Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
And if we are talking about being respectful, is it right to be discussing her body in this manner? What right do you have to inspect her body or check her medical history so that you can make up your mind on which pronouns to use?
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender. Chances are you have met trans people without realizing it, and assumed a cis woman with unusual physical proportions was trans when she wasn't. You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them.
If the US actually has correspondence between Assange and Manning, where Assange offers to crack a password (successful or not), then it would completely destroy Wikileak's pure journalism claims and Assange is guilty of attempted espionage.
Not at all. Journalism does sometimes involved doing things without authorization in order to expose greater crimes. Examples include secret recordings, trespassing, and taking prohibited photographs. For example, it would be impossible to report on some of the things that happen in North Korea if journalists obeyed all NK laws.
You had not brushed or flossed your teeth, but there was no plaque build up? Perhaps you meant something else.
When you say you avoided all sugar and plants, does that include in beverages? Because aside from water there isn't much you can drink that doesn't contain some plant derivative in it.
It's really not a regulatory issue. If you look at a lot of the accidents in the nuclear industry, they were because the industry and the regulator were too close and the regulator lacked teeth.
The issue is that new designs are a risky investment. They take a lot of money to develop from paper to prototype to working commercial reactor, and often issues are discovered that delay things and add additional costs.
That's why it's mostly governments investing in new designs. The risk is too high and the time before seeing a return too long for the commercial sector.
Oh, and I should mention that we have more than enough renewable energy for the entire country in the UK. Particularly in the north there is a vast amount of untapped wind power, enough for us and to export to the rest of Europe.
The government isn't keen on exploiting it though, because it worries that being dependent on Scotland for energy could be a problem if/when Soctland becomes independent.
The aversion to new technology is not regulatory, it's risk based. Investors have been burned by things like thorium reactors that were supposed to be wonderful but ended up being hugely problematic and going way over the expected budget.
The government had to offer that insane price for nuclear generated electricity because no-one wanted to built Hinkley C. Even with the massive subsidy they had difficulty convincing the French and Chinese to do it. The French company, EDF, has been struggling to come off government welfare in it's home country, and has a number of failing nuclear projects around Europe that it's become mired in.
They did try to get several other companies to built it, but all declined. It's that risky and that unattractive already, let alone if they also wanted it based on a new design.
The plant site is mostly stable now, it will just take decades and trillions of yen to decommission. The big problem is that the decontamination of the surrounding area is still failing.
They have been trying to decontaminate the area since 2011. They tried things like removing the top layer of soil, removing vegetation, removing old buildings, and washing. Some areas have been decontaminated 5 times now and still have hot spots over the legal limits.
At this point it's too late to save those communities. Too many people have established lives elsewhere and now have no desire to return, only to be compensated for their losses. Even the compensation claims are still going through litigation, and likely will be for decades.
Decommissioning the plant really is the least problematic part of this disaster.
The UK doesn't have a NIMBY problem with new nuclear. Permission was already granted, on the same site as existing reactors, no objections possible.
They still used the same old designs because the cost was already completely insane and adding further risk with new technology would have been unacceptable to investors and the government that was subsidising it.
The electricity it generates has a guaranteed price of £92.50/MWh, at least double current wind prices. By the time it's finished it will be costing about double wind + battery. It also gives control of critical parts of our energy infrastructure to the French and the Chinese government.
Kona will get you maybe 230 if you hammer it, with a 64kWh usable pack. Extrapolating an 80kWh pack in a similarly efficient car should do the trick, certainly no more than 100kWh. Jaguar, Audi and Tesla all have cars with that class of battery, not to mention BYD and several others in China.
So really it's just a question of waiting for the cost to come down. The actual tech is fine.
With the latest generation of chargers you can charge at around 1200 MPH. So with a 300 mile battery, at 80 MPH that's 3.5 hours solid driving and a 15 minute stop to charge up again.
Say you want to drive for 12 hours in a single session, covering 960 miles on a magical traffic free road where you can do a constant 80 MPH. You have a mighty bladder of steel and eat while driving one-handed, so you only need to stop when the car forces you to.
In a 300 mile range EV you will need to spend 45 minutes charging. In a fossil car with 500 mile tank you will need to spend let's say 5 minutes pumping gas and paying for it. So a saving of 5.5% on time in the absolute worst case.
