I think calling it a "war" is disingenuous. Name a single regulation that was not based on a real public need. The only one I can think of was the whole anti-pipeline thing (KXL and Dakota Access), which was just straight-up ignorant. I wouldn't call that a war on businesses, though. In fact, my company made money off of TransCanada due to that debacle.
Compare that to what we have now, though. The president can cause stock prices to drop 5% or more with a single vindictive, vapid tweet. Obama's administration could lay out a damning white paper with detailed explanations of why mining tailings were bad for drinking water supplies, and nobody gave a shit because they knew the Republicans in congress would never actually do anything about it. God forbid we have an EPA or OSHA that actually, you know, defends we the people.
I'm pretty pro-Tenth, but honestly how are you going to handle river pollution at the state level? Is Louisiana really going to tell Texas to keep their cadmium on their half of the Sabine? Air pollution: can Arizona tell California to get its cars off the road when the wind is blowing? What about global warming? Anything requiring an international treaty is by definition a federal issue.
I'm tired of people claiming that all regulations are anti-business, and that all businesses just want to screw people for a buck. There's a real benefit to the American people when a smoothly functioning federal government does it's job. Also, there are real financial incentives when businesses act ethically. Unfortunately we haven't seen either in so long, most people have forgotten what it looks like.
Even with proper verification, you can still get killed. To take the analogy a step further, there have been linemen killed when (after they check with their hotsticks) some idiot customer a mile away kicks on his emergency generator without disconnecting his 52. It doesn't happen a lot, but when it does happen, people die.
Except the complaint says that the robot that killed her was from a different section of the line. I know that if it were me, I'd turn off everything that could even theoretically kill me, but robotics technicians are accustomed to making certain assumptions about range of motion and how the light curtains or safety doors work. The way LOTO is supposed to work: 1) tell people in the area you're about to LOTO, 2) disconnect *all* energy sources and bleed stored energy, 3) install lock(s), 4) attempt to make $POTENTIAL_THING_THAT_CAN_KILL_ME move or function in any way, 5) proceed with your maintenance task. The key here is that it's not always 100% obvious what #4 includes. For instance if a robot is ten feet away, you may not realize that it has a 12-foot reach, and some idiot programmed it to ignore the light curtain in your area. If that's the case, the groundwork for her demise was laid before the robots were ever installed in the plant. I think that is the gist of the lawsuit.
I actually hired an OIT grad for a mechanical engineering position. The fact that their program is very hands on is what makes the difference. You can hire grads of some engineering programs that haven't actually designed or built anything outside of the lab. This guy knows how to chase parts, take chances, change direction, a lot of things they don't teach in most schools. If you ever see an OIT resume cross your desk, give it a second look.
I still have the McDonalds Menu Song memorized from back in the 80s. I know my phone number from first grade, but not from college. I can remember the Quadratic Equation but not my kid's teacher's name. Why do some things stick around for decades, but others you can't remember a week (or less) later? Do people who play these memory games have a method for wiping the slate clean? I'd hate to accidentally remember the location of the 6 of clubs a year later.
My favorite is how Ami Horowitz calls Politifact out for "obviously" lying about who said only 500 immigrants in Sweden are working. Yeah. That's the lying media for you. Taking the falsehoods that one bigot said and another bigot agreed with, and accidentally attributing it to the second bigot. That's the real problem: misattribution. Never mind the fact that the entire premise of the "documentary" was complete BS, and the actual rape statistics from Sweden show rates going down during the height of the refugee crisis. Must be the Swedish deep state lying about everything!! But go ahead and keep watching Fox News, and believing everything they say, so long as it agrees with your worldview. That's what the president does, and it's working pretty great for him.
According to polls, he had about a 25% chance of winning the electoral college, if you can actually do math and understand how statistics work (HuffPo obviously didn't understand that). Fivethirtyeight pretty much nailed it; they predicted 4 possible scenarios that had equivalent odds of happening, and the one that occurred was one of them almost exactly.
But you have to admit it's a little ironic for him to claim dishonesty on the part of the media, when he can't even be bothered to Google a simple fact like how many electoral college votes George HW Bush got.
