...he is considering "how much it will cost our companies"...
Right from the very beginning, Trump struck me as an individual who cared for nothing but himself and how much money he had, having no regard for the actual *people* of the United States, and looking only at their economic worth. Some things are, in fact, more important than money, and I am discouraged that Mr. Trump does not seem able to realize that. While this waffling on his previous stance on climate change is probably going to seem like welcome news for environmentalists, his motivation is still completely wrong, and I cannot bring myself to hold out a lot of optimism that he will actually change his plans or actions.
... we are not paid to agree with our employer about everything we have to develop, we are just paid to deliver the requested work on time.
If one has an insurmountable ethical issue with what they are developing for an employer, the only viable recourses are to find an alternative employer or to become self-employed.
If you really typed that in only 2 seconds then you've got record-breaking typing speeds, hitting over 20 keys every single second. The fastest typist speed *ever* recorded was 216 words per minute, which works out to only 15 keystrokes every second, while most professionals cap out at about 70 or 80 wpm, which is between 5 and 6 keystrokes every second. To be perfectly honest, your claim is so far to the right of 5-sigma that it is more likely that you are exaggerating.
And this is a reason why slashdot sorely needs a 5 minute window to edit comments.... The preview mode is fine, but often doesn't seem to help much because of how tightly coupled it is to the editor, much like how one can notice typos more easily seeing them on paper than they will even in the print-preview mode of a word processor.
So, matching an existing theory isn't an essential requisite for me (but without this, the quality of the measurements would have to be tremendously high).
Obviously... and they've done so in this case. No actual laws of physics are being broken here, any more than laws of physics are being broken that light from a flashlight on a vehicle moving near the speed of light is still moving at the speed of light. It violates Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate
I am talking about the exact same thing you were talking about.... you said that the data measured had to make sense, and the *ONLY* reason it will ever make any sense is when the data measured matches theoretical expectations. If the theoretical expectations are wrong, it is *impossible* for the data to make sense, but that doesn't invalidate the measurements, as long as the results are repeatable, it only means that more investigation into why the expected results are wrong may be required (but even that does not change that the underlying assumptions were wrong, as long as the measurements do not match up with predicted results but can nonetheless be confirmed as accurate in the first place).
No... experimental data only has to be accurate. If it does not make sense, then that means there are mistakes in the assumptions we are making about the results, but that doesn't automatically cause the data to make sense until we know exactly why the assumptions we were making are wrong. If you want to argue that knowing that there are flaws in what we were expecting causes the apparently anomalous data to make sense, then I suppose you can argue that the data makes *some* sense from that standpoint, but in general, "making sense" suggests that you have an underlying reason for *why* something makes sense... and not knowing what to expect would not imply that getting something you didn't expect should make any sense at all. How could it?
Where I work now, we are entirely paperless, and have been for the past 3 years. It's kinda funny because there's quite a few salespeople that apparently canvas the offices around the area that I work looking for places to sell printer or copier supplies and when we tell them that we don't even have a printer, they are invariably stunned.
Anyways, while I'm aware that it's unusual... it's entirely possible to do if the company decides that's the way they really want to go.
The first step to doing it is to get rid of the printer... don't even have one. If it's not an option, then you don't use it.
Seriously though, the second guess as you call it was actually a correction to the fact that I was typing "day" in my first post instead of "month", a sort of a Freudian slip thing that I would have corrected if I had realized it, but didn't see it until after I had hit submit (I actually meant to hit preview, but c'est la vie). I really meant "month" right from the start, and that's actually what I was really trying to say.
As for the rate of consumption, I was basing the calculation off of the rate of a trillion gallons a year, which I had heard was worldwide usage, not just the USA.
But perhaps I should actually sit down next time and do the math on paper instead of just estimating off the top of my head like that... it's way too easy to accidentally drop or include zeros, and I'm feeling spectacularly foolish right about now.
And... I just realized that I am still off... I misread billion as million. 2 billion barrels would indeed last a while... probably about 50 years at our current levels of consumption (although that is expected to rise).
Although I do maintain that this cannot last forever.
[we distinguish] ourselves by being the only one on the planet that changes our environment to suit us, rather than allowing the environment to dictate our adaptation.
Also, as you approach the speed of light, assuming that we can some day make human carrying vessels capable of moving that fast, time dilation will allow those on board to make trips that are even many thousands of light years in distance in periods that may only feel like a few years to them.
