Pretty much anyone/everyone in the US. Fahrenheit units are assumed here, especially in contexts were Celsius would make little sense.
This is a science and tech site, at very least, if you're going to use outmoded, outdated, antiquated, anachronistic, non-standard, and mostly unused units of measurement, indicate the unit.
No this is a discussion/debate site which historically (less lately) has focused on tech. It also is based in the US and has a predominantly US based readership and I assure you nobody in the US was confused at all. I've be very happy to switch to metric but if someone gives an air temperature of 129 degrees I'm fairly comfortable assuming they aren't talking about Celsius units.
The US isn't going to go metric any time soon. Get over it. Yes it's a good idea and Celsius would be better but so are lots of things that won't happen.
HOWEVER all that assumes you DO NOT READ THE EDITORIAL SECTION. that section is completely batshit crazy.
That statement is applicable to any Fox News related media outlet of which WSJ is one since both are owned by News Corp which doesn't give a shit about reporting facts but does care a lot about making money.
A review that's complaining that an iPad Pro is a bad laptop makes as much sense as one complaining it's a bad smartphone. It is not a laptop. It is not a replacement for a laptop, it is intended as a companion to a Mac.
If the intent it to be a companion device then it is a failure from the word go. Honestly there is really nothing an iPad does adequately well currently that my iPhone doesn't handle which is why I haven't bought an iPad despite repeated hard looks at doing so. It COULD be useful for note taking and drawing but the software available for that to date sucks sour frog ass. They seem to think everyone who picks up one of their idiotically designed Apple Pencils is a graphic artist who spends their days sketching. I'm an engineer and I would LOVE a device I could take notes, make and share sketches, annotate documents, etc. Students should be able to take ALL their notes on an iPad. But Apple is making toy software that doesn't really do much that is useful for large market segments. The hardware has flaws but it's probably good enough IF the software wasn't so useless.
The iPad accessories are poorly designed afterthoughts. There is no place to store the Apple Pencil on/in the device. The Apple Pencil is round so it rolls off tables. The covers are terrible and the keyboards are mostly horrid. Sharing documents is clumsy and in useless formats. The iPad has no usable file system or decent organization system or robust ability to share documents between applications or people.
Basically Apple is treating the iPad like an overgrown iPhone without the phone and the software and hardware that could make it more than that is pretty much an afterthought. People keep buying them and they don't have anyone there visionary enough to make the device more than it currently is.
Funny because I have an extensive black family that doesn't have that problem. You do not get pulled over for being black, you get pulled over because there was cause,
That's just bullshit and there is copious evidence to prove it. People get pulled over routinely because of the color of their skin. This isn't a debate. It happens and if you deny it happens you are either lying or delusional. Happens to black people and latinos so often it borders on cliche. Perhaps you live in a location where it is relatively uncommon. Those do exist. But to pretend it doesn't happen is to have your head in the sand at best.
not to mention it's very hard to see race when someone is speeding past you at 60mph, from an angle in the dark.
There are PLENTY of times when it is trivial to note the ethnicity of the driver/occupants.
I'm white and I've been pulled over many times, oftentimes without receiving a ticket.
Exactly.... but how would you install an emergency breaking system on a (contactless!) Maglev system without seriously restricting the the directions in which this can move? (diagonally...)
Contactless is not the same thing as impossible to make contact. It will ride in close proximity to the magnets/rails. Wouldn't be hard to come up with a system that would physically engage in the event of a problem.
Maybe for you. I find launches like this to be Must See TV. Doesn't matter if it's SpaceX or someone else. If you don't find satellite launches fascinating then you are either impossible to impress or you don't understand what is happening. Or maybe you are just being snarky for no good reason.
Protip: If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about being """overpoliced""" (That is, you don't have to worry about being a criminal if you are not a criminal). It's that simple.
No it is not that simple. Every single black man I know has had the lovely experience of being harassed by police for driving while black. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. They were not breaking any laws or causing any problems when it happened. Just because you haven't broken any law does not even begin to mean that you do not have to worry about being over policed.
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you have nothing to fear.
Make up your mind: is it a waste of money or is it useful?
I think most of the time it will be a waste of money. Reason being that it solves the wrong problem. What we should actually want is not a police force that response quicker but public policy that makes it so police response isn't necessary in the first place. Peaceful cities don't get that way by having a hyper-vigilant police force that can respond instantly - if anything that tends to make things worse in most cases. No, cities become peaceful through good public policy and economic opportunity. The details can vary by location but if you need technology like this it's a CLEAR indication that public policy is in bad shape.