If the media or you wanna demonstrate that Trump's statements on this are false,...
That's not how burden of proof works. Trump is the one claiming something happened, or is happening. It is up to him to provide evidence. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is that something did not happen, or is not happening. It is impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist. I can't prove there are no rainbow-colored elephants. But if you claimed there were, the burden of proof would be on you.
Citation needed. I really don't believe that NYT or any other media outlet has been excessively harsh on the man. I listened to the entire Israel/US joint press conference the other day. I feel like it was portrayed in the media fairly, and in some cases too nice. Trump came off sounding like a buffoon and a charlatan, and his counterpart was a typical slippery politician. But even NPR and NYT went to spin it as if Trump and Netanyahu came up with some master plan that will finally bring peace to the middle east. Nevermind the fact that Trump refused to call on a single reporter from a traditional media outlet. That being said, I'm actually OK with the media portraying Trump as more competent than he really is. No matter who actually resides at 1600 Penn, I want the office of the President to be seen across the globe as a station of power, respect, and wisdom.
yeah... I still have ads enabled on this site because I want to support it, but the stapled to the top thing is stupid. It's the dimension that has the least real estate to spare, so knock it off already! The odd thing is that it's not consistent, and doesn't seem to stay stapled after a few scrolls up and down. Very odd.
You really think most Americans know that they are being sold to? Diamond rings, the latest iPhone, three cars per family, the list goes on and on. Americans are really good at one thing: buying whatever our corporate overlords tell us we can't live without. The common man even willingly takes part in the marketing, retweeting things, liking posts, etc.
It's not just things either. Look at policies that have been sold to us through the years: the mortgage interest deduction, unforgivable student debt, tipping, mandatory union dues, the war on drugs/terror. These were marketed as great ways to stimulate the economy or attain/protect the American Dream (TM). Most Americans don't realize how stupid it all is, and that they've been had by some very wealthy and powerful people. It goes all the way to the top. Officials are constantly trying to oversell their position. They sell their budget proposal or nominee or pet boogeyman, and the proletariat is supposed to lap it up. We have a president who does a Jedi mind trick, and somehow people are suddenly no longer interested in seeing his tax returns. Instead we get sold a line about the Lugenspresse (and holy shit the alt-right openly calls it that) making it up that Trump promised to release his returns if he became POTUS.
We get sold to all the time, and it is more nefarious than a few strategically placed web ads. I'd be perfectly content with a world where the only things people are trying to sell me are useful items I'd be interested in purchasing. Instead we have this hurricane of 24-7 BS coming from everywhere, and every marketer has an angle.
God, I hope I just got trolled. That's quite possibly the most plausible conspiracy theory I've ever heard. Off to fact check with an abundance of skepticism.
In the late 90s one of my EE professors was obsessed with neural networks. We thought him insane when he insisted they could be used for a security system, even though we couldn't make it work after two whole semesters. Now, I'm sure he must feel a little vindication that 20 years later machine learning depends on NNs to such an extent. Who knows what other "crazy" ideas my professors had that might actually prove prescient?
Clearly a typo. Must be megawatts. 330kW is a moderate pole transformer, like you said. Hell, one of my shops uses over a MW peak, and it's on pole mounted transformers.
You seem to misunderstand what "reasonable doubt" means. This case barely meets probably cause, if the article can be taken at face value. It wouldn't even meet a preponderance of the evidence standard for a civil case. In all criminal cases, reasonable doubt is the null hypothesis. The defendant doesn't have to prove it. It is up to the prosecution to prove *beyond* reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the defendant. So what several jurisdictions have done instead, is passed laws where it is trivial to prove they have been broken. Define the law in such a way that guilt is always assured, you just have to find the right law to charge somebody under. I'm probably breaking seventeen laws just by posting this.
This is the same company that tells you the widget you want is not in stock, since you don't want to buy the extended protection plan. Real outstanding corporate citizens, these guys.
