I worked in the power industry about 15 years ago, and there was always resistance to anything newfangled. There was one exception. The ability of the HMI (we called them MMI back then) to communicate with the outside world was seen as a godsend. You could remotely tap the datalogs and see trends in things like air intake differential pressure, oil temperatures, mag sensors. All of these things would provide us with valuable information, and it was even better if you could correlate it across multiple sites. Back then it was all read only though.
I don't know when they started letting things get changed remotely. I'm not surprised at all. It was always a PITA to have to send a field tech out to a site to do a system update. So I guess it was only matter of time before the ability to write changes became a desirable feature. But even on an air-gapped system, if you have somebody there to make updates without proper vetting, you're still hosed. Just MITM between the mother-ship sending the update and the onsite guy with permissions to change things. It's not a real-time attack, but it could still be devastating.
That sounds almost as dangerous as dihydrogen monoxide, a common additive in thousands of common food items, including almond "milk." I've heard they use it in farm fisheries and sewage treatment. It's even used as a paint thinner!
You realize words in English can have multiple definitions, right? From a dietary and chemical standpoint, almond milk is much more like cow milk than juice. It is fats and proteins in a liquid. Juice is primarily sugars (sort of like skim milk). If you want to be picky about it, "milk" at the grocery store is nothing like raw cow milk either. In my house we don't even drink cow milk. And if we have some in the house, it is specifically referred to as "cow milk."
Maybe instead we should make a law that says all milk has to specifically be labelled with what animal (or plant) it comes from! Not to mention describing the processing that took place. Whole milk would become "centrifugally separated 4% butterfat recombined pasteurized cow milk with added vitamin D and and reduced lactose." YUM!
Why does the dairy industry think it gets to define how we use words? That's not how language works. Of course, I live in a part of the world that refers to any carbonated beverage as a coke, so what do I know?
Almond milk is no more juice than it is milk. It doesn't come from a fruit, and it's not pressed out of a plant as a liquid. It is a white mixture of protein and fat suspended in a liquid, and in that regard is much more like milk than juice. Just because the marketing department came up with a sensible thing to call a product, doesn't mean they are conniving to deceive anybody.
Next thing you know, people will be all pissed off because peanut butter isn't really butter. When it comes to names we have given things, "we have always done it that way" is a perfectly cromulent argument. If everybody knows what almond milk is, then changing the name to something else will cause more confusion, not less.
I feel sorry for whichever HR flunky would get assigned to monitoring my office daily. She'd probably stroke out within hours from the shit we say and do around here.
Yeah. If we wanted Net Neutrality, we shouldn't have elected Ajit Pai. Oh wait, we didn't.
When it comes to just about anything that has regulations issued by the executive branch, there is some broad and vague law behind it. If the regulated groups squeal, it is up to the courts to decide whether the rule fits within the governing CFR. That's not the same as judges making the law. They're interpreting the law to determine whether the executive branch acted within the authority granted by the legislative branch. That's how checks and balances are supposed to work.
She had little patience for idiots and blowhards. I don't think the local station could get picked up on the bunny ears at the farm. So we had to settle for national broadcasts on the satellite. Every now and then, the national anchors would toss to the local stations, but the satellite feed would still have the national guys. It was funny to see them acting like regular humans, rather than suits. It's commonplace now (GMA, etc), but back then it was still novel.
Other things I learned: That light switch works both ways; shit or get off the pot; warn somebody once, then go ahead and let them stick their finger in the socket the next time they try it; bacon grease is the best for frying eggs; fresh spring water on a hot day is good for body and spirit; sweep in small strokes; weevils are extra protein; cats don't always land on their feet; don't cross that bridge till you get there; ripe tomatoes with a little salt and pepper can be a meal; iodine works; if you converse while you work it takes longer, but it goes by faster.
People are really bad at statistics and logic. It's just human nature. We get bombarded with stories about the one time things go wrong, but hear nothing about the thousands of miles driven without incident (or where the vehicle prevented an accident). Same reason why most moms feel like their kids are growing up in a more dangerous place, despite FBI statistics proving that the opposite is true.
Had there been a 24-hour news cycle during the nascent days of flight, we never would have had commercial airlines. Maybe we need a self-driving version of barnstormers. Somebody car surfing on one, maybe?
