Actually, I stand corrected, it was Deckard's *commander* that used the term "skin jobs", and Deckard was clearly disgusted by the term. That's an important distinction, since Deckard may have been a replicant himself, among many other reasons.
I've never read the book. From the book title I assumed the androids were mechanical robots with rubbery skins. In the film, Deckard refers to them as "skin jobs", and this reinforced my original assumption.
Hence, running a blade meaning to (obviously metaphorically) slice off their skins, and thus reveal their true nature.
Interestingly, in "The Terminator II", Arnold slices open his organic skin with a large knife, to prove that he's a robot underneath.
I figure that the idea was so compelling that Scott kept the jargon, even though the replicants in the film were genetically-engineered organisms, and not robots.
Solar? Battery "storage"? Can we do the math on this one?
The cancelled reactors would have produced an average of 47.5 GWh per day @ 90% cap factor.
If the 700 MW of added solar uses modest DC overbuild, it will achieve something like a 25% cap factor, as a seasonal average. That's 4.2 GWh per day, replacing just 9% of the foregone nuclear gen.
Most grid battery "storage" systems run for less than a couple of hours @ rated power (50 MW in this case) per day; many only have 10 minutes of rated runtime, just enough to allow paralleled quick-dispatch gas turbines (burning natural gas) time to spin-up. So that's less than 0.1 GWh per day. The reactors would do nearly 500x times that.
Duke is planning to replace up to 90% of the nuclear with NATURAL GAS, mostly burned in high-efficiency combined-cycle turbines plus some in quick-dispatch simple-cycle turbines. The rest of the story is window-dressing.
I hope the "environmentalists" don't mind the GHG impact of this decision.
Around 90% of GM food crop yield goes into animal feed. Less than 10% goes into the processed foods that will be impacted by the very naive Vermont law.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out whether meat, milk or eggs in Vermont, which came from GMO-fed source animals, need to be labelled. You shouldn't have to think too hard to realize the answer.
The leading global GMO-supported food chain is RoundUp-Ready Soy going into "broiler" (chicken meat) production. It has not quite 100% share of soy going into chicken production. That will not change.
The food industry has not been "brought to it's knees" by Vermont. And GMO "labellers" are just GMO opponents, and are very very ignorant people.
Wind is not a positively dispatchable power source. A wind turbine is not a functional substitute for a nuclear, hydroelectric, gas or coal station, all of which can produce power *when asked to do so*.
Grid-clearance auctions and other market pricing mechanisms VALUE positively dispatchable power at several times that of wind. Forget COST for a minute and think about VALUE to grid operations. Here in Ontario wind is paid a CAD$135 feed-in-tariff when the average production power VALUE is more like CAD$25. (Yes we are a slightly extreme case..)
Statistics like LCOE are just accounting games, that do not include grid-operational factors.
Photovoltaic ("solar") power may have a role to play, but the laws of our universe completely preclude the possibility of wind power ever being a useful, practical, economic contributor to large national grids; EVER. It's not even a remote possibility. On a little island somewhere, maybe.
The article is written by no-nothings in the enthral of environmentalists (i.e. no-nothings). The blind leading the blind. -- Mike
I wonder if any of Quebec's "legislators" (applying the term very loosely) know what a VPN is? Quebec's gamblers soon will. How to enforce? How to enforce?...
What a marvellous idea: following in China's footsteps. Here comes the Great Firewall of Quebec. Statist thugs, that's all they are.
