I'm actually kinda surprised Amazon didn't see this one coming?
I mean, they're not generally stupid.....Do all the people at Amazon working on this "solution" freely admit strangers into their homes when they are away?
If 5% of Amazon Prime members buy this Amazon Key- that's still 4.25 million users in the US alone (estimated 85million Prime Owners). I think they will make a profit off this. I personally wouldn't sign up for it, but sounds like this will be profitable to Amazon.
I liked GoT, was excited when they turned it into a TV series; think they did a pretty good job. I'm annoyed that GRRM is too distracted to write now though. Wish the TV series waited until the books were finished.
I thought LOtR was decent. Was excited about the movies coming out, although I wasn't too thrilled with the movies. Not at all excited about the TV series. I don't know why, but it sounds like they just want to drag it out and extend it and turn it into a many year epic. Personally, I'd rather they do something original and not just extend a story we all already know.
Really? J.K. Rowling over Tolkien?? Are we talking about the same Rowling who just invents things out of thin air every time she needs a plot device? The same author who invoked time travel in one single plot line but for some reason time travel was never used in any story before or after?...... but that book totally falls apart, invoking deus ex machina in the end because he couldn't resolve the story
Actually, one thing I don't like about Tolkien is exactly what you criticize the other authors for. He was very much inventing things just for a plot device then ignoring them and resolving problems with deus ex machine. A lot of authors do this, and Tolkien is very much one of them.
In his Lord of the Rings remake, Jar Jar is tasked to take the ring to Mordor and destroy it. The great wizard, Spock himself, chooses Jar Jar to undertake the journey.
I find it to be pretty awful, really. Tolkien just prattles on and on and on and on about a bunch of hyperbolic shit. Every location and creature is described in extreme detail only to be outdone by the next that's more fantastical, more evil, more ancient, a taller mountain inside a deeper pit, etc.. And here's a fucking song for no reason. And Hobbit food? It's like the scene in Forest Gump describing different types of shrimp, but it's not funny, nor is it interesting. It's just filler.
Some nerds call this shit "world building". I call it Tolkien loving the smell of his own farts.
It's not that Tolkien is a particularly interesting or gifted writer for the average reader that makes him such a draw. (let's face it, he's actually a little boring- although, I know millions will disagree with me). What makes Tolkien amazing and his works a landmark piece is that he pretty much created a very rich and dramatic genre and alternate universe all by himself. Sure, he took a lot from mythology, but he created a very vivid world different from others before him. Almost every fantasy author who has come along after Tolkien has stolen a little bit of Tolkien (or a lot of Tolkien) in creating their worlds. Most fantasy worlds ARE a rip-off of Tolkien in one way or another.
Tolkien's strength is not in his wordsmanship, it's in his creativity.
You actually think that houses in the US don't make use of OSB? You actually think that we don't use ISO adhesives?
Ignorance abounds. All it would take is 30 seconds on any construction site, or even seeing one picture of a construction site, or browsing any construction goods store like Lowes or Home Depot.
OSB is used in flooring and roofing. It is not used to construct wall frames or supporting structures.
I don't think you quite understand how fire works. Anything hot enough to melt steel will cause the wood to outgas its volatiles and add more fuel. Neither situation has a happy ending for the building.
You don't have to melt steel for it to lose integrity. Steel becomes weak and pliable and collapses long before it melts.
How long do even well engineered wooden structures last before succumbing to rot or burning down?
Well... There are wood buildings that are 1,500 years old. A properly taken care of wood building can last a long time. Wood doesn't rot if it is not exposed to water. The secret is proper waterproofing. As for fire, the modern wood buildings use flame retardant glue and are safer than steel at high temperatures.
Wood is also more earthquake resistant because they sway easier. Wood is more resistant to wind damage.
Also there is a fair amount of carbon sequestered in the building itself. That's assuming the building doesn't burn, which is why I won't get into a tall wooden structure.
The type of wood buildings they're making nowadays don't burn very easy. (not talking about timber framed houses like the US, but the kind used for taller buildings such as this article). They take wood- cut it in strips, arrange the strips in alternating directions (for added strength) and then glue them together with a fireproof glue.
They're actually more fire-safe than steel buildings. Steel will melt or lose strength with fire (as in 9/11 twin towers)- the modern timber buildings resist fire at higher temperatures than it takes for steel to lose integrity.
