An instance of how the bookkeeping can quickly become problematic: when an observer on earth surface sees a falling charge, does the observer see radiation? What does that say about conservation of momentum and energy? Since the observer sees an accelerating charge, is there reaction radiation slowing down the charge? ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/00... )
What, no third option between the other two of 'oh yes there is an effect but we overlooked something so that it does conserve momentum'? It's hard to know whether your math model with all of its simplifications really fits the reality.
Agreed, but to be fair it would signify a problem with the bookkeeping of the electromagnetic radiation. Now I realize this bookkeeping can at times be quite tricky but since this should be a case that can be handled fully with classical electromagnetism, it would be extraordinary if proven.
I can. Distrusting mainstream opinion and then reading some 'doubter' book should be enough. There are plenty enough questions one can ask to make people doubt. The idea that it's all very simple is false. I mentioned Hilberg in another post but here's an article by Finkelstein on Hilberg arguing the same: that it's easy to raise doubts that can trip the nonexperts. He also mentions what garbage people have gotten away if as long as they acknowledged the Holocaust. In the middle east it's more of 'Like I'm going to give the Jews the satisfaction of acknowledging the Holocaust! No way!' So that depends a lot on whether Israel has been bombing anyone recently.
I've used the same approach on other issues. Two things one can learn from that are 1. reality is messy and contradictory and solid proof is hard work. In fact on the Final SolutionRaul Hilberg has said the same: (my paraphrasing)it is difficult to prove but anyway here's the proof. 2. Don't underestimate how convincing the bullshit theories can be.
I never found a single source that claimed The Holocaust never actually happened
I find that hard to believe, but I'm not going to investigate it.
Assange denies what? That the Podesta mails came from the Russians. But a claim that the Russians hacked the elections could mean anything so that denial becomes impossible. Also, because there is always a level of spying activity there is always some truth to general statements as well. That's how it evolves: a general concern about Russian cyberstuff which will always turn up something real, but it's still just FUD.
Of course it will matter. Regardless of whatever the facts are , the intent is to polarize against Russia and thus preempt any efforts Trump will do to normalize relations with them.
Seems to turn out into a disaster according to this guy https://www.project-syndicate.... Interesting , these draconian measures. Standard question to ask is who are the power players and what was their position before the decision.
I am not sure Amazon is unhappy with the current situation. The word that used to apply to a program like the Grand Tour is 'traffic builder': it causes people to join, to enter, to get a subscription. Once they are in they can buy other things. So how many subscriptions has Amazon gotten out of TGT already? That number is what they're interested in. The illegal/indirect viewers are interesting because these are a potential extra source of income.
A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.
That's more or less what Snowden has shown, that the NSA has gone off the rails in their megalomanic ambition to collect everything about everyone. And you can be sure that a lot of people who work at the NSA have paid attention. And that they have a lot less patriotic pride to motivate them now, which helps if you get paid more elsewhere. And Obama has given the NSA more power and is now transfering that power to Trump.
So it's plausible that they don't want to be any part of it anymore, but it's still speculation. What if these people who are leaving are now just going to do the same job as contractor? I have no idea. You sure can't trust Keith Alexander on it because he's in complete denial: oh, so it's just an image problem. A PR issue!
"What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."
So the time locked up may be short, but the legal impact on your life can be great.
actually a lot of people die in county jails but it's hard to get the data, which should demonstrate the lack of oversight. http://data.huffingtonpost.com...
The outcome of 'which is least evil' choice would also have been Clinton for me. Don't rock the boat, business as usual, even if there can be some 'boiling the frog' effects. But it's not that obvious. Clinton is as establisment as it gets and she is quite hawkish. I see the current attitudes towards Russia as highly risky , with a very real possibility of escalating into nuclear war. Trump's attitude is a lot more sound there. Trump is a bull in a chinashop. Trump's endeavors may be mostly blocked by the big players, and he may even turn out to be quite compliant in that respect. though for instance economical confidence is not easily controlled. But against the weaker players he can do serious damage. Coincidentally we just got this huge security apparatus installed to help him with that. You know, 'trust us, we will use all that power only to do good'.
I'm expecting a lot more "reality checks" as he approaches the White House - like Obama's promise to shut down Gitmo, it sounds simple enough, until you learn all the facts.
