No actually, having a journalistic intermediary that does vetting and filtering is a better approach. One of the -false- accusations against wikileaks was their undiscriminate leaking of classified documents.
As the previous reply points out, the silver arrows in the thirties also got around 500hp, both Mercedes and Auto Union. That's the racing cars, the cars for speed records had more. The mortality was similarly high as well: carnage. Still, I'm not sure if 'too powerful to control' describes the problem well. You could see things in terms of unbalance between components but I think the large reductions in casualties were achieved by looking at what you do when things go wrong. And that means making crashes less lethal. And in F1 this happened when the attitudes changed with Jackie Stewart. In Group B it happened when a lot of bystanders got killed and security was increased. It was not mainly the cars were too dangerous (ok, a bit, physics), but because group B attracted a lot of people and regard for safety was low.
A lot of what Pickens is saying here is about what makes people successful, regardless of whether they're smart or not. And the main thing that matters most, even more than talent, in making people successful is full singleminded commitment. As for talent, having 'enough' talent suffices. Obviously I know cases where full commitment is not going to be enough.
Nuclear subs use electrolysis so that option is realistic. Gills aren't a plausible solution for anything - but if one would ask where conceivably they might ever be used, then an underwater station on a location with decent water currents sounds already a lot more plausible than a scuba diving outfit.
A system of gills would have to be combined with a closed circuit of air so the nitrogen is recycled, and a filter to absorb carbon dioxide as they do in submarines. One could imagine a submarine station with huge gills to provide air for the occupants. But making it compact enough to carry it around seems like a challenge of another order.
Ahem. For each person who is paid for character assassination stuff there are very many people who very much want to believe the FUD. No need to start seeing hired slashdot commenters everywhere.
He's saying that there is evidence that Snowden is not some heroic patriot, but just a regular old spy that got paid off by the Russians or Chinese, and is just using the domestic spying to help get the public on his side and make it more difficult for the U.S. government to catch/prosecute him. And even if that is not the case, he still exposed a lot of the U.S.'s international spying efforts which could potentially cause immediate harm to U.S. forces overseas, in addition to exposing the domestic spying.
That's called throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Of course there are rumors that Snowden is a regular spy. "reportedly there is evidence" is a rumor. There are people whose full time job it is to spread those rumors about all NSA/CIA whistleblowers. It's standard procedure. As for claims about damaging the US interests this is also standard procedure against a lot of journalism. Where are you going to put the bar? With criteria saying you should be able to prove that what you're publishing cannot absolutely damage US interests you're never going to be able to publish anything that says "hey guys, our government is fucking us over". That is not how things should work, even if your government would very much like it that way. Journalism should publish except in clearcut extreme cases.
Yeah, we should have had a few more supernovas to harvest from. But still it's nice to know that we have materials that in principle allow to make an incandescent lamp that is an energy saver
did anyone else here gag when reading in the post that incandescent bulbs are 10% efficient?
I did. now, if they ever manage to make (cheap) filaments from something like Tantalum-Hafnium-Carbide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum_hafnium_carbide they will be efficient, maybe even at energy-saver-numbers
This is just COINTELPRO updated for the age of social media.
Interesting comparison. I recall Chomsky saying that Watergate is often referred to as the the good old days when there was serious hardhitting journalism, but those were also the days when COINTELPRO was uncovered and nobody cared.
Sure there will be such cases, but mostly the conflict is between old style prejudices that date from a time when things weren't as public and there weren't as many opportunities for moral outrage , with a modern time that offers a flood of information that makes your private thoughts suddenly a lot more public.
A more realist reaction would be to be a lot more tolerant towards inappropriate thoughts.
That is nicely put and concise. I would add that (my guess) belief systems have a major impact both on psychopaths and non-psychopaths. And I don't know if psychopaths may be more amenable to do very ugly things than non-psychopaths. A belief system of the type "The world is a jungle and you have to be ruthless and stop at nothing" can have very ugly effects at times. Likewise 'a leader has to have a big picture vision and should do what it takes to achieve it and not be afraid to break a few eggs on the way'.
And will the dispenser shove the car forward by rotating this large corkscrew device after which the car plummets down from large height into the tray?
Slashdot Mirror
No actually, having a journalistic intermediary that does vetting and filtering is a better approach. One of the -false- accusations against wikileaks was their undiscriminate leaking of classified documents.
