That's why I want a Tesla. It just doesn't work in Cnada though. I can drive to my parent's house 1800 km away in a single day. EVs are nowhere near that. There is also aesthetic pleasure in the combustion engine. I don't want to lose that alltogether.
The fact that toxic emissions are primarily not from the ICE is news to me and very interesting. Further, it is nice to see a second reason for the EPA to encourage low vehicle weights. Thanks to safety equipment (which, to be clear, I am happy to have) and increasingly absurd amounts of automation, cars have become substantially heavier even as materials science has made strides. Weight doesn't have much of an effect on highway fuel economy and in North America that is more important than in-town for most people. The side-effect has been that low-cost cars aren't as fast or lively in the corners as they could be. As a person who will take weight-savings over displacement any day, things haven't really been going my way. Any impetus for regulation to focus on weight will make things better for everyone, car lovers and people who just want to get from A to B.
As for EVs, this sounds like another problem that is looking for new battery tech. I still feel like the EV needs another 20 years or so. That said, I'd strangle a sea-monkey for any Tesla as a second (erm, third) car.
My belief is that the automatic transmission has had the same effect. In order to make a manual work you need to pay attention to what is ahead of you and you need to have both hands available. Automation allows people to get distracted without consequence, making things all the worse when their attention is needed.
Seriously, let them die. Don't spend money on them that could be going tgo helping people that aren't self-centered pricks. If you are unwilling to practice basic self-preservation then the world has a right to spit you out.
A fact which my girlfriend (a medical resident) regularly opines because many people who would have been in asylums are now on the streets with virtually no protection or safety net. Not that there weren't seriosu problems with asylums.
I knew somebody who said that he read the sixth Harry Potter book in 3 hours. I quizzed him. He failed. You cannot read faster than your mind can process information. My girlfriend reads creepily fast, but that's because her mind works very fast. Not even she would claim to be able to pull off a feat like that.
Well, one difference I can think of is that the people who ran the CIA when they were doing that trained the people who run the CIA now. I have heard from people who would know that these organizations develop cultures of their own which are very resistant to change.
I don't agree with their definition of a jerk. A jerk does harm without good reason. There are good reasons to be "disagreeable". Basically, I think what the study actually reveals is that people who don't correct or notice grammar are less particular and more easygoing...which I would have thought was obvious.
What about the fact that Learning basic coding gives you an excellent grounding in the practical usage of logic and mathematics? As an arts ponce, programming is my window into math, not the other way around. Also, people will benefit greatly from having an understanding of how a computer works. OOP seems like a great way to do that.
Additionally, apparently he has no appreciation for the benefits of low-level programming. Figuring out how to use 10 less processor cycles to do the same work isn't as sexy as designing some app that lets you size pants from individual sellers based on your personal measurements, but one of those makes the world go round and the other doesn't.
I don't feel that was misleading. When somebody says that they towed their car, I do not assume that they put it on it's roof to do so.
One thing that I think IS misleading is when people demonstrate how strong something is by dropping a car on it, completely failing to mention that the suspension and tires are distributing the weight over time and that an equivilent brick would smash straight through.
Right now we need people to do those routine jobs. That means that somebody has to invest in education to do them, build industry connections and gain experience. If, after 15 years, they are replaced by a computer I don't see how society can shovel all of the responsibility on to them. Of course we DO because that's how the economy is set up, but at the very least we don't need to add insult to financial ruination.
I think you may be right, but I know somebody who is planning to take women's studies and is obsessed with "rape culture" and the like. In academic circles feminism does seem to lack influence (though I still covered quite a bit of it before I graduated a couple years ago) but I think that in the popular consciousness it is still fairly present. If somebody is a feminist, only studies in a feminist environment and then spends their career (if they cna get one) writing about how terrible men are...well, it's like a neo-platonist I met in school. The rest of the world had moved on and he was way to far down the rabbit hole to hear any criticism of his philosophy.
Hookay... I cannot resist the urge to engage with this a little bit. I know, I'm weak.
