They have the HIGHEST efficiency in converting sunlight - the primary source of energy for all electricity generation that isn't nuclear, tidal or geothermal (with the latter two being negligible contributors to anything on Earth at the moment) - compared to any other pathway through which sunlight ever became electricity, be it wind, oil, gas or coal.
They never pay off the emissions
They do, in a year or so.
a d toxic chemicals required to make them
That's not even a thing for them.
The problem with solar is similar to the problem for most energy sources and that is low energy density. Solar at large scale requires lots of land. And while some PV cells are made with toxic materials, others are made with much less environmental impact. The problem is they are also lower efficiencies. Solar is great for small amounts of power which are far from generation sources. Its just not a useful energy source for large scale grid applications. Also, your definition of generation capacity used by solar advocates is what we call "nameplate capacity". Its the max amount of power produced per unit time at ideal conditions (when the sun is shining). But in reality, you only get about 10% of that from solar. So even if you ignore the generation problem, to install enough solar to supply a significant amount of grid load you are using absurd amounts of land. As in more land than food production currently uses. Solar is nice and makes folks feel good but it does nothing to dent our CO2 production. Without nuclear, nothing does. Its the only source that has high enough energy density to replace the bulk of fossil fuels.
He's actually more correct than not. Sherman's March did raze large sections of the south. The South was in economic ruins and the plantation owners were also in ruins. Slavery was paid for in blood and treasure. Jim Crow, you can argue was not. But then, the whole idea behind the Great Society rhetoric which expanded welfare and the like in the 1960s, was to jump-start black economic progress.
It didn't work out that way did it? And yet trillions were spent.
Actually, from the 1960s to the 1980s, approximately half of all African-Americans moved from lower class to middle class. The great society was actually hugely successful. But then in the early 1980's Reagon cut all of those programs and that progress halted and even reversed. Its likely that we have much larger bills for policing and social services today because we cut those programs in the 1980s. But do go on repeating what Rush or whatever AM talk radio personality you got that from.
Of course, someone else has discounted that, but as noted there is more than just electricity driving reduction in poverty.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/u...
Did you read that article? They hooked up a couple of huts to a grid then measured those families 18 months later. But that's a fundamentally dishonest way to measure it. Having reliable electricity allows for heavy industry to exist. It reduces spoilage of food stuffs. And it has a fundamental impact upon an economy. These things can't be measured marginally like the authors of your study assume. A few more huts having electricity doesn't fundamentally change the businesses that are now possible. It doesn't change how the central market stores produce. It doesn't change individual outcomes inside of a society, it changes the entire society fundamentally and so marginal expansion of a grid doesn't show the same impacts as initial introduction of reliable electricity.
One of the reasons fools on youtube rail against science is fundamentally dishonest studies like this one that are clearly politically motivated to find a specific outcome to support some ideologue's ideas about how the world works. Cheap energy is the single best way we have to lift people out of poverty. That goes entirely counter to the environmental movement's ideas about increasing energy costs to encourage efficiency. Sorry if this little inconvenient fact gets in the way of the image environmentalist want to project about their movement but reality doesn't respond to spin.
I hate that myth that the elite schools are for smarter people. They're for wealthier people's kids, so that when those kids become wealthy/inherit that wealth, the ruling class has some faux meritocratic justification for it's own position in society. And unfortunately, so many of us buy it hook, line, and sinker.
It depends on the school and department. For some types of programs (mostly hard science and math), those elite schools really are better (harder) and have higher standards which gets you smarter students and better professors. But that's not universally true and there are always exceptions that prove the rule both in terms of bad products (people with degrees but little ability) and good schools with bad departments. Very often only 1/3 or less of the departments at an elite school will be truly quality places of education. Also, PhDs aren't necessarily more educated than those with only a BS. Again, it depends on the school and the department. I've met plenty of people with a PhD in CS and some other type of undergrad degree who knew almost nothing about CS other than their very narrow area of study. But these are not necessarily the rules, they are often the exceptions for the top couple of departments in a specific field. Very often only the top couple of departments are of higher quality and the rest are mostly the same reasonable quality and that's only mostly true for the more measurable (scientific) fields. Social status is a thing and people are social animals no matter how much us introverts wish it wasn't so...sigh...
It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany.
Nuke me from orbit if you like, but the dirty little secret is that Russia has NOTHING to do with the blow-back that is anti-immigration from shit-hole nations into the West. FACT!
voting rights were very different then and now. Cities had large concentrations of _eligible_ voters. Today even ex-cons can often vote (as it should be, nothing should cause a person to lose their right to vote, if we have so many ax murders and pedophiles they can swing elections maybe we should do something about that first).
