"3 People lost their lives. That is 'stuff that matters' even if you didn't know them."
Am I supposed to care because they were pilots, or because they might have been transporting something I ordered? Asking for the 150,000 other people who died the same day, but won't be mentioned on slashdot because they aren't part of delivering our future landfill stuffing.
Trump may not know jack about shit, but he knows that six is more than five, and he knows more is better. Does anyone not believe that there will be a 6G, or that cellular hardware makers aren't already imagining what that will be? The real issue is that he doesn't want real competition. He just wants to win, and doesn't care how, or what it costs. He's never cared about those things before, why start now?
Hillary and bubba were both solidly behind war in Iraq. One of the things that Trump supporters believed, erroneously of course, was that Trump would avoid needless wars. They believed it because he broke from the pack and actually called out specific politicians for that behavior, the Clintons among them. Of course, that was a lot of crap. I criticized Obama for drone strikes... Which have increased under Trump. And we're still in Iraq. And anyone who believed that he'd back off from those policies is a tool.
"He only won his "competition" with Russians stepping up their social engineering techniques on a gullible public, and the GOP blocking votes from being being counted in congressional races."
Don't forget the opposing party's subversion of the democratic process, in spite of having democracy in their name. There was plenty of fuckery on both sides.
You don't need internal air bags if you have all that other stuff. Other safety features that work in racing include strapping the helmeted head to an attachment point, big neck pillows, and wearing fireproof clothing, but those measures were also deemed to be too inconvenient for daily use. Sure, internal air bags can cause harm in some situations, but they also can reduce injury when drivers eschew other safety equipment, like their seat belt.
If you're looking for one place to put everyone's mark of the beast, er I mean RFID tag or QR code, it clearly has to be somewhere on the head, neck, or upper torso, because all the other parts are optional.
It's my recollection that we have discussed unreproducible patents several times here on slashdot, but I'm on a tablet and can't be arsed to search for them on this little screen. Am I hallucinating, or are there many patents granted which are light on necessary details? It's my understanding that it is illegal to actually reproduce a patent without license, even for your own use and benefit and not for the purpose of selling it for profit, which would surely present a chilling effect on testing whether patents are reproducible. The patent office lacks the resources to attempt such reproduction, and has to rely on examiners' abilities to guess whether it is. And the patent office collects more revenue when it grants a patent than when it denies it, which is how we get obvious patents like how to swing sideways on a swing set. Why wouldn't that also motivate them to grant obviously unreproducible patents as well?
"The President did just give orders to form a space force under the Navy.... It isn't crazy to think the military has technology under wraps"
I liked playing battlezone (the one where you fight russkies on the far side of the moon) too, but crazy Trump ordering up a space fantasy doesn't lend credence to the idea of secret technology, with or without aliens. It doesn't speak to it at all. Just because Putin explained to him that the USA bombs Iraq every four years doesn't mean that Trump knows anything of interest. He's been too busy golfing and ignoring briefings to have learned anything about secret tech. I could easily believe that he has demanded a space force because some general told him that the only way they'd continue to get big military funding was to expand into space, and made up some guff about room temp superconductors and antigravity, though.
I'd like nothing more than for both of those things to be real, except maybe for our leadership to develop a conscience, but those two things seem equally unlikely right now. For example, just look at who voted for SESTA. Even the liberals many hope will save us flushed their principles and voted for that stinker. It's easy to see why Trump's base supports him so faithfully, when he's the only one breaking ranks to call certain things what they are, repercussions be damned. It makes it easier for them to pretend he's telling them the truth on all of the other occasions.
"The first person to use a term does not obtain a perpetual monopoly concerning its meaning, especially when they put no substantial investment into promoting that meaning."
This isn't about a person, this is about a community which was using this terminology for over a decade before Bruce tried to rewrite history. If he wasn't aware of that, then he was ignorant. If he was, then he was arrogant. If you aren't familiar with the substantial prior use (which as we have seen in this discussion, goes back at least as far as 1985) then you're as unqualified to comment on the definition as the lazy-assed dictionaries, who haven't done their research. I have, but they didn't ask me, nor did they bother to ask anyone who was obviously using the term "open" broadly in computing whether they were using it to describe source code. Open Desktop, Openlook, Open standards... And open source.