Did the AC submitter read the abstracts? Did they understand them? * The papers on chronic (low-dose rate) exposures focussed on the DNA repair and other healthy mechanisms in the exposed organisms. * Some of the butterfly exposures were done as high-dose rate simulations in the lab, not env exposures. * The monkey blood-count study was mentioned in the Eurekalert article, but NOT in any of the *journal* (of heredity) papers that I could see; it has been widely criticized on several bases (improbably-low causative dose and insufficient statistical power). * Look at the refutations at the bottom of this sensational Guardian article: http://t.co/LuPJHv2Js9 “Unfortunately yet another paper with insufficient power to distinguish real effects and relevance to human health” "correlations between the caesium and low blood counts in the Fukushima study were not statistically strong." "monkeys are about the same as those found in sheep in some parts of the **UK** following the Chernobyl accident, i.e. extremely low.." "in terms of damage to the animals themselves. I think it much more likely that the apparently low blood cell counts are caused by something other than radiation"
Last time they ranked Amazon poorly for datacenter power, I checked some numbers and compared with other agencies rankings.
Amazon got about 27% of it's power from nuclear. No CO2, but Greenpeace didn't credit anything for it.
Dell's datacenters had higher CO2 emissions, only ~7% nuclear, but a little more renewables. The anti-nuclear geniuses at Greenpeace gave Dell a cleaner ranking than Amazon.
They only credit CO2 abatement, if they agree with the method. Not only that, they don't even MENTION all CO2 abatements.
In fact, I found that Amazon's emissions were far better than average. I think they had the 2nd lowest fossil generating share of about 10 US datacenter operators compared.
In addition, Amazon was investing heavily in PSU, rack density, and cooling improvements, and virtualization is a known resource saver across all components. Ever heard of virtualization at Amazon?
I doubt that anyone at Greenpeace understands any of this. Any electrical engineers there? HVAC engineers? POWERPLANT engineers?
Greenpeace are dishonest, technically ignorant, and thoroughly foolhardy; and will destroy your World if you let them.
These numbers aren't a big change from estimates 5 months ago. 42% of Chernobyl's Cs emission, but much lower land deposition - only 21% of total Cs emissions hit land. And this is from 3 or 4 separate failures at old ill-prepared sites following a once-in-a-thousand-year quake which hit a chain of volcanic islands which are plagued by quakes. Emission per failure is nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl. Total land deposition is also nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl. The lesson is to improve your game, not loose your cool.
'consider that Microsoft has not given Mono a legal blessing'
IANAL, and I have myself had reservations about this point...
However, it seems quite unlikely that MS would succeed in choking off core (C# + CLR) Mono development - for a lot of little reasons:
1. Novell appears to be Mono's primary backer and they appear to have real patent leverage w.r.t. MS.
2. Probably not many of the patents covering the core can hold water due to prior art. I think it's been suggested that MS + Sun together could launch a more effective patent attack. How likely is that? (things like WinForms, ASP, ADO would seem to be in greater danger)
3. Mono could still ship with the odd feature stripped or workaround mechanism in place.
4. MS can not simply beat up on who it feels like nowadays; not with the EU and others breathing down it's neck.
As an aside, can anyone think of a *language* implementation that was killed by patent litigation?
The Canadian government *does* regulate some things it needn't. Nevertheless there are LOTS of things that *should* be regulated; and tightly in many cases.
The American federal government is *vastly* more intrusive in the lives of it's CITIZENS than the Canadian or almost any European government. America may be less intrusive in the affairs of private BUSINESSES... That's quite a different matter.
The *only* respect in which American's have more "freedom" is that a minority of the population gets to keep a somewhat larger portion of their income. NO it's not a majority, despite right-wing rhetoric that it is.
In almost all other respects, the citizens of Europe (Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.) have more freedom than their American counterparts. Where shall we start? The War on Drugs? The War on Terrorism? Hollywood "black lists"? Censorship? "Partial-birth" abortions? Heck, *anything* your religious right has *ever* pulled for, and gotten? What about the relative freedom of racial minorities? Of those that dare to be *different*? French non-conformists have about a thousand times more freedom than American non-conformists.
The notion that America is *the* *free country* *on this Earth* is the most transparently absurd notion that some (not all) Americans seem to have stuck in their heads.
None of this has *anything* to do with *socialism*. Canada has no more of a socialist history than America does. The right word is *liberalism*; you might try it on for size.
