Racial inequality will exist so long as racial stereotypes can be statistically validated.
I'm not sure what you mean. Is this a bad thing that we can correlate things like intelligence to genetics? Racial inequality exists because we define a person as a race and not a person. If people want to see racial inequality disappear then, IMHO at least, we should stop asking for race on applications to university and jobs.
Providing more early education will lead to breaking the circle which will invalidate the stereotypes and finally end all of this hatred. Education is the only thing we have control of so we should start there.
Education to stop the hatred would be a great idea. Such as stop teaching children in school that the "white man" spread disease among the First Nations with blankets tainted with disease. The germ theory wasn't established then. European colonists certainly did a lot of horrible things. What they also did was end the practice in India of throwing the surviving wife onto the funeral fire of her dead husband. White men didn't "invent" slavery, they ended it.
It's the white male that is continually shit upon in the USA. We'll have Black History Month. We'll see Cinco de Mayo celebrated in the USA. There's quite a list of months for celebrating "diversity". Where's my month? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I say ending the hatred is a very good idea. As a white male living today I have never owned slaves. As someone with Germanic ancestry it's quite likely my ancestors were slaves. The word "slave" comes from "slav", as in the people were often taken as slaves by the Moors. Don't teach children that only one skin color were slaves and that only one skin color owned them. Be honest to your children. Everyone on Earth today has slavery in their history. The debts on that was wiped clean many times over with war, healing, and time. We need to remember it happened as a warning to not do it again.
I find it odd about the tearing down of Civil War monuments. These people don't want to forget the Civil War. If they did then the race based politics starts to disappear. What is really happening is the Democrats wanting to rewrite history by taking down the statues of prominent Democrat leaders. They want people to forget the rascist past of the Democrat Party.
Do people really want that clean break from the horrors of slavery? Then we need to break free from the Democrat Party. We can start by getting the Democrats out of our schools.
You are missing one very important difference between the PC and the so called "smart" phone industry. It's called market lock / planned obsolescence.
Is it planned? I'm pretty sure that they know that the phones the are issuing now will be obsolete in four years or so but I'm not sure that they have any kind of real plan.
I've had cell phones for probably 20 years now and I'm on my fifth phone. I think my first phone lasted me six years but my last one barely lasted a year. I used my phones until they were ready to fall apart from wear or I had damaged it. Except that last one. My first two were old enough that I risked losing service because the old towers were getting phased out. My first phone was a "tri-mode" or something like that to cover analog and the digital services at the time. My second was a "dual-mode" in that it had analog and digital. My third was when the GPS phones were starting to be mandated. Anyway the cell company paid me to take a new phone because they didn't want to support my phone any more, it didn't have the E911 features. When I ran that through the wash I panicked and got whatever they had at the local store that was cheap, because I wasn't ready to invest in a smart phone.
Maybe I'm on the thin edge of the bell curve in not buying a new cell phone every year or two. I have an iPhone 7 now because my iPod Touch hit the floor a bit too hard once and the screen became cracked and hard to read. So of the four phones I had two were replaced because the cell phone towers were getting upgraded to a new signal and frequency standard. Two were because of damage (one to the phone itself, the other to a "smart" pocket device that a cell phone was an obvious replacement).
I don't know how long you expect these things to last but my experience tells me that they'll last five years or so, if not potentially much longer. That's not that bad for an electronic device, or any consumer product really. Don't think of just electronic devices, just stuff around your house. How long does a lawn mower last? A reclining chair? Things where parts don't move are pretty durable, like pots, pans, dishes, and such last a long time.
Tell me something, how long should a cell phone last in your opinion? I have no problem making them last four years or so. Now that water resistance and durable glass is pretty standard I expect my current phone to last a very long time.
There's a lawsuit about S iri because it still can't do what the advertisement DEMONSTRATED.
I'm sure that there is also a lawsuit against Burger King because the burger someone got didn't look like the one on the menu.
People bring bullshit lawsuits for bullshit reasons all the time. There's enough disclaimers on any advertisement to make the lawyers go away eventually. If not then more disclaimers will get added.
They mostly invest in nuclear to keep their military program from running out of specialists.
They need 700MW civilian reactors to do this? And potentially dozens of them? I'd think a much smaller reactor would keep them trained, it would certainly save on costs to make them smaller. It also does not seem to follow given that they intend to double their nuclear power generation capacity in ten years, and double it again in another ten years. Seems to me that they intend to make nuclear power a much larger portion of their electrical generation capacity, not just train their navy crews and such.