As a gun lover, and privacy lover I can't see how this is a bad thing.
The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. It solves the wrong problem. The problem that needs to be solved is how do we prevent the violence before it occurs rather than how do we catch offenders more quickly after the fact. Something like this makes sense in a war zone but if you need to install it during what is ostensibly peacetime then something is terribly wrong with public policy. Peaceful cities don't get that way because of a rapid response police force. They get that way because of good public policy and economic opportunity.
I'm not saying technology like this is a bad idea in a violent locale. Being able to quickly identify, localize, and respond to violent acts is a worthy goal as a general proposition and if the problem already exists you have to deal with it. I'm just saying that there about a thousand other more productive ways to work this problem. Technology like this should be a last resort, not standard procedure.
If it is a justified self-defence act the person being attacked would like the police to come anyway. If it's an illegal firing then we want the police to respond.
While true, it's important to remember that few gunshots actually come from justifiable acts of self defense. The vast majority of shots fired aimed at humans are either attempts at murder or suicide. This is the flaw in this as a matter of public policy. It's like installing smoke detectors instead of ensuring the wiring in your home is safe and proper. While better than nothing it's not really the best approach to solving the problem.
It's reasonable to allow surveillance uses of automated technology as long as the public interest and their privacy is protected.
Agreed. The concerning bit is that people routinely disagree on what constitutes "the public interest" and the importance of privacy. People who are scared tend to have a rather different view of those ideas than those who aren't.
A University of Michigan public-private partnership called Mcity is testing V2V, or vehicle to vehicle communication, and has found that it makes their autonomous prototypes even safer.
It will be safer until some asshat decides for fun or profit to screw with the system. It's easier to make a system safer when the hackers don't have access to it yet.
What worries me about a lot of this stuff isn't whether they can make the technology work but rather whether they can adequately secure the technology. I work in the auto industry and device security is simply something NOT a part of the engineering culture because it's never really needed to be. It's not that the engineers are dumb or are doing a terrible job but that they simply don't have a long history with making secure software. I think there are going to be some very expensive lessons learned the hard way before they get up to speed.
Don't blame people for the sins of their ancestors. I am my own person. I am not my father. I am not my mother. I am not my grandparent.
I'm not. I'm saying that if the reason you are here is because of illegal immigration (and most of us are to one degree or another) then it is a dick move by YOU to hold it against someone else. America is a nation of immigrants. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
Get off your high horse. Trump doesn't support legalising illegals. They want to get into America, make them do it legally.
Anyone living in America bitching about people coming to this country "illegally" is a huge hypocrite. Just ask the next Cherokee you run across. No, Trump's stance on immigration is rooted in racism and xenophobia. Or did you forget his (nonsensical) comments about "rapists and murderers" coming from Mexico?
Force those rich people to hire good old fashioned Americans to clean their offices and houses. They'll increase the quality of life for Americans.
Riiiiight. Like that will actually happen. What color is the sky on your planet?
For once you have a president that is by the Americans and for the Americans.
"For the Americans"? Bullshit. Trump is for nobody but himself. He certainly doesn't represent my interests even a little bit and in case you forgot he lost the vote. The only way he could be further from representing what I care about would be if he was a religious nut job on top of all the rest of his douchebaggery. He certainly doesn't represent the actual interests of very many Americans including more than a few who voted for him.
It's hilarious that a CEO is your first real president who isn't owned by private corporations.
HAHAHAHAHA.... You think Trump isn't owned by corporations? First off he's self dealing like no president before him as he hasn't divested himself of his own business interests. Or did you forget that Trump is a corporation?. Second, Trump is ALL about doing what his corporate buddies think is a good idea. He's owned by corporations harder than any president in living memory. You just have to examine WHICH corporations he cares about. Just because he didn't need their money to get elected doesn't mean he isn't owned by them. It's just a different style of ownership.
How can you even think this is journalism This is clearly not neutral news. John Oliver presents an opinion about certain situations.
Yes he does present editorial opinions but he also presents actual facts. It absolutely is as much journalism as anything else in the modern media. Good luck finding ANY source of news which simply presents facts with no editorializing or political stance. There is such a thing as a responsible source of news but there is no such thing as a neutral source of news. Fox News is typically neither responsible nor neutral much of the time but does cater to a certain audience. I would argue that John Oliver is typically very responsible while also being not neutral and also caters to a certain audience.
