And as for killing people. No cop desires to kill a person, regardless of the situation. They get immediate national media scrutiny, prying into their private lives. Their lives are turned upside down. They and their families get threats. They are publicly labelled as murderers. It can take years to get to get legal resolution, and even if they are acquitted remain vilified, whether they deserve it or not.
You make it sound like there are no consequences. You should re-think that.
The "bad behavior" (a nice euphemism for killing people) >
No, I was not referring specifically to killing people. In fact, that would be even a much much smaller percentage of behavior than unacceptable/unprofessional behavior.
To be fair, the solar PV industry itself and their proponents greatly underestimated growth as well, but lets not let that get in the way of a good EIA bashing session;
No,
fires occur when you close your laptop, but it fails to go into sleep mode, for some reason it does calculations, it is in a protective coverage, and you insisted to put it into a suitcase with cloth above and below it, for protection.
That is the main reason for overheating... if it is getting hot enough to start a fire is another issue.
So, you are saying that is the ONLY way fires start with laptops? I'm not sure how you can be so sure. But, with that said, a not fully latched laptop could open and close with luggage movement.
I have to question how many laptop fires have there been and how many have caused the loss of an entire aircraft. If this was an issue I'm sure it wold have been all over the news and everyone would already be talking about how to make laptops safe.
Well, if you google 'laptop fire' you can see they do happen. We don't want to wait till a plane goes down because of one to address the risk. It is a low probability, but a very real one. It makes sense to not put them in checked baggage where a fire cannot be noticed and dealt with quickly, whereas in the cabin it can be.
This is NOT something ANY HR person in the COUNTRY would say. And if they did, those fuckers need to burn in the fiery pits while having the company president publicly kick them in the ass repeatedly.
These fucking stories just hitting right as Tesla is offering a lower cost car seems very god damn suspect.
Get mad all you want, but this type of allegation happens to every large company. You just typically don't hear about it because the media could care less or the claimants don't see that publicity would help their case. But when it is Tesla, the media will be all over it and the claimants will try to use that to their advantage. Tesla's biggest problem is their place in the media spotlight, a place Musk seems to want them to be in.
I'll believe people are serious about CAGW when I see the US start to built nuclear reactors at a rate that is equal to that of shutting down old coal and nuclear.
This. Germany is a great example. They have decided shutting down nuclear plants is more important that carbon emissions reductions. Had they not shut down any units they would have shown significant reductions, but because they have shut them down they have made insignificant progress on reductions from electrical generation even with their massive investments in wind and solar. And when they take the next unit off line (next year), emissions will increase.
People like to argue about the cost, but all we need to do is build a lot, and with the experience and infrastructure cost, schedule and risk will diminish. South Koreans have already proven you can build on time on schedule on budget, they have developed the infrastructure. Everyone knows this, but the anti-nuke crowd won't ever admit it. What they also won't ever admit to is that wind and solar plus storage, or the alternative of building tremendous overcapacity cost a lot more.
Even if storage drops to 1/10 what it costs now in the next 15 years, its simply no affordable on the scale we need.
So, yes, I'm with you. If anyone says they want to remove the one tool that's generated more clean air than any other from the toolbox because they ideologically oppose it, then they are saying that their ideology is more important to them than addressing CO2 emissions. Germany is a great example. They've gotten to 20% wind and solar annual generation and are hitting the limits of their infrastructure. They've needed new coal plants to support the mix, and because they've cut nuclear they are making insignificant progress while having skyrocketing energy costs and are needing to find new taxes to pay for future wind and solar additions. Why others insist that is the way to go is beyond me.
Yes, its all just an accounting game. As long as the amount of renewable energy generated during the course of the year is as much as the total the companies claim is 'earmarked' to them, then there is no additional 'green' energy generated due to these arrangements. They make good PR for the companies though. In reality, they are using energy generated from coal and gas just like their neighbors.
If I were in the office (or warehouse) next door, I would make the same claim since I'm getting power from the same sources. I would say my energy supply is just as green as theirs. And it would be true.
