And of course it's somewhat dangerous (a problem with most dense energy storage). At least stored underground it won't kill people if it fractures (if planned right). Seems like another "awesome where it works" plan, much like pumping water up hill is darn good if you have an abundance of water, and a hill.
I'd be nervous, though, about any storage in steel containers as that goes very bad when it goes (a few hundred PSI is one thing, but a few thousand PSI is another). I know the biggest presses store power and operate at 4000+ PSI, but they're routinely checked for flaws (the US has 2 50,000 ton presses that make e.g. most large or military aircraft structural elements, one was down for several years when stress fractures were discovered).
Like everything, it probably has it's niche and place in the world but isn't ideal for everything. Storing excess electrical energy? Maybe, although I thought that it was not very efficient.
Cars? No, tried that several times over many decades, not safe, not efficient, not very good.
There probably is some scenarios where it works though.
The question is usually framed to already take that into account. They way I have heard it is:
Choice 1: Hit pedestrian. Choice 2: Drive off a cliff and kill the passenger.
It may be an interesting philosophical question, but it has little to do with reality. A scenario like that is almost never going to happen, and even if it did, a human driver would be faced with the same split second dilemma and be no more likely to make the "correct" decision (whatever that is).
I've been in a similar situation, although not life threatening- just damage prevention. And... it's a much more likely scenario for others to be in.
Driving home, wet afternoon, construction zone so there was concrete barriers right next to road. Fortunately I always leave plenty of room behind car in front. Car ahead came to stop- I applied break but wasn't slowing. I had a big enough gap (and time slowed down enough) I remember having time to mentally ask myself- do I bump the car ahead causing a little damage to both cars- or do I move to the left into the concrete to bring myself to a stop without harming anyone else- but undoubtably causing my own car, and maybe myself more harm.
OK- not as extreme as your question, very watered down- but in this case, I remember deciding to hit the concrete barrier rather than hit another car.
Fortunately I didn't have to do this as and my breaks started to work just in the nick of time.
However, I had already made up my mind. Now, if this were a cliff and a passenger I might have chosen different, but I probably wouldn't. My point is not that I was going to make it rougher on myself rather than involve another in this case... my point is that- even though this whole event happened in maybe just 2 or 3 seconds- when you're faced with that sort of situation time feels like it slows down and your brain gets to kick in to overgear. I had analysed the situation and made my decision in only a second... then I had a couple of seconds waiting before my breaks worked. I knew almost instantly I was going to hit the wall if I had to.
The truth, of course, is that we need to increase taxes *and* cut spending substantially, but that's not a platform either side agrees with.
Long term, yes. Or- at least, the growth in national debt needs to be smaller than the growth in tax revenue. As long as debt increases more than tax revenue does- we're going to be continually paying more towards debt repayment than using it for improving the country.
As long as debt increases as a percentage faster than revenue does we're robbing future prosperity for present day prosperity.
I didn't say anything about "every USPS and FBI employee" being in on a plot.
A little more common sense would tell you they are all federal employees and legally bound not to disclose what happens at their workplaces.
So why not address what I actually said? You wont. You glow in the dark.
They would have to be in on the plot because any USPS worker could see what you saw and announce it. And the FBI, something as big as that would have to be quite extensively spread.
For this to be a hoax you would literally have to have the entire USPS onboard not to announce the "no stamping thing" and out it as a hoax... and probably dozens of FBI agents. Like most conspiracy theories- you'd have to be nuts to believe it.
The far left is now everybody slightly to the right of center. By today's standards Reagan and Ike were both communists when you actually look at their platforms relative to the Ayn Rand worshiping Republicans of today. (And Reagan was a McCarthyist. )
Indeed, I'm a centrist and the far right on here frequently have called me a liberal or lefty just for not liking Trump. It reminds me of the Bush era and the "if you oppose the Iraq war you're a traitor" verbiage. It's political propaganda "if you're not for the President you're part of a dangerous radical left".
All of the photos of the packages show absolutely no post marks, barcodes, cancelled postage.. Nothing.
So they say they were delivered by courier.. But couriers wont take packages with postage on them, and again...No shipping labels, no barcode.