Whatever you want to say about Turing, the fact is that he outright told the police about his homosexual acts because he had no idea that they would be held against him. That is what I was referring to. I suppose that actually he was legally engaging in pedophillia, though that gets a bit grey since he was effectively sleeping with a rentboy.
How can %100 of homosexuals have an STD? What about the ones who don't have sex? Or the ones who only have one partner? Let me put it to you this way: I know at least one person who likes to have sex with the same gender and definitely doesn't have an STD (and no, it isn't me). So right off the bat, I can dispute that number. Not sure why I'm bothering, but that "fact" was so laughable that I felt the need to highlight it.
If our choice is between feminism and libertarianism, as the end of the article proposes, I think that I will take living in the woods growing my video games in the garden and sucking my internet from bark.
Being serious for the moment, I think this is an example of the sort of academic isolation which eventually got Turing arrested. If you work at the history department of a university where all you ever hear about is culture, gender and activism, it is unsurprising that you might forget that we live in a world of physics bouncing around and doing things, not really interested in how we percieve it. What's really annoying is that there is a grain of truth in the idea that we need to consider the cultural impact of geological events. We are people and so are primarily interested in how the world affects people. It is sensible for us to consider the social ramifications of our phsyical discoveries. This guy is not doing that or actually encouraging others to do that, at least not in an intellectually honest way.
One final note: Whenever a feminist says something along the lines of "science and engineering have been done in a masculine way, squeezing out female viewpoints" I want to shake them. We do STEM the way we do it because it is the way that works. New viewpoints are welcome, but our standard for success is interaction with the physical world. If a feminist viewpoint doesn't meet that standard then it is just as wrong as one which proposes that 1 + 1 = 1. My girlfriend is a doctor, her sister a bio-chem researcher. Neither of them has even a moment for feminism.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I want a Tesla. It just doesn't work in Cnada though. I can drive to my parent's house 1800 km away in a single day. EVs are nowhere near that. There is also aesthetic pleasure in the combustion engine. I don't want to lose that alltogether.
Why?
The fact that toxic emissions are primarily not from the ICE is news to me and very interesting. Further, it is nice to see a second reason for the EPA to encourage low vehicle weights. Thanks to safety equipment (which, to be clear, I am happy to have) and increasingly absurd amounts of automation, cars have become substantially heavier even as materials science has made strides. Weight doesn't have much of an effect on highway fuel economy and in North America that is more important than in-town for most people. The side-effect has been that low-cost cars aren't as fast or lively in the corners as they could be. As a person who will take weight-savings over displacement any day, things haven't really been going my way. Any impetus for regulation to focus on weight will make things better for everyone, car lovers and people who just want to get from A to B.
As for EVs, this sounds like another problem that is looking for new battery tech. I still feel like the EV needs another 20 years or so. That said, I'd strangle a sea-monkey for any Tesla as a second (erm, third) car.
Smoking his dumb.
People should have the right to be dumb.
My belief is that the automatic transmission has had the same effect. In order to make a manual work you need to pay attention to what is ahead of you and you need to have both hands available. Automation allows people to get distracted without consequence, making things all the worse when their attention is needed.
That is a fair point. I don't agree overall, but I think there is some merit in that argument.
I'm assuming that was meant as an ironic insult, and if so it is one that I don't understand.
Seriously, let them die. Don't spend money on them that could be going tgo helping people that aren't self-centered pricks. If you are unwilling to practice basic self-preservation then the world has a right to spit you out.
A fact which my girlfriend (a medical resident) regularly opines because many people who would have been in asylums are now on the streets with virtually no protection or safety net. Not that there weren't seriosu problems with asylums.
But...why would a race that has control over time and space want to run an under-funded government agency?...
I knew somebody who said that he read the sixth Harry Potter book in 3 hours. I quizzed him. He failed. You cannot read faster than your mind can process information. My girlfriend reads creepily fast, but that's because her mind works very fast. Not even she would claim to be able to pull off a feat like that.
Well, one difference I can think of is that the people who ran the CIA when they were doing that trained the people who run the CIA now. I have heard from people who would know that these organizations develop cultures of their own which are very resistant to change.