If the OSI had a great claim on the phrase they would have sought to trademark it much earlier, and they'd have been granted a trademark when they eventually did file. Neither thing happened, with good reason. The whole reason for Free Software was to differentiate between source code access, and source code USE. It was necessary because open source didn't mean any one thing, and you could easily have open source code that you couldn't use, because Open in computing only meant interoperable, due to published standards and/or source. That was the sense in which every Unix vendor used it, back when it was fashionable to include the word in the name of every product. That was the sense in which it was used by caldera, which most definitely did not grant the right to redistribute copies. It was also used in the same sense by Sun, who would give full sources to any major customer who requested them, at least in the BSD-derived SunOS 4 period. Why not? After all, it was based on BSD. They also did not permit redistribution.
Open Source remains the best way to describe software with accessible sources which does not permit redistribution, except as a patch or patch set. In short, the attempt to redefine the phrase to be more specific are ignorant at best, and willfully misleading at worst. It's sad to see dictionaries fall for such transparent self-aggrandizement, but in the Wikipedia post-truth edit-war reality, I probably shouldn't be surprised. And lo, I am not. I am only disappointed. Nerds are supposed to care about such things. What comes first does matter, as revisionism matters. Integrity matters. Truth matters.
Reducing cabin intrusion is obviously a good thing (except in the stabbin' cabin) but if it is that effective at protecting from automobile impact, imagine how far it could launch a pedestrian!
I don't know about the US but in my city the cars only have one officer in them. So you need at least a second car at a scene to have a backup for the first officer. Normally the police just get a call about a disturbance or someone causing a problem or something like that. They don't know the scale of the problem
They do if they're paying attention. The first reporting officer will give the number of persons involved.
Point the first, the cop is both armored, and supposed to stand where he's not easy to shoot.
Point the second, the ridiculousness of sentencing in America provides every incentive to shoot the cops, especially for repeat offenders. In some states you can still literally go to prison for life for drug crimes on the first offense, let alone subsequent ones.
Obviously you haven't seen (or don't care about) recent the body cam video of a traffic stop in Vallejo California where the driver turned to "get his license" and got off two rounds before the another officer shot him.
Stuff like that is why the cop is supposed to stand behind the A-pillar, and if there are multiple suspects in the vehicle, they are supposed to get backup before approaching... and lots of other rules I don't know. There were literally video games about this back in the eighties, the first three (and especially the first two) of which focus on correct police procedure. You literally can't win the games without it. Instead of teaching correct procedure, apparently, police academies spend their time teaching that there is a war on cops — even though this is the safest time in history to be one.
Like all other people, most are good, some are awesome, and some are assholes.
I prefer the theory (preferred by a cop) that 15% are good, 15% are bad, and the remainder are followers who will go along with whatever is going on. Cop shops deliberately hire those who will follow orders, but sometimes they accidentally employ free thinkers.
Do we have the technology to deal with radioactive waste yet? No, then why to add more waste we can flush?
Let me introduce you to Yucca Mountain. Stop repeating that lie. Its never been true, it will never been true. It only makes you a liar when you say it.
We have a place, assuming we decide to use it. But we decided not to use it because we didn't have a viable containment technology. Vitrification turned out to be too expensive, and dry cask storage is not sufficiently sound.
Say you have a first computer with 8 GB of RAM and a permanently attached keyboard capable of folding around behind its screen, and a second computer with 8 GB of RAM and a clip-on keyboard that the user can detach. What is the key difference between these computers that is relevant to their usability?
Durability. The connector is a common point of failure, and the hinges tend to be inferior.
From 2002 to 2006, 32-bit operating systems shipped on new desktop and laptop PCs, and they tended to come with 1 GB to 2 GB of RAM. Were desktop and laptop PCs made in 2002 to 2006 likewise "fucking worthless"? Or what fundamental thing about computing has changed since then, other than the increasing aggressiveness of web analytics and adtech to eat RAM while continuously tracking viewers' browsing?
