Making it legal to do so will result in creating a new form of paparazzi that chase down any and all police action. Anyone with an imagination should be able to think of a reason that will not be a good thing. Can you imagine unnecessary people involving themselves in;
That's such a massive problem in state's where it's legal, it's bringing the whole structure of society to a grinding halt.
Not only will these people trying to get that that video footage be putting themselves in harm way, they will be splitting the attention of the officers to ensure their safety.
How will officer's ever cope, such an amazing new technology. So different from anything that's ever existed. Never before have people stopped to look at what the police do, no one was ever blessed with any method of visually observing officers before this amazing invention. No police officer has ever in the history of existence had to deal with a crowd of gawking on lookers. Just how can they possibly cope.
I am all for law enforcement accountability, my suggestion is that they be recorded by devices on their person, for review by a 3rd party created for that purpose for review of actions.
"Sorry, Mr. Judge, apparently the office accidentally set the recording device on fire so there is no evidence of what the defendant speaks of."
Today, the US has laws and agencies that are supposed to prevent this. But companies run by the soulless, inhuman "I have an MBA and never did a fucking day of real honest work in my life" types will try to get around it however they can.
Here's an amazing concept that seems too damn large for your little brain to grasp: Don't work in shit hole companies and if your employer turns into one leave.
Of course that requires effort on your part and potentially sacrifices. That's just too hard. So instead you just bitch about entity X being the cause of all your problems. Always someone else. It's never your fault. It's never your bad decisions. Always something else.
Don't ever fall into complacency. The minute you do, you'll find yourself with a fat mortgage, car payment, and the only jobs you'll find will barely pay for the gas to get to work and back every day.
No, that's your real problem. Not the company, not getting fired but the simple fact that you didn't plan for emergencies. Shit happens. The data center could have a meteor crash into it, the company could be bought out, the management could be running a money laundering operation on the side, you could get injured, you could get sick, you may be put on trial for a crime you didn't commit and so on.
You had the absurd idiotic attitude shared by many people that things will never go wrong and that everything will work out. Contingencies were for losers.
You know what I'd have thought if I gotten fired? "Cool time for a long vacation, I wonder how Hawaii is this time of year." Hell a month ago I simply quit and did just that. Last I checked I could stretch my savings for a half decade easily, longer if I really cut down, if I needed to and I'm only out of college about that long. It's called saving rather than buying overpriced houses and unnecessary toys.
You, or your parents, may have not filled out the financial aid forms properly which I've seen before. Also if you went to school more than a decade or two back the financial aid options weren't nearly as good.
Maybe they can focus on putting sex offenders in jail now.
Yeah, because those 21 year olds who pee behind a garbage can when drunk are such a menace to society. Or are you assuming they're magically more fair when prosecuting other crimes?
They attract a lot of people out of college who simply can't afford to live within any reasonable distance of the facility.
$85k/yr + $15k signing bonuses are not little, doubt any large company pays much less than that for tech workers in the bay area.
So they rent/buy in places like Tracy, which are 90+minutes away.
Recent college graduates don't generally have a wife and three kids.
It would be nice if more companies did this.
Or they could use that money to pay higher salaries instead which employees could then use to pay for their housing of choice. I know, an amazing concept. Of course then companies wouldn't be able to compel people to not switch jobs by holding their housing ransom.
Now, I have no idea who the poster is that you're replying to, but the moderation here is often unthinking groupthink. A majority of people here start from a common basic premise for their thinking/logic on many issues. Anyone who begins with an opposing basic premise, even though they are a logical person, will end up at a much different conclusion than the majority. Groupthink then kicks in and that person is derided as illogical and stupid because because they ended up at a conclusion that seems illogical to those who started from an opposing basic premise, and the moderation around here reflects that attitude.
Generally the minority does not acknowledge that they are basing their argument on incompatible axioms. If they do then they try to justify those axioms within the framework of the majority and as a result make a logical clusterfuck of an argument.
What does it say about our society when we, as a society, are eating our own because of our differences in basic premises? How is this sustainable? How is this good for society? If this keeps on in the same direction it will end in some type of civil war as civility between opposing points of view is rapidly deteriorating. Both sides will have their own thought police. Is that really a society any of us want to live in? If you don't like that society you're the only one who can change our current direction as the only way the current direction our society is taking can change is for individuals to change. Government can't do anything about it, other than try to legislate what point of view is allowed, and I don't really think anyone wants to go there.
A society requires generally unifying basic premises to function, what alternative do you propose? If one group thinks anyone who says the word "Bob" needs to be killed then will you let yourself be slaughtered if you say it? It's an extreme example but that's the basic problem.
