Where did you get the idea that we're going to kill people?
Where did you get the idea that we're going to kill people?
I think you are underestimating the role that consumers play in their own downfall.
Cigarettes are bad for you, and everybody knows this, but millions of smokers buy them anyway. Nobody (outside of their own addiction) is forcing them to do so.
HCFS is bad for you, but it makes food taste better -- or at least, it makes people more likely to buy the food. So when company A adds HCFS, its sales increase, and if company B refuses to, it loses market share and might go out of business. Again, nobody is forcing consumers to buy foods with more HCFS, rather it turns out they do so on their own when given the choice.
I'm sure there are people in government (as well as in industry) who value maximizing profit over maximizing health, but they aren't the only bad actors here. There are many areas where people knowingly make health-negative decisions for themselves, simply because they value the short-term enjoyment more than the long-term health benefits.
I don't have any good solution to propose for that problem, but I think any workable solution will have to take that into account rather than just blaming all bad outcomes solely on the supply side.
The more I see of Mike Pence the better I like him. It's a bright future.
Theocracies are hell and are up there with fascist dictatorships and totalarian communism in the really really shit ways to run a country stakes.
Bright future, if goosestepping whilst clutching a bible , is your thing.
Or, to rephrase, powerful tools are powerful tools. The main reason PowerShell can do more damage is because it can do more stuff.
Yep. Its the same thing as the bash/csh/etc family of *nix shells. Plenty of malware nasties use it because its so easy to get a powerful result
Its not really a vunerability
Maybe an unpopular oppinion
Well being completely untrue tends to have that effect on an opinion.
This has nothing to do with refugees (Who are not 'burning shit' in paris). Calais was a good 300+ km away, nearly a year ago, and ironically the fires where lit by englishmen.
But hey, keep mashing the crazy keys Anonymous Coward.
Is the fact that people do this kind of really clever shit for more or less ordinary income, is it proof that the economy is in some way broken?
The economy undoubtedly is broken in many ways, but I think exploits like this are less about the economy and more about programmers getting bored and wanting to show off how clever they are; and if they can also make some money doing it, so much the better.
Not my fault their business model is not profitable.
Not their fault your web browser is insecure?
Do you think your car drives you into a wall as soon as you drive into a tunnel?
GPS does not override sensor data.
... the Circle alwaus seemed...
I know from context that you meant to write "always", but my mind interpreted that word as "walrus"
Now how does that work?
/fæzm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. ...
One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.
Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism". Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence". Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.
Some scholars consider fascism to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right, explaining that, "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."
Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. A major element of fascist ideology that has been deemed to be far-right is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements.
Benito Mussolini in 1919 described fascism as a movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left". Later, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century." Mussolini stated that fascism's position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue to fascists...
Fascism is what we today call the "alt-right" - right-populism. The greatest enemy of fascism is those who prefer, support and embrace diversity - what the alt-right calls "cucks". Fascists seek a return to the "good old days", some sort of lost "days of glory", where "traditional" values reigned, while simultaneously rejecting the globalism and the focus on the upper classes that are embraced by many other right-wing movements. Because of the populism aspects, they can sometimes find common ground with left-populists on measures against globalism and support for the working class - while simultaneously despising them as "cucks" who are ruining society by embracing ((( insert list of "problematic" social groups here ))).
Google's an easy target; this is hardly the first time. Anyone here seen Ex Machina? Plot summary: "Sergey Brin's home pet project is to put Google's neural nets into robots, what could go wrong?". They don't call him Sergey Brin and they don't call the company Google, but they don't exactly hide their basis either.
Russian government officials had contacts with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, in a report that could reopen scrutiny over the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton.
"Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Rybakov said. “ I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.”
I'll repeat for emphasis: staying in touch with most of his entourage during the campaign. And what did they have to talk about?
Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”
The Obama administration accused Russian authorities of hacking Democratic party emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks. Putin has previously dismissed as “nonsense” claims of Russian interference.
