I am all against facial recognition. But cars aren't people. And driving is a privilege, not a right.
Yes, we've all heard that old phrase, but the reality is that if you live in Fairfax county, as I do, you likely have to drive just to make a living....
To take it a step further, I feel that suggesting driving is a privilege is not only inaccurate, but tends to be pretty intellectually lazy. The fact is that most of our freedoms are a privilege - at least by that standard. For example, even though many believe that we have a right to life, liberty, and prosperity; using the "privilege" standard, our right to not be incarcerated is a privilege. Breaking the law will land one in prison (assuming due process of law). Further, assuming that driving a car is a privilege suggests that a drivers license can be revoked for arbitrary reasons and without any sort of due process. The fact of the matter is that it cannot. Just like being a licensed electrician isn't a privilege, rather, it's an activity that generally requires government licensure. Said licensure is not a privilege given to a select few, but a license to perform a profession issued by a sanctioning body to anyone who meets certain qualifications and cannot be revoked without cause or due process. I would argue that anything that is merely considered a privilege doesn't hold up to that standard. It's time to drop this lazy idea that so many have just accepted as fact.
Getting back to the root of the issue, whether or not driving is a right or privilege should not dictate that a person's movements are subject to government monitoring...that's what this is really all about, and this is what is at the heart of the court's ruling.
I'm curious - why are you so quick to call anyone who questions your comment or respectfully disagrees with you stupid (or other ad hominem insults that aren't germane to the discussion )?
Makes sense, and you are certainly not the first person to make the comparison. Sure, if people stop believing in the currency and try to sell all at once, its value will collapse. That goes for any currency. In this case, the main difference between a cryptocurrency and a fiat currency is that the latter has the backing of a government. However, a fiat currency can still drop to near zero value as well. I read a good quote about this a few years ago - "a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."
Cryptocurrencies are a massive Ponzi scheme. The last ones in will lose all their money. Exchanges like Coinbase should be shut down by the feds.
It sounds like you do not understand what a Ponzi scheme is. Read up, my friend. It may be a bubble, but it's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition that I've ever heard of.
It's been some time since I've used IRC. Has the protocol been updated to include group VoIP? Discord is quite good in this regard (although I find TeamSpeak's client better for gaming for several reasons).
Take one down and another will certainly pop up in its place. Maybe one of these days, admins will use local crypto to make honeypotting difficult (or impossible) for law enforcement.
How is it any different than a defendant refusing to reveal where he hid the tools of his crime? The police suspect that he killed Colonel Mustard in the LIbrary with a lead pipe, but without the pipe, they are unable to prove it. The police could spend millions of dollars combing through many square miles of land looking for the weapon (just like they could spend millions of dollars trying to hack into the device), but can they compel the defendant to reveal exactly where he buried it, even if the defendant claims he forgot?
I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion it isn't any different. My understanding of the fifth amendment is that for police absolutely cannot compel a suspect to reveal the location of a murder weapon (or incriminate themselves in any way). If investigators can demonstrate probable cause, they can obtain a search warrant to locate said weapon (and other things can be compelled, such as DNA or fingerprints). However, compelling a suspect (who is innocent until proven guilty) to reveal the location of a murder weapon would be a textbook case of self-incrimination, and a violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm sorry, maybe there is something that I'm not understanding here, but I do not believe that you answered my question.
You don't explicitly say this, but I am going to make an assumption from context that you are trying to lead me to what you believe is an obvious conclusion that Rice is the only possible person with access to this information and therefore must have been the source of the leak. If this is your logic and the only evidence that you are providing, it's easily falsifiable since more than one person (Susan Rice) knew that she requested that the names be unmasked, and more than one person had access to the intelligence report (e.g. members of the intelligence agency/agencies briefing her). Certainly, it's possible that she leaked classified information, but it's just as possible that anyone else with access to this information leaked classified information. I apologize in advance if I'm putting words mouth here, I'm just trying to find meaning in your response. Did I read this wrong?
If I'm reading this right, what actual evidence exists suggesting that Susan Rice leaked classified information in this case (again, remembering that there is no equivalence between unmasking and leaking)?
What evidence exists suggesting that Susan Rice leaked classified information in this case? Before you answer, please remember there is no equivalence between unmasking and leaking.
the Good Old Days when America was built by... LEGAL immigrants.
FTFY
In those Good Old Days when America was built by legal immigrants were also the days when America had an open immigration policy. Our current policy is broken, and the situation reflects this. We're too mired by politics to even address the policy issue, let alone the issue that it has created (approximately 7M illegal immigrants). However, the GPP argument that these immigrants are essentially eating your lunch is old and tired. It's the same argument for racist policies against the Chinese, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc. Same as it ever was.
