Isn't global warming [from greenhouse gases] an exponential system?
The opposite, it's a logarithmic system. Every ounce of CO2 released produces less warming than the previous ounce. This is why climate scientists talk about warming in terms of "a doubling of CO2", because if it causes 1 degree of warming with one doubling, the next doubling will also cause a degree of warming.
The panel posted a quick summary of their results and findings.
Isn't global warming [from greenhouse gases] an exponential system? When the planet gets warmer, doesn't that release more greenhouse gases from clathrates under the ocean, causing more warming?
Isn't offsetting an exponential response by using another exponential curve difficult? I thought that was what made nuclear reactor regulation difficult.
Any control theorists in the audience who can shed light on this?
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Read the Bible, friend, where you will find similar niceties about prominent fellows in the Jewish/Christian tradition.
Jesus was not a murderer, a pedophile, a liar or a rapist(*). What's your point?
Also, where in the bible can you find all of those attributes in one individual?
(*) Neither was Joseph Smith, Buddha, or Zoroaster. Historical accounts generally use the terms "pious", "noble", and "compassionate" to describe religious leaders. Of those three words ("pious", "noble", and "compassionate"), which most accurately describes Mohammed?
Look to the future and consider two outcomes: where media self-censors based on threats of attack from extremists, or where media blatantly continues in the face of such threats.
The decisions made today will bring about one of these scenarios. It's a simple case of "payback horizon": how far ahead do you plan for.
If you self-censor right now, it will protect your people and your business near-term, but over time you will find yourself increasingly subject to threats and attacks, you will be self-censoring more and more.
One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off short-term rewards for a larger long-term gain. Being frightened into submission has near-term benefits, but those policies will not end well.
[...]Either way, I should have it done by lunch time.
I see you've read the article, so can you explain something for me?
I'm told that photons gain energy when falling into a black hole. Suppose you have two entangled photons and one goes off and gets captured by a black hole.
Based on the article, would there be any noticeable effect on the other entangled photon?
We can't measure anything using any instrument anywhere to a precision of 1/10^37th. Bullshit meter is off the charts
We can't make any single measurement which contains 37 digits and have each of those digits accurate, that's true.
Just out of curiosity, how do radios work? I'm told that the measurement units for an antenna nanovolts per meter. Does the receiver make a 12-volt measurement to 8 digits of accuracy in order to recover the signal?
Or does the receiver amplify the signal so that it's large enough to be readily detected?
And is there no way to make multiple measurements so that the effect adds up? Can we do a million measurements added together to make the signal a million times stronger?
I observed, noticed a trend, and came to a conclusion. You should try it some time.
Minor exceptions don't make a rule less useful. Check out Newton's Laws sometime.
A rule is useful to the degree that it conveys [read: compresses] information. We teach that the world is round because as a rule that statement is pretty accurate, and only later do we admit that it's an oblate spheroid or use other, more accurate representations.
I can't say "leaves are green" without some idiot on the internet pointing out that Poinsettia leaves are red.
So I have to say "tree leaves are green" until some idiot on the internet points out that Chinese maple tree leaves are red.
So I have to say "most tree leaves are green" at which point some idiot on the internet points out that tree leaves change color in the fall.
So I have to say "most tree leaves are green most of the time..." and the statement is mushy and filled with weasel words.
Newton's laws compress the almanac of cannon ball weights, forces, angles, and the subsequent arc of travel into a half page of information. That's pretty good compression for a rule, even though there are exceptions.
Saying "electronics is adding power to signal" is also a pretty good rule, except for obscure corner cases that don't matter in everyday experience.
Branly converter? Do I *really* have to worry about Branley converters in my electronics lectures?
That's not electronics either. Electronics is about physics, you'd like to play with a vacuum tube to actually see a hot cathode and measure currents.
Everything descends from [the physics concept] power.
Electricity is moving power from place to place (using electrons, to distinguish it from steam engines, plumbing &c).
