No, he should have an agent who's job it is to ensure that he makes as much money as legally possible in a 40-hour work week. He should be giving $100k keynote speeches three times a week, from which he receives minimum wage.
Do they intend to build the hyperloop with 1'' thick steel? That'd probably work great, but holy crap, that would cost a fortune! There sample chamber appears to be 1/8'' steel based on photos.
They put a maglev in a vacuum chamber. We've had maglevs fielded, carrying passengers since 1979. So that's not new. There was no particular engineering problem that needed to be solved to move that technology into a vacuum chamber. So nothing new there. They haven't done anything new.
It really isn't though. The project has yet to do anything interesting or novel. And there are massive engineering hurdles that may not have any feasibly priced answer, and they've yet to address this. The prototype as shown in the photograph doesn't even have an attempt at a mechanism to allow people or cargo to enter and exit the vehicle without losing pressure and pumpdown takes hours with just that tiny stretch of track. I wouldn't be surprised if the vehicle didn't even have a pressurized chamber inside. They have ZERO business bothering with full scale at this phase. The only reason why they are is because they are drowning in venture capitalism funds.
What if a random bolt comes loose and flies up? It'll act like a bullet. But yeah, I wanna hear about tests on the tube. I want a pumped down tube hit with a 70MPH SUV. I wanna see it shot with a rifle. Building something that can withstand that sort of thing would have an insane cost per mile.
Hyperloop shares the same problems that trains have, and adds more problems on top of that. Massive near-vacuum chambers are seriously fragile things. I wanna see a pumped down sample tube, including expansion joints, hit by a vehicle driving at Interstate speeds and not crush. I wanna see what happens to one shot with a rifle. Then I wanna see real numbers on the cost-per-mile to build at that level of resistance.
There's some truth in that, but this is more of an OPEC oil-strategy. With natural-gas fracking you generally want to use it ASAP. It's sometimes a byproduct of the desired product, petroleum, in those cases, you really don't want to store it uncompressed as it takes up lots of space. Nor do you usually want to waste the energy needed for compressing it into compressed-gas or liquid form as that cuts into revenue. A very large portion of it is generally used to power the refining process, but with fracking, there can frequently still be surplus. So to save expenses, they drop the price of natural gas, or the price per megawatt-hour as needed to unload that surplus. Regions where petroleum and coal isn't worth extracting, where the gas is the main product could potentially hold off on fracking operations to prevent the price from dropping too low, but it's all about those supply/demand interactions.
More than half of natural gas production in the US is consumed by industry. Much of it is consumed directly, as a direct-heat source and as a feedstock in the chemical industry. For these applications, many alternative energy sources are not feasible. In that market, natural gas is only in competition with other gas sources: propane, syn-gas from wood, waste-gas from landfills, and coal-gas. Of these, propane is the only serious contender, and it is likewise a byproduct of the petroleum industry. Because of this, natural gas just doesn't have the same incentive to hose alternative energy markets.
To nitpick, we've never almost never thought long-term in the US. Civilizations very rarely ever do. With the exception of the church, only retired moguls get that privilege, and they usually only start those projects late in life. And much of the time, they pick silly high-risk pursuits. If you can't convince the check-writers that a project will absolutely start generating something useful in the next 10 years or less, then it's treated as an academic pursuit.
I kept on following it after that. I fully expected the first model to be ugly and terrible, but I'd hoped that they would stay afloat and release something usable. I started to pay them less attention once Nokia announced the N900, which I purchased and loved. It wasn't quite as lofty as OpenMoko; like it kept most of the good/interesting libraries closed, particularly everything related to telephony and radio communication. After losing the N900 in a house-fire, I upgraded to the N9, which was sleeker, but I didn't like it quite as much. I missed and still miss an integrated hardware keyboard. Very shortly after that, Nokia hired a Microsoft guy, who shoved the company over to the Windows Mobile OS, Microsoft bought the company, ran it right into the ground, and ditched what was left. Since then, I've given up on the thought of owning a quality native-linux phone; but at the same time, I've lost my interest in doing crazy things with my phone like I used to have when I was working in wireless telecom; so I don't really need it anymore.
You might be basing what you know from decades old understanding. Go read DSM-V. It's 4 years old now. It explicitly states that transgender on its own is not a mental disorder. "mental disorder" requires some sort of distress, and it turns out that you can be trans and not be distressed. I'm not trying to "win" here, I'm just urging you to read up on what has changed lately.
You're not technically wrong, but respectfully, you are way out of date. The DSM-V was published over four years ago, and ICD-10 was published a year and a half ago. The DSM does not weigh in on treatments, merely classification of disorders. The DSM-V replaces the term "Gender identity disorder" with "Gender Dysphoria" and shifts entirely to focusing on the negative aspects as a result of personally identified gender not matching primary sex characteristics. It explicitly clarifies that, if it doesn't have a negative impact on the person's life, it is not a disorder, mirroring it's position on homosexuality, which changed in 1974. Even when the DSM-IV-TR came out, there was an attempted push to revise Gender Identity Disorder to something closer to what we have now, given that the publication redefined the definition of mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present distress or disability or with a significant increased risk of suffering." Consensus among the Psychiatric community shifted not terribly long after the DSM-IV-TR's publication date. It's been the norm for nearly a decade now. And Multiple Personality Disorder stopped being the agreed upon term with the DSM-IV-TR; it's now classified as Dissociative Identity Disorder, and has been since 2000.
