Saudi Arabia and Turkey threatened to invade Syria and Russia would have no choice, but to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend their troops there.
What the hell makes you think Russia would go full retard in this scenario? We've had over 70 years of warfare between us and the last nuke fired in anger, and so far conventional munitions seem to be tickling our fancy just fine. I seriously doubt Russia would risk a nuclear conflict over Syria, and it's certainly not the only choice they could make in this situation.
Maybe all these stories of his subordinates being executed by wild dogs or anti-aircraft cannons are a cover for the fact that he simply devours them. To death.
The second Little Kim acts out, CHINA will obliterate North Korea.
That wouldn't be in China's best interest. They certainly don't want millions of panicked refugees attempting to cross their border. A more likely scenario is that Fatty the Third suddenly dies of a heart attack or car crash, and the Kim dynasty comes to an abrupt end.
President Obama's character is such that he will never approve of launching the nukes, not even in retaliation after a first strike from NK turns San Francisco or New York City into a glowing pile of ash.
I think his hand would be rather forced in that scenario, but we did see how well he backed up his 'red line' BS regarding chemical weapons in Syria.
Waiting until Sep/Oct to announce an indictment is flat out screwing the dems, leaving them with no viable candidate for the few weeks leading up to the election.
The dems are screwing themselves by (probably) running someone with a cloud over her head larger than Trumps toupee. Even if she's not indicted, there are still going to be lingering doubts and Trump's camp is going to be hammering that point home.
If that's a way of complaining about not being priced for locals to visit often, then refer to my previous statement about the park not being intended for you in the first place...
Well the curious thing is they used to have steep discounts for the locals. Back around 1995ish, if you lived in a So Cal zip code, it was $19 to get in. Then the next year they bumped it up a few bucks, then a little more, but it was still reasonable. Annual passes with included parking ran around $300 if I remember; my family had them for years, but I never paid the bill. I think it was about the time they dug up the parking lot and installed that stupid California Adventure park that they decided they no longer needed the locals.
If people leave their lights at home on all the time will that also not cause any more pollution? Bulbs are getting more efficient and more energy is produced by renewable sources. Ergo, by your theory leaving your lights on permanently will not result in more pollution.
Exactly, glad we can agree on that. Too bad we're talking about cars, and not light bulbs. Whole other set of engineering challenges.
I remember incredible lines to ride on space mountain,and the mostly teenagers who came out of the ride, only to get back in line for another. I figure even at that time, they were paying something like 25-30 dollars per ride.
I used to go there all the time as a teenager. Back then it was around $20 to get in the door, so we didn't mind waiting in line for hours on end, because it was cheap and we'd just hang out. Now it's about $100, which is relatively less to me than $20 was when I was just a broke ass high school kid, but I'll be damned if I'm going to spend that much money to stand in line with a bunch of tourists. They've really done a good job at pricing the locals out of the park over the last 15 years. Even the annual pass prices are out of control. It's probably because we didn't spend all our money on food and merch; we were just taking up space as far as they're concerned. Welcome to Disneyland, the pinnacle of American capitalism.
No, the "more miles driven = more pollution" premise is based on the assumption that it requires energy to move vehicles around and that producing energy results in some pollution. Which of those is not true now or in the near future?
No automobile of any current design is 100% efficient. As efficiency is improved, the same amount of energy will move a vehicle farther. Also, not all forms of energy produce pollution while being generated: solar, wind, hydro, wave, nuclear (when it comes to greenhouse gases). As we move away from fossil fuels to cleaner generation and electric cars, pollution per mile will drop.
land mines are autonomous weapons, no human is in the decision loop to fire when the preset conditions for detonation are met.
Land mines are an area denial weapon, not a targeted one. A human makes the conscious decision to attack anything that enters the area when the mines are placed. Just because it may be years before that happens does not mean mines are autonomous, just delayed. Autonomy implies some sort of ability for decision making and control, which is far more desirable than how mines actually operate (although some do have the ability to self-deactivate after a set time).
The whole "more miles driven = more pollution" premise is based on the flawed assumption that:
a) no more advancements in combustion engine efficiency or pollution reduction will be made
b) no more advancements in electric vehicle efficiency will be made
c) the ratio of fossil fuel to clean electricity generation will never improve.
Pretending that autonomous car technology will advance to the point that it is ubiquitous, while all other advancements in automotive systems grind to a halt, is just plain stupid.