So they say they were hand delivered. This guy drove up and down the coast and delivered all the packages within a few hours of each other?
How the fuck is this supposed to work.
Should I believe this goofball had a whole team working with him?
They said one package couldnt be delivered, so it was sent back to the return address.. And yet, NO FUCKING POSTMARKS ON THE PACKAGE.
None of the packages shown have ever been in the USPS system, nor Fedex, UPS, etc, etc..
What the fuck?
A little common sense reveals your hoax claim to be ridiculous.
If what you say is true, the USPS and FBI have to be in on this plot. Do you think two organizations of that size could keep this quiet if it was a hoax. Not everyone at USPS or FBI is vehemently anti-republican so this would leak. Use common sense before you post nonsense.
I lost interest in VR once Oculus was bought by Facebook.
Indeed. I'd never buy a system that was owned by Facebook. I don't use any service or website owned or operated by them and pray nothing I do use ever gets sold to them. I know they have hooks everywhere- but I avoid them where I can.
It always seemed like a no-go for me. At least for now. Most people play games to relax and de-stress. When playing VR is as simple as sitting on the settee and wearing something as light and simple as a pair of sunglasses, people will play VR in numbers. When the sights looks lifelike and not uncanny valley, and don't leave you nauseous... people will like it.
VR probably will rebound in the future but for now it's a dying fad for a niche market. As long as you have to wear bulky contraptions with head straps and fit into awkward devices I'd much rather just have a keyboard, mouse and a monitor- you can keep your VR.
Someday in the future VR will take off- but today's generation is not good enough to warrant a big market. All the best gaming experience is still to be found on a flat screen. VR is a curiosity for those willing to spend money on unproven tech but not what most people want.
The bridge is not for private cars. Indeed, the average person is not allowed to drive on this bridge. It primarily for freight and that will actually reduce pollution and to an extent congestion as vehicles can enter Hong Kong from the mainland and leave on the same day.
Freight may get the most use of the bridge- but they're not the real reason either- politics is. This is a physical link- China to wantaway Hong Kong. Just like the interstate system was originally designed for defence purposes (but gets lots of benefits to trade and travel in peace time)- the bridge is a military and political animal that will get lots of use from freight otherwise.
There should be no doubt though- this bridge was partially to be a political show to Hong Kong and partially to be a great way to get tanks and troops to Hong Kong quickly should they ever be troublesome about one party rule.
The trolls get old fast, but there are others on YouTube from the UK that now has entered politics. I have no idea if their combined subscriber base of over 1mil, will be enough to change elections.
If you have 1 million followers only 1000 will vote for someone just because you told them to. How is this different to newspapers editors endorsing a candidate? How many elections has that changed? As bad as society is people won't just vote for someone because "someone on You Tube" told them too.
You will have people on one medium endorsing one candidate, a rival on another medium endorsing another candidate, it all cancels out.
Before you say "but people are sheep and do whatever they're told by you tubers"- let me ask you... have you ever voted for someone JUST because one person on TV, or Newspaper, Radio, You Tube, etc told you to? If the answer is no- you can't really expect humanity as a whole to vote like that. If you're that easily swayed you're probably not committed enough to vote anyway.
Isolated cases where You Tube may or may not have influenced elections does not mean that You Tubers in general have all that much power. I really doubt many people will vote XYZ just because someone on You Tube told them to.
My question would be the same: How much do you really need to see health benefits?
Even just exercising once a week you will get health benefits over not exercising at all. For those people who think "I don't have time to exercise 5 times a week- so I won't exercise at all," you don't have to... I mean ideally, that would be best, but you see health benefits from just doing 30 mins once a week. Ideally you should be exercising more than that- but even a little helps and will make you feel better.
No, but "too big and successful" is. And "they do abuse their power with anti-competitive behaviours" is.
After all, it was for those same reasons that Bell telephone and GM were broke up. Even though Ford and Chevy existed.
When was GM broken up? Do you have more information on that? I know they've dropped some of their less successful brands (Ford dropped Mercury, and Chrysler dropped Plymouth- so GM isn't the only company to drop brands).
