I like how you invented a quote them claimed that some anonymous activist said it. I guess the activist had to be anonymous otherwise it's be even more obvious you made it up.
"Tesla won't be successful until their vehicles can haul a 20 ton boat over the Rockies during the winter on a single tank of gas on autopilot. I expect a vehicle to conform to my lifestyle, goddammit!"
ITYM:
"I expect a vehicle to conform ot the lifestyle I wish I had dammit!"
Now the bigger question is why some people do apparently fantasize about hauling very large things over steep terrain on a single tank of gas. I'd never have guessed it but honestly it does seem to be a thing.
I finally abandoned my eee 900 after a decade of use. It was still getting about an hour of charge on the original battery (down from 3.5 hrs). Not bad for 10 years old. My current W510 rocking in at 8 years old, well, that battery was never long lasting in the first place, barely an hour (IIRC, maybe less!), and is now measured at about 10 minutes.
I get some degradation due to the properties you listed, but 5 minutes of use after 2-3 years is really terrible.
I'm interested in what the US does well and does badly but you are apparently a poor source of info on the topic. In your ill-informed harangue you offered Vietnam as an example. I corrected you with the facts.
No, you didn't. American killed a lot of people in Vietnam. The fact they've managed to establish reasonable diplimatic relations with the government there doesn't mean that there are not plenty of individuals who strongly dislike the USA for what it did.
For fucks sake there are plenty of Nam vets is your own country who don't like what the US dis in Vietnam: go out and talk to some of them. You really think everyone else worldwide is happy with the US except US vietnam vets because of some trade deals? Are you really that naive?
I could have similarly debunked
No you can't: you're trying to logic away people's feelings then wonder why many people don't *feel* well disposed towards the USA.
And see this is why many people don't like the US. If the US does do something bad the response of Americans is to flatly disbelieve it and tell the person they're wrong for feeling that way. You're the type of American who causes a great deal of trouble for your compatriots on holiday.
All of them "do something about the toxicity" and that's exactly what kills them.
No, the toxicity is what kills them, attempting to do something about it is a symptom not a cause. the reason the toxicity kills them is everyone who isn't a shithead has better things to do than hand around with a bunch of shitheads.
End result if you do nothing is most people leave and your audience becomes limited to the relatively small and unprofitable segment of humanity who are shitheads.
Even if you cut renewables out, Natural Gas is cheaper to extract, requires fewer workers,
I don't think that's often the case any more. A lot of coal is done with huge strip mining operations now, which have vast diggers and trucks and takes much fewer people to operate than an underground operation. The big mining companies prefer that because it's cheaper. The sad thing is of course that the miners voted for pro coal politicians, but they support the companies which are reducing the workforce anyway.
They will largely remain unemployed with or without coal mining which sucks, and the politicans in power won't lift a finger to help which sucks more.
Well thankfully it doesn't matter how wrong and delusional you are, reality will be your wake-up call after the US collapses economically and Europe is faced with either having to pony-up the wealth for more than a small handful of nukes and tiny jokes for military forces, or else watch Russian tanks roll into Poland, France, Germany, and the rest of the EU & UK as well.
It's amazing: you're so desperate for excuses that you'll do anything but accept the actual facts.
What may or may not happen in fugure is irrelevant to the fact that right now America spends twice what Europeans spend on healthcare with worse outcomes.
Deflect all you like, it makes that no less true.
As for the Russian tanks. Well, Russia spends more than the UK on its military, and more than France on its military, but substantially less than the combination of the two. Then add the rest of Europe.
And you don't really understand what a nuclear deterrant is to you? The UK and France don't need enough nukes to bomb the entire world into the stone age. All we need is enough nukes to make us not worth attacking.
The Us might not be on the ascendance, but neither Russia nor China have the means to project power. I mean sure Russia has an aircraft carrier, except apartf from being vulnerable to subs on the move, it's so unreliable it has to by shadowed by a tug everywhere in case it breaks down.
So the Vietnam war didn't happen and all the people still alive who know family and freinds who were killed or maimed or were themselves maimes should be thanking the USA for security?
Ain't going to happen. But sure, keep acting confused about why not everyone thinks the US is the bestest, because in your mind there can be no circumstances under which someone doesn't like what you have done.
