Nice milestone, but see https://www.gov.uk/government/... for a far more informative overview. It looks like coal usage in the UK is falling off a cliff.
Even Britain knows solar is a loser, which is why almost none of their power comes from solar.
Somewhat true, but misleading. The percentage of renewable energy (mostly solar and wind) is increasing, but the increase mostly comes from wind and because coal is rapidly disappearing as an energy source. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/...
For a developing country that has more sun than the UK the tradeoff is likely to be different, of course.
US secret services know more about this than has been revealed
You trust the same secret services that lied to us about spying on Americans... repeatedly? If you believe anything they say, you're the idiot.
The fact remains that there has been a lot of rather clumsy manoeuvring lately to avoid having to investigate what the secret services know about the subject. I must therefore assume that the secret services have more than just unsubstantiated allegations, or it could be shouted away as you are trying here, rather than causing the political turbulence that it is at the moment.
Because they have already lied, under oath, about spying on Americans. And this appears to be another case of that, except that nobody really cares about our Government spying on us, Soviet KGB style... on steroids.
Yes, they have lied under oath, and it is troubling that this had no consequences. Nevertheless, as far as I have seen all the reported investigations on Americans in this particular case have been within the bounds of the law. For example, FISA court requests were granted that made eminent sense to me.
The political statists (both D and R) are flat out ignoring the repeated claims that our government is who hacked the election, literally, and figuratively, and everything in between.
The gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts in some states are indeed troublesome, and should be far greater scandals than they are. Using weakly secured electronic voting systems is also worrying.
The remainder of your post makes rather extraordinary and implausible claims for which I have never seen any evidence, so I'll leave them unaddressed.
After the election, we started to hear "the Russians hacked the elections"
This is factually incorrect. These allegations were mainstream news many months before the elections. However, the more accurate phrasing is influencing rather than hacking because the latter suggests that the influencing was mainly done by hacking voting computers or something similar, which is not an accurate description of the allegations.
..and for some reason the Russian story lived into Q2 2017.
The reason that this story lives on is that evidence is still being uncovered that it is true. There is also strong evidence that the US secret services know more about this than has been revealed to the public, and the efforts to keep this information from being uncovered have sometimes been a bit clumsy.
And any current activities of the Trump administration cannot undo the activities of the Trump election campaign.
Oh wow, you've used both the word 'moron' and 'fucking' (twice!), so that settles it then. Nevertheless, could you please provide us foolish sceptics with a reference to your source of all this wisdom?
Yes, he should. An airplane is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Think about it this way; by refusing a legal order, he was holding the rest of the passengers hostage.
Such a dictatorship is not absolute, there are limits on what a crew can demand. The demand to leave the plane was clearly not security related; nobody would be endangered while he stayed in his seat, it would only inconvenience the airline.
Calling the order 'legal' is also highly debatable. He was already boarded, while the rules to resolve overbooking only apply before somebody is boarded. And the 'holding the rest of the passengers hostage' thing is just a standard thug excuse.
Finally, the passenger's objection was very valid.
Why is this guy and others like him so intent on categorizing people, personalities, and traits? Only egotistical people do that so they can feel superior to others.
I don't see an entry for what probably most hurt Hillary's chances in the 2016 election. That is, she blamed a YouTube video for the 9/11/2012 terror attack on the U.S. ambassador to Libya and his staff in Benghazi.
If that really hurt Hillary's chances US voters are idiots. Yes, in the initial fog of war the blame may have been misplaced. That is not fake (deliberate incorrect) news, that is just people trying to understand a complex situation.
I also do not see an entry for the oft repeated phrase "the Russians hacked the election."
From what I have seen, the phrase "the Russians hacked the election" is only repeated by people using it as a straw man. It may be oft repeated in those circles, and it is indeed fake (deliberately incorrect) news, but I think it is too obviously fake to need labeling. What is a real concern is that the Russians influenced the election by stealing documents, influencing the social media, and other mechanisms that still need to be uncovered. Coincidentally, your post could be an example of such influencing of the social media, if you would be working for the Russians. It contains the kind spin and deflection that such influencing would use, although it is perhaps a bit too much on the tinfoil side.
There's a ton of hair splitting regarding statements made by Trump and other Republicans.
Well, not all their statements are shiny examples of clarity, so some attempts at interpretation are sometimes necessary. Some of their statements are shiny examples of blatant and easily falsified untruths, for example some of Pres. Trump's tweets about the attendance of his inauguration, and repeated White House statements announcing that the President is working this weekend, later contradicted by evidence that he was in fact playing golf yet again. There are plenty of other examples. Commenting on that is not splitting hairs, it is calling out childish lies.