I'd pay 10x as much for my groceries if that means my wife has less chance of being raped, and my children have less chance of being groomed by drug dealers.
Blaming rape and drug dealing on illegal immigrants is a ridiculous scapegoat with absolutely no basis in fact. The reality is the opposite of this - illegal immigrants (not accounting for the crime of illegal immigration itself) commit a tiny fraction of the crime in America, and it's very much disproportionate to their population. Illegal immigrants are less likely than natives to commit violent crime or be incarcerated.
...but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
The only problem is that the industry needs to agree to a standard, and most manufacturers aren't playing nice. An example of this is Tesla, who uses proprietary cables with their Superchargers.
You seem very certain of the future. I am not so certain. That is not to say that I disagree, I just don't share your degree of certainty.
I would be very surprised to see anything akin to Moore's law apply to battery and charging technology. Pumping more electricity into a car means dealing with not only serious heat dissipation issues but also requires a more and more massive cables. Scaling up today's 120 kW superchargers to charge in 10 to 20 minutes requires something more like 700 kW. Technically possible, but really pushing the limits.
Now, tripling the size of the batteries and then charging completely in 15 minutes will require a massive amount of electric current. Again, pushing the boundaries of thermodynamics. Possible? Yes. Probable? That's another story.
Since you can install ten Superchargers for the cost of one H2 station and since existing electric infrastructure is ubiquitous and there is no H2 infrastructure, it would seem a fools errand to start building H2 infrastructure when we already have EV infrastructure in place.
You can do all the R&D you want but you'll never overcome the basic thermodynamic inefficiency of H2 which is about 30% of an EV.
I never debated the efficiency of hydrogen. However, you can have all the infrastructure you want and you still can't get around the fact that it takes longer to charge a car than it does to fill up a tank of gas (or hydrogen).
You are missing a point. Interstate travel simply does not matter to many many (my estimation the large majority of people).
I'm not sure that I missed that point. If this was of paramount importance to all buyers, there would not be a market for EV's - and there clearly is a market. However, the market hasn't exactly eroded the ICE market (around 60k BEV's against over 17m ICE cars and light trucks sold in the US in 2015). There are many people who do enjoy the convenience that ICE's offer. Others have jobs that keep them on the road all day, and EV's just don't work for that yet.
Collectively we are sick and tiered of paying for features (massive towing capacity and huge ranges on vehicles) that people neither want nor need.
Who is we? Are you speaking for every vehicle consumer in the world? I mean, certainly you're not speaking for the massive amount of Americans who purchased pickup trucks last year. Do you have some sort of data to suggest that Americans are collectively sick of paying for this utility? On the contrary, light trucks outsell cars by quite a large margin. Surely, there are a whole lot of buyers who prefer having this utility available to them.
. The dude who needs to tow his boat long distance can go screw himself, he will have to pay double in a few years as others (via economics of scale) are subsidizing him.
That's an interesting attitude. How are others subsidizing towing? My understanding is that roads are mainly funded by fuel taxes, and towing (or even having a large vehicle that is capable of towing) uses more fuel, generating more taxes. Anyone hauling a boat around is already paying more than double than someone driving a mid-sized sedan. Interestingly, we're subsidizing EV's significantly more than large vehicles towing boats. Beyond the state and federal subsidies for the vehicles themselves, EV's don't generate any tax revenue and do not help to fund the roads that they travel on. Even further, due to the weight of batteries, most EV's are very heavy and thus cause more wear and tear on the road than lighter vehicles. I'm not suggesting that subsidizing EV's is a bad thing...but it's disingenuous to suggest that heavy ICE vehicles are somehow subsidized and EV's aren't.
I'm not trying to suggest that electric cars are terribly impractical and will never feasible. However, your position doesn't reflect the reality of the current market.
So why can't existing gas stations install superchargers, or something similar? They all have electric service, and H2 pumps would necessitate installing new tanks and new pumps.
Sure - why not? It seems like a lot of the discussion revolves around a notion that these two energy storage technologies must be mutually exclusive. I don't think that it has to be. Perhaps FCV's will never live up to their promise. I'm just not ready to write them off just yet...especially based on what is said by a co-founder of an electric car company.