But I see the show itself more as entertainment and critique of conventional news. He often puts his finger on situations where the news outlets forgot their neutrality.
It is that but he also is routinely informing people about issues of the day that they might otherwise not know about. For example his report on FIFA corruption was genuinely news to many Americans for whom soccer is simply not a part of their every day existence. And while he had a very clear position on the topic of FIFA he also reported actual facts which pretty fairly represented how much of a scumbag organization it is.
I find it interesting that intent has no relevance in your argument.
That's because it doesn't have any relevance. Jon Stewart likes to claim that The Daily Show wasn't news but the simple fact is that it was (and remains) a credible source of news for many people. If you report a fact which is true and people become informed it is a news program in addition to whatever else it might be. It's also pretty heavy on the editorial opinions too. I agree with him that it's sad that a show like The Daily Show has ended up in such a position but for him to pretend that he wasn't a part of the media is disingenuous and/or false.
John Oliver is presenting news whether or not he intends to do so. In fact he and his colleagues do a more credible job of reporting facts than many so-called "legitimate" news organizations.
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet
No, we think anyone speaking in an English accent is a villian. Given how many countries England has invaded over the years there may be some truth to that assumption.
Yes, we will eventually grow our back to in erased carbon again if we coast on natural gas, but the replacement of coal by gas buys us time to build the long-term reactor fleet that going carbon free will require.
Nuclear fusion is never going to happen in a big way in the US. People are too scared of it and the liability is too great. Whether or not fusion is a good idea seems to be irrelevant to the discussion at this point. Politically the conservatives are indifferent to the problems of fossil fuels and deny that climate change exists and the progressives seem to think any fuel source that isn't renewable is the devil's work, including nuclear. Plus there is a lot of NIMBY and other issues in play. In short, nuclear fission as a power source in the US isn't likely to grow as a percent of the portfolio and most likely will shrink as reactors are decommissioned.
We will not (and indeed cannot) actually go carbon free but what we could perhaps do is get to carbon neutral. I presume that is what you really meant.
"They have hired people we've fired," Musk said. "We always jokingly call Apple the 'Tesla Graveyard.' If you don't make it at Tesla, you go work at Apple. I'm not kidding."
That's one way to spin it. It smacks a little of post hoc ergo propter hoc though with a little bit of puffery on top. Or it could be simply that they were a bad cultural fit at Tesla and Apple was a better fit. Just because someone doesn't fit at a given company doesn't mean they are inferior. I probably wouldn't be a great fit for Tesla either for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with competence.
Well, the guy is known for compilers and languages. He was asked to make autonomous car software. I honestly don't see why anyone would assume because he could do one means he could do the other.
I don't mean to paint with too broad a brush but I've run into a fair number of software developers that are rather arrogant and presume that because they are talented at writing code that they are somehow domain experts in other fields as well. There are more than a few of them who have posted here on slashdot over the years. This doesn't describe the majority I think but it's hardly rare to see the Dunning-Kruger effect among engineers.
I don't think "superhero" movies are a good example. They're the epitome of high-budget junk with no original plot or quality of story. - just action.
What do you think Star Wars is if it isn't a super hero movie? Jedi are nearly the epitome of super heroes. Furthermore I completely disagree that super hero movies inherently lack original plots or good stories. Sturgeon's law applies to any genre of movie you care to mention. Some of the stories that are coming out of the comic books these days are absolutely awesome stories and only a narrow minded snob would think otherwise. You could argue that the story could have been realized better but the stories themselves are often great.
They sell well to kids wanting to watch their favourite marketing device, but you'll find very few superhero films on any critics "must watch" top films.
I can name quite a few superhero movies that are must see cultural touch stones. Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back are two of them.
No, the coal jobs are being lost to cheap gas - which right now is reducing US carbon output, Paris or no Paris.
"Reducing"? Not really. Slowing the growth would be more accurate. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel and overall demand is still growing. Emissions remain far higher than is likely to be a good idea. The US will have to do a LOT more than simply swap coal for gas. We are the per-capita biggest polluters in the world and only China exceeds us in total emissions.
