Okay you have people saying that a certain group shouldn't accept money from another group. Reason: Because the second group has a history of supporting an unpopular opinion or opposes a popular one. Whether anything supported or opposed is "correct" is mostly irrelevant. Never mind that the money the second group is donating can be used to continue doing good work. Never mind that the money the second group is donating isn't being tied to any promises of the work being done agreeing with a stance the second party used to support.
No. Just turn the money away, cutting out research dollars that can be used to do some good.
SJW: Someone disagrees with us! Ostracize them! Ostracize them!
Scientist: But they're giving us money that helps us do valuable research that even disagrees with their purported stance!
SJW: Fuck that! You don't need their money! Ostracize them! Ostracize them!
Scientist: Uh. Fuck off. My research position doesn't pay THAT well! Those grants are the difference between me doing real research and me starving and having to go out and drive for Uber!
SJW: Real science doesn't require money! Ostracize them! Ostracize them!
Crypto Guns Groups of people Religion Zealot willing to die Unscrupulous despots who wish to enforce their will over as much of the planet as they can get away with. The various powers sticking their nose into the business of other countries Economics Oil Greed Hate Physics This shit can go on, and on, and on, and on.
Trying to tell me that one TEENY little cog in the vast Rube Goldberg machine of terrorism and crime would have prevented the entire thing? Disingenuous at best. A bold-faced fucking lie in reality. Straight up idiocy at its worst.
A: They're cheap B: They scream really loud before they die, hopefully when someone's listening. C: They're cheap.
I'll stick with Western Digital and HGST.
If they die off that infrequently in their sweatbox environments, the chances that they're going to die under normal desktop use are orders of magnitude less.
Thing is you have to be able to attach it to a realistic launch vehicle.
That right there automatically limits the size.
The largest nuclear explosion in history was Russia's Tsar Bomba, at 50 Megatons. The device itself weighed in at 30 tons. That's roughly 7x the mass of some of the largest nuclear launch devices on record.
Moreover, again, we're talking about a detonation in a vacuum.
A nuclear explosion is roughly 85% kinetic and thermal, with the remaining 15% being other forms of radiation.
In space, there's no medium to propagate through. So that pretty much castrates the kinetic kill, and limits thermal transfer. Leaving the remainder to be radiation pressure.
So you're relying on a bomb to deliver large quantities of radiation pressure in the hopes of diverting. Unfortunately, such a bomb would need to be unlaunchably large.
And no, random impacts of various smaller devices won't accomplish anything.
What the court (and the idiot sitting in the big chair) see as "reasonable" may not be reasonable to Apple, or anyone else.
Additionally, such a nebulous term is horribly susceptible to "moving goalposts". Apple decides to cave, gets so far, and doesn't think it reasonable to go any further. But now that they've caved, the government and the idiot in the big chair come back with "Well, you've gotten THIS far, you may as well see it through!"
The appropriate answer to this is "There is no technical way to do this." And when asked or told to devise one on their own dime, they should be told "There is no legitimate business use for this, if it is even possible." and fight it to the bitter end.
Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?
They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.
And flying up and digging in a bunch of nukes isn't ever going to happen for a host of reasons...
So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?
A new generation of people whose ability to reason has been compromised by mass media?
Because they're in the process of becoming yet another Chrome also-ran and basically they're too busy tonguing the Google sphincter to bother stopping the freefall of their flagship product and business.
It's possible that this declaration by SO might help to clarify to advertisers that it is the overabundance of low quality ads that practically force the public to seek out ad blockers. But seriously, what is the likelihood of that?
I'm not sure. The number is a negative value somewhere between googolplex hypercubed and infinity...
How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?
Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.
What are you, 12? Yeah, I thought so.
So, if their ad network slings a drive-by download of malware on him, it's HIS fault?
Fuck that noise.
Online advertising is unprotected sex (except nowhere near as enjoyable) with a stranger.
It's not that the government no longer cares about its citizens. It is that they've lost respect for their citizens and, having operated with impunity for so long, have lost their fear of what said citizenry can do when properly motivated.
All they need to do nowadays is keep the majority of us fat and happy and they figure they can do whatever the fuck they please.
That's just it though. Everyone wants a solution "RIGHT NAO!!!!"