This. You could see the same with Obama: remarkable continuity in many respects in comparison with the previous administration. There can be many reasons for this, and his ideas not being as progressive as some think is only a small part. You learn to take in account factors you disregarded before: for instance you can't cross the pentagon and you have to support the Saudis . And even where you think you could make changes, it turns out you don't have the power. There's a remarkable long interview Obama had with Jeffrey Goldberg where it it transpires if often didn't agree with his own policies ( http://www.theatlantic.com/mag... ). And of course Obama does appear to take on the role a bit of a manager who doesn't interfere unless people do something very stupid.
So in many respects it's possible Trump won't make much difference. But I think it's hard to predict. If he does make a lot of difference it will be because there are big players supporting him. For instance I think Trump can succeed in bringing us closer to Russia because "after all, Russia is peanuts and the real enemy is China". As long as we have an official enemy, the big players can go along.
2000 lbs is a bit excessive. Sure they can shed weight, just reduce autonomy . But A Nissan GTR has 1,740 kg (3,840 lb), fill the tank and you have 3900lbs . It's full of electronic aids and it's not a purist car but it handles well.
Tesla S weight: 1,961 kg (4,323 lb) (60)[7]
2,085 kg (4,597 lb) (60D)[8]
2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (70D)[9]
2,108 kg (4,647 lb) (85)
2,188 kg (4,824 lb) (85D)[8]
2,239 kg (4,936 lb) (P85D)[8]
But the comparison I was thinking of was the Panamera. 2100kg filled up. The recent models handle very well(ok so I only read about that). It's possible.
I agree though not too vocally because things could change. I'm not sure how they handle currently but I think they can be made to handle pretty well. A lot of progress has been made with suspension on heavy cars and Tesla has the advantage of low center of gravity.
Well, I think there are a lot of different ways to own a sportscar. Most sportscar owners just want to own it. Many want a car that impresses people. Some want to experience a bit of thrust and a nice sound. Some want performance figures. Some want to experience musclecars. Is that sportscars? Some just want to compete in the marketplace of attention. The hardcore driver that just wants to exercise skill , that just wants to drive? Tiny minority in the sportscar sector. So yes there's room for the Tesla Roadster. Not for people coming from a Lotus though.
Slashdot Mirror
An instance of how the bookkeeping can quickly become problematic: when an observer on earth surface sees a falling charge, does the observer see radiation? What does that say about conservation of momentum and energy? Since the observer sees an accelerating charge, is there reaction radiation slowing down the charge? ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/00... )
What, no third option between the other two of 'oh yes there is an effect but we overlooked something so that it does conserve momentum'?
It's hard to know whether your math model with all of its simplifications really fits the reality.
Agreed, but to be fair it would signify a problem with the bookkeeping of the electromagnetic radiation. Now I realize this bookkeeping can at times be quite tricky but since this should be a case that can be handled fully with classical electromagnetism, it would be extraordinary if proven.
That's also why I don't believe it...
There's another version that's worthwile .. http://halfmanhalfbiscuit.uk/f...
But anyway I agree. I think that's the main lesson here. A very bad precedent.
I can. Distrusting mainstream opinion and then reading some 'doubter' book should be enough. There are plenty enough questions one can ask to make people doubt. The idea that it's all very simple is false.
I mentioned Hilberg in another post but here's an article by Finkelstein on Hilberg arguing the same: that it's easy to raise doubts that can trip the nonexperts. He also mentions what garbage people have gotten away if as long as they acknowledged the Holocaust.
In the middle east it's more of 'Like I'm going to give the Jews the satisfaction of acknowledging the Holocaust! No way!' So that depends a lot on whether Israel has been bombing anyone recently.
I've used the same approach on other issues. Two things one can learn from that are
1. reality is messy and contradictory and solid proof is hard work. In fact on the Final SolutionRaul Hilberg has said the same: (my paraphrasing)it is difficult to prove but anyway here's the proof.
2. Don't underestimate how convincing the bullshit theories can be.
I find that hard to believe, but I'm not going to investigate it.
Assange denies what? That the Podesta mails came from the Russians. But a claim that the Russians hacked the elections could mean anything so that denial becomes impossible. Also, because there is always a level of spying activity there is always some truth to general statements as well. That's how it evolves: a general concern about Russian cyberstuff which will always turn up something real, but it's still just FUD.
Of course it will matter. Regardless of whatever the facts are , the intent is to polarize against Russia and thus preempt any efforts Trump will do to normalize relations with them.
Seems to turn out into a disaster according to this guy
https://www.project-syndicate....
Interesting , these draconian measures. Standard question to ask is who are the power players and what was their position before the decision.
