I was citing an example from the current news cycle.
Where I make no apology for my political views, I DO expect that others would recognize the issue from my example. Personally, I welcome discussions which originate from widely varying political perspectives, even ones I find offensive.
The real problem here is how folks define "tolerance" as being "don't offend anybody." That's not tolerance, it's something else. Tolerance is knowing that it's OK to be offended by someone else's perspective and even express that you are offended, while letting folks be dead wrong if they insist. True tolerance recognizes that I'm responsible only for myself because I have no control over you. I can get angry about your stupidity and even tell you why I'm angry, but I cannot stop you if you won't listen.
Social media platforms have been trying to filter out offense... Something that I firmly believe is impossible.. But that's another topic..
I read this totally differently... I'm decidedly NOT in Silicon Valley and from my perspective this author is possibly on to something, but totally struck out trying to dance around the bush identifying it.
The problem with Social media in general is the propensity of people to identify dangerous ideas while wearing political glasses. This makes some feel, for instance, supporting the 2nd amendment is somehow akin to advocating the killing of innocent people in mass shootings. As such, then it justifies the elimination of that kind of message from the platform. The problem is the projection of political interpretations and the use of strong and angry rhetoric into the management of the platform. Such things need to stop and platforms need to not bow to social pressure born of the news cycle in their editorial decisions.
Where I fully understand the need for moderation of social media platforms and the social necessity of platform operators to keep things under control by putting limits in place and enforcing them, I think that platform operators need to CLEARLY define what sorts of things they will and will not allow then follow the rules they put forth strictly. Where I leave such editorial decisions up to the site owners, I would hope that operators can divorce themselves from political and social perspectives which are truly intolerant of alternate views and fall on the side of allowing folks to be offended by ideas they don't like.
There are examples of successful moderation techniques to be gleaned from USENET of the past (or even the present). I suggest we take a look at how USENET evolved, look at what worked, what didn't and apply the lessons we learned back then. Strong moderation policies, clearly written, evenly and strictly enforced quickly worked best in my view. Social platforms of today would do well to learn from these successful efforts.
Renewables are nice, but not a real solution for the individual household consumer and don't remove the need for a power grid.
If you have solar, you need batteries to get you though the night and cloudy days, plus additional generation capacity to charge all these batteries. Windmills are a bit better, but individuals would have a hard time building and maintaining enough capacity to keep the lights on when it's calm so you'd likely need to share capacity with your neighbors, meaning you need transmission lines.
The issue PR has is power distribution infrastructure, not generation capacity. Adding a raft of solar panels everywhere doesn't fix the infrastructure problem. You are still going to need a power grid.
The government of PR has over spent on other things so are incapable of bailing out the electric company. The electric company hasn't been maintaining it's infrastructure for decades. Hurricane comes though and blows away what little infrastructure was there. This is the result.
It's a catch 22... Folks are leaving the island in droves because living conditions suck, reducing economic activity and reducing tax receipts the government has to service it's debt and sucking any cash available to improve living conditions, public infrastructure and law enforcement which leads to a lower standard of living... Rinse lather and repeat... But this downward spiral has been going on long before last year's storm, it just hastened the process.
When you look at the photo: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/da...
It looks like a single blade is missing. If the blade breaks and flies to the cabin, like a dagger, ripping things on the way, I can understand.
But how did the whole front cowling get ripped in all directions? or did the wind rip pieces after the structure was damaged?
Think about it this way... That one blade broke loose and suddenly the whole engine is imbalanced and still turning at tens of thousands RPM's. I can see the front fan getting pretty wobbly as everything slows down, shredding the intake cowling.
Also, look at where the broken window is. It is well behind the rotating parts of the engine... I don't think it was broken by a fan blade back there, more likely it was bumped by parts of the cowling driven by aerodynamic forces as they departed the aircraft. There is a tell tail mark in the blue paint just under the window too, making me think that damage was caused by something much larger than a fan blade.
> These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body.
This statement is factually wrong.
When an uncontained engine failure happens - and they do happen - fragments of the blade can travel in any direction. It is random. In this case it looks like a piece went through the window.
It does not appear so to me. The problem with your theory is this. The broken window is well aft of all of the rotating engine parts and couldn't have been broken by an uncontained fan blade. It looks more like a piece of the engine cowling was driven by aerodynamic forces over the wing and it bounced off the aircraft breaking the window and leaving marks in the blue paint under it too.
