The use of that particular derogatory epithet does not reflect on the person to whom you applied it. It reflects back on you, the user, who it shows to be as uninformed as ignorant and pitiably out of touch with modern social mores.

We do not any longer make derogatory epithets for people out of obsolete and oppressive 19c theories of abilities, any more than we any longer use racial epithets derived from unscientific and oppressive accounts of human origins.

Tried to order. The magazine is $30CAD, which itself is exorbitant enough but I was willing to pay. Then I got to shipping, they are doing this through SHOP, and the cheapest option was $32 DHL courier. Jesus guys, what happened to print day, you have boxes and boxes, and you stuff them into mailers and send them by good old fashioned USPS. I checked, and even first class priority USPS is a third of that, with ready options down to the $3-$6 range. If they are going to treat this relaunch as if they are armchair business people re-selling drop shipped boutique coffee at a click and passing on their lack of foot-work to every end customer, then this is going to be a VERY short lived relaunch.

Ouch. You just erased any old school street cred you may have had. One has to have been living under a sci-fi rock not to have heard of Starlog.

There is a very simple solution, which is to legislate that electricity price increases due to data center demand are borne solely by the data centers that create the demand. Then the data centres, as they balloon the electricity costs up, can decide whether or not they want to continue to operate as a power sink where they are, fund their own wind farms or other generation, or move to where there is more spare capacity.

It's not like calculating the exact impact is in any way hard. There is nothing opaque about the numbers.

The problem is that no monkey with a keyboard is doing it except the ones who see $$$ in their eyes and inject ads into a fucking screensaver. I picked that screensaver as there are no other aquarium choices that don't blare dumb ads at annoying intervals.

The great wisdom of the founders resulted in a Constitution that has survived and served the country well through growth, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, civil war, two world wars and the Depression, the Cold War. Its been stress tested in ways and to a degree that probably no other in history has, and the country has prospered under it.

It will now be tested against something new: the politics of religious sectarianism. As in the first taste of this, the victory speech by Abdul El-Sayed.

The founders and the early leaders saw the danger and did their best to provide against it in the 1st and 14th Amendments, and that work has been successful for a couple of centuries. It has restrained political sectarianism both locally and nationally. But in the case of Islam their work will confront a national minority and in some cases a local majority (Dearborn and Hamtramck) which adheres to a religion which is believes in the exact opposite of that approach.

There;s no way around this, its a head-on collision. Don't be in any doubt about the seriousness of the challenge. And don't think that the result is a foregone conclusion in favor of the Constitution. It has survived much, but this is a challenge to the wisdom of the founders as great as any it has faced in the past. There are plenty of grounds for optimism, but none that justify complacency.

How much has your government money grown in that time?

I don't mind the puck, but for personal use would want full opaque, reading mode for books, so hi res and not tiring, maybe not front lit, but minimal light emitting, and price in the low hundreds. I also cannot see optical transparency, totally distracting if you just want to read. Or watch a movie.

They will come, but at this price and this res, this one doesn't cut it.

Maybe in industry? But not for personal use, or not mine anyway.

Illegal doesnâ(TM)t mean I donâ(TM)t have the right to record, tho. Government doesnâ(TM)t give rights.

You can write as long tirades and as expletive filled as you like. But the central point is: do not advocate taking action which will have no effect on a problem in response to it. Do not do things which achieve nothing.

Consequences matter and have to be taken into account when making policy decisions. The only rationale for refusing to take consequences into account is going to be religious dogma.

You may feel that riding that extra trip on the motorcycle is making the problem worse. But in fact this is irrational, it has no effect on it.

If what you are advocating has no effect on global emissions or on the global climate, stop advocating it. Or at least, stop advocating it in the name of climate.

A classic example of the total lack of realism about climate and energy occurred the other day in the UK:
________________________
Greenpeace climate campaigner Maja Darlington has called on the Government to act to stop a 'doomloop of extreme weather', after a summer of wildfires and drought.
She said: 'We've barely cooled off from a summer of blistering heat, and now the first winter storms are battering at the front door.
'While millions of people face the prospect of ruined homes and businesses, oil giants are preparing to announce multi-billion-pound profits next week.'
'The Government must take a stand against this doomloop of extreme weather and corporate impunity,' Ms Darlington added.
_____________________________

Right, the UK Government must do something about the weather. Like what must it do? Oh, it must take a stand. Right, that will really stop the storms. If we can only figure out what it is!

