They're going to actually be regulated for real for the first time in ages
You can't cheat, if there's no regulation. And if the regulation weren't pretty damn harsh, it wouldn't be worth their while to cheat. It's sad how often a slight change in regulation or the enforcement of regulation is heralded as the magical transition from no regulation to regulation. Needless to say, I take such exaggerated rhetoric as a sure sign that the writer is completely ignorant of the topic and has nothing worthwhile to say about it.
Actually, they are. They just aren't permitted to drive on public roads except in certain controlled circumstances. If you want to build some private roads and run your self-driving car, you can.
This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds. If you look at attitudes historically, left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views.
But as in this case usually aren't. The list consisted of dozens of left leaning multi-cultural groups mixed with a few anti-rape groups. Not a single member had anything to do with "conservative" viewpoints, unless you choose to count the handful of mildly religious-oriented groups. I think it's instructive to consider the chasm between the propaganda mentioned in your quote above and the reality of the political affiliations of the groups actually calling for suppression of free speech.
What I think is the dumbest aspect of this is the complete cluelessness about consequences. It's all fun and games until someone else's jack booted thugs are in power and they instead of your are deciding which websites to block and which college-based political opponents to punish. Why push so hard for something that is sure to blowback on you?
I suppose though that we could just ban these idiots from college campuses - for their own protection, of course.
Negotiating is key to any transaction, and the only thing your post says is that you don't have any negotiation skills whatsoever. You leave money on the table and this fear has probably cost you considerably.
What about that makes Ambassador Kosh's point any less valid? If you aren't any good at haggling, then of course, it pays in time and money to avoid haggling when you can. That's a no brainer.
Incidentally, I buy my cars from private parties precisely so I can avoid most of that haggling game as well. The bonus is that I can be incredibly lazy at haggling and still get a better deal.
I might add that another 40% is learning how to associate random, meaningless names to fundamental principles.
Once you learn the history of these names, they are no longer random. And what's easier to remember and say? "Legendre transform" or "an involutive transformation on the real-valued convex functions of one real variable"?
I don't buy the fairy tale. US public schools have always done scoring - of students. But suddenly when the same approach that we're successfully used for well over a century on students is used on teachers then bad things happen. As I noted earlier, illiterate high school graduates predate most of this "scoring". Something else is going on.
I think it's the same garbage that infects all aspects of public and government policy - particularly elimination of risk/responsibility and taking money from essential services to fund corruption and ideological fads.
Please tell me about these exciting problems you think you'll solve floating around in a deadly vacuum towards empty hostile rocks. That's better?
Recycling of resources is the obvious huge one. Extracting space resources for use on Earth is another.
Only Space Nutters look at a planet teemng with life and water nad air and think they have to leave, but look at empty, hostile, dry, barren, radiation-blasted Hells and think "abundant water".
That teeming life also means Earth is poorly suited for a lot of industrial uses. Doing heavy industry in desolate places of space means we can get those benefits without the usual consequences of doing them on Earth (like massive pollution).
And then there's the point that, in an interconnected world where 20,000 children a day die of poverty, and where the vast majority of people ignore it and focus on taking a bigger slice of the pie for themselves, very few people can really claim to be completely innocent.
If we're going to play that game, let us remember that the number one, greed-based cause of children dying from poverty is giving birth while poor. I will not assume guilt, real or feigned, for other peoples' actions.
thankfully this guy used birdshot which is not dangerous at all
It's still dangerous, it's just not as dangerous. But I imagine the shooter and the judge considered what was behind the drone in evaluating how dangerous the act was.
There is some merit to the idea that all useful inventions will inevitably be done (the concept of technological determinism / technological imperative has been around for decades), but it is still idiotic to use that as an argument against government funding, as that line of thinking says nothing about when the inevitable will happen. A world in which the internet was invented 10 years later is not equivalent (and dare I say unpreferable) to ours.
