Stephen Chu was the Energy Secretary, and was followed by Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist from MIT. They understand nuclear physics, unlike Rick Perry who doesn't even remember the name of the department he was recently appointed to lead:
The real story here is that Giuliani is now a goddamn cybersecurity advisor, not that this personal site is crap.
I'll give you that.
But if you put up a wooden sign that advertises your services as a carpenter, that sign better not look like crap. Even if you hired somebody else to make the sign.
There isn't a conservative out there disagreeing with you. But well, gee.....mainstream news is so actively liberal that they'll give their presidential candidate the debate questions.
CNN and other news networks frequently hire pundits from both parties to be contributors. Despite their dual roles, they're expected to behave properly. Brazile didn't, and she was canned. I would expect nothing less to happen if a contributor from the other side did what she did.
I know of at least one person who offered their opinion on Facebook (that doesn't necessarily follow social views) and linked to articles supporting their opinion. Their account has been banned from posting for 60 days.
Based on this, It's not necessarily fake news the puppet masters are after. It's censorship.
Your one single data-point, based on an anecdote of someone else's experience, and devoid of further details, is hardly enough for the rest of us to conclude that it's "censorship."
America. Land of the Censored, Home of the Unaware.
Before you get too righteous and entitled, remind yourself that Facebook is not the government, and you don't pay for their service. They can set terms of service, and ban people for breaking them.
IMHO, if a fact-checking organization has received both praise and scorn from representatives across the political spectrum, then it has an air of credibility.
But note that the number of time such praise or scorn is expressed may be unbalanced, if one side respects the truth less than the other.
How do you reconcile between eras so far apart in both the breadth of measurements and accuracies and methodology between now and then?
By comparing datasets from multiple sources that overlap in the time domain.
I don't think it is possible to any close "degree." Look, people didn't calibrate their thermometers all the time back then, nor did they have the scientific rigor in measurement technique to make sure they had an acceptable "averaging" setup for the measurement on a specific time and circumstance each day.
First of all, people did calibrate thermometers "all the time back then." It wasn't hard. The freezing and boiling points of water at sea level are convenient standard fiduciary marks.
As for "scientifc rigor" -- what I think you really mean is the care taken in measurements. Consider for example, Tyco Brahe. He gathered enormous amounts of data that informed Kepler to create his laws of planetary motion. And he didn't have a telescope. He took extraordinary care to use his measuring instruments to the best of his ability. My point is that data that is "old" is not necessarily lacking in "rigor."
Finally, regarding data quoted to a fraction of a degree -- you need to understand that individual measurements can have a moderate errors, but their average can be highly accurate. Google on "standard error of the mean" for details.
the earth is over 4 billion years old and has had icecaps for 20% of the time.
What's the maths on 4 billion vs 120 years?
Well, considering that humans have been on earth for only about the past 200,000 years, I wouldn't want to risk our chances with an earth that has no ice caps. It may be inevitable, but let's slow it down long enough for us to find some other place in the universe to live, m'kay?
And keep in mind that no ice caps means very high temperatures and flooding over most of the coastal areas. Not to mention the loss or migration of other species we depend on to survive.
What's the point of posting this article if it doesn't give any useful data?
The headline mentions a 300-mile typical range on a 20-minute charge. Both of these numbers are related to kWh capacity and kW charge rate respectively. Arguably the former numbers are more consumer-friendly, albeit less precise because they relate to a "typical" EV use-case. So I would say the article does provide useful information, just not in the units or precision you're expecting.
Update: It seems this is why Libreboot's maintainers were not pleased with GNU: https://libreboot.org/gnu/
Disclosure: this story is the first time I have heard of this issue.
Although the link points to libreboot's side of this, it still is an eye-opener. TL/DR: the FSF fired a transgender employee on discriminatory grounds, but libreboot unintentionally outed the employee in the first place.
It sounds to me that there are no saints on either side of this issue, but FSF is far more in the wrong than libreboot.
If anyone deserves sympathy here, it's the transgender employee who now faces an uphill battle to reboot their career (pardon the pun.)
It may also mean that patent trolls will be pickier about which cases they take to court. They may still try to extort money from companies by offering to settle out of court, or offering to sell the patent.
I didn't vote because I live in a blue state, and my vote wouldn't count. Indeed, the state went for Killary 8 to 2.
If I thought for a second that the total vote mattered, I would have turned up. And there are millions like me out there. Just because we are silent (actually, silenced by you thugs), does not mean we don't exist.
I cited the First Amendment in my post. How can you claim that I am a "thug" who is trying to "silence" you? I very much respect your right to say what you want. I also reserve the right to disagree with it, and to say so.
Which rule says we can't consider the popular vote in any way whatsoever, even to make a pointed remark criticizing Donald Trump's inability to get more people to vote for him than anyone else?