Electronics is adding power to signal (again, using electrons to distinguish it from other forms such as hydraulics and pneumatcs).
Calculating the maximum load on your 15 amp circuit is electricity. Most of the wiring in your house is electricity, because it's concerned with moving power from place to place.
Amplifying an audio signal to put through a speaker is electronics. Amplifying a sensor to be read by a micro is electronics. You're adding power to the signal for various purposes.
It never ceases to amaze me how "stop liking what I don't like" posts get moderated to +5 Insightful.
Where is the insight here? Other than the clear insight into the poster's fear of experimental, new technologies and applications.
The insight is that this is a subscription model without subscription value. It's an MBA thing, and comes from studying the model without the context in which it is successful.
Companies see the subscription model as a cash revenue source, and there are several successful examples currently working: NetFlix, iTunes, internet service, phone service, and so on. Get your customers to sign up and sit back and watch the money roll in.
The problem is when the subscription model doesn't give ongoing service. Fitness monitors comes to mind - you purchase the unit to measure your daily activity level, but you *have* to use their online service to see your results. You can't [easily] download the data to your local computer, and the interface is obscured or encrypted to prevent the user from intercepting it.
There's no reason for the online subscription, except that it makes money for the company. People eventually realize this and stop using the service and the devices fade into obscurity. See CueCat for an example: This *might* have been useful and *might* have defined a paradigm for website tie-ins in print media, except that the User has to register with zip code, gender, and E-mail address, and the vendor has to purchase a code. Little or no functionality and registration required.
Companies are drooling over this IOT stuff because they see it as a subscription model and they can sell the user info for even more money, but they don't realize that there is no real value being given in exchange for the subscription. There's really little value in being able to turn your furnace up/down remotely, or unlock your door remotely, or start your dishwasher remotely... and absolutely no reason to do this under a subscription model.
Joel Spolsky's term for this is "feeble business idea". The attractiveness of the model outweighs the impracticality of the solution.
I can't be the only one who thinks that is a terribly bad idea...
When I first heard about wikipedia and the theory driving it I thought it was a terribly bad idea at the time... but ya know, I find it really useful. It's got lots of problems but on balance it's s lot more useful than problematic.
We've identified many deep problems with scientific research on this very forum, and to my knowledge little progress has been made over the last decade.
Can't we at least *try* different solutions?
Where is it written(*) that the old ways are the best?
(*) The script to Skyfall of course. I got that from Wikiquotes.
Bruce Schneier posted an analysis on his blog that points out a few things.
The timestamps on the data suggest that it was downloaded at USB2.0 speeds, and happened on the day that Charles Sipkins, Sony Pictures' head of corporate communications, publicly resigned.
The USB2.0 speeds implies an inside job, and the timing of Sipkins' resignation is suspicious.
The headline is shocking when one consider the steep rise of cancer since 1945. If it was luck, then how it could change over time?
You're forgetting the context in which the study was made.
By assigning most cancer to random chance, they are laying the groundwork for the defense against future lawsuits for negligence and compensation against corporations. Companies will pour money into shouting these results as widely and loudly as possible, it will become a public meme, and the populist mantra will be "I got cancer, but it was just bad luck" for decades.
This is similar to the recent history of the tobacco industry, it took over 50 years to sort that out and the damage hasn't yet settled.
Expect this report to be wildly popular for the next few years.
1. Which party wants to decrease corporate money in politics? 2. Which party is for decreasing the length of copyright? 3. Which party supports jail time for fraudulent bankers? 4. Which party would increase the penalty for crimes committed by corporations, instead of the current toothless fees we currently have? 5. Which party is for reducing our illegal surveillance both here and abroad? 6. Which party is for eliminating the NSA?
I mean, sure, they're different on a bunch of minor crap no one (should) care about, but when it comes to major issues, they're identical.
