Sorry but no. Hate speech is a bullshit term used for "I disagree with this, there fore I am offended by it. So the person uttering it must be hateful."
And, it's subject to usage creep, since it's naught but a nebulous term.
You cannot simply ban speech because someone finds it offensive.
Someone ALWAYS finds some speech offensive.
Offense is something that it TAKEN, not given.
It's time to start acting like adults here. If you don't like what someone says, change the channel. If you don't like what someone's saying in your presence, argue it with them or simply walk away.
But demanding someone be silenced because they "blasphemed" your ideals?
No. Sorry. You don't have the right to not be offended.
This right here indicates that you have completely understood the purpose of free speech.
"There are limits to free speech."
NO! BAD! WRONG! BAD! DUMB!
There are NO limits to free speech.
All your examples are crimes for reasons BESIDES the speech itself. This is not an indicator of a limit.
Because you CAN scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You CAN lie about medications and treatments your company produces. You CAN swear at little kids.
You will simply be arrested afterwards for abuse of your freedom of speech (and breaking several laws).
Free speech is not speech free from consequence. So yes, you can say whatever the fuck you want. Just be aware that certain types and uses of free speech create real-world harm beyond the simple utterance.
So if someone wants to start talking about the N-word, the K-word, or whatever else is offense-du-jour. FINE! As long as they're not breaking any laws doing so (like incitement), it's all good. Well. Up until someone lynches them. I don't have to LIKE it. And I'll most likely tune that shit out.
But the only way to truly destroy bad ideas is to expose them. And let them die.
And going "Oh! You CAN'T say THAAAAAAAT!!!" Prohibition doesn't work. See the US alcohol prohibition. See the War on Drugs. All you do is create a marketplace for that kind of stuff, completely beyond your control. Because anything not being said openly is being discussed covertly with ZERO moderating influence.
And what you've created at that point are "blasphemy" laws.
Mostly because of how slow ACTUAL information flows back to educational institutions, compared to the Internet-Speed changes in the workplace, educational courses are going to lag actual realities of working with technology by 10-20 years minimum.
Hell, to take computer classes back in the late 80's, they were still REQUIRING you to take a typewriting class! Never mind that you don't use a computer the same way you use a typewriter or even a dedicated word processing machine...
And, after leaving the Army in the mid 90's, I found that college-level courses were barely more sophisticated. If I wanted to take programming classes, I had to learn how to use OFFICE?
Sorry if you didn't have the balls to post as yourself.
The problem is, "This COULD happen with a sufficiently advanced AI", so we shouldn't pursue it AT ALL?
So, because, some day, we MIGHT eventually turn out a sufficiently advanced AI that could be dangerous, we shouldn't pursue ANY form of AI, no matter how primitive?
While having the US there gives them a big target for hate, the fact is, these terrorists hate "The West" as unbelievers ALREADY. We could pull out tomorrow and these chowder-heads would continue their jihad because they believe they have a mandate from God/Allah/Bob/The Flying Spaghetti Monster that they should put the unbelievers to the sword and take the world for their deity.
And these people have said as much. Time and time and time again.
Seriously. Colleges have become cult indoc centers.
You go messing around in people's heads, feeding them rampant political bullshit instead of the actual knowledge they paid for, and it has consequences.
Yes. Things like this are a step in the right direction.
Will stuff like this drive up the initial cost of homes?
Maybe?
Right now everyone's focus is on cosmetic crap in their homes.
But, strategically pointed out, many people will forgo expensive "bling" on a home that dramatically reduces their bills and stills gives them a great space to use. So a house that, built to code, might cost $300K. But, built to these new standards, might wind up costing $315-330.
Yet it's built in such a way that what would normally be a $250 total utilities bill winds up being reduced to a $65 electric/water bill (or $0 if enough grid-tied solar is factored in), creating a payback in 6.7-13.5 years without solar and 5.3-10.6 years without. And, properly maintained, panels are usually good for 10-20 years beyond the end of life for their support. So imagine 25-30 years without anything more than a $15-20 water bill. It's enough to spend out for a new system IN CASH and STILL be looking at $50-70K in savings (meaning you could pay your home off earlier...
1: Liquid fueled reactors. Dry fuel and water cooling is stupid. 90% of the facility is a veritable Rube Goldberg machine of multiply redundant systems trying to head off every "what if". With liquid fuel, the default "no power" situation is that the reactor turns itself off and cools down. It also uses the fuel through it's complete cycle. So what's left over is highly radioactive. But, it's highly radioactive for a comparably short period of time. A couple centuries at most.