I'm not aware of the government breaking up GM (Chevy IS part of GM).
Perhaps the OP meant they have a monopoly in their specific focus, not tech as a whole. Does any of the mentioned companies come close to competing with Google for search? Or Microsoft as a desktop OS? Or Facebook for social media?
Bing... sure not as good, and not as many people use it, but it has a big enough following that Google isn't a monopoly. From what I understand Google, despite being very healthy, is actually losing a littel market share now- so that couldn't be considered a monopoly.
MS as a monopoly makes less sense now than 20 years ago. Apple is bigger than it once was, Chromebook is a significant player in the light-weight sector. Even Linux desktop is bigger than it used to be.
Facebook for social media... that probably comes closest to monopoly of the any of the companies here... but even then- there are plenty of social media competitors... Facebook buys most of them when they get big, but there is no shortage of entry to that space and several companies have done well.
Under what context? Just because you don't like them? Because they're too big and successful? They're not really monopolies- and yes, they do abuse their power with anti-competitive behaviours at time, but the courts slap them when they do. I don't see any legal justification to break them up.
The tech giants have a monopoly. Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google
You listed 4 companies. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me. I consider the tech companies and their size and prominence to be something to watch and be concerned about to watch out for their worst anti-competitive behaviours, but I wouldn't go so far as to break them up. Nothing any of them is really a monopoly at this point.
Facebook probably comes the closest; but there is still twitter and linkedin that are independent.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course it's somewhat dangerous (a problem with most dense energy storage). At least stored underground it won't kill people if it fractures (if planned right). Seems like another "awesome where it works" plan, much like pumping water up hill is darn good if you have an abundance of water, and a hill.
I'd be nervous, though, about any storage in steel containers as that goes very bad when it goes (a few hundred PSI is one thing, but a few thousand PSI is another). I know the biggest presses store power and operate at 4000+ PSI, but they're routinely checked for flaws (the US has 2 50,000 ton presses that make e.g. most large or military aircraft structural elements, one was down for several years when stress fractures were discovered).
Like everything, it probably has it's niche and place in the world but isn't ideal for everything. Storing excess electrical energy? Maybe, although I thought that it was not very efficient.
Cars? No, tried that several times over many decades, not safe, not efficient, not very good.
There probably is some scenarios where it works though.
My main disagreement with this article is over the word "soon".
The question is usually framed to already take that into account. They way I have heard it is:
Choice 1: Hit pedestrian.
Choice 2: Drive off a cliff and kill the passenger.
It may be an interesting philosophical question, but it has little to do with reality. A scenario like that is almost never going to happen, and even if it did, a human driver would be faced with the same split second dilemma and be no more likely to make the "correct" decision (whatever that is).
I've been in a similar situation, although not life threatening- just damage prevention. And... it's a much more likely scenario for others to be in.
Driving home, wet afternoon, construction zone so there was concrete barriers right next to road. Fortunately I always leave plenty of room behind car in front. Car ahead came to stop- I applied break but wasn't slowing. I had a big enough gap (and time slowed down enough) I remember having time to mentally ask myself- do I bump the car ahead causing a little damage to both cars- or do I move to the left into the concrete to bring myself to a stop without harming anyone else- but undoubtably causing my own car, and maybe myself more harm.
OK- not as extreme as your question, very watered down- but in this case, I remember deciding to hit the concrete barrier rather than hit another car.
Fortunately I didn't have to do this as and my breaks started to work just in the nick of time.
However, I had already made up my mind. Now, if this were a cliff and a passenger I might have chosen different, but I probably wouldn't. My point is not that I was going to make it rougher on myself rather than involve another in this case... my point is that- even though this whole event happened in maybe just 2 or 3 seconds- when you're faced with that sort of situation time feels like it slows down and your brain gets to kick in to overgear. I had analysed the situation and made my decision in only a second... then I had a couple of seconds waiting before my breaks worked. I knew almost instantly I was going to hit the wall if I had to.
The truth, of course, is that we need to increase taxes *and* cut spending substantially, but that's not a platform either side agrees with.