In other words, batteries are already good enough for even the most masochistic road warrior.
In The Tick, Chairface Chippendale tried to carve his name into the moon with a giant laser so it would be visible from earth. He only got as far as "CHA" before The Tick stopped him.
Maybe not their goal, but it's what they ended up doing. I doubt cars like the Ioniq, Kona, Soul, Niro, eGolf, eUp, i3, e309, iMev and Polestar 2 would have existed without Nissan and Renault. Everyone would have been waiting for Tesla to demonstrate that affordable EVs were possible, profitable and desirable, and we wouldn't have vast charging networks in Europe either.
What I'm saying is there's plenty of credit to go round
We agree on that.
I did try the Zoe out but it was a bit small so ended up with a Leaf. Got a Niro on order now but keeping options open. For some reason we got the cheaper interior and having sat in some I'm not as enthusiastic as I was.
Only in the sense that they can't fly by the normal laws of physics, only by magic. They clearly are magic, given that their "mother" became fire-proof (but not her clothes, natch).
It's basically impossible to live an ethical life these days because the world is too integrated and interconnected. Every action can be eventually traced back to some badness of some kind.
Yes I've been watching The Good Place, but it's probably true.
I know that's why Musk says he did it, and Tesla deserves some credit. But it's always Tesla getting all the credit, when actually have been able to buy a new Renault Zoe for 20k and do 180 miles on a charge (motorway driving) since before the Model 3 was available.
Any affordable EVs available today were more likely influenced by Nissan and Renault than by Tesla. I doubt VW would have released the eGolf and eUp if the Leaf/Zoe hadn't proven they were viable and in-demand. Ditto the Ioniq, which set a new standard for EV efficiency that is even better than the Model 3.
I'm more included to congratulate Nissan and Renault. We are now seeing affordable, long range EVs and an a proliferation of public charging networks. They did a lot to promote commercial use of EVs too, especially as taxis, and made the economic case for those cars.
They demonstrated that EVs could sell as normal cars without having to have a Musk/Jobs style reality distortion field around them.
Nissan were there building nation wide charging networks before the Model S was even available. Putting EVs in the hands of ordinary people, not just the wealthy.
Most socialist nations do not forcibly relocate people. They do require you to be looking for work if you are able to do it, but only within reasonable parameters like being near where you live and paying enough to afford your mortgage.
There is actually less pressure to work than in a capitalist system because you don't be destitute and/or die if you don't move to where work is.
Many Chinese sellers work on the understanding that negative reviews are punishment for not making the customer happy. They think that if they give you a refund and apologise you should not punish them, and get annoyed if you do.
There is also a tendency to look at complaints as haggling. If you say the product is crap they will often offer you a partial refund, i.e. they take it to mean that you don't think it was worth what you paid but you might accept a lower price.
Both cultures are slowly adapting to each other as the middle-men step back from being vendors to just offering a marketplace and allowing customers and manufacturers to communicate directly.
For example if they are selling an external HDD they will combine reviews for the 1TB, 2TB, 4TB and 6TB versions. Maybe the 6TB version is total crap, high failure rate, used a cheaper type of drive, but because the other versions are good you mostly see 5 star reviews.
Another problem is products change over time. A 5 star review from 6 months ago may not apply to the current version where they downgraded the materials or switched to a different part.
If something is completely useless I give it a one star review.
As a recent example I bought a module for a dev board I and, it turns out it doesn't fit the dev board and the description is completely wrong. It's useless for the intended purpose.
The other classic one is a good item that some other seller takes over supplying but substitutes with an inferior version. Suddenly you get lots of one star reviews from upset customers expecting the good version.
That's the kind of thing you read one star reviews for.
I've been there too, and completely agree. Traffic safety is basically non-existent. People use their horns a lot, often when making ordinary manoeuvres, just to make sure everyone else is paying attention. Of course the problem is that people quickly start to tune the sound out.
Slashdot Mirror
But his name is his name.
Why is it okay to insist you use her actual, legal name, but not her actual, legal gender and associated pronouns?
And if we are talking about being respectful, is it right to be discussing her body in this manner? What right do you have to inspect her body or check her medical history so that you can make up your mind on which pronouns to use?