I urge you to read up on the DSM-V to learn about current developments in mental disorders. A lot has changed for the better.
If you want to dehumanize murdering pedos, you have my permission. That goes a little beyond "don't agree with" and into "dangerous violent criminal". Through their actions, that sort of person has already dehumanized themselves.
Plenty of people on the left absolutely do it too. It aggravates me when they do it every bit as much. Discussions work much better when we don't foolishly presume that the other side is completely stupid and crazy and instead try to understand the position of every person as a separate individual.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. "Normal" is not a descriptive term. The term "cisgendered" exists for the same reason why the term "heterosexual" exists. Some people like to modify their bodies, and some, but not all transgendered people do as well. That in itself does not mean mental instability, nor does it indicate ability or inability to serve in the military. There are mental health concerns that have a high correlation with transgenered people, such as anxiety and depression, but a major source of that anxiety and depression comes from people saying that the things they think and feel are "wrong", and that they're "Freaks; all of them".
Here is the APA, (the largest organization of psychologists in the US) position on the matter:
"Is being transgender a mental disorder?"
A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."
No. I replied to the correct comment. Dismissing people as "SJW pussies" and replacing real people with actual rational arguments with a strawman substitute that is incapable of understanding history, morals, or respect for authority. That's dehumanizing them to make it easier to disagree with their arguments. I don't mean to imply that the drunk-uncle comment is beyond reproach; but it's at least directed at a single person and can be somewhat supported by evidence. If it was instead directed at all Trump supporters, then I would indeed have a similar problem with it.
You might be confused, which is understandable. The vast majority of doctors will tell you about a thing called Gender Dysphoria, which is separate from transgenderism. If you identify as a different gender, but are not so miserable as a result of it that it negatively impacts your life, then you are not considered to have any mental disorder.
Romneycare did not fail before Obamacare was created. It still exists. It was altered to include open-enrollment to prevent you from signing up for insurance last minute in the ambulance ride. And aspects of it were swapped in 2014 as a result of Obamacare. Neither of these are failures. It didn't achieve all of the goals it set out to fix, specifically in regards to treating preventable ailments. But economists have concluded that it reduced the amount of debt that was past due, improved credit scores, reduced personal bankruptcies and reduced third-party collections.
That is a misconception. The central claim of being transgendered is simply that they do not internally identify with their gender phenotype. Gender Dysphoric Disorder is a condition indicating that the situation has a significant negative impact on their emotional state. Not all transgendered people have this, and many that do are able to serve flawlessly regardless. If a person is unable to serve then by all means, they shouldn't. But there is no reason to exclude all trans people.
The psychological and psychiatric professional communities overwhelmingly disagree with this. There is a disorder related to transgenderism, but not all transgendered people have the disorder.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he should have an agent who's job it is to ensure that he makes as much money as legally possible in a 40-hour work week. He should be giving $100k keynote speeches three times a week, from which he receives minimum wage.
Do they intend to build the hyperloop with 1'' thick steel? That'd probably work great, but holy crap, that would cost a fortune! There sample chamber appears to be 1/8'' steel based on photos.
They put a maglev in a vacuum chamber. We've had maglevs fielded, carrying passengers since 1979. So that's not new. There was no particular engineering problem that needed to be solved to move that technology into a vacuum chamber. So nothing new there. They haven't done anything new.
It really isn't though. The project has yet to do anything interesting or novel. And there are massive engineering hurdles that may not have any feasibly priced answer, and they've yet to address this. The prototype as shown in the photograph doesn't even have an attempt at a mechanism to allow people or cargo to enter and exit the vehicle without losing pressure and pumpdown takes hours with just that tiny stretch of track. I wouldn't be surprised if the vehicle didn't even have a pressurized chamber inside. They have ZERO business bothering with full scale at this phase. The only reason why they are is because they are drowning in venture capitalism funds.
What if a random bolt comes loose and flies up? It'll act like a bullet. But yeah, I wanna hear about tests on the tube. I want a pumped down tube hit with a 70MPH SUV. I wanna see it shot with a rifle. Building something that can withstand that sort of thing would have an insane cost per mile.
Hyperloop shares the same problems that trains have, and adds more problems on top of that. Massive near-vacuum chambers are seriously fragile things. I wanna see a pumped down sample tube, including expansion joints, hit by a vehicle driving at Interstate speeds and not crush. I wanna see what happens to one shot with a rifle. Then I wanna see real numbers on the cost-per-mile to build at that level of resistance.