A scientist would not say they believe in unicorns, any more than they would be required they believe in a higher power; rather they leave the possibility open since it has zero data either way.
No, not in any practical sense, no. There is (a) no evidence for unicorns despite humans having now isited every part of the globe and (b) there is no evidence for magic despite people having tried it for millinea. No one in any practical sense leaves room for the existence of magical unicorns, and no one complains if someone says they don't believe in them.
If you want the scientific position, you'd say "there's no evidence either way; I personally believe (yes/no), but I cannot definitively say one or the other".
No, you're only doing that because religion has got involved and scientists keep a less and less open mind on things that are less and less likely. The chance of magical unicorns being found at this point is at this point zero for all practical purposes, just like the chance of Newton's Laws being wrong at low energies and macroscopic scales is zero for all practical purposes.
What experiment would you design to prove either unicorns or a higher power exists?
Apart from stumbling across them, no such experiment exits. That's the problem with both of them, really.
How could you confirm or deny the existence either way?
Confirm by finding, and there's no way to deny. After all, magical unicorns are awfully good at hiding.
Healthcare in America would have a lot more money available to fund it along with a host of social programs to match if America could shirk it's responsibility to protect itself and it's citizens like Europe does by having the US provide the majority of their military protection.
I wold qualify that as "not even wrong". America doesn't need more money to spend on healthcare. America needs to scrap the system where its healthcare costs about ttwice that per capita of the major European economies while giving worse outcomes in most areas.
European nations with universal healthcare and other social safety-net programs are only able to afford it because they spend money they would otherwise need for a strong military force that they have depended on America for since WW2.
Demonstrably false. Several European countries are spending to maintian a nuclear deterrant, have better healthcare outcomes in most areas and spend HALF what the US spends per capita on healthcare.
Thing is you're so stuck on #MAGA that you can't even see where the problems are. The main problem is the massively profitable healthcare insurance industry, and the republican party who back it.
That's because America has been guaranteeing their security for free for 75 years. What has long enabled that free world to exist is the post-WWII American security over watch which allowed countries of all sizes to escape fear.
Followed by this:
And we get precisely zero thanks for this, and vile mistreatment.
Perhaps you are telling someone living in a country where the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of a left wing democracy with an American allied brutal dictatorship that America made them free.
I can't imagine why that didn't go down very well!
I'm sure the Vietnamese wold like to hear your thoughts on how American guaranteed their security too!
And then there's the Iraq debacle where Saddam was deposed and replced in no small part by ISIS who are even worse.
The thing is, American has done a bunch of good and a bunch of bad (it's almost like it's made up of people, fancy that!). And much of it has been very much to support America's interests.
Some Americans like to claim America is the world's policeman which is fine and all, sometimes the policeman is John McLaine, other times Keystone Kops, and other times Sherrif Arpaio.
The fact you can't see that is why you're met with derision so much of the time.
Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suite.
No it really is, it's yours that's lacking. Healthcare in America is a total fucking mess whether or not Europe has sufficient defensive military. Angrily pointing out flaws in European military spending won't fix your messed up healthcare system.
The only thing it serves to do is to make you have better feelings about it, so you feel less inclined to vote for someone who will fix it.
Finally, I didn't vote for the Orange Wonder.
I didn't claim you did, I claim that you're espousing the same ideology, in as much as #MAGA can be an ideaology.
In much of the country yes, the fact that it' not everywhere does not make that so.
in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science.
No it can't.
For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another,
You cannot prove the existence of magical unicorns one way or another either.
But believing in them would be so silly that we have no words to describe the obverse like aunicornist and no one attempts to twists themselves in logical knots if you claim that they do not in fact exist.
So yes, scientists can not belive in god just as well as they can not believe in magical unicorns, faries, crystal magic and sentient homeopathy.
While we're complaining about things not being optimal...
You appear to be arguing that because some things are crappy elsewhere we should ignore new crappy things happening now and the people causing them.
But his personal view on stuff that's not relevant to space policy (climate change aside)
No, not climate change aside, because that's the huge one you're choosing to ignore. He's in charge of what is supposed to be one of the premiere science institutions in the world and he doesn't believe science works.