I'm all for dividing good from evil, but I'm also a rationalist: I work from evidence, not hearsay. Please answer for me:
1. Which party decreased corporate money in politics? 2. Which party decreased the length of copyright? 3. Which party put fraudulent bankers in jail? 4. Which party increased the penalty for crimes committed by corporations? 5. Which party reduced our illegal surveillance both here and abroad? 6. Which party curtailed the NSA?
Democrats bemoan those nasty republicans for blocking all attempts at making a better world, but they have not blocked any of the bad stuff that makes this a worse world.
Rhetoric is useless, ignore what they say. Consider what they do
One reason for the death of voice mail is the change from convenience to annoyance imposed by the carriers.
First you hear “Hi, it’s John Smith. Leave a message, and I’ll get back to you”. (5 seconds)
And THEN you hear a 15-second canned carrier message "[Phone number] is not available right now. Please leave a detailed message after the tone. When you have finished recording, you may hang up, or press pound for more options. To leave a callback number, press 5.”
That extra 15 seconds is annoying as hell to wait out, and it's only put there so that the carrier can use up metered minutes on an artificially scarce resource.
Then when you go to *play* the message, you have to wait through the "First message, from, phone number xxx-xxx-xxxx, received at ".
The old-style was much more convenient. Leave a message *beep* "Hi, this is your sister, please give me a call". Oftentimes 10 seconds *total* gets the point across.
The new-style - not so much.
Take the time wasted on each worthless recording (15 secs), multiply by the number of messages each year, and you get a *lot* of wasted man-years.
Thanks, carriers! Your relentless pursuit of money has ruined a perfectly useful feature.
I like what J.J Abrams and Zack Snyder (who directed "Man of Steel") have done to the franchises. They start with the established plotlines and take the stories in new directions. It's an artistic license that gives us fresh, new interpretations of the characters such as superman killing someone (General Zod) or Spock having an emotional outburst (over Kirk's death).
I anxiously await the Michael Bay version of "Hamlet" or the Justin Lin version of "Macbeth". This site has a good overview of directors taking artistic license, including an unannounced (but upcoming) superman movie.
Just last week I encountered a cop with a lighted baton who was directing traffic from the side of the road. He would stop traffic, walk to the middle of the road while motioning people across the road with his baton, then walk off the road while waving the baton *behind his back* to signal "go ahead".
Does the self-driving car recognize this sort of thing?
Will it drive when there's snow on the ground?
I think I'd keep the steering wheel and manual control - just in case..
And once the batteries reach end-of-life for automotive uses, they can be automatically repurposed for off-grid storage.
Once battery capacity falls below a certain level (60% perhaps?) it becomes unsuitable for automotive use, but could be used for other purposes such as offline-grid storage. A factory floor filled with older batteries still has quite a bit of capacity - so long as you aren't overly concerned about space or weight efficiencies.
Battery arrays could be installed at wind and solar installations to act as online storage to help even out baseline demand, and as more batteries come available we simply(!) swap out the oldest/least capacity units.
...for some definitions of "simply". In principle it doesn't sound too bad - a computer system monitors all batteries, using robots to install and harvest the batteries. Similar to the ones used for automated greenhouses or the ones that service the amazon fulfillment centers.
...and when they're completely dead ship them off for recycling. Refining lithium from batteries might be cheaper than mining raw ore.
Offline storage is the missing component that would make wind and solar power practical. Maybe used EV batteries is that component.
The typical reason for doing this is "if we don't do it first, subsequent legislation will require us to implement an even more onerous system".
Let's see how that works in practice:
The government simply waits to see what the telcos implement. If it's *more* than they wanted, they stop and say "well done!". If it's *less* than they wanted, then they proceed with legislation, which they were planning to do anyway.
In game theory terms, what does this type of policy maximize?
Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!
Did he actually say that?
Or did he say turn off *automatic* patching?
It seems reasonable to always be 1 week behind in patching your systems - let someone else be the lightning rod for goofs and mistakes. I know some sysadmins patch "test" systems and try things out to see if the patches break their currently-running code. They don't seem to mind a certain time lag in patching.
