While I'm sure this is a concern for some people, I'm questioning whether its a realistic concern.
The book "Death to Dust" (by an MD, and which is fascinating, BTW) examines this point in detail.
He comments that there is no certain method to certify being dead. Absent massive bodily damage we can't determine true death with any certainty.
There are many cases where the patient has no perceptible breathing or heart rhythm, but wakes up at a later time - in some cases living years longer.
The book refers to a study of Civil War coffins which were moved to a different cemetery, where they studied the buried corpses, and noted some 7% (IIRC) showed indications of having woken up after burial, such as scratches on the inside of the coffin.
Those corpses were buried in a time before embalming, and given the proportion of *those* burials who had severe traumatic damage due to the civil war, the proportion of dead with *no* traumatic damage who wake up inside a coffin would be proportionally higher.
Being pronounced dead when you're not actually dead appears to be more likely than one would imagine, at first glance.
"there's some question if the ladies claimed rape only after the fraud"
Wait, if it's rape by fraud, wouldn't you expect the ladies to complain only after they became aware of the fraud?
I'm curious about this "rape by fraud" thing.
Are you saying that someone who is convinced to have sex by fraudulent means, and who later finds out that there was fraud involved, can claim it was "rape" by reason of the fraudulent circumstances?
How far does this go? If a man tells a women he's rich and she has sex with him, can she claim it was rape by fraud if she finds out he's a blue-collar worker?
On the topic of the OP, if there were legitimate rape charges I would *expect* the charges to be filed notwithstanding the circumstances of the business. I cannot imagine any of the rape charges being legitimate if the women only come forward after realizing that they were defrauded(*).
I always thought rape was "sex without consent". Is that no longer true?
(*) Presumably these women were defrauded of money, and perhaps payment of services or contract violation depending on the situation, but I have a hard time believing rape if the women consented at the time.
There is no experimental evidence for either dark matter or dark energy.
Someday, maybe. But not today.
We can measure the rotational velocity of galaxies by noting the red/blue shift of light from the opposite arms.
We can estimate the normal matter by looking at the brightness and estimating the number of stars.
When we do that, we find that galaxies rotate much faster than even the most optimistic estimates of their normal matter. They rotate so fast that they would literally fly apart if they only had mass from visible matter.
One hypothesis is that the extra mass comes from matter that we can't see. There's so much of it needed that it can't interact with EM radiation in any way, otherwise we'd be able to see it directly.
All other hypotheses to date have been disproved in one way or another. In particular, modifications to the law of gravity cannot account for the discrepancy.
I think Elon said something about scaling the factory up to 10+ GW per year when they acquire the solar panel manufacture Silveo, and I'm sure the capital costs per additional GW is much lower. Tesla only produces 100k cars in the Fremont plant now; however, the same plant was producing 500k cars a year when it was run by Toyota and GM. The energy market is enormous.
That's interesting - thanks. 10GW/yr with a 20-year lifespan translates to 200 TWh per year by the previous calculation. That's a significant portion (5%) of the US electrical needs, and from a single factory.
So it looks like in 20 years or so we should be rapidly reducing our carbon footprint, without having to reduce our lifestyle or hobble businesses with regulation.
In 40 years (certainly by 100 years) we might have leftover capacity and start sequestering carbon from the atmosphere in various ways. Also, world population should have peaked and started decreasing by then (estimates vary, from 2050 to 2090), and we will also be exporting the technology to other countries. Food production is stable and sufficient to feed everyone, and we're eliminating diseases at a rate of about one per decade.
It's starting to look like future problems will all be political.
How many jobs? I keep hearing big numbers like this thrown around but never any job figures. It's starting to make me nervous...
Another useless number is the production estimate: a gigawatt of production? Is that per month? Per year? Total?
I assume it's annual production.
The US consumes/produces roughly 4000 terawatt hours annually. Assuming the article refers to gigawatt production and not something else (like gigawatt-hours equivalent), and assuming 4 hours of production for 250 days per year (average), that's 1/4,000 of the US electricity demand produced each year.
Of course that's additive. After 20 years there will be 20 TWh of solar panels installed from this factory alone, at which time they can begin replacing the older units.
So we would need roughly 200 of these factories to ramp up to producing all of our electricity using solar panels.
Of course, there's lots of installed generation that we won't need or want to replace (hydro, such as Niagra Mohawk), so the actual number needed will be a lot less. Also, installed solar will displace gasoline instead of other electricity generation.
Overall I think this is excellent news.
On the subject of automation, it seems reasonable that a largely automated factory could be paired with automated deployment in remote, uninhabited areas such as Western Utah or the Great Basin area. Robots building support structures and installing solar cells seems like something a DARPA challenge could solve.
The only obstacle of doing this is the financing under our current economic model. It's something that could be done under the government model, such as was done with the interstate highway project.
$256m? Give every American about 80 cents. They'll need it since these factories will likely be automated with robots.
If you're in the business of designing and making robots you'll be doing well in the economy of the future. Assuming you can get home without being mobbed by the starving proletariat.
I assume you're not suggesting that being mobbed by the starving public is inevitable, or even desired.
So what you're saying is, there is a problem on the horizon that needs to be addressed. Yes?
And you mention being mobbed by hordes of starving people as a rhetorical point, to give people a visceral image of what will happen if the problem isn't solved.
But it's not inevitable, and you're trying to encourage people to think about and implement solutions, rather than painting a dour and depressing prediction of the future for no good reason whatsoever.
Please, for the love of god, would you ppl QUIT DOING SOLAR FARMS. Building this over land is about as stupid as it gets. Do it over parking lots or roofs. Those sites convert light into heat. Lands convert light into sugars. If you are worried about AGW, then you need to reduce the FUCKING HEAT. If you are not worried about it, then quit subsidizing solar.
I've often wondered if we could put solar panels along the highways here in the US. There's a lot of places where the median between lanes is 40 feet or so, and a lot of those stretches have guard rails on both sides. Some stretches have 40 feet or more of guarded dales along the sides, up to a chain link fence.
