If we'd be to disregard the fact security would make your life really painful, and the whole event would cause a lot of hysteria... but let's imagine we're not talking about President Trump, but about mr. Trump, the millionaire, at one of the high-society parties, sipping champagne from a glass. You walk up to him, say "Hello, Mr. Trump. I always wanted to do this." Then you grab him by the crotch and laugh.
Now compare it to this: You're a male employee pouring out your heart and using mastery of expertise in managing one of major branches of a major government organization. You work much over time, you know it through and through. You're not politically active, though your personal opinions are more conservative. You also have an assistant, a young woman out of college. You're teaching her the ropes, hoping she would become your replacement once you retire. Unfortunately, her work ethics suffer. She's often late to work, sometimes calling in sick when you see her partying the night before; she lacks important skills for the position, skills she would obtain over time. Then you come in, in the morning, and see a termination notice on your desk, no explanation. Your assistant gets your job. You're unemployed.
Consider long-term psychological impact of these two situations. Compare them. Do you think Donald Trump would be traumatized more?
The objective truth of current facts is on your side, but the conclusions and the moral side are not nearly as clear-cut.
Does the mill produce less? Does it generate less profit? Unlikely; probably its production has even grown, and even if unit price of the product dropped, the sheer bulk of production makes up for that.
But that profit is no longer going to the pockets of 900 employees. Most of it is pocketed by a small circle of owners/investors. Automation removes jobs, but it also redirects funds from pockets of employees to pockets of owners of the machines.
And as much as you'd like to cry wolf about liberty of economy, and as much as you'd want to blame the employees for being low-skilled, and making poor life choices, there simply is no market in the area for the 800 redundant employees, no matter what their skillset or talent or dedication or education. Automation reduces need for work globally, and your town is representative of the world - people lose jobs, starting from lowest-skill, but if every single of them had a great college degree and a wonderful skillset, they still wouldn't find enough workplaces - and likely, these who would, would introduce more automation, and make even more people redundant. And make investors, who purchase the automation solutions even richer.
It's also a trap, because while production volume increases, cost drops, profits soar, the money must come *from somewhere* - precisely, from pockets of customers, common people buying the product. And if the people lose sources of income, they cease buying things that aren't absolute necessities. It's a bubble that must burst - wonderful modern unmanned factories producing goods nobody can afford.
In other words, that model is not sustainable. More automation means less workplaces globally, not *just* in these sectors. Less employed mean shrinking market. Shrinking market means less income for the owners - and as result, further cuts - further automation, less jobs, less income for common people and more market shrinkage.
This may still be considered "fair" according to the natural capitalist narrative - but it IS a problem heading straight for a disaster. It absolutely requires system-wide solution, because no matter what these people do, no matter what skills they obtain, job market will only continue to shrink in the long run, and the number of unemployed will only grow. Maybe universal income. Maybe something else. I don't know. But blaming the situation on people's life choices is entirely misguided. There's only so much work for skilled, expert labor, and that amount - despite persistent shortages - is lower than the number of people who will lose jobs. Education is a solution for some, but not for all - and the number of those will only grow.
He managed to stop the downward slide. The growth is nearly nil, while before that it was in huge negatives.
Yeah, that's not much, and he should have done much better, but hey, throw him a bone and give him a credit for what he managed - he wasn't an abysmally bad president, just a sub-mediocre one.
Disastrous to travel sector. Two buildings hosting management and business center of many major firms, taking the management with them. Infrastructure funds redirected to military and security. Import/export regulations tightened, blocking many markets.
Look. If they blew up four walmarts, killing 3000 soccer moms, that would be nothing to economy. The problem is the meaning behind the acronym WTC.
Tell me, did the courts ever prove anything? Is any of them in jail currently? They were absolutely competent in covering their traces and doing a white-gloves job of a heist.
Current estimates say roughly 3mln non-citizens voted Clinton. That would mean invalid/illegal votes, and versus 660,000 votes of lead, would mean she did NOT win the popular vote.
Goddammit, when they were moving out of the presidential palace, they stole a bunch of stuff from there. Ranging from expensive antique pieces of art to the goddamned electric juicer in the kitchen. That's the level of greed we're dealing with.
Most rational people understand that sexism takes various forms of varied level of harmfulness, even including positive ("save women and children first").
Most delusional SJWs though don't realize that and believe not only sexism being universally equally evil in all its forms (with special exception of discrimination against men) and simultaneously think themselves rational people.
How the FUCK can wearing a sombrero at a fundraiser party DEEPLY hurt someone? This is exactly the SJW delusion level. Total disconnection from reality. Special Snowflake.
