There are other options out there free - I'm not sure if they play more, fewer, or comparable ads - and the paid service just keeps getting more and more expensive.
IIRC (it was a while ago) when we started paying for it, it was something like $20/year. Now it's what, either $6/mo or $10/mo?
That's nuts when there are tons of equally-tolerable options.
(Note: I'm not saying Pandora are evil greedy sonsabitches. I felt that they're terrifically screwed by their royalty contracts because they tried to do the right thing and compensate artists, but they're paying MULTIPLES of what radio stations have to pay, per song. I really like the company and think they're victims here, a little.)
...The idea that an American judge can block the ruling of a Canadian court in the context of the global actions of a company is no sillier than the idea that Canadian court coins have any jurisdiction on what happens outside their borders.
Face it, the legal structures have a long way to go before they've internalized the modern internet.
...because, outside of some utopian fantasy, most work still requires either physically being present, or at least collaboration with a number of other people, and no amount of Skype, VR, or what have you can replace the communication bandwidth and efficacy of actually being there.
This report was issued as the collaborative work of hundreds of serious scientists over years of work.......and is really intended as a giant "fuck you" to President Trump.
I'm not saying this impugns the data or conclusions necessarily, but let's not pretend there's no subjective context either.
What all the rage-replies to your post fail to realize is that the globe could be warming.
It could be warming SHARPLY.
It could be warming so significantly it will cause devastation.
Yet...the quasi-cult-religion of AGW is not by any means proved by such a thing.
Because, you see, their assertion is that it's CAUSED by people. That's where their shit starts to fall apart, no matter how much righteous indignation is applied to spackle it in place.
If you're taller than me, that's an observable, provable fact in the same sense that our planet seems to be generally warming. But to then perform the solipsistic fallacy that humans have been performing since before Aristotle that "well we're here, we MUST have done it"? That flies directly in the fact of non-disputed evidence.
...are the people who take the time to point this out.
They believe that they're just being helpful, pointing out a common grammatical mistake of usage.
What they're really doing is showing the rest of us that they're annoying as fuck so we can avoid them generally.
Grammar Nazis are like the intellectual equivalent of skunk smell, warning us all away from something we REALLY don't want to experience any more closely.
It's socially a very useful thing. Thank you, Grammar Nazis.
...it's almost like we have a feedback system in which there are infrequent but regular 'spikes' of temp and CO2, which are then almost equally counteracted* by a comparable more-or-less sudden drop thereafter?
You know, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (look at the 'pulse' beat of spikes every 120k years or so, for certainly the last million years, more like 2-3 million).
*curiously, nobody seems to be talking/studying this mechanism - how or why it happens? Personally my bet is on cloud cover and albedo: warming atmosphere drives higher % of water vapor aloft, increasing clouds, and raising the planets apparent albedo significantly. PARTICULARLY as the IPCC reports have mostly ignored both water vapor (acknowledged as really the main driving factor in warming, but considered too short-term and variable to be successfully and reliably modeled) and cloud cover (although more recent IPCCs may have included it, it was basically absent from everything before 2013).
^ and THAT is the Net Neutrality discussion in a nutshell.
Misleading "stunning facts" spun in a very narrow context when they aren't outright lies.
I don't have a dog in this fight; I think both sides are guilty of spinning the shit out of this issue.
Personally, I believe the moment these ISPs start reviewing content, they should be treated no longer as 'common carriers' and thus no longer protected from the consequences of such content.
Right now, telephones are common carriers: we don't sue AT&T because some ISIS terrorists talked on their phone lines. That would be ridiculous. But the moment AT&T starts preferentially connecting some people over others, shouldn't they be legally held responsible for the results of those prioritizations?
".... "Having lived through fourteen Michigan winters, I'm confident that there are few better places that will prepare our self-driving cars for winter conditions,"..."
Having lived through 50 winters, I beg to differ. Michigan gets you snow, certainly. The staggering variety of ice, snow, and bitter cold makes driving here truly inhospitable.