Haha, I see the flaw in their terrorist plot.
I don't agree with their definition of a jerk. A jerk does harm without good reason. There are good reasons to be "disagreeable". Basically, I think what the study actually reveals is that people who don't correct or notice grammar are less particular and more easygoing...which I would have thought was obvious.
What about the fact that Learning basic coding gives you an excellent grounding in the practical usage of logic and mathematics? As an arts ponce, programming is my window into math, not the other way around. Also, people will benefit greatly from having an understanding of how a computer works. OOP seems like a great way to do that.
Additionally, apparently he has no appreciation for the benefits of low-level programming. Figuring out how to use 10 less processor cycles to do the same work isn't as sexy as designing some app that lets you size pants from individual sellers based on your personal measurements, but one of those makes the world go round and the other doesn't.
You can't attempt to reproduce a result that doesn't get published.
A bed which is supported...by wheels...
...thanks for the immasculation :p
I don't feel that was misleading. When somebody says that they towed their car, I do not assume that they put it on it's roof to do so.
One thing that I think IS misleading is when people demonstrate how strong something is by dropping a car on it, completely failing to mention that the suspension and tires are distributing the weight over time and that an equivilent brick would smash straight through.
The difference here is that the rentboy as 19. To me, that's a grey area. I take your point, I phrased that badly.
Right now we need people to do those routine jobs. That means that somebody has to invest in education to do them, build industry connections and gain experience. If, after 15 years, they are replaced by a computer I don't see how society can shovel all of the responsibility on to them. Of course we DO because that's how the economy is set up, but at the very least we don't need to add insult to financial ruination.
I know. Was that for the feminists in the audience?
I think you may be right, but I know somebody who is planning to take women's studies and is obsessed with "rape culture" and the like. In academic circles feminism does seem to lack influence (though I still covered quite a bit of it before I graduated a couple years ago) but I think that in the popular consciousness it is still fairly present. If somebody is a feminist, only studies in a feminist environment and then spends their career (if they cna get one) writing about how terrible men are...well, it's like a neo-platonist I met in school. The rest of the world had moved on and he was way to far down the rabbit hole to hear any criticism of his philosophy.
Hookay... I cannot resist the urge to engage with this a little bit. I know, I'm weak.
Whatever you want to say about Turing, the fact is that he outright told the police about his homosexual acts because he had no idea that they would be held against him. That is what I was referring to. I suppose that actually he was legally engaging in pedophillia, though that gets a bit grey since he was effectively sleeping with a rentboy.
How can %100 of homosexuals have an STD? What about the ones who don't have sex? Or the ones who only have one partner? Let me put it to you this way: I know at least one person who likes to have sex with the same gender and definitely doesn't have an STD (and no, it isn't me). So right off the bat, I can dispute that number. Not sure why I'm bothering, but that "fact" was so laughable that I felt the need to highlight it.
If our choice is between feminism and libertarianism, as the end of the article proposes, I think that I will take living in the woods growing my video games in the garden and sucking my internet from bark.
Being serious for the moment, I think this is an example of the sort of academic isolation which eventually got Turing arrested. If you work at the history department of a university where all you ever hear about is culture, gender and activism, it is unsurprising that you might forget that we live in a world of physics bouncing around and doing things, not really interested in how we percieve it. What's really annoying is that there is a grain of truth in the idea that we need to consider the cultural impact of geological events. We are people and so are primarily interested in how the world affects people. It is sensible for us to consider the social ramifications of our phsyical discoveries. This guy is not doing that or actually encouraging others to do that, at least not in an intellectually honest way.
One final note: Whenever a feminist says something along the lines of "science and engineering have been done in a masculine way, squeezing out female viewpoints" I want to shake them. We do STEM the way we do it because it is the way that works. New viewpoints are welcome, but our standard for success is interaction with the physical world. If a feminist viewpoint doesn't meet that standard then it is just as wrong as one which proposes that 1 + 1 = 1. My girlfriend is a doctor, her sister a bio-chem researcher. Neither of them has even a moment for feminism.