I don't really care if that's a "personal view", because if your "personal view" is that science doesn't work then there is no way that can not affect your professional ability to run a science institution.
crying over things that aren't germane to the position
It's incredible that you think that disbelieving science is not germane to running NASA. Incredible.
No, you alos know that the new head is an anti-science fool and a bigot. For some reason you're ignoring those. Even if you don't care about the bigotry, the anti science foolishness should matter to you for the head of NASA.
Just to name a few. Not saying the above is good or bad in itself... But if I were about to run a tech startup, rather than Silicon Valley I'd be looking to move to Hong Kong / Shenzhen area. Or even some lesser known place in say, Eastern Europe or South America, provided enough talent in the field & facilities / suppliers were already there.
Well, that's the problem, they're not, which is why the aburdity of SV persists. And, when things do spread, it will likely be to a small number of equally absurd places.
No employee wants t omove to a jobs black hole, so they go to SV where there are lots of prospect and they can easily switch jobs. This is great for startups: working for a startup is a risk but being able to regain employment in a week if it tanks ameliorates a lot of that risk.
So employees go where the companies are and the companies go where the employees are. Then (and this is the flaw of sillicon-blah tha tother places like to claim to have) the VC moves in eventually. It's a necessary evil but some companies you can't get off the ground without cold hard cash. SV has a massive investment network.
Basically the successful places will have all that which means they'll also be cities and because of all the stuff there property will be in high demand and very expensive and salaries will be inflated ot match.
Slashdot Mirror
Down modded for providing direct evidence against an anti feminist lie. No abuse of mod points to suppress information they're, no siree.
almost nobody.
I like how you invented a quote them claimed that some anonymous activist said it. I guess the activist had to be anonymous otherwise it's be even more obvious you made it up.
hi, progressive feminist here. No I don't want gender segregation, and you're full of sit for claiming I do.
Huh? The latest carbon X1 has combined F and laptop keys, 3 full hardware mouse buttons and a cli... Uh nip.. Uh trackpoint (tm).
Still has hardware mute.
"Tesla won't be successful until their vehicles can haul a 20 ton boat over the Rockies during the winter on a single tank of gas on autopilot. I expect a vehicle to conform to my lifestyle, goddammit!"
ITYM:
"I expect a vehicle to conform ot the lifestyle I wish I had dammit!"
Now the bigger question is why some people do apparently fantasize about hauling very large things over steep terrain on a single tank of gas. I'd never have guessed it but honestly it does seem to be a thing.
Some laptop manufacturers are a bit crap.
I finally abandoned my eee 900 after a decade of use. It was still getting about an hour of charge on the original battery (down from 3.5 hrs). Not bad for 10 years old. My current W510 rocking in at 8 years old, well, that battery was never long lasting in the first place, barely an hour (IIRC, maybe less!), and is now measured at about 10 minutes.
I get some degradation due to the properties you listed, but 5 minutes of use after 2-3 years is really terrible.
I'm interested in what the US does well and does badly but you are apparently a poor source of info on the topic. In your ill-informed harangue you offered Vietnam as an example. I corrected you with the facts.
No, you didn't. American killed a lot of people in Vietnam. The fact they've managed to establish reasonable diplimatic relations with the government there doesn't mean that there are not plenty of individuals who strongly dislike the USA for what it did.
For fucks sake there are plenty of Nam vets is your own country who don't like what the US dis in Vietnam: go out and talk to some of them. You really think everyone else worldwide is happy with the US except US vietnam vets because of some trade deals? Are you really that naive?
I could have similarly debunked
No you can't: you're trying to logic away people's feelings then wonder why many people don't *feel* well disposed towards the USA.
And see this is why many people don't like the US. If the US does do something bad the response of Americans is to flatly disbelieve it and tell the person they're wrong for feeling that way. You're the type of American who causes a great deal of trouble for your compatriots on holiday.
Yes?
Tell me do you or do you not want to nuderstand why many people don't like America? If you don't that's fine by me.
All of them "do something about the toxicity" and that's exactly what kills them.
No, the toxicity is what kills them, attempting to do something about it is a symptom not a cause. the reason the toxicity kills them is everyone who isn't a shithead has better things to do than hand around with a bunch of shitheads.