Please point me to the most reasonably priced Smith + Wesson firearm with a *stun* setting. Lasers, of course, won't ever have such a setting either; but some kind of electromagetic weapon could potentially disable without killing.
There are lots of reasons that something might be replaced despite the fact that it is cheap, and effective in some narrow sense. Let me quickly list some which might apply to small arms:
1. Non-lethal capability ("stun" setting)
2. Ability to penetrate yet-to-be-invented defenses or countermeasures (better body armour, some kind of energy screen or force field).
3. Any of longer range, greater endurance of fire, or more silent operation - all present-day factors - may become more critical.
4. Political controls. Some weapons might be banned as too dangerous, at some future time, leaving a vacuum to be filled by a less troubling weapon.
I'm sure there are more possibilities.
You can't possibly know what kinds of weapons will prevail *centuries* from now.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy abuse potential, Batman!!
I guess we'll just have to forget about the telephone as an on-balance helpful form of communication..
It's disgustingly inefficient. How much cryptocurrency do they make per tonne of extra CO2 they cause?
Browse with Javascript DISABLED.
Use a hot-key to enable it on sites where you absolutely need it.
Keep forcing site designers to present web pages reasonably without JS enabled.
Mike
Actually, I stand corrected, it was Deckard's *commander* that used the term "skin jobs", and Deckard was clearly disgusted by the term. That's an important distinction, since Deckard may have been a replicant himself, among many other reasons.
I've never read the book. From the book title I assumed the androids were mechanical robots with rubbery skins. In the film, Deckard refers to them as "skin jobs", and this reinforced my original assumption.
Hence, running a blade meaning to (obviously metaphorically) slice off their skins, and thus reveal their true nature.
Interestingly, in "The Terminator II", Arnold slices open his organic skin with a large knife, to prove that he's a robot underneath.
I figure that the idea was so compelling that Scott kept the jargon, even though the replicants in the film were genetically-engineered organisms, and not robots.
Instant delivery of SNACK's to marijuana users.
Solar? Battery "storage"? Can we do the math on this one?
The cancelled reactors would have produced an average of 47.5 GWh per day @ 90% cap factor.
If the 700 MW of added solar uses modest DC overbuild, it will achieve something like a 25% cap factor, as a seasonal average.
That's 4.2 GWh per day, replacing just 9% of the foregone nuclear gen.
Most grid battery "storage" systems run for less than a couple of hours @ rated power (50 MW in this case) per day; many only have 10 minutes of rated runtime, just enough to allow paralleled quick-dispatch gas turbines (burning natural gas) time to spin-up.
So that's less than 0.1 GWh per day. The reactors would do nearly 500x times that.
Duke is planning to replace up to 90% of the nuclear with NATURAL GAS, mostly burned in high-efficiency combined-cycle turbines plus some in quick-dispatch simple-cycle turbines. The rest of the story is window-dressing.
I hope the "environmentalists" don't mind the GHG impact of this decision.
Desktop vs Server ?
MOBILE.. CLOUD..
Now where does Linux need to conquer??
Around 90% of GM food crop yield goes into animal feed.
Less than 10% goes into the processed foods that will be impacted by the very naive Vermont law.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out whether meat, milk or eggs in Vermont, which came from GMO-fed source animals, need to be labelled. You shouldn't have to think too hard to realize the answer.
The leading global GMO-supported food chain is RoundUp-Ready Soy going into "broiler" (chicken meat) production. It has not quite 100% share of soy going into chicken production. That will not change.
The food industry has not been "brought to it's knees" by Vermont.
And GMO "labellers" are just GMO opponents, and are very very ignorant people.
Wind is not a positively dispatchable power source. A wind turbine is not a functional substitute for a nuclear, hydroelectric, gas or coal station, all of which can produce power *when asked to do so*.