I once estimated that to supply the entire country's electrical needs (simple, back-of-the-envelope thing without taking into account peak load and other issues) we'd need solar panels along about 5,000 miles of highway, given some assumptions. We currently have about 45,000 miles of highway, and many of those lead straight into or through cities and towns, so power cable routing and right-of-way shouldn't be that bad.
(To compare power cable losses, consider how far high tension lines already have to go to bring electricity to places.)
To take an example, I80 or I70 through Nebraska and Kansas go through (or near) multiple small towns and has a very wide median. All of the bridges have wide, sloping expanses with guarded sections that could host a solar panel already.
Is there any reason we shouldn't just be planting solar panels along highways?
Regardless of your opinions of Trump, it seems pretty ignorant to suggest that Twitter shutting down would completely de-fang him.
It is almost like you're implying that the shutdown of Twitter equates to the shutdown of social media as a concept.
Gab.ai is a twitter replacement that has started up recently and is collecting a lot of interest.
Their product advantage - the thing that differentiates them from the rest of the market - is that they enforce free speech. So long as the speech isn't something that's patently illegal in the US, it's allowed on their site. (Disallowed: illegal pornography, threats and terrorism, doxing/publishing private information.)
Twitter seems to be taking sides with half of it's userbase, and driving the other half away. I've always felt that taking sides in customer arguments (against other customers) was a bad thing, but they're vigorously doing that so I'm sure there's some corporate benefit that I'm missing.
Gab allows each user to filter out anything they don't want to see, either other users or specific words. This seems like it's the right solution, because it allows people to use the system without seeing things they find distasteful, while not infringing on other peoples' free speech. I can only imagine that people will put together recommended word lists in topics such as pornography, or vulgarity, or meanness, that others can download and install.
So if you're concerned about twitter shutting down, check out Gab.ai as an alternate system.
There is no stopping him; Trump will soon be president. And I for one welcome our new orange overlord. I’d like to remind him that as a trusted slashdot personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in his underground cheeto dust cave hotels.
Somehow, viable Democrats (Bernie is really an Independent) seem to have stayed out of the primary this year. Its really strange, there was no Democratic incumbent running for re-election. There should have been a wide selection of viable candidates like in 2008, as happens all the time in non-incumbent years. But somehow, no big names but Hillary showed up. Yes there was the token opponent who mostly agreed with Hillary and said she would be a good President; and there was the Independent Bernie who re-registered to run as a Democrat. How was there not a contested field like in 2008?
Interestingly, the Wikileaks dump had this snippet about Joe Biden:
Ron Klain, a Democrat stalwart who served as chief of staff to Biden and Vice President Al Gore, sent an email to Podesta suggesting the Clinton campaign wasn’t sitting idly by while Biden was agonizing as to whether or not to stage a campaign for president, just months after the tragic death of his son Beau.
“It’s been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise – and I am definitely dead to them — but I’m glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night,” he wrote to Podesta and Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri.
I make no judgement about this - it's how politics is done - but note that Joe Biden would probably have been a stronger opponent than HRC was.
I hope to gods that i'm wrong about Trump. I'm worried because i'm not sure what he'll do (though it certainly seems like he's already heading in a bad direction.) And i'm worried because no one else is sure what he'll do either.
But for the sake of our country and our planet i sure hope it's everyone who voted for him saying "see, i told you so!" in four years, instead of everyone who voted against him saying "see, i told you so!" in rather less than four years.
I hope to gods that i'm wrong about Trump. I'm worried because i'm not sure what he'll do (though it certainly seems like he's already heading in a bad direction.) And i'm worried because no one else is sure what he'll do either. But for the sake of our country and our planet i sure hope it's everyone who voted for him saying "see, i told you so!" in four years, instead of everyone who voted against him saying "see, i told you so!" in rather less than four years.
You know, instead of signalling your worry, you might try being "hopeful". Like the title to your post.
It hasn't really occurred to the left, but Trump is more capable and has more integrity than they give him credit for.
This is obvious when you consider all their predictions have been wrong, in every case. Trump won't win the nomination, Trump is melting down, Trump has *completely* melted down, Trump will never win the election, and on and on. Why should we believe anything the left says, when none of their past predictions have come true?
It's also obvious because everyone is running around looking for the "why" of his success. I mean, it's Russia, it's Wikileaks, it's white supremacists, it's "fake news", it's Breitbart, it's Clinton, and on and on. Do you think that maybe Trump is more capable than you gave him credit for?
And now everyone is running around with their hair on fire over every subtle thing he does. And I mean *really* "hair on fire" over some of his appointments: he'd going to dissolve the EPA and make our pollution worse than China, he's going to stage a military coup and install a fascist regime, [non-political] industry leader appointees are not "draining the swamp", an actual brain surgeon will be incompetent because he has no experience, and on and on.
A lot of us on the alt-right get a big chuckle over the histrionics and fake emotion. We like seeing your heads explode over these things. You, for example, are signalling deep worry, in a way meant to infect everyone else into a state of deep worry. Go for it! (*snicker*)
We on the alt-right are noticing that a) he's not the president yet, b) he's appointing capable people, and c) he's still intending to fix things.
As an example of something we take comfort in, Trump is vetting people by saying "here's my vision, do you agree"? And if there's a meeting of the minds, that person is considered for the position (along with experience and skill and a lot of other things).
So it was that Trump's pick for Labour secretary published a statement showing that he was on-board with Trump's priorities:
My job as a business person is to maximize profits for my company, employees and shareholders. My job as the Secretary of Labor, if confirmed, is to serve U.S. citizen workers – that is my moral and constitutional duty. The public spoke loud and clear in this election, and delivered a mandate to protect American workers. It makes no economic sense to spend trillions on welfare and jobless benefits for out of work Americans while bringing in foreign workers to fill jobs in their place.
As Secretary of Labor, I will fiercely defend American workers and implement my piece of the ten point plan the President-elect laid out.[...]