No. Even in an urban setting the buses will need to travel a non-trivial distance, at speeds that keep up with traffic (perhaps not highway speed but 35 to 45 mph would not be unheard of), carrying a non-trivial number of people, and do this many times per day, for many days in a row, and do so with a cost the same or lower than current buses. This is not a trivial problem to solve, technologically (yet) or economically (yet).
Schools won't bus children if they live within a mile or so, they consider that a walking distance. Schools won't bus outside of a certain range either, usually the edges of the school district. Add in that many urban schools simply do not offer busing, they expect children to take public transportation, or parents pick them up, or just generally declare it not their problem. As there are government mandates on children getting to schools the schools may make arrangements with public transportation and/or a private school bus service so I'm not saying that school buses in urban areas are non-existent, only not nearly as needed as they were just a few years ago.
School buses are primarily for rural school districts. How can I say this? Look at some data. http://files.schoolbusfleet.co... I compared California to Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. Why those states? Because they are rural, have a winter (Midwest vs. west coast), and happened to be close together when listed alphabetically. Those three states combined have a population roughly half that of California but nearly twice as many school buses.
Even if you add in more urban states like New York and Illinois, where public transportation may take a lot of children to and from school instead of a school bus, they also have to deal with winters, and heating is always a problem with electric vehicles.
I'm sure as above I screwed up my math, so I welcome anyone to check my numbers.
I believe that you are assuming the people that own these cars have a consistent place to park, and the ability to put in a charger. For example, a person that lives in a rental property may not have an assigned parking spot. Living in a rental would also likely mean being unable to wire in a charger.
Even someone that owns their home, and has a place to park, might not be able to put in a charger at home. For example an older house may not have the electrical capacity to add a car charger safely.
GPS to track mileage? WTF? Why not just use the already existing, and government mandated, odometer?
A politician that mentions the need to put GPS in a car to accurately measure miles traveled for taxes is either so out of touch of how the world works that they don't know about odometers, or want to use the GPS to track more than just miles traveled.
This just goes to show why Americans might be reluctant to rely on electric vehicles for their primary transportation.
It's trivial to buy a few jerrycans to keep some spare fuel on hand in case of an emergency, like... I don't know, a hurricane perhaps. It doesn't take government intervention to shut down an electric recharge station but that's just one of many reasons that might cause it.
People might say such things don't happen very often but it only takes one case to make an example for so many more.
I think that's a really bad idea and I'll tell you why. I live in a fairly rural part of the USA. When I was riding a school bus to school it would be a 40 minute ride all over the county. There were probably a dozen or so school buses for the school. How large of a battery would this bus need to run this route? How much would that cost? What kind of infrastructure would the school need to recharge those batteries? If you're going to recharge all those buses, and it takes hours for them to charge, then each bus will need a charger at a non-trivial expense.
I don't know how many miles the routes were for the buses. If my route was typical at 40 minutes, and the bus averaged 20 miles per hour, then that's just 80 miles from first stop (the school) to the last (my house). Then there's a few more miles for getting to and from the terminal, add some reserve, and it needs a range of perhaps 100 miles or so, as a rough estimate. It has to do this five days a week, 30+ weeks each year. That's got to be rough on any battery.
I recall hearing on the radio last summer that the local schools would be staggering their school days so that they could share buses and drivers. So instead of running just two routes per day (morning and afternoon), they'd run four or six. How many miles is that now? How big would that battery have to be?
Then there is the problem of winter. Even though they had a very large diesel engine to derive heat from the buses were often quite cold. How is an electric school bus going to keep the children warm when it's below freezing outside? We'd still have school on days when it's 40 below zero, below that they usually called a "snow day" since it wasn't safe for the children and hard on the buses.
Then there is just the matter that school buses are already very expensive and therefore must be used for a very long time to justify the expense, usually about 10 years. How long will an electric bus last? Until they've been proven for at least one life cycle I don't expect schools to adopt them in any significant numbers. Which then gets us into a catch-22, no one is going to adopt them until someone else does first. The company that wants in this market will have to give the first ones away, or even pay a school to take them.
No, but people who are still in the closet can have a dating profile advertising themselves as straight.
Why would a closeted gay man bother to go to a dating website and put "hetero" in their profile? I'm confused. These dating sites cost money, right? So, why would they spend money for something they don't even want?
I'm sure that there are some closeted homosexuals that get hetero dating profiles to "prove" they aren't gay to someone, but that's got to be a number so small that it can be ignored.
Let's flip this around, would a straight man or woman put homosexual on their dating profile? Would they pay money to advertise this fiction? Maybe. Perhaps they would do this as some sort of "joke". Although I'm not sure who the joke would be on. Some might say this isn't a fair comparison since hetero people aren't as discriminated against as homosexuals have been. What we are talking about though is a world where people are comfortable enough with gay people about that there are websites that allow gay people to date each other. I'm pretty sure we are past any kind of real discrimination here that it'd have any real effect on the testing.
