Astronaut Scott Kelly was bold enough to strap himself into a rocket, take a ride into space and stay on the ISS for a year.... But after he came back, he lacked the fortitude to tell some angry cranks to go pound sand when they got upset that he quoted Winston Churchill. He even bowed and scraped trying to get back in their good graces. That's some significant deterioration that may have been outside the scope of NASA's health research. https://www.washingtonexaminer...
.... I hope you're joking. Otherwise, you make plain the fascist, misanthropic nature of most environmentalists. You can't make your preferred product deliver the results everyone else demands, so you propose to knee-cap an effective, efficient system to make your preferred solution relatively preferable. You don't think people will figure out your scam and react accordingly? That's another problem with your sort- first order thinking. You never get around to asking, let alone answering '...and then what?' 'I want X to happen, so I'll use force of government to do Y, which will make X happen.' You never consider that other people will find your actions atrocious and do 'Z' instead. Or maybe you do understand that, and just figure you'll have such people imprisoned or shot.
Legend has it, that approach has been tried already, and the subsequently produced raw materials stank up factories and nobody wanted the stuff around.. You could say the process wasn't perfect. Refining the process further would surely require more energy and water, increasing the investment required for the speculative adventure. Your idea, while technically feasible, is not economically feasible. It sounds like a fun experiment for a university to run at the cost of several million dollars, but the economics to justify it will never be there in our lifetimes. New materials- or materials provided by existing recycling methods- will be cheaper and more pleasant to work with. (Also, adding renewable energy into the equation doesn't change much. Wind, Solar, and battery installations are significant capital investments)
Fortunately, should need arise to tap the resource of landfills for raw materials, the landfills will still be there when the time comes.
Noah Draper: 'There is no such thing as objective truth.' Is that true? I suppose you want us to make an exception for your objective truth statement that there is no objective truth, don't you?
In buying my car I never had this problem. I made the deal and said "take it or leave it" (then again, I wasn't financing). They accepted my offer and I drove off with a new car. After I test drove half a dozen on the lot to find the one I liked the best.
If you're confident in your financing you can make the same play.... but paying cash is a great approach.
Your position requires that we trust fact-checkers simply because they say they're fact-checkers.
ZombieCat said no such thing. (Then you say a bunch of things that basically agree with what I said, only you like snopes, you don't like fox)
I said his position requires 'x', not that he said 'x'.
Beyond that, you do not address the idea that partisan operatives and people in power would seek to use 'fact-checkers' to their own ends. That's an important consideration, is it not?
The first rule that those wishing to spread misinformation, fake news, etc, must follow is to first destroy the credibility of the fact checkers.
You see this all the time right here on slashdot. First destroy the credibility of all major news organizations hostile to your message. Call them "the ennemies of the people".
Then attack fact-checking organizations like Snopes. Attack their objectivity, attack their honesty. Make sure the people distrusts anyone trying to spread a message different than yours.
Finally, accuse everyone criticising your message of trying to "suppress opinions they disagree with" and attacking your "freedom of speech".
Optionnally: Do exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing, and downmod to hell anyone trying the shed light on your shady tactics and your propaganda methods, just like what's going to happen to this very post.
Your position requires that we trust fact-checkers simply because they say they're fact-checkers. This seems like an odd position to take, because trust in any sort of media organization must be built and then re-earned each day. If the fact-checkers aren't reporting facts, but are simply another brand of partisan operatives, then they don't deserve to be thought of as unbiased seekers of the truth.
And really, if you are a partisan operative, wouldn't you seek to exploit fact checkers to your benefit, if you could?
Also extremely high: "the cost of dealing with the radioactive waste materials."
"the corruption and incompetence is staggering, and far outweighs the benefits of nuclear power."... The Hanford Site was established in 1943. "... decades of manufacturing left behind 53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste..."... Humans have made a mess that humans don't know how to fix. Nuclear fission plants have never made sense, partly because of the immense problems dealing with radioactive waste.
The article you link makes it very clear that Hanford is a waste site for nuclear weapons production, not nuclear power plant fuel. You're dragging nuclear electrical power production into a historical problem from the early days of nuclear weapon production. Are you deliberately conflating the two? Can you not make your point with actual commercial nuclear power fuel production and waste storage?