You are right about voting rights being different then. You had to be a landowner to vote prior to 1840. However, most of those landowners didn't live in the cities as you stated. They may have owned a place to live in the urban area but they lived on their plantations in the country. Most of the urban dwellers in that era were merchants who quite often didn't own land. Also, "A People's History of the United States" is rife with errors and bad historical analysis. I blame the popularity of that book for the lack of historical knowledge in Americans under the age of about 35 today.
Really ? What's so interesting about me buying some groceries, gasoline, or a new faucet for the bathroom ?
Seriously? Your FB posting history across all time is worth maybe $6 (according to FB). Your entire financial history is worth hundreds. Either you are a troll or a fool. What you post is mainly meaningless, being able to predict it is worth even less...being able to predict what you buy and why however, that's pure gold.
The cashless society is only of interest to that portion of the population with absolutely nothing to hide. And I donâ(TM)t trust those people even a little bit.
No way to buy some mushrooms or hash... no hiding your hotel tryst from your spouse... no way to hide your alcohol abuse from your insurance company... if there isnâ(TM)t something you want to hide from prying eyes youâ(TM)re living life wrong.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu
I also have a good paying job, no debt, but I haven't used cash in probably a year. Haven't used credit cards either. Instead I mostly use contactless payments. It's quick and easy and I don't need to carry a bulky wallet.
On behalf of big brother, thank you for your continuing donation of financial information that we sell to pay for our hookers and blow. That yummy financial info is worth so much more than your fb likes that seem to get you millennial types so worked up...
They just have the MAC address to identify her machine? No forensics on the laptop itself? That is crazy. MAC address changes are often as simple as running a single command as root. Finding the MAC address of a particular machine is a bit harder, not is that hard either if you are on-site.
Everyone here knows how to spoof a layer 2 address. However, why would the school have forensic access to her PC? The most likely case is that it’s privately owned, and thus they have no control over it.
They might, however, have been able to identify the specific port used by the MAC address and might know that it links to her dorm room (I didn’t read the article, only the summary). That sort of thing reduces the suspect pool significantly - toss in a few other clues and they might have a preponderance of evidence. We simply don’t know, as they haven’t (and won’t outside a court of law) released their version of events.
She lived off campus and the landlord was never contacted by the school. Unless her ISP was contacted, there was no way for them to know enough to even accuse her. They didn't even know her IP address. And the school officials clearly don't understand computer forensics as they seem to think that editing a photo is the same as spoofing the cryptographic signatures on a picture.
The fact her grades were changed (along with others) is evidence. Her laptop *was* used for some of this hacking, even she is not denying this.
I honestly don't know to believe her or not; lots of the alibi material also could be rigged.
At the very least there should be an investigation that would let her return if they find someone else did it. But to say there is no evidence, is really going too far the other way.
The evidence in the article clearly point to some other actor using her as a scapegoat. The idea that she did this given the evidence being presented is extremely unlikely. That being said, perhaps we don't know all the facts. But given the presented facts, you would have to be a fool to think that it points at her. The quotes from the school officials demonstrates a clear lack of understanding about technical matters. And the idea that a university IT department has any sort of competency in computer security and forensics strains belief for anyone who has ever come in contact with one.
Left alone the SJW crowd is mostly harmless. Yes, there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything in this wide world, but the harm from obsessing over them is far, far greater. While you're focusing on this the wealthy are packing the courts with pro-corporate judges and doing things like forced arbitration, letting companies get away with putting lead in your air and water and stripping you of access to education and healthcare.
When major mainstream media outlets are parroting SJW ideology consistently, I'm not sure its so easy to ignore them. If they were, as you say, a few people on college campuses we wouldn't see articles like this one. Spot on on the packing the courts part though...
The issue is not his gender or race or anything like that, it's not even the guy himself - it's that women made something about women, but instead of letting women talk about issues that directly affect them and that they are directly involved in resolving, they went with this guy. Why can't women speak for themselves about things they have first hand experience of?
But that's only 1 way to look at this. There are others. For instance, the producer of the piece said, "It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others." You could take that to mean that the man (not all men, just the one in question) they put on perhaps was better at the job of leading this type of organization. Perhaps, these women that were cut from the piece were less effective communicators and got their position by virtue of their gender instead of their qualities and that's why the man's interview was used. That's just one other possible interpretation of this.