Grid-clearance auctions and other market pricing mechanisms VALUE positively dispatchable power at several times that of wind. Forget COST for a minute and think about VALUE to grid operations. Here in Ontario wind is paid a CAD$135 feed-in-tariff when the average production power VALUE is more like CAD$25. (Yes we are a slightly extreme case..)
Statistics like LCOE are just accounting games, that do not include grid-operational factors.
Photovoltaic ("solar") power may have a role to play, but the laws of our universe completely preclude the possibility of wind power ever being a useful, practical, economic contributor to large national grids; EVER. It's not even a remote possibility. On a little island somewhere, maybe.
The article is written by no-nothings in the enthral of environmentalists (i.e. no-nothings).
The blind leading the blind.
--
Mike
> but a Muslim Theocracy (for example Iran)
Because the Dalai Lama would never want his own nuclear arsenal??
Was that so hard??
Not all "theocrats" are created equally..
Please name a modern Linux system that comes without [x]inetd.
Ummm. The DEBIAN JESSIE install that I just did yesterday (small mail server) included no [x]inetd.
I didn't ask for it and Debian didn't include it by default.
Just getting used to 'systemd' too..
Mike
I wonder if any of Quebec's "legislators" (applying the term very loosely) know what a VPN is?
Quebec's gamblers soon will.
How to enforce? How to enforce?...
What a marvellous idea: following in China's footsteps.
Here comes the Great Firewall of Quebec.
Statist thugs, that's all they are.
We already have HUMANS that can outsmart humans.
Is this a problem? Crying out for regulation?
How will machines be different?
Never worked as an academic physicist, never even completed a degree apparently.
Never worked in the power industry.
Never manufactured EE Equipment.
Nevertheless knows how to power the world?
Did the AC submitter read the abstracts? Did they understand them? .."
* The papers on chronic (low-dose rate) exposures focussed on the DNA repair and other healthy mechanisms in the exposed organisms.
* Some of the butterfly exposures were done as high-dose rate simulations in the lab, not env exposures.
* The monkey blood-count study was mentioned in the Eurekalert article, but NOT in any of the *journal* (of heredity) papers that I could see; it has been widely criticized on several bases (improbably-low causative dose and insufficient statistical power).
* Look at the refutations at the bottom of this sensational Guardian article:
http://t.co/LuPJHv2Js9
“Unfortunately yet another paper with insufficient power to distinguish real effects and relevance to human health”
"correlations between the caesium and low blood counts in the Fukushima study were not statistically strong."
"monkeys are about the same as those found in sheep in some parts of the **UK** following the Chernobyl accident, i.e. extremely low
"in terms of damage to the animals themselves. I think it much more likely that the apparently low blood cell counts are caused by something other than radiation"
Last time they ranked Amazon poorly for datacenter power, I checked some numbers and compared with other agencies rankings.
Amazon got about 27% of it's power from nuclear.
No CO2, but Greenpeace didn't credit anything for it.
Dell's datacenters had higher CO2 emissions, only ~7% nuclear, but a little more renewables.
The anti-nuclear geniuses at Greenpeace gave Dell a cleaner ranking than Amazon.
They only credit CO2 abatement, if they agree with the method.
Not only that, they don't even MENTION all CO2 abatements.
In fact, I found that Amazon's emissions were far better than average.
I think they had the 2nd lowest fossil generating share of about 10 US datacenter operators compared.
In addition, Amazon was investing heavily in PSU, rack density, and cooling improvements, and virtualization is a known resource saver across all components. Ever heard of virtualization at Amazon?
I doubt that anyone at Greenpeace understands any of this.
Any electrical engineers there? HVAC engineers? POWERPLANT engineers?
Greenpeace are dishonest, technically ignorant, and thoroughly foolhardy;
and will destroy your World if you let them.
TFA shouldn't have even been posted here.
It looks like they called it: LibreSSL
http://www.libressl.org/
That's what it looks like, anyway.
Support them if you can!
Too bad they hadn't forked OpenSSL a while back. Now there is a competing library.