I'll skip the problem that in general the internet is a bad example to extrapolate onto society as a whole since the internet strips out all the nice empathy we've built society on top of. No faces, no people, nothing but cold text.
What you're describing is how human society functions, it has since that first damn town grew into a small city. Do you think the McCarthy population would have looked favorably on you saying you're a socialist in your basic premises? How about the Protestants voting for a Catholic President, how long did that take? The initial unions and the corporate owners sure got along didn't they?
Those who claim to be "accepting" fail as badly as anyone else for those very reasons. A "Bleeding Heart Liberal" will be all for helping Muslims but Conservative Christians? They're better off dead. And so on and so on. Eventually one side grinds the other one down or they kill each other or otherwise resolve their conflicts. Most of the population doesn't really care much, another problem with extrapolating from the internet, so it's not that hard to change their views. At worst they'll die off and their kids will have different views.
Interesting how you stretch what he said beyond it's meaning in an attempt to support your own point. Good example of how not to post.
OK, I got it - as long as the dissenting opinions are acceptable and not debunked, they are acceptable.
Yes, if it's been debunked then it's wrong and as such of low value. Glad to see we're on the same page.
Of course, if they were acceptable and had been approved by the authorities, they wouldn't be dissenting opinions, would they?
Yes, the mysterious secret alien authorities running slashdot and sucking out our brains wish to keep you in your place. Now shut up and stand still while they insert the straw.
I disagree with people all the time and am a downright asshole on here quite often. My karma is still high.
Of course, karma is an aggregate measure of reputation in a way. If your karma is low than you're likely a useless asshole to the community who is best gotten rid off. Not always but it's a good rule of thumb I'd say. Disagreeing with people all the time across every topic also likely means you're insane and delusional. Plus not contributing anything worthwhile, trivial to gain karma in various utterly neutral discussions, indicates you're here just as an ego trip and have no desire to help the community.
In general I found slashdot users actually quite good at moderating up intelligent and logical posts.
Top universities offer absurd financial aid, free ride unless your parents make over $100k for example. It's state schools that actually fuck you over more than anyone else financially wise.
Even if I didn't get financial aid going to the top school I went to would have more than paid itself over. I got essentially guaranteed admission to the school's MS program which is top in my field. Since I could group and transfer some classes I finished with a BS+MS in 4.5 years. Networking opportunities abounded, I handed my resumes to VPs and Presidents rather than nameless recruiters. Frankly to get the job I did would have taken me either years otherwise or a PhD. The extra salary would have more than paid of my undergrad tuition by then.
Intelligence and creativity are two somewhat separate things. Especially in mathematics where you either need to have the right gift or learn the tricks of it (likely both I suppose).
Plus, everything else equal a hard working above-average person will do a lot better in life than a lazy genius.
That depends on your specific situation I'd say. Better schools do provide a better education or at least don't assume you're a grade A moron. The professors and administrators also seem to either be better (ie: not a FOB Russian who can't speak English and assumes he's God just like in the good ol' soviet school system) or at least care more.
Most companies essentially require internships on resumes for technical positions and a good school would likely give you better ones. If you plan to do research instead or other such things than a good school would also give you more opportunities.
If you're doing CS, for example, and plan to go to the Bay Area than any good school will give you plenty of network opportunities no matter where it is.
You're reaching. Recall we're talking about BSG here (and the other series that had this cliche). The Cylon Raider brain bled actual blood. Not coolant, hydraulic fluid or any such material.
Because it's a human derived body shoved into a regular ship.
A brain the size of a large dog? That can be outflown by a human pilot? In a setting where they have truly mechanical AI (in the form of Cylon Centurions)? Right, that's clearly a more efficient design.
The Centurions are shown as limited in many ways and were not trusted by the humanoid Cylons. The biological Raiders were shown to be able to regenerate (thus learn perpetually) and some could out fly humans.
Because, in series like BSG/B5/Farscape/etc, the carbon based, amino acid derived nature of the living ships is canon, meaning this isn't a question of me imposing my own "limited imagination". This is a case of the writers failing to do the research. And copying each others ideas without checking whether the copied idea made any sense in the first place.
Okay, where do they say the ships in B5 and Farscape are carbon based? In BSG the ships are perfectly mechanical aside from the pilot. In Farscape and B5 the ships are made of horribly alien materials and it's generally noted many times how absurdly alien their biology is.