You know it's possible for a website to serve any image to you computer, right? Some older web browsers would save those files as images in a folder whether you wanted it to or not. One of my coworkers had an unfortunate incident image searching a pillow block bearing, and when he later went to back up his computer to the company server, he inadvertently copied a whole host of unsavory (but not illegal) thumbnails. None of this was done by malware. It was 100% human interaction. Had one of the images been illegal, it would have been trivial for a prosecutor to show that he had "ownership" of the material, since he had to log into a password protected computer to move the files.
The bigger problem is that people have to prove their innocence these days. In Houston a guy was arrested on meth charges for having a sock full of kitty litter in his car. This poor bastard spent time in jail while the whole mess was sorted out. When prospective employers google his name, his arrest on drug charges shows up as the first dozen hits. (analogy would be if it were his auto repair shop that called the cops)
This whole country has become so ass-backwards when it comes to people's understanding of burden of proof. It's impossible to prove a negative. Hell, I can't even prove there's no bits on this computer that couldn't be misconstrued as CP. Let's see: one of my best friends from high school is on the sex offender list, I went to church with a guy that just got convicted of producing CP, a family member has been fired from a child care facility, and I am reading this article on how to evade getting caught by the FBI. Yup, I'm definitely a suspect. Better lock me up for life!
- It's one-sided -- no one posts about the totally uninteresting, crappy boring parts of their lives. Unless you're rich beyond imagination or a celebrity, everyone will have down moments in their lives, periods of disappointment, and very sad things happen to them.
I remember back in the early aughts, when MySpace was still a thing. It seemed like you were just as likely to read an insightful post from an old high school friend about their struggle with cancer, or the mundane aspects of child rearing, or some inane rambling about traffic or global warming. There wasn't the focus on spinning oneself in a positive light. There was even a guy that would post anytime he had a particularly interesting poop (so maybe not civil conversation, but definitely not self-aggrandizing).
Also, I would posit that the ridiculously wealthy also have down moments.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that was me. I was running late to the ferry.
I think calling it a "war" is disingenuous. Name a single regulation that was not based on a real public need. The only one I can think of was the whole anti-pipeline thing (KXL and Dakota Access), which was just straight-up ignorant. I wouldn't call that a war on businesses, though. In fact, my company made money off of TransCanada due to that debacle.
Compare that to what we have now, though. The president can cause stock prices to drop 5% or more with a single vindictive, vapid tweet. Obama's administration could lay out a damning white paper with detailed explanations of why mining tailings were bad for drinking water supplies, and nobody gave a shit because they knew the Republicans in congress would never actually do anything about it. God forbid we have an EPA or OSHA that actually, you know, defends we the people.
I'm pretty pro-Tenth, but honestly how are you going to handle river pollution at the state level? Is Louisiana really going to tell Texas to keep their cadmium on their half of the Sabine? Air pollution: can Arizona tell California to get its cars off the road when the wind is blowing? What about global warming? Anything requiring an international treaty is by definition a federal issue.
I'm tired of people claiming that all regulations are anti-business, and that all businesses just want to screw people for a buck. There's a real benefit to the American people when a smoothly functioning federal government does it's job. Also, there are real financial incentives when businesses act ethically. Unfortunately we haven't seen either in so long, most people have forgotten what it looks like.
Even with proper verification, you can still get killed. To take the analogy a step further, there have been linemen killed when (after they check with their hotsticks) some idiot customer a mile away kicks on his emergency generator without disconnecting his 52. It doesn't happen a lot, but when it does happen, people die.
Except the complaint says that the robot that killed her was from a different section of the line. I know that if it were me, I'd turn off everything that could even theoretically kill me, but robotics technicians are accustomed to making certain assumptions about range of motion and how the light curtains or safety doors work. The way LOTO is supposed to work: 1) tell people in the area you're about to LOTO, 2) disconnect *all* energy sources and bleed stored energy, 3) install lock(s), 4) attempt to make $POTENTIAL_THING_THAT_CAN_KILL_ME move or function in any way, 5) proceed with your maintenance task. The key here is that it's not always 100% obvious what #4 includes. For instance if a robot is ten feet away, you may not realize that it has a 12-foot reach, and some idiot programmed it to ignore the light curtain in your area. If that's the case, the groundwork for her demise was laid before the robots were ever installed in the plant. I think that is the gist of the lawsuit.