We're not likely to run out of fossil fuels, since we keep discovering them faster than we burn them
Uhmmm... no. Do the math here... it takes only moments to burn what can take many tens of thousands of years to form. Anyone should realize that even if what you said happened to ever be true at one point in time (and at one point, it may have been), it is not indefinitely sustainable. The only thing that will keep us from literally running out is that the costs of obtaining it are going to continue to rise as it becomes rarer and harder to get, and the economics of getting more will eventually exceed the usefulness that they offer.
Barring entirely any entirely unforeseen and wholly unprecedented breakthroughs in physics and technology, based on the historical (and exponential) rate of humanity's technological progress, I had once heard that we could reasonably expect humanity to be interstellar by about the year 3000.
For all practical purposes, that is undoubtedly true, but when the policy is to *remove* the hard drives before donating them, if they can't do that, then they can't donate them without going and changing a policy that may be very firmly entrenched. There was a company that I used to work for that would donate their old computers to local schools as newer ones were purchased pretty much every single year, but the hard drives were *always* removed, and were explicitly never donated. I don't work for them anymore, and haven't for over a decade, so I don't know if they ever updated their policy to account for something like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't.
This. What happens is a company like this decides that they don't need the computer anymore because they have upgraded to something newer, and they would have donated their old one to a school.... except they can't now, because the ssd is fucking soldered to the motherboard.
Well, because they are in-game, there is no "real" field goal or "real" punt... they are all "fake", when you get right down to it. What makes something fraud is when there is deliberate deception involved.
NHTSA estimates the odds of a hybrid vehicle being involved in a pedestrian crash are 19 percent higher compared with a traditional gas-powered vehicle
"Estimates"???? Wtf, are they trying to suggest this would be a good idea without even having any actual hard statistics backed by actual research to support the notion that it would actually result in fewer pedestrian injuries?
I mean, I'm not going to argue that it makes some kind of logical sense that cars that make noise would alert people to their presence more readily than silent ones, but after you factor in the number of pedestrians that are wearing earbuds or headphones, or too busy chatting on their phone to pay attention to what is around them, I honestly don't know if this kind of change would make any difference unless you make the electric cars *louder* than ICE vehicles.
Are you stupid? They're threatening to restrict SALES of iphones and cars - in other words, a market for those products will disappear.
Doesn't a market disappearing look the same as having a lower demand for the product, and thus drive costs *down* as companies need to offload surplus?
He will spin the whole thing as being *their* fault, and a consequence of *their* choices, and not his, liken their position to being that of blackmailers, and encourage the US public to perceive it in the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
Right from the very beginning, Trump struck me as an individual who cared for nothing but himself and how much money he had, having no regard for the actual *people* of the United States, and looking only at their economic worth. Some things are, in fact, more important than money, and I am discouraged that Mr. Trump does not seem able to realize that. While this waffling on his previous stance on climate change is probably going to seem like welcome news for environmentalists, his motivation is still completely wrong, and I cannot bring myself to hold out a lot of optimism that he will actually change his plans or actions.
In the end that is synonymous with one of the aforementioned options. You can't work for your employer if they are in jail.
Obviously if you have a higher authority to complain to without losing your job then you have a world of options at your disposal.
If one has an insurmountable ethical issue with what they are developing for an employer, the only viable recourses are to find an alternative employer or to become self-employed.
If you really typed that in only 2 seconds then you've got record-breaking typing speeds, hitting over 20 keys every single second. The fastest typist speed *ever* recorded was 216 words per minute, which works out to only 15 keystrokes every second, while most professionals cap out at about 70 or 80 wpm, which is between 5 and 6 keystrokes every second. To be perfectly honest, your claim is so far to the right of 5-sigma that it is more likely that you are exaggerating.
And this is a reason why slashdot sorely needs a 5 minute window to edit comments.... The preview mode is fine, but often doesn't seem to help much because of how tightly coupled it is to the editor, much like how one can notice typos more easily seeing them on paper than they will even in the print-preview mode of a word processor.
Obviously... and they've done so in this case. No actual laws of physics are being broken here, any more than laws of physics are being broken that light from a flashlight on a vehicle moving near the speed of light is still moving at the speed of light. It violates Newtonian physics, but Newtonian physics isn't 100% accurate
I am talking about the exact same thing you were talking about.... you said that the data measured had to make sense, and the *ONLY* reason it will ever make any sense is when the data measured matches theoretical expectations. If the theoretical expectations are wrong, it is *impossible* for the data to make sense, but that doesn't invalidate the measurements, as long as the results are repeatable, it only means that more investigation into why the expected results are wrong may be required (but even that does not change that the underlying assumptions were wrong, as long as the measurements do not match up with predicted results but can nonetheless be confirmed as accurate in the first place).