Look, for the last 20 years, we have been trying to close this wage gap in tech. It was a two pronged approach: education and a quota system. The education was advertised greatly. But the quota system wasn't until a couple of years ago. Groups put pressure on large tech companies to show employee demographics and if they don't meet some unpublished standard, pressure is applied to change those demographics. How do you think we do that? Only 1 way to do that, a quota system which is what was put into place. And quota systems have only 1 predictable outcome, the protected groups get promoted and placed into jobs for which they are unqualified (in their defense companies do this anyway all the time...the Peter principle is a thing). Given this history, its not hard to see how some might think that this proves the exact opposite point that many here seem to think it does. Its a bit like survivor bias. If all the bomber planes come back with shot up tails do you want to reinforce the tails? Of course not, you want to reinforce everything but the tails. Your reaction to this smacks of this type of bias.
"'No Touch' is requested by BPA when unusually hot or cold weather increases the demand for electricity, notes Mike Paoli, spokesman for Energy Northwest," the report adds. "Many regional transmission and system operators across the United States ask nuclear plants to keep running during extreme weather because nuclear plants are the least affected by bad weather.
Those shutdowns were because of a lack of water to cool the plant. Also, all power plants, nuclear or not have to use water for dumping excess heat. Its why power plants of all types are so often put by large bodies of water. Those heatwave shutdowns had nothing to do with the nuclear aspect of those plants.
Nuclear power is great! Right up until it goes Fukushima on you. Then it sucks ass. Unwipable ass at that.
Electric cars have the potential to solve problems. They are just giant batteries, you know. If they were allowed to back feed into the grid during high demand periods like right now, it would smooth out demand quite nicely. Wind and solar can become much more useful when there is sufficient energy storage capacity available.
The reactors the GP refers to can't meltdown (like Chernobyl) and don't use water as a coolants so they don't make Hydrogen gas like Fukushima or 3 mi Island. Also, the entire world's output of Li-ion batteries couldn't backup even the CA grid for 4 hours, so the world's entire supply for 20 years is enough to backups CA's grid but Li-ion batteries don't last 20 years so you couldn't even make just CA 100% renewable. Also CA's grid is about 1% of the size of global energy usage. I like EVs and have 2 of them but please don't get confused. We haven't even dented CO2 production and continuing to ignore nuclear is only making the problem worse while we wait for folks like you to figure out solar and wind aren't a real solution.
Nuclear power plants now-a-days are built with a positive coefficient. The nuclear power plants you have to worry about at night are the plants built with 50+ year old designs with negative coefficient properties.
One quibble...you mean newer plants have negative void coefficients. The older ones (like CANDU reactors in Canada and the RBMKs in Russia) have positive void coefficients and that's what you have to worry about. Also, licensing isn't really that hard and there is no real reason it should cost billions to license a plant, you just have to actually do it and its the politics that fucks that up.
Otherwise I completely agree...
" Ever seen how desparate people can become when the power goes out? " - Nope. I have solar panels and a backup propane system should shit blow up. Next?
And that means something to an entire grid how? Although your tiny little grid is a good microcosm of the CA grid. Solar for hope and natural gas for the actual power. Which is why in both CA and Germany, from 2010 till now despite a record amount of wind and solar deployed we have more CO2 emissions than before we deployed all those solar panels and wind turbines. That's because of all the natural gas plants kept fired up to provide power should a cloud or still period occur. So this wind and solar only policy has been tried, in very favorable conditions and it resulted in increased CO2, higher energy prices and a less reliable grid. This is only good for energy traders but bad for everyone else including PG&E. But do go on and tell us how since you hooked up an inverter and a backup propane system at your home, that means that somehow the entire grid will be powered by unicorns and fairies instead of natural gas. So you ever feel back being such a huge hypocrite or does wallowing in your own ignorance feel that good?
Reminds me of a screenshot I saw some days ago:
"If it's written in Python, it's probably machine learning. If it's written in Powerpoint, it's probably AI"
That quote is wrong...it should be, if its in Python, its applied math but is being called machine learning, if its in LISP or Prolog then its probably AI. Actually, no self-respecting CS person uses Python. Python is used by academics from other fields like Physics who then use their field's variant of mathematical analysis and call it AI. Then they turn down a person with an actual CS degree and experience in ML for a data science job because they don't understand some weird jargon that was invented two weeks ago. This is no surprise to me...the entire "Big Data" thing has been a fraud since the beginning and since the bosses have no idea what AI is, they can't tell when they are being conned. And apparently neither can the investors.
The key word is not "3%" nor is it "Internet giants" - the key word is revenue.
