I think you are confused. Adding taxes to give something to people is perceived as socialist. Issuing a bond to pay for something that's going to be a fiscal benefit is not. Or that's how it worked when I was young. Perhaps things have changed.
Poor people having phones saves the government money.Â
If that was the case, then why do they need a tax to pay for the phones? Shouldn't they send the phones to those who need them and cut taxes with all of the savings?
Firefox, or any other browser for that matter, could easily recapture the web browser market by blocking auto-play videos.
Maybe for the small segment of tech geeks like you and me, but not for everyone else. I've set this up for dozens of friends and family members over the years. And even after walking them through how to play videos, everyone of them either swithed to a browser that played them by default or asked me to switch the browser to play them automatically.
That's nothing. I used a Monster USB charging cable on my Samsung phone. My phone now has enough charge to power my entire house for 3 weeks. And the headphone jack outputs ATMOS. My 128bit mp3 songs have never sounded so open. I'm hearing details that I never heard before.
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
What's even funnier is the The Daily Show also won several Peabody awards over the years. I always found it somewhat odd that Jon Stewart would always brag about winning that but when asked if he felt any responsibility for his reporting he would insist it was just a comedy show and not news.
Clearly there was one hell of a flood in prehistoric times that scared the bejesus out of humanity at the time
Wasn't the flood from the old testament? You know, before Jesus. And I believe that "bejesus" is an Irish term. So probably a little bit later than when the flood was written about. Perhaps someone used a time machine to erase any records of the big rock. Or maybe the paradox of all of this really screwed up the timeline.
the diversity of underworld species bears comparison to the Amazon or the Galapagos Islands, but unlike those places the environment is still largely pristine because people have yet to probe most of the subsurface.
As long as there are no exploitable resources it should be fine. But if someone discovers something useful or that can be sold, it won't take long before we humans manage to lay waste to most of it. Sadly that seems to be the way we operate as a species. We've just gotten very efficient at it as we advance.
The "Dark" part simply means that we (used to) lack information about this side. Until the Apollo program nobody had ever seen it.
I always thought it was the far side of the moon. At least that's what I remember everyone calling it until Pink Floyd released "The Dark Side of the Moon". To be fair, it was a hugely popular album. I think it stayed on the Billboard charts for fifteen years after it's release.
With the original ICE this car did 0-60 in 8.4 seconds. I have to wonder how the stock frame and suspension are going to handle that much extra torque. Additionally, this car did not have any sort of traction control. Will that be added as part of the conversation? I didn't RTFA, so I also have to wonder if the brakes are to be improved. I'm assuming it will have regenerative brakes. Then there's the matter that less than 2000 of these were built to begin with.
I spent a lot of my youth looking to go faster. But I also tried to only modify cars that weren't rare or classics. By the time the 1980s rolled around 1970 to 1974 were my favorite years for cars. They tended to be ignored/despised, but were pre emissions for the most part. Had too many friends that had cars that sat in climate controlled garages at that point and never understood the point. There will be a lot of those type of people who will be awfully pissed off about someone doing this to a fairly rare, well loved car like this Aston Martin
Well no consumer watches uncompressed difgital video, i suspect a few hollywood okorists gradesndrharfor watch uncompressed, and maybe the studio boss for finsl sprowal befor final oput to didital cinama / film (for cinemas nor gone digitak yet and all the other distribution formats consumed by evrybody else
I think you may have a flipped bit in your decompression.
There are quite a lot of non-electronics though that can still be reused.
There's more than electronics that need to be worried about once it's in salt water.
That would be a crash but it not what it did in this case, it still did a burn kind of like it was intending to land., touched down lightly and was fetched fairly quickly.
I didn't see it's final landing, but it sure looked like it fell over in the water. But the video cut off.
"Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched," Musk wrote, latter adding: "We may use it for an internal SpaceX mission."
I'm pretty neutral on Musk. I admire a lot of what he's done, and even how he does some things. But, he's also a showmen and certainly likes to bend the truth at times. How he can make that determination from a video is beyond me. Nor would I guess he is actually qualified to make that decision. If they are only willing to use if for internal SpaceX missions, then he's certainly not confident about it.
You aren't addressing the facts that A: it's unmanned
So any unmanned vehicle cannot crash?
B: it's a husk of a completed mission being recollected for recycling
Is it supposed to be reusable? It was my understanding that it is. But it certainly is not after landing in saltwater, and it will be damaged beyond repair after falling over. Do they break these down and separate the various materials for recycling? What about the composite and electrical components? As far as I know, the only way these get recycled is if they can use them again.
So no, it's really nothing like a crash or "ditching" as it landed exactly where it was supposed to given that it had lost the stabilizer to maintain vertical landing orientation, which is entirely optional and bonus.
This is exactly what ditching is. It failed to land as hoped for and went into a safe failure mode by ditching into the water. In doing so essentially destroying any possibility of being reused.
Just because it wasn't a catastrophic failure, or one that caused death or injury, doesn't mean it didn't crash. The idea of ditching is to not cause unnecessary casualties. This is exactly what it did.
C: it was malfunctioning and D: this is the planned programmed behavior in a fault event.
It didn't though, it landed fairly softly in the water and so is reusable.
That's news to me. As far as I understand once they land in saltwater, they are no longer usable. Electronics don't hold up well once exposed to saltwater and the effort to recondition would not be worth the risk or the potentially reduced usability. Corrosion is also a structural issue.
With the Falcon9 water landing, there was not much risk to the craft. It's just harder to collect.
From this link:A Falcon 9 first stage is too fragile to just let fall into the water. Unlike the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters, which are massive steel tubes, a Falcon 9 is a thin-walled aluminum tube which can't survive falling over into water, and probably wouldn't survive extended wave action even if you gently lowered it in to the water on its side.