BTC is going to $10k and it's that simple. Then it will crash to $1 where you can buy it back and ride it to $100k and repeat.
I agree it will hit $10k and then drop- but it won't go all the way back down to $1. Maybe $7k or $8k and then start rebounding again. BTC is too widely used in illegal transactions to completely collapse. It's more like gold than tulip bulbs. As in, it is both a currency with a certain worth, AND an investment medium rather than just a pure useless investment medium.
If citizen Joe panics and starts to sell, warlord Bob won't because it's not about investment to him.
$10k is a very solid psychological barrier though- first time it hits $10k some people will panic and sell; but not everyone.
People said it was in a bubble when bitcoin was $1000 and then they said it again when it was $2000. They said it would be foolish to buy bitcoin for $1000 or $2000
I don't know about you but id kill to buy bitcoins for $1000 or even $2000 now...
How do you know $7000 is anywhere near the top?
If I owned Bitcoin I'd set mine to auto-sell once it hits $9,750. Psychologically, when it hits $10k, some people are going to panic and it will hit a correction. How high bitcoin can go is anyone's guess, but just like $1,000 was a big psychological barrier and we had a correction after hitting it, $10,000 is going to be an even bigger deal. Once the correction hits the basement, might be worth buying again, to see how high it will go next time.
I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.
That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.
Example: Car A is being followed by Car B.
Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.
Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerating" signal doesn't cause an accident.
That's pretty cool... and there are trees on this planet that are close to 5,000 years old. That's not immortal, but it's pretty clear they have aging controlled pretty well. Trees may be simple compared to many advanced animal life, but they're still pretty complex organisms.
I don't believe preventing aging is impossible; it's just very difficult. If we live long enough we'll find a solution to aging.
I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them (if decided by fair and free referendum).
All members of my census block have voted unanimously to succeed from the country and immediately cease any and all tax payments to local and national taxing authorities.
Thanks for your support.
Duely noted- you shall receive a demand for $100,000 as your share of the national debt; plus several million in legal work to separate our two countries. Expect to produce a visa when reentering the country, failure to do so will be seen as an invasion- we shall retaliate by taking your land and putting you in a military prison. Because we have no trade agreement with you- you shall pay a major tariff on any goods you move between our two nations.
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
As their names imply, The Union was for a strong Union of States(Nations) while the Confederates was for a loose Confederation of States(Nations). In this aspect, the Union was wrong to oppose them from leaving just as it would be wrong to oppose Texas or California or Hawaii from leaving today. That being said, I would not be in favor of Texas leaving today if I knew that the plan upon leaving was to make a certain class of people second class citizens. The Civil War should have been fought over Black Rights not on whether or not Nations (States) had a right to leave the United States(Nations). Ironically, that is what is taught in public schools today that the Civil War was fought over Slavery.
*Sadly, since the Civil War, the meaning of State has been lost and no longer means Country/Nation like it once did.
The States had quit being "States" in the true meaning of the word State long before the civil war though. By that point they were already more like provinces than independent nations that were loosely bound together. "States Rights" movements and trying to return to a more confederate group of States was a reaction to becoming a minority of states that allowed slaves. "States Rights" was not an issue until losing slaves was a threat. The only reason the South wanted a return to a confederation from the slow accumulation of power in the State capitol is because they wanted to keep slaves. The war was about slavery. "States Rights" was how they tried to justify seceding.
Am curious your thoughts, how far does that go? The state, the county, the city, the municipality, the property, the region (being made of potentially multiple jurisdictions).
I don't think there is an easy answer or a rigid answer for that. If a group of people can be recognized as a unit- an identifiable "people"; they have that right. That's a wishy-washy answer, I know; but, I don't think there is an easy hard-and-fast answer.
The group breaking away must be responsible for what they're doing and be ultimately self-governing. They would have to take on a fair share of the debt and obligations of their nation. You obviously couldn't have some guy on a ranch declare his ranch an independent nation; it wouldn't be self-supporting, he couldn't get by without getting a visa to leave his ranch to go to the suprtmarket, etc.
Stupid racist, the south's secession was illegitimate because they didn't let male slaves vote for or against it.
That is an excellent point! (that slaves didn't get a choice in it- not the part about being racist). Slaves made up a minority of the South, but still, a large enough number that they probably would have tipped the overall support into remaining with the union. I doubt every white man in the South wanted independence, but I bet almost every black man wanted it not to happen.
