I can't recall: which book/verse exactly is it where your god tells you to arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself? I see lots of indications of pacifism in the biblical text, up to Jesus showing us that we are better off allowing ourselves to die with our faith and morals in tact than to raise a fist, or even voice, in opposition to our oppressors.
Ah... We have an eye witness with infallible determinations of intent and an eidetic memory of exactly what happened in a dimmed theater. I wish there were more people like you in the world.
The account I read at NYT is that the shooter left the theater to get a theater employee but came back in without finding one. The altercation then escalated to the shooting. There was no mention of the shooter leaving the building and certainly no mention of walking to a car to retrieve a firearm; where are you seeing that information?
There is a video recording of the incident. All large theaters have night-vision cameras watching the audience and this issue will be quickly settled once prosecutors see that recording. They either file charges based or not, knowing that a jury will convict or acquit based upon that video clip.
"Infinitely weaker' would mean powerless. IF the NSA were powerless then it should be dissolved. Since No-one in the NSA is saying THAT should happen, they must think they still have a lot of power. I don't doubt the NSA's spying effectiveness has been diminished, but I think the implication they are impotent is a lie.
If I follow: the jail-breakers, who want to get out of Apple's walled garden, are complaining that someone is operating outside their own walled garden and allowing software and services the jail-breakers don't approve of to be run on hardware they don't make?
None of those are large connected systems. They are single user applications. Word doesn't need to access remote systems to get information about anything. And it does matter. They're not hiring Microsoft, just a guy who worked there and knew how to buy companies; not how to build or repair large highly diversely integrated systems such as healthcare.gov.
The law wasn't the "specs". Specs are "how do we handshake with SSA to verify a SSN", "what format will NJ's DOVS return birth certificate data in?" It took years to write the specs one the framework of the statute was in place.
If you don't want to be forced to use more efficient lighting in your home then you should be forced to have a new power plant put in your backyard. Simple fact: more people using more electricity means we need more power plants. Reduce per capita consumption of energy and you eliminate the need to build new power plants. You can't have the energy inefficient lights and choose to fight against a new power plant down the street as everyone seems to do.
Show me an undetectable piece of firearm ammunition and I'll start to worry. A 3D plastic gun is useless if you can't get ammunition in to the building as well.
Fine, electricity is a product and there is a delivery service that provides the product. How does that negate my underlying argument that the man stole a service? He wasn't paying for the electric product nor its delivery service.
Forgive me, I was simplistic with my language. You can not store AC mains power for later use. You can convert mains power to DC then to chemical energy and store that in a battery (with resultant efficiency losses) then convert that chemical energy back to DC then invert back to AC to motivate your vehicle (with resistant efficiency losses).
In AZ theft of service is a felony regardless of cost. Jump out of a taxi without paying your $2.50 fare and it's still a felony. So... is electric a service or a product? Since you can't possess or store it I think the law considers it a service (You start and stop your electric service). If GA, like AZ, considers theft of service a felony then the arrest makes perfect sense.
Isn't as plain or old as you make it out to be. I'm about 2 miles from my CO but my phone line terminates in a climate controlled cabinet about 1,000ft from my house. That's the end of the line for my pair where the line is powered, digitized and bridged to fiber for the haul back to the CO. Even without that the addition of DSL about 2 decades ago added a lot of complexity to the system with DSLAMs and other digital equipment. Much of that digital stuff was spliced in between the switch and CPE on the CO or line side, but it was still there.
The COs I've been in also don't use the card coded switches you seem to be talking to; they use gigantic digital affairs that are all basically computers and handle not only the line pair for voice, but DST, T and D trunks, interoffice signaling and such.
The reason this stuff is all so resilient is the power supply. Nothing in the CO runs on wall voltage; it's all -48vDC and runs from a battery bank the size of a small house. The batteries are constantly charged from mains at the rate of their depletion by the equipment. In case of power failure where they batteries are being drawn down a generator auto-starts and switches from mains to local power to re-charge the batteries. Note that in this setup the load equipment is never switched from one power source to another (a major single-point of failure).
That said... Im not against reforming or eliminate the last vestiges of POTS.Less that 1/3 of the population HAS it and I'd bet even less than that actually use it. By that I mean that I think less than 1/10th of the US population has a telephone in their house that will work solely from CO power on the line pair without a wall wart.
In a row isn't really the argument that reflects reality. The question is: how often to you drive more than 300 miles without being able to stop for a few hours at an out-of-the-way re-charging station that is compatible with your car. The answer to that (when you look at the slow re-charge rates) for me is: quite often. And that "few hours" could actually be a few days.