2: Most of what you see in nuclear waste are "spent" fuel rods. They're not ACTUALLY cooked out. They've used about 10-15% of their fuel, but have been removed because the cladding begins cracking and sloughing off. It's kinda like filling a van up with 20 gallons of gas, driving 40-50 miles, then siphoning the tank dry and filling up again with fresh gas.
3: The US already has massive surpluses of things like Thorium, as most rare earths are generally ound embedded in Thorium and it was an government equirement that it be properly stored. And, if the US restarts its rare earth mining operations (closed because China was able to undercut drastically due to complete lack of environmental regulation), the tailings (mining waste) from even a modest mine can power a reactor for life.
4: Solar and wind make NO provisions for EOL, other than "dump it in a landfill". So, every 30-40 years, we just throw away several megatons of potentially toxic materials in landfills around the country?
5: And yes. The ratio for solar is still 14 square miles per Gigawatt. California's Alta Wind Farm is the largest single installation wind farm in the world. It's estimated maximum output is somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 Gigawatts. But, calculating capacity factor, it's putting out less than 1/3rd of that on average). I will say that the land area used is well below the stats I put up. Why this is, I don't know, and I'd have to do more looking into the facility.
The largest solar PV plant in the country is Topaz. It carries a maximum output of around 550MW. In practice, it puts out just over 26% of that on average and sits on 9.5 square miles.
6: In the US, large (or carrier) hydro refers SPECIFICALLY to dams. Not wave power. Other forms, like low-head turbines, water wheels, and most wave projects are classed as "small hydro" or "micro hydro" (depending on how large the implementation is.
7) And I don't think anyone in their right mind is suggesting transmitting from coast to coast. However, some locations in the country simply are not logical places to put down carrier-grade wind and solar. They quite simply won't generate enough power in the facility's first-use lifetime to pay off the investment.
Chicago, the "Windy City"? Call that because of POLITICAL reasons. The wind resources are actually relatively poor (usable for micro installs, but not really carrier grade).
8) The main problem is that the initial proposal was basically made foregoing any form of energy storage whatsoever. That just doesn't wash. And the type of storage capacity needed, not just batteries but flywheels and pumped hydro (basically using excess power to pump water uphill, then allowing it to run back down past a dam-like structure with turbines when demand is required). Flywheels of this sort are MASSIVE and EXPENSIVE. The type of battery capacity is just unheard of and unfeasible in thie current marketplace. And you have to have proper geology on your side for pumped hydro. Just like you do with geothermal.
In the end, you STILL need a stable form of power generation for baseline power.
Move to liquid fueled reactors. They don't blow up. They don't require the water resources. And most of what is left when fuel is spent decays within several human lifetimes.
You have exactly THREE instances of reactor failures in the entire history. All of them old (VERY OLD in Chernobyl's case) Boiling Water Reactors.
Three Mile Island (equipment failure). How evacuated and "forever" is that? Deaths. None.
Chernobyl (Raging dumbasses playing with a nuclear reactor and not mentioning it to anyone. 31 direct deaths because they were lied to and kept in highly radioactive conditions WELL beyond their exposure limits. 15 more from attributed thyroid cancer.
Fukushima (Survived an earthquake, but failed in a Tsunami because TEPCO cheaped out and didn't follow engineering specifications on the seawall, leading to a flood and power loss). Deaths. None.
So you're okay with just dumping megatons of dangerous, possibly toxic waste from panels and turbines into a landfill every 30-ish years. But the thought of proper storage for radioactive material for a couple centuries (not the hundreds of millennia of current solid fuel reactors) scares you shitless?
To assure the power dependability of a baseline powerplant in renewables, you have to build multiple times the initial capacity.
To build 1GW of Wind power, you'd need approximately 133 square miles of land area. But, due to efficiency factors, you'd have to build 2-3x the capacity.
To build 1GW of Solar power, you'd need approximately 14 square miles of land area. But, due to efficiency factors , you'd have to build 3-6x the capacity.
1GW of Nuclear requires approximately 1.3 square miles of land area.
1: The infrastructure just isn't there right now. 2: What happens in a midnight lull? 3: What about windstorms? 4: What about the landfill problem with EOL panels? Because right now there's no plan for recycling. 5: What about the landfill problem with EOL turbines? Because right now there's no plan for recycling. 6: What about the disruption of local ecologies from all the wind and solar? 7: Where's all the land for this going to come from? Simply tearing down coal, oil and nuclear sites and throwing up panels and turbines won't get us there. It won't even get us close. SERIOUSLY, they're simply dismissing exactly how much land use we're talking about here.