Go to Toastmasters and get a CC ("Competent Communicator") or any of theit further awards. It'll teach you how to present and interact with others in a professional scenario.
Pick a karate school you like and get a black belt. It'll teach you discipline and focus, and help you keep your health as you get older.
Join the SCA and work yourself up to becoming a knight. If you take it seriously it'll teach you honor and integrity.
Take first aid, CPR, and EMT training. Take some survival courses.
Take MIT courses from edX or Coursera for the certificate and grade.
If Bennett is so completely unwanted on this blog, why don't we do something about it?
In the manner of the fine people at 4chan, suppose we referred to Bennett in the past tense - as if he had passed away. Make all of our responses polite and sincere, but with the assumption that he is no longer with us.
Here's the kicker: the internet works by consensus. If there's an abundance of commentary referring to him in the past tense, it'll get picked up and echoed everywhere, possibly by Wikipedia. I don't know what the full ramifications would be, but hopefully it will play hob with his attempts to get traction on the net. Anyone who googles for him by name or things he has said will get the impression that he's unavailable for comment, interviews, and possibly employment.
Of course, we need to give Bennett fair warning, so I propose the following:
Starting with the next Bennett Haselton article on Slashdot that's more than 2 short paragraphs, we start referring to Bennett in the past tense - as if he had passed away. We're going to start a new internet meme.
Pleading, complaining, and asking has had no effect and we've certainly done due diligence.
The responses were surprising and enlightening. On the topic of his actions, each and every one of the respondents felt that the inspector reacted appropriately, that he in fact had to react in the most extreme manner possible, and that it was the right thing to do(**).
The police have a dangerous job - they put their lives on the line every single day (just ask one), and they simply can't take the chance that a black man might be dangerous.
No. That's completely wrong, and it comes from police and other government agencies "doubling down" on their mistakes. Something bad happens, someone in authority shouts "it was the correct thing to do!", and it's echoed all over the press and on the net by people who repeat what they hear without thinking it through.
When the department says that the most dickish possible way is the right response they are alienating the people. It might avoid getting the cop thrown off the force, but in the future the department may actually *need* the support or cooperation of the people in order to do their job. This is short-term smart and long-term stupid.
We have schools teaching teenagers how to react to cops, and the take-away message is that cops only hurt people - they are a danger to be avoided
The "broken window" theory of crime can also be applied to the police. If we let them get away with these sorts of abuses, everyone in a position of authority will know that it's OK to act in the most dickish way possible.
I understand how rules exist to prevent the "worst possible scenario" from happening, but do we *always* have to act as if the worst possible scenario is happening right here, right now? Should cops always shoot a suspect who has a gun in hand? Would a more nuanced approach better?
I'm glad there's rioting. This crap needs to stop.
(*) For non-merikan readers, a grand jury does not assign guilt or innocence, it only determines whether a trial should happen. Basically, it tries to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. Also, it's heavily rigged *against* the defendant.
(**) There are at least 3 alternative actions the fire marshal could have taken that would have solved his problem without alienating all the con goers, the business, and the hotel. I don't expect anyone in his local area would help if his office needed public support for something, such as "please help us by sending us your video tape of incident".
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't global warming [from greenhouse gases] an exponential system?
The opposite, it's a logarithmic system. Every ounce of CO2 released produces less warming than the previous ounce. This is why climate scientists talk about warming in terms of "a doubling of CO2", because if it causes 1 degree of warming with one doubling, the next doubling will also cause a degree of warming.
Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you!
Great response!
The panel posted a quick summary of their results and findings.
Isn't global warming [from greenhouse gases] an exponential system? When the planet gets warmer, doesn't that release more greenhouse gases from clathrates under the ocean, causing more warming?
Isn't offsetting an exponential response by using another exponential curve difficult? I thought that was what made nuclear reactor regulation difficult.
Any control theorists in the audience who can shed light on this?
Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar and a rapist. All of these straight from the Koran.