As a Model 3 fan, I'm actually hear to say that I find it weird that you can rate the reliability of a car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time, and is based on an entirely new platform from a manufacturer's previous vehicles.
Nothing, more, nothing less. Just strikes me as odd.
What's even weirder is they are using the term 'predicting' and not 'rating'. Why would they call it a prediction if it were a rating?
But, yes, you can use past performance information from companies and the fact that they have admitted production line issues to predict the reliability of the first x number off the line. How accurately you can do that is up for debate, but that's what CR does.
Are these facts, or is someone looking for a payday? If there has been a formal complaint that got ignored, there'd be a pretty clear case. If the harassment actually happened but no formal complaint was made for whatever reason, then it comes down (or should come down) to what the law says about what exactly Tesla's obligations are in having an appropriate code of conduct and making sure it is being followed. No idea what US law has to say about that to be honest... But the point is that Tesla ought to be judged on facts, not claims or hearsay.
Those are the questions. None here have any facts to work with, so its hard to get offended. If this accused racist and demeaning treatment was as common as claimed, I would expect there would be other employees that could and would be will to corroborate it. That's something investigations will likely delve into. Until then the only thing we know is that some of the recently dismissed employees are making claims.
You are spending a lot more time talking about me than you are articulating anything that makes sense about the study or point at hand. I guess you are just frustrated that I've peeled away your BS posts and provided references and articulate explanations.
And with all that, and the number of times you've tried it, I would think you could at least talk a little about risk. Maybe do your homework and next time you can actually make a point.
BTW, notice the exposure levels in the study you cited... think about them for a minute. I just leave you with that. Good day or evening.
Good points, I agree and never mean to imply there is NO correlation at low levels, only that the existing LNT model has proven to be conservative and that risks at low levels are much smaller than the typical person perceives.
BTW, thanks for a coherent and thoughtful response on this topic.
Only the study you refer to does in not necessarily dispute what I"ve said or referred to, and even refers to total cases in numbers much less than initially estimated using LNT basis. You simply don't understand what you are reading, and you evidently skipped over the talk of error and uncertanties. In otherwords, the study results are considered 'evidenciary' but not 'conclusive'. Sorry to bust that bubble.
We observed a significant increase in the risk of leukemia with radiation dose based on the entire study sample. However, a preliminary examination of differences in various characteristics of participating cases, ascertained using the two methods described above, indicated that cases with direct in-person interviews greater than 2 years from start of chemotherapy treatment had mean bone marrow radiation dose estimates significantly lower than other cases interviewed in-person (16.8 vs. 121.4 mGy, 7-fold difference in means, p Wilcoxon = 0.036), and these doses were uniformly lower across all types of work performed in the 30-km zone, whereas the mean doses for controls from both groups were almost identical.
And ends with this very clear statement;
Further investigations are needed to develop a better understanding of the association between radiation and CLL.
Meanwhile, larger studies such as the UN one I references are well accepted in the scientific community. You can deny them, just like climate science deniers do, if you like.
I see names come easier to you than actual facts. One liners don't cut it, how about going back to an actual discussion of risk, or is that too hard to twist into FUD?
This author also has written a good book on skewed risk perceptions in general. It maybe helps explain why some folks here exhibit irrational fears and remain so deeply rooted in them even when readily available facts don't support them.
We know the risk is lower than LNT projects, the problem is that the risks are so low for these lower exposure levels, they cannot find enough statistical significance to define a model at all, even among large study groups. For reference, LNT projected many more deaths and negative health impacts from Chernobyl than actually occurred.
Slashdot Mirror
And as for killing people. No cop desires to kill a person, regardless of the situation. They get immediate national media scrutiny, prying into their private lives. Their lives are turned upside down. They and their families get threats. They are publicly labelled as murderers. It can take years to get to get legal resolution, and even if they are acquitted remain vilified, whether they deserve it or not.
You make it sound like there are no consequences. You should re-think that.