My point being assigning everyone as "straight" and expecting that to give high accuracy based on some figures doesn't make it true, because what you're comparing the AI's results to can be incorrect just as easily.
We're comparing a computer algorithm on being gay or straight based on what people put in a dating profile. If they are lying to the computer then they are lying to themselves. In which case this is a distinction without a difference. If they say they are gay, and looking for other gay men and women to date, then that's about as close to "gay" as a definitive answer as you'll ever going to find.
They wish they had this for guns so they're requiring it for everything else.
No they don't. Russia and China make all kinds of guns to sell to little tyrants all over the world. These tin pot dictators got tired of filing off the serial numbers when they got the guns so they saved them the trouble by not putting them on in the first place. What they want is for EVERYONE ELSE to register their guns. That makes confiscation so much easier.
Government registration serves no purpose but confiscation. Criminals don't register their guns. They also don't register their cars, airplanes, boats, cell phones, and they also won't register their drones.
We've seen drug cartels build million dollar submarines to smuggle illegal drugs into the USA. We've seen people manufacture machine guns in caves with machines powered by people on stationary bicycles. Do they actually think that people can't just build their own drones from spare parts and those same pedal powered machines?
The UN is dominated by a bunch of dictatorships and tyrannies. Their human rights council has as members China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Venezuela. They have a resolution against "defamation of religion" which is really just a restriction on people to speak freely. They talk about the problems of climate change but all they have for solutions is having the USA give them more money. In front of their headquarters is a sculpture of a revolver with a twisted up barrel, and yet these offices are in a nation with the highest per capita gun ownership in the world.
The UN seems to hold so many ideals counter to the USA and yet they come here so they can speak freely on how much evil the USA has done. If they don't like us then they can leave. In fact they can kick the USA out of the UN. We know they won't even try though.
They need the USA. The USA provides a vast majority of their funds. If the UN headquarters were in just about any other nation of the world it would be bombed daily. The UN needs the USA, the USA doesn't need the UN.
Now the UN wants drones to be registered with them? Fuck them. This is the demand of a bunch of thugs in government afraid of their own people. If this demand comes from the UN then it gives them a veil of righteousness to hide behind. The thugs in government can say *THEY* didn't demand this, the rest of the world wants it. After that they can register the drones, because it's the "right" thing to do.
Gay people can distinguish other gay people with MUCH greater frequency than straight people can.
I have no doubt. After being in the Army I can "smell" military experience on people. People in general can see things in others that they have experienced themselves.
Little things can tell people a lot. I learned from living in Texas that the plural of "you" is not "y'all". The proper way to address a group is "all y'all". The people that don't get that right are not from Texas. Maybe they are from Arizona, or Mississippi, I don't know because I haven't been to those states.
The paper went on to discuss how this capability can be an invasion of privacy, and conjectured that other types of personal information might be detectable from photos.
While walking about yesterday I remember seeing two people that stuck out to me. The dude in the parking lot with the wild hair, wearing eyeliner, a tight black crop top, and purple pants? Probably gay. The short lady that I shared an elevator with, wearing brown jeans, a buttoned up long sleeve shirt, short hair, and comfortable shoes? Probably gay.
We say a lot about ourselves with how we dress and act. All it takes is someone to notice. There are people trained in this for lots of reasons. I remember seeing a note in my medical records that said something like, "patient was well dressed, and well groomed." I thought that was something odd for a physician to make a note of in a medical record. That is until I thought about it some more. The guy wasn't just evaluating my physical health but my mental health. Someone that shows up for an annual physical exam with bed head, still wearing the clothes they slept in, and stinking like they haven't bathed in days could mean they have mental problems, mobility problems, etc.
Even people not formally trained in looking at such details will notice these things. I'll go to a hardware store wearing some new jeans (carpenter style even, with hammer loops), a button up shirt, and clean running shoes and I get treated one way. I go the next day wearing paint stained jeans (also carpenter style), a faded t-shirt, and work boots and I get treated differently. I've learned to dress for the part I'm playing that day.
There's no "invasion of privacy" here. People are advertising who they are everyday.
MP: Overall, the US produced 22.5% of world GDP in 2014, with only about 4.6% of the worldâ(TM)s population. Three of Americaâ(TM)s states (California, Texas and New York) â" as separate countries â" would rank in the worldâ(TM)s top 14 largest economies. And one of those states â" California â" produced more than $2 trillion in economic output in 2014 â" and the other two (Texas and New York) produced more than $1.6 trillion and $1.4 trillion of GDP in 2014 respectively. The map and these statistics help remind us of the enormity of the economic powerhouse we live in. So letâ(TM)s not lose sight of how ridiculously large and powerful the US economy is, and how much wealth and prosperity is being created all the time in the worldâ(TM)s largest economic engine.
