Fraa Jad's mental praxis is more believable than this "big bang" nonsense.
Obviously, photons die of old age at 14b years. And old photons have red hair. It is much simpler and more consistent than the hoops they invent to hide the fact that their predictions for the 14b+ time scale don't work.
We understand the atom very well, but even the predictions for the edge of the solar system were recently found wrong. We only recently measured the Earth's radiation belts... not quite as predicted.
The "big bang" is the flat earthers looking out at the horizon, the most distant photons they can see... "yep, that is as far as we can see, it must be the edge of everything!" D'oh!
If you *heart* science but suck at it, be a cosmologist.
There will still be stop lights for many, many years because there will still be manual vehicles on the road. At first, we won't even have central traffic control systems to tell the cars when the lights change.
The others are enough to make up at least some of the difference. Once they make a high percentage of the vehicles on the road, those advantages will magnify as other traffic is moving more predictably and cooperatively. Once we have a decade of real-world safety data in, then the laws will start to change with higher speed limits and special commuter lanes for self-driving cars.
Yeah, I'll be jumping up and down like a little girl the day it is on the news that self-driving cars get lower insurance rates. That's when the transportation will start getting safer.
If you can use a laptop and phone instead of driving, then the travel time doesn't matter that much for most people. It is just that much time they're stuck in the mobile office.
The minimum stopping speed doesn't matter, because they don't slam on the brakes 100%. Also, a "couple feet" is a lot more space to a calm software program with lidar positioning than it is to a slow-minded humaan. They will be under 100% control of the vehicle even while emergency braking. Any sort of car-train scenario would have wireless communication between the cars, so their telemetry systems would be telling each other both where they are, and where they predict they will be
Geee, if you have a cell phone, they're already tracking you. I don't really care if they can track my car if they're already tracking my person. I don't loan the car out, so it would be redundant. They can already tell if I'm driving because I'm switching cell towers.
Right, the driver is financially responsible, but only criminally liable if they disabled safety equipment. Nobody knows yet if they will require a licensed and sober human driver, or if there is just a big red "emergency stop" button, and no driver required.
Or you operate the little lever next to the handle.
But the relevant point was that automatic door locks can short out in the water and trap you in the vehicle. I don't know if it is true or not. If you drive into the water, roll the window down right away so that you can escape the vehicle even if the pressure difference prevents opening the door.
"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." --Daniel Ellsberg
That's fine, but there are plenty of non technical ways to get him to give up the keys.
There is no way, technical or non-technical, to get him to give up the keys if he doesn't *have* the keys.
Yes there is. Make him give up the people who have the keys, then poison one of their family members with polonium. Don't underestimate the power of the Russian intelligence community to get his information, especially when they have him in their physical possession. They have tools that even the NSA isn't given.
Why is there presumed to be evidence "in his favor?" What evidence there is or isn't is a physical fact. Does he deny having leaked operational intel from Pakistan and the middle east? No? So, what sort of "evidence" are you hoping for? Mitigating character references for sentencing?
He's admitted being the source of the leaks in public, on video. There have been no claims that I've heard about him not being the source of the damaging overseas leaks.
How would a fair trial result in other than his conviction? Mandela, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Daniel Ellsberg, they all faced jail time for standing up for what they believed in. That is part of how they created change. "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." -- Daniel Ellsberg
Just because you're likely to be convicted doesn't mean you didn't get a fair trial. What if he really DID leak secrets about security operations in Pakistan, and other such examples? If he really IS the source of those leaks, then a "fair" trial would likely result in his conviction. Especially if he has confessed on international TV.
Actually there are a huge number of lawyers who already have solid security clearances. Also, there is no recent history of the government trying to keep lawyers off of cases. And the list of lawyers that would be happy to have him as a client, that is basically every lawyer in a related field.
Even the secret courts are releasing some of their rulings. Turns out the judges in the "secret" court are actually the same judges in the regular court, not different people, and they only like the secrecy as long as the government is following most of the rules. A major criminal case is not going to happen in secret, you've been watching too many movies.
Well, I voted for Senator Wyden(D-OR) so I say it is your own fault if you can't find a politician to vote for who is solid on these issues and trying to create change from the inside.
Even if you vote for somebody who loses, making this an election issue, even just regarding your own single vote, gives you your share of the say. Collectively we have all of the say.
Just because the sausage we have is spoiled, doesn't mean it isn't out doing, or that the solution isn't our doing.
How about this one, the NSA are out of control criminals and outside of their legal authority, and Snowden is a traitor and a Russian spy.
Snowden doesn't become good by the NSA being bad. If he had only leaked the stuff that shows the NSA breaking the law, he'd be a hero. But a spy who released important overseas operational information can't also release some domestic stuff and somehow become good.
Slashdot Mirror
Fraa Jad's mental praxis is more believable than this "big bang" nonsense.
Obviously, photons die of old age at 14b years. And old photons have red hair. It is much simpler and more consistent than the hoops they invent to hide the fact that their predictions for the 14b+ time scale don't work.
We understand the atom very well, but even the predictions for the edge of the solar system were recently found wrong. We only recently measured the Earth's radiation belts... not quite as predicted.
The "big bang" is the flat earthers looking out at the horizon, the most distant photons they can see... "yep, that is as far as we can see, it must be the edge of everything!" D'oh!