Instead of planting more trees than we remove (as a species) and increasing our long-term carbon sink
As for growing crops, while yes, it does bind SOME carbon, the short growth span of modern plants actually limits the amount of actual carbon that's sequestered in the process.
But no, we continue to clear-cut areas, and then pave/build them over.
Yes but windmills have tiny unit sizes as far as electricity generation goes so they are brought on and offline as needed. Need another 15MW, bring a few windmills online. They are spread around national grids so the wind is always blowing on some somewhere. Tricky to control? Not since about 1970. Your phone probably has the CPU power.
I'd actually MUCH rather have a bunch of 500MW nuclear units. And if it means there's times when we just pump power to ground? C'est la vie!
The fact is the "national grids" such as you're talking about simply aren't as unified OR as smart as they'd need to be.
Sure, nuclear overspec introduces some problems. But the national appetite for energy continues to grow. And if electric cars are EVER going to become a reality, it REALLY wouldn't hurt to start building CO2-free capacity like nuclear NOW.
Instead of trying to ad-hoc our way to power requirements with various unreliable renewables.
It also ensures that areas that aren't ideal candidates for wind or solar can still provide power without becoming permanent clients/serfs to the areas where large scale deployment of wind/solar makes more sense. Not to mention that it'll cut down on transmission losses.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay you have people saying that a certain group shouldn't accept money from another group.
Reason: Because the second group has a history of supporting an unpopular opinion or opposes a popular one. Whether anything supported or opposed is "correct" is mostly irrelevant.
Never mind that the money the second group is donating can be used to continue doing good work.
Never mind that the money the second group is donating isn't being tied to any promises of the work being done agreeing with a stance the second party used to support.
No. Just turn the money away, cutting out research dollars that can be used to do some good.
That's SJW thinking.
You mean it has a state?
I didn't think it'd gotten that far yet...
SJW: Someone disagrees with us! Ostracize them! Ostracize them!
Scientist: But they're giving us money that helps us do valuable research that even disagrees with their purported stance!
SJW: Fuck that! You don't need their money! Ostracize them! Ostracize them!
Scientist: Uh. Fuck off. My research position doesn't pay THAT well! Those grants are the difference between me doing real research and me starving and having to go out and drive for Uber!
SJW: Real science doesn't require money! Ostracize them! Ostracize them!
Because the governmental dick is shoved so far up their asses that their tonsils are compressed?
No that could never *oh, look at all the money they've made by cooperating with the government and compromising user security...
Crypto
Guns
Groups of people
Religion
Zealot willing to die
Unscrupulous despots who wish to enforce their will over as much of the planet as they can get away with.
The various powers sticking their nose into the business of other countries
Economics
Oil
Greed
Hate
Physics
This shit can go on, and on, and on, and on.
Trying to tell me that one TEENY little cog in the vast Rube Goldberg machine of terrorism and crime would have prevented the entire thing?
Disingenuous at best.
A bold-faced fucking lie in reality.
Straight up idiocy at its worst.
You're assuming that, in a standard use-case, that warning's going to come early enough.
You're also assuming that the data extraction won't kill it either.
In the long run, you're better off with a more reliable drive and a reliable primary backup device.
A: They're cheap
B: They scream really loud before they die, hopefully when someone's listening.
C: They're cheap.
I'll stick with Western Digital and HGST.
If they die off that infrequently in their sweatbox environments, the chances that they're going to die under normal desktop use are orders of magnitude less.
There are limits though.
Because, sure, we can make some million ton bomb that pops off with a couple thousand megatons of force.
But how do we get it up into space?
The lift capacity of a space shuttle is roughly 25 tons.
Tsar Bomba, a droppable or stationary bomb, the most powerful ever detonated, weighs in at 30 tons, with a 50 megaton yield.
Oh yes, and you're detonating in space, a vacuum, which robs it of most of the power you need to divert or destroy such an object.
Thing is you have to be able to attach it to a realistic launch vehicle.
That right there automatically limits the size.
The largest nuclear explosion in history was Russia's Tsar Bomba, at 50 Megatons.
The device itself weighed in at 30 tons. That's roughly 7x the mass of some of the largest nuclear launch devices on record.
Moreover, again, we're talking about a detonation in a vacuum.
A nuclear explosion is roughly 85% kinetic and thermal, with the remaining 15% being other forms of radiation.