The engine failure looks like it was contained, but the cowling was damaged, departed the aircraft due to air flow and caused the damage further aft.
My look at the pictures tells me that officially the engine failure WAS likely contained, in that all the rotor blades stayed within the containment system. If you look at where the fuselage was damaged it was well aft of the rotating parts of the engine. What happened was as the engine self destructed, parts of the cowling got loose and aerodynamic forces blew it over the wing and into the fuselage.
But the evidence is pretty convincing that the engine failure was contained in the official meaning of the term.
The damage to the fuselage and broken window was well aft of the rotating parts of the engine. The damage was obviously (from the photos I've seen) a result of aerodynamic forces on some non structural part of the engine cowling blowing it up over the wind and into the aircraft. So the engine coming apart yet contained may be the trigger, but the fatal damage was from the cowling getting blown the wrong way.
These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.
It's even worse than that. This was not an uncontained engine failure by all appearances. The broken window was well behind the rotating parts of the engine and looks like it was hit by a large piece of something that left marks all around the window on the fuselage. My guess is that some large part covering the engine came up over the wing and struck the window, breaking it.
This was the *definition* of a freak accident. The chances of an engine failure like this are very slim, especially at cruse. Then, as the engine self destructs, large pieces of the engine covering depart the aircraft OVER the wig, hit the fuselage but missing any thing else vital, broke ONE window causing explosive decompression while the passenger sitting next to it is unbuckled and nearly gets pulled out by the rushing air? Your chances of getting struck by lighting, twice, are better.
Likely they cannot afford the payments and operating costs.
Tesla's are nice cars, but they come at a premium price. I'll never afford one. My guess is as folks start to realize they are mileage limited with long recharge times (range anxiety), are paying a LOT for that 4 door sedan, AND they could get a REALLY NICE fossil fueled option for less money so they put it up for sale.
No thank you... I can assemble a biased news feed all on my own or just subscribe to Twitter and Facebook and get one ready made for free.
Why waste your time painstakingly assembling the biased news yourself? Just watch the Fox News live stream.
Better yet, just listen to MSNBC, CNN or even NPR... What ever you do, DON'T EVER listen to CSPAN or look at Thomas.gov, you might die from shock being exposed to the actual facts....
I hear that many post offices in major cities will even be open LATE to accept your return/payment. In Dallas, the main post office has accepted tax returns up until midnight making the late filing at 11:59 PM central on tax day possible.http://about.usps.com/news/state-releases/tx/2017/tx_2017_0413b.htm
IF you owe the IRS money, why would you not just write a check and mail it to them? IF it's postmarked before it's due, you paid on time. They don't charge you extra for a check (assuming it doesn't bounce) and you keep your money for a few extra days where it might just draw interest (assuming you have interest earning checking.)
IF the IRS owes you a refund, why on earth didn't you file in February (or the day after you got your W2)?
I have no doubt that a few snowflakes with hipster glasses, beanie hats and some extra money from mom and dad will gladly pay to make it possible to prevent unpleasant facts from disturbing them at Starbucks.
If we can keep Starbucks from tossing them out onto the street or getting them arrested for trespassing....
here the knew that those documents were not there for public availability
He may have found it odd that they were publicly available.
ACTUALLY.... My guess is he never actually looked at any of these documents. Just a guess, but given the size of this kid's archive, I'm guessing he had a bot doing most of the collecting and never actually took the time to read everything he was fetching and in a programming short cut his bot generated URL's to fetch by modifying known good URL's.
Sailboats have actually advanced a long way in recent decades. A modern clipper ship would look quite different from the old ones.
The advantage to wind powered ships is that they don't need fuel! Think of the money the industry would save.
But they DO need fuel. They will need fuel to navigate though ports and shipping channels when the wind isn't favorable. They will also have power needs for the comfort of the crew and the operation of the ship. Maybe not as much fuel, but you are going to need some. The ships will be significantly more expensive to build, and only marginally less to operate.
The problem really the reliability of the wind and keeping up scheduled arrivals at ports where dock space is scheduled weeks in advance. You have to deliver cargo on time, or you are going to have a hard time staying in business. If you could operate in places where the wind is consistently blowing in favorable directions, it might work, but for large container ship operations, I seriously doubt it would pay (or they'd already be doing this).
The problem with liberals is that they truly believe people are that stupid, epically those on the right. I had a discussion on FB this morning with a liberal who *started* the debate by calling me and my views stupid, made a comment that amounted to class envy (deriding the 1%) but not actually discussing the subject (the economic effects of the tax cuts and how they effect the national debt.).