Life has limitations. Organic life based around carbon chemistry using water as a solvent is inherently limited in what ranges of temperature, pressure and ionizing radiation it can operate. There is earth life that can survive exposure to space (water bears are an example), but only through mechanisms that allow such life to shut down and restart at a later time. This is not my opinion, it is an established chemical and biological fact. Put another way, ask someone with knowledge of biology greater than or equal to my own (a biology professor for instance), and they will back me up on this point.
Amazingly making a shell around oneself to provide the required environment is not some magical ability restricted only to devices made by humans. You know, like the hull every spaceship. In fact if you plugged the holes (without killing them) and toughened the skin a bit you could shove a human out into the vacuum of space for quite a while. Quite trivial to make a spaceship with a carbon biology and existing laws of physics although it wouldn't be of much use, more like a tree in space I suppose.
Want to get around those limitations by using different chemistries? Okay. What are you using in lieu of carbon as a primary building block? What solvent are you using? What system of energy transfer serves for metabolic function? All forms of life will have limits, even if those limits differ from our own. Simply saying that the living tissue in question is not carbon based does not excuse it behaving in impossible ways.
You are once again limiting your definition of life to things which are like life on Earth. A 100% mechanical spaceship with an AI and a repair facility that can make copies of itself is alive. Electricity transfer energy and metal is the building block.
Any life would face the same limitations imposed by the laws of physics. Many bio-ships in fiction are thermodynamically impossible. The writers try to get around issues with mechanical ships (reaction mass and repair) by using tissue in lieu of machinery, ignoring that the problems are not mechanical in nature, but are instead the laws of physics.
We're talking about fucking science fiction series, every bloody ship breaks fifty laws of physics by just existing. Do you comprehend how large the heat sinks would need to be for even the most trivial of spaceships to not melt into slag inside of a single episode? The laws of physics the show operates under are explicitly different from our own or they have found ways to break them.
It makes sense within context. In retrospect I assume since that show didn't seem to have that much planning. The centurions were outdated designs and didn't seem too capable (possibly to prevent another rebellion). The Raiders were thus designed around the newer and more capable humanoid cyclons. That meant a human type brain inside them. They're not unmanned ships or organic ships but simply ships with a specially designed hard-wired pilot. That meant that they could, for example, resurrect and as such improve in combat despite being destroyed in battle.
Sure it might, likely has all sorts of fluids in it. Cooling, material transfer, hydraulics and so on. Just because it's a "living ship" does not mean it's made from the same material as life on Earth.
nor does it have a spongy mass of brain tissue at the controls.
That's a design decision, if the easiest way to make an AI is to grow one from brain tissue than why not just make that part of the ship?
It's like the writers somehow got the idea in their heads that flesh can be engineered to extreme levels of durability and regeneration, or without the limitations of conservation of matter and energy.
No, they simply don't have your limited imagination and understand that just because life on earth is made out of something that doesn't mean all life must be made of that. Plenty of great hard science fiction covering that area I should add.
It ties into a fundamental misunderstanding about the capabilities and limitations of evolution and life in general.
Life has no limitations, anything that grows and reproduces is alive. It can be made of nuetronium and eat stars. Or be made of metal and nano-machines (technically proteins are nano-machines anyway). Or maybe it breather methane. Living ships in general are described as being engineered rather than naturally evolving so I'm not sure why you even mentioned that.
Want to see a ship made or organic matter? Wooden sailboat. You'll note we make our warships out of steel, and would continue to do so even if we could make a wooden boat that healed.
Why are you imposing the arbitrary restriction of it having to be made of Earth style organic material? Life is not limited to being carbon based. Hell, even life on Earth isn't as stupid as you apparently think it is. That calcium which makes up your bones isn't particularly organic.
No, you didn't. They may have but that's irrelevant since you claimed to be summarizing them.
Your own claimed "summary" of the studies was:
The reason is because while the electric motor is simple and efficient, the electric to battery to electric conversion process is extremely inefficient.
Note that the only thing you mention as being relevant are the batteries. Nothing else.
So you gave a summary and reason which you now admit are flat out wrong. Stop trying to weasel out of your own stupidity, it's not fooling anyone.
No, it's one of the safest if it hits an immobile obstacle or a similarly sized car. Since oddly enough every car on the road won't leave when a ForTwo shows up that's a questionable benchmark.
You forgot the 60% loss froom coal or CNG to electricity in the central power plant.
I didn't forget anything, you never said anything about that but solely blamed the charge/discharge efficiency of batteries. Please stop trying to mask your own previous idiotic statements.