In academic environment they are no longer a minority. Professors are being fired over silliest of "offenses", often entirely made up by students of minorities who, say, were flunked for simply thoroughly failing to study. People's livehoods are being ruined by accusations of rape, where the accused is automatically assumed guilty and thrown out, fortune in tuition being lost, student credit impossible to pay without the education. It may be only budding and still mostly harmless in professional and corporate environments, but the academia is totally infested with this crap.
Voting for Trump is not an active action to reverse the trend, but Clinton would have empowered it immensely. She was an actual, active supporter of these groups.
Trump's sexism is mostly harmless. Stupid remarks, some prejudices, business as usual, offensive, annoying, but in the long run with no impact.
Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents.
We had recently a somewhat similar situation in Poland, though more regarding political integrity than gender issues. We've voted a quite competent party out, and voted stupid bozos into their place. Simply, because the competent party was very actively using their competence to rob the country blind, using their immense political talents and brainpower for things that benefitted them, at heavy cost to the society. Well, the bozos are incompetent. Even if they go full evil, they won't be capable of causing so much harm, because they simply don't know how.
2) Something closer to this. The one you linked produces 128W continuously, plus 2KW of thermal energy. On that kind of power you could run continuous communication with Earth, not just bursts for a couple seconds per day.
3) The probes being small, can be considerably accelerated - rocket equation works in both directions; tiny dry mass can afford a lot of extra delta-V. And you could use colloid thrusters or other similar extreme-ISp ion microthrusters to accelerate them a lot over long time using the RTG energy before it's needed to power the radio.
4) I'm not willing to ballpark the number of the probes, because that number is precisely dependent on precision of ground stations to determine their position. Suffice to say Jupiter definitely exerts clearly detectable influence on probes in LEO - not something on the margin of detection threshold but actual clear readouts. So your ballpark (0.06AU) is way off. Consider each probe covering a "corridor" of 10AU radius a more likely figure and a rather conservative estimate.
The problem is the standard setup: Console + TV set + couch in front of the TV, maybe a coffee table, too low to operate a mouse and keyboard comfortably; PC + desk with keyboard and mouse.
The fact the device can be plugged in and supported by the hardware doesn't help if using it requires entirely rearranging your 'entertainment center'.
There were some experiments with connecting FPS games across platforms - XBox and PC players in the same matches.
The experiments ended very quickly. The PC gamer, using keyboard and mouse, would literally mop the floor the with console player, who had to use the controller for aiming.
There are some genres where cross-platform multiplayer is okay, but shooters like CoD are definitely out - it's impossible to balance the gameplay between platforms without silly solutions like forcing PC players to use controllers... which would probably result in nearly no PC sales.
A modestly-sized directional antenna - deployable "umbrella style". A pill-sized RTG. A good supercapacitor.
Send out the signal of power comparable to that of Voyager 2, for 3 seconds every 8 hours. Charge the supercap in between the broadcasts. Since you don't have to send any actual data, just report own presence (the ground stations can triangulate the position to within meters basing on that), the signal can be much shorter.
They found it because it happened to be where the (faulty) predictions of Planet Nine foreseen a planet to be there.
Look at the time gap between discovery of Pluto (1930) and the next Kuiper Belt dwarf planet (Varuna, 2000). The time gap is so large because people stopped looking for the "ninth planet" once the "Neptune's orbit necessitating ninth planet" theory was disproven. Yes, it was dumb luck that Pluto happened to be where the faulty theory predicted a planet to exist. Still, it was that theory that motivated the search resulting in the discovery. Columbus would have never discovered America if he didn't try to find the western route to India either.
And considering "Refusal" is usually due to formal considerations that are well defined, the system should be able to predict refusal with a very high accuracy (...actually, the only inaccuracy would be human (clerical) error, when a case is wrongly passed or refused despite meeting or failing to meet the formal requirements) - and as result, with a system that has, say, 99.5% accuracy of determining between "Refused/Deliberated" (say, 0.5% of cases are wrongly refused or wrongly put under deliberation) then that makes "Denied" a 7.5% of all cases, so the system would be accurate some 92% of time telling either "Refused" or "Granted" basing on formal parameters of the application and discounting any actual legal/moral content, and never once serving "Denied".
And the tamper was not included because someone begged for a shred of samity and halving the fallout from the test, never mind giving the airplane crew a chance. Delivering the 100MT version IS a suicide mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not giving a defeat speech is a little out of "best standard".
If we'd be to disregard the fact security would make your life really painful, and the whole event would cause a lot of hysteria... but let's imagine we're not talking about President Trump, but about mr. Trump, the millionaire, at one of the high-society parties, sipping champagne from a glass. You walk up to him, say "Hello, Mr. Trump. I always wanted to do this." Then you grab him by the crotch and laugh.