Sure, in those stories you'll find India planning on adding 2 or 3 GW of solar energy capacity. You'll also see plans to add 7 to 10 GW of nuclear energy capacity. They know they can't rely on the sun and wind alone to keep their economy going.
All you have to say that civilian nuclear power shipping won't happen is either it costs too much or laws/politics/regulations won't allow it.
The problem with costs are solvable, if only because oil prices get high enough to make nuclear power viable. Saying that there is no room on a ship for a nuclear reactor is idiotic. There might not be enough room for a nuclear conversion but there will be enough room if designed with nuclear power from the start. Even then so what if they need highly enriched fuel to make the reactor small enough, that can happen too. If energy prices get high enough all those issues on cost go away. We know that we are already real close because Russia has been operating civilian nuclear powered ships for decades now. There's more than just Russia as an Arctic nation where nuclear power becomes viable. That gets to the politics of it all.
People said Japan would never allow a nuclear powered US Navy vessel to come to port there. That changed. I've been told we'd never build another nuclear power plant in the USA. One was completed last year and two more are getting built.
You tell me that nuclear powered civilian shipping will never be economically viable and then you tell me that Russia is already doing it. Are you even listening to yourself?
The question is not when is it going to happen, because that time has already come. The question is how long it will be before nuclear powered shipping is more prevalent than oil fired shipping. We're already seeing these oil fired ships take on wind assisted propulsion, adding cost and complexity to the ship's operation, in order to reduce fuel costs. If they work so well on oil fired ships then could they not also reduce the cost of operating a nuclear powered ship?
I know that fuel cost is not the only operational cost on a ship, but it is a big one. If prices go up and stay up then nuclear will look really attractive. Those nuclear powered ships will get permission to come to port if they are carrying food and people get hungry enough.
Last I heard the ship carrying the books hit an iceberg, is taking on water, with a fire on board, and was surrounded by sharks. No word yet if the sharks had fricken lasers on their heads.
The US Coast Guard, US Army and US Air Force were sending aircraft to the area to assist in fighting the fire and treat the injured. They had to turn back because they hit A Flock of Seagulls. Not birds, the 1980s rock band. The band's record label and agent were not available for comment. The B-52's also had to turn back. Not the aircraft, also a 1980s rock band. When asked why they were involved in the incident they simply replied they felt a need to "Roam".
Nuclear marine propulsion is so horribly expensive only a few navies can afford to operate that.
It is now. What happens to the price of nuclear propulsion when the oil runs out? People want their fresh bananas and coffee, and if it means using nuclear power then it's going to happen. Shipping by oil fired ships used to be real expensive at one time too. People figured out how to make it cheap. There's nothing that makes nuclear power inherently "horribly expensive". It's expensive now because there's probably only one or two such reactors built every year. If built one or two per month on an assembly line, like we do with jetliners, then they get cheaper. Not "cheap" because anything that size is expensive.
You see, marine reactor fuel is highly enriched, which is very expensive, and the reactor life span is ridiculously short compared to a marine diesel.
The US Navy uses highly enriched fuel in their reactors because they need to operate their reactors in ways that a civilian ship doesn't. Highly enriched fuel solves a lot of problems that a low enriched fuel doesn't have. One problem highly enriched fuel solves is the production of xenon if output power is increased quickly, which is easy to solve in a commercial shipping environment, just don't stomp on the accelerator. If some idiot does get a lead foot then they'll just have to sit still for a few hours for the xenon to decay away.
The daily operating expenses for the Sevmorput is around 90k USD. A conventional freighter with a similar capacity has only a third of these daily costs and is permitted to any port.
It costs only three times as much to operate? Well then, all we need to see for civilian marine nuclear propulsion to be viable is oil prices to triple. The problem on costs isn't nearly as bad as I thought. We'll see civilian nuclear powered container ships in no time then.
Oh, and being unable to put a nuclear powered ship in a port is real easy to solve if it's carrying coffee and iPhones. That's a political problem, and those can be solved in a single election.
Slashdot Mirror
Racial inequality will exist so long as racial stereotypes can be statistically validated.
I'm not sure what you mean. Is this a bad thing that we can correlate things like intelligence to genetics? Racial inequality exists because we define a person as a race and not a person. If people want to see racial inequality disappear then, IMHO at least, we should stop asking for race on applications to university and jobs.
Providing more early education will lead to breaking the circle which will invalidate the stereotypes and finally end all of this hatred. Education is the only thing we have control of so we should start there.