PolitiFact appears to be just another propaganda site. It's probably sponsored by the Russians with the intention of demoralizing Trump supporters (cf., ABC, CBS, *NBC, NYT, WP, LAT, PBS,...).
I'm sorry, but this is too alternative fact for me. Perhaps you need a better supplier for your tinfoil?
The only thing that will get them to pay more than the cheapest price is shininess and peer pressure (which is related to the in-vogue definition of shininess).
I don't know about your country, but in civilised countries we make sure you don't die from eating unhygienic sausages, for example, by making it illegal to sell them, so even consumers that just go for the lowest price are at least somewhat protected. Does this raise prices? Perhaps a bit, but considering the alternative I think this is irrelevant.
Requiring some regulations for the `hygiene' of network hardware makes sense to me, at least as something that is worth considering.
If we do nothing to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
Short of completely wrecking the global economy or starting a major nuclear war, no government policy is going to have an appreciable effect on climate.
I find it interesting that many pooh-poohers have suddenly switched from no, not true, not happening to nothing can be done. I mean, this is something like the fourth or fifth one in this thread, whereas even a week ago this was an unusual response. Was there a focus group somewhere that said this is more effective? Didn't your marketing people think this message is a bit too dark for the average mark?
Yeah, yeah. Red herring 4, straight out of the deniers handbook. Ok, my turn to debunk.
Nobody disputes that nature could cause this kind of global warming or the later cooling. What science rejects is that for this particular global warming there is
any other plausible explanation than human activity. Especially because of the remarkable speed with which it happens, the synchronicity with the industrial revolution, and just plain simple physics.
No, I'm pretty sure if I go to UC Berkley and say "men and women have real physical biological differences that result in behavioral differences that are not merely socially constructed, and the same is true of different human haplogroups (broadly grouped into "races" or "ethnicities"). I have documented, reproducible scientific studies to prove these things and would like to peacefully make my case so that others can make up their own minds about these issues" I'm pretty sure they will literally beat me to within an inch of my life.
This is a parody of some kind, right? Please tell me it is a parody. Nobody can really believe this, surely?
I'm sorry, but righty jargon is evolving so fast I can't keep track any more. What the hell does 'virtual signaled' mean? Typo for 'virtue signaled'? A favourite righty phrase that seems to mean 'nice, so I hate him', or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense in this context. Virtual as in emulated/simulated? What does that even mean? Eh?
The article is based on one massive, ludicruous presumption that we all actually want Hollywood to survive.
Hollywood clearly have a stranglehold on the market, but the only output they can create is mindless, formulaic dross aimed at the lowest-common-denominator. They are also a breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists, scientologists, and talentless, shallow, manufactured "celebrities" that are famous just for their "lifestyle", not for actually achieving anything of real merit.
I say the world, especially the US, would be a MUCH better place totally without Hollywood.
I'm European and left-leaning, but not so much that my ear touches the ground. In the US political spectrum that probably makes me a 'radical left-wing socialist'. (we prefer the term `humane realist', but never mind).
The idea that Hollywood (of all places) is a "breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists" is so ludicrous that I kindly suggest you get some mental health support ASAP while you're still insured against calamities such as this.
Apart from that rather large niggle, I actually agree with you.
Normal people don't hook up their PC tower or laptop to their big TV.
I always knew I wasn't normal, but I don't see the point any more of buying a TV rather than a big monitor. It makes much more sense to me to have the intelligence in a separate box, be it a decoder box, a Raspberry Pi with Kodi, an Apple TV, something Android, an OSX/Windows computer, or whatever else will float to the top in a few years. Betting on the wrong platform is also not so painful if said box is roughly $100.
I cannot recommend this kind of setup yet to my less tech-savvy mother, but it is getting close.
You won't need to worry about the murder rate with the starvation, disease and poverty this carbon halving would cause.
Unless your local government scores 0.1 T[*] or higher, it will be smart enough to implement the required measures without significant inconvenience for their population, and only above 0.5 T there is any chance of additional starvation, disease, or poverty due to these measures. Happily only a few countries have such a bad score. I'm sincerely sorry for you if you live in such a country.
[*] Where T is a measure of incompetence. The USA is at 1.0 T at the moment. There are a few countries that score higher, but not many.