I am not sure Amazon is unhappy with the current situation. The word that used to apply to a program like the Grand Tour is 'traffic builder': it causes people to join, to enter, to get a subscription. Once they are in they can buy other things. So how many subscriptions has Amazon gotten out of TGT already? That number is what they're interested in. The illegal/indirect viewers are interesting because these are a potential extra source of income.
Of course these aren't computer students from Syria. It's remarkable that you're the only one pointing this out.
So is the complaint about people leaving the NSA or about them leaving the NSA subcontractors?
That's more or less what Snowden has shown, that the NSA has gone off the rails in their megalomanic ambition to collect everything about everyone. And you can be sure that a lot of people who work at the NSA have paid attention. And that they have a lot less patriotic pride to motivate them now, which helps if you get paid more elsewhere. And Obama has given the NSA more power and is now transfering that power to Trump.
So it's plausible that they don't want to be any part of it anymore, but it's still speculation. What if these people who are leaving are now just going to do the same job as contractor? I have no idea. You sure can't trust Keith Alexander on it because he's in complete denial: oh, so it's just an image problem. A PR issue!
Aha! No, it's watchers all the way down.
actually a lot of people die in county jails but it's hard to get the data, which should demonstrate the lack of oversight.
http://data.huffingtonpost.com...
Pity they gave up so soon, I'm convinced Ytterby had still more names in it,
The outcome of 'which is least evil' choice would also have been Clinton for me. Don't rock the boat, business as usual, even if there can be some 'boiling the frog' effects. But it's not that obvious. Clinton is as establisment as it gets and she is quite hawkish.
I see the current attitudes towards Russia as highly risky , with a very real possibility of escalating into nuclear war.
Trump's attitude is a lot more sound there.
Trump is a bull in a chinashop. Trump's endeavors may be mostly blocked by the big players, and he may even turn out to be quite compliant in that respect. though for instance economical confidence is not easily controlled. But against the weaker players he can do serious damage.
Coincidentally we just got this huge security apparatus installed to help him with that. You know, 'trust us, we will use all that power only to do good'.
This. You could see the same with Obama: remarkable continuity in many respects in comparison with the previous administration. There can be many reasons for this, and his ideas not being as progressive as some think is only a small part. You learn to take in account factors you disregarded before: for instance you can't cross the pentagon and you have to support the Saudis . And even where you think you could make changes, it turns out you don't have the power. There's a remarkable long interview Obama had with Jeffrey Goldberg where it it transpires if often didn't agree with his own policies ( http://www.theatlantic.com/mag... ). And of course Obama does appear to take on the role a bit of a manager who doesn't interfere unless people do something very stupid.
So in many respects it's possible Trump won't make much difference. But I think it's hard to predict. If he does make a lot of difference it will be because there are big players supporting him. For instance I think Trump can succeed in bringing us closer to Russia because "after all, Russia is peanuts and the real enemy is China". As long as we have an official enemy, the big players can go along.
Trump used the word 'connectivity'! Ok, it's maybe a little out of place but where did he get those long words?
2000 lbs is a bit excessive. Sure they can shed weight, just reduce autonomy . But A Nissan GTR has 1,740 kg (3,840 lb), fill the tank and you have 3900lbs . It's full of electronic aids and it's not a purist car but it handles well.
Tesla S weight:
1,961 kg (4,323 lb) (60)[7]
2,085 kg (4,597 lb) (60D)[8]
2,090 kg (4,608 lb) (70D)[9]
2,108 kg (4,647 lb) (85)
2,188 kg (4,824 lb) (85D)[8]
2,239 kg (4,936 lb) (P85D)[8]
But the comparison I was thinking of was the Panamera. 2100kg filled up. The recent models handle very well(ok so I only read about that). It's possible.
So he was a speeder who liked to prey on people who thought they had found a place where they fool around without bothering anyone. Interesting person
i can see that. But it's 40 years. Then there's worse things.
I agree though not too vocally because things could change. I'm not sure how they handle currently but I think they can be made to handle pretty well. A lot of progress has been made with suspension on heavy cars and Tesla has the advantage of low center of gravity.
When people ask why I drive a smart. I just reply I'm compensating for something.
Well, I think there are a lot of different ways to own a sportscar. Most sportscar owners just want to own it. Many want a car that impresses people. Some want to experience a bit of thrust and a nice sound. Some want performance figures. Some want to experience musclecars. Is that sportscars? Some just want to compete in the marketplace of attention.
The hardcore driver that just wants to exercise skill , that just wants to drive? Tiny minority in the sportscar sector. So yes there's room for the Tesla Roadster.
Not for people coming from a Lotus though.