Education to stop the hatred would be a great idea. Such as stop teaching children in school that the "white man" spread disease among the First Nations with blankets tainted with disease. The germ theory wasn't established then. European colonists certainly did a lot of horrible things. What they also did was end the practice in India of throwing the surviving wife onto the funeral fire of her dead husband. White men didn't "invent" slavery, they ended it.
It's the white male that is continually shit upon in the USA. We'll have Black History Month. We'll see Cinco de Mayo celebrated in the USA. There's quite a list of months for celebrating "diversity". Where's my month?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I say ending the hatred is a very good idea. As a white male living today I have never owned slaves. As someone with Germanic ancestry it's quite likely my ancestors were slaves. The word "slave" comes from "slav", as in the people were often taken as slaves by the Moors. Don't teach children that only one skin color were slaves and that only one skin color owned them. Be honest to your children. Everyone on Earth today has slavery in their history. The debts on that was wiped clean many times over with war, healing, and time. We need to remember it happened as a warning to not do it again.
I find it odd about the tearing down of Civil War monuments. These people don't want to forget the Civil War. If they did then the race based politics starts to disappear. What is really happening is the Democrats wanting to rewrite history by taking down the statues of prominent Democrat leaders. They want people to forget the rascist past of the Democrat Party.
Do people really want that clean break from the horrors of slavery? Then we need to break free from the Democrat Party. We can start by getting the Democrats out of our schools.
You are missing one very important difference between the PC and the so called "smart" phone industry. It's called market lock / planned obsolescence.
Is it planned? I'm pretty sure that they know that the phones the are issuing now will be obsolete in four years or so but I'm not sure that they have any kind of real plan.
I've had cell phones for probably 20 years now and I'm on my fifth phone. I think my first phone lasted me six years but my last one barely lasted a year. I used my phones until they were ready to fall apart from wear or I had damaged it. Except that last one. My first two were old enough that I risked losing service because the old towers were getting phased out. My first phone was a "tri-mode" or something like that to cover analog and the digital services at the time. My second was a "dual-mode" in that it had analog and digital. My third was when the GPS phones were starting to be mandated. Anyway the cell company paid me to take a new phone because they didn't want to support my phone any more, it didn't have the E911 features. When I ran that through the wash I panicked and got whatever they had at the local store that was cheap, because I wasn't ready to invest in a smart phone.
Maybe I'm on the thin edge of the bell curve in not buying a new cell phone every year or two. I have an iPhone 7 now because my iPod Touch hit the floor a bit too hard once and the screen became cracked and hard to read. So of the four phones I had two were replaced because the cell phone towers were getting upgraded to a new signal and frequency standard. Two were because of damage (one to the phone itself, the other to a "smart" pocket device that a cell phone was an obvious replacement).
I don't know how long you expect these things to last but my experience tells me that they'll last five years or so, if not potentially much longer. That's not that bad for an electronic device, or any consumer product really. Don't think of just electronic devices, just stuff around your house. How long does a lawn mower last? A reclining chair? Things where parts don't move are pretty durable, like pots, pans, dishes, and such last a long time.
Tell me something, how long should a cell phone last in your opinion? I have no problem making them last four years or so. Now that water resistance and durable glass is pretty standard I expect my current phone to last a very long time.
There's a lawsuit about S iri because it still can't do what the advertisement DEMONSTRATED.
I'm sure that there is also a lawsuit against Burger King because the burger someone got didn't look like the one on the menu.
People bring bullshit lawsuits for bullshit reasons all the time. There's enough disclaimers on any advertisement to make the lawyers go away eventually. If not then more disclaimers will get added.
They mostly invest in nuclear to keep their military program from running out of specialists.
They need 700MW civilian reactors to do this? And potentially dozens of them? I'd think a much smaller reactor would keep them trained, it would certainly save on costs to make them smaller. It also does not seem to follow given that they intend to double their nuclear power generation capacity in ten years, and double it again in another ten years. Seems to me that they intend to make nuclear power a much larger portion of their electrical generation capacity, not just train their navy crews and such.
Did I quote you correctly?
No. Even in an urban setting the buses will need to travel a non-trivial distance, at speeds that keep up with traffic (perhaps not highway speed but 35 to 45 mph would not be unheard of), carrying a non-trivial number of people, and do this many times per day, for many days in a row, and do so with a cost the same or lower than current buses. This is not a trivial problem to solve, technologically (yet) or economically (yet).