It's only a 'disaster' because there are million dollar homes right below where it was leaking. Who buys a million dollar home in the middle of a fucking oil field? People who think the odor of mercaptan heralds the end times, apparently. If this leak had happened out in Palmdale or some place less affluent, I guarantee it wouldn't have hit the news after the first week. Sure it's a bit of an ecological mess, but the people who did the most bitching around here did it because it smelled bad and made them sad pandas, not because it was doing any harm to the planet.
So they've created a feature that allows you to remotely run the heater or a/c indefinitely while nobody is occupying the vehicle? Seems to me that one of the first things done when designing this would to implement a timer and/or an occupancy sensor. Preheating/cooling the interior on a cold/hot day is great, and sometimes you just want to run into a store with your dogs in the back without leaving the engine on, but both of these scenarios should be rather brief in duration. Allowing the system to discharge the battery to the point of leaving you stranded is just piss poor design. Security flaw aside, I see no good argument for allowing your car to be used as an unattended fridge or oven for extended periods of time.
God damn it indeed. Since when is selling shit on Ebay the same as being employed? Nobody is saying "I'll hire you but pay you less because you're a woman". There are other forces at work here than the usual 'oppression by the patriarchy' chestnut.
I also find it interesting that these articles usually paint women as the oppressed and men somehow as the oppressor. Can we not have at least one article in the vein of "Dudes do this one thing better than women. Why? Who the fuck knows, but lets find out and make the world a better place with the knowledge we uncover". We gain nothing by whinging on about how so-and-so is a victim; why don't we explore the possibility that some people succeed, and others fail, all on their own accord.
They don't spool up the engines, release the brakes, then yank back on the stick. Jets need quite a bit of runway to get up to speed before they can even tilt a degree off horizontal. A slow moving aircraft moving in a straight line for a mile+ makes for an easy target.
Seriously, this is what is considered news around here? A company sends out a free replacement power cord that prevents fires, and people bitch about the fact that it isn't four miles long and encrusted with diamonds? I got mine, swapped it, thought "one less thing to burn my house down" and moved on with life. I urge you all to do the same.
At least they didn't link to Forbes again, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
For what bizarre reason shouldn't North Korea be "allowed" (by whom?!) to have ICBMs when the US - its biggest enemy - also has has them?
You know what? You're right. Fuck it. Lets start passing out nukes to anyone who wants them. The world will be much more peaceful when the North Koreans have ICBMs, to fend off big bad American aggression. Because it's not like we haven't had the opportunity to invade in the last 60 years, and now we're just hella rearing to go. Hey Syria, Iran, you want in on this party too?
In all honesty, North Korea is it's own biggest enemy. The United States really wouldn't give two shits about them if they didn't keep threatening South Korea with all that doom and gloom stuff, and we only care about SK because of our cold war conflict with communism. I don't think an American has even fired a shot in anger at the North since the armistice? That's more than the south can say. The US just makes a convenient Goldstein figure for NK to use to control it's people; they seem to ignore the fact that pretty much every other western power sees the situation the same way we do, and even China shakes its head when the North gets all uppity.
Putting reasonable limits on what people can say to one another is a good idea in my opinion.
And who do you propose should get to decide what is reasonable? Are we going to have to put up with "Common Sense Speech Control" bullshit now? Everyone shutting the fuck up and minding their own goddamn business is reasonable in my opinion; how about you?
Would it make sense to price power per kilowatt usage blocks?
Tiered pricing can work to keep usage lower for people who can actually vary their usage and whose profits aren't tied almost directly to energy used. These miners have a pretty fixed energy requirement and the only way to reduce energy consumed is to scale back on the processing, lowering the potential for profit. The whole scheme also relies on sufficient existing capacity, which appears to be an issue here. Tiered pricing can be used to lower demand, but if that demand still exceeds generating capacity they'll have to shell out $$$ for more equipment, which comes at a far greater cost than just running existing plants at a higher load.
Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia and Turkey threatened to invade Syria and Russia would have no choice, but to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend their troops there.
What the hell makes you think Russia would go full retard in this scenario? We've had over 70 years of warfare between us and the last nuke fired in anger, and so far conventional munitions seem to be tickling our fancy just fine. I seriously doubt Russia would risk a nuclear conflict over Syria, and it's certainly not the only choice they could make in this situation.