This is what should've happened a decade ago. Taxing revenue instead of profits puts a clean shot right between the eyes of the majority of tax evasion schemes. It's a step long overdue.
And before the typical neo-conservative trolls shout it down: Remember that everyone BUT corporations is taxed by revenue, not profits. My income tax is based on my income, not on what's left at the end of the month. And so is yours. If we can survive that type of taxation, so can multinational corporations.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all businesses make the same margins and thus taxing revenue is fair. There is no way those policies have unintended consequences like driving manufacturing out of France...wait...they already did that 50 years ago. All policies like this do is drive out types of businesses that employee large numbers of people (low margin businesses like industry) in favor of businesses that employee much smaller numbers of people (higher margin businesses like marketing).
Ken Lay did. Martha Stewart did. Elon Musk did. Yeah, I think you can get away with nearly anything when you're rich and powerful - except for cheating on taxes. The IRS and the US Federal Government see that as the red line, and they tend to come down like a ton of bricks on those who break tax laws. Regardless of place in society.
First, Elon Musk didn't. Second, Ken Lay led one of the most massive frauds in history against a "powerful" US state. That's a bit more than tax fraud. And technically Martha Stewart went to jail because of insider trading but really because she pissed off some powerful person. I understand you think you live in a society where what you said was true but it simply isn't so. Also, when the rich do tax evasion, they use lawyers and accountants who technically follow the law but still accomplish the goal of preventing tax from being charged. So how are you supposed to prosecute a person who is technically following the letter of the law even if they obviously aren't following the spirit of the law? Even a 4 year old can game economic systems designed by Economists (see Freakanomics) so I seriously doubt politicians can beat a global industry of tax lawyers and accountants. Perhaps, you should see this policy for what it really is...a subsidy for accountants and tax lawyers.
Only because the current US system is pathetically underfunded.
Um, not to bring facts into this or anything, but the US actually pays more per student than just about any other country. Overall funding of the education system isn't really the problem with US education. Its a combination of waste on administration, other problems of society impacting students and the educational system, and our shifting cultural attitudes towards hard work and accomplishment. The teachers should be striking against their principles and superintendents as those are the folks stealing all the money from their paychecks. Also, the teacher's unions are not helping either.
Now perhaps you are talking about college level education in which case that's certainly not underfunded either. Its just the students paying the costs instead of the state. Also, its much cheaper when the state pays because the state doesn't build lazy rivers like the University of Alabama does. It would be better if we funded our public higher education systems (including community colleges) again but since that comes from the states (who are usually broke) instead of the feds (who have printing presses for money), I wouldn't hold my breath.
A key factor is "possible" there. When your original sys-admin tasks have never been automated or kept in source control, the costs of shifting to a managed environment are startling. Decades of technical debt are often due in a very short period. I've particularly run into this with clients or partners who insist on optimizing their own kernels.
Its possible for me to disappear and reappear in China due to quantum effects. Most cloud deployments end in disappointment. Then some snarky engineer from a larger company will say something about your company, "not being mature enough for the cloud". No shit...didn't stop the salespeople from that engineer's employeer from pushing their junky cloud on our management. Fuck google...my new curse for those I really don't like..."May your company switch to GCE and BigQuery"...
Fear of not being able to scale seems like the #1 concern in SV these days, but I swear to you for the average startup there are many, many more important problems you have to solve first.
Exactly. And even if they don't have scaling problems, since all the *cool* kids are working on scale issues so should they. At company I worked for recently, one that you have probably heard of and probably has your data, at peak they handle about ~12000 web requests a minute...not a second, a minute. That's 200/second, on a 50 server array. That's 4 requests a second per machine...4...not 4000, or 400...as in my phone could do it without me noticing a slowdown in performance...4. So of course they spent gobs of money moving from their custom and very modern data centers with high uptime to GCE with terrible performance, just so they could "scale". Remember, 4 requests/machine/second is the max they had to handle before. Maybe 10% of the 600 engineers they had understood just how silly this all was. But the CTO, who started as a PHP programmer at the company when it was first starting, didn't understand any of this and just let his "professional" managers run everything into the ground. Its absurd really....the software industry is now a parody of itself...
Slashdot Mirror
and have horrible efficiency
They have the HIGHEST efficiency in converting sunlight - the primary source of energy for all electricity generation that isn't nuclear, tidal or geothermal (with the latter two being negligible contributors to anything on Earth at the moment) - compared to any other pathway through which sunlight ever became electricity, be it wind, oil, gas or coal.