Power plants add all sorts of lovely considerations such as how you rate different fuel types. France runs pretty much on nuclear and plenty of other areas run on hydroelectric. There's also geothermal, wind, solar and probably others. In certain colder countries power plants also provide heating to the surrounding area which raises their efficiency to nearly 100%. Newer natural gas power plants get up to 60% efficiency. On the same fuel type a stationary power plant will have higher efficiency and less pollution simply because weight need not be optimized for. In practice the efficiency also depends on when cars are charged since doing so at low demand period could be nearly free up to a point (ie: currently wasted off-peak electricity).
Then there's the costs of refining and transporting diesel fuel which you seem to have no qualms about omitting. Of course then there's the secondary energy costs of needing to create the batteries, future maintenance costs (lower for electric engines but not batteries) and so on and so on. It's an endless game and not really worth playing but I felt like snipping that line of argument before they started.
The capitalistic measure of cost per mile for energy (be it a gallon of diesel or a kwh of electricity) usually puts electric way ahead short of idiotic assumptions (like charging at peak times with tiered electric prices). Which of course makes sense since energy costs are roughly the same at the pump/charger and electric cars get the equivalent of 120+ mpg.
BTW volkswagen claims 45% efficiency with its diesel ICEs
Optimally I'm sure, short of certain hybrids your driving will never be optimal in the eyes of the engine. Like I said 35% seems a nice rough number for a high efficiency diesel in practice, gasoline engines are too abysmally low to even bother considering.
Yes it's great to reduce pollution, but as the person who responded to you said you are in a world where everything is a dire emergency when in reality real life is more gradual. The oceans are more polluted than they were but have already started (gradually) reducing pollution, which you can do in a reasonable way without putting a bunch of people out of work.
So you're saying that because people kept yelling about how ocean pollution is a dire emergency we've after long delays started to work on it? You think if no one said anything people would have done something? How much of a fool about human nature are you, seriously?
What is irrelevant to YOU is a die emergency to others. A fisherman will starve to death due to ocean pollution while a midwest farmer won't even directly notice (negatively at least, his crops wight start selling for more till all the famines collapse society). If you think humans act (or can act) any other way then you should pick up a history book.
You live in a fantasy as much as the other guy. All of history is filled with civilizations that failed to notice changes and couldn't adapt quickly enough once they did notice them.
Gradual does nothing to help you if technology improves even more gradually. Why? Because after one year your society has degraded and technology improves even more slowly as resources get shifted towards base survival. The next year it's even worse. It's very easy to fall into an imploding spiral.
Of course, all that history also says there really is no other solution except technology (existing and unused, or plain new) and slow adaptation. We're short sighted selfish stubborn monkeys. We won't all magically change our ways and society as a whole will cater to those selfish desires. Those who think we will or bank on it will doom us.
The only thing those who see a problem can do is invest as much as possible in the seeds of future change. Technological and societal. To push the difference between that gradual collapse and gradual solution as much in our favor as possible. Move society's reaction to changes a few years earlier, let technologies have a few years lead time due to existing research and so on. Since there is no magical technological fairy unless we built the infrastructure now there probably won't be enough time in the future.
The reason is because while the electric motor is simple and efficient, the electric to battery to electric conversion process is extremely inefficient.
Yes, because 85% efficiency is just so damn low. So much lower than the 35% you'll get, at best, from any sort of ICE engine in a car. Oh wait.
So in other words you're likely an idiot misquoting studies (no easily verifiable citations, how cute) with no idea what you're talking about. Yawn.
So yes, there is a clear delineation between paid ads and organic results. But under the covers it certainly appears there's something major going on. Note the number of Amazon ads that appear in the first 4 results where approximately 80% of the clicks happen.
The same thing is going on as has been going for the past decade, website with money behind them are gaming the search engine to show themselves at the top. You seem to seriously underestimate the determination and intelligence of people driven by money.
The investment needed for a good search engine (server, bandwidth, algorithms, etc) is massive. Yahoo bowed out of the game because they simply didn't have the money to compete anymore. A number of other search engines have done so as well for similar reasons. Google has the money from the advertisements on it's 80% share of the search market. Bing has it's money from Microsoft's other quasi-monopolies.
So you want the internet to be shut down, is that what you're arguing for? Or are you not aware that 99.99999999% of the horribly embarrassing photos on the internet had in no way originated with google street view.
In fact the chance of the google van being in front of you when you do something stupid is infinitesimal compared to some asshole with a cell phone being there and instantly uploading your photo to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Making it legal to do so will result in creating a new form of paparazzi that chase down any and all police action. Anyone with an imagination should be able to think of a reason that will not be a good thing.