...it was Democrats who INSISTED that electronic voting was the key to the future, since their voters were too stupid to operate a paper ballot in the Florida 2000 presidential election.
Picketty, probably the modern Patron Saint of Inequality Demonization, failed spectacularly to demonstrate it. His "Capital" essentially said that the system trends toward inequality regardless of context; the only instances he could point to where it hadn't were after regional or global cataclysms. Even the most ardent of 'levelers' would have to admit that WW2 in total was a worse thing than having a few more billionaires, certainly?
His third section simply asserts, "...since inequality is bad, then we should do X..." but never bothers to prove why this is so. Even Adam Smith - who was in fact very concerned about poverty - really only managed to complain about very subjective impacts of inequality: that people would admire the wealthy, who were not generally particularly admirable people. (Personally, in what amounts to at-least-the-closest-thing-on-Earth-to-a-capitalist-meritocracy, I'd rather admire a successful asshole than a moronic failure who is JUST AS LIKELY to be an asshole, just nobody cares...)
Serious economists have savaged Piketty, as from The Journal of Political Economy: âoeCapital is, nonetheless, unpersuasive when it turns from description to analysis. . . . Both of us are very liberal (in the contemporary as opposed to classical sense), and we regard ourselves as egalitarians. We are therefore disturbed that Piketty has undermined the egalitarian case with weak empirical, analytical, and ethical arguments."
If you can't gin up actual reasons that inequality is inherently bad in an 800+ page magnum opus, it's not there.
1. Declare the sky is falling due to (something you can blame on humans) 2. Get someone to fund your long-range study. 3..... 4. Profit! (Or at least have permanent employment and probably tenure.)
Although there is a strong second-order field opening up, like "how the ocean ate my global warming expectations" or better, "attribution science" where your entire existence is about proving how weather = climate, as long as it's bad, of course. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/t...
(braces self for predictable -infinity, Troll moderation)
http://www.nationalreview.com/......has a great video link to a report from 2008 that predicted BY 2015 "Manhattan is disappearing under rising seas, milk is almost $13 per âoecarton,â and gas prices skyrocketed to more than $9 per gallon..."
Seriously, man: there are actual climate changes that we have to seriously cope with. That isn't being helped by alarmist bullshittery like this.
https://sf.budgetchallenge.org... (this is an official SFO city page) This projection reveals deficits of $86 million in FY 2016-17 and $161 million in FY 2017-18, a total deficit of approximately $246.4 million over the next two years. This is simultaneous with their floating a $3.5 BILLION bond to desperately try to fix BART infrastructure: https://www.wired.com/2016/03/... Oh wait, not really: http://www.mercurynews.com/201... "Less than three months after voters passed a $3.5 billion BART bond for capital projects, transit officials presented budget forecasts in which the district reneges on its part of the deal."
And let's not forget: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c... Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed a $122.5 billion budget for California and is warning of a possible $2 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year.
Not sure what the OP is peddling, but the fact is that SFO's budget is sheer fantasy already without adding the ridiculous cost of shoving fiber-internet everywhere.
Even in California you can't build infrastructure out of candy, unicorns, and rainbows.
...simply legislate that any such action makes it impossible to sue.
Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop. Americans don't go where they don't have lawyer-armor.
...I don't mean for the kids, I mean for the parents.
I've had 4 kids in their 20s now, and one of the hardest parts about parenting is understanding that these wonderful, exciting, challenging little creeps for which you feel more love than you could have ever previously imagined...need to live their own lives. Away from you, your sight, and the 24/7 concern you have for their well-being.
The world really isn't full of rabid dogs in every park, sexual predators around every corner, terrorists in every airplane, or thugs in every city. It feels that way sometimes, but it really isn't.
Just because you don't know where they are at this moment doesn't mean they're using drugs or getting murdered.
Teach them everything you can about the world and being responsible and smart. And then let them grow up, and get the fuck out of their way.