In space, there's no medium to propagate through. So that pretty much castrates the kinetic kill, and limits thermal transfer. Leaving the remainder to be radiation pressure.
So you're relying on a bomb to deliver large quantities of radiation pressure in the hopes of diverting. Unfortunately, such a bomb would need to be unlaunchably large.
And no, random impacts of various smaller devices won't accomplish anything.
What the court (and the idiot sitting in the big chair) see as "reasonable" may not be reasonable to Apple, or anyone else.
Additionally, such a nebulous term is horribly susceptible to "moving goalposts". Apple decides to cave, gets so far, and doesn't think it reasonable to go any further. But now that they've caved, the government and the idiot in the big chair come back with "Well, you've gotten THIS far, you may as well see it through!"
The appropriate answer to this is "There is no technical way to do this." And when asked or told to devise one on their own dime, they should be told "There is no legitimate business use for this, if it is even possible." and fight it to the bitter end.
Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?
They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.
And flying up and digging in a bunch of nukes isn't ever going to happen for a host of reasons...
So why, all of the sudden, are we digging up a bunch of brain-dead movie fodder that we already know won't work?
A new generation of people whose ability to reason has been compromised by mass media?
These people are supposed to be educated.
Instead, they're on a bullshit, zero tolerance (thus zero thought) kick and terrified of being labeled in any way shape or form.
This is what we're teaching our kids now...
And people wonder why this country's in trouble. We have mental defectives in charge of education...
Because they're in the process of becoming yet another Chrome also-ran and basically they're too busy tonguing the Google sphincter to bother stopping the freefall of their flagship product and business.
PJ is toasting yet again.
Maybe in another couple years' time, she'll have another decision to toast some more!
So you're basing utilities planning on hope that everything's going to get more energy efficient.
Sorry bub.
Real utilities don't plan that way.
Careful there!
Or I may just forget to resupply you with Depends...
What does it matter if population changes?
If you have 1.1 million people using 500MW of power, life is good.
If you have 1.7 million people and they need 700MW of power and you're still only producing 500MW of power, you have a problem.
That straightforward enough for you?
I'm not sure. The number is a negative value somewhere between googolplex hypercubed and infinity...
Easy there granther!
How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?
Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.
What are you, 12? Yeah, I thought so.
So, if their ad network slings a drive-by download of malware on him, it's HIS fault?
Fuck that noise.
Online advertising is unprotected sex (except nowhere near as enjoyable) with a stranger.
Ad Blockers are condoms.
For yet another big government pork project!
Fuck Obama.
It's not that the government no longer cares about its citizens. It is that they've lost respect for their citizens and, having operated with impunity for so long, have lost their fear of what said citizenry can do when properly motivated.
All they need to do nowadays is keep the majority of us fat and happy and they figure they can do whatever the fuck they please.
And, for the most part, they're right.
That's just it though. Everyone wants a solution "RIGHT NAO!!!!"
Instead of planting more trees than we remove (as a species) and increasing our long-term carbon sink
As for growing crops, while yes, it does bind SOME carbon, the short growth span of modern plants actually limits the amount of actual carbon that's sequestered in the process.
But no, we continue to clear-cut areas, and then pave/build them over.
Yes but windmills have tiny unit sizes as far as electricity generation goes so they are brought on and offline as needed. Need another 15MW, bring a few windmills online. They are spread around national grids so the wind is always blowing on some somewhere.
Tricky to control? Not since about 1970. Your phone probably has the CPU power.
I'd actually MUCH rather have a bunch of 500MW nuclear units. And if it means there's times when we just pump power to ground? C'est la vie!
The fact is the "national grids" such as you're talking about simply aren't as unified OR as smart as they'd need to be.
Sure, nuclear overspec introduces some problems. But the national appetite for energy continues to grow. And if electric cars are EVER going to become a reality, it REALLY wouldn't hurt to start building CO2-free capacity like nuclear NOW.
Instead of trying to ad-hoc our way to power requirements with various unreliable renewables.
It also ensures that areas that aren't ideal candidates for wind or solar can still provide power without becoming permanent clients/serfs to the areas where large scale deployment of wind/solar makes more sense. Not to mention that it'll cut down on transmission losses.
$1473!
And people think insurance companies are cheapskates!