Can you imagine unnecessary people involving themselves in;
That's such a massive problem in state's where it's legal, it's bringing the whole structure of society to a grinding halt.
Not only will these people trying to get that that video footage be putting themselves in harm way, they will be splitting the attention of the officers to ensure their safety.
How will officer's ever cope, such an amazing new technology. So different from anything that's ever existed. Never before have people stopped to look at what the police do, no one was ever blessed with any method of visually observing officers before this amazing invention. No police officer has ever in the history of existence had to deal with a crowd of gawking on lookers. Just how can they possibly cope.
I am all for law enforcement accountability, my suggestion is that they be recorded by devices on their person, for review by a 3rd party created for that purpose for review of actions.
"Sorry, Mr. Judge, apparently the office accidentally set the recording device on fire so there is no evidence of what the defendant speaks of."
Today, the US has laws and agencies that are supposed to prevent this. But companies run by the soulless, inhuman "I have an MBA and never did a fucking day of real honest work in my life" types will try to get around it however they can.
Here's an amazing concept that seems too damn large for your little brain to grasp:
Don't work in shit hole companies and if your employer turns into one leave.
Of course that requires effort on your part and potentially sacrifices. That's just too hard. So instead you just bitch about entity X being the cause of all your problems. Always someone else. It's never your fault. It's never your bad decisions. Always something else.
Don't ever fall into complacency. The minute you do, you'll find yourself with a fat mortgage, car payment, and the only jobs you'll find will barely pay for the gas to get to work and back every day.
No, that's your real problem. Not the company, not getting fired but the simple fact that you didn't plan for emergencies. Shit happens. The data center could have a meteor crash into it, the company could be bought out, the management could be running a money laundering operation on the side, you could get injured, you could get sick, you may be put on trial for a crime you didn't commit and so on.
You had the absurd idiotic attitude shared by many people that things will never go wrong and that everything will work out. Contingencies were for losers.
You know what I'd have thought if I gotten fired? "Cool time for a long vacation, I wonder how Hawaii is this time of year." Hell a month ago I simply quit and did just that. Last I checked I could stretch my savings for a half decade easily, longer if I really cut down, if I needed to and I'm only out of college about that long. It's called saving rather than buying overpriced houses and unnecessary toys.
You, or your parents, may have not filled out the financial aid forms properly which I've seen before. Also if you went to school more than a decade or two back the financial aid options weren't nearly as good.
Maybe they can focus on putting sex offenders in jail now.
Yeah, because those 21 year olds who pee behind a garbage can when drunk are such a menace to society. Or are you assuming they're magically more fair when prosecuting other crimes?
They attract a lot of people out of college who simply can't afford to live within any reasonable distance of the facility.
$85k/yr + $15k signing bonuses are not little, doubt any large company pays much less than that for tech workers in the bay area.
So they rent/buy in places like Tracy, which are 90+minutes away.
Recent college graduates don't generally have a wife and three kids.
It would be nice if more companies did this.
Or they could use that money to pay higher salaries instead which employees could then use to pay for their housing of choice. I know, an amazing concept. Of course then companies wouldn't be able to compel people to not switch jobs by holding their housing ransom.
Now, I have no idea who the poster is that you're replying to, but the moderation here is often unthinking groupthink. A majority of people here start from a common basic premise for their thinking/logic on many issues. Anyone who begins with an opposing basic premise, even though they are a logical person, will end up at a much different conclusion than the majority. Groupthink then kicks in and that person is derided as illogical and stupid because because they ended up at a conclusion that seems illogical to those who started from an opposing basic premise, and the moderation around here reflects that attitude.
Generally the minority does not acknowledge that they are basing their argument on incompatible axioms. If they do then they try to justify those axioms within the framework of the majority and as a result make a logical clusterfuck of an argument.
What does it say about our society when we, as a society, are eating our own because of our differences in basic premises? How is this sustainable? How is this good for society? If this keeps on in the same direction it will end in some type of civil war as civility between opposing points of view is rapidly deteriorating. Both sides will have their own thought police. Is that really a society any of us want to live in? If you don't like that society you're the only one who can change our current direction as the only way the current direction our society is taking can change is for individuals to change. Government can't do anything about it, other than try to legislate what point of view is allowed, and I don't really think anyone wants to go there.
A society requires generally unifying basic premises to function, what alternative do you propose? If one group thinks anyone who says the word "Bob" needs to be killed then will you let yourself be slaughtered if you say it? It's an extreme example but that's the basic problem.
