I started reading/. a few months before 9/11/2001. I had a new job that spring that put me in an office with some spare time, and it was one of the tech sites I discovered. But I didn't make an account for a year or so.
It's surprising that I don't see that opening more often. But when I do, I pounce.:^)
-- By the way, this is actually my third account. I couldn't remember the passwords of the first two, and no longer had the email accounts they knew. The funny part is people think my nick is actually a true description, and don't realize that I've been reading this site since 2001.
Wait, are you talking about gay couples trying to buy cakes and flowers from people who object to gay marriage, and forcing them out of business if they stick to their beleifs?
As a matter of fact, after the first World Trade Center attack in the 1990s, I did know that the next attack would be with planes. It would have to be to get past the security measure put in place to prevent a second truck bomb.
Question: How do you get a truck bomb past cement barricades that stop trucks?
Answer: Strap a set of wings to the fucker and fly it over them. In other words, use a plane.
Clearly the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has gotten to the entire judicial system in the USA, that's obviously the only way anyone would make such a big deal over something that certainly was completely legal and moral at the time...
In case this isn't sarcasm:
And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away ha ha
Any other day and HuffPo would be telling us about the horrors of H1B abuse by large corporations. However, if it means furthering the narrative that Trump is bad, then suddenly H1Bs are good.
Someone finally states the correct spin of the article. I doesn't matter who funded the study or why, it's needed to attack Trump.
That's moving in the right direction. Microsoft is certainly showing what can be done with a small footprint.
However, it has to be more than just a fast processor in a thin shell with a removable keyboard stand. How well does it play the latest games? Until it can play the latest games at full speed and resolution gaming computers will stick around. At native resolution, how easy is it to read a spreadsheet? If I increase the zoom for the spreadsheet, how much of it still fits on the screen? Tablets are mostly very small compared to even basic laptops, and not everyone has that good of eyesight. The Surface Pro 3 does have exceptional resolution for such a small display, but that just runs into the readability issue.
The amount of storage is always an issue of course. Tablets use SSD, and even the most expensive Surface Pro 3 is only up to the 512GB size. For it to replace every other computer a person uses, that needs to be much higher. Again, we will see that in the future, but not yet. The new technology has even been discussed here on/. lately, with the 3D VNAND and others. We just have to wait for it to arrive in tablet compatible form for a tablet compatible price.
That's kinda the point about tablets. To actually use them, you need more hardware. The laptop already has that hardware. So you are effectively needing a laptop that can be minimized at times.
Eventually all computers for consumers and common business workers are going to be downsized to tablets or smaller, with accessory hardware available as needed. They'll still be 10 times more powerful than the newest Intel i7's are today, just as the current tablets are much more powerful than the first Pentium PCs. But that's a ways off in the future yet, just like George Jetson's flying car that folds into a briefcase. For now we need something with more space, or more power, or more screen, or more hardware than simple tables.
If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead?
If he can move half-way over safely, he can move fully over safely.
What if there is a two lane road, with a single car trying to drive down it, and along each edge, going in the correct direction, there are bicyclists riding single file? The car can't go fully into the other lane without hitting the oncoming cyclists. But he could quite safely travel down the road straddling the center line. Hypothetical? Not really, as I'm sure it happens at some point in the country often enough to be a valid argument against "all four tires".
In addition, in normal traffic, with just one cyclist on the road, a driver can slow down and wait for a break in oncoming traffic, swerve half way over while gunning the engine, and swerve back after passing the cyclist yet quickly enough to avoid the next oncoming vehicle. With the "all four tires" rule, he would have to simply follow a bicycle until the oncoming lane is empty for a considerable distance.
The argument of "but the cyclist might have to swerve" is a cop out. With a car waiting behind him, the cyclist still would swerve, and maybe even fall over, except now he has a car driving over him rather than passing him.
Let me repeat that I used to ride extensively, before I got married and got fat and lazy. I never expected a car to wait behind me until the road was empty. Because that attitude is what I and other posters above were talking about with regard to anger towards bicyclists. "Share the road" has to be a fully bi-directional process, otherwise bicyclists get killed.
If he can't move fully over safely, then if any of the three vehicles (northbound car, southbound car, and southbound cyclist) shift at all (say, to avoid an obstacle), the cyclist dies.
If the driver can move over safely, yet only half-way, he can pass when there is a gap in traffic, rather than having to wait until the road is empty. I'm not saying to swerve two feet over at 80 mph and take a chance that the cyclist gets smeared across the pavement. But having a cyclist bring a line of cars from 45 mph to 15 mph is a sure way to get cyclists killed.
Rather than mandating "all four tires" laws, it would make more sense to mandate bike lanes and paths along all major roads, to avoid this entire situation. Also have crews keep bike lanes clear of debris, and patch holes quickly. (Hire cycling enthusiasts to do that work, separate from any other road department crew.) It would seem to save more cyclists lives than pissing off drivers even more than some of them are already.