Long term, yes. Or- at least, the growth in national debt needs to be smaller than the growth in tax revenue. As long as debt increases more than tax revenue does- we're going to be continually paying more towards debt repayment than using it for improving the country.
As long as debt increases as a percentage faster than revenue does we're robbing future prosperity for present day prosperity.
And just this year, China surpassed the US in number of scientific papers published.
Only this year? China is behind several other Asian and European countries then. US scientific output has been falling for decades.
They must have stolen plans for the earliest rocket not the most recent one. :p
"NPC"? Is that supposed to be some insult to dehumanize victims to make it OK to send them bombs?
Apple, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Why does Apple approve of sex trafficking and forcing toddlers to use cocaine?
Or false choice, clickbait, flamebait?
I don't even like Apple and I think you've hit the nail on the head there! I laughed when I saw the headline because it came across as a troll.
I didn't say anything about "every USPS and FBI employee" being in on a plot.
A little more common sense would tell you they are all federal employees and legally bound not to disclose what happens at their workplaces.
So why not address what I actually said? You wont. You glow in the dark.
They would have to be in on the plot because any USPS worker could see what you saw and announce it. And the FBI, something as big as that would have to be quite extensively spread.
For this to be a hoax you would literally have to have the entire USPS onboard not to announce the "no stamping thing" and out it as a hoax... and probably dozens of FBI agents. Like most conspiracy theories- you'd have to be nuts to believe it.
Real bullets that actually work were shot at Republican lawmakers having a ball game. One was seriously wounded.
Was that Democrats' fault? Or was it just a lone nut?
To me, as an independent, this says- followers of both main parties are deranged idiots- but the Democrats are better at pulling off their objectives.
The far left is now everybody slightly to the right of center. By today's standards Reagan and Ike were both communists when you actually look at their platforms relative to the Ayn Rand worshiping Republicans of today. (And Reagan was a McCarthyist. )
Indeed, I'm a centrist and the far right on here frequently have called me a liberal or lefty just for not liking Trump. It reminds me of the Bush era and the "if you oppose the Iraq war you're a traitor" verbiage. It's political propaganda "if you're not for the President you're part of a dangerous radical left".
All of the photos of the packages show absolutely no post marks, barcodes, cancelled postage.. Nothing.
So they say they were delivered by courier.. But couriers wont take packages with postage on them, and again.. .No shipping labels, no barcode.
So they say they were hand delivered. This guy drove up and down the coast and delivered all the packages within a few hours of each other?
How the fuck is this supposed to work.
Should I believe this goofball had a whole team working with him?
They said one package couldnt be delivered, so it was sent back to the return address.. And yet, NO FUCKING POSTMARKS ON THE PACKAGE.
None of the packages shown have ever been in the USPS system, nor Fedex, UPS, etc, etc..
What the fuck?
A little common sense reveals your hoax claim to be ridiculous.
If what you say is true, the USPS and FBI have to be in on this plot. Do you think two organizations of that size could keep this quiet if it was a hoax. Not everyone at USPS or FBI is vehemently anti-republican so this would leak. Use common sense before you post nonsense.
I lost interest in VR once Oculus was bought by Facebook.
Indeed. I'd never buy a system that was owned by Facebook. I don't use any service or website owned or operated by them and pray nothing I do use ever gets sold to them. I know they have hooks everywhere- but I avoid them where I can.
I never expected VR to be bigger.
It always seemed like a no-go for me. At least for now. Most people play games to relax and de-stress. When playing VR is as simple as sitting on the settee and wearing something as light and simple as a pair of sunglasses, people will play VR in numbers. When the sights looks lifelike and not uncanny valley, and don't leave you nauseous... people will like it.
VR probably will rebound in the future but for now it's a dying fad for a niche market. As long as you have to wear bulky contraptions with head straps and fit into awkward devices I'd much rather just have a keyboard, mouse and a monitor- you can keep your VR.
Someday in the future VR will take off- but today's generation is not good enough to warrant a big market. All the best gaming experience is still to be found on a flat screen. VR is a curiosity for those willing to spend money on unproven tech but not what most people want.