I actually hired an OIT grad for a mechanical engineering position. The fact that their program is very hands on is what makes the difference. You can hire grads of some engineering programs that haven't actually designed or built anything outside of the lab. This guy knows how to chase parts, take chances, change direction, a lot of things they don't teach in most schools. If you ever see an OIT resume cross your desk, give it a second look.
I still have the McDonalds Menu Song memorized from back in the 80s. I know my phone number from first grade, but not from college. I can remember the Quadratic Equation but not my kid's teacher's name. Why do some things stick around for decades, but others you can't remember a week (or less) later? Do people who play these memory games have a method for wiping the slate clean? I'd hate to accidentally remember the location of the 6 of clubs a year later.
My favorite is how Ami Horowitz calls Politifact out for "obviously" lying about who said only 500 immigrants in Sweden are working. Yeah. That's the lying media for you. Taking the falsehoods that one bigot said and another bigot agreed with, and accidentally attributing it to the second bigot. That's the real problem: misattribution. Never mind the fact that the entire premise of the "documentary" was complete BS, and the actual rape statistics from Sweden show rates going down during the height of the refugee crisis. Must be the Swedish deep state lying about everything!! But go ahead and keep watching Fox News, and believing everything they say, so long as it agrees with your worldview. That's what the president does, and it's working pretty great for him.
According to polls, he had about a 25% chance of winning the electoral college, if you can actually do math and understand how statistics work (HuffPo obviously didn't understand that). Fivethirtyeight pretty much nailed it; they predicted 4 possible scenarios that had equivalent odds of happening, and the one that occurred was one of them almost exactly.
But you have to admit it's a little ironic for him to claim dishonesty on the part of the media, when he can't even be bothered to Google a simple fact like how many electoral college votes George HW Bush got.
If the media or you wanna demonstrate that Trump's statements on this are false, ...
That's not how burden of proof works. Trump is the one claiming something happened, or is happening. It is up to him to provide evidence. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is that something did not happen, or is not happening. It is impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist. I can't prove there are no rainbow-colored elephants. But if you claimed there were, the burden of proof would be on you.
Citation needed. I really don't believe that NYT or any other media outlet has been excessively harsh on the man. I listened to the entire Israel/US joint press conference the other day. I feel like it was portrayed in the media fairly, and in some cases too nice. Trump came off sounding like a buffoon and a charlatan, and his counterpart was a typical slippery politician. But even NPR and NYT went to spin it as if Trump and Netanyahu came up with some master plan that will finally bring peace to the middle east. Nevermind the fact that Trump refused to call on a single reporter from a traditional media outlet. That being said, I'm actually OK with the media portraying Trump as more competent than he really is. No matter who actually resides at 1600 Penn, I want the office of the President to be seen across the globe as a station of power, respect, and wisdom.
yeah... I still have ads enabled on this site because I want to support it, but the stapled to the top thing is stupid. It's the dimension that has the least real estate to spare, so knock it off already! The odd thing is that it's not consistent, and doesn't seem to stay stapled after a few scrolls up and down. Very odd.
You really think most Americans know that they are being sold to? Diamond rings, the latest iPhone, three cars per family, the list goes on and on. Americans are really good at one thing: buying whatever our corporate overlords tell us we can't live without. The common man even willingly takes part in the marketing, retweeting things, liking posts, etc.
It's not just things either. Look at policies that have been sold to us through the years: the mortgage interest deduction, unforgivable student debt, tipping, mandatory union dues, the war on drugs/terror. These were marketed as great ways to stimulate the economy or attain/protect the American Dream (TM). Most Americans don't realize how stupid it all is, and that they've been had by some very wealthy and powerful people. It goes all the way to the top. Officials are constantly trying to oversell their position. They sell their budget proposal or nominee or pet boogeyman, and the proletariat is supposed to lap it up. We have a president who does a Jedi mind trick, and somehow people are suddenly no longer interested in seeing his tax returns. Instead we get sold a line about the Lugenspresse (and holy shit the alt-right openly calls it that) making it up that Trump promised to release his returns if he became POTUS.