Now we need to support that fork, and assess the feasibility of porting to Linux as well as the other BSD's, of course.
Do they have a new name for it yet?
If SSL = "Secure Sockets Layer", how about: ActualSSL (it's actually secure), DaemonSSL, Pitchfork(ed)SSL, something...
8-)
These numbers aren't a big change from estimates 5 months ago.
42% of Chernobyl's Cs emission, but much lower land deposition - only 21% of total Cs emissions hit land.
And this is from 3 or 4 separate failures at old ill-prepared sites following a once-in-a-thousand-year quake which hit a chain of volcanic islands which are plagued by quakes.
Emission per failure is nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl.
Total land deposition is also nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl.
The lesson is to improve your game, not loose your cool.
'consider that Microsoft has not given Mono a legal blessing'
IANAL, and I have myself had reservations about this point...
However, it seems quite unlikely that MS would succeed in choking off core (C# + CLR) Mono development - for a lot of little reasons:
1. Novell appears to be Mono's primary backer and they appear to have real patent leverage w.r.t. MS.
2. Probably not many of the patents covering the core can hold water due to prior art. I think it's been suggested that MS + Sun together could launch a more effective patent attack. How likely is that? (things like WinForms, ASP, ADO would seem to be in greater danger)
3. Mono could still ship with the odd feature stripped or workaround mechanism in place.
4. MS can not simply beat up on who it feels like nowadays; not with the EU and others breathing down it's neck.
As an aside, can anyone think of a *language* implementation that was killed by patent litigation?
--
Mike Greaves
From my most recent reading about the Mono Windows.Forms implementation, I understood them to be using winelib.
Can you provide a reference stating otherwise??
The Canadian government *does* regulate some things it needn't. Nevertheless there are LOTS of things that *should* be regulated; and tightly in many cases.
The American federal government is *vastly* more intrusive in the lives of it's CITIZENS than the Canadian or almost any European government. America may be less intrusive in the affairs of private BUSINESSES... That's quite a different matter.
The *only* respect in which American's have more "freedom" is that a minority of the population gets to keep a somewhat larger portion of their income. NO it's not a majority, despite right-wing rhetoric that it is.
In almost all other respects, the citizens of Europe (Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.) have more freedom than their American counterparts. Where shall we start? The War on Drugs? The War on Terrorism? Hollywood "black lists"? Censorship? "Partial-birth" abortions? Heck, *anything* your religious right has *ever* pulled for, and gotten? What about the relative freedom of racial minorities? Of those that dare to be *different*? French non-conformists have about a thousand times more freedom than American non-conformists.
The notion that America is *the* *free country* *on this Earth* is the most transparently absurd notion that some (not all) Americans seem to have stuck in their heads.
None of this has *anything* to do with *socialism*. Canada has no more of a socialist history than America does. The right word is *liberalism*; you might try it on for size.
Are all US tax forms available in Swahili?? Can you fill in the blanks in Finnish, and still have the form properly processed?
The language(s) that your government employs for it's tax, legal, etc. systems, are it's "official" languages.
Period.
Please point me to the most reasonably priced Smith + Wesson firearm with a *stun* setting. Lasers, of course, won't ever have such a setting either; but some kind of electromagetic weapon could potentially disable without killing.
There are lots of reasons that something might be replaced despite the fact that it is cheap, and effective in some narrow sense. Let me quickly list some which might apply to small arms:
1. Non-lethal capability ("stun" setting)
2. Ability to penetrate yet-to-be-invented defenses or countermeasures (better body armour, some kind of energy screen or force field).
3. Any of longer range, greater endurance of fire, or more silent operation - all present-day factors - may become more critical.
4. Political controls. Some weapons might be banned as too dangerous, at some future time, leaving a vacuum to be filled by a less troubling weapon.
I'm sure there are more possibilities.
You can't possibly know what kinds of weapons will prevail *centuries* from now.