I'm not sure what you want to project on me, but I don't see anything wrong with the original premise of this whole discussion: the Gig Economy can be a dangerous trap for some people because they cannot earn a living wage with it except by working themselves to death. It makes sense to note that danger, especially because Uber and such are not exactly protecting people against themselves here.
... or you could just have a society with sane and decent regulation. Contrary to what the propaganda says, that is not automatically communism, it's simple human decency.
Talking about decent, I seem to remember that one rather popular religion is preaching this. Something to do with a rebel that got up the nose of the Roman authorities. And isn't there another rather popular religion that has giving to the poor on its shortlist of things you definitely should do? And then there is another religion/philosophy that explains that being decent to your fellows may help you escape suffering in multiple incarnations. Come to think of it, it seems that being decent to your fellow human beings is on the recommended list of just about every religion. Imagine that, perhaps it is just a good idea?
But there are plenty of markets where Apple did fail miserably - enterprise/servers, TV, netbook competition (the air), to name a few.
Servers I grant you; that just isn't Apple's strong point. TV was always presented as a hobby, and is not a market where anybody has done remarkably well. I don't see how you can describe the Air as a failure. Just about their entire laptop lineup has some Air DNA nowadays, and they are still doing pretty well in a shrinking market. No, the Air was not a netbook killer, but Apple never pretended it was, and netbooks did not need a killer.
Apple's success rate is well below 50%, so betting against them is actually a pretty good bet, especially in the post Steve era where all innovation has been killed off by Mr Cook.
Measuring success rates is a bit more complicated than just counting the products that failed and succeeded. More telling is: what significant new product markets did Apple miss after the Jobs era? The best example I can come up with is drones, but that is already pretty remote from Apple's core business. Ebooks perhaps, but that's also not a strong example. Possibly the interactive stuff Microsoft is coming up with nowadays. Apart from that I can't think of anything really significant.
Therefore, to me AR is the first post-Jobs technology that Apple cannot afford to miss. At least they are working on it. Again, for technical reasons I have my doubts anyone can do this well, but since Apple seems to be determined to make a splash here, I am not betting against them.
Slashdot Mirror
And you wondered what all those donations to Democrats from Hollywood and the music industry bought?
Ok, spell it out then: what did they buy?
You must be misremembering things, because the data has always been public, and the algorithms were right in the papers they published.
Nice milestone, but see https://www.gov.uk/government/... for a far more informative overview. It looks like coal usage in the UK is falling off a cliff.
Even Britain knows solar is a loser, which is why almost none of their power comes from solar.
Somewhat true, but misleading. The percentage of renewable energy (mostly solar and wind) is increasing, but the increase mostly comes from wind and because coal is rapidly disappearing as an energy source. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/...
For a developing country that has more sun than the UK the tradeoff is likely to be different, of course.
US secret services know more about this than has been revealed
You trust the same secret services that lied to us about spying on Americans ... repeatedly? If you believe anything they say, you're the idiot.
The fact remains that there has been a lot of rather clumsy manoeuvring lately to avoid having to investigate what the secret services know about the subject. I must therefore assume that the secret services have more than just unsubstantiated allegations, or it could be shouted away as you are trying here, rather than causing the political turbulence that it is at the moment.
Because they have already lied, under oath, about spying on Americans. And this appears to be another case of that, except that nobody really cares about our Government spying on us, Soviet KGB style ... on steroids.
Yes, they have lied under oath, and it is troubling that this had no consequences. Nevertheless, as far as I have seen all the reported investigations on Americans in this particular case have been within the bounds of the law. For example, FISA court requests were granted that made eminent sense to me.
The political statists (both D and R) are flat out ignoring the repeated claims that our government is who hacked the election, literally, and figuratively, and everything in between.
The gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts in some states are indeed troublesome, and should be far greater scandals than they are. Using weakly secured electronic voting systems is also worrying.
The remainder of your post makes rather extraordinary and implausible claims for which I have never seen any evidence, so I'll leave them unaddressed.
There may be some slight disadvantages to writing with your left hand, but geeez, don't exaggerate.
After the election, we started to hear "the Russians hacked the elections"
This is factually incorrect. These allegations were mainstream news many months before the elections. However, the more accurate phrasing is influencing rather than hacking because the latter suggests that the influencing was mainly done by hacking voting computers or something similar, which is not an accurate description of the allegations.
..and for some reason the Russian story lived into Q2 2017.
The reason that this story lives on is that evidence is still being uncovered that it is true. There is also strong evidence that the US secret services know more about this than has been revealed to the public, and the efforts to keep this information from being uncovered have sometimes been a bit clumsy.