Figure an average hourly wage of $20/hr that's $400 in labor per hour over an 8 hour shift that's $3200 cost in labor per day. At least. I'm skipping land leases, building lease/rent, material cost, etc.
If you're kicking out 1000 screws and it takes you $3200 in labor that's $3.20 cents per screw.
I"m either missing something, the article is full of crap, or this place was kicking out 8" long bolts made out of some really hardened steel with excellent QA looking for defects... and then Apple tried getting them to make tiny tiny screws?
Nope, nothing makes sense.
My thoughts exactly. A single screw-making line ought to pump out 1,000 screws an hour- or more- and they should have several of these machines! Apple chose a shop that wasn't up to the task, and the shop took a job from apple that they weren't competent to execute.
Electric motors, steering components, suspension components, brakes, air conditioning- all these systems are found in Teslas and will wear out. The question is when. I agree that there are fewer systems to maintain, but battery replacements won't be your only problem!
Your sig is rather on topic in this case, though rather wrong. (Celine's first law? She should stick to singing.) We have an ample food supply in the US and won't starve in the case of embargo or war. It is, in fact, national security. Quite frankly I'd rather 'waste' tax money to stabilize food prices and ensure US food production capacity over most other spending. Fortunately, the cost is not so great on the national scale of things - $20 billion dollars per year. Worth it.
Yes, I'd rather not put ethanol in my gas tank. It degrades my gas mileage.
I did a search and found some of the federal reserve info elsewhere posted in this discussion, but nothing that solidly proved your point. Others have quoted legal dictionaries that state that short-term debt is still in fact debt. Absent clear case law it's reasonable to view any agreement to pay later as debt, whether 'later' is 45 minutes or 45 months.
Bingo. If you deliver services prior to obtaining payment, you must accept cash. Refusing to accept a cash payment after-the-fact would leave you without much recourse to collect in other ways. You're basically depending on the customer's kindness and patience with you.
Starbucks is another matter because they collect when you place your order. They can go cashless because there is never a 'debt' involved with 'pay first.'
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend. We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
Your number is absurd on it's face, so your subsequent reasoning is suspect as well. The United States Gross domestic product is $19 trillion per annum. Removing any subsidies, real or imagined, wouldn't generate $22 trillion dollars each year for the US treasury.
Beyond that, everyone who goes on about 'fossil fuel subsidies' conveniently neglects to mention those subsidies are the same expenses and deductions that every other business in the US gets. You're not complaining about special treatment, you're complaining that companies you don't like aren't subject to special expenses that grind them into the dust.
Anti-political-correctness is fascism pretending to be a defence of free speech. It's supreme irony that for us to have free speech some people think that we have to ban criticism.
So criticism (anti-political correctness) of your criticism (political correctness) of other people's speech is fascism? Why isn't it free speech? How many layers of recursion do we have to go through? Or is it an unnecessary exercise, because the humorless scolds of the left always magically end up in the virtuous column?
Trying to understand the opportunity involved in BP dumping billions of barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico with Deepwater Horizon... exactly who benefited here?
"We have an opportunity to test the problem-solving skills of our best engineers & roughnecks. Further, we can test the efficacy of the world's oil spill clean-up technology."
Another thing rsilvergun and 538 missed is that everyone else has been getting more efficient at their work, while universities haven't. Without any pricing pressure, they never look to increase efficiency.... unlike every other industry out there. It's all about the unfettered access to unbankruptable student loan money. Administrative staff have definitely exploded, building costs have been going up.... but not a single institution puts much thought into cost cutting.... they only quibble about how long to go before jacking prices up again. Other organizations have to think about how to deliver a better product for less money... constantly. But Universities? Who cares?!?! Make the 18 year olds borrow a few grand more.
pretty sure that battlefield VR and related wil alsol be used by left-wing administrations and Congress's in the future
Either it's a subtle jab from a right leaning journalist.... or an admission that the left-wing author has absolutely no interest in defending the nation. Something most of us suspect about lefties.
Did you even read his comment? DNS&BIND referred to research where conservatives answered questions just as liberals themselves answered, but liberals couldn't do the same when asked to answer for conservatives.
Conclusion: Conservatives understand Liberals just fine, Liberals don't understand conservatives. You yourself show this with your own invective; and if your seething hatred prevents you from understanding a 7-sentence comment, what else is it keeping you blind to?