Slavery might not have been the only concern; certainly the South had other concerns such as the industrial North passing laws that hurt the mainly agricultural South, but the number one issue was slavery.
The slave owning South was about to become a minority of states to the non slave owning states. They were worried that slavery could be made illegal (and their entire economy tanking as a result).
Anyone that says the war had nothing to do with slavery is either being deceitful or has been duped by someone deceitful. It was a major factor. Maybe not the only factor but the single biggest factor.
Why should they need to forgo the protection of the EU -- as a european entity, would their membership be rejected?
Their membership would almost certainly be rejected. For one thing, they would need approval of all member states. Spain isn't going to give their's. Not just to be vindictive cunts, but also because they wouldn't want to encourage independence movements in other regions like the basque country. Germany, Italy, etc, all have small independence movements in regions. They wouldn't want to help breakaway states by giving the safety net of the EU.
Catalonia won't get EU membership. Not right away and perhaps not for a long time if ever.
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
Yes and no. I'm obviously against slavery and I'm glad the North intervened to stop slavery. With that said, yes, the South had the right to declare independence. It is probably turned out better for both the North and the South long term that the North won, but, yes, South had right to secede, even if they did it for an utterly despicable reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm actually kinda surprised Amazon didn't see this one coming?
I mean, they're not generally stupid.....Do all the people at Amazon working on this "solution" freely admit strangers into their homes when they are away?
If 5% of Amazon Prime members buy this Amazon Key- that's still 4.25 million users in the US alone (estimated 85million Prime Owners). I think they will make a profit off this. I personally wouldn't sign up for it, but sounds like this will be profitable to Amazon.
You have your laptop lying around and rush off to work. You come home and it's gone.
You call the cops....etc .....etc .... and accusations....and denials.....
What are you going to do? You have no proof and you did GIVE access to Amazon. You think your insurance company is gonna pay?
Let's say the Amazon employee/contractor admits to taking the laptop. Now what?
This is one big can worms that I would NEVER open.
You obviously didn't order a video camera using Alexa or you would have proof on camera.
I liked GoT, was excited when they turned it into a TV series; think they did a pretty good job. I'm annoyed that GRRM is too distracted to write now though. Wish the TV series waited until the books were finished.
I thought LOtR was decent. Was excited about the movies coming out, although I wasn't too thrilled with the movies. Not at all excited about the TV series. I don't know why, but it sounds like they just want to drag it out and extend it and turn it into a many year epic. Personally, I'd rather they do something original and not just extend a story we all already know.
Really? J.K. Rowling over Tolkien?? Are we talking about the same Rowling who just invents things out of thin air every time she needs a plot device? The same author who invoked time travel in one single plot line but for some reason time travel was never used in any story before or after? ... ... but that book totally falls apart, invoking deus ex machina in the end because he couldn't resolve the story
Actually, one thing I don't like about Tolkien is exactly what you criticize the other authors for. He was very much inventing things just for a plot device then ignoring them and resolving problems with deus ex machine. A lot of authors do this, and Tolkien is very much one of them.
Pretty sure "J. J." initials stand for "Jar Jar".
In his Lord of the Rings remake, Jar Jar is tasked to take the ring to Mordor and destroy it. The great wizard, Spock himself, chooses Jar Jar to undertake the journey.
I find it to be pretty awful, really. Tolkien just prattles on and on and on and on about a bunch of hyperbolic shit. Every location and creature is described in extreme detail only to be outdone by the next that's more fantastical, more evil, more ancient, a taller mountain inside a deeper pit, etc.. And here's a fucking song for no reason. And Hobbit food? It's like the scene in Forest Gump describing different types of shrimp, but it's not funny, nor is it interesting. It's just filler.
Some nerds call this shit "world building". I call it Tolkien loving the smell of his own farts.
It's not that Tolkien is a particularly interesting or gifted writer for the average reader that makes him such a draw. (let's face it, he's actually a little boring- although, I know millions will disagree with me). What makes Tolkien amazing and his works a landmark piece is that he pretty much created a very rich and dramatic genre and alternate universe all by himself. Sure, he took a lot from mythology, but he created a very vivid world different from others before him. Almost every fantasy author who has come along after Tolkien has stolen a little bit of Tolkien (or a lot of Tolkien) in creating their worlds. Most fantasy worlds ARE a rip-off of Tolkien in one way or another.
Tolkien's strength is not in his wordsmanship, it's in his creativity.
