The difference is that the batteries can ignite without an external heat source.
That doesn't necessarily make them more dangerous. I have a friend who lost a home to a fire that started in the engine compartment of a car in the garage. It was probably a leaky fuel line dripping onto a hot engine component. In your reconing is that an internal or an external heat source? Of order half a dozen car fires happen during a typical commute day on SF bay area freeways, and that's not counting the fires that start because of collisions.
It doesn't seem that likely that Teslas are any more fire prone than any other car. The rates for gasoline cars have about one serious (i.e. reported to police) fire per 18 million miles. If the average car goes 180K miles, that's about 1% that go up in flames at some point. The average Tesla hasn't gone that far, and I don't know what the fleet mileage is, but I'll be surprised if they are that flammable.
The real security concern with VMs is duplication
... if you clone a bunch of VMs but they start with the same entropy pool, then generate an SSL cert after clone, the other SSL certs will be easily predicted.
Yeah, I encountered that the other day. Built a VM, took a snapshot, did some stuff, reverted, did the same stuff. I was testing a procedure doc I was writing. Part of the procedure was creating an SSL cert, and I got an identical one on both attempts. That seems a little fishy to me; I would expect the certs to be (by the standards of cryptography) very similar, not identical. With that said, I didn't actually generate the cert myself, I ran a script (which I didn't write) to do it. The script might be using the same random seed or something. Or it could be a characteristic of moznss.
Feeling good about your EC2 instances, eh?
No shit. It might be worthwhile to use your desktop or some other hardware you control to seed your VM's PRNG with higher-quality entropy. That way, you should at least be able to avoid collisions with other VMs on the same hardware.
That's a great idea, but the problem is that the cost of digital reproduction is near enough zero as makes no difference. If you publish an e-book, and I buy a copy for $5, why would anyone else buy a copy when they could get one for free from me? Some people would do it out of habit. Others would do it because they feel it's the honest thing to do. But most people would not. I've got to imagine that it would be really hard to make a living this way.
You'd probably have to switch to a Kickstarter-like model. The prospective author uploads a high-level summary of what he wants to write. People who want to read it donate a couple bucks. The author then writes something and releases it for free. This would probably work, at least in a sense, but it'd be hard to fund longer works this way. You'd get a lot of short stories, novellas, and serials. I've got nothing against those formats, but I do like to have some diversity.
Philosophically, we're both in total agreement. I really only have a problem with how it would work (or not) in practice. I think a more realistic solution would be to have copyright, just like we do now, but with a drastically reduced term. Like, one year by default, up to a maximum of five years if you apply for an extension each year. If you can't break even on your copyrighted work in less than five years, you're never going to. If people are willing to wait for your copyright to expire rather than buying now, your work isn't important enough to deserve protection.
When I drop a ball, and show that it follows the path predicted by gravitation, what more must I do to "show" that gravity caused the ball to fall.
When the atmospheric CO2 content increases and the global average temperature goes up about the amount Arrhenius said it would back in 1906 due to basic physical principles, and then I show that is in fact human emissions that caused the CO2 increase, what more must I do to "show" that global warming cause the temperature increase.
Another well named coward that doesn't understand science. Do you know what disproving global warming would get a scientist? Fame and fortune! Oil companies would have a bidding war to hire him. You know why it hasn't been done? Because global warming is real and it's happening at pretty much the rate Arrhenius predicted 107 years ago. The reasons why it is happening should be obvious to anyone who has studied the subject. The way to stop it is also obvious.
The big fame in science comes from disproof. The most referenced papers of mine are ones where I disproved theoretical claims. Every scientist wants to be the one who disproves something big.
Signed the Truth? You are a laugh riot. How much do you think it would cost Exxon and the Koch brothers if oil and coal production gets cut? A hell of a lot more than any bankers stand to gain from it.
Follow the money, but use your brain rather than your politics.
The AGW hypothesis may or may not reflect actual reality. That's the problem with an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
The AGW hypothesis is not unfalsifiable. People with no understanding of science often make that claim. A couple decades of significant cooling (0.05C per decade or so compared to the warming trend of 0.18C/decade warming since 1970. ) while CO2 levels continued to climb would probably be enough to do that.
The problem for people who like to lie about science is that the science of AGW is very basic and well understood. To pretend it's not going to happen you have to imagine something that could stop it. And so far nobody has been able to invent something that can stop it short of a catastrophic breakdown in global atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Be my guest. Find something that can prevent CO2 from increasing temperatures and prove it. In 1906, Arhennius calculated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 when including water vapor feedback was 2.1C. Current estimates are between 2C and 4.5C. Go ahead, find a way to make the climate sensitivity negative and show that it works.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988, so where do you get the idea that what it's called has changed?
The indisputable increase in global average temperature due to human CO2 emissions is called global warming. The response of the global climate system to that increase is called climate change. The climate changes vary by locale. That distinction has been there for quite some time.
Yeah, the summary reads like word salad. Hell, the woman's name reads like word salad.
In this context, "internal" means "within the NSA," and "external" means "outside the NSA, but still within the federal government."
When the hospital staph
Hilariously topical malapropism.