I don't know where you get the 300 mile range number, Tesla's own literature states up to 265 miles" EPA Certified", which if anything like EPA MPG then the way most American's drive means more like 200 miles of actual range. When you don't have access to your high current charger at home it takes an hour to get 3 miles of charge from a standard wall outlet. Every time I have a discussion with someone about these cars they produce these great sounding numbers, then you read the actual information and things have a much more grim look to them.
As for your specific question about why I drive 21 miles to the butcher: because I prefer buying locally sourced food whenever possible. The only butcher I know of in the Phoenix area that sells local meats is about 21 miles out of my way between work and home. I also travel out of my way to purchase locally roasted coffee and locally produced milk, eggs, veg. Generally the lower prices of the items I purchase offset the minor amount of diesel I run through my engine getting to those places in a consolidated trip. 21 miles for me is less than 1/2 gallon.
When I go visit my friends in northern AZ, that's a 140 mile one-way trip in mountains and I don't think the Tesla would make it that far on a cargo and there are no exits or services for the majority of the trip.
There are MANY use cases where pure electric just falls flat. So many that I think most people would encounter them fairly regularly or at least fret they would. That means that for most, or at least many, people an electric has to be an additional vehicle they use for specific tasks.
But that aside: why are you condemning someone's life choices just because they don't align with the marketing pitch of an all-electric car?
There's an interesting dichotomy that pervades this topic and the US in general. Christianity. Most Americans ascribe to it so I'm told.
The basis of Christianity is to do right by your fellow human. To reject greed. To reject avarice. To be humble. To give away everything you don't need. How the fuck does a Christian based nation allow a CEO to make enough money each year to buy a jumbo jet while the employees doing the actual work that earns the company the actual profits can't make basic ends meet on their salary? How to the religious right... the conservatives... argue that capitalism (every man for himself, grab what you can) is an appropriate system when they state they believe the exact opposite?
No. We're not talking about limiting what you can make off this business.
We're talking about limiting what you make relative to those who will be doing all the work that earns the company the money you want to keep all for yourself. Sure the CEO makes all the "big decisions" and guides the corporate system toward a goal, but they don't DO anything. Thousands of people toil 8-12 hours a day doing the actual things that make the "big picture" actually happen. They don't take vacations, they are constantly at risk of being laid off at a moments notice and they work in very crowded conditions.
If a CEO needs half an office floor and $5M a year to do good work, how is it possible that the people who produce the income for the company can do it in 15 square feet of cubicle for $25,000a year? How is thinking that much harder than doing?
That sort of thinking falls flat in every other aspect of reality; it it easier to imagine a tall building, to engineer/design the building or to actually build the thing? The imagining is the easy part but pays the best. The designing/engineering is tougher and pays less. The actual shooting nails, pouring concrete and hammering rivets 800 feet in the air is the hardest part but pays the least. Fine... the "thinker" had an education and that costs money. Fine, the rivet banger is a high school dropout but puts life and limb literally on the line. Why does the thinker deserve 200x the pay of the riveter? Without either the building doesn't exist.
We're talking about sharing a reasonable amount of wealth with those who produce the wealth in the first place.
Whatever you want to call it, with pure electric vehicles it takes too long. The ratio of charge time to miles driven is off kilter.
I drive a VW Golf TDI. I can run it on #2 diesel, #2 heating oil, soybean oil, used fryer oil, basically any medium oil from any source as long as I can filter it and get in the tank spout. The longest a re-fill takes me (from 6gal carry tanks) is about 10 minutes. At an average station pump fueling takes about 3 minutes. On a full tank I can travel 720 miles of regular (non-babying) driving and up to 800 miles if I am very conservative. That means about 13 hours of driving for every 3 minutes of fueling (assuming 55mph average speed between highway/city) My car can carry 1000lbs of people or cargo My car tows 1200lbs on a small trailer (at freeway speeds) My car has killer air-conditioning so I can tolerate the 120F days here in Phoenix, AZ
When electric cars get an infrastructure that allows me to pull in to a refueling station and get a full charge in less that 5 minutes, I'll consider it. The stations need to be ubiquitous so I don't have to plan special stops or routes. I don't care if the charging and battery technology improve to meet my charge rate requirements or if the entire battery pack is swapped out by a robot, charged then swapped in to someone else's car later that day.
My next vehicle will be either pure diesel or a diesel/electric hybrid and that will continue to be the case until an all-electric vehicle gets even close to those operational parameters above. And yes, I know my use profile is atypical. EVs make perfect sense for a person who commutes a regular route every day and has no other needs for a car and who has an employer adjacent compatible charging station.