It would be nice if it were possible for millions of Americans to simultaneously tell Trump what we really thought of him in a way he had to listen to.
Trump and all your neighbors know how hate-filled you and your fellow travelers are. Don't care. You, on the other hand, have no idea how many Trump supporters you're surrounded by, because you leftists will vandalize cars and houses with Trump signs on them. You'll physically attack people wearing MAGA hats. You'll disown family members for daring to disagree with you about anything. You politicize everything. You can't leave well enough alone.
So the rest of us folks- the normal ones- let you rant on about how terrible Trump and everything else is. We smile gently, say nothing.... and then go pull the lever for Trump and Trump-aligned politicians in the voting booth. Oh yeah, and we don't let our 15 year-old daughters cat about in alcohol-fueled prep school parties, where they're in waaaaayyyy over their head, where they'll be used up and passed around, and then used in a depraved spectacle 37 years later. (Kavanaugh wasn't there but Ford is one damaged woman.)
Well, gee, we should just let Hallux run our economy and then only perfectly just economic decisions would get made. You are entirely capable of determining what is fair for everyone to get paid for what they know and are capable of, right? And if someone wants to pay someone more than you'll allow... well I guess you could have either the willing buyer of services or the willing seller of services imprisoned for trying to perform an unjust transaction! In a free society, however, prices aren't set by a third party who thinks he's got it all figured out. They're made by mutual agreement of the concerned parties. Plenty of Billionaires make a point of giving away huge amounts of money to charities... but it's theirs to give away, not yours. You worry about yours. Bill Gate's billions didn't take a bite out of your mouth, though you think you'd be great at taking billions from Bill Gates and putting it in other people's mouths.... nothing could possibly go wrong with that, correct?
Slashdot Mirror
Astronaut Scott Kelly was bold enough to strap himself into a rocket, take a ride into space and stay on the ISS for a year....
But after he came back, he lacked the fortitude to tell some angry cranks to go pound sand when they got upset that he quoted Winston Churchill. He even bowed and scraped trying to get back in their good graces. That's some significant deterioration that may have been outside the scope of NASA's health research.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
...and we're all being played. Has anyone verified the court filing? (No, I didn't RTFA, just skimmed the summary.)
.... I hope you're joking. Otherwise, you make plain the fascist, misanthropic nature of most environmentalists.
You can't make your preferred product deliver the results everyone else demands, so you propose to knee-cap an effective, efficient system to make your preferred solution relatively preferable.
You don't think people will figure out your scam and react accordingly? That's another problem with your sort- first order thinking. You never get around to asking, let alone answering '...and then what?'
'I want X to happen, so I'll use force of government to do Y, which will make X happen.' You never consider that other people will find your actions atrocious and do 'Z' instead.
Or maybe you do understand that, and just figure you'll have such people imprisoned or shot.
Legend has it, that approach has been tried already, and the subsequently produced raw materials stank up factories and nobody wanted the stuff around.. You could say the process wasn't perfect. Refining the process further would surely require more energy and water, increasing the investment required for the speculative adventure. Your idea, while technically feasible, is not economically feasible. It sounds like a fun experiment for a university to run at the cost of several million dollars, but the economics to justify it will never be there in our lifetimes. New materials- or materials provided by existing recycling methods- will be cheaper and more pleasant to work with. (Also, adding renewable energy into the equation doesn't change much. Wind, Solar, and battery installations are significant capital investments)
Fortunately, should need arise to tap the resource of landfills for raw materials, the landfills will still be there when the time comes.
Noah Draper: 'There is no such thing as objective truth.'
Is that true?
I suppose you want us to make an exception for your objective truth statement that there is no objective truth, don't you?
In buying my car I never had this problem. I made the deal and said "take it or leave it" (then again, I wasn't financing). They accepted my offer and I drove off with a new car. After I test drove half a dozen on the lot to find the one I liked the best.
If you're confident in your financing you can make the same play.... but paying cash is a great approach.
Your position requires that we trust fact-checkers simply because they say they're fact-checkers.
ZombieCat said no such thing. (Then you say a bunch of things that basically agree with what I said, only you like snopes, you don't like fox)
I said his position requires 'x', not that he said 'x'.