There isn't merit to the unwarranted assumption that it would be done faster with government funding.
A world in which the internet was invented 10 years later is not equivalent (and dare I say unpreferable) to ours.
How about a world where it was done ten years earlier? For example, the laws and regulations that allowed the academic internet (formerly ARPANET) to connect with the commercial world passed in the early 1990s. There's no reason except federal government obstacles that couldn't happened in the early 80s instead.
Commercial space flight is a notorious example. Because the Space Shuttle was so poorly designed, they needed to grab all US space launch activities in order to come with a sufficient economic pretense for the program and, thus, created an orbital launch monopoly which lasted ten years. In fact, the first commercial oribtal launch organization, Arianespace was created by the Europeans in 1982.
Finally, I'll point to the fusion and renewable energy wasteland in the developed world. They'll throw billions of dollars at businesses which make niche renewable energy projects with no future; they'll throw billions at government-only fusion projects which have no commercial application, and they'll completely ignore thorium fission reactors (which would threaten fusion research BTW). In a private world, all these would be funded and while we probably would have boondoggles and spectacular failures like we do now, we would at least have less peculiar blind spots (like thorium) and more emphasis on creating useful technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
The porpoises are the ones making that "whoosh" sound you hear.
That's because they travel as the speed of sarcasm, right?
I got wooshed over here. Didn't really notice until someone complained.
You would never find a conservative anti-rape group in the above list.
FIFY.
They're going to actually be regulated for real for the first time in ages
You can't cheat, if there's no regulation. And if the regulation weren't pretty damn harsh, it wouldn't be worth their while to cheat. It's sad how often a slight change in regulation or the enforcement of regulation is heralded as the magical transition from no regulation to regulation. Needless to say, I take such exaggerated rhetoric as a sure sign that the writer is completely ignorant of the topic and has nothing worthwhile to say about it.
Self-driving cars are not permitted
Actually, they are. They just aren't permitted to drive on public roads except in certain controlled circumstances. If you want to build some private roads and run your self-driving car, you can.
This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds. If you look at attitudes historically, left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views.
But as in this case usually aren't. The list consisted of dozens of left leaning multi-cultural groups mixed with a few anti-rape groups. Not a single member had anything to do with "conservative" viewpoints, unless you choose to count the handful of mildly religious-oriented groups. I think it's instructive to consider the chasm between the propaganda mentioned in your quote above and the reality of the political affiliations of the groups actually calling for suppression of free speech.
What I think is the dumbest aspect of this is the complete cluelessness about consequences. It's all fun and games until someone else's jack booted thugs are in power and they instead of your are deciding which websites to block and which college-based political opponents to punish. Why push so hard for something that is sure to blowback on you?
I suppose though that we could just ban these idiots from college campuses - for their own protection, of course.
I'm not sure I'm up for a horror movie with a rosy ending. That sort of thing just seems so fake.
Negotiating is key to any transaction, and the only thing your post says is that you don't have any negotiation skills whatsoever. You leave money on the table and this fear has probably cost you considerably.
What about that makes Ambassador Kosh's point any less valid? If you aren't any good at haggling, then of course, it pays in time and money to avoid haggling when you can. That's a no brainer.
Incidentally, I buy my cars from private parties precisely so I can avoid most of that haggling game as well. The bonus is that I can be incredibly lazy at haggling and still get a better deal.
I might add that another 40% is learning how to associate random, meaningless names to fundamental principles.
Once you learn the history of these names, they are no longer random. And what's easier to remember and say? "Legendre transform" or "an involutive transformation on the real-valued convex functions of one real variable"?
I don't buy the fairy tale. US public schools have always done scoring - of students. But suddenly when the same approach that we're successfully used for well over a century on students is used on teachers then bad things happen. As I noted earlier, illiterate high school graduates predate most of this "scoring". Something else is going on.