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this kind of thing exemplifies the REAL issue these days, talking past the other side. How are we going to reach consensus on things without the open exchange of ideas and how do you exchange ideas when someones STARTS a discussion with "you are stupid"?
I would also be impressed, but I seriously doubt that it's true.
Sure, it's anecdotal, but I don't personally know anyone who's done more than change their privacy settings.
It's really hard for me to believe they lost 1 in 10 users in the US.
Yet... Because it's helpful to the narrative, this tripe gets reported, then quoted over and over. Eventually everybody will believe it's true.
Somebody should give this practice a name.... Hmmm.... Maybe "Fake News(tm)" would be appropriate...
I don't think so... Physical access to a building isn't necessary anymore.
Today we have "smart meters" where I live. I'm not sure what the polling rate of my power meter is, but I do know that it's readable often enough that companies offer "time of day rates" so it's got to be at least every hour, and likely is multiple times an hour.
If the polling rate is every 15 min, then you could conceivably get a couple of bits of data every hour. Yea, that's pretty much a useless data rate, but long term could be an issue if it allows you to intercept an encryption key or something like that.
Problem here is that large loads are easily filtered out. What they are using is a load variation of about 10 watts or so. So when your AC unit starts, it's pretty obvious and easy to remove the signal.
What you need is a randomly variable power consumer/producer that can sufficiently randomize the small variations in power consumption and *possibly* make it too hard to figure out what's the data signal and what's just random noise. Even then, it's going to be pretty difficult to truly hide all possible data transfer using this technique. You may slow down the data rate possible, but I don't think you can totally mask this power consumption variation.
Slashdot Mirror
I was citing an example from the current news cycle.
Where I make no apology for my political views, I DO expect that others would recognize the issue from my example. Personally, I welcome discussions which originate from widely varying political perspectives, even ones I find offensive.
The real problem here is how folks define "tolerance" as being "don't offend anybody." That's not tolerance, it's something else. Tolerance is knowing that it's OK to be offended by someone else's perspective and even express that you are offended, while letting folks be dead wrong if they insist. True tolerance recognizes that I'm responsible only for myself because I have no control over you. I can get angry about your stupidity and even tell you why I'm angry, but I cannot stop you if you won't listen.
Social media platforms have been trying to filter out offense... Something that I firmly believe is impossible.. But that's another topic..
I read this totally differently... I'm decidedly NOT in Silicon Valley and from my perspective this author is possibly on to something, but totally struck out trying to dance around the bush identifying it.
The problem with Social media in general is the propensity of people to identify dangerous ideas while wearing political glasses. This makes some feel, for instance, supporting the 2nd amendment is somehow akin to advocating the killing of innocent people in mass shootings. As such, then it justifies the elimination of that kind of message from the platform. The problem is the projection of political interpretations and the use of strong and angry rhetoric into the management of the platform. Such things need to stop and platforms need to not bow to social pressure born of the news cycle in their editorial decisions.
Where I fully understand the need for moderation of social media platforms and the social necessity of platform operators to keep things under control by putting limits in place and enforcing them, I think that platform operators need to CLEARLY define what sorts of things they will and will not allow then follow the rules they put forth strictly. Where I leave such editorial decisions up to the site owners, I would hope that operators can divorce themselves from political and social perspectives which are truly intolerant of alternate views and fall on the side of allowing folks to be offended by ideas they don't like.
There are examples of successful moderation techniques to be gleaned from USENET of the past (or even the present). I suggest we take a look at how USENET evolved, look at what worked, what didn't and apply the lessons we learned back then. Strong moderation policies, clearly written, evenly and strictly enforced quickly worked best in my view. Social platforms of today would do well to learn from these successful efforts.
Renewables are nice, but not a real solution for the individual household consumer and don't remove the need for a power grid.
If you have solar, you need batteries to get you though the night and cloudy days, plus additional generation capacity to charge all these batteries. Windmills are a bit better, but individuals would have a hard time building and maintaining enough capacity to keep the lights on when it's calm so you'd likely need to share capacity with your neighbors, meaning you need transmission lines.
The issue PR has is power distribution infrastructure, not generation capacity. Adding a raft of solar panels everywhere doesn't fix the infrastructure problem. You are still going to need a power grid.
The government of PR has over spent on other things so are incapable of bailing out the electric company. The electric company hasn't been maintaining it's infrastructure for decades. Hurricane comes though and blows away what little infrastructure was there. This is the result.