You actually think that houses in the US don't make use of OSB? You actually think that we don't use ISO adhesives?
Ignorance abounds. All it would take is 30 seconds on any construction site, or even seeing one picture of a construction site, or browsing any construction goods store like Lowes or Home Depot.
OSB is used in flooring and roofing. It is not used to construct wall frames or supporting structures.
I don't think you quite understand how fire works. Anything hot enough to melt steel will cause the wood to outgas its volatiles and add more fuel. Neither situation has a happy ending for the building.
You don't have to melt steel for it to lose integrity. Steel becomes weak and pliable and collapses long before it melts.
How long can a concrete and steel building last?
How long do even well engineered wooden structures last before succumbing to rot or burning down?
Well... There are wood buildings that are 1,500 years old. A properly taken care of wood building can last a long time. Wood doesn't rot if it is not exposed to water. The secret is proper waterproofing. As for fire, the modern wood buildings use flame retardant glue and are safer than steel at high temperatures.
Wood is also more earthquake resistant because they sway easier. Wood is more resistant to wind damage.
Also there is a fair amount of carbon sequestered in the building itself. That's assuming the building doesn't burn, which is why I won't get into a tall wooden structure.
The type of wood buildings they're making nowadays don't burn very easy. (not talking about timber framed houses like the US, but the kind used for taller buildings such as this article). They take wood- cut it in strips, arrange the strips in alternating directions (for added strength) and then glue them together with a fireproof glue.
They're actually more fire-safe than steel buildings. Steel will melt or lose strength with fire (as in 9/11 twin towers)- the modern timber buildings resist fire at higher temperatures than it takes for steel to lose integrity.
Bitcoin's use for illicit transactions is rapidly declining, and being replaced by secure encrypted blockchains like Monero
http://getmonero.org/
I didn't know that. A better crypto-currency has always been more of a threat to bitcoin than any market "burst bubble" from citizen investor.
BTC is going to $10k and it's that simple. Then it will crash to $1 where you can buy it back and ride it to $100k and repeat.
I agree it will hit $10k and then drop- but it won't go all the way back down to $1. Maybe $7k or $8k and then start rebounding again. BTC is too widely used in illegal transactions to completely collapse. It's more like gold than tulip bulbs. As in, it is both a currency with a certain worth, AND an investment medium rather than just a pure useless investment medium.
If citizen Joe panics and starts to sell, warlord Bob won't because it's not about investment to him.
$10k is a very solid psychological barrier though- first time it hits $10k some people will panic and sell; but not everyone.
People said it was in a bubble when bitcoin was $1000 and then they said it again when it was $2000. They said it would be foolish to buy bitcoin for $1000 or $2000
I don't know about you but id kill to buy bitcoins for $1000 or even $2000 now...
How do you know $7000 is anywhere near the top?
If I owned Bitcoin I'd set mine to auto-sell once it hits $9,750. Psychologically, when it hits $10k, some people are going to panic and it will hit a correction. How high bitcoin can go is anyone's guess, but just like $1,000 was a big psychological barrier and we had a correction after hitting it, $10,000 is going to be an even bigger deal. Once the correction hits the basement, might be worth buying again, to see how high it will go next time.
K.I.T.T. has been blacklisted by the Hollywood community after reporting David Hasselhof for sexual abuse.
I'm personally a tad skeptical on the technology. I really like the concept, but as anybody who works in technology well knows, bad people like to do bad things with it. That said, I would like to see what can be done about people sending false V2V data to other cars, for example to do things like induce traffic to move aside for themselves, or even deliberately cause accidents.
That said, you design it so that a signal cannot be used to cause a crash and combine it with other features too.
Example: Car A is being followed by Car B.
Car A sends "I'm breaking" signal to Car B. Car B breaks. This isn't a bad thing. If someone spoofs the "I'm breaking" signal, worst case scenario cars slow down.
Car A sends "I'm accelerating" signal to Car B. Car B doesn't do anything. You don't accelerate until your sensors detect the car ahead is far enough away from you. Spoofing the "accelerating" signal doesn't cause an accident.
I remember for years the phrase was "mathematically a bumblebee can't fly". I hardly think we know all the nuances of cellular mechanics yet.
Bumblebees can't fly!
If you look close enough they're all riding mini quadrocopter's; that's why they make so much noise as they fly.