Maybe all these stories of his subordinates being executed by wild dogs or anti-aircraft cannons are a cover for the fact that he simply devours them. To death.
The second Little Kim acts out, CHINA will obliterate North Korea.
That wouldn't be in China's best interest. They certainly don't want millions of panicked refugees attempting to cross their border. A more likely scenario is that Fatty the Third suddenly dies of a heart attack or car crash, and the Kim dynasty comes to an abrupt end.
President Obama's character is such that he will never approve of launching the nukes, not even in retaliation after a first strike from NK turns San Francisco or New York City into a glowing pile of ash.
I think his hand would be rather forced in that scenario, but we did see how well he backed up his 'red line' BS regarding chemical weapons in Syria.
Waiting until Sep/Oct to announce an indictment is flat out screwing the dems, leaving them with no viable candidate for the few weeks leading up to the election.
The dems are screwing themselves by (probably) running someone with a cloud over her head larger than Trumps toupee. Even if she's not indicted, there are still going to be lingering doubts and Trump's camp is going to be hammering that point home.
everyone with an IQ above 80 outside of the federal government.
You phrase that as if the former doesn't already imply the latter.
"Him" being Pagliano? If he's being granted immunity, it means he's probably going to talk. If she still gets in, she'll have him disappeared.
If that's a way of complaining about not being priced for locals to visit often, then refer to my previous statement about the park not being intended for you in the first place...
Well the curious thing is they used to have steep discounts for the locals. Back around 1995ish, if you lived in a So Cal zip code, it was $19 to get in. Then the next year they bumped it up a few bucks, then a little more, but it was still reasonable. Annual passes with included parking ran around $300 if I remember; my family had them for years, but I never paid the bill. I think it was about the time they dug up the parking lot and installed that stupid California Adventure park that they decided they no longer needed the locals.
If people leave their lights at home on all the time will that also not cause any more pollution? Bulbs are getting more efficient and more energy is produced by renewable sources. Ergo, by your theory leaving your lights on permanently will not result in more pollution.
Exactly, glad we can agree on that. Too bad we're talking about cars, and not light bulbs. Whole other set of engineering challenges.
I remember incredible lines to ride on space mountain,and the mostly teenagers who came out of the ride, only to get back in line for another. I figure even at that time, they were paying something like 25-30 dollars per ride.
I used to go there all the time as a teenager. Back then it was around $20 to get in the door, so we didn't mind waiting in line for hours on end, because it was cheap and we'd just hang out. Now it's about $100, which is relatively less to me than $20 was when I was just a broke ass high school kid, but I'll be damned if I'm going to spend that much money to stand in line with a bunch of tourists. They've really done a good job at pricing the locals out of the park over the last 15 years. Even the annual pass prices are out of control. It's probably because we didn't spend all our money on food and merch; we were just taking up space as far as they're concerned. Welcome to Disneyland, the pinnacle of American capitalism.
No, the "more miles driven = more pollution" premise is based on the assumption that it requires energy to move vehicles around and that producing energy results in some pollution. Which of those is not true now or in the near future?
No automobile of any current design is 100% efficient. As efficiency is improved, the same amount of energy will move a vehicle farther. Also, not all forms of energy produce pollution while being generated: solar, wind, hydro, wave, nuclear (when it comes to greenhouse gases). As we move away from fossil fuels to cleaner generation and electric cars, pollution per mile will drop.
land mines are autonomous weapons, no human is in the decision loop to fire when the preset conditions for detonation are met.
Land mines are an area denial weapon, not a targeted one. A human makes the conscious decision to attack anything that enters the area when the mines are placed. Just because it may be years before that happens does not mean mines are autonomous, just delayed. Autonomy implies some sort of ability for decision making and control, which is far more desirable than how mines actually operate (although some do have the ability to self-deactivate after a set time).
The whole "more miles driven = more pollution" premise is based on the flawed assumption that:
a) no more advancements in combustion engine efficiency or pollution reduction will be made
b) no more advancements in electric vehicle efficiency will be made
c) the ratio of fossil fuel to clean electricity generation will never improve.
Pretending that autonomous car technology will advance to the point that it is ubiquitous, while all other advancements in automotive systems grind to a halt, is just plain stupid.
