Bio-diesel is a particularly bad deal, very inefficient. And it's unlikely to be profitable or even useful to try to grow soy where you grow wood for fuel.
It's not merely about solving world hunger, because supply isn't likely to do that, it's just a pie-in -the-sky option. It's about not spending topsoil on what is otherwise readily available. Ethanol is still a competitive additive, but bio-diesel is mostly, by volume, a forced march to pretend the military can be environmentally conscious.
I know someone who spent their entire military career developing and implementing battlefield cleanup programs and methods. They did far more than could ever be done by biofuels in military use. And the military engineer will leave far more value behind in good water wells and useful buildings than a biofuel plant. Anywhere.
It's still misguided. Food for fuel is a terrible idea, and will eventually become obsolete, then we will launch into the discussion of food as feedstock for manufacturing.
Food is the highest value use of corn and soy, for example. Waste products of these crops have utility as fuel, but soy in particular is low waste. While hunger worldwide is largely driven by war or politics (but I repeat myself), being able to afford to literally drop food on the starving, enough so that even the military can't steal it all, would be a game changer. And while we can't simple grow all that as if it were becoming ethanol and instead give it away, encouraging fuel use will not help.
It's not narrow-minded to be efficient. And I know I may be choosing between ethanol and MTBE, but we are on a headlong rush to obsoleting the ICE and avoiding so much of this. Even refining natural gas might make more sense than ethanol, but that's probably going to be too late to survive the electrification of ground transport. Within my lifetime, God willing, I'll see aircraft as the last widespread use of petroleum-based fuels.
Her first album has a couple of great tunes, one an anthem. Not at all bad. Her second is a tough sell. But I'm a fool for bass, so I was probably suffering an endorphin rush.
Go fish out any of the CDs that Linda Ronstadt recorded with Nelson Riddle. Or virtually any single song. Kinda reminds you of the current flavor of sexploitation hip-hop so popular with kids, if all you do is focus on the words.
Maybe if you were dirt poor you wouldn't have to worry about theft and could leave your door open at night.
No, someone would always want what little you have. And so it is in geopolitical relations. So you lock the doors and either engage security forces credible enough to deter overt theft, or you maintain your own deterrent, overt or not, and expect your external security to make preventative efforts, wither at the local/individual level, or internationally.
And yes, the US government is and has been a supreme dick to many nations. Some of our adversaries need no such motive, however.
Self-defense is likely the least common use case. I'm not concerned about that, but more about police use, where errors are so prevalent that elevating their capabilities will increase the lethality of mistakes/SWATing/overreaction, and the police are not yet held sufficiently accountable to discourage these.
Actually, the lemming comment is equally valid accusing our youth of following whatever meme they are being fed at the moment.
Me? I'm an aging white cracker homophobe post-Republican conservative, and I love Camilla Cabello, Lourde, Khalid, Halsey. I still prefer 70s power rock/metal, Led Zeppelin is with Pink Floyd the eipitome of power rock, and She Came in Through the Bathroom Window (the Beatles version, please) is a blues song. And the Blues is God's music. Mostly. Bass305 is worth a slot in my playlist still, FSOL was and is a revelation, Air is my guilty pleasure, Moby is clever, I do NOT CARE that Toni Childs is white, Sara McLachlan can sing that sad shit forever, and Madeleine Peyroux seemed like a scared little girl when I first heard her, and it's wonderful she's still working at this. Yes, I'm a fool for female voices. Between Mahler's First, Ravel, Handel, and Beethoven I have enough, so Tchaikovsky is dessert. Puccini is enough.
But try to expand the musical horizons of my 15 yo FD? Oh, dear God, she kinda likes George Clinton, thinks George Michael is saccharine, Boy George is some weird inside joke, Snoop is old but cred, Will Smith is an actor, Hammer is a tool, and I'm stupid trying to share my decrepit music with her. All the time I realize that her radio is filled with the same 8 songs all day long, she prefers 'gangsta' rap from men who she would file restraining orders against if they were in her life, and has the modern version of picket fence/station wagon/2.2 kids/dog/cat/vacation on the shore, which is total devotion/two against the world/total bliss/rule the world. I pray that dream is broken gently, but the music is corrosive. And she knows it, but it's like a drug. Actually, it's a drug. Yes.
I'll pass on having to explain how Baby, It's Cold Outside and Acid Queen are less sexual than anything she's listening to. That is not so easy after all.
"You need a swarm of remote-controllable drones able to get within sufficient range of the offender and deploy an artificial EMP."
Collateral damage prohibits this.
"The real problem is how much more quickly an autonomous attacker can kill/hurt a lot of people with precision BEFORE a credible response could be launched, and the fact the terrorist might have the advantage of targetting the very location, people, or things they need to target in order to snuff out or delay response efforts."