My granny taught me that intentionally misleading somebody, even if factually accurate, is still lying. If you leave out important context, that is lying by omission. If I told her my brother punched me, but failed to tell her that I started it, I got in as much (or more) trouble than he did.
I just now understood what the fuck these guys were talking about. GP might be shocked to learn that it is literally impossible to be charged with rape in Texas. There's just "sexual assault." Which has the legal definition that is basically rape, including forced intercourse of some non-penis-in-vagina varieties. Basically if there's an orifice and genitalia involved, it counts.
They sided with one law over another. That's par for the course, and it's on Congress to fix. Which means it will never happen. Must say I'm not surprised to see Neil "Frozen Trucker" Gorsuch writing this one. He's the most pro-corporation, fuck-the-little-guy justice we have seen in a long time. "The law is clear," my ass. If it were, why was this a 5 to 4 decision?
My father-in-law parroted some Fox News bullshit about a Harvard study that concluded how all media is biased against Trump. I looked up the study. What it actually said is that a large percent of coverage of DJT is negative. That's not bias though. The counterexample would be "Is the local paper biased for reporting that the Thurber Beavers lost yet another Calvinball game?" No! Just because you're reporting on something bad, doesn't mean that you are biased against the person or thing that did bad things.
Let's not forget that the only people actually filing Prop 65 suits are shitty lawyers extorting small businesses. Quite possibly the worst proposition California has passed in recent memory
I had a friend who was a lawyer. He told me a story about a case where a guy broke his neighbor's lawnmower. The defense was: 1) I didn't borrow it, 2) It's not broken, and 3) It was broken when I borrowed it. If any of the three defenses were correct, then he wins the case.
This sort of quantum logic may work in a court, but not in the court of public opinion. When normal Joes are involved, the strategic thing to do is appearing to play "fair."
In this case, it's a calculated risk. If N2 is approved, it will be such a cheap and easy way to kill people, that we will have a hard time with the larger fight against the death penalty. So we push against N2. There are many possible outcomes that are worse, though. N2 could be outlawed, and a nastier alternative upheld. People could (like GP) get exasperated with an apparently disingenuous argument.
It will be a long fight either way. I just hope it doesn't get worse before it gets better (e.g., extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men). It's like the battle for cleaner energy. If we have an answer that's good enough (nuclear), people might stop worrying about the bigger issue (excessive energy usage).
I don't think that's the problem at all. In my home state, the government murder capital of the world, people actually argue that it is good and proper to watch the condemned suffer and scream in agony. More entertaining, I guess. Of course they claim some nonsense about justice for the families of the victims and whatnot.
Nevermind the fact that we have falsely convicted hundreds of murder here. Of course, we exonerate a record number, too, but that's cold comfort to the families of the already-executed.
There have been fatalities in labs and paint facilities where people have hooked their respirator into a N2 line rather than the fresh air line. They don't notice. Just a few breaths, and they pass out and die. Most places have non-interchangeable connectors, but there are some old facilities out there where this is still possible.
Yeah. It's a pity there are so many stupid people on both sides of this argument. On one side: "no nukes, no coal, no windmills!" On the other side: "The gubberment wants to kill small business by adding scrubbers to gas-fired turbines!" There's so much misinformation, bad logic, and downright nonsense. Those of us who have been in the power generation industry just shake our heads in dismay.
If you're going to add some of the context, you should go ahead and add all of it. Florida has decided it's much more OK to shoot a black person than a white person. just one article of many.
It's a little hard to know whether Zimmerman's account of the event is correct, since Trayvon is no longer alive to speak for himself. There were many eyewitness accounts, and none of them were the same. About the only thing everybody can agree on is that Zimmerman followed an unarmed teenager near said teenager's residence, and following some sort of altercation Zimmerman shot the boy.
I see that the mods are apparently from Breitbart or Daily Caller today, so I welcome the -1, Troll. I've got karma to burn.
Please explain. Who is attempting to ruin whose economy? Who is taxing what that would attain such a goal? More to the point, who *specifically* stands to profit? Please note that "the government" is not an acceptable answer, especially to the last one. Are specific actors in the US government seeking to ruin the US economy? Are there members of the UN seeking to ruin the global economy? To what end?