That's pretty cool... and there are trees on this planet that are close to 5,000 years old. That's not immortal, but it's pretty clear they have aging controlled pretty well. Trees may be simple compared to many advanced animal life, but they're still pretty complex organisms.
I don't believe preventing aging is impossible; it's just very difficult. If we live long enough we'll find a solution to aging.
That "El Nino" needs to be taxed so this doesn't happen again.
I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them (if decided by fair and free referendum).
All members of my census block have voted unanimously to succeed from the country and immediately cease any and all tax payments to local and national taxing authorities.
Thanks for your support.
Duely noted- you shall receive a demand for $100,000 as your share of the national debt; plus several million in legal work to separate our two countries. Expect to produce a visa when reentering the country, failure to do so will be seen as an invasion- we shall retaliate by taking your land and putting you in a military prison. Because we have no trade agreement with you- you shall pay a major tariff on any goods you move between our two nations.
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
As their names imply, The Union was for a strong Union of States(Nations) while the Confederates was for a loose Confederation of States(Nations).
In this aspect, the Union was wrong to oppose them from leaving just as it would be wrong to oppose Texas or California or Hawaii from leaving today.
That being said, I would not be in favor of Texas leaving today if I knew that the plan upon leaving was to make a certain class of people second class citizens.
The Civil War should have been fought over Black Rights not on whether or not Nations (States) had a right to leave the United States(Nations).
Ironically, that is what is taught in public schools today that the Civil War was fought over Slavery.
*Sadly, since the Civil War, the meaning of State has been lost and no longer means Country/Nation like it once did.
The States had quit being "States" in the true meaning of the word State long before the civil war though. By that point they were already more like provinces than independent nations that were loosely bound together. "States Rights" movements and trying to return to a more confederate group of States was a reaction to becoming a minority of states that allowed slaves. "States Rights" was not an issue until losing slaves was a threat. The only reason the South wanted a return to a confederation from the slow accumulation of power in the State capitol is because they wanted to keep slaves. The war was about slavery. "States Rights" was how they tried to justify seceding.
Am curious your thoughts, how far does that go? The state, the county, the city, the municipality, the property, the region (being made of potentially multiple jurisdictions).
I don't think there is an easy answer or a rigid answer for that. If a group of people can be recognized as a unit- an identifiable "people"; they have that right. That's a wishy-washy answer, I know; but, I don't think there is an easy hard-and-fast answer.
The group breaking away must be responsible for what they're doing and be ultimately self-governing. They would have to take on a fair share of the debt and obligations of their nation. You obviously couldn't have some guy on a ranch declare his ranch an independent nation; it wouldn't be self-supporting, he couldn't get by without getting a visa to leave his ranch to go to the suprtmarket, etc.
Stupid racist, the south's secession was illegitimate because they didn't let male slaves vote for or against it.
That is an excellent point! (that slaves didn't get a choice in it- not the part about being racist). Slaves made up a minority of the South, but still, a large enough number that they probably would have tipped the overall support into remaining with the union. I doubt every white man in the South wanted independence, but I bet almost every black man wanted it not to happen.
News flash, it was never about slavery.
Slavery might not have been the only concern; certainly the South had other concerns such as the industrial North passing laws that hurt the mainly agricultural South, but the number one issue was slavery.
The slave owning South was about to become a minority of states to the non slave owning states. They were worried that slavery could be made illegal (and their entire economy tanking as a result).
Anyone that says the war had nothing to do with slavery is either being deceitful or has been duped by someone deceitful. It was a major factor. Maybe not the only factor but the single biggest factor.
Why should they need to forgo the protection of the EU -- as a european entity, would their membership be rejected?
Their membership would almost certainly be rejected. For one thing, they would need approval of all member states. Spain isn't going to give their's. Not just to be vindictive cunts, but also because they wouldn't want to encourage independence movements in other regions like the basque country. Germany, Italy, etc, all have small independence movements in regions. They wouldn't want to help breakaway states by giving the safety net of the EU.
Catalonia won't get EU membership. Not right away and perhaps not for a long time if ever.
> I fully support the right of any region to decide who rules them
So to be clear, you believe the Union was wrong in the civil war?
Yes and no. I'm obviously against slavery and I'm glad the North intervened to stop slavery. With that said, yes, the South had the right to declare independence. It is probably turned out better for both the North and the South long term that the North won, but, yes, South had right to secede, even if they did it for an utterly despicable reason.