About time for what? A fragile, expensive, complicated, inefficient vehicle that won't fly or drive very well, that few people can actually operate safely and that nobody actually needs? What problem does a flying car actually solve for anyone better than what is available now?
Well there's the ideal flying car, and there's the more realistic flying car. The ideal flying car aims to solve a very real problem that we have no easy way of solving at the moment -- road traffic. Specifically, that to get from one place to another you are often bottlenecking a large number of cars into a small area. I'm mostly thinking freeways at the moment. Physical limitations prevent us from building out 10 or 20-lane-wide freeways.
To fly it you have to drive to an airport anyway in most cases where there already are planes available. How is a flying car any more useful than driving to an airport, flying in a real plane and then renting a car at your destination? The number of use cases where a flying car would provide an actual advantage is vanishingly small.
To have to go to an airport to be able to use a flying car really would defeat the purpose of a flying car. Except it might get rid of that 2-3+ hours that you have to spend checking in, checking luggage, going through security. Even if such a mandate were in place, I don't think it would exist for too long.
But those benefits pale... PALE in comparison to the overwhelming drawbacks of flying cars. What happens if you have a power failure, mechanical failure, whatnot? Oh, you're dead. Absolutely, unavoidably dead. And some people on the ground will probably die, and if you hit a building, things get really messy. Lol, this is not ever happening. Not with the technology we think could be possible.
Human society advanced at exactly the pace it was capable of.
It did? Then why was progress rapid from, oh... 400 BC to 200 AD, then civilization backslid for a few hundred years, and there was basically no progress to speak of at all for the next thousand years?
Of course a few of the answers are "The Plague of Justinian," "The Black Death," "Endless wars in Europe," "Endless Wars between Europe and Asia," and yeah, I'll even lump the spread of Islam as a factor, or at least the spread of fundamentalism.
No one knows the others exist. They each develop their own new civilizations after the dust settles. Truly believing they are the only survivors. Who do you thinks going to reach who first? Because if you really believe the people in Gaza who are parlyzed by their religion will somehow ditch that religion and start creating tech and worshipping science you are sadly mistaken.
I'm willing to bet on the folks in Gaza over those in Silicon Valley, because those folks actually know how to survive. You're not going to smartphone-app yourself into being a farmer. Silicon Valley has also destroyed ALL of its farmland (it used to be quite fertile and a location known for citrus 100 years ago), so if other areas are "nuked" and uninhabitable, Silicon Valley will fall apart and go extinct very quickly.
Most "inventions" could be boiled down to that. There aren't any, and never were, enormous EUREKA! moments that changed the world. It's always been incremental change over time building off of things we already know.
People can be convinced of anything, including memory of experiences they never had.
That is difficult to pull off and requires a concerted effort. Even the experts cannot induce memories very well. Is there any evidence of such an effort in this case?
We're not talking about inducing memory from scratch, just leading questions that get people to misremember things. Or sometimes people do the misremembering on their own, and when you misremember an event, the mind solidifies the false narrative that you came up with and it seems more sure and concrete to you. A well-known example among my age group (40s) involves the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Many people remember "seeing" the disaster live, on television in their classrooms, something that was rarer than we remembered. While some classrooms had televisions wheeled in to watch the shuttle launch, what often happened is that they heard about the disaster when it happened, then they saw footage later of the shuttle explosion, yet the memory of "watching the shuttle launch as it happened" was formed and reinforced. They weren't lying, not knowingly. But their eyewitness recollection is faulty.
The Stanford Journal of Legal Studies had an interesting article called The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony on the problems with eyewitness testimony, and why its reputation within legal circles has fallen while its reputation outside is near-infallible.
I'm sure the National Enquirer is just trying to inform us of the evidence for Bat Boy in a neutral way, too.
That wasn't the Enquirer, that was World Weekly News, and it was the finest news source for those of us who wanted to keep tabs on how Bat Boy's astronaut training was going.
And yes, he's a fucking rapist because he's hiding from fucking Sweden who would be one of the last fucking countries on the planet to give him to the US for some reason.
Since Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US, that statement is, by definition, false.
Of course. "The people who write the software I like are SAINTS! There's no way this isn't some big conspiracy that everyone who actually knows him is taking part in!"
Nobody gives a flying fuck about your stupid UID dipshit, it's the content of the comments that counts ONLY. Anything else is just cliquey bullshit for retards like you to feel special about themselves because of how meaningless their lives are.