End result if you do nothing is most people leave and your audience becomes limited to the relatively small and unprofitable segment of humanity who are shitheads.
Unemployment was lower during the Clinton administration, which I'm pretty sure was less than 67 years ago.
Not if you add all of the record number of people who were at the most recent presedential inaugration. We may as well assume they were all employed.
Even if you cut renewables out, Natural Gas is cheaper to extract, requires fewer workers,
I don't think that's often the case any more. A lot of coal is done with huge strip mining operations now, which have vast diggers and trucks and takes much fewer people to operate than an underground operation. The big mining companies prefer that because it's cheaper. The sad thing is of course that the miners voted for pro coal politicians, but they support the companies which are reducing the workforce anyway.
They will largely remain unemployed with or without coal mining which sucks, and the politicans in power won't lift a finger to help which sucks more.
Well thankfully it doesn't matter how wrong and delusional you are, reality will be your wake-up call after the US collapses economically and Europe is faced with either having to pony-up the wealth for more than a small handful of nukes and tiny jokes for military forces, or else watch Russian tanks roll into Poland, France, Germany, and the rest of the EU & UK as well.
It's amazing: you're so desperate for excuses that you'll do anything but accept the actual facts.
What may or may not happen in fugure is irrelevant to the fact that right now America spends twice what Europeans spend on healthcare with worse outcomes.
Deflect all you like, it makes that no less true.
As for the Russian tanks. Well, Russia spends more than the UK on its military, and more than France on its military, but substantially less than the combination of the two. Then add the rest of Europe.
And you don't really understand what a nuclear deterrant is to you? The UK and France don't need enough nukes to bomb the entire world into the stone age. All we need is enough nukes to make us not worth attacking.
The Us might not be on the ascendance, but neither Russia nor China have the means to project power. I mean sure Russia has an aircraft carrier, except apartf from being vulnerable to subs on the move, it's so unreliable it has to by shadowed by a tug everywhere in case it breaks down.
So the Vietnam war didn't happen and all the people still alive who know family and freinds who were killed or maimed or were themselves maimes should be thanking the USA for security?
Ain't going to happen. But sure, keep acting confused about why not everyone thinks the US is the bestest, because in your mind there can be no circumstances under which someone doesn't like what you have done.
A scientist would not say they believe in unicorns, any more than they would be required they believe in a higher power; rather they leave the possibility open since it has zero data either way.
No, not in any practical sense, no. There is (a) no evidence for unicorns despite humans having now isited every part of the globe and (b) there is no evidence for magic despite people having tried it for millinea. No one in any practical sense leaves room for the existence of magical unicorns, and no one complains if someone says they don't believe in them.
If you want the scientific position, you'd say "there's no evidence either way; I personally believe (yes/no), but I cannot definitively say one or the other".
No, you're only doing that because religion has got involved and scientists keep a less and less open mind on things that are less and less likely. The chance of magical unicorns being found at this point is at this point zero for all practical purposes, just like the chance of Newton's Laws being wrong at low energies and macroscopic scales is zero for all practical purposes.
What experiment would you design to prove either unicorns or a higher power exists?
Apart from stumbling across them, no such experiment exits. That's the problem with both of them, really.
How could you confirm or deny the existence either way?
Confirm by finding, and there's no way to deny. After all, magical unicorns are awfully good at hiding.
Healthcare in America would have a lot more money available to fund it along with a host of social programs to match if America could shirk it's responsibility to protect itself and it's citizens like Europe does by having the US provide the majority of their military protection.
I wold qualify that as "not even wrong". America doesn't need more money to spend on healthcare. America needs to scrap the system where its healthcare costs about ttwice that per capita of the major European economies while giving worse outcomes in most areas.
European nations with universal healthcare and other social safety-net programs are only able to afford it because they spend money they would otherwise need for a strong military force that they have depended on America for since WW2.
Demonstrably false. Several European countries are spending to maintian a nuclear deterrant, have better healthcare outcomes in most areas and spend HALF what the US spends per capita on healthcare.
Thing is you're so stuck on #MAGA that you can't even see where the problems are.
The main problem is the massively profitable healthcare insurance industry, and the republican party who back it.