Read the Bible, friend, where you will find similar niceties about prominent fellows in the Jewish/Christian tradition.
Jesus was not a murderer, a pedophile, a liar or a rapist(*). What's your point?
Also, where in the bible can you find all of those attributes in one individual?
(*) Neither was Joseph Smith, Buddha, or Zoroaster. Historical accounts generally use the terms "pious", "noble", and "compassionate" to describe religious leaders. Of those three words ("pious", "noble", and "compassionate"), which most accurately describes Mohammed?
How about a duty to intelligence?
Look to the future and consider two outcomes: where media self-censors based on threats of attack from extremists, or where media blatantly continues in the face of such threats.
The decisions made today will bring about one of these scenarios. It's a simple case of "payback horizon": how far ahead do you plan for.
If you self-censor right now, it will protect your people and your business near-term, but over time you will find yourself increasingly subject to threats and attacks, you will be self-censoring more and more.
One of the definitions of intelligence is the ability to put off short-term rewards for a larger long-term gain. Being frightened into submission has near-term benefits, but those policies will not end well.
See Bullying.
[...]Either way, I should have it done by lunch time.
I see you've read the article, so can you explain something for me?
I'm told that photons gain energy when falling into a black hole. Suppose you have two entangled photons and one goes off and gets captured by a black hole.
Based on the article, would there be any noticeable effect on the other entangled photon?
We can't measure anything using any instrument anywhere to a precision of 1/10^37th. Bullshit meter is off the charts
We can't make any single measurement which contains 37 digits and have each of those digits accurate, that's true.
Just out of curiosity, how do radios work? I'm told that the measurement units for an antenna nanovolts per meter. Does the receiver make a 12-volt measurement to 8 digits of accuracy in order to recover the signal?
Or does the receiver amplify the signal so that it's large enough to be readily detected?
And is there no way to make multiple measurements so that the effect adds up? Can we do a million measurements added together to make the signal a million times stronger?
You made that all up.
I observed, noticed a trend, and came to a conclusion. You should try it some time.
Minor exceptions don't make a rule less useful. Check out Newton's Laws sometime.
A rule is useful to the degree that it conveys [read: compresses] information. We teach that the world is round because as a rule that statement is pretty accurate, and only later do we admit that it's an oblate spheroid or use other, more accurate representations.
I can't say "leaves are green" without some idiot on the internet pointing out that Poinsettia leaves are red.
So I have to say "tree leaves are green" until some idiot on the internet points out that Chinese maple tree leaves are red.
So I have to say "most tree leaves are green" at which point some idiot on the internet points out that tree leaves change color in the fall.
So I have to say "most tree leaves are green most of the time..." and the statement is mushy and filled with weasel words.
Newton's laws compress the almanac of cannon ball weights, forces, angles, and the subsequent arc of travel into a half page of information. That's pretty good compression for a rule, even though there are exceptions.
Saying "electronics is adding power to signal" is also a pretty good rule, except for obscure corner cases that don't matter in everyday experience.
Branly converter? Do I *really* have to worry about Branley converters in my electronics lectures?
Leaves are green. Get over yourself.
That's not electronics either. Electronics is about physics, you'd like to play with a vacuum tube to actually see a hot cathode and measure currents.
Everything descends from [the physics concept] power.
Electricity is moving power from place to place (using electrons, to distinguish it from steam engines, plumbing &c).
Electronics is adding power to signal (again, using electrons to distinguish it from other forms such as hydraulics and pneumatcs).
Calculating the maximum load on your 15 amp circuit is electricity. Most of the wiring in your house is electricity, because it's concerned with moving power from place to place.
Amplifying an audio signal to put through a speaker is electronics. Amplifying a sensor to be read by a micro is electronics. You're adding power to the signal for various purposes.
It never ceases to amaze me how "stop liking what I don't like" posts get moderated to +5 Insightful.
Where is the insight here? Other than the clear insight into the poster's fear of experimental, new technologies and applications.