Before you flew off the handle, did you consider that the UID was germane to the discussion at hand, which was what Slashdot really was like in "the old days?"
(I remember what slashdot was like way back when, and I don't really recall a difference then and now wrt posting delays)
Nearly every time I see someone demanding sources it's in reaction to some bizarre statement that a poster made who couldn't back up what they said. Sometimes, they can bring up some study or news source that verifies their assertion, but often they're just repeating some nonsense that they just heard from a guy who heard it from a guy, or their just saying something that "well, everyone knows it to be true." But many "facts" are not facts when they come from partisan and/or fanatic websites, since they employ the same types -- people who quote editorials and speculation as facts, people who make up facts, people who ignore evidence that doesn't support their biases.
I think it's a healthy dose of "don't trust the messenger."
I'm curious if this will utterly destroy IPv6's reputation among Internet users at large.
Nope, most Internet users didn't know what it is before, and they won't know after, either. IPv6 doesn't NEED a reputation among the end user, who will never know if he's using v4 or v6.
TL;DR Please don't fall for the memes. Suicide isn't a cowards way out in general though it in most cases is a bad solution. Hitlers suicide wasn't due to cowardice.
Hitler was affected by Mussolini's execution and vowed that when the 3rd Reich fell, he would die with it rather than be answerable to anything that happened.
How is there any risk if you have a legitimate case? The only reason a legitimate case would lose is if they didn't have the resources to adequately present their case, and if the loser pays, then this ceases to be an issue.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but my husband is. He often counsels his clients to go into settlement with decent terms, even if they don't get every last thing they want. But sometimes they are stubborn.. they refuse to give the other side anything at all, because they are so convinced of their righteousness. But the court system is a crapshoot, even if you have a good case. First, it's going to be pricey regardless of the outcome. Second... you don't know what a jury will believe. You don't know when you'll get the judge on a bad day. You don't know if your client will lose his temper and shout the wrong thing. There are a lot of variables that you just CAN'T control.
I fear a loser-pays system because you can be in the right, and you can still lose a case. You can still get burned. It's a risk, and sometimes risks pay off, and sometimes they don't.
Also, under loser-pays, the little guy might be guilty of the offense, but it's a very minor offense -- like, say, sharing a song on a P2P network. That small offense would involve exorbitant fees for the loser.
When people think "loser pays," they're usually thinking "the big bad rich guy pays for the legal costs of the little guy who got wronged." But the flip side of the coin is that justice is not perfect even if everyone is entitled to it.
We're already where we need to be. People are just holding EVs to a different standard than any other car
I don't hold my EV to a different standard, I hold it to the same standard as my '97 Toyota. The EV doesn't quite measure up... yet. It works fine when I take it on a trip to my mom's house (about an hour away). It didn't work for the weekend trip I took to the national park. For that I had to get a rental car, which meant an additional 2 hours delay on Friday picking it up, and another 2 hours on Sunday dropping it off. Having to pick up a rental car sucks, but not as much as getting stranded halfway into the park would have.
I saw a video with Elon showing off swap out batteries which could be done faster (apparently) than filling up your tank with petrol. Replace you dead one with a pre-charged fresh one. Did that ever become a thing?
I don't think so. Among other things, it would mean you don't own (and thus aren't responsible for) your batteries.
I don't know about the rest of you, but gaming in my home office raises the temperature of the room. I can't imagine what that would do in a laptop with significantly smaller operating space.
It'll probably fry the integrated GPU over a not-too-long period of time. Then HP will give some people rebates before giving up and saying that the particular model of laptop you use isn't subject to overheating (it is) and you're SOL.
Fuck HP. But also, Nvidia M chips with just about any real gaming graphics capability overheated a hell of a lot, in many laptops of many different manufacturers.
Then Overwatch might be the game for you. Fast matches are fast.
Overwatch is also part of a class of games that you have to play a hell of a lot to be anything resembling halfway decent. You need to know the classes and what they do and how to counter the other classes' moves.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's about time.
About time for what? A fragile, expensive, complicated, inefficient vehicle that won't fly or drive very well, that few people can actually operate safely and that nobody actually needs? What problem does a flying car actually solve for anyone better than what is available now?
Well there's the ideal flying car, and there's the more realistic flying car.
The ideal flying car aims to solve a very real problem that we have no easy way of solving at the moment -- road traffic. Specifically, that to get from one place to another you are often bottlenecking a large number of cars into a small area. I'm mostly thinking freeways at the moment. Physical limitations prevent us from building out 10 or 20-lane-wide freeways.