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes it quite clear that the popular vote is irrelevant when it comes to electing the President.
And the First Amendment makes it clear that it is perfectly legal to talk about the popular vote.
Clinton didn't win even 50% of the vote. The majority of voters voted ABC - anybody but Clinton.
You could flip that and claim that an even greater majority of voters voted ABT.
You can nitpick that MightyMartian's post was inaccurate because a majority of US voters in fact did not prefer Clinton. But a majority did not prefer Trump either. And Clinton did get more votes than any other candidate. And that bugs the hell out of Trump, so much that he created a fiction of 'millions' of illegal aliens voting for Clinton.
Yes, I know that it's the Electoral College that matters. That doesn't mean the popular vote is not of interest.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Uber drivers do, but I'd say they are clearly not employees under #1. Isn't driving for Uber completely up to the driver on a moment by moment basis? Like I can say, oh I don't feel like working from 9am-11am, so I wont. You can't do that at a real job and keep your employment. Likewise you choose your car and you choose where you drive every day. I don't see how that's anything like a normal job in terms of controlling employee behavior.
As I read the Common-Law rules, the key question appears to be: who controls the relationship? Under rules 1 and 2, it seems pretty clear that it's Uber, not the driver. Yes, the driver supplies the car and fuel. But that's because Uber says so. As for rule 3, there's no question that what the driver does is a "key aspect of the business" Uber is in. They're not hiring the drivers to do anything other than their primary business. I think that supports the argument that the drivers are employees.
Slashdot Mirror
'scuse me, I meant mind-blank, not brain-freeze. The latter is aka an ice-cream headache.
Your side lost the game. Get over it.
And that means your side is fair game for the next four years. Get over that.
Stephen Chu was the Energy Secretary, and was followed by Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist from MIT. They understand nuclear physics, unlike Rick Perry who doesn't even remember the name of the department he was recently appointed to lead:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/rick-perrys-debate-lapse-oops-cant-remember-department-of-energy/
He had a brain-freeze. It can happen to any of us.
But what's ironic here is not that he forgot the name of the department. It's that he intended to shut it down, and now he's going to lead it.
The real story here is that Giuliani is now a goddamn cybersecurity advisor, not that this personal site is crap.
I'll give you that.
But if you put up a wooden sign that advertises your services as a carpenter, that sign better not look like crap. Even if you hired somebody else to make the sign.
[Obama] uses 'I' far more than Trump ever could.
That's doubtful, but if it's true, perhaps it's because Trump is fond of referring to himself in the third person.
And next year is 1 AD (After Donald)?
Latin fail. Should be Anno Donaldus.
You can rest assured that this is one company that wont credit Trump in any way for these jobs.
But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how he rolls.
There isn't a conservative out there disagreeing with you. But well, gee.....mainstream news is so actively liberal that they'll give their presidential candidate the debate questions.
"They" (CNN) didn't give the Clinton the debate questions. CNN contributor (and temporary DNC chair) Donna Brazile did. And she was (rightly) fired for doing it.
CNN and other news networks frequently hire pundits from both parties to be contributors. Despite their dual roles, they're expected to behave properly. Brazile didn't, and she was canned. I would expect nothing less to happen if a contributor from the other side did what she did.
I know of at least one person who offered their opinion on Facebook (that doesn't necessarily follow social views) and linked to articles supporting their opinion. Their account has been banned from posting for 60 days.
Based on this, It's not necessarily fake news the puppet masters are after. It's censorship.
Your one single data-point, based on an anecdote of someone else's experience, and devoid of further details, is hardly enough for the rest of us to conclude that it's "censorship."
America. Land of the Censored, Home of the Unaware.
Before you get too righteous and entitled, remind yourself that Facebook is not the government, and you don't pay for their service. They can set terms of service, and ban people for breaking them.
Snopes, reputable. HaHa.
Kindly suggest alternatives.
IMHO, if a fact-checking organization has received both praise and scorn from representatives across the political spectrum, then it has an air of credibility.
But note that the number of time such praise or scorn is expressed may be unbalanced, if one side respects the truth less than the other.
How do you reconcile between eras so far apart in both the breadth of measurements and accuracies and methodology between now and then?
By comparing datasets from multiple sources that overlap in the time domain.
I don't think it is possible to any close "degree." Look, people didn't calibrate their thermometers all the time back then, nor did they have the scientific rigor in measurement technique to make sure they had an acceptable "averaging" setup for the measurement on a specific time and circumstance each day.
First of all, people did calibrate thermometers "all the time back then." It wasn't hard. The freezing and boiling points of water at sea level are convenient standard fiduciary marks.