Now compare it to this: You're a male employee pouring out your heart and using mastery of expertise in managing one of major branches of a major government organization. You work much over time, you know it through and through. You're not politically active, though your personal opinions are more conservative. You also have an assistant, a young woman out of college. You're teaching her the ropes, hoping she would become your replacement once you retire. Unfortunately, her work ethics suffer. She's often late to work, sometimes calling in sick when you see her partying the night before; she lacks important skills for the position, skills she would obtain over time. Then you come in, in the morning, and see a termination notice on your desk, no explanation. Your assistant gets your job. You're unemployed.
Consider long-term psychological impact of these two situations. Compare them. Do you think Donald Trump would be traumatized more?
So it all boils down to "He's scary." That's his only actual fault.
The objective truth of current facts is on your side, but the conclusions and the moral side are not nearly as clear-cut.
Does the mill produce less? Does it generate less profit? Unlikely; probably its production has even grown, and even if unit price of the product dropped, the sheer bulk of production makes up for that.
But that profit is no longer going to the pockets of 900 employees. Most of it is pocketed by a small circle of owners/investors. Automation removes jobs, but it also redirects funds from pockets of employees to pockets of owners of the machines.
And as much as you'd like to cry wolf about liberty of economy, and as much as you'd want to blame the employees for being low-skilled, and making poor life choices, there simply is no market in the area for the 800 redundant employees, no matter what their skillset or talent or dedication or education. Automation reduces need for work globally, and your town is representative of the world - people lose jobs, starting from lowest-skill, but if every single of them had a great college degree and a wonderful skillset, they still wouldn't find enough workplaces - and likely, these who would, would introduce more automation, and make even more people redundant. And make investors, who purchase the automation solutions even richer.
It's also a trap, because while production volume increases, cost drops, profits soar, the money must come *from somewhere* - precisely, from pockets of customers, common people buying the product. And if the people lose sources of income, they cease buying things that aren't absolute necessities. It's a bubble that must burst - wonderful modern unmanned factories producing goods nobody can afford.
In other words, that model is not sustainable. More automation means less workplaces globally, not *just* in these sectors. Less employed mean shrinking market. Shrinking market means less income for the owners - and as result, further cuts - further automation, less jobs, less income for common people and more market shrinkage.
This may still be considered "fair" according to the natural capitalist narrative - but it IS a problem heading straight for a disaster. It absolutely requires system-wide solution, because no matter what these people do, no matter what skills they obtain, job market will only continue to shrink in the long run, and the number of unemployed will only grow. Maybe universal income. Maybe something else. I don't know. But blaming the situation on people's life choices is entirely misguided. There's only so much work for skilled, expert labor, and that amount - despite persistent shortages - is lower than the number of people who will lose jobs. Education is a solution for some, but not for all - and the number of those will only grow.
He managed to stop the downward slide. The growth is nearly nil, while before that it was in huge negatives.
Yeah, that's not much, and he should have done much better, but hey, throw him a bone and give him a credit for what he managed - he wasn't an abysmally bad president, just a sub-mediocre one.
Disastrous to travel sector. Two buildings hosting management and business center of many major firms, taking the management with them. Infrastructure funds redirected to military and security. Import/export regulations tightened, blocking many markets.
Look. If they blew up four walmarts, killing 3000 soccer moms, that would be nothing to economy. The problem is the meaning behind the acronym WTC.
Question: What evil did he DO. Not what he SAID. People say all kinds of things, but unless these things bear fruit, they are meaningless.
I've looked up quite a bit of equipment "Made in Japan".
"Designed in Japan, manufactured in China, assembled in Japan" is the correct denomination.
Tell me, did the courts ever prove anything? Is any of them in jail currently? They were absolutely competent in covering their traces and doing a white-gloves job of a heist.
Current estimates say roughly 3mln non-citizens voted Clinton. That would mean invalid/illegal votes, and versus 660,000 votes of lead, would mean she did NOT win the popular vote.
The moment the ship began sinking though...
Goddammit, when they were moving out of the presidential palace, they stole a bunch of stuff from there. Ranging from expensive antique pieces of art to the goddamned electric juicer in the kitchen. That's the level of greed we're dealing with.
Most rational people understand that sexism takes various forms of varied level of harmfulness, even including positive ("save women and children first").
Most delusional SJWs though don't realize that and believe not only sexism being universally equally evil in all its forms (with special exception of discrimination against men) and simultaneously think themselves rational people.
What about a man who feels guilty about being a man?
How the FUCK can wearing a sombrero at a fundraiser party DEEPLY hurt someone?