To fly it you have to drive to an airport anyway in most cases where there already are planes available. How is a flying car any more useful than driving to an airport, flying in a real plane and then renting a car at your destination? The number of use cases where a flying car would provide an actual advantage is vanishingly small.
To have to go to an airport to be able to use a flying car really would defeat the purpose of a flying car. Except it might get rid of that 2-3+ hours that you have to spend checking in, checking luggage, going through security. Even if such a mandate were in place, I don't think it would exist for too long.
But those benefits pale... PALE in comparison to the overwhelming drawbacks of flying cars. What happens if you have a power failure, mechanical failure, whatnot? Oh, you're dead. Absolutely, unavoidably dead. And some people on the ground will probably die, and if you hit a building, things get really messy. Lol, this is not ever happening. Not with the technology we think could be possible.
Human society advanced at exactly the pace it was capable of.
It did? Then why was progress rapid from, oh... 400 BC to 200 AD, then civilization backslid for a few hundred years, and there was basically no progress to speak of at all for the next thousand years?
Of course a few of the answers are "The Plague of Justinian," "The Black Death," "Endless wars in Europe," "Endless Wars between Europe and Asia," and yeah, I'll even lump the spread of Islam as a factor, or at least the spread of fundamentalism.
No one knows the others exist. They each develop their own new civilizations after the dust settles. Truly believing they are the only survivors. Who do you thinks going to reach who first? Because if you really believe the people in Gaza who are parlyzed by their religion will somehow ditch that religion and start creating tech and worshipping science you are sadly mistaken.
I'm willing to bet on the folks in Gaza over those in Silicon Valley, because those folks actually know how to survive. You're not going to smartphone-app yourself into being a farmer. Silicon Valley has also destroyed ALL of its farmland (it used to be quite fertile and a location known for citrus 100 years ago), so if other areas are "nuked" and uninhabitable, Silicon Valley will fall apart and go extinct very quickly.
Yeah. Definitely bet on the Gazans in that case.
Transistors? Just application of known physics
Most "inventions" could be boiled down to that. There aren't any, and never were, enormous EUREKA! moments that changed the world. It's always been incremental change over time building off of things we already know.
People can be convinced of anything, including memory of experiences they never had.
That is difficult to pull off and requires a concerted effort. Even the experts cannot induce memories very well. Is there any evidence of such an effort in this case?
We're not talking about inducing memory from scratch, just leading questions that get people to misremember things. Or sometimes people do the misremembering on their own, and when you misremember an event, the mind solidifies the false narrative that you came up with and it seems more sure and concrete to you. A well-known example among my age group (40s) involves the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Many people remember "seeing" the disaster live, on television in their classrooms, something that was rarer than we remembered. While some classrooms had televisions wheeled in to watch the shuttle launch, what often happened is that they heard about the disaster when it happened, then they saw footage later of the shuttle explosion, yet the memory of "watching the shuttle launch as it happened" was formed and reinforced. They weren't lying, not knowingly. But their eyewitness recollection is faulty.
The Stanford Journal of Legal Studies had an interesting article called The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony on the problems with eyewitness testimony, and why its reputation within legal circles has fallen while its reputation outside is near-infallible.
I'm sure the National Enquirer is just trying to inform us of the evidence for Bat Boy in a neutral way, too.
That wasn't the Enquirer, that was World Weekly News, and it was the finest news source for those of us who wanted to keep tabs on how Bat Boy's astronaut training was going.
Did you have anything particularly useful to add, AC, or do you make it a habit to just babble when your arguments unravel?
News flash: most people never report even outright rape, let alone lesser predatory behavior
Then it didn't happen.
No, you don't get to have it both ways.
Good lord, this is probably the most unjustified "Troll" rating of the day.
And yes, he's a fucking rapist because he's hiding from fucking Sweden who would be one of the last fucking countries on the planet to give him to the US for some reason.
Since Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US, that statement is, by definition, false.
massive wealth redistribution scheme while the scientists and politicians get rich
Oh yeah, pure research, that's the road to riches for sure!!
And reiserfs proves it can work. My guess is that a few half-crazy types were planted in to rupture the porject from within
LOL. Fucking REISER is your example? You seriously couldn't do better than him?
Of course.
"The people who write the software I like are SAINTS! There's no way this isn't some big conspiracy that everyone who actually knows him is taking part in!"
