Why do these bureaucrats care so much about other people?
Because in the Confucian world the interests of society come before the rights of the individual. Your right to play a game is subordinate to your obligation to contribute to society.
If they capture a minor in his/her undies, will they be charged with child porn?
No. China does not have the rule of law, and does not have an independent judiciary. If the CCP told them to do it, that makes it legal, regardless of any law.
I am sure that the IOT'mania crowd may not like this...
As an IoT fanboi, I am all for this. If you scroll and read all the posts, you will see that most objections are from IoT naysayers... because this will remove one of their talking points. Which just shows that whiners will whine, even if they get what they said they wanted.
"House brands" are common, but some companies such as Walmart and Amazon use them in anti-competitive ways.
If a product is tweaked and rebranded, it makes it harder to comparison shop.
A store can have a low price guarantee, and offer to match any advertised offer by a competitor or even an additional 10% off. But that is meaningless because they can insist that it is a different product due to the rebranding. Even for products sold under the original brand, Walmart often has unique model numbers that are sold no where else.
To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean.
If you sat in the defendant's box, would you want to be judged by someone who never made a mistake, never took a risk, and can't even empathize with your life experiences?
My biggest concern with Brett is not the accusations, but his life story. He went to elite prep schools, then to Yale, and then straight into high paying law firm. This is a guy who never had to skip a meal, or put off a kid's doctor appointment because he didn't have the money to pay for it. How many black people does he know (as peers or colleagues, not as housekeepers)? How many Hispanics does he know (besides his gardener)? Well, there was Debbie Ramirez, but they were just acquaintances.
We we are doubling down on this one I have no clue.
Uhh... because the midterm elections are in four weeks. Duh.
Both corrupt.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
... assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Bad assumption. The Democrats have a very weak bench.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are led by geezers like Pelosi and Schumer, who would be toxic to the national electorate.
There best hope is to nominate a governor, but they have few outside the deep-blue coasts, and their "superdelegate" system (which the Republicans have abolished for their nomination process) militates against that.
If the Democrats want people to believe they can fix the country, they need to show that they can fix their party.
It takes energy to capture the CO2 from the atmosphere.
It takes more energy to generate the hydrogen. The hydrogen generator consumes 1.2Mw of power and produces 240 cubic meters of H2. A cubic meter of H2 has a mass of 90 grams, and has about 12.5 Mj of energy.
(240 m^3 * 12.5 Mj/m^3 / 3600) / 1.2 Mw = 70% efficiency for electricity to H2
There is no way this process is net energy positive.
OK, I agree that the energy spent in "burying rock or coal" shouldn't be spent. Just call it carbon neutral.
Or skip the conversion to methane, and just pump the CO2 down-hole.
Even better, put the CO2 to economic use, for enhanced oil recovery, improving crop yields with CO2 enrichment, mitigating soil alkalinity, and many other industrial and agricultural uses.
It should be buried as rock or coal to be environmentally friendly instead of environmentally neutral.
That would be idiotic. As long as there is net demand for methane, using energy to pump it into the ground, while using energy elsewhere to pump it out of the ground, purify, and transport it, is just stupid.
Here's a new vocabulary word for you: fungible (hint: it is something that methane is).
It's always reasonable to expect that a business that offers a service should offer support for that service.
It is never reasonable to expect personalized handholding while paying nothing.
Google provides FREE services. They support these services with tutorials, blogs, and FAQs. To expect more than that is ridiculous.
If only there were a credible alternative to YouTube.
Why don't you start one? The difference will be no ads and a fully staffed 24/7 1-800 number to call if you don't like the video. Should be easy, right?
but I've only seen it from the likes of Google: big mass-market companies that have never even acknowledged that customer service is something they should be doing.
My company runs ad campaigns on Google, and their customer support is excellent. If you, as an end user, think it is bad, then you are confused, because you are not their customer, you are just a user.
There is no plausible way that Google can offer personal support for everyone that uses their search engine, maps, office suite, or other free services, and it is not reasonable to expect them to do so.
Indeed. Not only do people want their problems fixed immediately, they don't want to have the problems in the first place.
Also if 4 of 5 people have problems with "at least one brand", and companies think 80% of their customers are satisfied, these two facts are not mathematically inconsistent. They can both be true.
Here''s a great way to fix customer problems: Require the engineers who designed the product to spend one day a week doing 2nd tier support. It is amazing how much this motivates them to improve the product.
Bloomberg is making an assertion, so the burden is on them to back it up with evidence. So far they have nothing.
These are all public companies, and there are significant penalties for intentionally lying about things that affect their stock price (ask Elon Musk about that). Since all of them are saying the same thing, and saying it clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically, it is very likely they are telling the truth.