Take a look at Tesla's map of Superchargers. They might be plentiful where you live, but they're not ubiquitous in many parts of the country. There are massive gaps, including three large states that do not have any Superchargers, which means that even if you're willing to put up with a 30 minute charge every few hours, you're not making a cross-country trip on I-40, I-80, or I-94. Even doubling the number of Supercharger stations will not live up to the needs of many people for long distance travel (or be nearly as practical for people who travel long distances in ICE vehicles). Further, how does the existence of Superchargers fix the problem of range and amount of time to charge the battery (30 minutes every 250-300 miles is a lot of time)? Certainly, not everybody drives long distances, but at the moment, electrical cars aren't nearly as practical as ICE cars for long distance travel.
So your suggestion is to abandon development of FCV's because electric cars exist and FCV cars don't? That doesn't make sense to me. I've never suggested that EV's don't work. I believe that ongoing research & development in FCV's is a good thing. Excuse me for taking it with a grain of salt when the co-founder of an EV company says that FCV's are a terrible idea.
So, where do you recharge your H2 vehicle on long trips?
I charge my Tesla at Superchargers which are already installed just about everywhere. Drive 3-4 hours, charge 30 minutes (usually ready for some food and a break by then), drive another 3-4 hours, repeat...
Tesla Model X can tow your boat (it has a 5000 lb rated hitch).
First, you're mistaken when you say that Superchargers are installed just about everywhere. There are only 624 Supercharger stations in the entire country. There are a few very large states that do not have a single Supercharger. That just doesn't compare to the estimated 126,000 gas stations in the US.
Secondly, I believe that you're missing the point. Batteries are still not the most ideal energy storage mechanism for long-distance travel because of the time required to charge a battery (30-minutes) when compared to a more portable energy storage mechanism that can flow at up to 10 gallons per minute. Your asking where to fuel a hydrogen vehicle on a long trip is disingenuous, because a network does not exist yet. However, with sufficient demand (and technology that does not exist yet on a commercial basis), there is no reason why existing gas stations couldn't update to include hydrogen - and maybe even replace fossil fuels with hydrogen.
Finally, while a Tesla Model X can tow up to 5000 lbs, doing so reduces the vehicle range by 60%. It's great that you have a Tesla and really like it. I'm glad that it works for you. However, the idea that these cars can be all things to all people is incorrect.
Possibly, but these ships are diesel-electric and the diesel motors are buried deep enough inside of the hulls to be very quiet. Maybe not so much by military standards, but by passenger standards I'm not so sure.
Slashdot Mirror
I am all against facial recognition. But cars aren't people. And driving is a privilege, not a right.
Yes, we've all heard that old phrase, but the reality is that if you live in Fairfax county, as I do, you likely have to drive just to make a living. ...
To take it a step further, I feel that suggesting driving is a privilege is not only inaccurate, but tends to be pretty intellectually lazy. The fact is that most of our freedoms are a privilege - at least by that standard. For example, even though many believe that we have a right to life, liberty, and prosperity; using the "privilege" standard, our right to not be incarcerated is a privilege. Breaking the law will land one in prison (assuming due process of law). Further, assuming that driving a car is a privilege suggests that a drivers license can be revoked for arbitrary reasons and without any sort of due process. The fact of the matter is that it cannot. Just like being a licensed electrician isn't a privilege, rather, it's an activity that generally requires government licensure. Said licensure is not a privilege given to a select few, but a license to perform a profession issued by a sanctioning body to anyone who meets certain qualifications and cannot be revoked without cause or due process. I would argue that anything that is merely considered a privilege doesn't hold up to that standard. It's time to drop this lazy idea that so many have just accepted as fact.
Getting back to the root of the issue, whether or not driving is a right or privilege should not dictate that a person's movements are subject to government monitoring...that's what this is really all about, and this is what is at the heart of the court's ruling.
I'm curious - why are you so quick to call anyone who questions your comment or respectfully disagrees with you stupid (or other ad hominem insults that aren't germane to the discussion )?
Makes sense, and you are certainly not the first person to make the comparison. Sure, if people stop believing in the currency and try to sell all at once, its value will collapse. That goes for any currency. In this case, the main difference between a cryptocurrency and a fiat currency is that the latter has the backing of a government. However, a fiat currency can still drop to near zero value as well. I read a good quote about this a few years ago - "a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."
Cryptocurrencies are a massive Ponzi scheme. The last ones in will lose all their money. Exchanges like Coinbase should be shut down by the feds.
It sounds like you do not understand what a Ponzi scheme is. Read up, my friend. It may be a bubble, but it's not a Ponzi scheme by any definition that I've ever heard of.
Keep going
Yeah, but imagine a Beowulf cluster of three-digit users!
Hah!
It's been some time since I've used IRC. Has the protocol been updated to include group VoIP? Discord is quite good in this regard (although I find TeamSpeak's client better for gaming for several reasons).