It's a catch 22... Folks are leaving the island in droves because living conditions suck, reducing economic activity and reducing tax receipts the government has to service it's debt and sucking any cash available to improve living conditions, public infrastructure and law enforcement which leads to a lower standard of living... Rinse lather and repeat... But this downward spiral has been going on long before last year's storm, it just hastened the process.
When you look at the photo: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/da... It looks like a single blade is missing. If the blade breaks and flies to the cabin, like a dagger, ripping things on the way, I can understand. But how did the whole front cowling get ripped in all directions? or did the wind rip pieces after the structure was damaged?
Think about it this way... That one blade broke loose and suddenly the whole engine is imbalanced and still turning at tens of thousands RPM's. I can see the front fan getting pretty wobbly as everything slows down, shredding the intake cowling.
Also, look at where the broken window is. It is well behind the rotating parts of the engine... I don't think it was broken by a fan blade back there, more likely it was bumped by parts of the cowling driven by aerodynamic forces as they departed the aircraft. There is a tell tail mark in the blue paint just under the window too, making me think that damage was caused by something much larger than a fan blade.
> These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body.
This statement is factually wrong.
When an uncontained engine failure happens - and they do happen - fragments of the blade can travel in any direction. It is random. In this case it looks like a piece went through the window.
It does not appear so to me. The problem with your theory is this. The broken window is well aft of all of the rotating engine parts and couldn't have been broken by an uncontained fan blade. It looks more like a piece of the engine cowling was driven by aerodynamic forces over the wing and it bounced off the aircraft breaking the window and leaving marks in the blue paint under it too.
The engine failure looks like it was contained, but the cowling was damaged, departed the aircraft due to air flow and caused the damage further aft.
My look at the pictures tells me that officially the engine failure WAS likely contained, in that all the rotor blades stayed within the containment system. If you look at where the fuselage was damaged it was well aft of the rotating parts of the engine. What happened was as the engine self destructed, parts of the cowling got loose and aerodynamic forces blew it over the wing and into the fuselage.
But the evidence is pretty convincing that the engine failure was contained in the official meaning of the term.
The damage to the fuselage and broken window was well aft of the rotating parts of the engine. The damage was obviously (from the photos I've seen) a result of aerodynamic forces on some non structural part of the engine cowling blowing it up over the wind and into the aircraft. So the engine coming apart yet contained may be the trigger, but the fatal damage was from the cowling getting blown the wrong way.
These engines are manufactured a way not to propel debris towards the body. Explosion are also unlikely. Having all that plus some debris break a window is really bad luck for that passenger.
It's even worse than that. This was not an uncontained engine failure by all appearances. The broken window was well behind the rotating parts of the engine and looks like it was hit by a large piece of something that left marks all around the window on the fuselage. My guess is that some large part covering the engine came up over the wing and struck the window, breaking it.
This was the *definition* of a freak accident. The chances of an engine failure like this are very slim, especially at cruse. Then, as the engine self destructs, large pieces of the engine covering depart the aircraft OVER the wig, hit the fuselage but missing any thing else vital, broke ONE window causing explosive decompression while the passenger sitting next to it is unbuckled and nearly gets pulled out by the rushing air? Your chances of getting struck by lighting, twice, are better.
No internal combustion engine and we are discussing a backfiring Tesla? How's that possible?
(To you literalist... I'm making a joke.. )
Likely they cannot afford the payments and operating costs.
Tesla's are nice cars, but they come at a premium price. I'll never afford one. My guess is as folks start to realize they are mileage limited with long recharge times (range anxiety), are paying a LOT for that 4 door sedan, AND they could get a REALLY NICE fossil fueled option for less money so they put it up for sale.
No thank you... I can assemble a biased news feed all on my own or just subscribe to Twitter and Facebook and get one ready made for free.
Why waste your time painstakingly assembling the biased news yourself? Just watch the Fox News live stream.
Better yet, just listen to MSNBC, CNN or even NPR... What ever you do, DON'T EVER listen to CSPAN or look at Thomas.gov, you might die from shock being exposed to the actual facts....
Isn't it obvious?
Assuming the IRS would accept it (and they won't), The problem will be making sure the transaction is completed in time....
I hear that many post offices in major cities will even be open LATE to accept your return/payment. In Dallas, the main post office has accepted tax returns up until midnight making the late filing at 11:59 PM central on tax day possible.http://about.usps.com/news/state-releases/tx/2017/tx_2017_0413b.htm
Good luck!
or else...