Response time is the Achilles heel of counter-terrorism. True. However, imagine this hypothetical device surviving the initial response. The duration will increase substantially. So too the casualties. Evacuation would have to be a quick decision, and then possibly waiting the device out. A little imagination leads you to using an armored vehicle to take that out, if it's accessible, or a counter-robot and explosives, probably. Collateral damage. Bad situation.
"So I say you need a partially autonomous automatic response with no single or centralized point subject to attack..... this suggests surrounding the public with fleets of surveillance drones whose purpose is to identify and alert on potential autonomous (or other) threats And upon a risky enough situation begin the response process on their own."
"no single or centralized point subject to attack" - um, sorry, but a single target doesn't fit into this strategy as expressed. Worse, though you propose a standing fleet of drones ready to react. I doubt this is successful if the threat becomes an explosive. Too late. But a hit and run attack has your drones trying to identify the threat, which is still, despite being simple manufacture, able to shoot-and-scoot in an urban setting, spreading the damage, which will probably be the strategy as it evolves, and identifying the threat is the key step, If it dodges, you have a lot of problems, standing fleet or not.
We are within reach of a time where response is not enough. But prevention is out of reach, unless you tackle the root causes.
"a killing machine with unwavering loyalty and a complete absence of conscious"
That's not the problem.
If you, a civilian police officer, are faced with a terrorist attack by a semi-autonomous robotic rifle, trigger being pulled at maximum rate (or a bump stock being part of the mechanism), immune to small arms fire, able to target accurately out to 100 yards, and able to negotiate stairs and open doors, what do you do, wait for the military to respond?
Such devices are well within reach of determined and moderately funded groups. Remotely guided devices seem simpler. Change the weapon to a pistol and put it on a hefty drone and you have air cover and the death toll is tripled, mostly first responders.
It's not the lack of conscience of the devices, it's the lack of conscience of the criminals building and deploying them. We face enemies that have a different conscience than we do, one incompatible with our typical morals. THAT is the problem. They will build and use weapons of unacceptable, unimaginable brutality and efficiency, all to achieve their goals.
Excellent. And we've come full circle, where this is a similar argument for or against encryption. The difference is, can the corporation (or individual, actually) delete data upon being served a warrant, or are they immediately guilty of obstruction etc. because they were aware of the warrant? Are they under any obligation to NOT destroy evidence when asked for it?
Well, surprising to you maybe. Not me. The Brits gave it up, the Crown not so much. And before you ask, Quebec isn't yet a part of France. Ask the French, and they will make it clear. Crystal. Clear.
"And the EU is not governed by Euro Liberals, it's governed by Euro Christian Democrats (which are considered to be conservatives here) and Socialists, hence their policies"
Please, could we agree that when flip a coin, it isn't heads AND tails at the same time? The EU isn't governed by Euro Christian Democrats and Socialists as in 'governed by every spectrum political thought'. The EPP currently dominates leadership of the EC, but national leadership isn't nearly so unified. I can't define Merkel as conservative by actions. En Marche isn't easily defined as right-wing. Scandinavian political leadership doesn't seem right-wing either, to me. Britain is moving to the right it seems, but leaving the EU...
In fact, the EU seems a bit schizophrenic right now, but only in claimed philosophy. When political actions are examined they seem left-wing to me.
But I'm becoming contrary, so maybe I've missed this. Doubt it, but maybe.
I did know of some carriers that locked the chip in various phones. Oh yea, my Sensation 4G did also.
But My U11 doesn't have an FM chip, which is in the middle of the list of reasons why I probably have purchased my last HTC phone. Time to move on to another manufacturer, with different annoyances, just to break an 8 year streak of HTC highs and lows.
This is all protectionism, aka copyright/trademarking, aka interference. Sometimes that's useful, sometimes not. In the EU, we do not see an unfettered protectionist state yet, but it is still ruled by cross-border disputes. Melting pot indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Conflating much?
Bio-diesel is a particularly bad deal, very inefficient. And it's unlikely to be profitable or even useful to try to grow soy where you grow wood for fuel.
It's not merely about solving world hunger, because supply isn't likely to do that, it's just a pie-in -the-sky option. It's about not spending topsoil on what is otherwise readily available. Ethanol is still a competitive additive, but bio-diesel is mostly, by volume, a forced march to pretend the military can be environmentally conscious.
I know someone who spent their entire military career developing and implementing battlefield cleanup programs and methods. They did far more than could ever be done by biofuels in military use. And the military engineer will leave far more value behind in good water wells and useful buildings than a biofuel plant. Anywhere.
It's still misguided. Food for fuel is a terrible idea, and will eventually become obsolete, then we will launch into the discussion of food as feedstock for manufacturing.
Perhaps, but the assessment of the climate change movement as a religion predates Trump's Presidency by at least a decade. Maybe two.