The insight is that this is a subscription model without subscription value. It's an MBA thing, and comes from studying the model without the context in which it is successful.
Companies see the subscription model as a cash revenue source, and there are several successful examples currently working: NetFlix, iTunes, internet service, phone service, and so on. Get your customers to sign up and sit back and watch the money roll in.
The problem is when the subscription model doesn't give ongoing service. Fitness monitors comes to mind - you purchase the unit to measure your daily activity level, but you *have* to use their online service to see your results. You can't [easily] download the data to your local computer, and the interface is obscured or encrypted to prevent the user from intercepting it.
There's no reason for the online subscription, except that it makes money for the company. People eventually realize this and stop using the service and the devices fade into obscurity. See CueCat for an example: This *might* have been useful and *might* have defined a paradigm for website tie-ins in print media, except that the User has to register with zip code, gender, and E-mail address, and the vendor has to purchase a code. Little or no functionality and registration required.
Companies are drooling over this IOT stuff because they see it as a subscription model and they can sell the user info for even more money, but they don't realize that there is no real value being given in exchange for the subscription. There's really little value in being able to turn your furnace up/down remotely, or unlock your door remotely, or start your dishwasher remotely... and absolutely no reason to do this under a subscription model.
Joel Spolsky's term for this is "feeble business idea". The attractiveness of the model outweighs the impracticality of the solution.
I can't be the only one who thinks that is a terribly bad idea...
When I first heard about wikipedia and the theory driving it I thought it was a terribly bad idea at the time... but ya know, I find it really useful. It's got lots of problems but on balance it's s lot more useful than problematic.
We've identified many deep problems with scientific research on this very forum, and to my knowledge little progress has been made over the last decade.
Can't we at least *try* different solutions?
Where is it written(*) that the old ways are the best?
(*) The script to Skyfall of course. I got that from Wikiquotes.
Bruce Schneier posted an analysis on his blog that points out a few things.
The timestamps on the data suggest that it was downloaded at USB2.0 speeds, and happened on the day that Charles Sipkins, Sony Pictures' head of corporate communications, publicly resigned.
The USB2.0 speeds implies an inside job, and the timing of Sipkins' resignation is suspicious.
What was the evidence for NK again?
The cool thing about economics, however, is that there is enormous economic demand to do so.
Another cool thing is that it embraces many different viewpoints in a single discipline.
If you have doubts about the economic "school of thought" you happen to be studying, you can easily find another to believe.
Keynesian, French liberal, Lausanne, Neoclassical, Distributism - economics has something for everyone!
Sort of like Starbucks.
The headline is shocking when one consider the steep rise of cancer since 1945. If it was luck, then how it could change over time?
You're forgetting the context in which the study was made.
By assigning most cancer to random chance, they are laying the groundwork for the defense against future lawsuits for negligence and compensation against corporations. Companies will pour money into shouting these results as widely and loudly as possible, it will become a public meme, and the populist mantra will be "I got cancer, but it was just bad luck" for decades.
This is similar to the recent history of the tobacco industry, it took over 50 years to sort that out and the damage hasn't yet settled.
Expect this report to be wildly popular for the next few years.
They are? OK, please answer for me:
1. Which party wants to decrease corporate money in politics?
2. Which party is for decreasing the length of copyright?
3. Which party supports jail time for fraudulent bankers?
4. Which party would increase the penalty for crimes committed by corporations, instead of the current toothless fees we currently have?
5. Which party is for reducing our illegal surveillance both here and abroad?
6. Which party is for eliminating the NSA?
I mean, sure, they're different on a bunch of minor crap no one (should) care about, but when it comes to major issues, they're identical.