I disagree on the Rogue One ending though. Once it occured to me that they were really going to make the end of Rogue One match the start of A New Hope to the letter the end became much less interesting. Halfway through the end scene it was clear that all involved were doomed. Of course the transmissing HAD to happen. But Darth Vader HAD to find out. The two main characters HAD to die etc. Not very interesting.
Knowing where a movie is going ahead of time does not by itself make it less interesting. In virtually all superhero movies you know the main character is going to live and the ending will probably be a happy one. Most of the time the story is rather predictable too. Doesn't make it uninteresting as long as they make the journey getting there fun. To use the classic example, we all knew the Titanic was going to sink before anyone walked into a theater.
I was really hopefull afther The Force Awakens, since it was for me a great 'setting the scene' movie.
I suppose they had to get back to baseline after the prequels. Really it was just a reboot and the movie was for all practical purposes nearly a scene for scene remake/update of A New Hope. It was done well enough but this was ground that Star Wars has covered several times now which was disappointing to me at least. Predictable doesn't need to mean identical. The Force Awakens was something of a love letter to A New Hope and that's fine but I have to admit I wasn't expecting a remake.
Yes, it is time consuming, but it has ALREADY BEEN DONE. These parts have been thoroughly tested, have already been used in military aircraft, and have a good track record.
Military aircraft are maintained differently than civilian aircraft. They are also designed and utilized differently. Milspec is not the end-all-be-all standard of quality many imagine it to be.
You are implying that the FAA is saying "We would like you to do more testing of X, Y, and Z for issues A, B and C", when what they are actually saying is "I am retiring in two years, and I don't want to make any decision that might jeopardize my pension."
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Do you have anything besides run of the mill cynicism to back up your claim? And exactly how do you figure that any decision by an FAA official would in any way endanger their pension?
Slashdot Mirror
Who writes temperatures as "129 degrees"?
Pretty much anyone/everyone in the US. Fahrenheit units are assumed here, especially in contexts were Celsius would make little sense.
This is a science and tech site, at very least, if you're going to use outmoded, outdated, antiquated, anachronistic, non-standard, and mostly unused units of measurement, indicate the unit.
No this is a discussion/debate site which historically (less lately) has focused on tech. It also is based in the US and has a predominantly US based readership and I assure you nobody in the US was confused at all. I've be very happy to switch to metric but if someone gives an air temperature of 129 degrees I'm fairly comfortable assuming they aren't talking about Celsius units.
The US isn't going to go metric any time soon. Get over it. Yes it's a good idea and Celsius would be better but so are lots of things that won't happen.
HOWEVER all that assumes you DO NOT READ THE EDITORIAL SECTION. that section is completely batshit crazy.
That statement is applicable to any Fox News related media outlet of which WSJ is one since both are owned by News Corp which doesn't give a shit about reporting facts but does care a lot about making money.
A review that's complaining that an iPad Pro is a bad laptop makes as much sense as one complaining it's a bad smartphone. It is not a laptop. It is not a replacement for a laptop, it is intended as a companion to a Mac.
If the intent it to be a companion device then it is a failure from the word go. Honestly there is really nothing an iPad does adequately well currently that my iPhone doesn't handle which is why I haven't bought an iPad despite repeated hard looks at doing so. It COULD be useful for note taking and drawing but the software available for that to date sucks sour frog ass. They seem to think everyone who picks up one of their idiotically designed Apple Pencils is a graphic artist who spends their days sketching. I'm an engineer and I would LOVE a device I could take notes, make and share sketches, annotate documents, etc. Students should be able to take ALL their notes on an iPad. But Apple is making toy software that doesn't really do much that is useful for large market segments. The hardware has flaws but it's probably good enough IF the software wasn't so useless.
The iPad accessories are poorly designed afterthoughts. There is no place to store the Apple Pencil on/in the device. The Apple Pencil is round so it rolls off tables. The covers are terrible and the keyboards are mostly horrid. Sharing documents is clumsy and in useless formats. The iPad has no usable file system or decent organization system or robust ability to share documents between applications or people.
Basically Apple is treating the iPad like an overgrown iPhone without the phone and the software and hardware that could make it more than that is pretty much an afterthought. People keep buying them and they don't have anyone there visionary enough to make the device more than it currently is.
Why does Bloomberg think that Whole Foods needs robots to roam the isles taking inventory?
Because the person writing the article is an unimaginative putz who wrote the first idiotic thing that came into his/her head.
If you leave out the reusable rockets we've been shooting satellites into orbit for 60 years.