Ring, ring. Hi honey, can you stop by the butcher and pick up some steaks for dinner? Sorry, the car only has 30 miles of charge left, going to the butcher would take 42 miles to get there and home. We'll have to make another trip. Get home... charge car for 2 hours, drive to butcher, drive home, charge car for 2 hours.
Where in the Constitution is there any mention of the number of parties there should be? We have a two party system in the US because there seems to be an inherent human affection for the "us-them" duopoly style confrontation of a diametrically opposed pair. Funny thing is that in most such cases, the two opponents share more in common that they have differences but we focus and accentuate the differences instead of the commonalities. We like to feel important and better than others (greed, avarice) and so we fight for our arbitrary choices.
Solar needs lots of space to produce large amounts of power, sure. But we have lots of wasted space in our urban and suburban centers. Every rooftop that doesn't have solar panels is a target for panels. In a single family home, not only do you generate electricity, the panels shade the structure and keep it cooler in the summer months.
Germany is hardly what anyone would call a bastion of sunshine, but they seem to be making quite a go of solar.
As for the subsidies for solar and other renewables: only fair. The US subsidizes oil with tax breaks, incentives and let's not even get started on the military adventures we've been on to control/protect our oil interests in the middle-east.
From their own web site, the "...NSF's FY 2014 budget request is $7.626 billion"
$0,007.6 billon NSF budget. The Federal budget for 2014 is about $3.77 trillion (wikipedia) To put that on the same scale: $3,770.0 billion total US budget. So the NSF budget is (I think I did the math correctly) 0.2% of the total budget. Less than 1/4 of one percent!
$3 billion is what the Navy is spending on a singe new Zumwalt destroyer (the next 4 in that fleet will cost $2.5B each) to fight nonexistent maritime enemies. That's two NSF budgets for ships that will do nothing but cost money to operate for the next 20 years.
I think this is the religious right pushing to get the US Government to stop funding science that disproves their church teachings and bible scripture.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't recall: which book/verse exactly is it where your god tells you to arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself?
I see lots of indications of pacifism in the biblical text, up to Jesus showing us that we are better off allowing ourselves to die with our faith and morals in tact than to raise a fist, or even voice, in opposition to our oppressors.
Ah... We have an eye witness with infallible determinations of intent and an eidetic memory of exactly what happened in a dimmed theater.
I wish there were more people like you in the world.
The account I read at NYT is that the shooter left the theater to get a theater employee but came back in without finding one. The altercation then escalated to the shooting. There was no mention of the shooter leaving the building and certainly no mention of walking to a car to retrieve a firearm; where are you seeing that information?
There is a video recording of the incident. All large theaters have night-vision cameras watching the audience and this issue will be quickly settled once prosecutors see that recording. They either file charges based or not, knowing that a jury will convict or acquit based upon that video clip.
"Infinitely weaker' would mean powerless.
IF the NSA were powerless then it should be dissolved. Since No-one in the NSA is saying THAT should happen, they must think they still have a lot of power.
I don't doubt the NSA's spying effectiveness has been diminished, but I think the implication they are impotent is a lie.
The parent company (Volkswagen) is. Their pickups (and delivery type) sell quite well in the markets where they are available.
If I follow: the jail-breakers, who want to get out of Apple's walled garden, are complaining that someone is operating outside their own walled garden and allowing software and services the jail-breakers don't approve of to be run on hardware they don't make?
care to cite some sources for your random statistics?
None of those are large connected systems. They are single user applications. Word doesn't need to access remote systems to get information about anything.
And it does matter. They're not hiring Microsoft, just a guy who worked there and knew how to buy companies; not how to build or repair large highly diversely integrated systems such as healthcare.gov.
The law wasn't the "specs". Specs are "how do we handshake with SSA to verify a SSN", "what format will NJ's DOVS return birth certificate data in?"
It took years to write the specs one the framework of the statute was in place.
What large connected software system has MS built without purchasing a company that was already doing the thing and re-brand it?
If you don't want to be forced to use more efficient lighting in your home then you should be forced to have a new power plant put in your backyard.
Simple fact: more people using more electricity means we need more power plants. Reduce per capita consumption of energy and you eliminate the need to build new power plants.
You can't have the energy inefficient lights and choose to fight against a new power plant down the street as everyone seems to do.
Show me an undetectable piece of firearm ammunition and I'll start to worry. A 3D plastic gun is useless if you can't get ammunition in to the building as well.