Schools won't bus children if they live within a mile or so, they consider that a walking distance. Schools won't bus outside of a certain range either, usually the edges of the school district. Add in that many urban schools simply do not offer busing, they expect children to take public transportation, or parents pick them up, or just generally declare it not their problem. As there are government mandates on children getting to schools the schools may make arrangements with public transportation and/or a private school bus service so I'm not saying that school buses in urban areas are non-existent, only not nearly as needed as they were just a few years ago.
School buses are primarily for rural school districts. How can I say this? Look at some data.
http://files.schoolbusfleet.co...
I compared California to Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. Why those states? Because they are rural, have a winter (Midwest vs. west coast), and happened to be close together when listed alphabetically. Those three states combined have a population roughly half that of California but nearly twice as many school buses.
Even if you add in more urban states like New York and Illinois, where public transportation may take a lot of children to and from school instead of a school bus, they also have to deal with winters, and heating is always a problem with electric vehicles.
I'm sure as above I screwed up my math, so I welcome anyone to check my numbers.
Note to self, don't try to do math while sleep deprived.
It's not "Moore's Executive Order", it's "Moore's Law".
I believe that you are assuming the people that own these cars have a consistent place to park, and the ability to put in a charger. For example, a person that lives in a rental property may not have an assigned parking spot. Living in a rental would also likely mean being unable to wire in a charger.
Even someone that owns their home, and has a place to park, might not be able to put in a charger at home. For example an older house may not have the electrical capacity to add a car charger safely.
GPS to track mileage? WTF? Why not just use the already existing, and government mandated, odometer?
A politician that mentions the need to put GPS in a car to accurately measure miles traveled for taxes is either so out of touch of how the world works that they don't know about odometers, or want to use the GPS to track more than just miles traveled.
This just goes to show why Americans might be reluctant to rely on electric vehicles for their primary transportation.
It's trivial to buy a few jerrycans to keep some spare fuel on hand in case of an emergency, like... I don't know, a hurricane perhaps. It doesn't take government intervention to shut down an electric recharge station but that's just one of many reasons that might cause it.
People might say such things don't happen very often but it only takes one case to make an example for so many more.
Ah yes, People's Deep Earth Resistance. Not to be confused with the Deep Earth Resistance for the Planet, or DERP.
Splitters!!
I think that's a really bad idea and I'll tell you why. I live in a fairly rural part of the USA. When I was riding a school bus to school it would be a 40 minute ride all over the county. There were probably a dozen or so school buses for the school. How large of a battery would this bus need to run this route? How much would that cost? What kind of infrastructure would the school need to recharge those batteries? If you're going to recharge all those buses, and it takes hours for them to charge, then each bus will need a charger at a non-trivial expense.
I don't know how many miles the routes were for the buses. If my route was typical at 40 minutes, and the bus averaged 20 miles per hour, then that's just 80 miles from first stop (the school) to the last (my house). Then there's a few more miles for getting to and from the terminal, add some reserve, and it needs a range of perhaps 100 miles or so, as a rough estimate. It has to do this five days a week, 30+ weeks each year. That's got to be rough on any battery.
I recall hearing on the radio last summer that the local schools would be staggering their school days so that they could share buses and drivers. So instead of running just two routes per day (morning and afternoon), they'd run four or six. How many miles is that now? How big would that battery have to be?
Then there is the problem of winter. Even though they had a very large diesel engine to derive heat from the buses were often quite cold. How is an electric school bus going to keep the children warm when it's below freezing outside? We'd still have school on days when it's 40 below zero, below that they usually called a "snow day" since it wasn't safe for the children and hard on the buses.
Then there is just the matter that school buses are already very expensive and therefore must be used for a very long time to justify the expense, usually about 10 years. How long will an electric bus last? Until they've been proven for at least one life cycle I don't expect schools to adopt them in any significant numbers. Which then gets us into a catch-22, no one is going to adopt them until someone else does first. The company that wants in this market will have to give the first ones away, or even pay a school to take them.
No, but people who are still in the closet can have a dating profile advertising themselves as straight.
Why would a closeted gay man bother to go to a dating website and put "hetero" in their profile? I'm confused. These dating sites cost money, right? So, why would they spend money for something they don't even want?
I'm sure that there are some closeted homosexuals that get hetero dating profiles to "prove" they aren't gay to someone, but that's got to be a number so small that it can be ignored.
Let's flip this around, would a straight man or woman put homosexual on their dating profile? Would they pay money to advertise this fiction? Maybe. Perhaps they would do this as some sort of "joke". Although I'm not sure who the joke would be on. Some might say this isn't a fair comparison since hetero people aren't as discriminated against as homosexuals have been. What we are talking about though is a world where people are comfortable enough with gay people about that there are websites that allow gay people to date each other. I'm pretty sure we are past any kind of real discrimination here that it'd have any real effect on the testing.