The trouble is you say this:
That's because America has been guaranteeing their security for free for 75 years. What has long enabled that free world to exist is the post-WWII American security over watch which allowed countries of all sizes to escape fear.
Followed by this:
And we get precisely zero thanks for this, and vile mistreatment.
Perhaps you are telling someone living in a country where the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of a left wing democracy with an American allied brutal dictatorship that America made them free.
I can't imagine why that didn't go down very well!
I'm sure the Vietnamese wold like to hear your thoughts on how American guaranteed their security too!
And then there's the Iraq debacle where Saddam was deposed and replced in no small part by ISIS who are even worse.
The thing is, American has done a bunch of good and a bunch of bad (it's almost like it's made up of people, fancy that!). And much of it has been very much to support America's interests.
Some Americans like to claim America is the world's policeman which is fine and all, sometimes the policeman is John McLaine, other times Keystone Kops, and other times Sherrif Arpaio.
The fact you can't see that is why you're met with derision so much of the time.
Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suite.
No it really is, it's yours that's lacking. Healthcare in America is a total fucking mess whether or not Europe has sufficient defensive military. Angrily pointing out flaws in European military spending won't fix your messed up healthcare system.
The only thing it serves to do is to make you have better feelings about it, so you feel less inclined to vote for someone who will fix it.
Finally, I didn't vote for the Orange Wonder.
I didn't claim you did, I claim that you're espousing the same ideology, in as much as #MAGA can be an ideaology.
Dear Europe (and much of the rest of the "civilized" West),
Dear Europe, because you do things I think are wrong, I am going to aggressively fight any attempt to fix things in America. #MAGA
-BlueStrat
They are?
In much of the country yes, the fact that it' not everywhere does not make that so.
in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science.
No it can't.
For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another,
You cannot prove the existence of magical unicorns one way or another either.
But believing in them would be so silly that we have no words to describe the obverse like aunicornist and no one attempts to twists themselves in logical knots if you claim that they do not in fact exist.
So yes, scientists can not belive in god just as well as they can not believe in magical unicorns, faries, crystal magic and sentient homeopathy.
While we're complaining about things not being optimal...
You appear to be arguing that because some things are crappy elsewhere we should ignore new crappy things happening now and the people causing them.
But his personal view on stuff that's not relevant to space policy (climate change aside)
No, not climate change aside, because that's the huge one you're choosing to ignore. He's in charge of what is supposed to be one of the premiere science institutions in the world and he doesn't believe science works.
I don't really care if that's a "personal view", because if your "personal view" is that science doesn't work then there is no way that can not affect your professional ability to run a science institution.
crying over things that aren't germane to the position
It's incredible that you think that disbelieving science is not germane to running NASA. Incredible.
If you gave me the choice between a asshole with no scientific credentials
He's not an asshole with no scientific credentials, he's an asshole with anti-science credentials. Big difference.
All I know is
No, you alos know that the new head is an anti-science fool and a bigot. For some reason you're ignoring those. Even if you don't care about the bigotry, the anti science foolishness should matter to you for the head of NASA.
Just to name a few. Not saying the above is good or bad in itself... But if I were about to run a tech startup, rather than Silicon Valley I'd be looking to move to Hong Kong / Shenzhen area. Or even some lesser known place in say, Eastern Europe or South America, provided enough talent in the field & facilities / suppliers were already there.
Well, that's the problem, they're not, which is why the aburdity of SV persists. And, when things do spread, it will likely be to a small number of equally absurd places.
No employee wants t omove to a jobs black hole, so they go to SV where there are lots of prospect and they can easily switch jobs. This is great for startups: working for a startup is a risk but being able to regain employment in a week if it tanks ameliorates a lot of that risk.
So employees go where the companies are and the companies go where the employees are. Then (and this is the flaw of sillicon-blah tha tother places like to claim to have) the VC moves in eventually. It's a necessary evil but some companies you can't get off the ground without cold hard cash. SV has a massive investment network.
Basically the successful places will have all that which means they'll also be cities and because of all the stuff there property will be in high demand and very expensive and salaries will be inflated ot match.
A mistake I've maid to The other member of the club is a right dickhead.