The "bad behavior" (a nice euphemism for killing people) >
No, I was not referring specifically to killing people. In fact, that would be even a much much smaller percentage of behavior than unacceptable/unprofessional behavior.
If 'bad behavior' is only attributable to a small percentage of cops to begin with, then you would expect little change on average from using cameras.
...which some critics see as an attempt to boost the oil and gas industry.
Well, apparently it doesn't work, so no need to keep obsessing over it.
The EIA is a oil industry funded group! !
I wonder how many here will just believe that without checking.
To be fair, the solar PV industry itself and their proponents greatly underestimated growth as well, but lets not let that get in the way of a good EIA bashing session;
http://grist.org/article/mckin...
Title says "Begins Digging" yet he's only now been "granted permission"? Wrong headline is wrong.
They can't even start yet, the permit is conditional and they've still got to meet the conditions. But when it comes to Musk hype on /. all is fair.
understood. I misread your post.
I may have misread you post. I don't disagree, just didn't want eliminate other possibilities
No, fires occur when you close your laptop, but it fails to go into sleep mode, for some reason it does calculations, it is in a protective coverage, and you insisted to put it into a suitcase with cloth above and below it, for protection.
That is the main reason for overheating ... if it is getting hot enough to start a fire is another issue.
So, you are saying that is the ONLY way fires start with laptops? I'm not sure how you can be so sure. But, with that said, a not fully latched laptop could open and close with luggage movement.
I have to question how many laptop fires have there been and how many have caused the loss of an entire aircraft. If this was an issue I'm sure it wold have been all over the news and everyone would already be talking about how to make laptops safe.
Well, if you google 'laptop fire' you can see they do happen. We don't want to wait till a plane goes down because of one to address the risk. It is a low probability, but a very real one. It makes sense to not put them in checked baggage where a fire cannot be noticed and dealt with quickly, whereas in the cabin it can be.
This is NOT something ANY HR person in the COUNTRY would say. And if they did, those fuckers need to burn in the fiery pits while having the company president publicly kick them in the ass repeatedly.
These fucking stories just hitting right as Tesla is offering a lower cost car seems very god damn suspect.
Get mad all you want, but this type of allegation happens to every large company. You just typically don't hear about it because the media could care less or the claimants don't see that publicity would help their case. But when it is Tesla, the media will be all over it and the claimants will try to use that to their advantage. Tesla's biggest problem is their place in the media spotlight, a place Musk seems to want them to be in.
I'll believe people are serious about CAGW when I see the US start to built nuclear reactors at a rate that is equal to that of shutting down old coal and nuclear.
This. Germany is a great example. They have decided shutting down nuclear plants is more important that carbon emissions reductions. Had they not shut down any units they would have shown significant reductions, but because they have shut them down they have made insignificant progress on reductions from electrical generation even with their massive investments in wind and solar. And when they take the next unit off line (next year), emissions will increase.
People like to argue about the cost, but all we need to do is build a lot, and with the experience and infrastructure cost, schedule and risk will diminish. South Koreans have already proven you can build on time on schedule on budget, they have developed the infrastructure. Everyone knows this, but the anti-nuke crowd won't ever admit it. What they also won't ever admit to is that wind and solar plus storage, or the alternative of building tremendous overcapacity cost a lot more. Even if storage drops to 1/10 what it costs now in the next 15 years, its simply no affordable on the scale we need.
So, yes, I'm with you. If anyone says they want to remove the one tool that's generated more clean air than any other from the toolbox because they ideologically oppose it, then they are saying that their ideology is more important to them than addressing CO2 emissions. Germany is a great example. They've gotten to 20% wind and solar annual generation and are hitting the limits of their infrastructure. They've needed new coal plants to support the mix, and because they've cut nuclear they are making insignificant progress while having skyrocketing energy costs and are needing to find new taxes to pay for future wind and solar additions. Why others insist that is the way to go is beyond me.