Take one down and another will certainly pop up in its place. Maybe one of these days, admins will use local crypto to make honeypotting difficult (or impossible) for law enforcement.
I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion it isn't any different. My understanding of the fifth amendment is that for police absolutely cannot compel a suspect to reveal the location of a murder weapon (or incriminate themselves in any way). If investigators can demonstrate probable cause, they can obtain a search warrant to locate said weapon (and other things can be compelled, such as DNA or fingerprints). However, compelling a suspect (who is innocent until proven guilty) to reveal the location of a murder weapon would be a textbook case of self-incrimination, and a violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm sorry, maybe there is something that I'm not understanding here, but I do not believe that you answered my question.
You don't explicitly say this, but I am going to make an assumption from context that you are trying to lead me to what you believe is an obvious conclusion that Rice is the only possible person with access to this information and therefore must have been the source of the leak. If this is your logic and the only evidence that you are providing, it's easily falsifiable since more than one person (Susan Rice) knew that she requested that the names be unmasked, and more than one person had access to the intelligence report (e.g. members of the intelligence agency/agencies briefing her). Certainly, it's possible that she leaked classified information, but it's just as possible that anyone else with access to this information leaked classified information. I apologize in advance if I'm putting words mouth here, I'm just trying to find meaning in your response. Did I read this wrong?
If I'm reading this right, what actual evidence exists suggesting that Susan Rice leaked classified information in this case (again, remembering that there is no equivalence between unmasking and leaking)?
What evidence exists suggesting that Susan Rice leaked classified information in this case? Before you answer, please remember there is no equivalence between unmasking and leaking.
XD - you don't have a single citation to refute my comment beyond wild conjecture. Try again, please.
the Good Old Days when America was built by... LEGAL immigrants. FTFY
In those Good Old Days when America was built by legal immigrants were also the days when America had an open immigration policy. Our current policy is broken, and the situation reflects this. We're too mired by politics to even address the policy issue, let alone the issue that it has created (approximately 7M illegal immigrants). However, the GPP argument that these immigrants are essentially eating your lunch is old and tired. It's the same argument for racist policies against the Chinese, Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc. Same as it ever was.
I'd pay 10x as much for my groceries if that means my wife has less chance of being raped, and my children have less chance of being groomed by drug dealers.
Blaming rape and drug dealing on illegal immigrants is a ridiculous scapegoat with absolutely no basis in fact. The reality is the opposite of this - illegal immigrants (not accounting for the crime of illegal immigration itself) commit a tiny fraction of the crime in America, and it's very much disproportionate to their population. Illegal immigrants are less likely than natives to commit violent crime or be incarcerated.
The only problem is that the industry needs to agree to a standard, and most manufacturers aren't playing nice. An example of this is Tesla, who uses proprietary cables with their Superchargers.
You seem very certain of the future. I am not so certain. That is not to say that I disagree, I just don't share your degree of certainty.
I would be very surprised to see anything akin to Moore's law apply to battery and charging technology. Pumping more electricity into a car means dealing with not only serious heat dissipation issues but also requires a more and more massive cables. Scaling up today's 120 kW superchargers to charge in 10 to 20 minutes requires something more like 700 kW. Technically possible, but really pushing the limits.
Now, tripling the size of the batteries and then charging completely in 15 minutes will require a massive amount of electric current. Again, pushing the boundaries of thermodynamics. Possible? Yes. Probable? That's another story.
Since you can install ten Superchargers for the cost of one H2 station and since existing electric infrastructure is ubiquitous and there is no H2 infrastructure, it would seem a fools errand to start building H2 infrastructure when we already have EV infrastructure in place. You can do all the R&D you want but you'll never overcome the basic thermodynamic inefficiency of H2 which is about 30% of an EV.
I never debated the efficiency of hydrogen. However, you can have all the infrastructure you want and you still can't get around the fact that it takes longer to charge a car than it does to fill up a tank of gas (or hydrogen).
You are missing a point. Interstate travel simply does not matter to many many (my estimation the large majority of people).
I'm not sure that I missed that point. If this was of paramount importance to all buyers, there would not be a market for EV's - and there clearly is a market. However, the market hasn't exactly eroded the ICE market (around 60k BEV's against over 17m ICE cars and light trucks sold in the US in 2015). There are many people who do enjoy the convenience that ICE's offer. Others have jobs that keep them on the road all day, and EV's just don't work for that yet.
Collectively we are sick and tiered of paying for features (massive towing capacity and huge ranges on vehicles) that people neither want nor need.