If you're like most parents, you'll never stop worrying about them. That's fine, that's your job. But as a parent who holds THEIR well-being above your own, you can't let your self-indulgent worry destroy their ability to be actualized people themselves. Grow up - and learn to keep that crap to yourself. Let them enjoy being them.
From the OP: "The vehicle can carry about 3 tons of cargo..." Nope: "The Class 4 truck has a... 9,380-pound payload capacity."
" and travel about 100 kilometers on a single charge. " Nope. ""The Class 4 truck has a 100-mile range..."
Importantly: "The batteries can be quick-charged within an hour at a DC charging station or over the course of eight hours using a 230-volt outlet. The vehicle will also have flexible battery options to allow customers that need less range than 100 miles to opt for fewer batteries and increase payload capacity."
Still, 100 miles (I'd be curious to see how that degrades with the stop-start driving of a city delivery truck - I truly don't know how/if that impairs an electric?) but having to recharge for AN HOUR is brutal, when most business load/unload windows are 8 hours...you'd basically have to run 2x the trucks as half would be charging at any time.
What I don't understand is why electrics aren't looking at quick-change battery banks - it seems a lot more usable that you buy a truck like this with a couple of extra battery chassis, and then when you're low, bop back to the terminal, drop the empty batteries, reconnect the waiting fully-charged pack, and roll. That could be 10 mins or less.
Slashdot Mirror
There are other options out there free - I'm not sure if they play more, fewer, or comparable ads - and the paid service just keeps getting more and more expensive.
IIRC (it was a while ago) when we started paying for it, it was something like $20/year. Now it's what, either $6/mo or $10/mo?
That's nuts when there are tons of equally-tolerable options.
(Note: I'm not saying Pandora are evil greedy sonsabitches. I felt that they're terrifically screwed by their royalty contracts because they tried to do the right thing and compensate artists, but they're paying MULTIPLES of what radio stations have to pay, per song. I really like the company and think they're victims here, a little.)
Post a link to the CHANGELOG but not the software?
http://www.audacityteam.org/do...
...The idea that an American judge can block the ruling of a Canadian court in the context of the global actions of a company is no sillier than the idea that Canadian court coins have any jurisdiction on what happens outside their borders.
Face it, the legal structures have a long way to go before they've internalized the modern internet.
...because, outside of some utopian fantasy, most work still requires either physically being present, or at least collaboration with a number of other people, and no amount of Skype, VR, or what have you can replace the communication bandwidth and efficacy of actually being there.
This report was issued as the collaborative work of hundreds of serious scientists over years of work.... ...and is really intended as a giant "fuck you" to President Trump.
I'm not saying this impugns the data or conclusions necessarily, but let's not pretend there's no subjective context either.
What all the rage-replies to your post fail to realize is that the globe could be warming.
It could be warming SHARPLY.
It could be warming so significantly it will cause devastation.
Yet...the quasi-cult-religion of AGW is not by any means proved by such a thing.
Because, you see, their assertion is that it's CAUSED by people. That's where their shit starts to fall apart, no matter how much righteous indignation is applied to spackle it in place.
If you're taller than me, that's an observable, provable fact in the same sense that our planet seems to be generally warming. But to then perform the solipsistic fallacy that humans have been performing since before Aristotle that "well we're here, we MUST have done it"? That flies directly in the fact of non-disputed evidence.
....let's be clear: CCP does EVE.
Everything else it tries to do, it fucks up supremely.
(shrug)
...are the people who take the time to point this out.
They believe that they're just being helpful, pointing out a common grammatical mistake of usage.
What they're really doing is showing the rest of us that they're annoying as fuck so we can avoid them generally.
Grammar Nazis are like the intellectual equivalent of skunk smell, warning us all away from something we REALLY don't want to experience any more closely.
It's socially a very useful thing. Thank you, Grammar Nazis.
Isn't alcohol fundamentally a toxin?
How does one make a toxin itself less toxic, yet not change it?