If you aren't anti-American, it really doesn't look all that bad. In fact, it looks a lot like we might get some competence in government for once.
I'm so tired of hearing about the evil DNC "torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign" and such nonsense. Why on earth was anyone surprised a political party had a candidate they favored?
Because members thought that their vote would determine the favored candidate.
Furthermore, nothing the DNC did was anywhere near enough to sink Bernie.
Early in the year Bernie got more donations than Clinton by $60 mil (Bernie) to $20 mil (Clinton). The DNC moved $60 million from down-ballot elections directly into Clinton's campaign so that Clinton could outspend Bernie.
It's well known that money spent directly translates to votes, and Bernie and Clinton got [primary[ popular votes proportional to their campaign spending, so it would appear that the $60 million influx of money *exactly* torpedord Bernie's campaign.
Incidentally, this is why the democrats lost both houses and a lot of the governorships. By taking that money away from down-ballot elections and giving it to Clinton, you got a candidate who was less likely to beat Trump and hobbled all the other campaigns for money.
In other news, both Wikileaks and Putin deny that Russia did any of this.
Who do we believe? And note that the US isn't showing evidence, just like they didn't show evidence for "weapons of mass destruction".
Assange said specifically that it wasn't the Russians who leaked the information, and he's in a position to know the truth and has an unblemished record. (You may disagree with what he does, but you can't legitimately say that any of his information is made up.)
Furthermore, isn't transparency a good thing? To take a random example, isn't Clinton taking $28 million from Morocco exactly the sort of thing that should be investigated by the news and discussed in public?
Or how about the DNC torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign. Isn't that something that's important enough to be transparent to the public?
I have to think that this isn't Russia's problem as much as it was Clinton's.
It's sort of like finding out whether the voting machinery is rigged. On the one hand, it embarrasses the country. On the other hand, transparency leads to fixes.
Shouldn't Freedom of speech have a higher priority than a vague "we have the right to make money"?
When can we appeal to freedom of speech, and when can we not?
If the business is Twitter or Facebook, they can ban users for whatever obscure and selectively enforced rules they want. We can't appeal to free speech in those cases because they're both private businesses.
But posting a negative review would seem to be free speech and should be protected over the wishes of the business involved.
So which is it?
Should government force businesses to protect free speech or not?
(Of note: We expect businesses to be agnostic over hiring women and blacks, because not doing so would be a violation of their civil rights. We don't allow businesses to turn over subscriber information to the government without a warrant, because that would also be a violation of rights. Why is free speech any different?)
And once again, Facebook is a private organization, and has the right to remove any content they want to. Don't like it, go use some other social networking platform.
Of course, that does mean the fake news purveyors are likely to start losing the large audience they had relied on, but is that such a bad thing? There's always Breitbart and Stormfront!
On that note, a Twitter replacement called Gab.ai has sprung up that claims to enforce free speech.
It's currently in beta so signups are put on a waiting list, but I managed to get in pretty quick (the wait was less than a week). It's not as sophisticated as Twitter is *currently*, but I really like the free speech aspect of it.
Speech they don't tolerate are things that are patently illegal in the US, plus doxing: Illegal pornography, threats and terrorism, and private information.
If you're bothered by someone, you can set a personal filter to remove their posts from your feed. If you're bothered by certain words, you can set another filter to remove posts with those words.
Beyond that, they claim that they will make no restrictions on free speech.
In the 2 months since it started it's become reasonably popular. According to Alexa rankings, it's currently about the same as Slashdot (after 2 months!).
ATM gab seems to be under-represented by the left. People are mostly civil, and...
wonder of wonders... the humour channel is actually funny.
You're probably aware of this, but the post above that you are responding to is a duplicate of a post I made earlier to a different story.
I didn't repost it here, and I never post as AC as a point of pride, so someone else has reposted it for me. I strongly suspect you (whiplash) reposted it in order to respond. All of which is fine - thinking things through it seems that reposting as AC to respond is quite reasonable.
The actual situation described in that article is a council which will meet with Trump which has 19 members and represents a wide swathe of industry. Musk and Kalanick are only barely 10% of the council. Other extremely notable members are Cook from Apple, Iger from Disney, Rometty from IBM, Nooyi from PepsiCo, and (obviously) 13 others.
Describing the council as "Musk and Kalanik advise Trump on Business Issues" is a reframing of the situation specifically to provoke anger and derision about Trump. It's clickbait and it's misleading.
Another title recently was "Twitter Cut Out of Trump Tech Meeting Over Failed Emoji Deal, Says Report". This was reported by Politico who gives no attribution, and which the Trump campaign denies. Twitter is worth $13 billion, while Amazon is at $372 billion and Apple is $624 billion, so it seems reasonable that Twitter was left out not out of spite, but because they aren't big enough to be a player. As many people have pointed out, Twitter employs a few thousand people while the other players employ tens and hundreds of thousands.
A fair number of Slashdot articles are slanted click-bait meant to supply a platform for people to insult each other.
You say that you're not interested in traffic, but that you post things you think should be covered. I eventually you'll get your wish: you'll post things that you think need to be published, and you won't have any traffic.
To a business owner, negative feedback is like gold, because it shows you how to improve your business.
I strongly recommend that you put your partisan leanings aside and make the health of the business your first priority. My original posting attracted a +5 insightful and many responses in support. Not all responses were supportive, of course, but enough to show that a fair proportion of readers think that this is a problem.
Also of note the original post was way down the page, and as you know few readers will read that far down. If the post was nearer the top there might be a lot more support.
And finally, Slashdot has polls. How about making a couple of well-formed polls to gather reader sentiment?
That should give you an idea of how strongly people feel about political click-bait, and whether this is a real issue that should be addressed.
Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.
And some of us thought the liberals were going to be petty and seek revenge.
You are a fucking idiot if you don't see the difference. He is literally setting up a fascist regime.
He is literally not.
Get some perspective. Christ almighty you lefties are so full of hatred and anger that you can't even see straight.
