Ground cars are already a "safety nightmare": Globally, they kill over a million people a year. The reason we tolerate such low safety is because it's something we know; humans have a reasoning error whereby they have a lower safety tolerance for new things. Know that it's a reasoning error.
I think you need to modify those numbers by the SHEER AMOUNT of cars, and the frequency with which they will be used. I don't think they're a safety nightmare given their ubiquity.
Flying car tech is already so "fly by wire" that they may actually be safer than ground cars, but the problem is the uncertainty around the regulatory environment is killing investment in developing and bringing products to market... nobody wants to invest much to take the risk, because nobody knows how strict the laws are going to be etc.
I don't think they will ever be safer than ground-based cars. When a ground-based car has a failure, it sits on the road or the side of the road. When a flying car has a failure, it's a death sentence for the occupants and a nightmare for any houses/buildings/etc underneath.
Net Neutrality, on the flip-side, also means that the ISP cannot slow down (either by actively restricting or by passively refusing to upgrade)
Well wait a second, that's rather murky. How much is a private company supposed to spend of their own money to upgrade links? Are they required to set aside a certain amount of profit to do so? If they added a 50Mbps pipe for Netflix is that inadequate if speeds are still slow? Who makes that sort of call?
He absolutely got it right. "Net neutrality" commies would apparently argue that a restaurant should be forced to have all entrees at the same price, e.g. lobster $5, hamburger $5, corn dog $5. What are there, maybe a dozen or so of us left in Amerika that believe in free markets?
When barriers of entry to the market, natural and artificial, are eliminated, then you can start talking about the free market.
The Comcasts and Verizons and AT&Ts get monopoly/duopoly conditions because we can't let any ISP dig up the streets and route cables through backyards, and it would be prohibitively expensive, not to mention extremely wasteful to have two sets of cables in a yard/street, one unused because it can only be used for ISP X, even if the owner isn't a subscriber to ISP X. Those major players can get away with policies that no consumer wants because the consumer doesn't have a choice. That's not a free market.
Individual ISPs should not own the cables, especially the last mile. That should be a city utility and treated as such. Then the ISP market can be the free market.
Smart enough to take 4 AP classes while being in sports and band.
How does taking AP classes mean you're smart?
1) He's taking a harder course than the regular math course. That's smart. 2) In most systems, an 'A' in an AP course counts for more than an 'A' in a regular class. It will increase your GPA. That's smart. 3) AP courses will increase your odds of getting into the college you want and landing the scholarship you need. That's smart. 4) Some AP courses can be used for college credit, allowing you to skip some entry-level classes. That's smart. 5) Most of the dumb-fucks who like to make your life miserable in your regular classes aren't smart enough to get into the AP classes. That's hella smart.
So yeah, a student who is passing his AP courses might be smarter, not just because he's learning more, but because he's thinking more strategically.
1/3rd is 33.33333%, 42.6% is less than 10% higher than that, and that was five school years ago with the trend continuing (if not accelerating) since then.
42.6% is closer to "fifty-fifty" than it is to a third.
Personally, I miss the early days of the internet where everything had a tool, and there was a tool for everything. There were programs and protocols galore: HTTP, Gopher, Usenet, Email, FTP, IRC, Archie / Veronica, Telnet for BBSes. Most of them are dead or so niche to be included only for "legacy compatibility". Now there is just HTTP to rule them all and shit is boring.
Boy, I miss that about the Internet too, where you had open protocols and then people chose their own interface to use it. Everyone was happy! Now you have a mish-mash of proprietary protocols on websites using interfaces that are, for the most part, inferior to many of the programs that we used 15 years ago. Use whatever interface the end user likes the most. How revolutionary!
not to mention a -1 "just plain incorrect". for supposedly factual statements made that turn out to be misguided, common myth, or at worst deliberately intended to mislead.
I've wanted that for awhile as well. Eventually I started using -1, Overrated for that, justifying to myself that a factually wrong post at the default +2 or +1 is still "overrated."