The bridge is not for private cars. Indeed, the average person is not allowed to drive on this bridge. It primarily for freight and that will actually reduce pollution and to an extent congestion as vehicles can enter Hong Kong from the mainland and leave on the same day.
Freight may get the most use of the bridge- but they're not the real reason either- politics is. This is a physical link- China to wantaway Hong Kong. Just like the interstate system was originally designed for defence purposes (but gets lots of benefits to trade and travel in peace time)- the bridge is a military and political animal that will get lots of use from freight otherwise.
There should be no doubt though- this bridge was partially to be a political show to Hong Kong and partially to be a great way to get tanks and troops to Hong Kong quickly should they ever be troublesome about one party rule.
Large pools of imperial IPA MAY exist on mars according to climate change scientist's
Meh! Let's go to Europa, I prefer to drink Stout.
The trolls get old fast, but there are others on YouTube from the UK that now has entered politics. I have no idea if their combined subscriber base of over 1mil, will be enough to change elections.
If you have 1 million followers only 1000 will vote for someone just because you told them to. How is this different to newspapers editors endorsing a candidate? How many elections has that changed? As bad as society is people won't just vote for someone because "someone on You Tube" told them too.
You will have people on one medium endorsing one candidate, a rival on another medium endorsing another candidate, it all cancels out.
Before you say "but people are sheep and do whatever they're told by you tubers"- let me ask you... have you ever voted for someone JUST because one person on TV, or Newspaper, Radio, You Tube, etc told you to? If the answer is no- you can't really expect humanity as a whole to vote like that. If you're that easily swayed you're probably not committed enough to vote anyway.
Isolated cases where You Tube may or may not have influenced elections does not mean that You Tubers in general have all that much power. I really doubt many people will vote XYZ just because someone on You Tube told them to.
If you have an acocunt for one of those sites... why on earth would you use your real e-mail address?
Why do you need a user name?
This is what burner e-mail addresses were created for anyway.
My question would be the same: How much do you really need to see health benefits?
Even just exercising once a week you will get health benefits over not exercising at all. For those people who think "I don't have time to exercise 5 times a week- so I won't exercise at all," you don't have to... I mean ideally, that would be best, but you see health benefits from just doing 30 mins once a week. Ideally you should be exercising more than that- but even a little helps and will make you feel better.
No, but "too big and successful" is. And "they do abuse their power with anti-competitive behaviours" is.
After all, it was for those same reasons that Bell telephone and GM were broke up. Even though Ford and Chevy existed.
When was GM broken up? Do you have more information on that? I know they've dropped some of their less successful brands (Ford dropped Mercury, and Chrysler dropped Plymouth- so GM isn't the only company to drop brands).
I'm not aware of the government breaking up GM (Chevy IS part of GM).
Perhaps the OP meant they have a monopoly in their specific focus, not tech as a whole. Does any of the mentioned companies come close to competing with Google for search? Or Microsoft as a desktop OS? Or Facebook for social media?
Bing... sure not as good, and not as many people use it, but it has a big enough following that Google isn't a monopoly. From what I understand Google, despite being very healthy, is actually losing a littel market share now- so that couldn't be considered a monopoly.
MS as a monopoly makes less sense now than 20 years ago. Apple is bigger than it once was, Chromebook is a significant player in the light-weight sector. Even Linux desktop is bigger than it used to be.
Facebook for social media... that probably comes closest to monopoly of the any of the companies here... but even then- there are plenty of social media competitors... Facebook buys most of them when they get big, but there is no shortage of entry to that space and several companies have done well.
Break 'em up,specially google and facebook!
Under what context? Just because you don't like them? Because they're too big and successful? They're not really monopolies- and yes, they do abuse their power with anti-competitive behaviours at time, but the courts slap them when they do. I don't see any legal justification to break them up.
"I don't like them" isn't a good reason.
The tech giants have a monopoly. Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Google
You listed 4 companies. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me. I consider the tech companies and their size and prominence to be something to watch and be concerned about to watch out for their worst anti-competitive behaviours, but I wouldn't go so far as to break them up. Nothing any of them is really a monopoly at this point.
Facebook probably comes the closest; but there is still twitter and linkedin that are independent.