Yes, its all just an accounting game. As long as the amount of renewable energy generated during the course of the year is as much as the total the companies claim is 'earmarked' to them, then there is no additional 'green' energy generated due to these arrangements. They make good PR for the companies though. In reality, they are using energy generated from coal and gas just like their neighbors.
If I were in the office (or warehouse) next door, I would make the same claim since I'm getting power from the same sources. I would say my energy supply is just as green as theirs. And it would be true.
As a Model 3 fan, I'm actually hear to say that I find it weird that you can rate the reliability of a car you've never even touched and which nobody has had on the road for any length of time, and is based on an entirely new platform from a manufacturer's previous vehicles.
Nothing, more, nothing less. Just strikes me as odd.
What's even weirder is they are using the term 'predicting' and not 'rating'. Why would they call it a prediction if it were a rating?
But, yes, you can use past performance information from companies and the fact that they have admitted production line issues to predict the reliability of the first x number off the line. How accurately you can do that is up for debate, but that's what CR does.
Are these facts, or is someone looking for a payday? If there has been a formal complaint that got ignored, there'd be a pretty clear case. If the harassment actually happened but no formal complaint was made for whatever reason, then it comes down (or should come down) to what the law says about what exactly Tesla's obligations are in having an appropriate code of conduct and making sure it is being followed. No idea what US law has to say about that to be honest... But the point is that Tesla ought to be judged on facts, not claims or hearsay.
Those are the questions. None here have any facts to work with, so its hard to get offended. If this accused racist and demeaning treatment was as common as claimed, I would expect there would be other employees that could and would be will to corroborate it. That's something investigations will likely delve into. Until then the only thing we know is that some of the recently dismissed employees are making claims.
You are spending a lot more time talking about me than you are articulating anything that makes sense about the study or point at hand. I guess you are just frustrated that I've peeled away your BS posts and provided references and articulate explanations.
And with all that, and the number of times you've tried it, I would think you could at least talk a little about risk. Maybe do your homework and next time you can actually make a point.
BTW, notice the exposure levels in the study you cited... think about them for a minute. I just leave you with that. Good day or evening.
Conspiracy theory's I see. Just like a climate denier.
Good points, I agree and never mean to imply there is NO correlation at low levels, only that the existing LNT model has proven to be conservative and that risks at low levels are much smaller than the typical person perceives.
BTW, thanks for a coherent and thoughtful response on this topic.
We observed a significant increase in the risk of leukemia with radiation dose based on the entire study sample. However, a preliminary examination of differences in various characteristics of participating cases, ascertained using the two methods described above, indicated that cases with direct in-person interviews greater than 2 years from start of chemotherapy treatment had mean bone marrow radiation dose estimates significantly lower than other cases interviewed in-person (16.8 vs. 121.4 mGy, 7-fold difference in means, p Wilcoxon = 0.036), and these doses were uniformly lower across all types of work performed in the 30-km zone, whereas the mean doses for controls from both groups were almost identical.
And ends with this very clear statement;
Further investigations are needed to develop a better understanding of the association between radiation and CLL.
Meanwhile, larger studies such as the UN one I references are well accepted in the scientific community. You can deny them, just like climate science deniers do, if you like.
I see names come easier to you than actual facts. One liners don't cut it, how about going back to an actual discussion of risk, or is that too hard to twist into FUD?
You just can't understand what you are reading.
And for those that still insist on spouting FUD, here is another good read for you, or to ignore if you want to remain ignorant.
Fear vs. Radiation: The Mismatch
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10...
This author also has written a good book on skewed risk perceptions in general. It maybe helps explain why some folks here exhibit irrational fears and remain so deeply rooted in them even when readily available facts don't support them.
I've yet to meet an underperformer who admitted that was why they were terminated. Not saying these people were, just something that I keep in mind.
We know the risk is lower than LNT projects, the problem is that the risks are so low for these lower exposure levels, they cannot find enough statistical significance to define a model at all, even among large study groups. For reference, LNT projected many more deaths and negative health impacts from Chernobyl than actually occurred.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...