It's change... some of the neckbears just don't like change... Now, to return to our regularly scheduled "back in my day, I used lynx and you didn't hear me complain"... followed by "god damnit you kids, get off my lawn"
Not a neckbeard, but in general, change for change's sake is not a good thing. If you throw out the good as well when getting rid of the bad, you'll just keep coming up with mediocre products (firefox, gnome, etc). I liked some of the more stable Firefox builds before they went on their arms race with Chrome. But now, I find hideous Firefox memory leaks, removal/hiding of long-established and very useful features, and a poorer interface. This is not progress.
Sure, people 'hate' everything. But Disqus doesn't have much going for it, other than being cross-site. Only one level of thread indentation, the frequent downtime, how it ties in with Twitter and Facebook is both a positive and a negative, etc.
It's not "she was asking for it." It's called "doing something really stupid."
I know, I would love to live in a world where no one does bad stuff, but we don't live in that world, and not taking unnecessary risks is part of living in that world.
You could look at it another way: Why should a single person with one TV pay as much as a family of 4 with as many TVs?
Tsk tsk, you're asking the question the wrong way, and from the wrong perspective. You should really phrase it, "Why should a family of 4 with as many TVs pay as little as a single person with one? Shouldn't they be paying their "fair share?"" Sounds like the same, but it helps to always look at the questions from the perspective of the people who have the power and make the decisions.
I don't want the device to be "always recording, no matter what" (which it does). Hell, it uses a regular hard disk with spinning platters, and those things don't last that long when being used 24/7. When I ask, someone will say "but.. but.. what if you turn on the TV, see that it's in the middle of an interesting show, and want to go back to the beginning?" I'd be quite happy to sacrifice that ability to cut down on power and disk usage. The device and the mentality behind it is wasteful as hell.
Tivo has a "standby mode," but all that does is turn off the video/audio signal. It doesn't stop the Tivo from always recording and power usage is pretty much the same.
I hear that. The only reason I keep Comcast around any more is for 1. Internet and 2. HBO Go. And honestly if I could buy HBO Go from any other provider I would. (You hear that HBO! I'd pay you directly if you would let me!)
I don't think they can. They (currently) need to be on the cable networks, and I'll bet their cable contract requires that HBOGO watchers be cable subscribers.
I mean no PS3 or Roku support come on Comcast!
This drove me up the wall when I found this out. I had to run an HDMI cable from my computer to my home theater center just for this. So stupid. So so so so stupid.
There is no mention of the actual device model or any details for the 500 w cable box. I think it's a complete lie. 50 watts is pretty good for a modern digital cable box imo.
Not only that, but a 500W power supply doesn't automatically use 500W all the time (and for, say, a gaming rig, 500W is meager these days). It just means the box -could- draw up to 500W if the device ever requested it.
The article writer, instead of looking on the back and saying "holy shit, 500 watts?" should have hooked up a volt/current meter and gotten a reading of what had actually been used over the period of a few days.
If you device doesn't have a real power switch, then connect it to something that does like a power strip.
A cable receiver is totally something that you can completely disconnect from the mains. So idle power is such a total non-problem. You just have to be interested enough to bother.
That's assuming that you watch everything live instead of pre-recorded, while many of us watch pretty much everything except the occasional live sporting event pre-recorded. I don't even know when many of the shows I watch air.
And of course, the cable industry HATES CableCard because they want you to rent a box, which is (apparently) why they made it hard for TV manufacturers to support it.
They specifically want you to use their DVRs and not use a Tivo. Comcast hates the Tivo, and the two times I've tried to get one hooked up using cablecards were exercises in cable company incompetence.
But as we've seen many times over, exposure and promotion are important parts to a band's success. You need a label, or someone who does what a label usually does. That's why the Indie world is a tough one.
Slashdot Mirror
Ground cars are already a "safety nightmare": Globally, they kill over a million people a year. The reason we tolerate such low safety is because it's something we know; humans have a reasoning error whereby they have a lower safety tolerance for new things. Know that it's a reasoning error.
I think you need to modify those numbers by the SHEER AMOUNT of cars, and the frequency with which they will be used. I don't think they're a safety nightmare given their ubiquity.
Flying car tech is already so "fly by wire" that they may actually be safer than ground cars, but the problem is the uncertainty around the regulatory environment is killing investment in developing and bringing products to market ... nobody wants to invest much to take the risk, because nobody knows how strict the laws are going to be etc.