Honestly, in the end, it'd probably be cheaper to build enough nuclear capacity, plus existing geothermal and large (utility-grade) hydro to cover the country's CURRENT peak demand. Start moving towards modular, liquid fueled reactor units. A building on a concrete pad with reactor bays (basically pits in the floor) that you slot a module into. You hook up the electronics, mechanicals, etc, then cap the pit. Once the unit runs out of fuel, you shut it down, uncap it and disconnect. Send it out for refurbishing and cleanup and drop a fresh unit in to start again.
Then use renewables for future peaking and for various high-energy projects (like desalination and CO2 sequestration) and STRATEGIC storage to smooth out instant demand spikes.
Also, we'd be smart to start pushing better building science into "code minimum" building specifications. Doing so could help cut CURRENT energy demands by 25-30%.
Honestly, one of the few things I agreed with Obama about was that "energy is going to get more expensive". In a way, GOOD! Our country's power infrastructure needs a HUGE overhaul. And if that means delivering power from more expensive nuclear reactors? SO BE IT.
This country's spent too long running away from the power equivalent of an internal combustion engine, insisting on using hamster wheels and steam boilers.
Facebook, Twitter, Google, WHATEVER. Eventually you have to trust an organization whos job it is to make you "product".
EVERYONE is hoovering your data. EVERYONE micromanages. Seriously, look at YOUTUBE for micro(mis)managemt. And before you say "But Google's a separate company!", there's an article up on/. right now where Google is actively scanning, refusing/locking content uploaded.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but no. Hate speech is a bullshit term used for "I disagree with this, there fore I am offended by it. So the person uttering it must be hateful."
And, it's subject to usage creep, since it's naught but a nebulous term.
You cannot simply ban speech because someone finds it offensive.
Someone ALWAYS finds some speech offensive.
Offense is something that it TAKEN, not given.
It's time to start acting like adults here. If you don't like what someone says, change the channel.
If you don't like what someone's saying in your presence, argue it with them or simply walk away.
But demanding someone be silenced because they "blasphemed" your ideals?
No. Sorry. You don't have the right to not be offended.
"But..."
This right here indicates that you have completely understood the purpose of free speech.
"There are limits to free speech."
NO! BAD! WRONG! BAD! DUMB!
There are NO limits to free speech.
All your examples are crimes for reasons BESIDES the speech itself. This is not an indicator of a limit.
Because you CAN scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You CAN lie about medications and treatments your company produces. You CAN swear at little kids.
You will simply be arrested afterwards for abuse of your freedom of speech (and breaking several laws).
Free speech is not speech free from consequence. So yes, you can say whatever the fuck you want. Just be aware that certain types and uses of free speech create real-world harm beyond the simple utterance.
So if someone wants to start talking about the N-word, the K-word, or whatever else is offense-du-jour. FINE!
As long as they're not breaking any laws doing so (like incitement), it's all good. Well. Up until someone lynches them.
I don't have to LIKE it. And I'll most likely tune that shit out.
But the only way to truly destroy bad ideas is to expose them. And let them die.
And going "Oh! You CAN'T say THAAAAAAAT!!!"
Prohibition doesn't work. See the US alcohol prohibition. See the War on Drugs.
All you do is create a marketplace for that kind of stuff, completely beyond your control. Because anything not being said openly is being discussed covertly with ZERO moderating influence.
And what you've created at that point are "blasphemy" laws.
I'm not a fan of racist speech.
I think it's disgusting. And, like an adult, I avoid partaking in it myself.
But the idea that offensive speech OF ANY STRIPE is somehow "not protected" by Free Speech is INSANE.
Offense is taken, not given.
If you don't like the speech being presented to you, be an adult.
Change the channel. Leave. Argue against it.
But bitching to the government to shut someone up, no matter HOW ignorant the things they say are, is wrong.
FB is going to curb it.
Yet Zuck cannot define it when questioned.
Well, he COULD, but he'd look like a complete fucking idiot doing so.
But he knows it when he sees it!
Oh please!
No. Apple IS doing it because they're trying to prevent customers from doing 3rd party repair.
Seriously. It's been an issue for over a year now...
Mostly because of how slow ACTUAL information flows back to educational institutions, compared to the Internet-Speed changes in the workplace, educational courses are going to lag actual realities of working with technology by 10-20 years minimum.