That's not enough? The shift to 64-bit has also had an effect; memory use hasn't doubled, but it has increased for that reason, among all the other reasons.
Having only 2GB RAM in even a NAS is a liability, especially if you want to use fancy filesystems like ZFS. In a machine expected to run desktop applications, it is severely limiting. Even if it's not expected to provide full desktop performance, you will often run into the situation where things don't work at all, or the performance is so poor that is essentially the case.
You're talking crap. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) organisation has a specific definition for "Open Source" and has a trademark on the term.
No, they don't. They literally do not have a trademark on "Open Source". First they decided not to try to register it, and then they tried and were denied on the basis of lack of specificity. Their trademark is on "Open Source Initiative". Perhaps you're confused by their old logo, which put the (R) next to "Source" instead of "Initiative", in which case their nefarious graphics design worked brilliantly on your tiny little mind. The rest of your comment is therefore invalid, and there's no point in engaging you.
Neither Peterson nor anyone else claims to have been first to the words "open" and "source". It is generally believed they *named* something "open source".
You're trying to draw a distinction where none exists. Source == Source Code. And those of us who were actually there rapidly dropped the word "code" off of the end of that, before the OSIers think they named something "Open Source". They were late to the party, and they're either being disingenuous, or they were just totally oblivious to what was actually happening years earlier. This 1993 USENET post (which I linked before) proves conclusively that the words "Open Source" were clearly being used to refer to source code access by actual programmers on the ground long before Peterson claims to have coined the phrase.
Lets hear it for releasing source with NT programs, or at least making the source available for FTP. If a developer wants money for shareware, paying the fee should automatically grant the user a copy of the source code for their personal use. Restrictions could prohibit modifying and redistributing binaries, but should allow distribution of "deltas" for bug fixes, etc.
Anyone else into "Source Code for NT"? The tools and stuff I'm writing for NT will be released with source. If there are "proprietary" tricks that MS wants to hide, the only way to subvert their hoarding is to post source that illuminates (and I don't mean disclosing stuff obtained by a non-disclosure agreement). Open Source is best for everyone in the long run.
At the time, it was common for shareware programs to come with the sources. Though there was also plenty of shareware which didn't, most of the shareware I downloaded (for DOS and for AmigaOS) offered sources to those who paid the shareware fee. Even some fair bit (though less) of the MacOS shareware offered sources to purchasers, but of course less users of that platform had a compiler, so there was less point in providing them. It was trivial to get a copy of Turbo whatever for PC, not much harder to get Aztec for your Ami, but it was much harder to get your hands on MPW C for the Mac.
You are simply shifting from one excuse to the other. First you don't like what you think I said about Bruce, now you don't like the word Code after Source. What bullshit evasion will you hide behind now that I've handed you an example of "Open Source" without being followed by "Code" which predates the OSI claim by five years?
It can even happen here on Slashdot... ever find yourself checking your comments multiple times, looking to see if you've gotten any new replies?
Hell yes, I've been doing it today. But then, I've been doing laundry, and being interrupted repeatedly in other ways as well. I can't concentrate on anything important, so I'm Slashdotting, among other things.
I'm here more than I probably should be, but I also think Slashdot is fairly benign - and I do occasionally learn something here.
Yep, every so often, you find a gemstone between your toes while you march through the field of cow pies. I actually learn a lot on Facebook these days, but it's a function of which groups I spend my time in. I also do a lot of teaching, which doesn't make me any money, but does generate goodwill — and makes the world a better place. I could choose to spend all my Fb time getting pissed off, but that's not how I choose to use it.
The algae keep dying off at certain levels of scale.
Could you be more specific? Say, providing any information at all? If the algae die, you throw them in the centrifuge and start making biofuel. It's not a problem.
Nature colonizes open pools with an algae appropriate to the local climate, and whatever water you're using. Problems with algal die-offs are related to using special algaes, which are not necessary unless you're trying to use closed bioreactors.