As for "scientifc rigor" -- what I think you really mean is the care taken in measurements. Consider for example, Tyco Brahe. He gathered enormous amounts of data that informed Kepler to create his laws of planetary motion. And he didn't have a telescope. He took extraordinary care to use his measuring instruments to the best of his ability. My point is that data that is "old" is not necessarily lacking in "rigor."
Finally, regarding data quoted to a fraction of a degree -- you need to understand that individual measurements can have a moderate errors, but their average can be highly accurate. Google on "standard error of the mean" for details.
the earth is over 4 billion years old and has had icecaps for 20% of the time.
What's the maths on 4 billion vs 120 years?
Well, considering that humans have been on earth for only about the past 200,000 years, I wouldn't want to risk our chances with an earth that has no ice caps. It may be inevitable, but let's slow it down long enough for us to find some other place in the universe to live, m'kay?
And keep in mind that no ice caps means very high temperatures and flooding over most of the coastal areas. Not to mention the loss or migration of other species we depend on to survive.
The investigation into Holmes and Theranos is still ongiong. I suppose it's not yet clear whether she and the company were malicious or just sloppy.
She has been hit with a two-year ban on owning or operating a lab.
However, in the case of Volkswagen, there's no question that they wrote software designed to bypass emission tests.
Looking at the pattern of your posts I sincerely hope that you get in touch soon with someone who cares about you.
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder can be cured.
What's the point of posting this article if it doesn't give any useful data?
The headline mentions a 300-mile typical range on a 20-minute charge. Both of these numbers are related to kWh capacity and kW charge rate respectively. Arguably the former numbers are more consumer-friendly, albeit less precise because they relate to a "typical" EV use-case. So I would say the article does provide useful information, just not in the units or precision you're expecting.
Here is a link that regarding Stallman's use of the joke, and a link to Stallman's explanation.
https://geekfeminism.org/2009/...
https://mail.gnome.org/archive...
Very informative, but you should cite your source.
Update: It seems this is why Libreboot's maintainers were not pleased with GNU: https://libreboot.org/gnu/
Disclosure: this story is the first time I have heard of this issue.
Although the link points to libreboot's side of this, it still is an eye-opener. TL/DR: the FSF fired a transgender employee on discriminatory grounds, but libreboot unintentionally outed the employee in the first place.
It sounds to me that there are no saints on either side of this issue, but FSF is far more in the wrong than libreboot.
If anyone deserves sympathy here, it's the transgender employee who now faces an uphill battle to reboot their career (pardon the pun.)
It may also mean that patent trolls will be pickier about which cases they take to court. They may still try to extort money from companies by offering to settle out of court, or offering to sell the patent.
Hyperbole is the most heinous abomination against God that mankind has ever committed.
I call BS. All generalizations are false.
Wait...
It's not a distro. If only it were. Then we could just not download it.
I didn't vote because I live in a blue state, and my vote wouldn't count. Indeed, the state went for Killary 8 to 2.
If I thought for a second that the total vote mattered, I would have turned up. And there are millions like me out there.
Just because we are silent (actually, silenced by you thugs), does not mean we don't exist.
I cited the First Amendment in my post. How can you claim that I am a "thug" who is trying to "silence" you? I very much respect your right to say what you want. I also reserve the right to disagree with it, and to say so.
The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes it quite clear that the popular vote is irrelevant when it comes to electing the President.
And the First Amendment makes it clear that it is perfectly legal to talk about the popular vote.
How is this trolling?
Clinton didn't win even 50% of the vote. The majority of voters voted ABC - anybody but Clinton.
You could flip that and claim that an even greater majority of voters voted ABT.
You can nitpick that MightyMartian's post was inaccurate because a majority of US voters in fact did not prefer Clinton. But a majority did not prefer Trump either. And Clinton did get more votes than any other candidate. And that bugs the hell out of Trump, so much that he created a fiction of 'millions' of illegal aliens voting for Clinton.
Yes, I know that it's the Electoral College that matters. That doesn't mean the popular vote is not of interest.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Uber drivers do, but I'd say they are clearly not employees under #1. Isn't driving for Uber completely up to the driver on a moment by moment basis? Like I can say, oh I don't feel like working from 9am-11am, so I wont. You can't do that at a real job and keep your employment. Likewise you choose your car and you choose where you drive every day. I don't see how that's anything like a normal job in terms of controlling employee behavior.
As I read the Common-Law rules, the key question appears to be: who controls the relationship? Under rules 1 and 2, it seems pretty clear that it's Uber, not the driver. Yes, the driver supplies the car and fuel. But that's because Uber says so. As for rule 3, there's no question that what the driver does is a "key aspect of the business" Uber is in. They're not hiring the drivers to do anything other than their primary business. I think that supports the argument that the drivers are employees.