What happens to a world when one of the most significant employers of unskilled human labor (the food industry) goes all automated?
This has ALREADY HAPPENED in much of the world. 150 years ago, 70% of Americans worked on farms. Today 2% do. The world didn't end.
Will an increasingly automated skilled work force replace it? I seriously doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? It has ALREADY HAPPENED to over a billion people... who have become the richest billion.
What I am saying is that we need a game plan for a very probable scenario.
You should start by reading a history book. For the last two centuries, moving a country's labor force off the farm and into the cities has be the key to prosperity, economic development, and higher living standards. It happened in the developed world long ago, and it is happening in China now.
Believing that agricultural automation somehow causes poverty, is astoundingly ignorant.
There are many research projects at universities. I saw one in action at UC Davis last year. It seemed to work very well, and I have no idea why they aren't commercializing it.
Some of the weed-bots pull or zap the weeds. Others use piezoelectric sprays, like in your inkjet printer, to dispense small amounts to glyphosate directly onto the leaves of the weeds, getting none on the crop or ground, and reducing usage by 95%.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, State Line IoT Sales Store, anyone?
Primm is 3 hours from Los Angeles, so a 6 hour round trip. How many people are going to do that just to get a device with worse security?
Also, if I mailorder something from a business in Vermont, is that a "sale in California", or a "sale in Vermont"?
It depends on who you order it from. If they have a presence in California, as Amazon does, then they have to comply with California law.
Since the cost of complying with this law is negligible, I don't think these work arounds will be worth it.
Then the minor can just buy a face mask and wear it at the start of the game.
1. Masks are easy to detect.
2. The check is not only at the start of the game.
Why do these bureaucrats care so much about other people?
Because in the Confucian world the interests of society come before the rights of the individual. Your right to play a game is subordinate to your obligation to contribute to society.
If they capture a minor in his/her undies, will they be charged with child porn?
No. China does not have the rule of law, and does not have an independent judiciary. If the CCP told them to do it, that makes it legal, regardless of any law.
Probably be a great investment to have large parcels of land right across the boarder with California zoned for manufacturing.
The requirement applies to any device SOLD in California, not just MADE there.
Anyway, good luck recruiting factory workers in Primm, or getting a water hookup.
I am sure that the IOT'mania crowd may not like this ...
As an IoT fanboi, I am all for this. If you scroll and read all the posts, you will see that most objections are from IoT naysayers ... because this will remove one of their talking points. Which just shows that whiners will whine, even if they get what they said they wanted.
What are they going to do, have inspectors check every piece of IoT garbage
The citizens can do that. The state just needs to have a website for reporting noncompliance.
This is something that costs manufacturers almost nothing. So why would they refuse to comply?
"House brands" are common, but some companies such as Walmart and Amazon use them in anti-competitive ways.
If a product is tweaked and rebranded, it makes it harder to comparison shop.
A store can have a low price guarantee, and offer to match any advertised offer by a competitor or even an additional 10% off. But that is meaningless because they can insist that it is a different product due to the rebranding. Even for products sold under the original brand, Walmart often has unique model numbers that are sold no where else.
If it's found out later that he really is a rapist ...
No one has accused him of "rape". The accusations are serious, but they fall well short of rape.
He clearly understands that "no means no", it is just that it was hard to hear the "no" when he had his hand over her mouth.
To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean.
If you sat in the defendant's box, would you want to be judged by someone who never made a mistake, never took a risk, and can't even empathize with your life experiences?
My biggest concern with Brett is not the accusations, but his life story. He went to elite prep schools, then to Yale, and then straight into high paying law firm. This is a guy who never had to skip a meal, or put off a kid's doctor appointment because he didn't have the money to pay for it. How many black people does he know (as peers or colleagues, not as housekeepers)? How many Hispanics does he know (besides his gardener)? Well, there was Debbie Ramirez, but they were just acquaintances.
We we are doubling down on this one I have no clue.
Uhh ... because the midterm elections are in four weeks. Duh.
Both corrupt.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
... assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Bad assumption. The Democrats have a very weak bench.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are led by geezers like Pelosi and Schumer, who would be toxic to the national electorate.
There best hope is to nominate a governor, but they have few outside the deep-blue coasts, and their "superdelegate" system (which the Republicans have abolished for their nomination process) militates against that.
If the Democrats want people to believe they can fix the country, they need to show that they can fix their party.
You're producing more energy than you're putting in.
No they are not.
It takes energy to capture the CO2 from the atmosphere.
It takes more energy to generate the hydrogen. The hydrogen generator consumes 1.2Mw of power and produces 240 cubic meters of H2. A cubic meter of H2 has a mass of 90 grams, and has about 12.5 Mj of energy.