Also, it has to be economical and its not clear that these types of algae based bio-fuels will be economical
Ye olde biofuels study showed that it would be possible to get economic results using seawater, though it would take up more space than using fresh water and adjusting its Ph. We have plenty of space for the purpose, though. You also have to leave the pools exposed for gas exchange, but that's how you get free algae colonization anyway. If you use closed reactors you also have to be all pissy about water quality; if you use open ponds, then the right algae for your water conditions just shows up like magic.
Yes climate change is real. But you don't seem to be reacting as if it is because you keep telling us to wait on unicorns instead of letting us solve the problem with nuclear.
The technology to do biofuel from algae was developed literally back in the 1980s (see PDF linked above) so there's no unicorns here, except maybe the political will to actually solve the problem.
I can imagine treatment being more consistent, but your experience sounds somewhat random. Or maybe improves with age?
Yeah, sorry, I didn't make clear that these events were mentioned chronologically. As I've aged, I've had better results. And it's not because I ever thought it was cute to mouth off to cops or anything like that, because I never did, and never have done. As in, I literally have never got mouthy with a cop in my whole life. The closest I've ever gotten is about five years back when a cop was giving me a shitty ticket (I DID stop for the stop sign, he said I didn't, it was horse shit) and then proceeded to try to recruit me. I told him I couldn't be a cop because I didn't believe that selective enforcement was acceptable or reasonable. He was already writing the ticket when he asked, too.
in the last year or two, loaners are very hard to come by, and you can't even book an appointment with guaranteed loaner because the loaners are on first come, first serve basis, and once they run out for the day, they offer complementary Lyft ride if you live or work nearby, but no, they don't cover unlimited Lyft rides anywhere you need to go for however long the car is int he shop.
Well, that is completely goddamned unacceptable. Let me be clear, I am not a Tesla fanboy. I don't think his muskiness can do no wrong. I'm just not an anything fanboy, except maybe the GPL, and also oral sex. Not in that order. New automakers often have teething problems, but Tesla seems to be improving their vehicles over time. However, not providing you a loaner while your vehicle is waiting for service is just wrong, especially if promised in such exceptional terms. I would also be annoyed by the problems you describe with the GUI, but then, I always thought the touchscreen control of everything was a bad idea, and I still do.
What I think he's trying to say is not that you're gay, but that you're a pussy. And I agree.
Whoever the fuck you are, anonymous coward. Go attempt aviary copulation with a ventrally rotating toroidal pastry, and stop replying to yourself all over my comment.
Slashdot Mirror
"3 People lost their lives. That is 'stuff that matters' even if you didn't know them."
Am I supposed to care because they were pilots, or because they might have been transporting something I ordered? Asking for the 150,000 other people who died the same day, but won't be mentioned on slashdot because they aren't part of delivering our future landfill stuffing.
Trump may not know jack about shit, but he knows that six is more than five, and he knows more is better. Does anyone not believe that there will be a 6G, or that cellular hardware makers aren't already imagining what that will be? The real issue is that he doesn't want real competition. He just wants to win, and doesn't care how, or what it costs. He's never cared about those things before, why start now?
Hillary and bubba were both solidly behind war in Iraq. One of the things that Trump supporters believed, erroneously of course, was that Trump would avoid needless wars. They believed it because he broke from the pack and actually called out specific politicians for that behavior, the Clintons among them. Of course, that was a lot of crap. I criticized Obama for drone strikes... Which have increased under Trump. And we're still in Iraq. And anyone who believed that he'd back off from those policies is a tool.
"He only won his "competition" with Russians stepping up their social engineering techniques on a gullible public, and the GOP blocking votes from being being counted in congressional races."
Don't forget the opposing party's subversion of the democratic process, in spite of having democracy in their name. There was plenty of fuckery on both sides.
You don't need internal air bags if you have all that other stuff. Other safety features that work in racing include strapping the helmeted head to an attachment point, big neck pillows, and wearing fireproof clothing, but those measures were also deemed to be too inconvenient for daily use. Sure, internal air bags can cause harm in some situations, but they also can reduce injury when drivers eschew other safety equipment, like their seat belt.
If you're looking for one place to put everyone's mark of the beast, er I mean RFID tag or QR code, it clearly has to be somewhere on the head, neck, or upper torso, because all the other parts are optional.