It's only a 'disaster' because there are million dollar homes right below where it was leaking. Who buys a million dollar home in the middle of a fucking oil field? People who think the odor of mercaptan heralds the end times, apparently. If this leak had happened out in Palmdale or some place less affluent, I guarantee it wouldn't have hit the news after the first week. Sure it's a bit of an ecological mess, but the people who did the most bitching around here did it because it smelled bad and made them sad pandas, not because it was doing any harm to the planet.
60% of the time, statistics lie every time.
So they've created a feature that allows you to remotely run the heater or a/c indefinitely while nobody is occupying the vehicle? Seems to me that one of the first things done when designing this would to implement a timer and/or an occupancy sensor. Preheating/cooling the interior on a cold/hot day is great, and sometimes you just want to run into a store with your dogs in the back without leaving the engine on, but both of these scenarios should be rather brief in duration. Allowing the system to discharge the battery to the point of leaving you stranded is just piss poor design. Security flaw aside, I see no good argument for allowing your car to be used as an unattended fridge or oven for extended periods of time.
They don't get paid less for "The same job"
God damn it indeed. Since when is selling shit on Ebay the same as being employed? Nobody is saying "I'll hire you but pay you less because you're a woman". There are other forces at work here than the usual 'oppression by the patriarchy' chestnut.
I also find it interesting that these articles usually paint women as the oppressed and men somehow as the oppressor. Can we not have at least one article in the vein of "Dudes do this one thing better than women. Why? Who the fuck knows, but lets find out and make the world a better place with the knowledge we uncover". We gain nothing by whinging on about how so-and-so is a victim; why don't we explore the possibility that some people succeed, and others fail, all on their own accord.
If only they would take him up on his offer. The first thing that came to mind was Kip driving over the plastic bowl with the camper van.
Dang it!
A car with the range for highway driving, which is incapable of traveling at highway speeds...
Hasn't kept the Prius drivers off the freeways, and I could swear I read somewhere that those things will do at least 65...
They don't spool up the engines, release the brakes, then yank back on the stick. Jets need quite a bit of runway to get up to speed before they can even tilt a degree off horizontal. A slow moving aircraft moving in a straight line for a mile+ makes for an easy target.
Seriously, this is what is considered news around here? A company sends out a free replacement power cord that prevents fires, and people bitch about the fact that it isn't four miles long and encrusted with diamonds? I got mine, swapped it, thought "one less thing to burn my house down" and moved on with life. I urge you all to do the same.
At least they didn't link to Forbes again, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
For what bizarre reason shouldn't North Korea be "allowed" (by whom?!) to have ICBMs when the US - its biggest enemy - also has has them?
You know what? You're right. Fuck it. Lets start passing out nukes to anyone who wants them. The world will be much more peaceful when the North Koreans have ICBMs, to fend off big bad American aggression. Because it's not like we haven't had the opportunity to invade in the last 60 years, and now we're just hella rearing to go. Hey Syria, Iran, you want in on this party too?
In all honesty, North Korea is it's own biggest enemy. The United States really wouldn't give two shits about them if they didn't keep threatening South Korea with all that doom and gloom stuff, and we only care about SK because of our cold war conflict with communism. I don't think an American has even fired a shot in anger at the North since the armistice? That's more than the south can say. The US just makes a convenient Goldstein figure for NK to use to control it's people; they seem to ignore the fact that pretty much every other western power sees the situation the same way we do, and even China shakes its head when the North gets all uppity.
Putting reasonable limits on what people can say to one another is a good idea in my opinion.
And who do you propose should get to decide what is reasonable? Are we going to have to put up with "Common Sense Speech Control" bullshit now? Everyone shutting the fuck up and minding their own goddamn business is reasonable in my opinion; how about you?
Would it make sense to price power per kilowatt usage blocks?
Tiered pricing can work to keep usage lower for people who can actually vary their usage and whose profits aren't tied almost directly to energy used. These miners have a pretty fixed energy requirement and the only way to reduce energy consumed is to scale back on the processing, lowering the potential for profit. The whole scheme also relies on sufficient existing capacity, which appears to be an issue here. Tiered pricing can be used to lower demand, but if that demand still exceeds generating capacity they'll have to shell out $$$ for more equipment, which comes at a far greater cost than just running existing plants at a higher load.
Getting a gun on board isn't really very useful any more.
Except for the fact that you could shoot people with it; You don't have to crash the plane to kill the passengers.