I don't think they will ever be safer than ground-based cars. When a ground-based car has a failure, it sits on the road or the side of the road. When a flying car has a failure, it's a death sentence for the occupants and a nightmare for any houses/buildings/etc underneath.
I really need to shave my stache off now.
Net Neutrality, on the flip-side, also means that the ISP cannot slow down (either by actively restricting or by passively refusing to upgrade)
Well wait a second, that's rather murky. How much is a private company supposed to spend of their own money to upgrade links? Are they required to set aside a certain amount of profit to do so? If they added a 50Mbps pipe for Netflix is that inadequate if speeds are still slow? Who makes that sort of call?
He absolutely got it right. "Net neutrality" commies would apparently argue that a restaurant should be forced to have all entrees at the same price, e.g. lobster $5, hamburger $5, corn dog $5. What are there, maybe a dozen or so of us left in Amerika that believe in free markets?
When barriers of entry to the market, natural and artificial, are eliminated, then you can start talking about the free market.
The Comcasts and Verizons and AT&Ts get monopoly/duopoly conditions because we can't let any ISP dig up the streets and route cables through backyards, and it would be prohibitively expensive, not to mention extremely wasteful to have two sets of cables in a yard/street, one unused because it can only be used for ISP X, even if the owner isn't a subscriber to ISP X. Those major players can get away with policies that no consumer wants because the consumer doesn't have a choice. That's not a free market.
Individual ISPs should not own the cables, especially the last mile. That should be a city utility and treated as such. Then the ISP market can be the free market.
Smart enough to take 4 AP classes while being in sports and band.
How does taking AP classes mean you're smart?
1) He's taking a harder course than the regular math course. That's smart.
2) In most systems, an 'A' in an AP course counts for more than an 'A' in a regular class. It will increase your GPA. That's smart.
3) AP courses will increase your odds of getting into the college you want and landing the scholarship you need. That's smart.
4) Some AP courses can be used for college credit, allowing you to skip some entry-level classes. That's smart.
5) Most of the dumb-fucks who like to make your life miserable in your regular classes aren't smart enough to get into the AP classes. That's hella smart.
So yeah, a student who is passing his AP courses might be smarter, not just because he's learning more, but because he's thinking more strategically.
1/3rd is 33.33333%, 42.6% is less than 10% higher than that, and that was five school years ago with the trend continuing (if not accelerating) since then.
42.6% is closer to "fifty-fifty" than it is to a third.
What I want is a 'foe' system that cuts out not only the foe's posts but the entire comment tree started by them.
I've found kill-files are somewhat useless when well-intentioned troll-feeders reply and I end up seeing the troll's nonsense in the first place.
Personally, I miss the early days of the internet where everything had a tool, and there was a tool for everything. There were programs and protocols galore: HTTP, Gopher, Usenet, Email, FTP, IRC, Archie / Veronica, Telnet for BBSes. Most of them are dead or so niche to be included only for "legacy compatibility". Now there is just HTTP to rule them all and shit is boring.
Boy, I miss that about the Internet too, where you had open protocols and then people chose their own interface to use it. Everyone was happy! Now you have a mish-mash of proprietary protocols on websites using interfaces that are, for the most part, inferior to many of the programs that we used 15 years ago. Use whatever interface the end user likes the most. How revolutionary!
not to mention a -1 "just plain incorrect". for supposedly factual statements made that turn out to be misguided, common myth, or at worst deliberately intended to mislead.
I've wanted that for awhile as well. Eventually I started using -1, Overrated for that, justifying to myself that a factually wrong post at the default +2 or +1 is still "overrated."
It's change... some of the neckbears just don't like change...
Now, to return to our regularly scheduled "back in my day, I used lynx and you didn't hear me complain"... followed by "god damnit you kids, get off my lawn"
Not a neckbeard, but in general, change for change's sake is not a good thing.
If you throw out the good as well when getting rid of the bad, you'll just keep coming up with mediocre products (firefox, gnome, etc).
I liked some of the more stable Firefox builds before they went on their arms race with Chrome. But now, I find hideous Firefox memory leaks, removal/hiding of long-established and very useful features, and a poorer interface. This is not progress.