More than half of natural gas production in the US is consumed by industry. Much of it is consumed directly, as a direct-heat source and as a feedstock in the chemical industry. For these applications, many alternative energy sources are not feasible. In that market, natural gas is only in competition with other gas sources: propane, syn-gas from wood, waste-gas from landfills, and coal-gas. Of these, propane is the only serious contender, and it is likewise a byproduct of the petroleum industry. Because of this, natural gas just doesn't have the same incentive to hose alternative energy markets.
To nitpick, we've never almost never thought long-term in the US. Civilizations very rarely ever do. With the exception of the church, only retired moguls get that privilege, and they usually only start those projects late in life. And much of the time, they pick silly high-risk pursuits. If you can't convince the check-writers that a project will absolutely start generating something useful in the next 10 years or less, then it's treated as an academic pursuit.
If you wish to redefine terms, it's not immaculate, but yes, it's "clean": It doesn't create anything that's more dangerous than what it started with.
I kept on following it after that. I fully expected the first model to be ugly and terrible, but I'd hoped that they would stay afloat and release something usable. I started to pay them less attention once Nokia announced the N900, which I purchased and loved. It wasn't quite as lofty as OpenMoko; like it kept most of the good/interesting libraries closed, particularly everything related to telephony and radio communication. After losing the N900 in a house-fire, I upgraded to the N9, which was sleeker, but I didn't like it quite as much. I missed and still miss an integrated hardware keyboard. Very shortly after that, Nokia hired a Microsoft guy, who shoved the company over to the Windows Mobile OS, Microsoft bought the company, ran it right into the ground, and ditched what was left. Since then, I've given up on the thought of owning a quality native-linux phone; but at the same time, I've lost my interest in doing crazy things with my phone like I used to have when I was working in wireless telecom; so I don't really need it anymore.
Worstest pun I think I've ever seen on /. Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!....OK, maybe I smiled a little.
You might be basing what you know from decades old understanding. Go read DSM-V. It's 4 years old now. It explicitly states that transgender on its own is not a mental disorder. "mental disorder" requires some sort of distress, and it turns out that you can be trans and not be distressed. I'm not trying to "win" here, I'm just urging you to read up on what has changed lately.
I urge you to read up on the DSM-V to learn about current developments in mental disorders. A lot has changed for the better.
If you want to dehumanize murdering pedos, you have my permission. That goes a little beyond "don't agree with" and into "dangerous violent criminal". Through their actions, that sort of person has already dehumanized themselves.
Plenty of people on the left absolutely do it too. It aggravates me when they do it every bit as much. Discussions work much better when we don't foolishly presume that the other side is completely stupid and crazy and instead try to understand the position of every person as a separate individual.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. "Normal" is not a descriptive term. The term "cisgendered" exists for the same reason why the term "heterosexual" exists. Some people like to modify their bodies, and some, but not all transgendered people do as well. That in itself does not mean mental instability, nor does it indicate ability or inability to serve in the military. There are mental health concerns that have a high correlation with transgenered people, such as anxiety and depression, but a major source of that anxiety and depression comes from people saying that the things they think and feel are "wrong", and that they're "Freaks; all of them".
"Is being transgender a mental disorder?"
A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."
(source)
It is not considered a disorder in itself, the adverse effects resulting from it are.
I know that. I'm saying that the rules that were in place were fine for handling this concern.
No. I replied to the correct comment. Dismissing people as "SJW pussies" and replacing real people with actual rational arguments with a strawman substitute that is incapable of understanding history, morals, or respect for authority. That's dehumanizing them to make it easier to disagree with their arguments. I don't mean to imply that the drunk-uncle comment is beyond reproach; but it's at least directed at a single person and can be somewhat supported by evidence. If it was instead directed at all Trump supporters, then I would indeed have a similar problem with it.
You might be confused, which is understandable. The vast majority of doctors will tell you about a thing called Gender Dysphoria, which is separate from transgenderism. If you identify as a different gender, but are not so miserable as a result of it that it negatively impacts your life, then you are not considered to have any mental disorder.
Romneycare did not fail before Obamacare was created. It still exists. It was altered to include open-enrollment to prevent you from signing up for insurance last minute in the ambulance ride. And aspects of it were swapped in 2014 as a result of Obamacare. Neither of these are failures. It didn't achieve all of the goals it set out to fix, specifically in regards to treating preventable ailments. But economists have concluded that it reduced the amount of debt that was past due, improved credit scores, reduced personal bankruptcies and reduced third-party collections.
That is a misconception. The central claim of being transgendered is simply that they do not internally identify with their gender phenotype. Gender Dysphoric Disorder is a condition indicating that the situation has a significant negative impact on their emotional state. Not all transgendered people have this, and many that do are able to serve flawlessly regardless. If a person is unable to serve then by all means, they shouldn't. But there is no reason to exclude all trans people.
The psychological and psychiatric professional communities overwhelmingly disagree with this. There is a disorder related to transgenderism, but not all transgendered people have the disorder.
You would be wrong. There is no evidence to support the claim that all trans are schizophrenic, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
The great jobs-creator just issued an order to kill thousands of jobs.