I'm not narrow-minded, I'm focused.
Food is the highest value use of corn and soy, for example. Waste products of these crops have utility as fuel, but soy in particular is low waste. While hunger worldwide is largely driven by war or politics (but I repeat myself), being able to afford to literally drop food on the starving, enough so that even the military can't steal it all, would be a game changer. And while we can't simple grow all that as if it were becoming ethanol and instead give it away, encouraging fuel use will not help.
It's not narrow-minded to be efficient. And I know I may be choosing between ethanol and MTBE, but we are on a headlong rush to obsoleting the ICE and avoiding so much of this. Even refining natural gas might make more sense than ethanol, but that's probably going to be too late to survive the electrification of ground transport. Within my lifetime, God willing, I'll see aircraft as the last widespread use of petroleum-based fuels.
Corn is food. Soy is food. Alternative uses as fuel are wasteful.
Wood is fuel. Cinnamon bark is a spice, and not many people think to burn cinnamon.
Burning food in your car or truck is stupid.
Her first album has a couple of great tunes, one an anthem. Not at all bad. Her second is a tough sell. But I'm a fool for bass, so I was probably suffering an endorphin rush.
Go fish out any of the CDs that Linda Ronstadt recorded with Nelson Riddle. Or virtually any single song. Kinda reminds you of the current flavor of sexploitation hip-hop so popular with kids, if all you do is focus on the words.
And so I am convicted.
Maybe if you were dirt poor you wouldn't have to worry about theft and could leave your door open at night.
No, someone would always want what little you have. And so it is in geopolitical relations. So you lock the doors and either engage security forces credible enough to deter overt theft, or you maintain your own deterrent, overt or not, and expect your external security to make preventative efforts, wither at the local/individual level, or internationally.
And yes, the US government is and has been a supreme dick to many nations. Some of our adversaries need no such motive, however.
Agile means able to quickly avoid. Both in aircraft and programming.
Self-defense is likely the least common use case. I'm not concerned about that, but more about police use, where errors are so prevalent that elevating their capabilities will increase the lethality of mistakes/SWATing/overreaction, and the police are not yet held sufficiently accountable to discourage these.
Accountability isn't a uniquely police issue.
'Angry'. 'Uneducated'.
There ya go, insightful analysis. Not.
Actually, the lemming comment is equally valid accusing our youth of following whatever meme they are being fed at the moment.
Me? I'm an aging white cracker homophobe post-Republican conservative, and I love Camilla Cabello, Lourde, Khalid, Halsey. I still prefer 70s power rock/metal, Led Zeppelin is with Pink Floyd the eipitome of power rock, and She Came in Through the Bathroom Window (the Beatles version, please) is a blues song. And the Blues is God's music. Mostly. Bass305 is worth a slot in my playlist still, FSOL was and is a revelation, Air is my guilty pleasure, Moby is clever, I do NOT CARE that Toni Childs is white, Sara McLachlan can sing that sad shit forever, and Madeleine Peyroux seemed like a scared little girl when I first heard her, and it's wonderful she's still working at this. Yes, I'm a fool for female voices. Between Mahler's First, Ravel, Handel, and Beethoven I have enough, so Tchaikovsky is dessert. Puccini is enough.
But try to expand the musical horizons of my 15 yo FD? Oh, dear God, she kinda likes George Clinton, thinks George Michael is saccharine, Boy George is some weird inside joke, Snoop is old but cred, Will Smith is an actor, Hammer is a tool, and I'm stupid trying to share my decrepit music with her. All the time I realize that her radio is filled with the same 8 songs all day long, she prefers 'gangsta' rap from men who she would file restraining orders against if they were in her life, and has the modern version of picket fence/station wagon/2 .2 kids/dog/cat/vacation on the shore, which is total devotion/two against the world/total bliss/rule the world. I pray that dream is broken gently, but the music is corrosive. And she knows it, but it's like a drug. Actually, it's a drug. Yes.
I'll pass on having to explain how Baby, It's Cold Outside and Acid Queen are less sexual than anything she's listening to. That is not so easy after all.
And so it's the Deja Vu all over again.
"You need a swarm of remote-controllable drones able to get within sufficient range of the offender and deploy an artificial EMP."
Collateral damage prohibits this.
"The real problem is how much more quickly an autonomous attacker can kill/hurt a lot of people with precision BEFORE a credible response could be launched, and the fact the terrorist might have the advantage of targetting the very location, people, or things they need to target in order to snuff out or delay response efforts."
Response time is the Achilles heel of counter-terrorism. True. However, imagine this hypothetical device surviving the initial response. The duration will increase substantially. So too the casualties. Evacuation would have to be a quick decision, and then possibly waiting the device out. A little imagination leads you to using an armored vehicle to take that out, if it's accessible, or a counter-robot and explosives, probably. Collateral damage. Bad situation.
