Turn it on at the same time your body is destroyed (to prevent confusion and fighting between the two) and you are now a machine and ready to rule over the meatbag fleshlings.
I rebooted my workstation before heading home today. Just a moment ago, I realised that eth0 isn't set to get an IP address via DHCP. It's running, but I can't connect to it from home tonight! Lesson learned... never reboot.
Full blown computers should be reserved for those of us who know how to manage them responsibly.
I guarantee that, had this type of environment existed in the late 70's, the powers that enforce would not appreciate the grungy college students with names like Steve, Bill and Linus. Computing history would be very different.
If you convert one yourself, you can get whatever you want. These guys have an informative website and an applet that lets you calculate the components necessary (motor and battery size) for the performance you want: http://www.ebikes.ca/
I've thought about it, but I don't see the point in this small city I live in. That and it would end up being an expensive hobby.
Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem.
on
The Year of the E-Bicycle
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Your second hand story about proud, self-important cyclists flouting the law and believing they "own the road" is the same experience cyclists, including myself, see regularly from motorists! Perhaps there are just idiots out there, some ride bikes some drive cars. The ones who drive cars, however, kill people (including other motorists).
If you want to talk about misapplied justice, there are countless cases of motorists killing cyclists, pedestrians, and other motorists by gross negligence and careless driving. Many of these people never see the inside of a jail cell and most will drive again.
When passing a cyclist, the motorist may need to slow for a minute or so, but then is able to catch up the the next car in traffic anyway. If that person was not on a bike, they would be in a car, and would be contributing to congestion -and congestion does slow overall travel time.
biking is a recreational activity, not a transportation option, and it will continue to be for as long as people half-ass the bike lanes and think that the roads are a good fall-back option.
Biking will continue to regarded as a recreation-only activity so long as people continue erroneously believing it is a dangerous activity. The bull in the societies china shop (cars) are plenty dangerous and people take non-essential trips regularly. Bicycles carry comparable risk of injury or death as cars, but protect against much larger threats to life and limb (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc...). Irrational fear drives illogical behaviour, that doesn't mean the illogical behaviour needs to be supported, but that the fear should be confronted.
Most of the mandatory bikeway laws in the U.S. have been repealed, and fortunately were not created here in Canada. Bike lanes are empirically more dangerous than road cycling, necessitating very slow riding. Creating bike paths for cyclists who want them is one thing, forcing people off the road and onto bikeways is another. It amounts to forcing people to enter a slower, more dangerous environment strictly for the benefit of drivers convenience. The laws were repealed because people injured while using a mandatory bike path would be justified in a lawsuit against the enforcing government.
Copenhagen is the typical example. Google Copenhagenize or "Copenhagen Cycle Chic" for some pretty pictures. Bike lanes don't actually increase cyclist safety though, they simply take cyclists off the road. They make cycling more pleasant for some, but often come with more accidents.
Cycling culture, on the other hand, makes the biggest difference. When drivers accept cyclists as legitimate road users *AND* frequently see them, cycling goes from reasonably safe, to very safe. That's why its safer on a bike than in a shower in the Netherlands.
Note narrow road.. without any bicycle lane... o0o0o danger! Not really.. it's so common in NL that motorists do tend to actually look out for cyclists and drive responsibly around them.
Even in North America, cars hitting cyclists from behind is *very* rare, so bike lanes don't really increase safety (they may help with traffic flow). The vast majority of accidents happen in front of cyclists, at intersections (like cars pulling out in-front or turning right into cyclist.)
People have been riding bikes safely for a century in cities around the world. Helmets may provide a small margin of safety, but regardless, cycling is still a relatively safe form of recreation for a family. You are likely making the common, but incorrect assumption, that cycling is dangerous and driving isn't.
Re:Great, still doesn't fix the Houston problem.
on
The Year of the E-Bicycle
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sorry, but roads are not paid for by motorists, they are paid for by citizens (gas tax is insufficient, roads are heavily paid for by other taxes). Cyclists, and any citizen has the same right to the roads you do. Operating large equipment doesn't give you more rights.
Data is useless for extrapolating to a population if sampling was HIGHLY biased (as in this case, it probably would be). So yes, common-knowledge may represent the population better.
I would LOVE that! As a research scientist, I am often required to PAY money just to allow my own work to be freely distributed.
A big change in copyright would kill certain business models and create others. In the end people would still make money and society would be better off.
Just don't tell him about the dangers of 450 THz electromagnetic radiation. Many electronic device in a house, especially incandescent lights, emit significant amounts of it. There's plenty of evidence that "districts" of various cities blanketed with that radiation are havens for sexual deviance and prostitution. The effects of 450 THz radiation on the brain are currently unknown, but people abuse it as an aphrodisiac and to make their partner appear more attractive.