Trump recently gave his labor secretary pick his vision for that post, and the labor secretary basically agreed. This all looks very good and should have a positive effect on the nation.
His whole transition looks like this. You guys can't see all the goodness because you're too blinded by losing the election.
From that link:
Donald J. Trump’s 10 Point Plan to Put America First
1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.
2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.
3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.
4. End sanctuary cities.
5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced – we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.
6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.
7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.
8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.
9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.
10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.
This article is another example of this: it's a forum for people to wail about how awful Drumpf will be, because they can see the future with perfect clarity.
Which part of the summary or article points toward anything that is negative?
Firstly, you edited my post (as shown by the emphasis), just like what reddit CEO Steve Huffman did.
Secondly, I said political articles provides an anchor for carping, and didn't say that this article was negative.
Get bent, asshole. Editing someone's post is wrong.
Using billionaires like Elon Musk and Travis Kalanick to tell you what to do is "swamp draining"?
Yeah, drain that swamp and fill it with....billionaires.
The swamp is filled with political elites and insiders. How is using non-political insiders *not* draining the swamp?
To put this in terms of information theory, the term "elite" is a measurement, and as such should come with units. We usually don't show the units when we make that measurement, but this can lead to confusion.
So for example, LeBron James is an elite athlete, where "athlete" is the units of measurement. Trump could appoint LeBron to his cabinet, that would be putting an "elite" in charge, and it would still be draining the swamp because LeBron is not an elite politician.
The measurement units are different. An elite athlete is not the same as an elite politician, and calling both of them "elite" just confuses the matter.
Trump himself is an "elite", only the unit of measurement in this case is "financial". Elon Musk is also a financial elite.
"Draining the swamp" refers to removing corruption, which implies getting rid of the "political" elite.
It makes sense to take advice from elites in other units of measurement, because elites generally get to be elite because of their skill and experience.
Elites in charge are fine, so long as they are elites due to skill, and not politics.
Looking at the Alexa ranking of Slashdot over the past couple of months shows that readership has dropped precipitously. It started to slide around March, levelled out at a low pace throughout the summer, and took a nosedive right around the election.
During those months, many long-term readers took the trouble to post messages complaining about the political nature of the posts, and many of those also said "that's it - I'm leaving!".
It was clear during those months that many of the articles were partisan - mostly in favour of Clinton, but there were some that were pro Trump as well. The forum became nothing more than an anchor point for digs against Trump or Clinton.
This article is another example of this: it's a forum for people to wail about how awful Trump will be, because they can see the future with perfect clarity.
It's clear from context and evidence that people simply don't like this partisan bullshit, and are leaving the site in droves to avoid it. Whichever side you happen to be on, when you trash talk or support Trump you're alienating fully half the readership.
I would *think* that the editors should have a fiducial responsibility to see slashdot succeed, and looking at the Alexa history I would *think* that whiplash would step in and enforce a leadership vision that better navigates the shoals of politics.
I guess not.
The NYT showed a 96% drop in quarterly profits over the election season, very probably because of continuous partisan trash talking.
That's a huge drop in the profitability of a company, and should be a cloister bell for media in general: people simply don't like all this partisan bickering.
At the very least you're driving away half your readership.
Slashdot should focus on the technical and avoid emotionalism for the time being, at least until the election soreness has had a chance to calm down.
If Slashdot wants to succeed, that would seem to be the prudent move.
The Judge didn't refer to the legal precedent in the 1988 case, he merely referred to the 1988 case and then *disagreed* with the precedent set down in that case by saying he saw no distinction between identifying a key or identifying a combination - the combination he refers to is the combination of the safe in the 1988 case, not the passcode to the iPhone. He then equates the passcode to the combination.
Legal precedent can be overturned, its not set in stone forever more, and thats what this Judge is trying to do here - overturn the precedent in the 1988 case by saying there is no longer a distinction between the physical key and the ephemeral combination.
So you're saying that the supreme court can make a ruling that is on point in a specific matter, and sometime later an appeals court judge can decide that legal precedent might be overturned, and we should ask the supreme court once again "is this still your opinion"?
Here I thought that the supreme court was the court of final appeal!
And furthermore, it takes on the order of $2 million to mount a supreme court challenge, so this appeals court judge effectively just dropped a bill for that amount that the defendant *has* to pay, in order to stay out of jail. The defence relied on a supreme court decision, but it turns out that in general we can no longer do this.
And finally, suppose the defendant simply says "I forgot the passcode - it's been so long, and I haven't typed it in, that it's just escaped my memory". The judge can disbelieve the defendant and put him in contempt of court, but otherwise there's basically no crime that the defendant can be charged with for making this statement.
Trump is selling "Inauguration membership cards" from his official presidencial campaign. With this video popping up December 9th. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Has he divested his foreign businesses yet like he promised? No? Has he closed his offshore accounts yet? No. Has he put his US business into a blind trust yet? No.
But you can be sure he has a big press outrage thing planned to draw attention away from his own expired deadline to do this.
Meanwhile in Democrat-land, senator Harry Reid apparently took a $2 million bribe from online poker companies to enact online poker legislation.
An investigation was started, but was "stymied" by the federal government, frustrating prosecutors who actually wanted to investigate and prosecute corruption.
Senator Reid (Democrat, Nevada) apparently owns, or is searchlight holdings, a holding company in the Marshall Islands.
Democrats are quick to point out how Trump should divest himself from everything he owns, which are above-board in-country real estate holdings.
But a Democratic senator owning a holding company in the Marshall Islands is OK. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm sure this is a concern for some people, I'm questioning whether its a realistic concern.
The book "Death to Dust" (by an MD, and which is fascinating, BTW) examines this point in detail.
He comments that there is no certain method to certify being dead. Absent massive bodily damage we can't determine true death with any certainty.
There are many cases where the patient has no perceptible breathing or heart rhythm, but wakes up at a later time - in some cases living years longer.