I'm all for dividing good from evil, but I'm also a rationalist: I work from evidence, not hearsay. Please answer for me:
1. Which party decreased corporate money in politics?
2. Which party decreased the length of copyright?
3. Which party put fraudulent bankers in jail?
4. Which party increased the penalty for crimes committed by corporations?
5. Which party reduced our illegal surveillance both here and abroad?
6. Which party curtailed the NSA?
Democrats bemoan those nasty republicans for blocking all attempts at making a better world, but they have not blocked any of the bad stuff that makes this a worse world.
Rhetoric is useless, ignore what they say. Consider what they do
Um... I hate to be the non-technical person that points this out, but...
The evidence that implicates NK on the previous attacks - is it the same evidence used to assign blame in the current attack?
Is this citing the conclusions based on the same evidence/situation from previous attacks to give legitimacy to the evidence in the current attack?
What a scam! Claim something on flimsy evidence, then cite those claims to give legitimacy to the flimsy evidence!
I wonder... can I do this sort of thing in the scientific literature? Hmmmm...
One reason for the death of voice mail is the change from convenience to annoyance imposed by the carriers.
First you hear “Hi, it’s John Smith. Leave a message, and I’ll get back to you”. (5 seconds)
And THEN you hear a 15-second canned carrier message "[Phone number] is not available right now. Please leave a detailed message after the tone. When you have finished recording, you may hang up, or press pound for more options. To leave a callback number, press 5.”
That extra 15 seconds is annoying as hell to wait out, and it's only put there so that the carrier can use up metered minutes on an artificially scarce resource.
Then when you go to *play* the message, you have to wait through the "First message, from, phone number xxx-xxx-xxxx, received at ".
The old-style was much more convenient. Leave a message *beep* "Hi, this is your sister, please give me a call". Oftentimes 10 seconds *total* gets the point across.
The new-style - not so much.
Take the time wasted on each worthless recording (15 secs), multiply by the number of messages each year, and you get a *lot* of wasted man-years.
Thanks, carriers! Your relentless pursuit of money has ruined a perfectly useful feature.
I like what J.J Abrams and Zack Snyder (who directed "Man of Steel") have done to the franchises. They start with the established plotlines and take the stories in new directions. It's an artistic license that gives us fresh, new interpretations of the characters such as superman killing someone (General Zod) or Spock having an emotional outburst (over Kirk's death).
I anxiously await the Michael Bay version of "Hamlet" or the Justin Lin version of "Macbeth". This site has a good overview of directors taking artistic license, including an unannounced (but upcoming) superman movie.
For reference, here's Kevin Smith talking about how movies get made.
Just last week I encountered a cop with a lighted baton who was directing traffic from the side of the road. He would stop traffic, walk to the middle of the road while motioning people across the road with his baton, then walk off the road while waving the baton *behind his back* to signal "go ahead".
Does the self-driving car recognize this sort of thing?
Will it drive when there's snow on the ground?
I think I'd keep the steering wheel and manual control - just in case..
And once the batteries reach end-of-life for automotive uses, they can be automatically repurposed for off-grid storage.
Once battery capacity falls below a certain level (60% perhaps?) it becomes unsuitable for automotive use, but could be used for other purposes such as offline-grid storage. A factory floor filled with older batteries still has quite a bit of capacity - so long as you aren't overly concerned about space or weight efficiencies.
Battery arrays could be installed at wind and solar installations to act as online storage to help even out baseline demand, and as more batteries come available we simply(!) swap out the oldest/least capacity units.
Offline storage is the missing component that would make wind and solar power practical. Maybe used EV batteries is that component.
The typical reason for doing this is "if we don't do it first, subsequent legislation will require us to implement an even more onerous system".
Let's see how that works in practice:
The government simply waits to see what the telcos implement. If it's *more* than they wanted, they stop and say "well done!". If it's *less* than they wanted, then they proceed with legislation, which they were planning to do anyway.
In game theory terms, what does this type of policy maximize?
Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!
Did he actually say that?
Or did he say turn off *automatic* patching?
It seems reasonable to always be 1 week behind in patching your systems - let someone else be the lightning rod for goofs and mistakes. I know some sysadmins patch "test" systems and try things out to see if the patches break their currently-running code. They don't seem to mind a certain time lag in patching.