I'll skip the problem that in general the internet is a bad example to extrapolate onto society as a whole since the internet strips out all the nice empathy we've built society on top of. No faces, no people, nothing but cold text.
What you're describing is how human society functions, it has since that first damn town grew into a small city. Do you think the McCarthy population would have looked favorably on you saying you're a socialist in your basic premises? How about the Protestants voting for a Catholic President, how long did that take? The initial unions and the corporate owners sure got along didn't they?
Those who claim to be "accepting" fail as badly as anyone else for those very reasons. A "Bleeding Heart Liberal" will be all for helping Muslims but Conservative Christians? They're better off dead. And so on and so on. Eventually one side grinds the other one down or they kill each other or otherwise resolve their conflicts. Most of the population doesn't really care much, another problem with extrapolating from the internet, so it's not that hard to change their views. At worst they'll die off and their kids will have different views.
Interesting how you stretch what he said beyond it's meaning in an attempt to support your own point. Good example of how not to post.
OK, I got it - as long as the dissenting opinions are acceptable and not debunked, they are acceptable.
Yes, if it's been debunked then it's wrong and as such of low value. Glad to see we're on the same page.
Of course, if they were acceptable and had been approved by the authorities, they wouldn't be dissenting opinions, would they?
Yes, the mysterious secret alien authorities running slashdot and sucking out our brains wish to keep you in your place. Now shut up and stand still while they insert the straw.
I disagree with people all the time and am a downright asshole on here quite often. My karma is still high.
Of course, karma is an aggregate measure of reputation in a way. If your karma is low than you're likely a useless asshole to the community who is best gotten rid off. Not always but it's a good rule of thumb I'd say. Disagreeing with people all the time across every topic also likely means you're insane and delusional. Plus not contributing anything worthwhile, trivial to gain karma in various utterly neutral discussions, indicates you're here just as an ego trip and have no desire to help the community.
In general I found slashdot users actually quite good at moderating up intelligent and logical posts.
Apple's sales figures would like to disagree with you.
Top universities offer absurd financial aid, free ride unless your parents make over $100k for example. It's state schools that actually fuck you over more than anyone else financially wise.
Even if I didn't get financial aid going to the top school I went to would have more than paid itself over. I got essentially guaranteed admission to the school's MS program which is top in my field. Since I could group and transfer some classes I finished with a BS+MS in 4.5 years. Networking opportunities abounded, I handed my resumes to VPs and Presidents rather than nameless recruiters. Frankly to get the job I did would have taken me either years otherwise or a PhD. The extra salary would have more than paid of my undergrad tuition by then.
Intelligence and creativity are two somewhat separate things. Especially in mathematics where you either need to have the right gift or learn the tricks of it (likely both I suppose).
Plus, everything else equal a hard working above-average person will do a lot better in life than a lazy genius.
That depends on your specific situation I'd say. Better schools do provide a better education or at least don't assume you're a grade A moron. The professors and administrators also seem to either be better (ie: not a FOB Russian who can't speak English and assumes he's God just like in the good ol' soviet school system) or at least care more.
Most companies essentially require internships on resumes for technical positions and a good school would likely give you better ones. If you plan to do research instead or other such things than a good school would also give you more opportunities.
If you're doing CS, for example, and plan to go to the Bay Area than any good school will give you plenty of network opportunities no matter where it is.
You're reaching. Recall we're talking about BSG here (and the other series that had this cliche).
The Cylon Raider brain bled actual blood. Not coolant, hydraulic fluid or any such material.
Because it's a human derived body shoved into a regular ship.
A brain the size of a large dog? That can be outflown by a human pilot? In a setting where they have truly mechanical AI (in the form of Cylon Centurions)? Right, that's clearly a more efficient design.
The Centurions are shown as limited in many ways and were not trusted by the humanoid Cylons. The biological Raiders were shown to be able to regenerate (thus learn perpetually) and some could out fly humans.
Because, in series like BSG/B5/Farscape/etc, the carbon based, amino acid derived nature of the living ships is canon, meaning this isn't a question of me imposing my own "limited imagination". This is a case of the writers failing to do the research. And copying each others ideas without checking whether the copied idea made any sense in the first place.
Okay, where do they say the ships in B5 and Farscape are carbon based? In BSG the ships are perfectly mechanical aside from the pilot. In Farscape and B5 the ships are made of horribly alien materials and it's generally noted many times how absurdly alien their biology is.