Yes and what is your point? It's still cool as shit. If you think it isn't cool as shit I have to wonder why you are posting someplace like slashdot.
And not to piss on SpaceX's parade, but even this rocket's unlaunched big brother isn't nearly as big as the Saturn Vs they launched in the 60s.
Again so what? Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it is no longer interesting.
The day Musk tries to land on Mars instead of Earth then I'll be glued to my seat.
Oh so you're just being a hard to impress hipster. I get it. So sorry you are so bored by life.
Funny because I have an extensive black family that doesn't have that problem. You do not get pulled over for being black, you get pulled over because there was cause,
That's just bullshit and there is copious evidence to prove it. People get pulled over routinely because of the color of their skin. This isn't a debate. It happens and if you deny it happens you are either lying or delusional. Happens to black people and latinos so often it borders on cliche. Perhaps you live in a location where it is relatively uncommon. Those do exist. But to pretend it doesn't happen is to have your head in the sand at best.
not to mention it's very hard to see race when someone is speeding past you at 60mph, from an angle in the dark.
There are PLENTY of times when it is trivial to note the ethnicity of the driver/occupants.
I'm white and I've been pulled over many times, oftentimes without receiving a ticket.
Ahh, we have an answer.
Exactly. ... but how would you install an emergency breaking system on a (contactless!) Maglev system without seriously restricting the the directions in which this can move? (diagonally...)
Contactless is not the same thing as impossible to make contact. It will ride in close proximity to the magnets/rails. Wouldn't be hard to come up with a system that would physically engage in the event of a problem.
Slow news day.
Maybe for you. I find launches like this to be Must See TV. Doesn't matter if it's SpaceX or someone else. If you don't find satellite launches fascinating then you are either impossible to impress or you don't understand what is happening. Or maybe you are just being snarky for no good reason.
Protip: If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about being """overpoliced""" (That is, you don't have to worry about being a criminal if you are not a criminal). It's that simple.
No it is not that simple. Every single black man I know has had the lovely experience of being harassed by police for driving while black. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. They were not breaking any laws or causing any problems when it happened. Just because you haven't broken any law does not even begin to mean that you do not have to worry about being over policed.
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you have nothing to fear.
Make up your mind: is it a waste of money or is it useful?
I think most of the time it will be a waste of money. Reason being that it solves the wrong problem. What we should actually want is not a police force that response quicker but public policy that makes it so police response isn't necessary in the first place. Peaceful cities don't get that way by having a hyper-vigilant police force that can respond instantly - if anything that tends to make things worse in most cases. No, cities become peaceful through good public policy and economic opportunity. The details can vary by location but if you need technology like this it's a CLEAR indication that public policy is in bad shape.
As a gun lover, and privacy lover I can't see how this is a bad thing.
The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. It solves the wrong problem. The problem that needs to be solved is how do we prevent the violence before it occurs rather than how do we catch offenders more quickly after the fact. Something like this makes sense in a war zone but if you need to install it during what is ostensibly peacetime then something is terribly wrong with public policy. Peaceful cities don't get that way because of a rapid response police force. They get that way because of good public policy and economic opportunity.
I'm not saying technology like this is a bad idea in a violent locale. Being able to quickly identify, localize, and respond to violent acts is a worthy goal as a general proposition and if the problem already exists you have to deal with it. I'm just saying that there about a thousand other more productive ways to work this problem. Technology like this should be a last resort, not standard procedure.
If it is a justified self-defence act the person being attacked would like the police to come anyway. If it's an illegal firing then we want the police to respond.
While true, it's important to remember that few gunshots actually come from justifiable acts of self defense. The vast majority of shots fired aimed at humans are either attempts at murder or suicide. This is the flaw in this as a matter of public policy. It's like installing smoke detectors instead of ensuring the wiring in your home is safe and proper. While better than nothing it's not really the best approach to solving the problem.
It's reasonable to allow surveillance uses of automated technology as long as the public interest and their privacy is protected.
Agreed. The concerning bit is that people routinely disagree on what constitutes "the public interest" and the importance of privacy. People who are scared tend to have a rather different view of those ideas than those who aren't.
A University of Michigan public-private partnership called Mcity is testing V2V, or vehicle to vehicle communication, and has found that it makes their autonomous prototypes even safer.
It will be safer until some asshat decides for fun or profit to screw with the system. It's easier to make a system safer when the hackers don't have access to it yet.