Anyway, your eyes are not reliable instruments for determining gender. Chances are you have met trans people without realizing it, and assumed a cis woman with unusual physical proportions was trans when she wasn't. You are welcome to your personal arbitrary definition of gender, but you have no right to force it on other people or treat them in any way that dehumanizes them.
If the US actually has correspondence between Assange and Manning, where Assange offers to crack a password (successful or not), then it would completely destroy Wikileak's pure journalism claims and Assange is guilty of attempted espionage.
Not at all. Journalism does sometimes involved doing things without authorization in order to expose greater crimes. Examples include secret recordings, trespassing, and taking prohibited photographs. For example, it would be impossible to report on some of the things that happen in North Korea if journalists obeyed all NK laws.
You had not brushed or flossed your teeth, but there was no plaque build up? Perhaps you meant something else.
When you say you avoided all sugar and plants, does that include in beverages? Because aside from water there isn't much you can drink that doesn't contain some plant derivative in it.
Have you got an example of a nuclear plant that took 25 years just to get through the regulatory process?
It's really not a regulatory issue. If you look at a lot of the accidents in the nuclear industry, they were because the industry and the regulator were too close and the regulator lacked teeth.
The issue is that new designs are a risky investment. They take a lot of money to develop from paper to prototype to working commercial reactor, and often issues are discovered that delay things and add additional costs.
That's why it's mostly governments investing in new designs. The risk is too high and the time before seeing a return too long for the commercial sector.
Oh, and I should mention that we have more than enough renewable energy for the entire country in the UK. Particularly in the north there is a vast amount of untapped wind power, enough for us and to export to the rest of Europe.
The government isn't keen on exploiting it though, because it worries that being dependent on Scotland for energy could be a problem if/when Soctland becomes independent.
The aversion to new technology is not regulatory, it's risk based. Investors have been burned by things like thorium reactors that were supposed to be wonderful but ended up being hugely problematic and going way over the expected budget.
The government had to offer that insane price for nuclear generated electricity because no-one wanted to built Hinkley C. Even with the massive subsidy they had difficulty convincing the French and Chinese to do it. The French company, EDF, has been struggling to come off government welfare in it's home country, and has a number of failing nuclear projects around Europe that it's become mired in.
They did try to get several other companies to built it, but all declined. It's that risky and that unattractive already, let alone if they also wanted it based on a new design.
The plant site is mostly stable now, it will just take decades and trillions of yen to decommission. The big problem is that the decontamination of the surrounding area is still failing.
They have been trying to decontaminate the area since 2011. They tried things like removing the top layer of soil, removing vegetation, removing old buildings, and washing. Some areas have been decontaminated 5 times now and still have hot spots over the legal limits.
At this point it's too late to save those communities. Too many people have established lives elsewhere and now have no desire to return, only to be compensated for their losses. Even the compensation claims are still going through litigation, and likely will be for decades.
Decommissioning the plant really is the least problematic part of this disaster.
The UK doesn't have a NIMBY problem with new nuclear. Permission was already granted, on the same site as existing reactors, no objections possible.
They still used the same old designs because the cost was already completely insane and adding further risk with new technology would have been unacceptable to investors and the government that was subsidising it.
The electricity it generates has a guaranteed price of £92.50/MWh, at least double current wind prices. By the time it's finished it will be costing about double wind + battery. It also gives control of critical parts of our energy infrastructure to the French and the Chinese government.
Kona will get you maybe 230 if you hammer it, with a 64kWh usable pack. Extrapolating an 80kWh pack in a similarly efficient car should do the trick, certainly no more than 100kWh. Jaguar, Audi and Tesla all have cars with that class of battery, not to mention BYD and several others in China.
So really it's just a question of waiting for the cost to come down. The actual tech is fine.
With the latest generation of chargers you can charge at around 1200 MPH. So with a 300 mile battery, at 80 MPH that's 3.5 hours solid driving and a 15 minute stop to charge up again.
Say you want to drive for 12 hours in a single session, covering 960 miles on a magical traffic free road where you can do a constant 80 MPH. You have a mighty bladder of steel and eat while driving one-handed, so you only need to stop when the car forces you to.