My point being assigning everyone as "straight" and expecting that to give high accuracy based on some figures doesn't make it true, because what you're comparing the AI's results to can be incorrect just as easily.
We're comparing a computer algorithm on being gay or straight based on what people put in a dating profile. If they are lying to the computer then they are lying to themselves. In which case this is a distinction without a difference. If they say they are gay, and looking for other gay men and women to date, then that's about as close to "gay" as a definitive answer as you'll ever going to find.
They wish they had this for guns so they're requiring it for everything else.
No they don't. Russia and China make all kinds of guns to sell to little tyrants all over the world. These tin pot dictators got tired of filing off the serial numbers when they got the guns so they saved them the trouble by not putting them on in the first place. What they want is for EVERYONE ELSE to register their guns. That makes confiscation so much easier.
Government registration serves no purpose but confiscation. Criminals don't register their guns. They also don't register their cars, airplanes, boats, cell phones, and they also won't register their drones.
We've seen drug cartels build million dollar submarines to smuggle illegal drugs into the USA. We've seen people manufacture machine guns in caves with machines powered by people on stationary bicycles. Do they actually think that people can't just build their own drones from spare parts and those same pedal powered machines?
The UN is dominated by a bunch of dictatorships and tyrannies. Their human rights council has as members China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Venezuela. They have a resolution against "defamation of religion" which is really just a restriction on people to speak freely. They talk about the problems of climate change but all they have for solutions is having the USA give them more money. In front of their headquarters is a sculpture of a revolver with a twisted up barrel, and yet these offices are in a nation with the highest per capita gun ownership in the world.
The UN seems to hold so many ideals counter to the USA and yet they come here so they can speak freely on how much evil the USA has done. If they don't like us then they can leave. In fact they can kick the USA out of the UN. We know they won't even try though.
They need the USA. The USA provides a vast majority of their funds. If the UN headquarters were in just about any other nation of the world it would be bombed daily. The UN needs the USA, the USA doesn't need the UN.
Now the UN wants drones to be registered with them? Fuck them. This is the demand of a bunch of thugs in government afraid of their own people. If this demand comes from the UN then it gives them a veil of righteousness to hide behind. The thugs in government can say *THEY* didn't demand this, the rest of the world wants it. After that they can register the drones, because it's the "right" thing to do.
I think you need to take a lesson on statistics.
I remember a Marine drill sergeant saying something about people from Texas. Do they have horns? No? Then they are gay.
Gay people can distinguish other gay people with MUCH greater frequency than straight people can.
I have no doubt. After being in the Army I can "smell" military experience on people. People in general can see things in others that they have experienced themselves.
Little things can tell people a lot. I learned from living in Texas that the plural of "you" is not "y'all". The proper way to address a group is "all y'all". The people that don't get that right are not from Texas. Maybe they are from Arizona, or Mississippi, I don't know because I haven't been to those states.
The paper went on to discuss how this capability can be an invasion of privacy, and conjectured that other types of personal information might be detectable from photos.
While walking about yesterday I remember seeing two people that stuck out to me. The dude in the parking lot with the wild hair, wearing eyeliner, a tight black crop top, and purple pants? Probably gay. The short lady that I shared an elevator with, wearing brown jeans, a buttoned up long sleeve shirt, short hair, and comfortable shoes? Probably gay.
We say a lot about ourselves with how we dress and act. All it takes is someone to notice. There are people trained in this for lots of reasons. I remember seeing a note in my medical records that said something like, "patient was well dressed, and well groomed." I thought that was something odd for a physician to make a note of in a medical record. That is until I thought about it some more. The guy wasn't just evaluating my physical health but my mental health. Someone that shows up for an annual physical exam with bed head, still wearing the clothes they slept in, and stinking like they haven't bathed in days could mean they have mental problems, mobility problems, etc.
Even people not formally trained in looking at such details will notice these things. I'll go to a hardware store wearing some new jeans (carpenter style even, with hammer loops), a button up shirt, and clean running shoes and I get treated one way. I go the next day wearing paint stained jeans (also carpenter style), a faded t-shirt, and work boots and I get treated differently. I've learned to dress for the part I'm playing that day.
There's no "invasion of privacy" here. People are advertising who they are everyday.
It is just some 3% or 5% of the globe.
By population you mean. The USA is about 20% of the global economy.
http://www.aei.org/publication...