What worries me about a lot of this stuff isn't whether they can make the technology work but rather whether they can adequately secure the technology. I work in the auto industry and device security is simply something NOT a part of the engineering culture because it's never really needed to be. It's not that the engineers are dumb or are doing a terrible job but that they simply don't have a long history with making secure software. I think there are going to be some very expensive lessons learned the hard way before they get up to speed.
Don't blame people for the sins of their ancestors. I am my own person. I am not my father. I am not my mother. I am not my grandparent.
I'm not. I'm saying that if the reason you are here is because of illegal immigration (and most of us are to one degree or another) then it is a dick move by YOU to hold it against someone else. America is a nation of immigrants. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
Get off your high horse. Trump doesn't support legalising illegals. They want to get into America, make them do it legally.
Anyone living in America bitching about people coming to this country "illegally" is a huge hypocrite. Just ask the next Cherokee you run across. No, Trump's stance on immigration is rooted in racism and xenophobia. Or did you forget his (nonsensical) comments about "rapists and murderers" coming from Mexico?
Force those rich people to hire good old fashioned Americans to clean their offices and houses. They'll increase the quality of life for Americans.
Riiiiight. Like that will actually happen. What color is the sky on your planet?
For once you have a president that is by the Americans and for the Americans.
"For the Americans"? Bullshit. Trump is for nobody but himself. He certainly doesn't represent my interests even a little bit and in case you forgot he lost the vote. The only way he could be further from representing what I care about would be if he was a religious nut job on top of all the rest of his douchebaggery. He certainly doesn't represent the actual interests of very many Americans including more than a few who voted for him.
It's hilarious that a CEO is your first real president who isn't owned by private corporations.
HAHAHAHAHA.... You think Trump isn't owned by corporations? First off he's self dealing like no president before him as he hasn't divested himself of his own business interests. Or did you forget that Trump is a corporation?. Second, Trump is ALL about doing what his corporate buddies think is a good idea. He's owned by corporations harder than any president in living memory. You just have to examine WHICH corporations he cares about. Just because he didn't need their money to get elected doesn't mean he isn't owned by them. It's just a different style of ownership.
I sincerely hope you never get to serve on a jury.
I sincerely hope you discover what logic and reasoning are.
How can you even think this is journalism
This is clearly not neutral news. John Oliver presents an opinion about certain situations.
Yes he does present editorial opinions but he also presents actual facts. It absolutely is as much journalism as anything else in the modern media. Good luck finding ANY source of news which simply presents facts with no editorializing or political stance. There is such a thing as a responsible source of news but there is no such thing as a neutral source of news. Fox News is typically neither responsible nor neutral much of the time but does cater to a certain audience. I would argue that John Oliver is typically very responsible while also being not neutral and also caters to a certain audience.
But I see the show itself more as entertainment and critique of conventional news.
He often puts his finger on situations where the news outlets forgot their neutrality.
It is that but he also is routinely informing people about issues of the day that they might otherwise not know about. For example his report on FIFA corruption was genuinely news to many Americans for whom soccer is simply not a part of their every day existence. And while he had a very clear position on the topic of FIFA he also reported actual facts which pretty fairly represented how much of a scumbag organization it is.
I find it interesting that intent has no relevance in your argument.
That's because it doesn't have any relevance. Jon Stewart likes to claim that The Daily Show wasn't news but the simple fact is that it was (and remains) a credible source of news for many people. If you report a fact which is true and people become informed it is a news program in addition to whatever else it might be. It's also pretty heavy on the editorial opinions too. I agree with him that it's sad that a show like The Daily Show has ended up in such a position but for him to pretend that he wasn't a part of the media is disingenuous and/or false.
John Oliver is presenting news whether or not he intends to do so. In fact he and his colleagues do a more credible job of reporting facts than many so-called "legitimate" news organizations.
Americans are still provincial enough to believe that an English accent of any kind lends sophistication and cachet
No, we think anyone speaking in an English accent is a villian. Given how many countries England has invaded over the years there may be some truth to that assumption.
Yes, we will eventually grow our back to in erased carbon again if we coast on natural gas, but the replacement of coal by gas buys us time to build the long-term reactor fleet that going carbon free will require.