The book refers to a study of Civil War coffins which were moved to a different cemetery, where they studied the buried corpses, and noted some 7% (IIRC) showed indications of having woken up after burial, such as scratches on the inside of the coffin.
Those corpses were buried in a time before embalming, and given the proportion of *those* burials who had severe traumatic damage due to the civil war, the proportion of dead with *no* traumatic damage who wake up inside a coffin would be proportionally higher.
Being pronounced dead when you're not actually dead appears to be more likely than one would imagine, at first glance.
I struggle to find new and interesting things on the internet, but not any more!
The first of my "neighbors" IP addresses led me to Milftoon.com (NSFW, and not linked) which is totally what you think it is.
Knowing everyone else's download history will make it easy to discover new and interesting things to see.
Thanks, iknowwhatyouupload.com! You've saved me so much time.
"there's some question if the ladies claimed rape only after the fraud"
Wait, if it's rape by fraud, wouldn't you expect the ladies to complain only after they became aware of the fraud?
I'm curious about this "rape by fraud" thing.
Are you saying that someone who is convinced to have sex by fraudulent means, and who later finds out that there was fraud involved, can claim it was "rape" by reason of the fraudulent circumstances?
How far does this go? If a man tells a women he's rich and she has sex with him, can she claim it was rape by fraud if she finds out he's a blue-collar worker?
On the topic of the OP, if there were legitimate rape charges I would *expect* the charges to be filed notwithstanding the circumstances of the business. I cannot imagine any of the rape charges being legitimate if the women only come forward after realizing that they were defrauded(*).
I always thought rape was "sex without consent". Is that no longer true?
(*) Presumably these women were defrauded of money, and perhaps payment of services or contract violation depending on the situation, but I have a hard time believing rape if the women consented at the time.
There is no experimental evidence for either dark matter or dark energy.
Someday, maybe. But not today.
We can measure the rotational velocity of galaxies by noting the red/blue shift of light from the opposite arms.
We can estimate the normal matter by looking at the brightness and estimating the number of stars.
When we do that, we find that galaxies rotate much faster than even the most optimistic estimates of their normal matter. They rotate so fast that they would literally fly apart if they only had mass from visible matter.
One hypothesis is that the extra mass comes from matter that we can't see. There's so much of it needed that it can't interact with EM radiation in any way, otherwise we'd be able to see it directly.
All other hypotheses to date have been disproved in one way or another. In particular, modifications to the law of gravity cannot account for the discrepancy.
Dark matter is the most likely explanation.
I think Elon said something about scaling the factory up to 10+ GW per year when they acquire the solar panel manufacture Silveo, and I'm sure the capital costs per additional GW is much lower. Tesla only produces 100k cars in the Fremont plant now; however, the same plant was producing 500k cars a year when it was run by Toyota and GM. The energy market is enormous.
That's interesting - thanks. 10GW/yr with a 20-year lifespan translates to 200 TWh per year by the previous calculation. That's a significant portion (5%) of the US electrical needs, and from a single factory.
So it looks like in 20 years or so we should be rapidly reducing our carbon footprint, without having to reduce our lifestyle or hobble businesses with regulation.
In 40 years (certainly by 100 years) we might have leftover capacity and start sequestering carbon from the atmosphere in various ways. Also, world population should have peaked and started decreasing by then (estimates vary, from 2050 to 2090), and we will also be exporting the technology to other countries. Food production is stable and sufficient to feed everyone, and we're eliminating diseases at a rate of about one per decade.
It's starting to look like future problems will all be political.
How many jobs? I keep hearing big numbers like this thrown around but never any job figures. It's starting to make me nervous...
Another useless number is the production estimate: a gigawatt of production? Is that per month? Per year? Total?
I assume it's annual production.
The US consumes/produces roughly 4000 terawatt hours annually. Assuming the article refers to gigawatt production and not something else (like gigawatt-hours equivalent), and assuming 4 hours of production for 250 days per year (average), that's 1/4,000 of the US electricity demand produced each year.
Of course that's additive. After 20 years there will be 20 TWh of solar panels installed from this factory alone, at which time they can begin replacing the older units.
So we would need roughly 200 of these factories to ramp up to producing all of our electricity using solar panels.
Of course, there's lots of installed generation that we won't need or want to replace (hydro, such as Niagra Mohawk), so the actual number needed will be a lot less. Also, installed solar will displace gasoline instead of other electricity generation.
Overall I think this is excellent news.
On the subject of automation, it seems reasonable that a largely automated factory could be paired with automated deployment in remote, uninhabited areas such as Western Utah or the Great Basin area. Robots building support structures and installing solar cells seems like something a DARPA challenge could solve.
The only obstacle of doing this is the financing under our current economic model. It's something that could be done under the government model, such as was done with the interstate highway project.
I eagerly await our solar future.
$256m? Give every American about 80 cents. They'll need it since these factories will likely be automated with robots.
If you're in the business of designing and making robots you'll be doing well in the economy of the future. Assuming you can get home without being mobbed by the starving proletariat.
I assume you're not suggesting that being mobbed by the starving public is inevitable, or even desired.
So what you're saying is, there is a problem on the horizon that needs to be addressed. Yes?
And you mention being mobbed by hordes of starving people as a rhetorical point, to give people a visceral image of what will happen if the problem isn't solved.
But it's not inevitable, and you're trying to encourage people to think about and implement solutions, rather than painting a dour and depressing prediction of the future for no good reason whatsoever.
That's what you intended, right?
Please, for the love of god, would you ppl QUIT DOING SOLAR FARMS. Building this over land is about as stupid as it gets. Do it over parking lots or roofs. Those sites convert light into heat. Lands convert light into sugars. If you are worried about AGW, then you need to reduce the FUCKING HEAT. If you are not worried about it, then quit subsidizing solar.
I've often wondered if we could put solar panels along the highways here in the US. There's a lot of places where the median between lanes is 40 feet or so, and a lot of those stretches have guard rails on both sides. Some stretches have 40 feet or more of guarded dales along the sides, up to a chain link fence.