Who is we? Are you speaking for every vehicle consumer in the world? I mean, certainly you're not speaking for the massive amount of Americans who purchased pickup trucks last year. Do you have some sort of data to suggest that Americans are collectively sick of paying for this utility? On the contrary, light trucks outsell cars by quite a large margin. Surely, there are a whole lot of buyers who prefer having this utility available to them.
. The dude who needs to tow his boat long distance can go screw himself, he will have to pay double in a few years as others (via economics of scale) are subsidizing him.
That's an interesting attitude. How are others subsidizing towing? My understanding is that roads are mainly funded by fuel taxes, and towing (or even having a large vehicle that is capable of towing) uses more fuel, generating more taxes. Anyone hauling a boat around is already paying more than double than someone driving a mid-sized sedan. Interestingly, we're subsidizing EV's significantly more than large vehicles towing boats. Beyond the state and federal subsidies for the vehicles themselves, EV's don't generate any tax revenue and do not help to fund the roads that they travel on. Even further, due to the weight of batteries, most EV's are very heavy and thus cause more wear and tear on the road than lighter vehicles. I'm not suggesting that subsidizing EV's is a bad thing...but it's disingenuous to suggest that heavy ICE vehicles are somehow subsidized and EV's aren't.
I'm not trying to suggest that electric cars are terribly impractical and will never feasible. However, your position doesn't reflect the reality of the current market.
So why can't existing gas stations install superchargers, or something similar? They all have electric service, and H2 pumps would necessitate installing new tanks and new pumps.
Sure - why not? It seems like a lot of the discussion revolves around a notion that these two energy storage technologies must be mutually exclusive. I don't think that it has to be. Perhaps FCV's will never live up to their promise. I'm just not ready to write them off just yet...especially based on what is said by a co-founder of an electric car company.
Why not simply have replaceable batteries that you swap?
That's an awesome idea. I'd love to see it play out.
Take a look at Tesla's map of Superchargers. They might be plentiful where you live, but they're not ubiquitous in many parts of the country. There are massive gaps, including three large states that do not have any Superchargers, which means that even if you're willing to put up with a 30 minute charge every few hours, you're not making a cross-country trip on I-40, I-80, or I-94. Even doubling the number of Supercharger stations will not live up to the needs of many people for long distance travel (or be nearly as practical for people who travel long distances in ICE vehicles). Further, how does the existence of Superchargers fix the problem of range and amount of time to charge the battery (30 minutes every 250-300 miles is a lot of time)? Certainly, not everybody drives long distances, but at the moment, electrical cars aren't nearly as practical as ICE cars for long distance travel.
So your suggestion is to abandon development of FCV's because electric cars exist and FCV cars don't? That doesn't make sense to me. I've never suggested that EV's don't work. I believe that ongoing research & development in FCV's is a good thing. Excuse me for taking it with a grain of salt when the co-founder of an EV company says that FCV's are a terrible idea.
So, where do you recharge your H2 vehicle on long trips? I charge my Tesla at Superchargers which are already installed just about everywhere. Drive 3-4 hours, charge 30 minutes (usually ready for some food and a break by then), drive another 3-4 hours, repeat... Tesla Model X can tow your boat (it has a 5000 lb rated hitch).
First, you're mistaken when you say that Superchargers are installed just about everywhere. There are only 624 Supercharger stations in the entire country. There are a few very large states that do not have a single Supercharger. That just doesn't compare to the estimated 126,000 gas stations in the US.
Secondly, I believe that you're missing the point. Batteries are still not the most ideal energy storage mechanism for long-distance travel because of the time required to charge a battery (30-minutes) when compared to a more portable energy storage mechanism that can flow at up to 10 gallons per minute. Your asking where to fuel a hydrogen vehicle on a long trip is disingenuous, because a network does not exist yet. However, with sufficient demand (and technology that does not exist yet on a commercial basis), there is no reason why existing gas stations couldn't update to include hydrogen - and maybe even replace fossil fuels with hydrogen.
Finally, while a Tesla Model X can tow up to 5000 lbs, doing so reduces the vehicle range by 60%. It's great that you have a Tesla and really like it. I'm glad that it works for you. However, the idea that these cars can be all things to all people is incorrect.
A nuclear powered cruise ship exists. Technically, she's an icebreaker, but she has and does take passengers on cruise expeditions.
Possibly, but these ships are diesel-electric and the diesel motors are buried deep enough inside of the hulls to be very quiet. Maybe not so much by military standards, but by passenger standards I'm not so sure.
Nope - entirely different part of the criminal code. Look it up.