Nuclear fusion is never going to happen in a big way in the US. People are too scared of it and the liability is too great. Whether or not fusion is a good idea seems to be irrelevant to the discussion at this point. Politically the conservatives are indifferent to the problems of fossil fuels and deny that climate change exists and the progressives seem to think any fuel source that isn't renewable is the devil's work, including nuclear. Plus there is a lot of NIMBY and other issues in play. In short, nuclear fission as a power source in the US isn't likely to grow as a percent of the portfolio and most likely will shrink as reactors are decommissioned.
We will not (and indeed cannot) actually go carbon free but what we could perhaps do is get to carbon neutral. I presume that is what you really meant.
"They have hired people we've fired," Musk said. "We always jokingly call Apple the 'Tesla Graveyard.' If you don't make it at Tesla, you go work at Apple. I'm not kidding."
That's one way to spin it. It smacks a little of post hoc ergo propter hoc though with a little bit of puffery on top. Or it could be simply that they were a bad cultural fit at Tesla and Apple was a better fit. Just because someone doesn't fit at a given company doesn't mean they are inferior. I probably wouldn't be a great fit for Tesla either for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with competence.
Well, the guy is known for compilers and languages. He was asked to make autonomous car software. I honestly don't see why anyone would assume because he could do one means he could do the other.
I don't mean to paint with too broad a brush but I've run into a fair number of software developers that are rather arrogant and presume that because they are talented at writing code that they are somehow domain experts in other fields as well. There are more than a few of them who have posted here on slashdot over the years. This doesn't describe the majority I think but it's hardly rare to see the Dunning-Kruger effect among engineers.
I don't think "superhero" movies are a good example. They're the epitome of high-budget junk with no original plot or quality of story. - just action.
What do you think Star Wars is if it isn't a super hero movie? Jedi are nearly the epitome of super heroes. Furthermore I completely disagree that super hero movies inherently lack original plots or good stories. Sturgeon's law applies to any genre of movie you care to mention. Some of the stories that are coming out of the comic books these days are absolutely awesome stories and only a narrow minded snob would think otherwise. You could argue that the story could have been realized better but the stories themselves are often great.
They sell well to kids wanting to watch their favourite marketing device, but you'll find very few superhero films on any critics "must watch" top films.
I can name quite a few superhero movies that are must see cultural touch stones. Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back are two of them.
No, the coal jobs are being lost to cheap gas - which right now is reducing US carbon output, Paris or no Paris.
"Reducing"? Not really. Slowing the growth would be more accurate. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel and overall demand is still growing. Emissions remain far higher than is likely to be a good idea. The US will have to do a LOT more than simply swap coal for gas. We are the per-capita biggest polluters in the world and only China exceeds us in total emissions.
I disagree on the Rogue One ending though. Once it occured to me that they were really going to make the end of Rogue One match the start of A New Hope to the letter the end became much less interesting. Halfway through the end scene it was clear that all involved were doomed. Of course the transmissing HAD to happen. But Darth Vader HAD to find out. The two main characters HAD to die etc. Not very interesting.
Knowing where a movie is going ahead of time does not by itself make it less interesting. In virtually all superhero movies you know the main character is going to live and the ending will probably be a happy one. Most of the time the story is rather predictable too. Doesn't make it uninteresting as long as they make the journey getting there fun. To use the classic example, we all knew the Titanic was going to sink before anyone walked into a theater.
I was really hopefull afther The Force Awakens, since it was for me a great 'setting the scene' movie.
I suppose they had to get back to baseline after the prequels. Really it was just a reboot and the movie was for all practical purposes nearly a scene for scene remake/update of A New Hope. It was done well enough but this was ground that Star Wars has covered several times now which was disappointing to me at least. Predictable doesn't need to mean identical. The Force Awakens was something of a love letter to A New Hope and that's fine but I have to admit I wasn't expecting a remake.
Yes, it is time consuming, but it has ALREADY BEEN DONE. These parts have been thoroughly tested, have already been used in military aircraft, and have a good track record.
Military aircraft are maintained differently than civilian aircraft. They are also designed and utilized differently. Milspec is not the end-all-be-all standard of quality many imagine it to be.
You are implying that the FAA is saying "We would like you to do more testing of X, Y, and Z for issues A, B and C", when what they are actually saying is "I am retiring in two years, and I don't want to make any decision that might jeopardize my pension."
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Do you have anything besides run of the mill cynicism to back up your claim? And exactly how do you figure that any decision by an FAA official would in any way endanger their pension?