Where do they find these people? And why do they promote them to being Party spokespeople on energy and climate?

Your reaction is perfectly sensible and justifiable and there is no reason to deprive yourself of the pleasure of riding your motorcycle.

We should assess acts and decisions according to their consequences. We should not, in general, do things because they have some vague conceptual connexion to something else, but will have no effect on it.

Take the question of antibiotic resistance. Its a problem, no question, and national level and international level action on it is very desirable. Does that mean I should refuse antibiotic treatment for a family member, even when I know that it is necessary to treat their illness and that its the only treatment that is effective? Of course not. The refusal will make no difference to the global problem, but will risk the life of someone dear to me, to no gain. And there is an elephant in the room: large scale use of antibiotics in agriculture and stock management. Even if we all start refusing them, as long as the use in agriculture persists it will have no effect on the problem. Chinese emissions are analogous to agricultural use. If the US were to ban human use of antibiotics it would have no effect on the problem of resistance. The only thing that will is changing agriculture, and not even doing that at a national level, but at an international level.

As to climate and energy, there is no point doing things on energy which will not, for whatever reason, affect the climate. I do not believe that continued use of fossil fuels will lead to the catastrophes that are so often cited here, and RCP 8.5 (which was always totally unrealistic) has finally been discredited and should not be the basis for any policy decisions. There is nothing special or disastrous about exceeding 1.5C. But even if the extreme scenarios are likely and caused by emissions, the fact is the largest and fastest growing emitters don't believe it, or are deliberately ignoring it. Both China and India are growing their economies as fast as they can, and letting their emissions rise to whatever level this requires. So indeed are all the non-Western countries.

In addition, there are no realistic plans, even were China India and the West prepared to adopt them, that lead to emission levels as low as the alarmists claim are required. Current global emissions are a bit under 40 billion tons. I think most of the alarmed think they have to be got down to well under 10 billion, and within a decade. You cannot do this by building wind turbines and installing solar panels. Even were China and India prepared to try, which they obviously are not.

The rational approach to this is to approach the problem from a different angle, the angle of what is realistically possible. A country may not be able to affect global temperatures or make any dent in global emissions. But it can take more or less effective action to protect its people from the most likely effects of rises in global temperatures - for instance, flood control, housing improvements and similar things.

The Maldives could go to net zero. It will have no effect on global emissions or global temperatures or global sea levels. Better spend the money on flood protection and stop extracting ground water.which produces subsidence.

The poster boy for this at the moment is the UK. They are finding that the attempt to move to net zero by converting generation to wind and solar, while at the same time converting heat to heat pumps and transport to EVs, is not feasible - it is just raising the risk of blackouts while not providing enough energy. And even if the UK could cut its emissions to zero, it only does a bit over 1% and falling of global emissions. Any cuts it makes are eaten by China in a matter of months.

People have to accept that there are some things that cannot be affected by individual action, or in this case not even by national action. If international action is not going to happen, they also have to accept the logical consequence of this when paired with the duty of governments to look after the welfare of their own people. Do not engage in feel goodery or cries of 'what if everyone'. Get on with doing things that will be effective and will help your own people. Because like it or not, that is all that is possible in the world as it is.

And this is what it told me. This is the best the BBC could fine to explain PHP to its viewers? Someone whose main acquaintance with technology has probably been writing literary criticism (nowadays called reporting and jurnalism) in Microsoft Word?

____________________________________

Zoe Kleinman is a British journalist and broadcaster who serves as the BBCâ(TM)s first-ever Technology Editor, a role she took up in 2021. Her background combines a university education in English literature with more than two decades of experience in journalism, digital media and technology reporting.
Royal Television Society

Education
University of Southampton: She graduated in 1998 with a BA in English. Her LinkedIn profile also records that she studied there from 1995 to 1998.

Student journalism:
While at university, she was features editor of the student newspaper, Wessex Scene, gaining early editorial experience.

Early communications experience: During university holidays, she worked in the university press office, writing press releases and helping publicise academic research.

I fly 200ish flights a year so figure 70-80 nights away.

2025 was 100% hotels but 2019 was about 80% Airbnbs.

Airbnb will never get my business back. Ever. The professional scammer hosts are so good at finding a way to nail me for a fee. Iâ(TM)ve taken perfect check out video and still had to spend hours fighting fees.

Airbnb allowed making guests do it.

They lost so much money to hotels theyâ(TM)re banning hosts from requiring it.