When a sizeable meteor hit populated areas, will we strike back MADly?
In theory, it should be very easy to distinguish a meteor impact from a nuke. Nukes produce gamma rays and an EMP. Meteors produce no gamma rays, and only a very weak EMP.
I have no idea if there is a mechanism in place to detect these differences in real time.
But why does Russia get hit more than other countries? Over the last century, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Tuvala have had no impacts at all. How do you explain the disparity?
I guess we should ban talking to passengers in cars as well then, seeing as there is zero difference.
Not true. A passenger increases the chance of an accident, but way less than a cellphone.
The difference is that the passenger can see what is going on. They can see the road, but they can also see the driver, and know when to pause the conversation.
Someone on the other end of a phone conversation has no such awareness, and can choose exactly the wrong time to say "Are you still there?"
My favourite is to come on to them. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman.
90% of the calls I receive are neither man nor women.
They are robots.
Some of them are good. I try to trip them up by going off script, and some of them are capable of making reasonable responses and try to steer the conversation back on track.
If nothing else, robocalls are advancing the state-of-the-art in voice synthesis and recognition.
I've never in my life experienced a robocall. If we can avoid them in Europe, so can the US.
Most European countries ban anonymous spoofing.
America does not.
America's political system does not respond well to geographically distributed problems. If all the robocalls happened in a single swing state, they would stop tomorrow.
Economics has a concept called "revealed preferences". What this means, is that instead of theorizing about what people prefer, you look at what they actually choose in reality.
When given a choice between migrating to urban factory life, or remaining on the farm to endure rural poverty, people have historically overwhelmingly chose to migrate to the cities.
They are not relying on it. There are already ground-level shuttles between the convention centers in Las Vegas. The Loop will supplement that, not replace it. It will be faster, more convenient, and relieve congestion, so it is a no-brainer. They have nothing to lose by approving it.
The mayor is just pissed because he was hoping to get a backhander or campaign donation. LV's municipal government has near Louisiana levels of corruption.
Lowering CO2 emissions has just been declared meaningless (or nearly so).
That is not at all what TFA is saying.
If enough warming to melt arctic (and presumably antarctic) ice is "inevitable"
The arctic is going to melt, and much of it already has.
The Antarctic is a different story. It is so cold that global warming has so far caused warmer air to hold more humidity, increasing snowfall, and is actually expanding the icepack. Of course, if temperatures continue to rise, this will eventually go into reverse, but it is not as hopeless as you seem to believe.
So far the most effective mitigations for AGW have been improvements in technology.
So "take action" should mean more incentives for scientific research and development: Better batteries, better solar panels, more efficient appliances (especially air conditioners), etc. Fusion, thorium, sequestration, ocean fertilization, etc. We should research everything, and scale up what works.
It is nerds, not politicians, who will save the world.
Slashdot Mirror
When a sizeable meteor hit populated areas, will we strike back MADly?
In theory, it should be very easy to distinguish a meteor impact from a nuke. Nukes produce gamma rays and an EMP. Meteors produce no gamma rays, and only a very weak EMP.
I have no idea if there is a mechanism in place to detect these differences in real time.
But why does Russia get hit more than other countries? Over the last century, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Tuvala have had no impacts at all. How do you explain the disparity?
It is also a case of astounding incompetence at multiple levels at Wells Fargo.
The customer is photographed when they insert their card to make a transaction.
The photo is timestamped.
The transaction is timestamped.
How fricken' hard is it to match up two timestamps?
If this is true then they should also criminalise stereos, passengers, aircon etc
Music isn't interactive. It doesn't demand the drivers attention.
Passengers share the driver's situational awareness.
Aircon causes seconds of distraction, not minutes.
I guess we should ban talking to passengers in cars as well then, seeing as there is zero difference.
Not true. A passenger increases the chance of an accident, but way less than a cellphone.
The difference is that the passenger can see what is going on. They can see the road, but they can also see the driver, and know when to pause the conversation.
Someone on the other end of a phone conversation has no such awareness, and can choose exactly the wrong time to say "Are you still there?"
Get a warrant. And yes, that means showing probable cause for a warrant.
About one in four accidents involve cellphone use.
Probable cause does not necessarily mean "greater than 50%".
It is a legal term, not a mathematical one.
I am 100% certain people are going to be falsely accused because how are they going to verify that it was not a hands-free call or text?
The preponderance of the evidence is that hands-free calls are not safer.
The problem is not that your hands are not on the wheel, but that your mind is not on the road.
My favourite is to come on to them. Doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman.
90% of the calls I receive are neither man nor women.
They are robots.
Some of them are good. I try to trip them up by going off script, and some of them are capable of making reasonable responses and try to steer the conversation back on track.
If nothing else, robocalls are advancing the state-of-the-art in voice synthesis and recognition.