MP: Overall, the US produced 22.5% of world GDP in 2014, with only about 4.6% of the worldâ(TM)s population. Three of Americaâ(TM)s states (California, Texas and New York) â" as separate countries â" would rank in the worldâ(TM)s top 14 largest economies. And one of those states â" California â" produced more than $2 trillion in economic output in 2014 â" and the other two (Texas and New York) produced more than $1.6 trillion and $1.4 trillion of GDP in 2014 respectively. The map and these statistics help remind us of the enormity of the economic powerhouse we live in. So letâ(TM)s not lose sight of how ridiculously large and powerful the US economy is, and how much wealth and prosperity is being created all the time in the worldâ(TM)s largest economic engine.
Nuclear power.
http://www.newindianexpress.co...
http://www.business-standard.c...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes...
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
http://www.hindustantimes.com/...
Sure, in those stories you'll find India planning on adding 2 or 3 GW of solar energy capacity. You'll also see plans to add 7 to 10 GW of nuclear energy capacity. They know they can't rely on the sun and wind alone to keep their economy going.
Hence you are a moron, plain and simple.
Is that how they teach you how to debate in school? By calling people morons?
I think you are a stupid head and your mom dresses you funny.
I'm done here.
All you have to say that civilian nuclear power shipping won't happen is either it costs too much or laws/politics/regulations won't allow it.
The problem with costs are solvable, if only because oil prices get high enough to make nuclear power viable. Saying that there is no room on a ship for a nuclear reactor is idiotic. There might not be enough room for a nuclear conversion but there will be enough room if designed with nuclear power from the start. Even then so what if they need highly enriched fuel to make the reactor small enough, that can happen too. If energy prices get high enough all those issues on cost go away. We know that we are already real close because Russia has been operating civilian nuclear powered ships for decades now. There's more than just Russia as an Arctic nation where nuclear power becomes viable. That gets to the politics of it all.
People said Japan would never allow a nuclear powered US Navy vessel to come to port there. That changed. I've been told we'd never build another nuclear power plant in the USA. One was completed last year and two more are getting built.
You tell me that nuclear powered civilian shipping will never be economically viable and then you tell me that Russia is already doing it. Are you even listening to yourself?
The question is not when is it going to happen, because that time has already come. The question is how long it will be before nuclear powered shipping is more prevalent than oil fired shipping. We're already seeing these oil fired ships take on wind assisted propulsion, adding cost and complexity to the ship's operation, in order to reduce fuel costs. If they work so well on oil fired ships then could they not also reduce the cost of operating a nuclear powered ship?
I know that fuel cost is not the only operational cost on a ship, but it is a big one. If prices go up and stay up then nuclear will look really attractive. Those nuclear powered ships will get permission to come to port if they are carrying food and people get hungry enough.
Last I heard the ship carrying the books hit an iceberg, is taking on water, with a fire on board, and was surrounded by sharks. No word yet if the sharks had fricken lasers on their heads.
The US Coast Guard, US Army and US Air Force were sending aircraft to the area to assist in fighting the fire and treat the injured. They had to turn back because they hit A Flock of Seagulls. Not birds, the 1980s rock band. The band's record label and agent were not available for comment. The B-52's also had to turn back. Not the aircraft, also a 1980s rock band. When asked why they were involved in the incident they simply replied they felt a need to "Roam".
Man, they just can't get a break.
Nuclear marine propulsion is so horribly expensive only a few navies can afford to operate that.
It is now. What happens to the price of nuclear propulsion when the oil runs out? People want their fresh bananas and coffee, and if it means using nuclear power then it's going to happen. Shipping by oil fired ships used to be real expensive at one time too. People figured out how to make it cheap. There's nothing that makes nuclear power inherently "horribly expensive". It's expensive now because there's probably only one or two such reactors built every year. If built one or two per month on an assembly line, like we do with jetliners, then they get cheaper. Not "cheap" because anything that size is expensive.
You see, marine reactor fuel is highly enriched, which is very expensive, and the reactor life span is ridiculously short compared to a marine diesel.
The US Navy uses highly enriched fuel in their reactors because they need to operate their reactors in ways that a civilian ship doesn't. Highly enriched fuel solves a lot of problems that a low enriched fuel doesn't have. One problem highly enriched fuel solves is the production of xenon if output power is increased quickly, which is easy to solve in a commercial shipping environment, just don't stomp on the accelerator. If some idiot does get a lead foot then they'll just have to sit still for a few hours for the xenon to decay away.
The daily operating expenses for the Sevmorput is around 90k USD. A conventional freighter with a similar capacity has only a third of these daily costs and is permitted to any port.
It costs only three times as much to operate? Well then, all we need to see for civilian marine nuclear propulsion to be viable is oil prices to triple. The problem on costs isn't nearly as bad as I thought. We'll see civilian nuclear powered container ships in no time then.
Oh, and being unable to put a nuclear powered ship in a port is real easy to solve if it's carrying coffee and iPhones. That's a political problem, and those can be solved in a single election.