(240 m^3 * 12.5 Mj/m^3 / 3600) / 1.2 Mw = 70% efficiency for electricity to H2
There is no way this process is net energy positive.
OK, I agree that the energy spent in "burying rock or coal" shouldn't be spent. Just call it carbon neutral.
Or skip the conversion to methane, and just pump the CO2 down-hole.
Even better, put the CO2 to economic use, for enhanced oil recovery, improving crop yields with CO2 enrichment, mitigating soil alkalinity, and many other industrial and agricultural uses.
It should be buried as rock or coal to be environmentally friendly instead of environmentally neutral.
That would be idiotic. As long as there is net demand for methane, using energy to pump it into the ground, while using energy elsewhere to pump it out of the ground, purify, and transport it, is just stupid.
Here's a new vocabulary word for you: fungible (hint: it is something that methane is).
This is a research project. You shouldn't nitpick irrelevant details.
The point is to make CH4 from captured CO2. What they do with the CH4 after that is immaterial.
It's always reasonable to expect that a business that offers a service should offer support for that service.
It is never reasonable to expect personalized handholding while paying nothing.
Google provides FREE services. They support these services with tutorials, blogs, and FAQs. To expect more than that is ridiculous.
If only there were a credible alternative to YouTube.
Why don't you start one? The difference will be no ads and a fully staffed 24/7 1-800 number to call if you don't like the video. Should be easy, right?
but I've only seen it from the likes of Google: big mass-market companies that have never even acknowledged that customer service is something they should be doing.
My company runs ad campaigns on Google, and their customer support is excellent. If you, as an end user, think it is bad, then you are confused, because you are not their customer, you are just a user.
There is no plausible way that Google can offer personal support for everyone that uses their search engine, maps, office suite, or other free services, and it is not reasonable to expect them to do so.
I think it's 3 x yesterday = 3 days ago.
Indeed. Not only do people want their problems fixed immediately, they don't want to have the problems in the first place.
Also if 4 of 5 people have problems with "at least one brand", and companies think 80% of their customers are satisfied, these two facts are not mathematically inconsistent. They can both be true.
Here''s a great way to fix customer problems: Require the engineers who designed the product to spend one day a week doing 2nd tier support. It is amazing how much this motivates them to improve the product.
Bloomberg is making an assertion, so the burden is on them to back it up with evidence. So far they have nothing.
These are all public companies, and there are significant penalties for intentionally lying about things that affect their stock price (ask Elon Musk about that). Since all of them are saying the same thing, and saying it clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically, it is very likely they are telling the truth.
Let's make the vaccine available for anyone who walks into a clinic.
This is the solution. That vaccine should be free. Herd immunity benefits everyone.
My son had the HPV vaccine. It cost me $300. Why should I pay that, when the vaccine is of zero benefit to him because he has no cervix?
I paid for it, because I can afford it, and it is the right thing to do, but many people can not afford it.
"Flog" can mean "sell or offer for sale". It is an informal usage, and is more commonly used in Britain than in America.
you mean where there's plenty of people who want to work.. but employers are too cheap to increase wages and benefits to attract them?
Do you really believe that there is a vast pool of idle agricultural works sitting at home watching soap operas while they wait for wages to go up?
What happens to a world when one of the most significant employers of unskilled human labor (the food industry) goes all automated?
This has ALREADY HAPPENED in much of the world. 150 years ago, 70% of Americans worked on farms. Today 2% do. The world didn't end.
Will an increasingly automated skilled work force replace it? I seriously doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? It has ALREADY HAPPENED to over a billion people ... who have become the richest billion.
What I am saying is that we need a game plan for a very probable scenario.
You should start by reading a history book. For the last two centuries, moving a country's labor force off the farm and into the cities has be the key to prosperity, economic development, and higher living standards. It happened in the developed world long ago, and it is happening in China now.
Believing that agricultural automation somehow causes poverty, is astoundingly ignorant.
I've always wondered if robots could patrol for weeds and bugs on a farm
There are a few small weed-bots for home gardens.
There are also a few commercial products for farms.
There are many research projects at universities. I saw one in action at UC Davis last year. It seemed to work very well, and I have no idea why they aren't commercializing it.
Some of the weed-bots pull or zap the weeds. Others use piezoelectric sprays, like in your inkjet printer, to dispense small amounts to glyphosate directly onto the leaves of the weeds, getting none on the crop or ground, and reducing usage by 95%.
California farmer or flyover state hayseed farmer?
Temperature affects both.
Higher temperatures can put a California almond farmer out of business.
Higher temperatures will extend the growing season and increase yields for a North Dakota wheat farmer.
Temperature matters.