Now lets look at the mirror image of your conspiracy theory. We know there are parties who stand to gain financially from continuing to produce fossil fuels for as long as possible. We know that they would see cheap solar or nuclear power (or worse, a general decrease in energy usage) as a business-threatening proposition. We know in the past, these same corporations have done horrible things to the environment in the name of profit (leaded gas, anyone?). So why wouldn't it make more sense that these parties, with a well-known profit motive, are actually the ones spreading FUD?
Also, a 25 foot rise in sea level would be a big deal to those living on the coast. I don't think telling them just to "adapt" will soothe their worries, especially for those who live on an island. Some current projections put us beating the Eemian temperatures within my lifespan, and being 2 degreesC above that during my children's life. In the next century we could be seeing average temperatures not seen on this planet in the last 5 million years. Just because 3 or 4 degrees C sounds like a small number doesn't mean that the effects won't be catastrophic.
Interesting... I wonder what would happen if all 19th century technology suddenly disappeared.
Light bulbs - Granted there aren't as many incandescent bulbs as their used to be, but there are still a few places where they are a good solution. For instance traffic lights in snowy climates, and easy bake ovens.
Locomotive - Trains are still a very efficient way of transporting goods.
Telephone - POTS in the US is still one of the most reliable communication methods around. Yes cellular is far more common, but in some rural areas copper wires are still the easiest way to communicate.
Radio - There really is no viable alternative to radio communications. Until somebody comes up with subspace a la Star Trek, radio is basically the end of the line, as far as communication speed.
Rifle - Well, ok, this one can go away. I'll settle for my blunderbuss.
Batteries, bicycles, Braille, canning, cotton gins, hot air balloons, QWERTY keyboards, revolvers, sewing machines, vulcanization, wrenches, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
I worked in the power industry about 15 years ago, and there was always resistance to anything newfangled. There was one exception. The ability of the HMI (we called them MMI back then) to communicate with the outside world was seen as a godsend. You could remotely tap the datalogs and see trends in things like air intake differential pressure, oil temperatures, mag sensors. All of these things would provide us with valuable information, and it was even better if you could correlate it across multiple sites. Back then it was all read only though.
I don't know when they started letting things get changed remotely. I'm not surprised at all. It was always a PITA to have to send a field tech out to a site to do a system update. So I guess it was only matter of time before the ability to write changes became a desirable feature. But even on an air-gapped system, if you have somebody there to make updates without proper vetting, you're still hosed. Just MITM between the mother-ship sending the update and the onsite guy with permissions to change things. It's not a real-time attack, but it could still be devastating.
That sounds almost as dangerous as dihydrogen monoxide, a common additive in thousands of common food items, including almond "milk." I've heard they use it in farm fisheries and sewage treatment. It's even used as a paint thinner!
You realize words in English can have multiple definitions, right? From a dietary and chemical standpoint, almond milk is much more like cow milk than juice. It is fats and proteins in a liquid. Juice is primarily sugars (sort of like skim milk). If you want to be picky about it, "milk" at the grocery store is nothing like raw cow milk either. In my house we don't even drink cow milk. And if we have some in the house, it is specifically referred to as "cow milk."
Maybe instead we should make a law that says all milk has to specifically be labelled with what animal (or plant) it comes from! Not to mention describing the processing that took place. Whole milk would become "centrifugally separated 4% butterfat recombined pasteurized cow milk with added vitamin D and and reduced lactose." YUM!
Why does the dairy industry think it gets to define how we use words? That's not how language works. Of course, I live in a part of the world that refers to any carbonated beverage as a coke, so what do I know?
Almond milk is no more juice than it is milk. It doesn't come from a fruit, and it's not pressed out of a plant as a liquid. It is a white mixture of protein and fat suspended in a liquid, and in that regard is much more like milk than juice. Just because the marketing department came up with a sensible thing to call a product, doesn't mean they are conniving to deceive anybody.
Next thing you know, people will be all pissed off because peanut butter isn't really butter. When it comes to names we have given things, "we have always done it that way" is a perfectly cromulent argument. If everybody knows what almond milk is, then changing the name to something else will cause more confusion, not less.