Beyond that, you do not address the idea that partisan operatives and people in power would seek to use 'fact-checkers' to their own ends. That's an important consideration, is it not?
The first rule that those wishing to spread misinformation, fake news, etc, must follow is to first destroy the credibility of the fact checkers.
You see this all the time right here on slashdot. First destroy the credibility of all major news organizations hostile to your message. Call them "the ennemies of the people".
Then attack fact-checking organizations like Snopes. Attack their objectivity, attack their honesty. Make sure the people distrusts anyone trying to spread a message different than yours.
Finally, accuse everyone criticising your message of trying to "suppress opinions they disagree with" and attacking your "freedom of speech".
Optionnally: Do exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing, and downmod to hell anyone trying the shed light on your shady tactics and your propaganda methods, just like what's going to happen to this very post.
Your position requires that we trust fact-checkers simply because they say they're fact-checkers. This seems like an odd position to take, because trust in any sort of media organization must be built and then re-earned each day. If the fact-checkers aren't reporting facts, but are simply another brand of partisan operatives, then they don't deserve to be thought of as unbiased seekers of the truth.
And really, if you are a partisan operative, wouldn't you seek to exploit fact checkers to your benefit, if you could?
Also extremely high: "the cost of dealing with the radioactive waste materials."
"the corruption and incompetence is staggering, and far outweighs the benefits of nuclear power." ... ...
The Hanford Site was established in 1943. "... decades of manufacturing left behind 53 million US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste..."
Humans have made a mess that humans don't know how to fix. Nuclear fission plants have never made sense, partly because of the immense problems dealing with radioactive waste.
The article you link makes it very clear that Hanford is a waste site for nuclear weapons production, not nuclear power plant fuel. You're dragging nuclear electrical power production into a historical problem from the early days of nuclear weapon production.
Are you deliberately conflating the two? Can you not make your point with actual commercial nuclear power fuel production and waste storage?
A 20 man shop producing 1,000 screws a day?
Figure an average hourly wage of $20/hr that's $400 in labor per hour over an 8 hour shift that's $3200 cost in labor per day. At least. I'm skipping land leases, building lease/rent, material cost, etc.
If you're kicking out 1000 screws and it takes you $3200 in labor that's $3.20 cents per screw.
I"m either missing something, the article is full of crap, or this place was kicking out 8" long bolts made out of some really hardened steel with excellent QA looking for defects... and then Apple tried getting them to make tiny tiny screws?
Nope, nothing makes sense.
My thoughts exactly. A single screw-making line ought to pump out 1,000 screws an hour- or more- and they should have several of these machines! Apple chose a shop that wasn't up to the task, and the shop took a job from apple that they weren't competent to execute.
Electric motors, steering components, suspension components, brakes, air conditioning- all these systems are found in Teslas and will wear out. The question is when. I agree that there are fewer systems to maintain, but battery replacements won't be your only problem!
Your sig is rather on topic in this case, though rather wrong. (Celine's first law? She should stick to singing.) We have an ample food supply in the US and won't starve in the case of embargo or war. It is, in fact, national security. Quite frankly I'd rather 'waste' tax money to stabilize food prices and ensure US food production capacity over most other spending. Fortunately, the cost is not so great on the national scale of things - $20 billion dollars per year. Worth it.
Yes, I'd rather not put ethanol in my gas tank. It degrades my gas mileage.
I did a search and found some of the federal reserve info elsewhere posted in this discussion, but nothing that solidly proved your point. Others have quoted legal dictionaries that state that short-term debt is still in fact debt.
Absent clear case law it's reasonable to view any agreement to pay later as debt, whether 'later' is 45 minutes or 45 months.
For all debts, public and private.
Leave it on the counter and walk out.
Bingo. If you deliver services prior to obtaining payment, you must accept cash. Refusing to accept a cash payment after-the-fact would leave you without much recourse to collect in other ways. You're basically depending on the customer's kindness and patience with you.
Starbucks is another matter because they collect when you place your order. They can go cashless because there is never a 'debt' involved with 'pay first.'
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend. We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
Your number is absurd on it's face, so your subsequent reasoning is suspect as well. The United States Gross domestic product is $19 trillion per annum. Removing any subsidies, real or imagined, wouldn't generate $22 trillion dollars each year for the US treasury.