You have to run it in reverse obviously
As the previous reply points out, the silver arrows in the thirties also got around 500hp, both Mercedes and Auto Union. That's the racing cars, the cars for speed records had more. The mortality was similarly high as well: carnage. Still, I'm not sure if 'too powerful to control' describes the problem well. You could see things in terms of unbalance between components but I think the large reductions in casualties were achieved by looking at what you do when things go wrong. And that means making crashes less lethal. And in F1 this happened when the attitudes changed with Jackie Stewart. In Group B it happened when a lot of bystanders got killed and security was increased. It was not mainly the cars were too dangerous (ok, a bit, physics), but because group B attracted a lot of people and regard for safety was low.
I want to do research on the subject of predictive models for global-warming skepticism.
A lot of what Pickens is saying here is about what makes people successful, regardless of whether they're smart or not. And the main thing that matters most, even more than talent, in making people successful is full singleminded commitment. As for talent, having 'enough' talent suffices. Obviously I know cases where full commitment is not going to be enough.
Nuclear subs use electrolysis so that option is realistic. Gills aren't a plausible solution for anything - but if one would ask where conceivably they might ever be used, then an underwater station on a location with decent water currents sounds already a lot more plausible than a scuba diving outfit.
A system of gills would have to be combined with a closed circuit of air so the nitrogen is recycled, and a filter to absorb carbon dioxide as they do in submarines. One could imagine a submarine station with huge gills to provide air for the occupants. But making it compact enough to carry it around seems like a challenge of another order.
Yes. the user is not aware of his/her consent, since signing whatever purchase agreement includes this consent.
Next step: don't try switching over to a GM car, or we might get sloppy with your data and it might get into the wrong hands
Ahem. For each person who is paid for character assassination stuff there are very many people who very much want to believe the FUD. No need to start seeing hired slashdot commenters everywhere.
That's called throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Of course there are rumors that Snowden is a regular spy. "reportedly there is evidence" is a rumor. There are people whose full time job it is to spread those rumors about all NSA/CIA whistleblowers. It's standard procedure. As for claims about damaging the US interests this is also standard procedure against a lot of journalism. Where are you going to put the bar? With criteria saying you should be able to prove that what you're publishing cannot absolutely damage US interests you're never going to be able to publish anything that says "hey guys, our government is fucking us over". That is not how things should work, even if your government would very much like it that way.
Journalism should publish except in clearcut extreme cases.
It wouldn't be a bad idea actually. A worthy successor of the Tumult of Bologna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tumult_of_Bologna
I predict you're going to correctly foresee hoots of derision heaped upon this story. Sometime between now and the next 20 years
I think that possibility is deliberately left open. The clutter may hide content, or it may not.
Mobile Vikings appears to be small indeed. Someone had had a pressing urge to see tipping points.
Yeah, we should have had a few more supernovas to harvest from. But still it's nice to know that we have materials that in principle allow to make an incandescent lamp that is an energy saver
I did. now, if they ever manage to make (cheap) filaments from something like Tantalum-Hafnium-Carbide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum_hafnium_carbide they will be efficient, maybe even at energy-saver-numbers
Knowledgeable sources claim that scientific progress should go 'Boink' actually.
Interesting comparison. I recall Chomsky saying that Watergate is often referred to as the the good old days when there was serious hardhitting journalism, but those were also the days when COINTELPRO was uncovered and nobody cared.
That would go too far.
Sure there will be such cases, but mostly the conflict is between old style prejudices that date from a time when things weren't as public and there weren't as many opportunities for moral outrage , with a modern time that offers a flood of information that makes your private thoughts suddenly a lot more public.
A more realist reaction would be to be a lot more tolerant towards inappropriate thoughts.
Any american beer? The most recent number I know is there are over 2700 breweries.
That's very interesting. How should I interpret this averaging? Does God have one ball and one tit?
That is nicely put and concise. I would add that (my guess) belief systems have a major impact both on psychopaths and non-psychopaths. And I don't know if psychopaths may be more amenable to do very ugly things than non-psychopaths.
A belief system of the type "The world is a jungle and you have to be ruthless and stop at nothing" can have very ugly effects at times. Likewise 'a leader has to have a big picture vision and should do what it takes to achieve it and not be afraid to break a few eggs on the way'.
maybe psychopaths are not as one-dimensional as you think.
And will the dispenser shove the car forward by rotating this large corkscrew device after which the car plummets down from large height into the tray?