And any current activities of the Trump administration cannot undo the activities of the Trump election campaign.
Oh wow, you've used both the word 'moron' and 'fucking' (twice!), so that settles it then. Nevertheless, could you please provide us foolish sceptics with a reference to your source of all this wisdom?
Yes, he should. An airplane is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Think about it this way; by refusing a legal order, he was holding the rest of the passengers hostage.
Such a dictatorship is not absolute, there are limits on what a crew can demand. The demand to leave the plane was clearly not security related; nobody would be endangered while he stayed in his seat, it would only inconvenience the airline.
Calling the order 'legal' is also highly debatable. He was already boarded, while the rules to resolve overbooking only apply before somebody is boarded. And the 'holding the rest of the passengers hostage' thing is just a standard thug excuse.
Finally, the passenger's objection was very valid.
Why is this guy and others like him so intent on categorizing people, personalities, and traits? Only egotistical people do that so they can feel superior to others.
Satire or blindness? You decide.
I don't see an entry for what probably most hurt Hillary's chances in the 2016 election. That is, she blamed a YouTube video for the 9/11/2012 terror attack on the U.S. ambassador to Libya and his staff in Benghazi.
If that really hurt Hillary's chances US voters are idiots. Yes, in the initial fog of war the blame may have been misplaced. That is not fake (deliberate incorrect) news, that is just people trying to understand a complex situation.
I also do not see an entry for the oft repeated phrase "the Russians hacked the election."
From what I have seen, the phrase "the Russians hacked the election" is only repeated by people using it as a straw man. It may be oft repeated in those circles, and it is indeed fake (deliberately incorrect) news, but I think it is too obviously fake to need labeling. What is a real concern is that the Russians influenced the election by stealing documents, influencing the social media, and other mechanisms that still need to be uncovered. Coincidentally, your post could be an example of such influencing of the social media, if you would be working for the Russians. It contains the kind spin and deflection that such influencing would use, although it is perhaps a bit too much on the tinfoil side.
There's a ton of hair splitting regarding statements made by Trump and other Republicans.
Well, not all their statements are shiny examples of clarity, so some attempts at interpretation are sometimes necessary. Some of their statements are shiny examples of blatant and easily falsified untruths, for example some of Pres. Trump's tweets about the attendance of his inauguration, and repeated White House statements announcing that the President is working this weekend, later contradicted by evidence that he was in fact playing golf yet again. There are plenty of other examples. Commenting on that is not splitting hairs, it is calling out childish lies.
PolitiFact appears to be just another propaganda site. It's probably sponsored by the Russians with the intention of demoralizing Trump supporters (cf., ABC, CBS, *NBC, NYT, WP, LAT, PBS, ...).
I'm sorry, but this is too alternative fact for me. Perhaps you need a better supplier for your tinfoil?
The only thing that will get them to pay more than the cheapest price is shininess and peer pressure (which is related to the in-vogue definition of shininess).
I don't know about your country, but in civilised countries we make sure you don't die from eating unhygienic sausages, for example, by making it illegal to sell them, so even consumers that just go for the lowest price are at least somewhat protected. Does this raise prices? Perhaps a bit, but considering the alternative I think this is irrelevant.
Requiring some regulations for the `hygiene' of network hardware makes sense to me, at least as something that is worth considering.
Short of completely wrecking the global economy or starting a major nuclear war, no government policy is going to have an appreciable effect on climate.
I find it interesting that many pooh-poohers have suddenly switched from no, not true, not happening to nothing can be done. I mean, this is something like the fourth or fifth one in this thread, whereas even a week ago this was an unusual response. Was there a focus group somewhere that said this is more effective? Didn't your marketing people think this message is a bit too dark for the average mark?
Yeah, yeah. Red herring 4, straight out of the deniers handbook. Ok, my turn to debunk.
Nobody disputes that nature could cause this kind of global warming or the later cooling. What science rejects is that for this particular global warming there is any other plausible explanation than human activity. Especially because of the remarkable speed with which it happens, the synchronicity with the industrial revolution, and just plain simple physics.
Of course I disagree, it does not make any sense.
No, I'm pretty sure if I go to UC Berkley and say "men and women have real physical biological differences that result in behavioral differences that are not merely socially constructed, and the same is true of different human haplogroups (broadly grouped into "races" or "ethnicities"). I have documented, reproducible scientific studies to prove these things and would like to peacefully make my case so that others can make up their own minds about these issues" I'm pretty sure they will literally beat me to within an inch of my life.