They never pay off the emissions
They do, in a year or so.
a d toxic chemicals required to make them
That's not even a thing for them.
The problem with solar is similar to the problem for most energy sources and that is low energy density. Solar at large scale requires lots of land. And while some PV cells are made with toxic materials, others are made with much less environmental impact. The problem is they are also lower efficiencies. Solar is great for small amounts of power which are far from generation sources. Its just not a useful energy source for large scale grid applications. Also, your definition of generation capacity used by solar advocates is what we call "nameplate capacity". Its the max amount of power produced per unit time at ideal conditions (when the sun is shining). But in reality, you only get about 10% of that from solar. So even if you ignore the generation problem, to install enough solar to supply a significant amount of grid load you are using absurd amounts of land. As in more land than food production currently uses. Solar is nice and makes folks feel good but it does nothing to dent our CO2 production. Without nuclear, nothing does. Its the only source that has high enough energy density to replace the bulk of fossil fuels.
He's actually more correct than not. Sherman's March did raze large sections of the south. The South was in economic ruins and the plantation owners were also in ruins. Slavery was paid for in blood and treasure. Jim Crow, you can argue was not. But then, the whole idea behind the Great Society rhetoric which expanded welfare and the like in the 1960s, was to jump-start black economic progress. It didn't work out that way did it? And yet trillions were spent.
Actually, from the 1960s to the 1980s, approximately half of all African-Americans moved from lower class to middle class. The great society was actually hugely successful. But then in the early 1980's Reagon cut all of those programs and that progress halted and even reversed. Its likely that we have much larger bills for policing and social services today because we cut those programs in the 1980s. But do go on repeating what Rush or whatever AM talk radio personality you got that from.
Of course, someone else has discounted that, but as noted there is more than just electricity driving reduction in poverty. https://www.forbes.com/sites/u...
Did you read that article? They hooked up a couple of huts to a grid then measured those families 18 months later. But that's a fundamentally dishonest way to measure it. Having reliable electricity allows for heavy industry to exist. It reduces spoilage of food stuffs. And it has a fundamental impact upon an economy. These things can't be measured marginally like the authors of your study assume. A few more huts having electricity doesn't fundamentally change the businesses that are now possible. It doesn't change how the central market stores produce. It doesn't change individual outcomes inside of a society, it changes the entire society fundamentally and so marginal expansion of a grid doesn't show the same impacts as initial introduction of reliable electricity.
One of the reasons fools on youtube rail against science is fundamentally dishonest studies like this one that are clearly politically motivated to find a specific outcome to support some ideologue's ideas about how the world works. Cheap energy is the single best way we have to lift people out of poverty. That goes entirely counter to the environmental movement's ideas about increasing energy costs to encourage efficiency. Sorry if this little inconvenient fact gets in the way of the image environmentalist want to project about their movement but reality doesn't respond to spin.
I hate that myth that the elite schools are for smarter people. They're for wealthier people's kids, so that when those kids become wealthy/inherit that wealth, the ruling class has some faux meritocratic justification for it's own position in society. And unfortunately, so many of us buy it hook, line, and sinker.
It depends on the school and department. For some types of programs (mostly hard science and math), those elite schools really are better (harder) and have higher standards which gets you smarter students and better professors. But that's not universally true and there are always exceptions that prove the rule both in terms of bad products (people with degrees but little ability) and good schools with bad departments. Very often only 1/3 or less of the departments at an elite school will be truly quality places of education. Also, PhDs aren't necessarily more educated than those with only a BS. Again, it depends on the school and the department. I've met plenty of people with a PhD in CS and some other type of undergrad degree who knew almost nothing about CS other than their very narrow area of study. But these are not necessarily the rules, they are often the exceptions for the top couple of departments in a specific field. Very often only the top couple of departments are of higher quality and the rest are mostly the same reasonable quality and that's only mostly true for the more measurable (scientific) fields. Social status is a thing and people are social animals no matter how much us introverts wish it wasn't so...sigh...
It's far more than meddling in the US election. Russia is trying to destabilize the west. Trump, brexit, the far right funded by them in France and Italy and Germany.
Nuke me from orbit if you like, but the dirty little secret is that Russia has NOTHING to do with the blow-back that is anti-immigration from shit-hole nations into the West. FACT!
Found the Russian troll!!!
voting rights were very different then and now. Cities had large concentrations of _eligible_ voters. Today even ex-cons can often vote (as it should be, nothing should cause a person to lose their right to vote, if we have so many ax murders and pedophiles they can swing elections maybe we should do something about that first).