...it's almost like we have a feedback system in which there are infrequent but regular 'spikes' of temp and CO2, which are then almost equally counteracted* by a comparable more-or-less sudden drop thereafter?
You know, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (look at the 'pulse' beat of spikes every 120k years or so, for certainly the last million years, more like 2-3 million).
*curiously, nobody seems to be talking/studying this mechanism - how or why it happens? Personally my bet is on cloud cover and albedo: warming atmosphere drives higher % of water vapor aloft, increasing clouds, and raising the planets apparent albedo significantly. PARTICULARLY as the IPCC reports have mostly ignored both water vapor (acknowledged as really the main driving factor in warming, but considered too short-term and variable to be successfully and reliably modeled) and cloud cover (although more recent IPCCs may have included it, it was basically absent from everything before 2013).
^ and THAT is the Net Neutrality discussion in a nutshell.
Misleading "stunning facts" spun in a very narrow context when they aren't outright lies.
I don't have a dog in this fight; I think both sides are guilty of spinning the shit out of this issue.
Personally, I believe the moment these ISPs start reviewing content, they should be treated no longer as 'common carriers' and thus no longer protected from the consequences of such content.
Right now, telephones are common carriers: we don't sue AT&T because some ISIS terrorists talked on their phone lines. That would be ridiculous. But the moment AT&T starts preferentially connecting some people over others, shouldn't they be legally held responsible for the results of those prioritizations?
".... "Having lived through fourteen Michigan winters, I'm confident that there are few better places that will prepare our self-driving cars for winter conditions," ..."
Having lived through 50 winters, I beg to differ.
Michigan gets you snow, certainly. The staggering variety of ice, snow, and bitter cold makes driving here truly inhospitable.
- a Minnesotan
...it was Democrats who INSISTED that electronic voting was the key to the future, since their voters were too stupid to operate a paper ballot in the Florida 2000 presidential election.
...of course the begged question is if inequality is ACTUALLY bad, or if it's bad, is it even avoidable?
(Setting aside that this exact phraseology was used by Krugman in 2014 http://www.nybooks.com/article...)
Picketty, probably the modern Patron Saint of Inequality Demonization, failed spectacularly to demonstrate it. His "Capital" essentially said that the system trends toward inequality regardless of context; the only instances he could point to where it hadn't were after regional or global cataclysms. Even the most ardent of 'levelers' would have to admit that WW2 in total was a worse thing than having a few more billionaires, certainly?
His third section simply asserts, "...since inequality is bad, then we should do X..." but never bothers to prove why this is so. Even Adam Smith - who was in fact very concerned about poverty - really only managed to complain about very subjective impacts of inequality: that people would admire the wealthy, who were not generally particularly admirable people. (Personally, in what amounts to at-least-the-closest-thing-on-Earth-to-a-capitalist-meritocracy, I'd rather admire a successful asshole than a moronic failure who is JUST AS LIKELY to be an asshole, just nobody cares...)
Serious economists have savaged Piketty, as from The Journal of Political Economy: âoeCapital is, nonetheless, unpersuasive when it turns from description to analysis. . . . Both of us are very liberal (in the contemporary as opposed to classical sense), and we regard ourselves as egalitarians. We are therefore disturbed that Piketty has undermined the egalitarian case with weak empirical, analytical, and ethical arguments."
If you can't gin up actual reasons that inequality is inherently bad in an 800+ page magnum opus, it's not there.
1. Declare the sky is falling due to (something you can blame on humans) ....
2. Get someone to fund your long-range study.
3.
4. Profit! (Or at least have permanent employment and probably tenure.)
Unfortunately, most of them have already been picked:
http://dailysignal.com/2009/11...
Although there is a strong second-order field opening up, like "how the ocean ate my global warming expectations" or better, "attribution science" where your entire existence is about proving how weather = climate, as long as it's bad, of course.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/t...