Life has limitations. Organic life based around carbon chemistry using water as a solvent is inherently limited in what ranges of temperature, pressure and ionizing radiation it can operate. There is earth life that can survive exposure to space (water bears are an example), but only through mechanisms that allow such life to shut down and restart at a later time. This is not my opinion, it is an established chemical and biological fact. Put another way, ask someone with knowledge of biology greater than or equal to my own (a biology professor for instance), and they will back me up on this point.
Amazingly making a shell around oneself to provide the required environment is not some magical ability restricted only to devices made by humans. You know, like the hull every spaceship. In fact if you plugged the holes (without killing them) and toughened the skin a bit you could shove a human out into the vacuum of space for quite a while. Quite trivial to make a spaceship with a carbon biology and existing laws of physics although it wouldn't be of much use, more like a tree in space I suppose.
Want to get around those limitations by using different chemistries? Okay. What are you using in lieu of carbon as a primary building block? What solvent are you using? What system of energy transfer serves for metabolic function? All forms of life will have limits, even if those limits differ from our own. Simply saying that the living tissue in question is not carbon based does not excuse it behaving in impossible ways.
You are once again limiting your definition of life to things which are like life on Earth. A 100% mechanical spaceship with an AI and a repair facility that can make copies of itself is alive. Electricity transfer energy and metal is the building block.
Any life would face the same limitations imposed by the laws of physics. Many bio-ships in fiction are thermodynamically impossible. The writers try to get around issues with mechanical ships (reaction mass and repair) by using tissue in lieu of machinery, ignoring that the problems are not mechanical in nature, but are instead the laws of physics.
We're talking about fucking science fiction series, every bloody ship breaks fifty laws of physics by just existing. Do you comprehend how large the heat sinks would need to be for even the most trivial of spaceships to not melt into slag inside of a single episode? The laws of physics the show operates under are explicitly different from our own or they have found ways to break them.
It makes sense within context. In retrospect I assume since that show didn't seem to have that much planning. The centurions were outdated designs and didn't seem too capable (possibly to prevent another rebellion). The Raiders were thus designed around the newer and more capable humanoid cyclons. That meant a human type brain inside them. They're not unmanned ships or organic ships but simply ships with a specially designed hard-wired pilot. That meant that they could, for example, resurrect and as such improve in combat despite being destroyed in battle.
It also won't bleed if you shoot it,
Sure it might, likely has all sorts of fluids in it. Cooling, material transfer, hydraulics and so on. Just because it's a "living ship" does not mean it's made from the same material as life on Earth.
nor does it have a spongy mass of brain tissue at the controls.
That's a design decision, if the easiest way to make an AI is to grow one from brain tissue than why not just make that part of the ship?
It's like the writers somehow got the idea in their heads that flesh can be engineered to extreme levels of durability and regeneration, or without the limitations of conservation of matter and energy.
No, they simply don't have your limited imagination and understand that just because life on earth is made out of something that doesn't mean all life must be made of that. Plenty of great hard science fiction covering that area I should add.
It ties into a fundamental misunderstanding about the capabilities and limitations of evolution and life in general.
Life has no limitations, anything that grows and reproduces is alive. It can be made of nuetronium and eat stars. Or be made of metal and nano-machines (technically proteins are nano-machines anyway). Or maybe it breather methane. Living ships in general are described as being engineered rather than naturally evolving so I'm not sure why you even mentioned that.
Want to see a ship made or organic matter? Wooden sailboat. You'll note we make our warships out of steel, and would continue to do so even if we could make a wooden boat that healed.
Why are you imposing the arbitrary restriction of it having to be made of Earth style organic material? Life is not limited to being carbon based. Hell, even life on Earth isn't as stupid as you apparently think it is. That calcium which makes up your bones isn't particularly organic.
No, you didn't. They may have but that's irrelevant since you claimed to be summarizing them.
Your own claimed "summary" of the studies was:
The reason is because while the electric motor is simple and efficient, the electric to battery to electric conversion process is extremely inefficient.
Note that the only thing you mention as being relevant are the batteries. Nothing else.
So you gave a summary and reason which you now admit are flat out wrong. Stop trying to weasel out of your own stupidity, it's not fooling anyone.
No, it's one of the safest if it hits an immobile obstacle or a similarly sized car. Since oddly enough every car on the road won't leave when a ForTwo shows up that's a questionable benchmark.
If it gets hit by an actual car, say a mid-size, then things turn out much uglier:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html
Physics at work. Please stop spreading false information.
You forgot the 60% loss froom coal or CNG to electricity in the central power plant.
I didn't forget anything, you never said anything about that but solely blamed the charge/discharge efficiency of batteries. Please stop trying to mask your own previous idiotic statements.