When MADD started out, roughly 2/3 of the accidents and deaths were caused by drunk driving. So that value has been cut in half over the last couple decades, which is good. And it's not just the convenient ratio, but the actual number of deaths per year from drunk driving has been cut in half.
Today's problem really is that the other part of that ratio has doubled, with the same increase in actual deaths from sober drivers. So, while drunks now kill half as meany people as they used to, and face stiff penalties for even driving drunk without killing anyone, sober drivers have taken up the slack and redoubled their efforts. But, since they are sober, apparently no serious action is taken against them.
How often do you see someone driving like a idiot (high speed, changing lanes like crazy, tailgating at 80 mph, etc), yet they never get a ticket. Instead the cops reserve their stakeout time for "bar closing time" and "click it or ticket". Even the cops I see on the median of the highway here seem to sit there for a long time, when everyone in the fast lane is speeding, and half the people in the middle lane are swerving around using the right two lanes to pass the speeders. I have never seen the highway patrol race out and pull those people over.
In my state, at least, riding two abreast is completely legal.
Those bikes are traffic, and they were ahead of you. You shouldn't be passing them until you can do so safely by getting all 4 of your tires in the next lane.
As a former-frequent bicyclist, I hate that attitude and the asinine laws that are built around it. If there is a group of two to ten bicyclists riding down a busy road, they should be riding single file, at the same speed, and as far right as is safely possible. When I rode, alone or in small groups, that is how we rode on busy roads. (Empty roads are another story.)
In large groups, such as a biking club, that has ten to a hundred people riding a route has more reason to double up, or for single riders to be passing others at some point. When I rode with a biking club, we still rode to the right edge as possible, even when two abreast or passing.
To claim that the only way a driver can pass a single file of cyclists is if he can get all four wheels across the center line is what I object to. If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead? Just because some assholes can't let other travelers share "their" road? Not a reasonable justification.
Slashdot Mirror
I started reading /. a few months before 9/11/2001. I had a new job that spring that put me in an office with some spare time, and it was one of the tech sites I discovered. But I didn't make an account for a year or so.
Haha. :^) That would probably win.
It's surprising that I don't see that opening more often. But when I do, I pounce. :^)
--
By the way, this is actually my third account. I couldn't remember the passwords of the first two, and no longer had the email accounts they knew. The funny part is people think my nick is actually a true description, and don't realize that I've been reading this site since 2001.
Wait, are you talking about gay couples trying to buy cakes and flowers from people who object to gay marriage, and forcing them out of business if they stick to their beleifs?
I just modded you and the above comment "+1 Insightful".
Just thought I'd let you now.
Posting AC to preserve mods.
This is slashdot. We will lynch you for saying you were, but forgetting to post as AC, and not care about your ethics. You must be new here.
Hey now, I haven't made that mistake in a long time. And even when I did, I didn't brag about posting AC but forgetting to check the stupid box.
As a matter of fact, after the first World Trade Center attack in the 1990s, I did know that the next attack would be with planes. It would have to be to get past the security measure put in place to prevent a second truck bomb.
Question: How do you get a truck bomb past cement barricades that stop trucks?
Answer: Strap a set of wings to the fucker and fly it over them. In other words, use a plane.
Clearly the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has gotten to the entire judicial system in the USA, that's obviously the only way anyone would make such a big deal over something that certainly was completely legal and moral at the time...
In case this isn't sarcasm:
And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time,
and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
and they're coming to take me away ha ha
Love that song.
Is your mother a former First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State?
I don't expect my mother to understand why she might need more email addresses, but I don't expect her to violate federal law to avoid it either.
How hot do I have to make the ignition source to ensure the paper burns?
I could work that into my sig.
Any other day and HuffPo would be telling us about the horrors of H1B abuse by large corporations. However, if it means furthering the narrative that Trump is bad, then suddenly H1Bs are good.
Someone finally states the correct spin of the article. I doesn't matter who funded the study or why, it's needed to attack Trump.
That's moving in the right direction. Microsoft is certainly showing what can be done with a small footprint.
However, it has to be more than just a fast processor in a thin shell with a removable keyboard stand. How well does it play the latest games? Until it can play the latest games at full speed and resolution gaming computers will stick around. At native resolution, how easy is it to read a spreadsheet? If I increase the zoom for the spreadsheet, how much of it still fits on the screen? Tablets are mostly very small compared to even basic laptops, and not everyone has that good of eyesight. The Surface Pro 3 does have exceptional resolution for such a small display, but that just runs into the readability issue.
The amount of storage is always an issue of course. Tablets use SSD, and even the most expensive Surface Pro 3 is only up to the 512GB size. For it to replace every other computer a person uses, that needs to be much higher. Again, we will see that in the future, but not yet. The new technology has even been discussed here on /. lately, with the 3D VNAND and others. We just have to wait for it to arrive in tablet compatible form for a tablet compatible price.
That's kinda the point about tablets. To actually use them, you need more hardware. The laptop already has that hardware. So you are effectively needing a laptop that can be minimized at times.