(braces self for predictable -infinity, Troll moderation)
The FUDstream never ends with these guys, does it?
https://www.thenewamerican.com...
http://www.nationalreview.com/... ...has a great video link to a report from 2008 that predicted BY 2015 "Manhattan is disappearing under rising seas, milk is almost $13 per âoecarton,â and gas prices skyrocketed to more than $9 per gallon..."
Seriously, man: there are actual climate changes that we have to seriously cope with. That isn't being helped by alarmist bullshittery like this.
"straightforward, deeply practical determination shines"
Right!
https://sf.budgetchallenge.org... (this is an official SFO city page)
This projection reveals deficits of $86 million in FY 2016-17 and $161 million in FY 2017-18, a total deficit of approximately $246.4 million over the next two years.
This is simultaneous with their floating a $3.5 BILLION bond to desperately try to fix BART infrastructure: https://www.wired.com/2016/03/...
Oh wait, not really: http://www.mercurynews.com/201...
"Less than three months after voters passed a $3.5 billion BART bond for capital projects, transit officials presented budget forecasts in which the district reneges on its part of the deal."
And let's not forget:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...
Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed a $122.5 billion budget for California and is warning of a possible $2 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year.
Not sure what the OP is peddling, but the fact is that SFO's budget is sheer fantasy already without adding the ridiculous cost of shoving fiber-internet everywhere.
Even in California you can't build infrastructure out of candy, unicorns, and rainbows.
It would have been better to vote for a harridan who believes it but is too smart to reveal it?
...simply legislate that any such action makes it impossible to sue.
Take away peoples' right to sue the crap out of whatever driver hits them if they're texting while crossing the street, and they'll stop. Americans don't go where they don't have lawyer-armor.
I'm personally glad they're doing it, but this news doesn't belong AT ALL on slashdot.
...because the Soviets proved that massive, centrally-planned programs are always successful.
"I've had 4 kids, in their 20s now"
I'm sorry you're too stupid to parse a sentence missing a single comma, fuckwit.
The article actually talks about that precisely.
...I don't mean for the kids, I mean for the parents.
I've had 4 kids in their 20s now, and one of the hardest parts about parenting is understanding that these wonderful, exciting, challenging little creeps for which you feel more love than you could have ever previously imagined...need to live their own lives. Away from you, your sight, and the 24/7 concern you have for their well-being.
The world really isn't full of rabid dogs in every park, sexual predators around every corner, terrorists in every airplane, or thugs in every city. It feels that way sometimes, but it really isn't.
Just because you don't know where they are at this moment doesn't mean they're using drugs or getting murdered.
Teach them everything you can about the world and being responsible and smart. And then let them grow up, and get the fuck out of their way.
If you're like most parents, you'll never stop worrying about them. That's fine, that's your job. But as a parent who holds THEIR well-being above your own, you can't let your self-indulgent worry destroy their ability to be actualized people themselves. Grow up - and learn to keep that crap to yourself. Let them enjoy being them.
From the OP: "The vehicle can carry about 3 tons of cargo..." ... 9,380-pound payload capacity."
Nope: "The Class 4 truck has a
" and travel about 100 kilometers on a single charge. "
Nope. ""The Class 4 truck has a 100-mile range..."
Importantly:
"The batteries can be quick-charged within an hour at a DC charging station or over the course of eight hours using a 230-volt outlet. The vehicle will also have flexible battery options to allow customers that need less range than 100 miles to opt for fewer batteries and increase payload capacity."
Still, 100 miles (I'd be curious to see how that degrades with the stop-start driving of a city delivery truck - I truly don't know how/if that impairs an electric?) but having to recharge for AN HOUR is brutal, when most business load/unload windows are 8 hours...you'd basically have to run 2x the trucks as half would be charging at any time.
What I don't understand is why electrics aren't looking at quick-change battery banks - it seems a lot more usable that you buy a truck like this with a couple of extra battery chassis, and then when you're low, bop back to the terminal, drop the empty batteries, reconnect the waiting fully-charged pack, and roll. That could be 10 mins or less.