I work for a corrosion coatings company. Believe me, it's in the works.You might even say it's coming down the pipe.
I think the mod decided that comparing working for Wal-Mart to being subjected to genocide at Auschwitz was unfair... to Auschwitz.
I feel sorry for whichever HR flunky would get assigned to monitoring my office daily. She'd probably stroke out within hours from the shit we say and do around here.
Yeah. If we wanted Net Neutrality, we shouldn't have elected Ajit Pai. Oh wait, we didn't.
When it comes to just about anything that has regulations issued by the executive branch, there is some broad and vague law behind it. If the regulated groups squeal, it is up to the courts to decide whether the rule fits within the governing CFR. That's not the same as judges making the law. They're interpreting the law to determine whether the executive branch acted within the authority granted by the legislative branch. That's how checks and balances are supposed to work.
She had little patience for idiots and blowhards. I don't think the local station could get picked up on the bunny ears at the farm. So we had to settle for national broadcasts on the satellite. Every now and then, the national anchors would toss to the local stations, but the satellite feed would still have the national guys. It was funny to see them acting like regular humans, rather than suits. It's commonplace now (GMA, etc), but back then it was still novel.
Other things I learned: That light switch works both ways; shit or get off the pot; warn somebody once, then go ahead and let them stick their finger in the socket the next time they try it; bacon grease is the best for frying eggs; fresh spring water on a hot day is good for body and spirit; sweep in small strokes; weevils are extra protein; cats don't always land on their feet; don't cross that bridge till you get there; ripe tomatoes with a little salt and pepper can be a meal; iodine works; if you converse while you work it takes longer, but it goes by faster.
People are really bad at statistics and logic. It's just human nature. We get bombarded with stories about the one time things go wrong, but hear nothing about the thousands of miles driven without incident (or where the vehicle prevented an accident). Same reason why most moms feel like their kids are growing up in a more dangerous place, despite FBI statistics proving that the opposite is true.
Had there been a 24-hour news cycle during the nascent days of flight, we never would have had commercial airlines. Maybe we need a self-driving version of barnstormers. Somebody car surfing on one, maybe?
My granny taught me that intentionally misleading somebody, even if factually accurate, is still lying. If you leave out important context, that is lying by omission. If I told her my brother punched me, but failed to tell her that I started it, I got in as much (or more) trouble than he did.
I just now understood what the fuck these guys were talking about. GP might be shocked to learn that it is literally impossible to be charged with rape in Texas. There's just "sexual assault." Which has the legal definition that is basically rape, including forced intercourse of some non-penis-in-vagina varieties. Basically if there's an orifice and genitalia involved, it counts.
I could see using Silverlight in a PowerPoint presentation. Someday. Right before autodefenestration.
Seems to be they sided with the Law...
They sided with one law over another. That's par for the course, and it's on Congress to fix. Which means it will never happen. Must say I'm not surprised to see Neil "Frozen Trucker" Gorsuch writing this one. He's the most pro-corporation, fuck-the-little-guy justice we have seen in a long time. "The law is clear," my ass. If it were, why was this a 5 to 4 decision?
Way to support the "forgotten man," Donald!
You must be some kind of pinko. Real corporations know the trick is to get the lazy bastards to pay for the privilege of working!
My father-in-law parroted some Fox News bullshit about a Harvard study that concluded how all media is biased against Trump. I looked up the study. What it actually said is that a large percent of coverage of DJT is negative. That's not bias though. The counterexample would be "Is the local paper biased for reporting that the Thurber Beavers lost yet another Calvinball game?" No! Just because you're reporting on something bad, doesn't mean that you are biased against the person or thing that did bad things.
Let's not forget that the only people actually filing Prop 65 suits are shitty lawyers extorting small businesses. Quite possibly the worst proposition California has passed in recent memory
I was surprised that they didn't try to sue RedTube into oblivion. It's a pretty clear trademark infringement.
I had a friend who was a lawyer. He told me a story about a case where a guy broke his neighbor's lawnmower. The defense was: 1) I didn't borrow it, 2) It's not broken, and 3) It was broken when I borrowed it. If any of the three defenses were correct, then he wins the case.
This sort of quantum logic may work in a court, but not in the court of public opinion. When normal Joes are involved, the strategic thing to do is appearing to play "fair."