I once estimated that to supply the entire country's electrical needs (simple, back-of-the-envelope thing without taking into account peak load and other issues) we'd need solar panels along about 5,000 miles of highway, given some assumptions. We currently have about 45,000 miles of highway, and many of those lead straight into or through cities and towns, so power cable routing and right-of-way shouldn't be that bad.
(To compare power cable losses, consider how far high tension lines already have to go to bring electricity to places.)
To take an example, I80 or I70 through Nebraska and Kansas go through (or near) multiple small towns and has a very wide median. All of the bridges have wide, sloping expanses with guarded sections that could host a solar panel already.
Is there any reason we shouldn't just be planting solar panels along highways?
Regardless of your opinions of Trump, it seems pretty ignorant to suggest that Twitter shutting down would completely de-fang him.
It is almost like you're implying that the shutdown of Twitter equates to the shutdown of social media as a concept.
Gab.ai is a twitter replacement that has started up recently and is collecting a lot of interest.
Their product advantage - the thing that differentiates them from the rest of the market - is that they enforce free speech. So long as the speech isn't something that's patently illegal in the US, it's allowed on their site. (Disallowed: illegal pornography, threats and terrorism, doxing/publishing private information.)
Twitter seems to be taking sides with half of it's userbase, and driving the other half away. I've always felt that taking sides in customer arguments (against other customers) was a bad thing, but they're vigorously doing that so I'm sure there's some corporate benefit that I'm missing.
Gab allows each user to filter out anything they don't want to see, either other users or specific words. This seems like it's the right solution, because it allows people to use the system without seeing things they find distasteful, while not infringing on other peoples' free speech. I can only imagine that people will put together recommended word lists in topics such as pornography, or vulgarity, or meanness, that others can download and install.
So if you're concerned about twitter shutting down, check out Gab.ai as an alternate system.
There is no stopping him; Trump will soon be president. And I for one welcome our new orange overlord. I’d like to remind him that as a trusted slashdot personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in his underground cheeto dust cave hotels.
Dude, awesome post!
Somehow, viable Democrats (Bernie is really an Independent) seem to have stayed out of the primary this year. Its really strange, there was no Democratic incumbent running for re-election. There should have been a wide selection of viable candidates like in 2008, as happens all the time in non-incumbent years. But somehow, no big names but Hillary showed up. Yes there was the token opponent who mostly agreed with Hillary and said she would be a good President; and there was the Independent Bernie who re-registered to run as a Democrat. How was there not a contested field like in 2008?
Interestingly, the Wikileaks dump had this snippet about Joe Biden:
Ron Klain, a Democrat stalwart who served as chief of staff to Biden and Vice President Al Gore, sent an email to Podesta suggesting the Clinton campaign wasn’t sitting idly by while Biden was agonizing as to whether or not to stage a campaign for president, just months after the tragic death of his son Beau.
“It’s been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise – and I am definitely dead to them — but I’m glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night,” he wrote to Podesta and Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri.
I make no judgement about this - it's how politics is done - but note that Joe Biden would probably have been a stronger opponent than HRC was.
I hope to gods that i'm wrong about Trump. I'm worried because i'm not sure what he'll do (though it certainly seems like he's already heading in a bad direction.) And i'm worried because no one else is sure what he'll do either.
But for the sake of our country and our planet i sure hope it's everyone who voted for him saying "see, i told you so!" in four years, instead of everyone who voted against him saying "see, i told you so!" in rather less than four years.
I hope to gods that i'm wrong about Trump. I'm worried because i'm not sure what he'll do (though it certainly seems like he's already heading in a bad direction.) And i'm worried because no one else is sure what he'll do either.
But for the sake of our country and our planet i sure hope it's everyone who voted for him saying "see, i told you so!" in four years, instead of everyone who voted against him saying "see, i told you so!" in rather less than four years.
You know, instead of signalling your worry, you might try being "hopeful". Like the title to your post.
It hasn't really occurred to the left, but Trump is more capable and has more integrity than they give him credit for.
This is obvious when you consider all their predictions have been wrong, in every case. Trump won't win the nomination, Trump is melting down, Trump has *completely* melted down, Trump will never win the election, and on and on. Why should we believe anything the left says, when none of their past predictions have come true?
It's also obvious because everyone is running around looking for the "why" of his success. I mean, it's Russia, it's Wikileaks, it's white supremacists, it's "fake news", it's Breitbart, it's Clinton, and on and on. Do you think that maybe Trump is more capable than you gave him credit for?
And now everyone is running around with their hair on fire over every subtle thing he does. And I mean *really* "hair on fire" over some of his appointments: he'd going to dissolve the EPA and make our pollution worse than China, he's going to stage a military coup and install a fascist regime, [non-political] industry leader appointees are not "draining the swamp", an actual brain surgeon will be incompetent because he has no experience, and on and on.
A lot of us on the alt-right get a big chuckle over the histrionics and fake emotion. We like seeing your heads explode over these things. You, for example, are signalling deep worry, in a way meant to infect everyone else into a state of deep worry. Go for it! (*snicker*)
We on the alt-right are noticing that a) he's not the president yet, b) he's appointing capable people, and c) he's still intending to fix things.
As an example of something we take comfort in, Trump is vetting people by saying "here's my vision, do you agree"? And if there's a meeting of the minds, that person is considered for the position (along with experience and skill and a lot of other things).
So it was that Trump's pick for Labour secretary published a statement showing that he was on-board with Trump's priorities:
My job as a business person is to maximize profits for my company, employees and shareholders. My job as the Secretary of Labor, if confirmed, is to serve U.S. citizen workers – that is my moral and constitutional duty. The public spoke loud and clear in this election, and delivered a mandate to protect American workers. It makes no economic sense to spend trillions on welfare and jobless benefits for out of work Americans while bringing in foreign workers to fill jobs in their place.
As Secretary of Labor, I will fiercely defend American workers and implement my piece of the ten point plan the President-elect laid out.[...]