If you *heart* science but suck at it, be a cosmologist.
These systems already exist, dude. lololol
While most states do have laws stating slower traffic must keep left, I've not once seen them enforced.
No, your other right.
Civil wars are not cheaper than foreign wars, that is an urban legend.
There will still be stop lights for many, many years because there will still be manual vehicles on the road. At first, we won't even have central traffic control systems to tell the cars when the lights change.
The others are enough to make up at least some of the difference. Once they make a high percentage of the vehicles on the road, those advantages will magnify as other traffic is moving more predictably and cooperatively. Once we have a decade of real-world safety data in, then the laws will start to change with higher speed limits and special commuter lanes for self-driving cars.
Yeah, I'll be jumping up and down like a little girl the day it is on the news that self-driving cars get lower insurance rates. That's when the transportation will start getting safer.
If you can use a laptop and phone instead of driving, then the travel time doesn't matter that much for most people. It is just that much time they're stuck in the mobile office.
The minimum stopping speed doesn't matter, because they don't slam on the brakes 100%. Also, a "couple feet" is a lot more space to a calm software program with lidar positioning than it is to a slow-minded humaan. They will be under 100% control of the vehicle even while emergency braking. Any sort of car-train scenario would have wireless communication between the cars, so their telemetry systems would be telling each other both where they are, and where they predict they will be
..."efficiently" maximizing revenue while minimizing idle time.
If you've already balanced for maximum revenue, you don't even need to calculate for idle time.
Geee, if you have a cell phone, they're already tracking you. I don't really care if they can track my car if they're already tracking my person. I don't loan the car out, so it would be redundant. They can already tell if I'm driving because I'm switching cell towers.
Right, the driver is financially responsible, but only criminally liable if they disabled safety equipment. Nobody knows yet if they will require a licensed and sober human driver, or if there is just a big red "emergency stop" button, and no driver required.
Or you operate the little lever next to the handle.
But the relevant point was that automatic door locks can short out in the water and trap you in the vehicle. I don't know if it is true or not. If you drive into the water, roll the window down right away so that you can escape the vehicle even if the pressure difference prevents opening the door.
beowulf clusters does your algorithm desire?
No. Russia, China, "the Islamists" -- none of these bogeymen currently pose a threat to the US.
No Mr Anonymous Fascist, I'll actually insist on my civilian elected officials to determine who the threats are.
You're a new account, so how do I know you're not a sock puppet?
I think he's from planet Talley-ban
"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." --Daniel Ellsberg
There is no way, technical or non-technical, to get him to give up the keys if he doesn't *have* the keys.
Yes there is. Make him give up the people who have the keys, then poison one of their family members with polonium. Don't underestimate the power of the Russian intelligence community to get his information, especially when they have him in their physical possession. They have tools that even the NSA isn't given.
Why is there presumed to be evidence "in his favor?" What evidence there is or isn't is a physical fact. Does he deny having leaked operational intel from Pakistan and the middle east? No? So, what sort of "evidence" are you hoping for? Mitigating character references for sentencing?
He's admitted being the source of the leaks in public, on video. There have been no claims that I've heard about him not being the source of the damaging overseas leaks.
How would a fair trial result in other than his conviction? Mandela, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Daniel Ellsberg, they all faced jail time for standing up for what they believed in. That is part of how they created change.
"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." -- Daniel Ellsberg
Just because you're likely to be convicted doesn't mean you didn't get a fair trial. What if he really DID leak secrets about security operations in Pakistan, and other such examples? If he really IS the source of those leaks, then a "fair" trial would likely result in his conviction. Especially if he has confessed on international TV.
Actually there are a huge number of lawyers who already have solid security clearances. Also, there is no recent history of the government trying to keep lawyers off of cases. And the list of lawyers that would be happy to have him as a client, that is basically every lawyer in a related field.
Even the secret courts are releasing some of their rulings. Turns out the judges in the "secret" court are actually the same judges in the regular court, not different people, and they only like the secrecy as long as the government is following most of the rules. A major criminal case is not going to happen in secret, you've been watching too many movies.
our elites have failed us and it's only a matter of time before history repeats and the streets run with blood.
You have a very... limited understanding of history if you think that the elites "failing" the commoners tends to result in their blood being spilled.
A much more common pattern is that the commoners get out of line and their blood ends up running in the streets, and then order is restored.
I'm thinking elections are a lot more likely to reform government agencies than riots.
Then which "side" is Senator Wyden(D-OR) on?
I'll give you a hint: you're just reciting silly propaganda from the 2000 election.
Well, I voted for Senator Wyden(D-OR) so I say it is your own fault if you can't find a politician to vote for who is solid on these issues and trying to create change from the inside.
Even if you vote for somebody who loses, making this an election issue, even just regarding your own single vote, gives you your share of the say. Collectively we have all of the say.
Just because the sausage we have is spoiled, doesn't mean it isn't out doing, or that the solution isn't our doing.
I agree with you this far:
Snowden is as patriotic towards the US as George Washington was to the UK.
How about this one, the NSA are out of control criminals and outside of their legal authority, and Snowden is a traitor and a Russian spy.
Snowden doesn't become good by the NSA being bad. If he had only leaked the stuff that shows the NSA breaking the law, he'd be a hero. But a spy who released important overseas operational information can't also release some domestic stuff and somehow become good.