Power plants add all sorts of lovely considerations such as how you rate different fuel types. France runs pretty much on nuclear and plenty of other areas run on hydroelectric. There's also geothermal, wind, solar and probably others. In certain colder countries power plants also provide heating to the surrounding area which raises their efficiency to nearly 100%. Newer natural gas power plants get up to 60% efficiency. On the same fuel type a stationary power plant will have higher efficiency and less pollution simply because weight need not be optimized for. In practice the efficiency also depends on when cars are charged since doing so at low demand period could be nearly free up to a point (ie: currently wasted off-peak electricity).
Then there's the costs of refining and transporting diesel fuel which you seem to have no qualms about omitting. Of course then there's the secondary energy costs of needing to create the batteries, future maintenance costs (lower for electric engines but not batteries) and so on and so on. It's an endless game and not really worth playing but I felt like snipping that line of argument before they started.
The capitalistic measure of cost per mile for energy (be it a gallon of diesel or a kwh of electricity) usually puts electric way ahead short of idiotic assumptions (like charging at peak times with tiered electric prices). Which of course makes sense since energy costs are roughly the same at the pump/charger and electric cars get the equivalent of 120+ mpg.
BTW volkswagen claims 45% efficiency with its diesel ICEs
Optimally I'm sure, short of certain hybrids your driving will never be optimal in the eyes of the engine. Like I said 35% seems a nice rough number for a high efficiency diesel in practice, gasoline engines are too abysmally low to even bother considering.
Yes it's great to reduce pollution, but as the person who responded to you said you are in a world where everything is a dire emergency when in reality real life is more gradual. The oceans are more polluted than they were but have already started (gradually) reducing pollution, which you can do in a reasonable way without putting a bunch of people out of work.
So you're saying that because people kept yelling about how ocean pollution is a dire emergency we've after long delays started to work on it? You think if no one said anything people would have done something? How much of a fool about human nature are you, seriously?
What is irrelevant to YOU is a die emergency to others. A fisherman will starve to death due to ocean pollution while a midwest farmer won't even directly notice (negatively at least, his crops wight start selling for more till all the famines collapse society). If you think humans act (or can act) any other way then you should pick up a history book.
You live in a fantasy as much as the other guy. All of history is filled with civilizations that failed to notice changes and couldn't adapt quickly enough once they did notice them.
Gradual does nothing to help you if technology improves even more gradually. Why? Because after one year your society has degraded and technology improves even more slowly as resources get shifted towards base survival. The next year it's even worse. It's very easy to fall into an imploding spiral.
Of course, all that history also says there really is no other solution except technology (existing and unused, or plain new) and slow adaptation. We're short sighted selfish stubborn monkeys. We won't all magically change our ways and society as a whole will cater to those selfish desires. Those who think we will or bank on it will doom us.
The only thing those who see a problem can do is invest as much as possible in the seeds of future change. Technological and societal. To push the difference between that gradual collapse and gradual solution as much in our favor as possible. Move society's reaction to changes a few years earlier, let technologies have a few years lead time due to existing research and so on. Since there is no magical technological fairy unless we built the infrastructure now there probably won't be enough time in the future.
The reason is because while the electric motor is simple and efficient, the electric to battery to electric conversion process is extremely inefficient.
Yes, because 85% efficiency is just so damn low. So much lower than the 35% you'll get, at best, from any sort of ICE engine in a car. Oh wait.
So in other words you're likely an idiot misquoting studies (no easily verifiable citations, how cute) with no idea what you're talking about. Yawn.
So yes, there is a clear delineation between paid ads and organic results. But under the covers it certainly appears there's something major going on. Note the number of Amazon ads that appear in the first 4 results where approximately 80% of the clicks happen.
The same thing is going on as has been going for the past decade, website with money behind them are gaming the search engine to show themselves at the top. You seem to seriously underestimate the determination and intelligence of people driven by money.
The investment needed for a good search engine (server, bandwidth, algorithms, etc) is massive. Yahoo bowed out of the game because they simply didn't have the money to compete anymore. A number of other search engines have done so as well for similar reasons. Google has the money from the advertisements on it's 80% share of the search market. Bing has it's money from Microsoft's other quasi-monopolies.
So you want the internet to be shut down, is that what you're arguing for? Or are you not aware that 99.99999999% of the horribly embarrassing photos on the internet had in no way originated with google street view.
In fact the chance of the google van being in front of you when you do something stupid is infinitesimal compared to some asshole with a cell phone being there and instantly uploading your photo to the internet.