I think it's the same garbage that infects all aspects of public and government policy - particularly elimination of risk/responsibility and taking money from essential services to fund corruption and ideological fads.
Unless you catch the birdshot on the way up rather than on the way down.
Please name the meaningful problem "a one-tenth scale replica spacecraft was carried by high-altitude ballon to a height of 100,475 ft " solved.
It's a step towards the full scale version. They're testing manufacture techniques, technologies, telemetry, and launch procedures.
That from the data you I can't determine the same CF figure as the other wind power examples.
This is not a court of law. So it is all hearsay.
Please tell me about these exciting problems you think you'll solve floating around in a deadly vacuum towards empty hostile rocks. That's better?
Recycling of resources is the obvious huge one. Extracting space resources for use on Earth is another.
Only Space Nutters look at a planet teemng with life and water nad air and think they have to leave, but look at empty, hostile, dry, barren, radiation-blasted Hells and think "abundant water".
That teeming life also means Earth is poorly suited for a lot of industrial uses. Doing heavy industry in desolate places of space means we can get those benefits without the usual consequences of doing them on Earth (like massive pollution).
And then there's the point that, in an interconnected world where 20,000 children a day die of poverty, and where the vast majority of people ignore it and focus on taking a bigger slice of the pie for themselves, very few people can really claim to be completely innocent.
If we're going to play that game, let us remember that the number one, greed-based cause of children dying from poverty is giving birth while poor. I will not assume guilt, real or feigned, for other peoples' actions.
thankfully this guy used birdshot which is not dangerous at all
It's still dangerous, it's just not as dangerous. But I imagine the shooter and the judge considered what was behind the drone in evaluating how dangerous the act was.
One would think that trying to organize a "discussion panel" would imply they are interested in a conversation.
And closing the panels (because bad people) would indicate that they aren't very interested in such a conversation.
You mean like the dickheads who harassed and threatened people because those people wanted to shock horror hold a couple of panels on discrimination.
Why should I waste time pretending I can do something about dickheads somewhere in the world?
But "rated power" and actually delivered power is all you have to figure the over all CF of Germanies wind plants.
Disregard your numbers and accept the uncertainty.
None of which is even remotely comparable to "world war III"
Only because we got a bit lucky.
There's a reason I didn't choose that date - the USSR military buildup of the late 60s and 70s, and the subsequent economic collapse of the 80s.
The two nuclear attacks on Japan basically ended any chance of World War III
At least through 1961.
There is some merit to the idea that all useful inventions will inevitably be done (the concept of technological determinism / technological imperative has been around for decades), but it is still idiotic to use that as an argument against government funding, as that line of thinking says nothing about when the inevitable will happen. A world in which the internet was invented 10 years later is not equivalent (and dare I say unpreferable) to ours.
There isn't merit to the unwarranted assumption that it would be done faster with government funding.
A world in which the internet was invented 10 years later is not equivalent (and dare I say unpreferable) to ours.
How about a world where it was done ten years earlier? For example, the laws and regulations that allowed the academic internet (formerly ARPANET) to connect with the commercial world passed in the early 1990s. There's no reason except federal government obstacles that couldn't happened in the early 80s instead.
Commercial space flight is a notorious example. Because the Space Shuttle was so poorly designed, they needed to grab all US space launch activities in order to come with a sufficient economic pretense for the program and, thus, created an orbital launch monopoly which lasted ten years. In fact, the first commercial oribtal launch organization, Arianespace was created by the Europeans in 1982.
Finally, I'll point to the fusion and renewable energy wasteland in the developed world. They'll throw billions of dollars at businesses which make niche renewable energy projects with no future; they'll throw billions at government-only fusion projects which have no commercial application, and they'll completely ignore thorium fission reactors (which would threaten fusion research BTW). In a private world, all these would be funded and while we probably would have boondoggles and spectacular failures like we do now, we would at least have less peculiar blind spots (like thorium) and more emphasis on creating useful technologies.