I've never in my life experienced a robocall. If we can avoid them in Europe, so can the US.
Most European countries ban anonymous spoofing.
America does not.
America's political system does not respond well to geographically distributed problems. If all the robocalls happened in a single swing state, they would stop tomorrow.
When a phone call completes, have an option for the recipient to charge them $1.00. The phone company keeps half.
Another requirement should be that if the caller can't be identified and billed, the phone company still has to pay you.
Anonymous spoofing will end real quick.
The spam calls I receive do not mention my name or any other identifying information.
As far as I can see, they are just calling numbers randomly.
I am skeptical that keeping your phone number confidential will make any difference at all.
They fly through the air if the FAA agrees
Nope. The FAA will have no say, because the first air-taxi flights will not happen in America.
My bet is on China. Fewer regulations, less NIMBYism, and they are already ahead on drone tech.
For example, if one flies into a building because its building sensor doesn't work with all-glass exteriors.
The Air-taxis will initially fly fixed routes, say from a helipad at OAK to a helipad at SFO. No buildings are on that route.
Ground cars only have to follow the road and they automatically avoid driving into buildings
It is silly to claim that obstacle avoidance is easier on the ground than at 500 meters in the air.
The real question: how do these things compare to the next best thing, helicopters? Are they quieter?
A one or two person quadcopter with brushless motors and ducted blades is about 10 dB (a factor of ten) quieter than a helicopter.
Cheaper to operate?
Yes. They are smaller, lighter, use less power, need less maintenance, and have way fewer moving parts.
Safer?
This is certainly true for smaller quadcopters, since there are fewer failure modes, but there isn't enough data yet on larger quadcopters.
Faster?
No. But that doesn't matter. Air-taxis need to be faster than cars, not faster than helicopters.
Texas will turn purple by 2028 at the latest and we'll finally be able to put all of this nonsense behind us once
This is not a Red vs. Blue issue. Plenty of Blue states have anti-competitive protection for dealers.
Deep blue Connecticut and New York protect dealers, as do crimson red Utah and Oklahoma.
Cronyism, corruption, and rent-seeking are nonpartisan.
Economics has a concept called "revealed preferences". What this means, is that instead of theorizing about what people prefer, you look at what they actually choose in reality.
When given a choice between migrating to urban factory life, or remaining on the farm to endure rural poverty, people have historically overwhelmingly chose to migrate to the cities.
Nah, this just sounds like the same stupid zoning shit you get everywhere in the US.
Not everywhere. For instance, Houston has no zoning.
If you drive a gas powered car or use electricity generated from fossil fuels, then you have no place to complain because you are part of the problem.
If you drive an electric car, that is because nerds designed a better battery.
If you get your electricity from solar, it is because nerds designed better panels.
Trains require bigger tunnels, much bigger stations, are slower, and are less responsive to variable passenger flows.
Pods are much cheaper, faster, and more convenient. That is the whole point of the Hyperloop.
Doubling down on the defects of trains, instead of fixing them, makes no sense.
this is something they'll be relying on.
They are not relying on it. There are already ground-level shuttles between the convention centers in Las Vegas. The Loop will supplement that, not replace it. It will be faster, more convenient, and relieve congestion, so it is a no-brainer. They have nothing to lose by approving it.
The mayor is just pissed because he was hoping to get a backhander or campaign donation. LV's municipal government has near Louisiana levels of corruption.
Lowering CO2 emissions has just been declared meaningless (or nearly so).
That is not at all what TFA is saying.
If enough warming to melt arctic (and presumably antarctic) ice is "inevitable"
The arctic is going to melt, and much of it already has.
The Antarctic is a different story. It is so cold that global warming has so far caused warmer air to hold more humidity, increasing snowfall, and is actually expanding the icepack. Of course, if temperatures continue to rise, this will eventually go into reverse, but it is not as hopeless as you seem to believe.
maybe 20 years for methane to turn into CO2
Methane has about a 7 year half-life in the atmosphere. So in 20 years, about 7/8ths will have oxidized.
So far the most effective mitigations for AGW have been improvements in technology.
So "take action" should mean more incentives for scientific research and development: Better batteries, better solar panels, more efficient appliances (especially air conditioners), etc. Fusion, thorium, sequestration, ocean fertilization, etc. We should research everything, and scale up what works.
It is nerds, not politicians, who will save the world.
This shows that she is smart because she is the only one who knows the difference between a wealth tax and income tax.
Unfortunately, she wants the wealth tax in addition to the income tax, rather than as a replacement, which would make much more sense.
Still, she's a multi-millionaire so it's kind of hard to believe she's serious.
Why should competent financial management be a disqualification? It seems to me it should be a plus.
there seems to be some evidence that the Founders weren't even against war!
Indeed, such as the fact that they waged a war to avoid paying tax on their tea.