Or, in my case, I use a secure hashing algorithm where a common secret is concatenated with the name of the website I visit to get a secure password, akin to using the Md5 sum of "This is secret;slashdot.org" to get a password.
I'm curious. Assuming your attacker knows that you use a common hash (and can easily guess which one), what do you gain over just using "secretpassword;slashdot.org?" If the attacker was going to use a dictionary attack, it would require the same number of guesses with and without the hash (or perhapse a measily 5 or 10x if the attacker has to try several hashing algorithms).
Irrational? Getting a bit worried about a guy walking through a neighborhood with a high powered snipper or assault rifle (even if it was fake, it looked real to me). They didn't shoot the guy on the spot or even throw him in jail. They just had law enforcement ask him some questions. Jese, you know a country is messed up when people expect to walk around with something like that and *not* get asked a few questions.
Bottled water companies sell convenience, and predictability. Radio sells advertising. Cable companies sell convenience and low cost of entry (basic cable equivalent antenna costs hundreds of dollars). It's possible to make plenty of money from free products, in many different ways. However, I'm not creative enough to figure out a better way to do it than has already been done by Redhat/IBM/etc -so I'm not advocating anything here.
I've got news for you, we could light off every nuke and explosive device ever made, and the "Earth" would be back to normal in a geological blink-of-an-eye. There have been mass extinctions before, much worse than we could accomplish, and the ecosystem recovers quickly. A few million years from now you would have some bipedal-squid geologist studying a 0.5cm layer of radioactive soil in the ground and wondering where it came from. That would be the only record of our brief foray on this planet.
Now, if you want to save environmental resources for your children and grandchildren, or protect choral reefs to they can experience them, then, yes: worry about "irreversible damage." In geological time scales, nothing we can do is irreversible. Heck - we can't even properly sterilize medical equipment -were not going to be able to beat 96% of all marine species.
I wouldn't be so sure, I'm not sure how ~1% of desktop computers compares to ~12% server market in real numbers. There are may be many more desktops/laptops in the world then servers. In real numbers, they might not be so different.
Slashdot Mirror
Turn it on at the same time your body is destroyed (to prevent confusion and fighting between the two) and you are now a machine and ready to rule over the meatbag fleshlings.
No, you are dead
I rebooted my workstation before heading home today. Just a moment ago, I realised that eth0 isn't set to get an IP address via DHCP. It's running, but I can't connect to it from home tonight! Lesson learned... never reboot.
Full blown computers should be reserved for those of us who know how to manage them responsibly.
I guarantee that, had this type of environment existed in the late 70's, the powers that enforce would not appreciate the grungy college students with names like Steve, Bill and Linus. Computing history would be very different.
The iPad is not a general-purpose computing device.
Only because its locked down. Remember that. Only because its locked down.
And it's probably important that people know this distinction so that their "choice" can potentially be informed.
Marketing dollars work, even for controlling "free thinkers."
If you convert one yourself, you can get whatever you want. These guys have an informative website and an applet that lets you calculate the components necessary (motor and battery size) for the performance you want: http://www.ebikes.ca/
I've thought about it, but I don't see the point in this small city I live in. That and it would end up being an expensive hobby.
Your second hand story about proud, self-important cyclists flouting the law and believing they "own the road" is the same experience cyclists, including myself, see regularly from motorists! Perhaps there are just idiots out there, some ride bikes some drive cars. The ones who drive cars, however, kill people (including other motorists).
If you want to talk about misapplied justice, there are countless cases of motorists killing cyclists, pedestrians, and other motorists by gross negligence and careless driving. Many of these people never see the inside of a jail cell and most will drive again.
When passing a cyclist, the motorist may need to slow for a minute or so, but then is able to catch up the the next car in traffic anyway. If that person was not on a bike, they would be in a car, and would be contributing to congestion -and congestion does slow overall travel time.
Which makes a lot of sense considering the number of people who die from perverts, and the number who die from a sedentary lifestyle...
biking is a recreational activity, not a transportation option, and it will continue to be for as long as people half-ass the bike lanes and think that the roads are a good fall-back option.
Biking will continue to regarded as a recreation-only activity so long as people continue erroneously believing it is a dangerous activity. The bull in the societies china shop (cars) are plenty dangerous and people take non-essential trips regularly. Bicycles carry comparable risk of injury or death as cars, but protect against much larger threats to life and limb (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc...). Irrational fear drives illogical behaviour, that doesn't mean the illogical behaviour needs to be supported, but that the fear should be confronted.