No... experimental data only has to be accurate. If it does not make sense, then that means there are mistakes in the assumptions we are making about the results, but that doesn't automatically cause the data to make sense until we know exactly why the assumptions we were making are wrong. If you want to argue that knowing that there are flaws in what we were expecting causes the apparently anomalous data to make sense, then I suppose you can argue that the data makes *some* sense from that standpoint, but in general, "making sense" suggests that you have an underlying reason for *why* something makes sense... and not knowing what to expect would not imply that getting something you didn't expect should make any sense at all. How could it?
Where I work now, we are entirely paperless, and have been for the past 3 years. It's kinda funny because there's quite a few salespeople that apparently canvas the offices around the area that I work looking for places to sell printer or copier supplies and when we tell them that we don't even have a printer, they are invariably stunned.
Anyways, while I'm aware that it's unusual... it's entirely possible to do if the company decides that's the way they really want to go.
The first step to doing it is to get rid of the printer... don't even have one. If it's not an option, then you don't use it.
Well, I had to be close in one of them.
Seriously though, the second guess as you call it was actually a correction to the fact that I was typing "day" in my first post instead of "month", a sort of a Freudian slip thing that I would have corrected if I had realized it, but didn't see it until after I had hit submit (I actually meant to hit preview, but c'est la vie). I really meant "month" right from the start, and that's actually what I was really trying to say.
As for the rate of consumption, I was basing the calculation off of the rate of a trillion gallons a year, which I had heard was worldwide usage, not just the USA.
But perhaps I should actually sit down next time and do the math on paper instead of just estimating off the top of my head like that... it's way too easy to accidentally drop or include zeros, and I'm feeling spectacularly foolish right about now.
Although I do maintain that this cannot last forever.
Fucking submit button is too close to preview... I meant about a month. Every month... they'd have to find that much every month.
Can't go back and edit my post, so I'm following up.
So.... unless they are finding that much more every single day, my point stands.
One word: beavers.
Also, as you approach the speed of light, assuming that we can some day make human carrying vessels capable of moving that fast, time dilation will allow those on board to make trips that are even many thousands of light years in distance in periods that may only feel like a few years to them.
Uhmmm... no. Do the math here... it takes only moments to burn what can take many tens of thousands of years to form. Anyone should realize that even if what you said happened to ever be true at one point in time (and at one point, it may have been), it is not indefinitely sustainable. The only thing that will keep us from literally running out is that the costs of obtaining it are going to continue to rise as it becomes rarer and harder to get, and the economics of getting more will eventually exceed the usefulness that they offer.
Barring entirely any entirely unforeseen and wholly unprecedented breakthroughs in physics and technology, based on the historical (and exponential) rate of humanity's technological progress, I had once heard that we could reasonably expect humanity to be interstellar by about the year 3000.
For all practical purposes, that is undoubtedly true, but when the policy is to *remove* the hard drives before donating them, if they can't do that, then they can't donate them without going and changing a policy that may be very firmly entrenched. There was a company that I used to work for that would donate their old computers to local schools as newer ones were purchased pretty much every single year, but the hard drives were *always* removed, and were explicitly never donated. I don't work for them anymore, and haven't for over a decade, so I don't know if they ever updated their policy to account for something like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't.
This. What happens is a company like this decides that they don't need the computer anymore because they have upgraded to something newer, and they would have donated their old one to a school.... except they can't now, because the ssd is fucking soldered to the motherboard.
Well, because they are in-game, there is no "real" field goal or "real" punt... they are all "fake", when you get right down to it. What makes something fraud is when there is deliberate deception involved.
Wtf is an iPhone 3S?
Fraud does not necessarily have to involve monetary gain.
"Estimates"???? Wtf, are they trying to suggest this would be a good idea without even having any actual hard statistics backed by actual research to support the notion that it would actually result in fewer pedestrian injuries?
I mean, I'm not going to argue that it makes some kind of logical sense that cars that make noise would alert people to their presence more readily than silent ones, but after you factor in the number of pedestrians that are wearing earbuds or headphones, or too busy chatting on their phone to pay attention to what is around them, I honestly don't know if this kind of change would make any difference unless you make the electric cars *louder* than ICE vehicles.
Doesn't a market disappearing look the same as having a lower demand for the product, and thus drive costs *down* as companies need to offload surplus?
He will spin the whole thing as being *their* fault, and a consequence of *their* choices, and not his, liken their position to being that of blackmailers, and encourage the US public to perceive it in the same way.