Fine, electricity is a product and there is a delivery service that provides the product. How does that negate my underlying argument that the man stole a service? He wasn't paying for the electric product nor its delivery service.
Forgive me, I was simplistic with my language. You can not store AC mains power for later use. You can convert mains power to DC then to chemical energy and store that in a battery (with resultant efficiency losses) then convert that chemical energy back to DC then invert back to AC to motivate your vehicle (with resistant efficiency losses).
In AZ theft of service is a felony regardless of cost. Jump out of a taxi without paying your $2.50 fare and it's still a felony.
So... is electric a service or a product?
Since you can't possess or store it I think the law considers it a service (You start and stop your electric service). If GA, like AZ, considers theft of service a felony then the arrest makes perfect sense.
Isn't as plain or old as you make it out to be. I'm about 2 miles from my CO but my phone line terminates in a climate controlled cabinet about 1,000ft from my house. That's the end of the line for my pair where the line is powered, digitized and bridged to fiber for the haul back to the CO.
Even without that the addition of DSL about 2 decades ago added a lot of complexity to the system with DSLAMs and other digital equipment. Much of that digital stuff was spliced in between the switch and CPE on the CO or line side, but it was still there.
The COs I've been in also don't use the card coded switches you seem to be talking to; they use gigantic digital affairs that are all basically computers and handle not only the line pair for voice, but DST, T and D trunks, interoffice signaling and such.
The reason this stuff is all so resilient is the power supply. Nothing in the CO runs on wall voltage; it's all -48vDC and runs from a battery bank the size of a small house. The batteries are constantly charged from mains at the rate of their depletion by the equipment. In case of power failure where they batteries are being drawn down a generator auto-starts and switches from mains to local power to re-charge the batteries. Note that in this setup the load equipment is never switched from one power source to another (a major single-point of failure).
That said... Im not against reforming or eliminate the last vestiges of POTS.Less that 1/3 of the population HAS it and I'd bet even less than that actually use it. By that I mean that I think less than 1/10th of the US population has a telephone in their house that will work solely from CO power on the line pair without a wall wart.
In a row isn't really the argument that reflects reality. The question is: how often to you drive more than 300 miles without being able to stop for a few hours at an out-of-the-way re-charging station that is compatible with your car. The answer to that (when you look at the slow re-charge rates) for me is: quite often. And that "few hours" could actually be a few days.
I don't know where you get the 300 mile range number, Tesla's own literature states up to 265 miles" EPA Certified", which if anything like EPA MPG then the way most American's drive means more like 200 miles of actual range. When you don't have access to your high current charger at home it takes an hour to get 3 miles of charge from a standard wall outlet. Every time I have a discussion with someone about these cars they produce these great sounding numbers, then you read the actual information and things have a much more grim look to them.
As for your specific question about why I drive 21 miles to the butcher: because I prefer buying locally sourced food whenever possible. The only butcher I know of in the Phoenix area that sells local meats is about 21 miles out of my way between work and home. I also travel out of my way to purchase locally roasted coffee and locally produced milk, eggs, veg. Generally the lower prices of the items I purchase offset the minor amount of diesel I run through my engine getting to those places in a consolidated trip. 21 miles for me is less than 1/2 gallon.
When I go visit my friends in northern AZ, that's a 140 mile one-way trip in mountains and I don't think the Tesla would make it that far on a cargo and there are no exits or services for the majority of the trip.
There are MANY use cases where pure electric just falls flat. So many that I think most people would encounter them fairly regularly or at least fret they would. That means that for most, or at least many, people an electric has to be an additional vehicle they use for specific tasks.
But that aside: why are you condemning someone's life choices just because they don't align with the marketing pitch of an all-electric car?
There's an interesting dichotomy that pervades this topic and the US in general. Christianity.
Most Americans ascribe to it so I'm told.
The basis of Christianity is to do right by your fellow human. To reject greed. To reject avarice. To be humble. To give away everything you don't need.
How the fuck does a Christian based nation allow a CEO to make enough money each year to buy a jumbo jet while the employees doing the actual work that earns the company the actual profits can't make basic ends meet on their salary?
How to the religious right... the conservatives... argue that capitalism (every man for himself, grab what you can) is an appropriate system when they state they believe the exact opposite?
No. We're not talking about limiting what you can make off this business.
We're talking about limiting what you make relative to those who will be doing all the work that earns the company the money you want to keep all for yourself.
Sure the CEO makes all the "big decisions" and guides the corporate system toward a goal, but they don't DO anything. Thousands of people toil 8-12 hours a day doing the actual things that make the "big picture" actually happen. They don't take vacations, they are constantly at risk of being laid off at a moments notice and they work in very crowded conditions.