Eventually all computers for consumers and common business workers are going to be downsized to tablets or smaller, with accessory hardware available as needed. They'll still be 10 times more powerful than the newest Intel i7's are today, just as the current tablets are much more powerful than the first Pentium PCs. But that's a ways off in the future yet, just like George Jetson's flying car that folds into a briefcase. For now we need something with more space, or more power, or more screen, or more hardware than simple tables.
Did you swipe that whole speech on a tablet?
If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead?
If he can move half-way over safely, he can move fully over safely.
What if there is a two lane road, with a single car trying to drive down it, and along each edge, going in the correct direction, there are bicyclists riding single file? The car can't go fully into the other lane without hitting the oncoming cyclists. But he could quite safely travel down the road straddling the center line. Hypothetical? Not really, as I'm sure it happens at some point in the country often enough to be a valid argument against "all four tires".
In addition, in normal traffic, with just one cyclist on the road, a driver can slow down and wait for a break in oncoming traffic, swerve half way over while gunning the engine, and swerve back after passing the cyclist yet quickly enough to avoid the next oncoming vehicle. With the "all four tires" rule, he would have to simply follow a bicycle until the oncoming lane is empty for a considerable distance.
The argument of "but the cyclist might have to swerve" is a cop out. With a car waiting behind him, the cyclist still would swerve, and maybe even fall over, except now he has a car driving over him rather than passing him.
Let me repeat that I used to ride extensively, before I got married and got fat and lazy. I never expected a car to wait behind me until the road was empty. Because that attitude is what I and other posters above were talking about with regard to anger towards bicyclists. "Share the road" has to be a fully bi-directional process, otherwise bicyclists get killed.
If he can't move fully over safely, then if any of the three vehicles (northbound car, southbound car, and southbound cyclist) shift at all (say, to avoid an obstacle), the cyclist dies.
If the driver can move over safely, yet only half-way, he can pass when there is a gap in traffic, rather than having to wait until the road is empty. I'm not saying to swerve two feet over at 80 mph and take a chance that the cyclist gets smeared across the pavement. But having a cyclist bring a line of cars from 45 mph to 15 mph is a sure way to get cyclists killed.
Rather than mandating "all four tires" laws, it would make more sense to mandate bike lanes and paths along all major roads, to avoid this entire situation. Also have crews keep bike lanes clear of debris, and patch holes quickly. (Hire cycling enthusiasts to do that work, separate from any other road department crew.) It would seem to save more cyclists lives than pissing off drivers even more than some of them are already.
Well, all of them except the Libertarians and Anarchists. And I'm not sure I believe those two actually exist.
When MADD started out, roughly 2/3 of the accidents and deaths were caused by drunk driving. So that value has been cut in half over the last couple decades, which is good. And it's not just the convenient ratio, but the actual number of deaths per year from drunk driving has been cut in half.
Today's problem really is that the other part of that ratio has doubled, with the same increase in actual deaths from sober drivers. So, while drunks now kill half as meany people as they used to, and face stiff penalties for even driving drunk without killing anyone, sober drivers have taken up the slack and redoubled their efforts. But, since they are sober, apparently no serious action is taken against them.
How often do you see someone driving like a idiot (high speed, changing lanes like crazy, tailgating at 80 mph, etc), yet they never get a ticket. Instead the cops reserve their stakeout time for "bar closing time" and "click it or ticket". Even the cops I see on the median of the highway here seem to sit there for a long time, when everyone in the fast lane is speeding, and half the people in the middle lane are swerving around using the right two lanes to pass the speeders. I have never seen the highway patrol race out and pull those people over.
In my state, at least, riding two abreast is completely legal.
Those bikes are traffic, and they were ahead of you. You shouldn't be passing them until you can do so safely by getting all 4 of your tires in the next lane.
As a former-frequent bicyclist, I hate that attitude and the asinine laws that are built around it. If there is a group of two to ten bicyclists riding down a busy road, they should be riding single file, at the same speed, and as far right as is safely possible. When I rode, alone or in small groups, that is how we rode on busy roads. (Empty roads are another story.)
In large groups, such as a biking club, that has ten to a hundred people riding a route has more reason to double up, or for single riders to be passing others at some point. When I rode with a biking club, we still rode to the right edge as possible, even when two abreast or passing.
To claim that the only way a driver can pass a single file of cyclists is if he can get all four wheels across the center line is what I object to. If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead? Just because some assholes can't let other travelers share "their" road? Not a reasonable justification.
It might not be intuitive, but it's been the case for a couple decades now.
Great point. I'm going to get my old LinkSys router and Pringles can antennae, and figure out how to make a directed RF beam to take out drones. :^)
That could be stolen.
You just lost most of this crowd.
I always felt sorry for that poor shoe.
Some of us knuckle dragging rednecks passed the 3rd grade with flying colors.
Exactly. It was the proudest moment of my teenage years. ;^)
That's strange. In the story last week, several comments were explaining how all props are so fragile they break if a bird farts at them.