Can't you not patent once it's otherwise publicly published? If so, that represents a strong motivation to patent first, and prove later.
It's my recollection that we have discussed unreproducible patents several times here on slashdot, but I'm on a tablet and can't be arsed to search for them on this little screen. Am I hallucinating, or are there many patents granted which are light on necessary details? It's my understanding that it is illegal to actually reproduce a patent without license, even for your own use and benefit and not for the purpose of selling it for profit, which would surely present a chilling effect on testing whether patents are reproducible. The patent office lacks the resources to attempt such reproduction, and has to rely on examiners' abilities to guess whether it is. And the patent office collects more revenue when it grants a patent than when it denies it, which is how we get obvious patents like how to swing sideways on a swing set. Why wouldn't that also motivate them to grant obviously unreproducible patents as well?
"The President did just give orders to form a space force under the Navy.... It isn't crazy to think the military has technology under wraps"
I liked playing battlezone (the one where you fight russkies on the far side of the moon) too, but crazy Trump ordering up a space fantasy doesn't lend credence to the idea of secret technology, with or without aliens. It doesn't speak to it at all. Just because Putin explained to him that the USA bombs Iraq every four years doesn't mean that Trump knows anything of interest. He's been too busy golfing and ignoring briefings to have learned anything about secret tech. I could easily believe that he has demanded a space force because some general told him that the only way they'd continue to get big military funding was to expand into space, and made up some guff about room temp superconductors and antigravity, though.
I'd like nothing more than for both of those things to be real, except maybe for our leadership to develop a conscience, but those two things seem equally unlikely right now. For example, just look at who voted for SESTA. Even the liberals many hope will save us flushed their principles and voted for that stinker. It's easy to see why Trump's base supports him so faithfully, when he's the only one breaking ranks to call certain things what they are, repercussions be damned. It makes it easier for them to pretend he's telling them the truth on all of the other occasions.
"The first person to use a term does not obtain a perpetual monopoly concerning its meaning, especially when they put no substantial investment into promoting that meaning."
This isn't about a person, this is about a community which was using this terminology for over a decade before Bruce tried to rewrite history. If he wasn't aware of that, then he was ignorant. If he was, then he was arrogant. If you aren't familiar with the substantial prior use (which as we have seen in this discussion, goes back at least as far as 1985) then you're as unqualified to comment on the definition as the lazy-assed dictionaries, who haven't done their research. I have, but they didn't ask me, nor did they bother to ask anyone who was obviously using the term "open" broadly in computing whether they were using it to describe source code. Open Desktop, Openlook, Open standards... And open source.
If the OSI had a great claim on the phrase they would have sought to trademark it much earlier, and they'd have been granted a trademark when they eventually did file. Neither thing happened, with good reason. The whole reason for Free Software was to differentiate between source code access, and source code USE. It was necessary because open source didn't mean any one thing, and you could easily have open source code that you couldn't use, because Open in computing only meant interoperable, due to published standards and/or source. That was the sense in which every Unix vendor used it, back when it was fashionable to include the word in the name of every product. That was the sense in which it was used by caldera, which most definitely did not grant the right to redistribute copies. It was also used in the same sense by Sun, who would give full sources to any major customer who requested them, at least in the BSD-derived SunOS 4 period. Why not? After all, it was based on BSD. They also did not permit redistribution.
Open Source remains the best way to describe software with accessible sources which does not permit redistribution, except as a patch or patch set. In short, the attempt to redefine the phrase to be more specific are ignorant at best, and willfully misleading at worst. It's sad to see dictionaries fall for such transparent self-aggrandizement, but in the Wikipedia post-truth edit-war reality, I probably shouldn't be surprised. And lo, I am not. I am only disappointed. Nerds are supposed to care about such things. What comes first does matter, as revisionism matters. Integrity matters. Truth matters.
And it'll injure the bumper less, too.
Reducing cabin intrusion is obviously a good thing (except in the stabbin' cabin) but if it is that effective at protecting from automobile impact, imagine how far it could launch a pedestrian!