The check is in the mail....
IF you owe the IRS money, why would you not just write a check and mail it to them? IF it's postmarked before it's due, you paid on time. They don't charge you extra for a check (assuming it doesn't bounce) and you keep your money for a few extra days where it might just draw interest (assuming you have interest earning checking.)
IF the IRS owes you a refund, why on earth didn't you file in February (or the day after you got your W2)?
I have no doubt that a few snowflakes with hipster glasses, beanie hats and some extra money from mom and dad will gladly pay to make it possible to prevent unpleasant facts from disturbing them at Starbucks.
If we can keep Starbucks from tossing them out onto the street or getting them arrested for trespassing....
No thank you... I can assemble a biased news feed all on my own or just subscribe to Twitter and Facebook and get one ready made for free.
here the knew that those documents were not there for public availability
He may have found it odd that they were publicly available.
ACTUALLY.... My guess is he never actually looked at any of these documents. Just a guess, but given the size of this kid's archive, I'm guessing he had a bot doing most of the collecting and never actually took the time to read everything he was fetching and in a programming short cut his bot generated URL's to fetch by modifying known good URL's.
In other news, Slashdot temporarily shut down it's web site this morning. But no comment on that.
Because Slashdot shutdowns happen pretty often and many think it's a good thing, so it's not news worthy.
A production shutdown at Tesla doesn't happen too often and some might not think it's a good thing, making it news worthy.
Personally, I don't care about either.
Sailboats have actually advanced a long way in recent decades. A modern clipper ship would look quite different from the old ones.
The advantage to wind powered ships is that they don't need fuel! Think of the money the industry would save.
But they DO need fuel. They will need fuel to navigate though ports and shipping channels when the wind isn't favorable. They will also have power needs for the comfort of the crew and the operation of the ship. Maybe not as much fuel, but you are going to need some. The ships will be significantly more expensive to build, and only marginally less to operate.
The problem really the reliability of the wind and keeping up scheduled arrivals at ports where dock space is scheduled weeks in advance. You have to deliver cargo on time, or you are going to have a hard time staying in business. If you could operate in places where the wind is consistently blowing in favorable directions, it might work, but for large container ship operations, I seriously doubt it would pay (or they'd already be doing this).
3). I am not that stupid
The problem with liberals is that they truly believe people are that stupid, epically those on the right. I had a discussion on FB this morning with a liberal who *started* the debate by calling me and my views stupid, made a comment that amounted to class envy (deriding the 1%) but not actually discussing the subject (the economic effects of the tax cuts and how they effect the national debt.).
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this kind of thing exemplifies the REAL issue these days, talking past the other side. How are we going to reach consensus on things without the open exchange of ideas and how do you exchange ideas when someones STARTS a discussion with "you are stupid"?
I would also be impressed, but I seriously doubt that it's true.
Sure, it's anecdotal, but I don't personally know anyone who's done more than change their privacy settings. It's really hard for me to believe they lost 1 in 10 users in the US.
Yet... Because it's helpful to the narrative, this tripe gets reported, then quoted over and over. Eventually everybody will believe it's true.
Somebody should give this practice a name.... Hmmm.... Maybe "Fake News(tm)" would be appropriate...
I don't think so... Physical access to a building isn't necessary anymore.
Today we have "smart meters" where I live. I'm not sure what the polling rate of my power meter is, but I do know that it's readable often enough that companies offer "time of day rates" so it's got to be at least every hour, and likely is multiple times an hour.
If the polling rate is every 15 min, then you could conceivably get a couple of bits of data every hour. Yea, that's pretty much a useless data rate, but long term could be an issue if it allows you to intercept an encryption key or something like that.
Problem here is that large loads are easily filtered out. What they are using is a load variation of about 10 watts or so. So when your AC unit starts, it's pretty obvious and easy to remove the signal.
What you need is a randomly variable power consumer/producer that can sufficiently randomize the small variations in power consumption and *possibly* make it too hard to figure out what's the data signal and what's just random noise. Even then, it's going to be pretty difficult to truly hide all possible data transfer using this technique. You may slow down the data rate possible, but I don't think you can totally mask this power consumption variation.
Late to bed and early to rise.... Makes it hard to keep open your eyes!
Closed eyes lead to early death when driving, working, walking, running, and doing just about any daytime activity.