This is exactly the SJW delusion level. Total disconnection from reality. Special Snowflake.
In academic environment they are no longer a minority. Professors are being fired over silliest of "offenses", often entirely made up by students of minorities who, say, were flunked for simply thoroughly failing to study. People's livehoods are being ruined by accusations of rape, where the accused is automatically assumed guilty and thrown out, fortune in tuition being lost, student credit impossible to pay without the education. It may be only budding and still mostly harmless in professional and corporate environments, but the academia is totally infested with this crap.
Voting for Trump is not an active action to reverse the trend, but Clinton would have empowered it immensely. She was an actual, active supporter of these groups.
Trump's sexism is mostly harmless. Stupid remarks, some prejudices, business as usual, offensive, annoying, but in the long run with no impact.
Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents.
We had recently a somewhat similar situation in Poland, though more regarding political integrity than gender issues. We've voted a quite competent party out, and voted stupid bozos into their place. Simply, because the competent party was very actively using their competence to rob the country blind, using their immense political talents and brainpower for things that benefitted them, at heavy cost to the society. Well, the bozos are incompetent. Even if they go full evil, they won't be capable of causing so much harm, because they simply don't know how.
1) It's already being done. Commonly.
2) Something closer to this. The one you linked produces 128W continuously, plus 2KW of thermal energy. On that kind of power you could run continuous communication with Earth, not just bursts for a couple seconds per day.
3) The probes being small, can be considerably accelerated - rocket equation works in both directions; tiny dry mass can afford a lot of extra delta-V. And you could use colloid thrusters or other similar extreme-ISp ion microthrusters to accelerate them a lot over long time using the RTG energy before it's needed to power the radio.
4) I'm not willing to ballpark the number of the probes, because that number is precisely dependent on precision of ground stations to determine their position. Suffice to say Jupiter definitely exerts clearly detectable influence on probes in LEO - not something on the margin of detection threshold but actual clear readouts. So your ballpark (0.06AU) is way off. Consider each probe covering a "corridor" of 10AU radius a more likely figure and a rather conservative estimate.
The problem is the standard setup: Console + TV set + couch in front of the TV, maybe a coffee table, too low to operate a mouse and keyboard comfortably; PC + desk with keyboard and mouse.
The fact the device can be plugged in and supported by the hardware doesn't help if using it requires entirely rearranging your 'entertainment center'.
There were some experiments with connecting FPS games across platforms - XBox and PC players in the same matches.
The experiments ended very quickly. The PC gamer, using keyboard and mouse, would literally mop the floor the with console player, who had to use the controller for aiming.
There are some genres where cross-platform multiplayer is okay, but shooters like CoD are definitely out - it's impossible to balance the gameplay between platforms without silly solutions like forcing PC players to use controllers... which would probably result in nearly no PC sales.
A modestly-sized directional antenna - deployable "umbrella style". A pill-sized RTG. A good supercapacitor.
Send out the signal of power comparable to that of Voyager 2, for 3 seconds every 8 hours. Charge the supercap in between the broadcasts. Since you don't have to send any actual data, just report own presence (the ground stations can triangulate the position to within meters basing on that), the signal can be much shorter.
They found it because it happened to be where the (faulty) predictions of Planet Nine foreseen a planet to be there.
Look at the time gap between discovery of Pluto (1930) and the next Kuiper Belt dwarf planet (Varuna, 2000). The time gap is so large because people stopped looking for the "ninth planet" once the "Neptune's orbit necessitating ninth planet" theory was disproven. Yes, it was dumb luck that Pluto happened to be where the faulty theory predicted a planet to exist. Still, it was that theory that motivated the search resulting in the discovery. Columbus would have never discovered America if he didn't try to find the western route to India either.
And considering "Refusal" is usually due to formal considerations that are well defined, the system should be able to predict refusal with a very high accuracy (...actually, the only inaccuracy would be human (clerical) error, when a case is wrongly passed or refused despite meeting or failing to meet the formal requirements) - and as result, with a system that has, say, 99.5% accuracy of determining between "Refused/Deliberated" (say, 0.5% of cases are wrongly refused or wrongly put under deliberation) then that makes "Denied" a 7.5% of all cases, so the system would be accurate some 92% of time telling either "Refused" or "Granted" basing on formal parameters of the application and discounting any actual legal/moral content, and never once serving "Denied".
Similar sort as the ones who operate Guantanamo. Except more technically minded.
And the tamper was not included because someone begged for a shred of samity and halving the fallout from the test, never mind giving the airplane crew a chance. Delivering the 100MT version IS a suicide mission.
That's Russians being sensitive.