If a CEO needs half an office floor and $5M a year to do good work, how is it possible that the people who produce the income for the company can do it in 15 square feet of cubicle for $25,000a year? How is thinking that much harder than doing?
That sort of thinking falls flat in every other aspect of reality; it it easier to imagine a tall building, to engineer/design the building or to actually build the thing? The imagining is the easy part but pays the best. The designing/engineering is tougher and pays less. The actual shooting nails, pouring concrete and hammering rivets 800 feet in the air is the hardest part but pays the least.
Fine... the "thinker" had an education and that costs money. Fine, the rivet banger is a high school dropout but puts life and limb literally on the line.
Why does the thinker deserve 200x the pay of the riveter? Without either the building doesn't exist.
We're talking about sharing a reasonable amount of wealth with those who produce the wealth in the first place.
Whatever you want to call it, with pure electric vehicles it takes too long. The ratio of charge time to miles driven is off kilter.
I drive a VW Golf TDI. I can run it on #2 diesel, #2 heating oil, soybean oil, used fryer oil, basically any medium oil from any source as long as I can filter it and get in the tank spout.
The longest a re-fill takes me (from 6gal carry tanks) is about 10 minutes. At an average station pump fueling takes about 3 minutes.
On a full tank I can travel 720 miles of regular (non-babying) driving and up to 800 miles if I am very conservative.
That means about 13 hours of driving for every 3 minutes of fueling (assuming 55mph average speed between highway/city)
My car can carry 1000lbs of people or cargo
My car tows 1200lbs on a small trailer (at freeway speeds)
My car has killer air-conditioning so I can tolerate the 120F days here in Phoenix, AZ
When electric cars get an infrastructure that allows me to pull in to a refueling station and get a full charge in less that 5 minutes, I'll consider it. The stations need to be ubiquitous so I don't have to plan special stops or routes.
I don't care if the charging and battery technology improve to meet my charge rate requirements or if the entire battery pack is swapped out by a robot, charged then swapped in to someone else's car later that day.
My next vehicle will be either pure diesel or a diesel/electric hybrid and that will continue to be the case until an all-electric vehicle gets even close to those operational parameters above. And yes, I know my use profile is atypical. EVs make perfect sense for a person who commutes a regular route every day and has no other needs for a car and who has an employer adjacent compatible charging station.
Ring, ring. Hi honey, can you stop by the butcher and pick up some steaks for dinner?
Sorry, the car only has 30 miles of charge left, going to the butcher would take 42 miles to get there and home. We'll have to make another trip.
Get home... charge car for 2 hours, drive to butcher, drive home, charge car for 2 hours.
Yea, none of that sounds appealing to me.
Where in the Constitution is there any mention of the number of parties there should be?
We have a two party system in the US because there seems to be an inherent human affection for the "us-them" duopoly style confrontation of a diametrically opposed pair. Funny thing is that in most such cases, the two opponents share more in common that they have differences but we focus and accentuate the differences instead of the commonalities. We like to feel important and better than others (greed, avarice) and so we fight for our arbitrary choices.
Solar needs lots of space to produce large amounts of power, sure. But we have lots of wasted space in our urban and suburban centers. Every rooftop that doesn't have solar panels is a target for panels. In a single family home, not only do you generate electricity, the panels shade the structure and keep it cooler in the summer months.
Germany is hardly what anyone would call a bastion of sunshine, but they seem to be making quite a go of solar.
As for the subsidies for solar and other renewables: only fair. The US subsidizes oil with tax breaks, incentives and let's not even get started on the military adventures we've been on to control/protect our oil interests in the middle-east.
that there was also 3D printable and x-ray invisible ammunition.
From their own web site, the "...NSF's FY 2014 budget request is $7.626 billion"
$0,007.6 billon NSF budget. The Federal budget for 2014 is about $3.77 trillion (wikipedia) To put that on the same scale:
$3,770.0 billion total US budget. So the NSF budget is (I think I did the math correctly) 0.2% of the total budget. Less than 1/4 of one percent!
$3 billion is what the Navy is spending on a singe new Zumwalt destroyer (the next 4 in that fleet will cost $2.5B each) to fight nonexistent maritime enemies. That's two NSF budgets for ships that will do nothing but cost money to operate for the next 20 years.
I think this is the religious right pushing to get the US Government to stop funding science that disproves their church teachings and bible scripture.
"couldn't care less"
If you could care less it would not really be worth mentioning.