You are right about voting rights being different then. You had to be a landowner to vote prior to 1840. However, most of those landowners didn't live in the cities as you stated. They may have owned a place to live in the urban area but they lived on their plantations in the country. Most of the urban dwellers in that era were merchants who quite often didn't own land. Also, "A People's History of the United States" is rife with errors and bad historical analysis. I blame the popularity of that book for the lack of historical knowledge in Americans under the age of about 35 today.
That yummy financial info is worth so much more
Really ? What's so interesting about me buying some groceries, gasoline, or a new faucet for the bathroom ?
Seriously? Your FB posting history across all time is worth maybe $6 (according to FB). Your entire financial history is worth hundreds. Either you are a troll or a fool. What you post is mainly meaningless, being able to predict it is worth even less...being able to predict what you buy and why however, that's pure gold.
The cashless society is only of interest to that portion of the population with absolutely nothing to hide. And I donâ(TM)t trust those people even a little bit.
No way to buy some mushrooms or hash... no hiding your hotel tryst from your spouse... no way to hide your alcohol abuse from your insurance company... if there isnâ(TM)t something you want to hide from prying eyes youâ(TM)re living life wrong.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu
I also have a good paying job, no debt, but I haven't used cash in probably a year. Haven't used credit cards either. Instead I mostly use contactless payments. It's quick and easy and I don't need to carry a bulky wallet.
On behalf of big brother, thank you for your continuing donation of financial information that we sell to pay for our hookers and blow. That yummy financial info is worth so much more than your fb likes that seem to get you millennial types so worked up...
They just have the MAC address to identify her machine? No forensics on the laptop itself? That is crazy. MAC address changes are often as simple as running a single command as root. Finding the MAC address of a particular machine is a bit harder, not is that hard either if you are on-site.
Everyone here knows how to spoof a layer 2 address. However, why would the school have forensic access to her PC? The most likely case is that it’s privately owned, and thus they have no control over it.
They might, however, have been able to identify the specific port used by the MAC address and might know that it links to her dorm room (I didn’t read the article, only the summary). That sort of thing reduces the suspect pool significantly - toss in a few other clues and they might have a preponderance of evidence. We simply don’t know, as they haven’t (and won’t outside a court of law) released their version of events.
She lived off campus and the landlord was never contacted by the school. Unless her ISP was contacted, there was no way for them to know enough to even accuse her. They didn't even know her IP address. And the school officials clearly don't understand computer forensics as they seem to think that editing a photo is the same as spoofing the cryptographic signatures on a picture.
The fact her grades were changed (along with others) is evidence. Her laptop *was* used for some of this hacking, even she is not denying this.
I honestly don't know to believe her or not; lots of the alibi material also could be rigged.
At the very least there should be an investigation that would let her return if they find someone else did it. But to say there is no evidence, is really going too far the other way.
The evidence in the article clearly point to some other actor using her as a scapegoat. The idea that she did this given the evidence being presented is extremely unlikely. That being said, perhaps we don't know all the facts. But given the presented facts, you would have to be a fool to think that it points at her. The quotes from the school officials demonstrates a clear lack of understanding about technical matters. And the idea that a university IT department has any sort of competency in computer security and forensics strains belief for anyone who has ever come in contact with one.
Left alone the SJW crowd is mostly harmless. Yes, there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything in this wide world, but the harm from obsessing over them is far, far greater. While you're focusing on this the wealthy are packing the courts with pro-corporate judges and doing things like forced arbitration, letting companies get away with putting lead in your air and water and stripping you of access to education and healthcare.
When major mainstream media outlets are parroting SJW ideology consistently, I'm not sure its so easy to ignore them. If they were, as you say, a few people on college campuses we wouldn't see articles like this one. Spot on on the packing the courts part though...
Social status is not a zero sum game. Women gaining status does not mean men lose status....
I don't think you understand social status. Its quite literally the only zero sum game in the real world. Attention doesn't grow on trees.
The issue is not his gender or race or anything like that, it's not even the guy himself - it's that women made something about women, but instead of letting women talk about issues that directly affect them and that they are directly involved in resolving, they went with this guy. Why can't women speak for themselves about things they have first hand experience of?
But that's only 1 way to look at this. There are others. For instance, the producer of the piece said, "It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others." You could take that to mean that the man (not all men, just the one in question) they put on perhaps was better at the job of leading this type of organization. Perhaps, these women that were cut from the piece were less effective communicators and got their position by virtue of their gender instead of their qualities and that's why the man's interview was used. That's just one other possible interpretation of this.