We get sold to all the time, and it is more nefarious than a few strategically placed web ads. I'd be perfectly content with a world where the only things people are trying to sell me are useful items I'd be interested in purchasing. Instead we have this hurricane of 24-7 BS coming from everywhere, and every marketer has an angle.
God, I hope I just got trolled. That's quite possibly the most plausible conspiracy theory I've ever heard. Off to fact check with an abundance of skepticism.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. I guess I need to re-calibrate by reading some Onion.
In the late 90s one of my EE professors was obsessed with neural networks. We thought him insane when he insisted they could be used for a security system, even though we couldn't make it work after two whole semesters. Now, I'm sure he must feel a little vindication that 20 years later machine learning depends on NNs to such an extent. Who knows what other "crazy" ideas my professors had that might actually prove prescient?
Hopefully the photographer of that pano of the Zakim Bridge can sue them for copyright infringement. (assuming they didn't pay him royalties)
dude, you need to lay off the time cube for a while.
Clearly a typo. Must be megawatts. 330kW is a moderate pole transformer, like you said. Hell, one of my shops uses over a MW peak, and it's on pole mounted transformers.
You seem to misunderstand what "reasonable doubt" means. This case barely meets probably cause, if the article can be taken at face value. It wouldn't even meet a preponderance of the evidence standard for a civil case. In all criminal cases, reasonable doubt is the null hypothesis. The defendant doesn't have to prove it. It is up to the prosecution to prove *beyond* reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the defendant. So what several jurisdictions have done instead, is passed laws where it is trivial to prove they have been broken. Define the law in such a way that guilt is always assured, you just have to find the right law to charge somebody under. I'm probably breaking seventeen laws just by posting this.
This is the same company that tells you the widget you want is not in stock, since you don't want to buy the extended protection plan. Real outstanding corporate citizens, these guys.
You know it's possible for a website to serve any image to you computer, right? Some older web browsers would save those files as images in a folder whether you wanted it to or not. One of my coworkers had an unfortunate incident image searching a pillow block bearing, and when he later went to back up his computer to the company server, he inadvertently copied a whole host of unsavory (but not illegal) thumbnails. None of this was done by malware. It was 100% human interaction. Had one of the images been illegal, it would have been trivial for a prosecutor to show that he had "ownership" of the material, since he had to log into a password protected computer to move the files.
The bigger problem is that people have to prove their innocence these days. In Houston a guy was arrested on meth charges for having a sock full of kitty litter in his car. This poor bastard spent time in jail while the whole mess was sorted out. When prospective employers google his name, his arrest on drug charges shows up as the first dozen hits. (analogy would be if it were his auto repair shop that called the cops)
This whole country has become so ass-backwards when it comes to people's understanding of burden of proof. It's impossible to prove a negative. Hell, I can't even prove there's no bits on this computer that couldn't be misconstrued as CP. Let's see: one of my best friends from high school is on the sex offender list, I went to church with a guy that just got convicted of producing CP, a family member has been fired from a child care facility, and I am reading this article on how to evade getting caught by the FBI. Yup, I'm definitely a suspect. Better lock me up for life!
- It's one-sided -- no one posts about the totally uninteresting, crappy boring parts of their lives. Unless you're rich beyond imagination or a celebrity, everyone will have down moments in their lives, periods of disappointment, and very sad things happen to them.
I remember back in the early aughts, when MySpace was still a thing. It seemed like you were just as likely to read an insightful post from an old high school friend about their struggle with cancer, or the mundane aspects of child rearing, or some inane rambling about traffic or global warming. There wasn't the focus on spinning oneself in a positive light. There was even a guy that would post anytime he had a particularly interesting poop (so maybe not civil conversation, but definitely not self-aggrandizing).
Also, I would posit that the ridiculously wealthy also have down moments.
If you've been doing it since the beginning, you are in your third decade of working on it.
I was thinking the same thing. This guy sounds like the president-elect.