Beyond that, everyone who goes on about 'fossil fuel subsidies' conveniently neglects to mention those subsidies are the same expenses and deductions that every other business in the US gets. You're not complaining about special treatment, you're complaining that companies you don't like aren't subject to special expenses that grind them into the dust.
Anti-political-correctness is fascism pretending to be a defence of free speech. It's supreme irony that for us to have free speech some people think that we have to ban criticism.
So criticism (anti-political correctness) of your criticism (political correctness) of other people's speech is fascism? Why isn't it free speech? How many layers of recursion do we have to go through? Or is it an unnecessary exercise, because the humorless scolds of the left always magically end up in the virtuous column?
Trying to understand the opportunity involved in BP dumping billions of barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico with Deepwater Horizon... exactly who benefited here?
"We have an opportunity to test the problem-solving skills of our best engineers & roughnecks. Further, we can test the efficacy of the world's oil spill clean-up technology."
See? That wasn't so hard. ;)
Another thing rsilvergun and 538 missed is that everyone else has been getting more efficient at their work, while universities haven't.
Without any pricing pressure, they never look to increase efficiency.... unlike every other industry out there. It's all about the unfettered access to unbankruptable student loan money.
Administrative staff have definitely exploded, building costs have been going up.... but not a single institution puts much thought into cost cutting.... they only quibble about how long to go before jacking prices up again.
Other organizations have to think about how to deliver a better product for less money... constantly. But Universities? Who cares?!?! Make the 18 year olds borrow a few grand more.
Get it to say "I'm Ron Burgundy?"
The people in corporations don't lose their rights because they operate a corporation.
pretty sure that battlefield VR and related wil alsol be used by left-wing administrations and Congress's in the future
Either it's a subtle jab from a right leaning journalist.... or an admission that the left-wing author has absolutely no interest in defending the nation. Something most of us suspect about lefties.
Did you even read his comment? DNS&BIND referred to research where conservatives answered questions just as liberals themselves answered, but liberals couldn't do the same when asked to answer for conservatives.
Conclusion: Conservatives understand Liberals just fine, Liberals don't understand conservatives. You yourself show this with your own invective; and if your seething hatred prevents you from understanding a 7-sentence comment, what else is it keeping you blind to?
IsTrumpdetected = true
Initiate.outrage
Variable set (postal rates)
Run...
Compiling results...
output = "ORANGE MAN BAD. CHINA POSTAGE GOOD"
Restart (IsTrumpDetected)
Scanning input...
It would be nice if it were possible for millions of Americans to simultaneously tell Trump what we really thought of him in a way he had to listen to.
Trump and all your neighbors know how hate-filled you and your fellow travelers are. Don't care. You, on the other hand, have no idea how many Trump supporters you're surrounded by, because you leftists will vandalize cars and houses with Trump signs on them. You'll physically attack people wearing MAGA hats. You'll disown family members for daring to disagree with you about anything. You politicize everything. You can't leave well enough alone.
So the rest of us folks- the normal ones- let you rant on about how terrible Trump and everything else is. We smile gently, say nothing.... and then go pull the lever for Trump and Trump-aligned politicians in the voting booth. Oh yeah, and we don't let our 15 year-old daughters cat about in alcohol-fueled prep school parties, where they're in waaaaayyyy over their head, where they'll be used up and passed around, and then used in a depraved spectacle 37 years later. (Kavanaugh wasn't there but Ford is one damaged woman.)
Well, gee, we should just let Hallux run our economy and then only perfectly just economic decisions would get made. You are entirely capable of determining what is fair for everyone to get paid for what they know and are capable of, right?
And if someone wants to pay someone more than you'll allow... well I guess you could have either the willing buyer of services or the willing seller of services imprisoned for trying to perform an unjust transaction!
In a free society, however, prices aren't set by a third party who thinks he's got it all figured out. They're made by mutual agreement of the concerned parties.
Plenty of Billionaires make a point of giving away huge amounts of money to charities... but it's theirs to give away, not yours. You worry about yours. Bill Gate's billions didn't take a bite out of your mouth, though you think you'd be great at taking billions from Bill Gates and putting it in other people's mouths.... nothing could possibly go wrong with that, correct?