In a 300 mile range EV you will need to spend 45 minutes charging. In a fossil car with 500 mile tank you will need to spend let's say 5 minutes pumping gas and paying for it. So a saving of 5.5% on time in the absolute worst case.
In other words, batteries are already good enough for even the most masochistic road warrior.
In The Tick, Chairface Chippendale tried to carve his name into the moon with a giant laser so it would be visible from earth. He only got as far as "CHA" before The Tick stopped him.
Maybe not their goal, but it's what they ended up doing. I doubt cars like the Ioniq, Kona, Soul, Niro, eGolf, eUp, i3, e309, iMev and Polestar 2 would have existed without Nissan and Renault. Everyone would have been waiting for Tesla to demonstrate that affordable EVs were possible, profitable and desirable, and we wouldn't have vast charging networks in Europe either.
What I'm saying is there's plenty of credit to go round
We agree on that.
I did try the Zoe out but it was a bit small so ended up with a Leaf. Got a Niro on order now but keeping options open. For some reason we got the cheaper interior and having sat in some I'm not as enthusiastic as I was.
Only in the sense that they can't fly by the normal laws of physics, only by magic. They clearly are magic, given that their "mother" became fire-proof (but not her clothes, natch).
Yes, and the farmer's kid too.
It's basically impossible to live an ethical life these days because the world is too integrated and interconnected. Every action can be eventually traced back to some badness of some kind.
Yes I've been watching The Good Place, but it's probably true.
I know that's why Musk says he did it, and Tesla deserves some credit. But it's always Tesla getting all the credit, when actually have been able to buy a new Renault Zoe for 20k and do 180 miles on a charge (motorway driving) since before the Model 3 was available.
Any affordable EVs available today were more likely influenced by Nissan and Renault than by Tesla. I doubt VW would have released the eGolf and eUp if the Leaf/Zoe hadn't proven they were viable and in-demand. Ditto the Ioniq, which set a new standard for EV efficiency that is even better than the Model 3.
I'm more included to congratulate Nissan and Renault. We are now seeing affordable, long range EVs and an a proliferation of public charging networks. They did a lot to promote commercial use of EVs too, especially as taxis, and made the economic case for those cars.
They demonstrated that EVs could sell as normal cars without having to have a Musk/Jobs style reality distortion field around them.
Nissan were there building nation wide charging networks before the Model S was even available. Putting EVs in the hands of ordinary people, not just the wealthy.
Most socialist nations do not forcibly relocate people. They do require you to be looking for work if you are able to do it, but only within reasonable parameters like being near where you live and paying enough to afford your mortgage.
There is actually less pressure to work than in a capitalist system because you don't be destitute and/or die if you don't move to where work is.
Many Chinese sellers work on the understanding that negative reviews are punishment for not making the customer happy. They think that if they give you a refund and apologise you should not punish them, and get annoyed if you do.
There is also a tendency to look at complaints as haggling. If you say the product is crap they will often offer you a partial refund, i.e. they take it to mean that you don't think it was worth what you paid but you might accept a lower price.
Both cultures are slowly adapting to each other as the middle-men step back from being vendors to just offering a marketplace and allowing customers and manufacturers to communicate directly.
Beware of review for the wrong product too.
For example if they are selling an external HDD they will combine reviews for the 1TB, 2TB, 4TB and 6TB versions. Maybe the 6TB version is total crap, high failure rate, used a cheaper type of drive, but because the other versions are good you mostly see 5 star reviews.
Another problem is products change over time. A 5 star review from 6 months ago may not apply to the current version where they downgraded the materials or switched to a different part.
If something is completely useless I give it a one star review.
As a recent example I bought a module for a dev board I and, it turns out it doesn't fit the dev board and the description is completely wrong. It's useless for the intended purpose.
The other classic one is a good item that some other seller takes over supplying but substitutes with an inferior version. Suddenly you get lots of one star reviews from upset customers expecting the good version.
That's the kind of thing you read one star reviews for.
That's why eBay got rid of user feedback. Now only sellers get feedback.
I've been there too, and completely agree. Traffic safety is basically non-existent. People use their horns a lot, often when making ordinary manoeuvres, just to make sure everyone else is paying attention. Of course the problem is that people quickly start to tune the sound out.