In this case, it's a calculated risk. If N2 is approved, it will be such a cheap and easy way to kill people, that we will have a hard time with the larger fight against the death penalty. So we push against N2. There are many possible outcomes that are worse, though. N2 could be outlawed, and a nastier alternative upheld. People could (like GP) get exasperated with an apparently disingenuous argument.
It will be a long fight either way. I just hope it doesn't get worse before it gets better (e.g., extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men). It's like the battle for cleaner energy. If we have an answer that's good enough (nuclear), people might stop worrying about the bigger issue (excessive energy usage).
I don't think that's the problem at all. In my home state, the government murder capital of the world, people actually argue that it is good and proper to watch the condemned suffer and scream in agony. More entertaining, I guess. Of course they claim some nonsense about justice for the families of the victims and whatnot.
Nevermind the fact that we have falsely convicted hundreds of murder here. Of course, we exonerate a record number, too, but that's cold comfort to the families of the already-executed.
There have been fatalities in labs and paint facilities where people have hooked their respirator into a N2 line rather than the fresh air line. They don't notice. Just a few breaths, and they pass out and die. Most places have non-interchangeable connectors, but there are some old facilities out there where this is still possible.
Yeah. It's a pity there are so many stupid people on both sides of this argument. On one side: "no nukes, no coal, no windmills!" On the other side: "The gubberment wants to kill small business by adding scrubbers to gas-fired turbines!" There's so much misinformation, bad logic, and downright nonsense. Those of us who have been in the power generation industry just shake our heads in dismay.
If you're going to add some of the context, you should go ahead and add all of it. Florida has decided it's much more OK to shoot a black person than a white person. just one article of many.
It's a little hard to know whether Zimmerman's account of the event is correct, since Trayvon is no longer alive to speak for himself. There were many eyewitness accounts, and none of them were the same. About the only thing everybody can agree on is that Zimmerman followed an unarmed teenager near said teenager's residence, and following some sort of altercation Zimmerman shot the boy.
I see that the mods are apparently from Breitbart or Daily Caller today, so I welcome the -1, Troll. I've got karma to burn.
Please explain. Who is attempting to ruin whose economy? Who is taxing what that would attain such a goal? More to the point, who *specifically* stands to profit? Please note that "the government" is not an acceptable answer, especially to the last one. Are specific actors in the US government seeking to ruin the US economy? Are there members of the UN seeking to ruin the global economy? To what end?
Now lets look at the mirror image of your conspiracy theory. We know there are parties who stand to gain financially from continuing to produce fossil fuels for as long as possible. We know that they would see cheap solar or nuclear power (or worse, a general decrease in energy usage) as a business-threatening proposition. We know in the past, these same corporations have done horrible things to the environment in the name of profit (leaded gas, anyone?). So why wouldn't it make more sense that these parties, with a well-known profit motive, are actually the ones spreading FUD?
Also, a 25 foot rise in sea level would be a big deal to those living on the coast. I don't think telling them just to "adapt" will soothe their worries, especially for those who live on an island. Some current projections put us beating the Eemian temperatures within my lifespan, and being 2 degreesC above that during my children's life. In the next century we could be seeing average temperatures not seen on this planet in the last 5 million years. Just because 3 or 4 degrees C sounds like a small number doesn't mean that the effects won't be catastrophic.
Interesting... I wonder what would happen if all 19th century technology suddenly disappeared.
Light bulbs - Granted there aren't as many incandescent bulbs as their used to be, but there are still a few places where they are a good solution. For instance traffic lights in snowy climates, and easy bake ovens.
Locomotive - Trains are still a very efficient way of transporting goods.
Telephone - POTS in the US is still one of the most reliable communication methods around. Yes cellular is far more common, but in some rural areas copper wires are still the easiest way to communicate.
Radio - There really is no viable alternative to radio communications. Until somebody comes up with subspace a la Star Trek, radio is basically the end of the line, as far as communication speed.
Rifle - Well, ok, this one can go away. I'll settle for my blunderbuss.
Batteries, bicycles, Braille, canning, cotton gins, hot air balloons, QWERTY keyboards, revolvers, sewing machines, vulcanization, wrenches, etc...