Add in a LGBT in one form or another and things can get quite complicated, let alone if both or more parties involved are not traditional genders
I think rape is straightforward, regardless of whether a LGBT is involved or whatever the gender.
They have hepatitis and bleeding ulcers in their mouth.
I'm pretty sure that's already covered under other laws.
Nobody gives a flying fuck about your stupid UID dipshit, it's the content of the comments that counts ONLY. Anything else is just cliquey bullshit for retards like you to feel special about themselves because of how meaningless their lives are.
Before you flew off the handle, did you consider that the UID was germane to the discussion at hand, which was what Slashdot really was like in "the old days?"
(I remember what slashdot was like way back when, and I don't really recall a difference then and now wrt posting delays)
Nearly every time I see someone demanding sources it's in reaction to some bizarre statement that a poster made who couldn't back up what they said.
Sometimes, they can bring up some study or news source that verifies their assertion, but often they're just repeating some nonsense that they just heard from a guy who heard it from a guy, or their just saying something that "well, everyone knows it to be true." But many "facts" are not facts when they come from partisan and/or fanatic websites, since they employ the same types -- people who quote editorials and speculation as facts, people who make up facts, people who ignore evidence that doesn't support their biases.
I think it's a healthy dose of "don't trust the messenger."
I'm curious if this will utterly destroy IPv6's reputation among Internet users at large.
Nope, most Internet users didn't know what it is before, and they won't know after, either. IPv6 doesn't NEED a reputation among the end user, who will never know if he's using v4 or v6.
TL;DR Please don't fall for the memes. Suicide isn't a cowards way out in general though it in most cases is a bad solution. Hitlers suicide wasn't due to cowardice.
Hitler was affected by Mussolini's execution and vowed that when the 3rd Reich fell, he would die with it rather than be answerable to anything that happened.
Everyone, rich or poor, has equal protection under the law.
How is there any risk if you have a legitimate case? The only reason a legitimate case would lose is if they didn't have the resources to adequately present their case, and if the loser pays, then this ceases to be an issue.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but my husband is. He often counsels his clients to go into settlement with decent terms, even if they don't get every last thing they want. But sometimes they are stubborn.. they refuse to give the other side anything at all, because they are so convinced of their righteousness. But the court system is a crapshoot, even if you have a good case. First, it's going to be pricey regardless of the outcome. Second... you don't know what a jury will believe. You don't know when you'll get the judge on a bad day. You don't know if your client will lose his temper and shout the wrong thing. There are a lot of variables that you just CAN'T control.
I fear a loser-pays system because you can be in the right, and you can still lose a case. You can still get burned. It's a risk, and sometimes risks pay off, and sometimes they don't.
Also, under loser-pays, the little guy might be guilty of the offense, but it's a very minor offense -- like, say, sharing a song on a P2P network. That small offense would involve exorbitant fees for the loser.
When people think "loser pays," they're usually thinking "the big bad rich guy pays for the legal costs of the little guy who got wronged." But the flip side of the coin is that justice is not perfect even if everyone is entitled to it.
We're already where we need to be. People are just holding EVs to a different standard than any other car
I don't hold my EV to a different standard, I hold it to the same standard as my '97 Toyota. The EV doesn't quite measure up... yet.
It works fine when I take it on a trip to my mom's house (about an hour away). It didn't work for the weekend trip I took to the national park. For that I had to get a rental car, which meant an additional 2 hours delay on Friday picking it up, and another 2 hours on Sunday dropping it off. Having to pick up a rental car sucks, but not as much as getting stranded halfway into the park would have.
I saw a video with Elon showing off swap out batteries which could be done faster (apparently) than filling up your tank with petrol. Replace you dead one with a pre-charged fresh one. Did that ever become a thing?
I don't think so. Among other things, it would mean you don't own (and thus aren't responsible for) your batteries.
I don't know about the rest of you, but gaming in my home office raises the temperature of the room. I can't imagine what that would do in a laptop with significantly smaller operating space.
It'll probably fry the integrated GPU over a not-too-long period of time. Then HP will give some people rebates before giving up and saying that the particular model of laptop you use isn't subject to overheating (it is) and you're SOL.
Fuck HP. But also, Nvidia M chips with just about any real gaming graphics capability overheated a hell of a lot, in many laptops of many different manufacturers.
Then Overwatch might be the game for you. Fast matches are fast.
Overwatch is also part of a class of games that you have to play a hell of a lot to be anything resembling halfway decent.
You need to know the classes and what they do and how to counter the other classes' moves.