I don't know about the US but in my city the cars only have one officer in them. So you need at least a second car at a scene to have a backup for the first officer. Normally the police just get a call about a disturbance or someone causing a problem or something like that. They don't know the scale of the problem
They do if they're paying attention. The first reporting officer will give the number of persons involved.
Point the first, the cop is both armored, and supposed to stand where he's not easy to shoot.
Point the second, the ridiculousness of sentencing in America provides every incentive to shoot the cops, especially for repeat offenders. In some states you can still literally go to prison for life for drug crimes on the first offense, let alone subsequent ones.
Obviously you haven't seen (or don't care about) recent the body cam video of a traffic stop in Vallejo California where the driver turned to "get his license" and got off two rounds before the another officer shot him.
Stuff like that is why the cop is supposed to stand behind the A-pillar, and if there are multiple suspects in the vehicle, they are supposed to get backup before approaching... and lots of other rules I don't know. There were literally video games about this back in the eighties, the first three (and especially the first two) of which focus on correct police procedure. You literally can't win the games without it. Instead of teaching correct procedure, apparently, police academies spend their time teaching that there is a war on cops — even though this is the safest time in history to be one.
Like all other people, most are good, some are awesome, and some are assholes.
I prefer the theory (preferred by a cop) that 15% are good, 15% are bad, and the remainder are followers who will go along with whatever is going on. Cop shops deliberately hire those who will follow orders, but sometimes they accidentally employ free thinkers.
Do we have the technology to deal with radioactive waste yet? No, then why to add more waste we can flush?
Let me introduce you to Yucca Mountain. Stop repeating that lie. Its never been true, it will never been true. It only makes you a liar when you say it.
We have a place, assuming we decide to use it. But we decided not to use it because we didn't have a viable containment technology. Vitrification turned out to be too expensive, and dry cask storage is not sufficiently sound.
Say you have a first computer with 8 GB of RAM and a permanently attached keyboard capable of folding around behind its screen, and a second computer with 8 GB of RAM and a clip-on keyboard that the user can detach. What is the key difference between these computers that is relevant to their usability?
Durability. The connector is a common point of failure, and the hinges tend to be inferior.
From 2002 to 2006, 32-bit operating systems shipped on new desktop and laptop PCs, and they tended to come with 1 GB to 2 GB of RAM. Were desktop and laptop PCs made in 2002 to 2006 likewise "fucking worthless"? Or what fundamental thing about computing has changed since then, other than the increasing aggressiveness of web analytics and adtech to eat RAM while continuously tracking viewers' browsing?
That's not enough? The shift to 64-bit has also had an effect; memory use hasn't doubled, but it has increased for that reason, among all the other reasons.
Having only 2GB RAM in even a NAS is a liability, especially if you want to use fancy filesystems like ZFS. In a machine expected to run desktop applications, it is severely limiting. Even if it's not expected to provide full desktop performance, you will often run into the situation where things don't work at all, or the performance is so poor that is essentially the case.
You're talking crap. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) organisation has a specific definition for "Open Source" and has a trademark on the term.
No, they don't. They literally do not have a trademark on "Open Source". First they decided not to try to register it, and then they tried and were denied on the basis of lack of specificity. Their trademark is on "Open Source Initiative". Perhaps you're confused by their old logo, which put the (R) next to "Source" instead of "Initiative", in which case their nefarious graphics design worked brilliantly on your tiny little mind. The rest of your comment is therefore invalid, and there's no point in engaging you.
Neither Peterson nor anyone else claims to have been first to the words "open" and "source". It is generally believed they *named* something "open source".
You're trying to draw a distinction where none exists. Source == Source Code. And those of us who were actually there rapidly dropped the word "code" off of the end of that, before the OSIers think they named something "Open Source". They were late to the party, and they're either being disingenuous, or they were just totally oblivious to what was actually happening years earlier. This 1993 USENET post (which I linked before) proves conclusively that the words "Open Source" were clearly being used to refer to source code access by actual programmers on the ground long before Peterson claims to have coined the phrase.