"So I say you need a partially autonomous automatic response with no single or centralized point subject to attack..... this suggests surrounding the public with fleets of surveillance drones whose purpose is to identify and alert on potential autonomous (or other) threats And upon a risky enough situation begin the response process on their own."
"no single or centralized point subject to attack" - um, sorry, but a single target doesn't fit into this strategy as expressed. Worse, though you propose a standing fleet of drones ready to react. I doubt this is successful if the threat becomes an explosive. Too late. But a hit and run attack has your drones trying to identify the threat, which is still, despite being simple manufacture, able to shoot-and-scoot in an urban setting, spreading the damage, which will probably be the strategy as it evolves, and identifying the threat is the key step, If it dodges, you have a lot of problems, standing fleet or not.
We are within reach of a time where response is not enough. But prevention is out of reach, unless you tackle the root causes.
Sure. Different solution.
Glad my example is valid for other use cases.
You don't actually know WHY California is so successful, do you?
If you did, you'd know why it is run by morons, and why the results are what they are.
"a killing machine with unwavering loyalty and a complete absence of conscious"
That's not the problem.
If you, a civilian police officer, are faced with a terrorist attack by a semi-autonomous robotic rifle, trigger being pulled at maximum rate (or a bump stock being part of the mechanism), immune to small arms fire, able to target accurately out to 100 yards, and able to negotiate stairs and open doors, what do you do, wait for the military to respond?
Such devices are well within reach of determined and moderately funded groups. Remotely guided devices seem simpler. Change the weapon to a pistol and put it on a hefty drone and you have air cover and the death toll is tripled, mostly first responders.
It's not the lack of conscience of the devices, it's the lack of conscience of the criminals building and deploying them. We face enemies that have a different conscience than we do, one incompatible with our typical morals. THAT is the problem. They will build and use weapons of unacceptable, unimaginable brutality and efficiency, all to achieve their goals.
Time to release a USB-C interfaced phone. Lightning has run its course, and time to spawn a round of new peripherals. Profit.
Excellent. And we've come full circle, where this is a similar argument for or against encryption. The difference is, can the corporation (or individual, actually) delete data upon being served a warrant, or are they immediately guilty of obstruction etc. because they were aware of the warrant? Are they under any obligation to NOT destroy evidence when asked for it?
I'm even more glad I'm not a lawyer.
In this modern world going to a judge and contesting a subpoena pretty much guarantees data being deleted, purged, or just modified.
A proactive collection followed by challenges is common unless you're politically connected.
And in the midst of this, does Lyft have the same problems with government and such?
"If you treat the government as an adversary, trying to undermine them, then I would say you are experienced in dealing with them."
There, FTFY
Surprisingly, Europe has not yet annexed Canada.
Well, surprising to you maybe. Not me. The Brits gave it up, the Crown not so much. And before you ask, Quebec isn't yet a part of France. Ask the French, and they will make it clear. Crystal. Clear.
"And the EU is not governed by Euro Liberals, it's governed by Euro Christian Democrats (which are considered to be conservatives here) and Socialists, hence their policies"
Please, could we agree that when flip a coin, it isn't heads AND tails at the same time? The EU isn't governed by Euro Christian Democrats and Socialists as in 'governed by every spectrum political thought'. The EPP currently dominates leadership of the EC, but national leadership isn't nearly so unified. I can't define Merkel as conservative by actions. En Marche isn't easily defined as right-wing. Scandinavian political leadership doesn't seem right-wing either, to me. Britain is moving to the right it seems, but leaving the EU...
In fact, the EU seems a bit schizophrenic right now, but only in claimed philosophy. When political actions are examined they seem left-wing to me.
But I'm becoming contrary, so maybe I've missed this. Doubt it, but maybe.
My HTC M7 had an unlocked FM chip. So did the M8.
I did know of some carriers that locked the chip in various phones. Oh yea, my Sensation 4G did also.
But My U11 doesn't have an FM chip, which is in the middle of the list of reasons why I probably have purchased my last HTC phone. Time to move on to another manufacturer, with different annoyances, just to break an 8 year streak of HTC highs and lows.
Product labels. As in what they are named.
I buy Muenster cheese in the US from a variety of sources. The misspelling is intentional. Its history is interesting.
But in Europe, I wonder if you can buy muenster cheese. At least one, the EU tried to prevent that.
This is all protectionism, aka copyright/trademarking, aka interference. Sometimes that's useful, sometimes not. In the EU, we do not see an unfettered protectionist state yet, but it is still ruled by cross-border disputes. Melting pot indeed.
Of course. graphical displays aren't new.
This where I'm tempted to ask 'do I look that stupid to you?', but that's an old trick you won't fall for.