If you aren't anti-American, it really doesn't look all that bad. In fact, it looks a lot like we might get some competence in government for once.
Consider taking a "wait and see" attitude.
All this worry and panic is over nothing.
I'm so tired of hearing about the evil DNC "torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign" and such nonsense. Why on earth was anyone surprised a political party had a candidate they favored?
Because members thought that their vote would determine the favored candidate.
Furthermore, nothing the DNC did was anywhere near enough to sink Bernie.
Early in the year Bernie got more donations than Clinton by $60 mil (Bernie) to $20 mil (Clinton). The DNC moved $60 million from down-ballot elections directly into Clinton's campaign so that Clinton could outspend Bernie.
It's well known that money spent directly translates to votes, and Bernie and Clinton got [primary[ popular votes proportional to their campaign spending, so it would appear that the $60 million influx of money *exactly* torpedord Bernie's campaign.
Incidentally, this is why the democrats lost both houses and a lot of the governorships. By taking that money away from down-ballot elections and giving it to Clinton, you got a candidate who was less likely to beat Trump and hobbled all the other campaigns for money.
In other news, both Wikileaks and Putin deny that Russia did any of this.
Who do we believe? And note that the US isn't showing evidence, just like they didn't show evidence for "weapons of mass destruction".
Assange said specifically that it wasn't the Russians who leaked the information, and he's in a position to know the truth and has an unblemished record. (You may disagree with what he does, but you can't legitimately say that any of his information is made up.)
Furthermore, isn't transparency a good thing? To take a random example, isn't Clinton taking $28 million from Morocco exactly the sort of thing that should be investigated by the news and discussed in public?
Or how about the DNC torpedoing Bernie Sanders' campaign. Isn't that something that's important enough to be transparent to the public?
I have to think that this isn't Russia's problem as much as it was Clinton's.
It's sort of like finding out whether the voting machinery is rigged. On the one hand, it embarrasses the country. On the other hand, transparency leads to fixes.
Shouldn't Freedom of speech have a higher priority than a vague "we have the right to make money"?
When can we appeal to freedom of speech, and when can we not?
If the business is Twitter or Facebook, they can ban users for whatever obscure and selectively enforced rules they want. We can't appeal to free speech in those cases because they're both private businesses.
But posting a negative review would seem to be free speech and should be protected over the wishes of the business involved.
So which is it?
Should government force businesses to protect free speech or not?
(Of note: We expect businesses to be agnostic over hiring women and blacks, because not doing so would be a violation of their civil rights. We don't allow businesses to turn over subscriber information to the government without a warrant, because that would also be a violation of rights. Why is free speech any different?)
And once again, Facebook is a private organization, and has the right to remove any content they want to. Don't like it, go use some other social networking platform.
Of course, that does mean the fake news purveyors are likely to start losing the large audience they had relied on, but is that such a bad thing? There's always Breitbart and Stormfront!
On that note, a Twitter replacement called Gab.ai has sprung up that claims to enforce free speech.
It's currently in beta so signups are put on a waiting list, but I managed to get in pretty quick (the wait was less than a week). It's not as sophisticated as Twitter is *currently*, but I really like the free speech aspect of it.
Speech they don't tolerate are things that are patently illegal in the US, plus doxing: Illegal pornography, threats and terrorism, and private information.
If you're bothered by someone, you can set a personal filter to remove their posts from your feed. If you're bothered by certain words, you can set another filter to remove posts with those words.
Beyond that, they claim that they will make no restrictions on free speech.
In the 2 months since it started it's become reasonably popular. According to Alexa rankings, it's currently about the same as Slashdot (after 2 months!).
ATM gab seems to be under-represented by the left. People are mostly civil, and...
wonder of wonders... the humour channel is actually funny.
You're probably aware of this, but the post above that you are responding to is a duplicate of a post I made earlier to a different story.
I didn't repost it here, and I never post as AC as a point of pride, so someone else has reposted it for me. I strongly suspect you (whiplash) reposted it in order to respond. All of which is fine - thinking things through it seems that reposting as AC to respond is quite reasonable.
My original post was in the article Elon Musk and Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Will Advise Trump On Business Issues of about a day ago.
The actual situation described in that article is a council which will meet with Trump which has 19 members and represents a wide swathe of industry. Musk and Kalanick are only barely 10% of the council. Other extremely notable members are Cook from Apple, Iger from Disney, Rometty from IBM, Nooyi from PepsiCo, and (obviously) 13 others.
Describing the council as "Musk and Kalanik advise Trump on Business Issues" is a reframing of the situation specifically to provoke anger and derision about Trump. It's clickbait and it's misleading.
Another title recently was "Twitter Cut Out of Trump Tech Meeting Over Failed Emoji Deal, Says Report". This was reported by Politico who gives no attribution, and which the Trump campaign denies. Twitter is worth $13 billion, while Amazon is at $372 billion and Apple is $624 billion, so it seems reasonable that Twitter was left out not out of spite, but because they aren't big enough to be a player. As many people have pointed out, Twitter employs a few thousand people while the other players employ tens and hundreds of thousands.
A fair number of Slashdot articles are slanted click-bait meant to supply a platform for people to insult each other.
You say that you're not interested in traffic, but that you post things you think should be covered. I eventually you'll get your wish: you'll post things that you think need to be published, and you won't have any traffic.
To a business owner, negative feedback is like gold, because it shows you how to improve your business.
I strongly recommend that you put your partisan leanings aside and make the health of the business your first priority. My original posting attracted a +5 insightful and many responses in support. Not all responses were supportive, of course, but enough to show that a fair proportion of readers think that this is a problem.
Also of note the original post was way down the page, and as you know few readers will read that far down. If the post was nearer the top there might be a lot more support.
And finally, Slashdot has polls. How about making a couple of well-formed polls to gather reader sentiment?
That should give you an idea of how strongly people feel about political click-bait, and whether this is a real issue that should be addressed.
Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.
And some of us thought the liberals were going to be petty and seek revenge.