At the time, it was common for shareware programs to come with the sources. Though there was also plenty of shareware which didn't, most of the shareware I downloaded (for DOS and for AmigaOS) offered sources to those who paid the shareware fee. Even some fair bit (though less) of the MacOS shareware offered sources to purchasers, but of course less users of that platform had a compiler, so there was less point in providing them. It was trivial to get a copy of Turbo whatever for PC, not much harder to get Aztec for your Ami, but it was much harder to get your hands on MPW C for the Mac.
You are simply shifting from one excuse to the other. First you don't like what you think I said about Bruce, now you don't like the word Code after Source. What bullshit evasion will you hide behind now that I've handed you an example of "Open Source" without being followed by "Code" which predates the OSI claim by five years?
It can even happen here on Slashdot... ever find yourself checking your comments multiple times, looking to see if you've gotten any new replies?
Hell yes, I've been doing it today. But then, I've been doing laundry, and being interrupted repeatedly in other ways as well. I can't concentrate on anything important, so I'm Slashdotting, among other things.
I'm here more than I probably should be, but I also think Slashdot is fairly benign - and I do occasionally learn something here.
Yep, every so often, you find a gemstone between your toes while you march through the field of cow pies. I actually learn a lot on Facebook these days, but it's a function of which groups I spend my time in. I also do a lot of teaching, which doesn't make me any money, but does generate goodwill — and makes the world a better place. I could choose to spend all my Fb time getting pissed off, but that's not how I choose to use it.
The algae keep dying off at certain levels of scale.
Could you be more specific? Say, providing any information at all? If the algae die, you throw them in the centrifuge and start making biofuel. It's not a problem.
Nature colonizes open pools with an algae appropriate to the local climate, and whatever water you're using. Problems with algal die-offs are related to using special algaes, which are not necessary unless you're trying to use closed bioreactors.
Also, it has to be economical and its not clear that these types of algae based bio-fuels will be economical
Ye olde biofuels study showed that it would be possible to get economic results using seawater, though it would take up more space than using fresh water and adjusting its Ph. We have plenty of space for the purpose, though. You also have to leave the pools exposed for gas exchange, but that's how you get free algae colonization anyway. If you use closed reactors you also have to be all pissy about water quality; if you use open ponds, then the right algae for your water conditions just shows up like magic.
Yes climate change is real. But you don't seem to be reacting as if it is because you keep telling us to wait on unicorns instead of letting us solve the problem with nuclear.
The technology to do biofuel from algae was developed literally back in the 1980s (see PDF linked above) so there's no unicorns here, except maybe the political will to actually solve the problem.
I can imagine treatment being more consistent, but your experience sounds somewhat random. Or maybe improves with age?
Yeah, sorry, I didn't make clear that these events were mentioned chronologically. As I've aged, I've had better results. And it's not because I ever thought it was cute to mouth off to cops or anything like that, because I never did, and never have done. As in, I literally have never got mouthy with a cop in my whole life. The closest I've ever gotten is about five years back when a cop was giving me a shitty ticket (I DID stop for the stop sign, he said I didn't, it was horse shit) and then proceeded to try to recruit me. I told him I couldn't be a cop because I didn't believe that selective enforcement was acceptable or reasonable. He was already writing the ticket when he asked, too.
in the last year or two, loaners are very hard to come by, and you can't even book an appointment with guaranteed loaner because the loaners are on first come, first serve basis, and once they run out for the day, they offer complementary Lyft ride if you live or work nearby, but no, they don't cover unlimited Lyft rides anywhere you need to go for however long the car is int he shop.
Well, that is completely goddamned unacceptable. Let me be clear, I am not a Tesla fanboy. I don't think his muskiness can do no wrong. I'm just not an anything fanboy, except maybe the GPL, and also oral sex. Not in that order. New automakers often have teething problems, but Tesla seems to be improving their vehicles over time. However, not providing you a loaner while your vehicle is waiting for service is just wrong, especially if promised in such exceptional terms. I would also be annoyed by the problems you describe with the GUI, but then, I always thought the touchscreen control of everything was a bad idea, and I still do.
What I think he's trying to say is not that you're gay, but that you're a pussy.
And I agree.
Whoever the fuck you are, anonymous coward. Go attempt aviary copulation with a ventrally rotating toroidal pastry, and stop replying to yourself all over my comment.