Look, for the last 20 years, we have been trying to close this wage gap in tech. It was a two pronged approach: education and a quota system. The education was advertised greatly. But the quota system wasn't until a couple of years ago. Groups put pressure on large tech companies to show employee demographics and if they don't meet some unpublished standard, pressure is applied to change those demographics. How do you think we do that? Only 1 way to do that, a quota system which is what was put into place. And quota systems have only 1 predictable outcome, the protected groups get promoted and placed into jobs for which they are unqualified (in their defense companies do this anyway all the time...the Peter principle is a thing). Given this history, its not hard to see how some might think that this proves the exact opposite point that many here seem to think it does. Its a bit like survivor bias. If all the bomber planes come back with shot up tails do you want to reinforce the tails? Of course not, you want to reinforce everything but the tails. Your reaction to this smacks of this type of bias.
"'No Touch' is requested by BPA when unusually hot or cold weather increases the demand for electricity, notes Mike Paoli, spokesman for Energy Northwest," the report adds. "Many regional transmission and system operators across the United States ask nuclear plants to keep running during extreme weather because nuclear plants are the least affected by bad weather.
Erm...Europe’s heatwave is forcing nuclear power plants to shut down
US drought causes nuclear power station to shutdown
Those shutdowns were because of a lack of water to cool the plant. Also, all power plants, nuclear or not have to use water for dumping excess heat. Its why power plants of all types are so often put by large bodies of water. Those heatwave shutdowns had nothing to do with the nuclear aspect of those plants.
Nuclear power is great! Right up until it goes Fukushima on you. Then it sucks ass. Unwipable ass at that.
Electric cars have the potential to solve problems. They are just giant batteries, you know. If they were allowed to back feed into the grid during high demand periods like right now, it would smooth out demand quite nicely. Wind and solar can become much more useful when there is sufficient energy storage capacity available.
The reactors the GP refers to can't meltdown (like Chernobyl) and don't use water as a coolants so they don't make Hydrogen gas like Fukushima or 3 mi Island. Also, the entire world's output of Li-ion batteries couldn't backup even the CA grid for 4 hours, so the world's entire supply for 20 years is enough to backups CA's grid but Li-ion batteries don't last 20 years so you couldn't even make just CA 100% renewable. Also CA's grid is about 1% of the size of global energy usage. I like EVs and have 2 of them but please don't get confused. We haven't even dented CO2 production and continuing to ignore nuclear is only making the problem worse while we wait for folks like you to figure out solar and wind aren't a real solution.
Nuclear power plants now-a-days are built with a positive coefficient. The nuclear power plants you have to worry about at night are the plants built with 50+ year old designs with negative coefficient properties.
One quibble...you mean newer plants have negative void coefficients. The older ones (like CANDU reactors in Canada and the RBMKs in Russia) have positive void coefficients and that's what you have to worry about. Also, licensing isn't really that hard and there is no real reason it should cost billions to license a plant, you just have to actually do it and its the politics that fucks that up. Otherwise I completely agree...
" Ever seen how desparate people can become when the power goes out? " - Nope. I have solar panels and a backup propane system should shit blow up. Next?
And that means something to an entire grid how? Although your tiny little grid is a good microcosm of the CA grid. Solar for hope and natural gas for the actual power. Which is why in both CA and Germany, from 2010 till now despite a record amount of wind and solar deployed we have more CO2 emissions than before we deployed all those solar panels and wind turbines. That's because of all the natural gas plants kept fired up to provide power should a cloud or still period occur. So this wind and solar only policy has been tried, in very favorable conditions and it resulted in increased CO2, higher energy prices and a less reliable grid. This is only good for energy traders but bad for everyone else including PG&E. But do go on and tell us how since you hooked up an inverter and a backup propane system at your home, that means that somehow the entire grid will be powered by unicorns and fairies instead of natural gas. So you ever feel back being such a huge hypocrite or does wallowing in your own ignorance feel that good?
Reminds me of a screenshot I saw some days ago: "If it's written in Python, it's probably machine learning. If it's written in Powerpoint, it's probably AI"
That quote is wrong...it should be, if its in Python, its applied math but is being called machine learning, if its in LISP or Prolog then its probably AI. Actually, no self-respecting CS person uses Python. Python is used by academics from other fields like Physics who then use their field's variant of mathematical analysis and call it AI. Then they turn down a person with an actual CS degree and experience in ML for a data science job because they don't understand some weird jargon that was invented two weeks ago. This is no surprise to me...the entire "Big Data" thing has been a fraud since the beginning and since the bosses have no idea what AI is, they can't tell when they are being conned. And apparently neither can the investors.