You are a fucking idiot if you don't see the difference. He is literally setting up a fascist regime.
He is literally not.
Get some perspective. Christ almighty you lefties are so full of hatred and anger that you can't even see straight.
Trump recently gave his labor secretary pick his vision for that post, and the labor secretary basically agreed. This all looks very good and should have a positive effect on the nation.
His whole transition looks like this. You guys can't see all the goodness because you're too blinded by losing the election.
From that link:
Donald J. Trump’s 10 Point Plan to Put America First
1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.
2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.
3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.
4. End sanctuary cities.
5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced – we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.
6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.
7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.
8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.
9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.
10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.
So you think there is a meaningful distinction between "political" elites and "financial" elites? Wow!
I also think there is a distinction between an elite athlete and a financial elite.
You don't? Wow!
(Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger is elite both as a politician and finance and athletics, as was John Glen.)
This article is another example of this: it's a forum for people to wail about how awful Drumpf will be, because they can see the future with perfect clarity.
Which part of the summary or article points toward anything that is negative?
Firstly, you edited my post (as shown by the emphasis), just like what reddit CEO Steve Huffman did.
Secondly, I said political articles provides an anchor for carping, and didn't say that this article was negative.
Get bent, asshole. Editing someone's post is wrong.
Using billionaires like Elon Musk and Travis Kalanick to tell you what to do is "swamp draining"?
Yeah, drain that swamp and fill it with....billionaires.
The swamp is filled with political elites and insiders. How is using non-political insiders *not* draining the swamp?
To put this in terms of information theory, the term "elite" is a measurement, and as such should come with units. We usually don't show the units when we make that measurement, but this can lead to confusion.
So for example, LeBron James is an elite athlete, where "athlete" is the units of measurement. Trump could appoint LeBron to his cabinet, that would be putting an "elite" in charge, and it would still be draining the swamp because LeBron is not an elite politician.
The measurement units are different. An elite athlete is not the same as an elite politician, and calling both of them "elite" just confuses the matter.
Trump himself is an "elite", only the unit of measurement in this case is "financial". Elon Musk is also a financial elite.
"Draining the swamp" refers to removing corruption, which implies getting rid of the "political" elite.
It makes sense to take advice from elites in other units of measurement, because elites generally get to be elite because of their skill and experience.
Elites in charge are fine, so long as they are elites due to skill, and not politics.
Looking at the Alexa ranking of Slashdot over the past couple of months shows that readership has dropped precipitously. It started to slide around March, levelled out at a low pace throughout the summer, and took a nosedive right around the election.
During those months, many long-term readers took the trouble to post messages complaining about the political nature of the posts, and many of those also said "that's it - I'm leaving!".
It was clear during those months that many of the articles were partisan - mostly in favour of Clinton, but there were some that were pro Trump as well. The forum became nothing more than an anchor point for digs against Trump or Clinton.
This article is another example of this: it's a forum for people to wail about how awful Trump will be, because they can see the future with perfect clarity.
It's clear from context and evidence that people simply don't like this partisan bullshit, and are leaving the site in droves to avoid it. Whichever side you happen to be on, when you trash talk or support Trump you're alienating fully half the readership.
I would *think* that the editors should have a fiducial responsibility to see slashdot succeed, and looking at the Alexa history I would *think* that whiplash would step in and enforce a leadership vision that better navigates the shoals of politics.
I guess not.
The NYT showed a 96% drop in quarterly profits over the election season, very probably because of continuous partisan trash talking.
That's a huge drop in the profitability of a company, and should be a cloister bell for media in general: people simply don't like all this partisan bickering.
At the very least you're driving away half your readership.
Slashdot should focus on the technical and avoid emotionalism for the time being, at least until the election soreness has had a chance to calm down.
If Slashdot wants to succeed, that would seem to be the prudent move.
The Judge didn't refer to the legal precedent in the 1988 case, he merely referred to the 1988 case and then *disagreed* with the precedent set down in that case by saying he saw no distinction between identifying a key or identifying a combination - the combination he refers to is the combination of the safe in the 1988 case, not the passcode to the iPhone. He then equates the passcode to the combination.
Legal precedent can be overturned, its not set in stone forever more, and thats what this Judge is trying to do here - overturn the precedent in the 1988 case by saying there is no longer a distinction between the physical key and the ephemeral combination.
So you're saying that the supreme court can make a ruling that is on point in a specific matter, and sometime later an appeals court judge can decide that legal precedent might be overturned, and we should ask the supreme court once again "is this still your opinion"?
Here I thought that the supreme court was the court of final appeal!
And furthermore, it takes on the order of $2 million to mount a supreme court challenge, so this appeals court judge effectively just dropped a bill for that amount that the defendant *has* to pay, in order to stay out of jail. The defence relied on a supreme court decision, but it turns out that in general we can no longer do this.
And finally, suppose the defendant simply says "I forgot the passcode - it's been so long, and I haven't typed it in, that it's just escaped my memory". The judge can disbelieve the defendant and put him in contempt of court, but otherwise there's basically no crime that the defendant can be charged with for making this statement.
Trump is selling "Inauguration membership cards" from his official presidencial campaign. With this video popping up December 9th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Has he divested his foreign businesses yet like he promised? No? Has he closed his offshore accounts yet? No. Has he put his US business into a blind trust yet? No.
But you can be sure he has a big press outrage thing planned to draw attention away from his own expired deadline to do this.
Meanwhile in Democrat-land, senator Harry Reid apparently took a $2 million bribe from online poker companies to enact online poker legislation.
An investigation was started, but was "stymied" by the federal government, frustrating prosecutors who actually wanted to investigate and prosecute corruption.
Senator Reid (Democrat, Nevada) apparently owns, or is searchlight holdings, a holding company in the Marshall Islands.
Democrats are quick to point out how Trump should divest himself from everything he owns, which are above-board in-country real estate holdings.
But a Democratic senator owning a holding company in the Marshall Islands is OK. Right?
Is that what you're saying?