I agree. We have to stop handing out inherited citizenship, and stop calling people citizens just for being born here. Infants clearly haven't earned anything, and shouldn't be given citizenship. Everyone should have to earn their citizenship, no matter who their daddy is or where their mother was squatting when they were born.

You know the whole idea of citizenship is foreign. Maybe we should do away with it altogether.

This, 100%. Let's privately fund the military, as a charity, and get all those military-industrial-complex freeloaders off my tax dime. Then I'll have plenty of money to spend on the science I want to do with the money I earn in "commerce".

Does this plan also mean that capitalists who can't be bothered to do commerce are removed from control of money? According to his own accounting Jeff Bezos loses money trying to do commerce every year, but the government keeps giving him more of our money to waste. Tax breaks and subsidies for some well-educated person who can't be bothered to pay for their own play ground. It makes me sick.

I have none of those things when I work in the office. I don't have a quiet, separate workspace. I don't have a door. I'm not the only person around. I get all sorts of "quick questions" and social interruptions. And those are all choices my employer makes, that they could change if they thought they were important.

This part is fake "the potential theft of this information jeopardizes the delivery of secure, effective and efficient treatment options."

And I know that because the when they use the word "theft" here they don't mean "deprived us of our property or use thereof" they mean "copied". It's the same lie the MPAA tells us. I would download a car, or vaccine, even if China wanted to claim credit for it.

I'm much more worried about the harms caused by keeping treatment information secret, and about the people who believe that the world is better when they get to control that secret.

A) A race is whatever racists say it is. It changes all the time and it's not based on actual facts. Lots of racists would identify "Chinese" as a race, and would include lots of people who aren't Chinese citizens in that race.

B) "Racism" is colloquially used to describe many form of oppression, particularly but not exclusively oppression based on heritable attributes, like national origin (inherited through law or birth circumstance) or skin color (inherited through genetics). It's maybe not precise and clear language but it is common usage.

C) Good job being technically correct: the poster should have said "nationalist" instead of "racist". Given all the white nationalists making decisions for our country though -- people who self-identify as both racist and nationalist -- you could maybe excuse the conflation.

Are you suggesting that your movements are currently allowed to be secret, if corporations or governments so choose? How do you manage that. We know for a fact the government collects and uses that sort of information to harass people (and corporations and nation states). When Google does the same thing to the public we call it an advertising market. This isn't a change from the status quo, it's just opening the information up to the public, for use in promoting the public good, instead of keeping this already-available information secret, shared only among cronies and crooks.

You don't have to like it. You're welcome to do something else. You can opt out. You can even use the public data while you're opting out. But the idea that we want to share data about driving to let our computers drive faster, safer, more efficiently, etc. seems really attractive to me. We all choose to use IP routing and throw packets somewhat haphazardly into the public network. relying on BGP announcements about where we want people to find us. It's public data - It has to be, because it's what the public uses to interact with the system. You're also allowed to set more nuanced boundaries. I certainly intend to demand that the data be shared in a way that's safe for everyone, if they choose to participate. But it's reasonable to imagine that people /want/ that sort of information sharing, even if you don't.

They're not talking about SA, they're talking about COCOM restrictions on GPS receivers. GPS receivers are supposed to refuse to operate at high altitudes and speeds as part of arms export regulations.

It's very odd that LSM LOCKDOWN is controversial. This is roughly the same feature as BSD Securelevels, though with some more fine-grained control. In theory, it's very useful if you want to protect your system against attackers who compromise a process that runs with root privilege. In practice, the kernel attack surface is so large that a motivated attacker can probably bypass it.

I'm quite surprised that they didn't. Prior to the launch, they said that they were going to market it as 'plant-based' and not 'vegetarian' or 'meat-free' because it didn't meet the requirements to be classified as vegetarian. They were aiming it at flexitarians that wanted to reduce the amount of meat that they were eating, not at vegetarians or vegans. I guess someone in marketing realised how big a market they were losing and decided it was a big money maker to advertise it as meat-free but didn't bother to see if this was actually a true description.

It's true for about 20% of people. You're probably not one of them.

It's also something that people need to stop viewing as a bad thing. The most FOSS in a proprietary product, the easier it is to build a fully FOSS alternative.

It got boring when Slashdot disabled (broke?) the message center so it is now impossible to see when someone has replied to your posts. That was the thing that, early on, allowed Slashdot discussions to be discussions and not just disjointed monologues. Since it went away, the quality of discussions has gone way down. The AC spam was just a symptom of this.

Nope. Note in TFS the key phrase: 'In its default configuration'. The university that I used to work for bought Office 365. This was even before the GDPR, but the university deals with a lot of confidential commercial data from industrial partners and with health records in life sciences departments. Google's stock T&Cs were completely incompatible with this and they refused to negotiate. Microsoft's stock T&Cs were also incompatible (which is why this ruling is completely unsurprising), but Microsoft was happy to negotiate a contract that gave much stricter controls over data.

For Germany in particular, the German Azure data centres are actually owned by a joint venture between Deutsche Telekom and Microsoft and so out of US jurisdiction. Companies in Germany (and the rest of the EU) can buy an Office 365 subscription that guarantees that their data doesn't ever leave Germany.

What do you mean by 'a cycle life of 1000 cycles'? Most batteries that I've seen are rated as a number of cycles after which they are guaranteed to retain 80% of their initial charge. That number is typically 1,000-3,000 cycles. After that, most of them don't die, they just have a lower maximum charge, which continues to degrade.

It gets more complicated when you factor in partial charges. LiIon batteries are most efficient if you never fully charge or discharge them. If you use around 40% of their total charge cycle each time then they last a lot longer, but then you have to increase your up-front costs in exchange for the lower TCO.

Solar cells are now very cheap. They are a negligible part of the cost for a small-scale installation. The cost of deploying rooftop solar is dominated by the installation cost (putting up scaffolding and having competent people climbing safely around on the roof is not cheap). The second largest cost is the storage and the alternator system to drive AC mains. Both of these costs are amortised significantly in larger installations. Most large installations are at ground level, so require a fraction of the manpower to install each panel. They use much larger alternator installations, which also come with higher efficiency.

TL;DR: Solar power is not immune to economies of scale.