Whether or not you choose to believe that Putin and his party are responsible for his win, they think that they are.
As for the other stuff, I'm not sure what you're questioning - that's just history; pick up a history textbook.
How can you Godwin yourself in a discussion of Hitler?
HVDC lines have one big problem against them, cost. These wires cost money. The losses may be minimal on paper but they also add up over time.
I'm going to try the peer-reviewed study in Nature that I read on the subject, which determined that they save nearly four times as much as they cost.
(I've also done back of a napkin calculations, and ended up with a number well less than the Nature estimate)
This is compounded by the issue that wind and solar are not cheap.
Once upon a time that was true. Not any more. Even solar, which used to be playing catchup with wind, way behind, is now coming in at some crazy low cost figures, like the $1/W plant that just opened in India, which is bloody nuts.
Not even going to bring the conversation into the costs of dumping pollution into the environment. Or the costs and consequences of having to have huge amounts of cooling water (and the curtailments you have to do during droughts). Or geopolitical issues.
r just to avoid the "N" word... nuclear.
Yeah, if you have $10+/W just to spend on construction, not even counting operations and decommissioning or the government-provided catastrophic accident insurance (which no private industry would ever put themselves on the line for - Fukushima's now estimated at $200B). And of course which uses even more cooling water than fossil fuels. And if you like having to estimate future power supply and demand 10-20 years into the future before your plant even comes online.
K Street loves nuclear. Wall Street, not so much.
We've seen government subsidies for wind and solar power going on for decades and little to show for it
You have to be joking. First - beating around the bush here - wind subsidies are not that great, and more to the point, the constant year-to-year uncertainty on the PTC has been a big hindrance to the industry. But more to the point, wind has gone from absurdly expensive to very cheap (as low as 2,5 cents per kWh in 2014), growing with an average annual 30% rate of growth for 10 years. Last year wind made up 41% of new nameplate generation and solar 26%.
Whether you want wind and solar or not, they're happening. They've gotten too cheap to stop. You'd have to actively try to stop them with punative taxation policies at this point if you wanted to stop wind and solar's percentage of the grid from growing.
That's not exactly true. RMCC is multi-node. But that's rare, and it's a lot more complicated. You're right that as a general rule, they're point to point - aka, move lots of power a long distance, then fan it out to local AC grids.
Peaking does not cause blackouts; peaking prevents blackouts. I'm thinking that perhaps you're confused about what a peaking plant is.
Yes, but cross country grid loading is a bad idea. Very bad.
Interconnected HVDC grids offer increases in grid stability, as cascading failures can't propagate through them (AC failures are prone to cascade as different parts of the grid go out of sync with each other). Yet most of the time a nationwide renewables-supporting HVDC grid is not used at near peak capacity (its capacity is sized for peak load transmission requirements, not average), and thus can generally have their power routed through other legs if one line goes down without curtailments (often, even, without need for peaking - it depends on timing). The grid itself is designed, as with everything else concerning electricity generation and transmission, to provide a statistically-guaranteed level of power reliability.
It's important to remember also that in the US you have basically three separate power grids today - west, east (which is kind of a patchwork), and "ERCOT", which is basically Texas doing its own little weird thing. To allow them to support each other, they have a number of converters, mainly DC ties. Basically, HVDC terminals without any actual long-distance transmission lines. So it's already done to improve grid reliability and economics. Also, certain parts of the grid already rely on long HVDC lines. Not just for "moving peak power because of intermittent shortages in one region", as a grid for supporting high renewable penetration does, but actual baseload. For example, in the northeast, RMCC moves 2 GW of remote Quebec hydropower to New England. It's almost always run at near capacity.
Europe and China uses HVDC a lot more than the US. Europe mainly for undersea lines, China to move power from inland to its densely populated coast. Both have major plans for expansion.
Tomorrow's computers some time next month. -- DEC