Note, the same people modding this down also modded down the exact same argument made with regard to pay disparity in favor of men.
How would you know? You aren't mod'ing this topic...
The key word is not "3%" nor is it "Internet giants" - the key word is revenue.
This is what should've happened a decade ago. Taxing revenue instead of profits puts a clean shot right between the eyes of the majority of tax evasion schemes. It's a step long overdue.
And before the typical neo-conservative trolls shout it down: Remember that everyone BUT corporations is taxed by revenue, not profits. My income tax is based on my income, not on what's left at the end of the month. And so is yours. If we can survive that type of taxation, so can multinational corporations.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all businesses make the same margins and thus taxing revenue is fair. There is no way those policies have unintended consequences like driving manufacturing out of France...wait...they already did that 50 years ago. All policies like this do is drive out types of businesses that employee large numbers of people (low margin businesses like industry) in favor of businesses that employee much smaller numbers of people (higher margin businesses like marketing).
Ken Lay did. Martha Stewart did. Elon Musk did. Yeah, I think you can get away with nearly anything when you're rich and powerful - except for cheating on taxes. The IRS and the US Federal Government see that as the red line, and they tend to come down like a ton of bricks on those who break tax laws. Regardless of place in society.
First, Elon Musk didn't. Second, Ken Lay led one of the most massive frauds in history against a "powerful" US state. That's a bit more than tax fraud. And technically Martha Stewart went to jail because of insider trading but really because she pissed off some powerful person. I understand you think you live in a society where what you said was true but it simply isn't so. Also, when the rich do tax evasion, they use lawyers and accountants who technically follow the law but still accomplish the goal of preventing tax from being charged. So how are you supposed to prosecute a person who is technically following the letter of the law even if they obviously aren't following the spirit of the law? Even a 4 year old can game economic systems designed by Economists (see Freakanomics) so I seriously doubt politicians can beat a global industry of tax lawyers and accountants. Perhaps, you should see this policy for what it really is...a subsidy for accountants and tax lawyers.
Only because the current US system is pathetically underfunded.
Um, not to bring facts into this or anything, but the US actually pays more per student than just about any other country. Overall funding of the education system isn't really the problem with US education. Its a combination of waste on administration, other problems of society impacting students and the educational system, and our shifting cultural attitudes towards hard work and accomplishment. The teachers should be striking against their principles and superintendents as those are the folks stealing all the money from their paychecks. Also, the teacher's unions are not helping either.
Now perhaps you are talking about college level education in which case that's certainly not underfunded either. Its just the students paying the costs instead of the state. Also, its much cheaper when the state pays because the state doesn't build lazy rivers like the University of Alabama does. It would be better if we funded our public higher education systems (including community colleges) again but since that comes from the states (who are usually broke) instead of the feds (who have printing presses for money), I wouldn't hold my breath.
A key factor is "possible" there. When your original sys-admin tasks have never been automated or kept in source control, the costs of shifting to a managed environment are startling. Decades of technical debt are often due in a very short period. I've particularly run into this with clients or partners who insist on optimizing their own kernels.
Its possible for me to disappear and reappear in China due to quantum effects. Most cloud deployments end in disappointment. Then some snarky engineer from a larger company will say something about your company, "not being mature enough for the cloud". No shit...didn't stop the salespeople from that engineer's employeer from pushing their junky cloud on our management. Fuck google...my new curse for those I really don't like..."May your company switch to GCE and BigQuery"...
Fear of not being able to scale seems like the #1 concern in SV these days, but I swear to you for the average startup there are many, many more important problems you have to solve first.
Exactly. And even if they don't have scaling problems, since all the *cool* kids are working on scale issues so should they. At company I worked for recently, one that you have probably heard of and probably has your data, at peak they handle about ~12000 web requests a minute...not a second, a minute. That's 200/second, on a 50 server array. That's 4 requests a second per machine...4...not 4000, or 400...as in my phone could do it without me noticing a slowdown in performance...4. So of course they spent gobs of money moving from their custom and very modern data centers with high uptime to GCE with terrible performance, just so they could "scale". Remember, 4 requests/machine/second is the max they had to handle before. Maybe 10% of the 600 engineers they had understood just how silly this all was. But the CTO, who started as a PHP programmer at the company when it was first starting, didn't understand any of this and just let his "professional" managers run everything into the ground. Its absurd really....the software industry is now a parody of itself...