Go to Toastmasters and get a CC ("Competent Communicator") or any of theit further awards. It'll teach you how to present and interact with others in a professional scenario.
Pick a karate school you like and get a black belt. It'll teach you discipline and focus, and help you keep your health as you get older.
Join the SCA and work yourself up to becoming a knight. If you take it seriously it'll teach you honor and integrity.
Take first aid, CPR, and EMT training. Take some survival courses.
Take MIT courses from edX or Coursera for the certificate and grade.
If Bennett is so completely unwanted on this blog, why don't we do something about it?
In the manner of the fine people at 4chan, suppose we referred to Bennett in the past tense - as if he had passed away. Make all of our responses polite and sincere, but with the assumption that he is no longer with us.
Here's the kicker: the internet works by consensus. If there's an abundance of commentary referring to him in the past tense, it'll get picked up and echoed everywhere, possibly by Wikipedia. I don't know what the full ramifications would be, but hopefully it will play hob with his attempts to get traction on the net. Anyone who googles for him by name or things he has said will get the impression that he's unavailable for comment, interviews, and possibly employment.
Of course, we need to give Bennett fair warning, so I propose the following:
Starting with the next Bennett Haselton article on Slashdot that's more than 2 short paragraphs, we start referring to Bennett in the past tense - as if he had passed away. We're going to start a new internet meme.
Pleading, complaining, and asking has had no effect and we've certainly done due diligence.
It's time to take action.
We the public don't yet know all the facts. [...]
If it went to trial, we *would* know all the facts.
A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence, it only decides whether a trial should happen.
[...] that would have been the case regardless of the races of each person involved.
Apropos of nothing, if there was strong statistical evidence that this statement was flat-out wrong, would you change your opinion?
(Note: The decision(*) was handed down 2 hours ago and already there's rioting.)
I recently posted about a fire inspector reacting to a problem in the most dickish way possible.
The responses were surprising and enlightening. On the topic of his actions, each and every one of the respondents felt that the inspector reacted appropriately, that he in fact had to react in the most extreme manner possible, and that it was the right thing to do(**).
If you agree with this position, then it's OK for police to shoot an unarmed black man in Ferguson Missouri, or a black man purchasing a gun off the shelf at WalMart, or a 12-year old boy in Ohio playing with a toy gun.
The police have a dangerous job - they put their lives on the line every single day (just ask one), and they simply can't take the chance that a black man might be dangerous.
No. That's completely wrong, and it comes from police and other government agencies "doubling down" on their mistakes. Something bad happens, someone in authority shouts "it was the correct thing to do!", and it's echoed all over the press and on the net by people who repeat what they hear without thinking it through.
When the department says that the most dickish possible way is the right response they are alienating the people. It might avoid getting the cop thrown off the force, but in the future the department may actually *need* the support or cooperation of the people in order to do their job. This is short-term smart and long-term stupid.
We have schools teaching teenagers how to react to cops, and the take-away message is that cops only hurt people - they are a danger to be avoided
The "broken window" theory of crime can also be applied to the police. If we let them get away with these sorts of abuses, everyone in a position of authority will know that it's OK to act in the most dickish way possible.
I understand how rules exist to prevent the "worst possible scenario" from happening, but do we *always* have to act as if the worst possible scenario is happening right here, right now? Should cops always shoot a suspect who has a gun in hand? Would a more nuanced approach better?
I'm glad there's rioting. This crap needs to stop.
(*) For non-merikan readers, a grand jury does not assign guilt or innocence, it only determines whether a trial should happen. Basically, it tries to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. Also, it's heavily rigged *against* the defendant.
(**) There are at least 3 alternative actions the fire marshal could have taken that would have solved his problem without alienating all the con goers, the business, and the hotel. I don't expect anyone in his local area would help if his office needed public support for something, such as "please help us by sending us your video tape of incident".