This is a parody of some kind, right? Please tell me it is a parody. Nobody can really believe this, surely?
... virtual signaled ...
I'm sorry, but righty jargon is evolving so fast I can't keep track any more. What the hell does 'virtual signaled' mean? Typo for 'virtue signaled'? A favourite righty phrase that seems to mean 'nice, so I hate him', or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense in this context. Virtual as in emulated/simulated? What does that even mean? Eh?
The article is based on one massive, ludicruous presumption that we all actually want Hollywood to survive. Hollywood clearly have a stranglehold on the market, but the only output they can create is mindless, formulaic dross aimed at the lowest-common-denominator. They are also a breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists, scientologists, and talentless, shallow, manufactured "celebrities" that are famous just for their "lifestyle", not for actually achieving anything of real merit. I say the world, especially the US, would be a MUCH better place totally without Hollywood.
I'm European and left-leaning, but not so much that my ear touches the ground. In the US political spectrum that probably makes me a 'radical left-wing socialist'. (we prefer the term `humane realist', but never mind).
The idea that Hollywood (of all places) is a "breeding ground for radical left-wing socialists" is so ludicrous that I kindly suggest you get some mental health support ASAP while you're still insured against calamities such as this.
Apart from that rather large niggle, I actually agree with you.
Normal people don't hook up their PC tower or laptop to their big TV.
I always knew I wasn't normal, but I don't see the point any more of buying a TV rather than a big monitor. It makes much more sense to me to have the intelligence in a separate box, be it a decoder box, a Raspberry Pi with Kodi, an Apple TV, something Android, an OSX/Windows computer, or whatever else will float to the top in a few years. Betting on the wrong platform is also not so painful if said box is roughly $100.
I cannot recommend this kind of setup yet to my less tech-savvy mother, but it is getting close.
You won't need to worry about the murder rate with the starvation, disease and poverty this carbon halving would cause.
Unless your local government scores 0.1 T[*] or higher, it will be smart enough to implement the required measures without significant inconvenience for their population, and only above 0.5 T there is any chance of additional starvation, disease, or poverty due to these measures. Happily only a few countries have such a bad score. I'm sincerely sorry for you if you live in such a country.
[*] Where T is a measure of incompetence. The USA is at 1.0 T at the moment. There are a few countries that score higher, but not many.
I'm not sure what you want to project on me, but I don't see anything wrong with the original premise of this whole discussion: the Gig Economy can be a dangerous trap for some people because they cannot earn a living wage with it except by working themselves to death. It makes sense to note that danger, especially because Uber and such are not exactly protecting people against themselves here.
Are you seriously arguing that people that have to take any available job do not exist? Really?
... or you could just have a society with sane and decent regulation. Contrary to what the propaganda says, that is not automatically communism, it's simple human decency.
Talking about decent, I seem to remember that one rather popular religion is preaching this. Something to do with a rebel that got up the nose of the Roman authorities. And isn't there another rather popular religion that has giving to the poor on its shortlist of things you definitely should do? And then there is another religion/philosophy that explains that being decent to your fellows may help you escape suffering in multiple incarnations. Come to think of it, it seems that being decent to your fellow human beings is on the recommended list of just about every religion. Imagine that, perhaps it is just a good idea?
Yeah, the OP sounds close to a burnout.
But there are plenty of markets where Apple did fail miserably - enterprise/servers, TV, netbook competition (the air), to name a few.
Servers I grant you; that just isn't Apple's strong point. TV was always presented as a hobby, and is not a market where anybody has done remarkably well. I don't see how you can describe the Air as a failure. Just about their entire laptop lineup has some Air DNA nowadays, and they are still doing pretty well in a shrinking market. No, the Air was not a netbook killer, but Apple never pretended it was, and netbooks did not need a killer.
Apple's success rate is well below 50%, so betting against them is actually a pretty good bet, especially in the post Steve era where all innovation has been killed off by Mr Cook.
Measuring success rates is a bit more complicated than just counting the products that failed and succeeded. More telling is: what significant new product markets did Apple miss after the Jobs era? The best example I can come up with is drones, but that is already pretty remote from Apple's core business. Ebooks perhaps, but that's also not a strong example. Possibly the interactive stuff Microsoft is coming up with nowadays. Apart from that I can't think of anything really significant.
Therefore, to me AR is the first post-Jobs technology that Apple cannot afford to miss. At least they are working on it. Again, for technical reasons I have my doubts anyone can do this well, but since Apple seems to be determined to make a splash here, I am not betting against them.