Sortof. SideWiki had the advantage that the website operators could not easily censor and control the discussion.
Sure, people 'hate' everything. But Disqus doesn't have much going for it, other than being cross-site. Only one level of thread indentation, the frequent downtime, how it ties in with Twitter and Facebook is both a positive and a negative, etc.
nothing to do with being cloud based or not, just proper attention to good systems operations practices was lacking.
I thought a big "plus" of the cloud was that you could fire your IT staff because all these concerns were the cloud providers now, not yours.
Funny, smarmy assholes with 7 digit IDs and a Google+ login ID is what I expect from the dumbed down Slashdot these days.
Ouch! :-)
"We don't need those computer guys! The cloud service will handle our IT needs, then we can get rid of our IT people."
Except at that point you're getting rid of your IT expertise who can tell you what you actually need.
It's not "she was asking for it." It's called "doing something really stupid."
I know, I would love to live in a world where no one does bad stuff, but we don't live in that world, and not taking unnecessary risks is part of living in that world.
You could look at it another way: Why should a single person with one TV pay as much as a family of 4 with as many TVs?
Tsk tsk, you're asking the question the wrong way, and from the wrong perspective. You should really phrase it, "Why should a family of 4 with as many TVs pay as little as a single person with one? Shouldn't they be paying their "fair share?"" Sounds like the same, but it helps to always look at the questions from the perspective of the people who have the power and make the decisions.
This always, always frustrated me about Tivo.
I don't want the device to be "always recording, no matter what" (which it does). Hell, it uses a regular hard disk with spinning platters, and those things don't last that long when being used 24/7. When I ask, someone will say "but.. but.. what if you turn on the TV, see that it's in the middle of an interesting show, and want to go back to the beginning?" I'd be quite happy to sacrifice that ability to cut down on power and disk usage. The device and the mentality behind it is wasteful as hell.
Tivo has a "standby mode," but all that does is turn off the video/audio signal. It doesn't stop the Tivo from always recording and power usage is pretty much the same.
People might not be as diligent about protecting the cable company's hardware as their own?
They probably should, since any cable going right from the box to the TV/Amp will fry the TV just as easily as if there was no surge protector.
I hear that. The only reason I keep Comcast around any more is for 1. Internet and 2. HBO Go. And honestly if I could buy HBO Go from any other provider I would. (You hear that HBO! I'd pay you directly if you would let me!)
I don't think they can. They (currently) need to be on the cable networks, and I'll bet their cable contract requires that HBOGO watchers be cable subscribers.
I mean no PS3 or Roku support come on Comcast!
This drove me up the wall when I found this out. I had to run an HDMI cable from my computer to my home theater center just for this. So stupid. So so so so stupid.
There is no mention of the actual device model or any details for the 500 w cable box. I think it's a complete lie. 50 watts is pretty good for a modern digital cable box imo.
Not only that, but a 500W power supply doesn't automatically use 500W all the time (and for, say, a gaming rig, 500W is meager these days). It just means the box -could- draw up to 500W if the device ever requested it.
The article writer, instead of looking on the back and saying "holy shit, 500 watts?" should have hooked up a volt/current meter and gotten a reading of what had actually been used over the period of a few days.
Alternately, you can just turn stuff off.
If you device doesn't have a real power switch, then connect it to something that does like a power strip.
A cable receiver is totally something that you can completely disconnect from the mains. So idle power is such a total non-problem. You just have to be interested enough to bother.
That's assuming that you watch everything live instead of pre-recorded, while many of us watch pretty much everything except the occasional live sporting event pre-recorded. I don't even know when many of the shows I watch air.
... it is revealed the cure for Autism is pure, undiluted Thimerosal.
And of course, the cable industry HATES CableCard because they want you to rent a box, which is (apparently) why they made it hard for TV manufacturers to support it.
They specifically want you to use their DVRs and not use a Tivo. Comcast hates the Tivo, and the two times I've tried to get one hooked up using cablecards were exercises in cable company incompetence.
Sure.
But as we've seen many times over, exposure and promotion are important parts to a band's success.
You need a label, or someone who does what a label usually does. That's why the Indie world is a tough one.