Most of the mandatory bikeway laws in the U.S. have been repealed, and fortunately were not created here in Canada. Bike lanes are empirically more dangerous than road cycling, necessitating very slow riding. Creating bike paths for cyclists who want them is one thing, forcing people off the road and onto bikeways is another. It amounts to forcing people to enter a slower, more dangerous environment strictly for the benefit of drivers convenience. The laws were repealed because people injured while using a mandatory bike path would be justified in a lawsuit against the enforcing government.
Copenhagen is the typical example. Google Copenhagenize or "Copenhagen Cycle Chic" for some pretty pictures. Bike lanes don't actually increase cyclist safety though, they simply take cyclists off the road. They make cycling more pleasant for some, but often come with more accidents.
Cycling culture, on the other hand, makes the biggest difference. When drivers accept cyclists as legitimate road users *AND* frequently see them, cycling goes from reasonably safe, to very safe. That's why its safer on a bike than in a shower in the Netherlands.
These bikes commonly allow the rider to do around 20mph more-or-less consistently, without slowing much on hills or going much faster on descents.
Note narrow road.. without any bicycle lane... o0o0o danger! Not really.. it's so common in NL that motorists do tend to actually look out for cyclists and drive responsibly around them.
Even in North America, cars hitting cyclists from behind is *very* rare, so bike lanes don't really increase safety (they may help with traffic flow). The vast majority of accidents happen in front of cyclists, at intersections (like cars pulling out in-front or turning right into cyclist.)
People have been riding bikes safely for a century in cities around the world. Helmets may provide a small margin of safety, but regardless, cycling is still a relatively safe form of recreation for a family. You are likely making the common, but incorrect assumption, that cycling is dangerous and driving isn't.
Sorry, but roads are not paid for by motorists, they are paid for by citizens (gas tax is insufficient, roads are heavily paid for by other taxes). Cyclists, and any citizen has the same right to the roads you do. Operating large equipment doesn't give you more rights.
Data is useless for extrapolating to a population if sampling was HIGHLY biased (as in this case, it probably would be). So yes, common-knowledge may represent the population better.
I would LOVE that! As a research scientist, I am often required to PAY money just to allow my own work to be freely distributed.
A big change in copyright would kill certain business models and create others. In the end people would still make money and society would be better off.
Just don't tell him about the dangers of 450 THz electromagnetic radiation. Many electronic device in a house, especially incandescent lights, emit significant amounts of it. There's plenty of evidence that "districts" of various cities blanketed with that radiation are havens for sexual deviance and prostitution. The effects of 450 THz radiation on the brain are currently unknown, but people abuse it as an aphrodisiac and to make their partner appear more attractive.
Or, in my case, I use a secure hashing algorithm where a common secret is concatenated with the name of the website I visit to get a secure password, akin to using the Md5 sum of "This is secret;slashdot.org" to get a password.
I'm curious. Assuming your attacker knows that you use a common hash (and can easily guess which one), what do you gain over just using "secretpassword;slashdot.org?" If the attacker was going to use a dictionary attack, it would require the same number of guesses with and without the hash (or perhapse a measily 5 or 10x if the attacker has to try several hashing algorithms).
Irrational? Getting a bit worried about a guy walking through a neighborhood with a high powered snipper or assault rifle (even if it was fake, it looked real to me). They didn't shoot the guy on the spot or even throw him in jail. They just had law enforcement ask him some questions. Jese, you know a country is messed up when people expect to walk around with something like that and *not* get asked a few questions.
Bottled water companies sell convenience, and predictability. Radio sells advertising. Cable companies sell convenience and low cost of entry (basic cable equivalent antenna costs hundreds of dollars). It's possible to make plenty of money from free products, in many different ways. However, I'm not creative enough to figure out a better way to do it than has already been done by Redhat/IBM/etc -so I'm not advocating anything here.
I've got news for you, we could light off every nuke and explosive device ever made, and the "Earth" would be back to normal in a geological blink-of-an-eye. There have been mass extinctions before, much worse than we could accomplish, and the ecosystem recovers quickly. A few million years from now you would have some bipedal-squid geologist studying a 0.5cm layer of radioactive soil in the ground and wondering where it came from. That would be the only record of our brief foray on this planet.
Now, if you want to save environmental resources for your children and grandchildren, or protect choral reefs to they can experience them, then, yes: worry about "irreversible damage." In geological time scales, nothing we can do is irreversible. Heck - we can't even properly sterilize medical equipment -were not going to be able to beat 96% of all marine species.
Well, they don't like radio waves, so they probably don't have cordless phones (which seem to have replaced intercoms).
Applicable: http://en.tiraecol.net/modules/comic/comic.php?content_id=279
No profit in free
Tell that to the bottled water, radio, and cable TV companies.
I wouldn't be so sure, I'm not sure how ~1% of desktop computers compares to ~12% server market in real numbers. There are may be many more desktops/laptops in the world then servers. In real numbers, they might not be so different.