Hell, to take computer classes back in the late 80's, they were still REQUIRING you to take a typewriting class!
Never mind that you don't use a computer the same way you use a typewriter or even a dedicated word processing machine...
And, after leaving the Army in the mid 90's, I found that college-level courses were barely more sophisticated.
If I wanted to take programming classes, I had to learn how to use OFFICE?
REALLY?
Sorry if you didn't have the balls to post as yourself.
The problem is, "This COULD happen with a sufficiently advanced AI", so we shouldn't pursue it AT ALL?
So, because, some day, we MIGHT eventually turn out a sufficiently advanced AI that could be dangerous, we shouldn't pursue ANY form of AI, no matter how primitive?
Sorry, that's just FUD.
So, now we're going to start SJW bullshit over a scientific discipline that sci-fi writers have spun horror stories out of?
Oi vey...
Maybe there's a real, concrete reason for the complaints.
Especially when the software in question has infested multiple major distros and wormed its way into other software packages...
Patent bullshit.
While having the US there gives them a big target for hate, the fact is, these terrorists hate "The West" as unbelievers ALREADY.
We could pull out tomorrow and these chowder-heads would continue their jihad because they believe they have a mandate from God/Allah/Bob/The Flying Spaghetti Monster that they should put the unbelievers to the sword and take the world for their deity.
And these people have said as much.
Time and time and time again.
Is the distro still using that trainwreck of an MCP (systemd)? Yes.
Will I use any Linux distro that's been infected with systemd? No.
I wouldn't even shit on Fedora, thought it meant a ruptured colon...
Seriously. Colleges have become cult indoc centers.
You go messing around in people's heads, feeding them rampant political bullshit instead of the actual knowledge they paid for, and it has consequences.
Don't
Do
Don't
Do
Don't
Do
Rabbit Season
Duck Season!
*KABLAM!*
Yes. Things like this are a step in the right direction.
Will stuff like this drive up the initial cost of homes?
Maybe?
Right now everyone's focus is on cosmetic crap in their homes.
But, strategically pointed out, many people will forgo expensive "bling" on a home that dramatically reduces their bills and stills gives them a great space to use.
So a house that, built to code, might cost $300K. But, built to these new standards, might wind up costing $315-330.
Yet it's built in such a way that what would normally be a $250 total utilities bill winds up being reduced to a $65 electric/water bill (or $0 if enough grid-tied solar is factored in), creating a payback in 6.7-13.5 years without solar and 5.3-10.6 years without. And, properly maintained, panels are usually good for 10-20 years beyond the end of life for their support. So imagine 25-30 years without anything more than a $15-20 water bill. It's enough to spend out for a new system IN CASH and STILL be looking at $50-70K in savings (meaning you could pay your home off earlier...
1: Liquid fueled reactors. Dry fuel and water cooling is stupid. 90% of the facility is a veritable Rube Goldberg machine of multiply redundant systems trying to head off every "what if". With liquid fuel, the default "no power" situation is that the reactor turns itself off and cools down. It also uses the fuel through it's complete cycle. So what's left over is highly radioactive. But, it's highly radioactive for a comparably short period of time. A couple centuries at most.
2: Most of what you see in nuclear waste are "spent" fuel rods. They're not ACTUALLY cooked out. They've used about 10-15% of their fuel, but have been removed because the cladding begins cracking and sloughing off. It's kinda like filling a van up with 20 gallons of gas, driving 40-50 miles, then siphoning the tank dry and filling up again with fresh gas.
3: The US already has massive surpluses of things like Thorium, as most rare earths are generally ound embedded in Thorium and it was an government equirement that it be properly stored. And, if the US restarts its rare earth mining operations (closed because China was able to undercut drastically due to complete lack of environmental regulation), the tailings (mining waste) from even a modest mine can power a reactor for life.
4: Solar and wind make NO provisions for EOL, other than "dump it in a landfill". So, every 30-40 years, we just throw away several megatons of potentially toxic materials in landfills around the country?
5: And yes. The ratio for solar is still 14 square miles per Gigawatt. California's Alta Wind Farm is the largest single installation wind farm in the world. It's estimated maximum output is somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 Gigawatts. But, calculating capacity factor, it's putting out less than 1/3rd of that on average). I will say that the land area used is well below the stats I put up. Why this is, I don't know, and I'd have to do more looking into the facility.
