's weather. No it is not weather. Weather phenomena don't cover the whole globe or big parts of it.
Unless you made some sort of mistake in typing - I'm parsing that as you are saying some parts of the globe don't experience weather? All weather is phenomena.
One year doesn't mean much. A decade or so is much more interesting. And if over many years, if the trend is upwards or downwards, more precipitation or less, it means the climate is altering.
Why are people assuming I'm some "denialist"? I've already been modded down a couple of times as "overrated", which is shorthand for "I disagree with you and wish to silence you". It's hilarious... the slightest hint of wishing to validate claims with actual evidence and the pitchforks come out. And really... you must have a rather low opinion of my faculties if you seriously felt the need to point out that burning fossil fuels create the excess CO2, not the humans themselves.
To be certain, I didn't call you a denialist. If I assumed you were one, my response would have been much more pointed. Because in my book, Global warming denialists are in teh same camp as young esrth c reationists, tobacco industry lawyerists, and anti-vaxxers.
Okay, I apologize, didn't mean to upset you. And won't bother you any more.
Carry on.