The largest solar PV plant in the country is Topaz. It carries a maximum output of around 550MW. In practice, it puts out just over 26% of that on average and sits on 9.5 square miles.
6: In the US, large (or carrier) hydro refers SPECIFICALLY to dams. Not wave power. Other forms, like low-head turbines, water wheels, and most wave projects are classed as "small hydro" or "micro hydro" (depending on how large the implementation is.
7) And I don't think anyone in their right mind is suggesting transmitting from coast to coast. However, some locations in the country simply are not logical places to put down carrier-grade wind and solar. They quite simply won't generate enough power in the facility's first-use lifetime to pay off the investment.
Chicago, the "Windy City"? Call that because of POLITICAL reasons. The wind resources are actually relatively poor (usable for micro installs, but not really carrier grade).
8) The main problem is that the initial proposal was basically made foregoing any form of energy storage whatsoever.
That just doesn't wash. And the type of storage capacity needed, not just batteries but flywheels and pumped hydro (basically using excess power to pump water uphill, then allowing it to run back down past a dam-like structure with turbines when demand is required). Flywheels of this sort are MASSIVE and EXPENSIVE. The type of battery capacity is just unheard of and unfeasible in thie current marketplace. And you have to have proper geology on your side for pumped hydro. Just like you do with geothermal.
In the end, you STILL need a stable form of power generation for baseline power.
It's worse than that.
To assure the power dependability of a baseline powerplant in renewables, you have to build multiple times the initial capacity.
To build 1GW of Wind power, you'd need approximately 133 square miles of land area.
But, due to efficiency factors, you'd have to build 2-3x the capacity.
To build 1GW of Solar power, you'd need approximately 14 square miles of land area.
But, due to efficiency factors , you'd have to build 3-6x the capacity.
1GW of Nuclear requires approximately 1.3 square miles of land area.
Sure! Fly without a net! Why not?
1: The infrastructure just isn't there right now.
2: What happens in a midnight lull?
3: What about windstorms?
4: What about the landfill problem with EOL panels? Because right now there's no plan for recycling.
5: What about the landfill problem with EOL turbines? Because right now there's no plan for recycling.
6: What about the disruption of local ecologies from all the wind and solar?
7: Where's all the land for this going to come from? Simply tearing down coal, oil and nuclear sites and throwing up panels and turbines won't get us there. It won't even get us close. SERIOUSLY, they're simply dismissing exactly how much land use we're talking about here.
Honestly, in the end, it'd probably be cheaper to build enough nuclear capacity, plus existing geothermal and large (utility-grade) hydro to cover the country's CURRENT peak demand. Start moving towards modular, liquid fueled reactor units. A building on a concrete pad with reactor bays (basically pits in the floor) that you slot a module into. You hook up the electronics, mechanicals, etc, then cap the pit. Once the unit runs out of fuel, you shut it down, uncap it and disconnect. Send it out for refurbishing and cleanup and drop a fresh unit in to start again.
Then use renewables for future peaking and for various high-energy projects (like desalination and CO2 sequestration) and STRATEGIC storage to smooth out instant demand spikes.
Also, we'd be smart to start pushing better building science into "code minimum" building specifications.
Doing so could help cut CURRENT energy demands by 25-30%.
Honestly, one of the few things I agreed with Obama about was that "energy is going to get more expensive".
In a way, GOOD! Our country's power infrastructure needs a HUGE overhaul. And if that means delivering power from more expensive nuclear reactors? SO BE IT.
This country's spent too long running away from the power equivalent of an internal combustion engine, insisting on using hamster wheels and steam boilers.
Sorry. That's just the way it is.
Facebook, Twitter, Google, WHATEVER.
Eventually you have to trust an organization whos job it is to make you "product".
EVERYONE is hoovering your data. EVERYONE micromanages. Seriously, look at YOUTUBE for micro(mis)managemt. And before you say "But Google's a separate company!", there's an article up on /. right now where Google is actively scanning, refusing/locking content uploaded.
He gets black-bagged and the Star Chamber treatment.
No this was not a troll.
FACT. Jesus...the ignorance astounds...
If you think people aren't "aware" in this climate of 24x7x365 "Lecturetainment"...
Funny. There are already myriad ways of coping. The most draconian of all being dumping power to ground.
So, a campaign devoted to stopping the wasting of power is inciting...the wasting of power...
BRAVO!
"Let's not do/buy "X" on this day/hour/etc."
Yay! Accomplishes NOTHING.
All they're doing is stress testing the grid's ability to cope with increased demand when everything comes back up.