It turns out that the only way to recover a Falcon 9 first stage intact is to gently land it right-side-up on landing legs, either on land with a boostback burn, or out in the ocean on a barge.
From your link: " pilots Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles glided the plane to a ditching in the Hudson River"
The definition of "ditching" from the Wikipedia entry for water landing: The phrase "water landing" is also used as a euphemism for crash-landing into water an aircraft not designed for the purpose, an event formally termed ditching
I can't wait to get a hold of some of this stuff. Just think of all of the applications. I'm going to compress it, remove the wheels from my kids skateboard and attach it to the bottom to make the first real hover-board. It should make jet packs a reality too. We shouldn't need as much thrust since it will only be needed for directional control. And just think of the applications for cars. using it to repel some of the mass away from the road will make the car more fuel efficient. And if traction is lost, you can simply pump the liquid to the top of the car to regain traction. I feel like it's the 1950's all over again. Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners, robot butlers, weather control and glass dome houses are coming. I'm sure this will make fusion viable in just 20 years too.
In this day and age? Actually, I'm sure people would expect to be able to get that quality.
So you believe that are becoming more gullible than they used to be? Maybe it comes in waves. When I was young it seemed like people were more trusting. As I got older it seemed that people became more skeptical/cynical. I know that my teenager is a lot more gullible than I was at any age after 9 or 10 years of age. So perhaps that is the case.
Granted, I think that we were all a lot happier back in the days when the government lied to us and we believed it. So maybe there's something to being overly trusting.
Tell that to my wife. She salivates every time the Pixel 3 commercials come on. To hear her tell it a wider selfie camera is the only thing standing between us and a life of complete fulfillment.
I'm not sure if I should be jealous of you or feel sorry for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are confused. Adding taxes to give something to people is perceived as socialist. Issuing a bond to pay for something that's going to be a fiscal benefit is not. Or that's how it worked when I was young. Perhaps things have changed.
Poor people having phones saves the government money.Â
If that was the case, then why do they need a tax to pay for the phones? Shouldn't they send the phones to those who need them and cut taxes with all of the savings?
Firefox, or any other browser for that matter, could easily recapture the web browser market by blocking auto-play videos.
Maybe for the small segment of tech geeks like you and me, but not for everyone else. I've set this up for dozens of friends and family members over the years. And even after walking them through how to play videos, everyone of them either swithed to a browser that played them by default or asked me to switch the browser to play them automatically.
That's nothing. I used a Monster USB charging cable on my Samsung phone. My phone now has enough charge to power my entire house for 3 weeks. And the headphone jack outputs ATMOS. My 128bit mp3 songs have never sounded so open. I'm hearing details that I never heard before.
A few years ago there was a survey asking people where they got their news. The number one TV show people reported getting news from was The Daily Show, a comedy show.
What's even funnier is the The Daily Show also won several Peabody awards over the years. I always found it somewhat odd that Jon Stewart would always brag about winning that but when asked if he felt any responsibility for his reporting he would insist it was just a comedy show and not news.
NASA should be written in ALL CAPS since it is an acronym
So is laser, taser, radar, sonar, scuba, base jumping, care packages, (giga/mega)flop, Pakistan, snafu, gulag, zip code, modem...
The idea of a worldwide flood doesn't really make sense.
So there's no need to worry about rising sea levels then? ;-)
Clearly there was one hell of a flood in prehistoric times that scared the bejesus out of humanity at the time
Wasn't the flood from the old testament? You know, before Jesus. And I believe that "bejesus" is an Irish term. So probably a little bit later than when the flood was written about. Perhaps someone used a time machine to erase any records of the big rock. Or maybe the paradox of all of this really screwed up the timeline.
the diversity of underworld species bears comparison to the Amazon or the Galapagos Islands, but unlike those places the environment is still largely pristine because people have yet to probe most of the subsurface.
As long as there are no exploitable resources it should be fine. But if someone discovers something useful or that can be sold, it won't take long before we humans manage to lay waste to most of it. Sadly that seems to be the way we operate as a species. We've just gotten very efficient at it as we advance.
The "Dark" part simply means that we (used to) lack information about this side. Until the Apollo program nobody had ever seen it.
I always thought it was the far side of the moon. At least that's what I remember everyone calling it until Pink Floyd released "The Dark Side of the Moon". To be fair, it was a hugely popular album. I think it stayed on the Billboard charts for fifteen years after it's release.
With the original ICE this car did 0-60 in 8.4 seconds. I have to wonder how the stock frame and suspension are going to handle that much extra torque. Additionally, this car did not have any sort of traction control. Will that be added as part of the conversation? I didn't RTFA, so I also have to wonder if the brakes are to be improved. I'm assuming it will have regenerative brakes. Then there's the matter that less than 2000 of these were built to begin with.
I spent a lot of my youth looking to go faster. But I also tried to only modify cars that weren't rare or classics. By the time the 1980s rolled around 1970 to 1974 were my favorite years for cars. They tended to be ignored/despised, but were pre emissions for the most part. Had too many friends that had cars that sat in climate controlled garages at that point and never understood the point. There will be a lot of those type of people who will be awfully pissed off about someone doing this to a fairly rare, well loved car like this Aston Martin
Well no consumer watches uncompressed difgital video, i suspect a few hollywood okorists gradesndrharfor watch uncompressed, and maybe the studio boss for finsl sprowal befor final oput to didital cinama / film (for cinemas nor gone digitak yet and all the other distribution formats consumed by evrybody else
I think you may have a flipped bit in your decompression.
There are quite a lot of non-electronics though that can still be reused.
There's more than electronics that need to be worried about once it's in salt water.
That would be a crash but it not what it did in this case, it still did a burn kind of like it was intending to land., touched down lightly and was fetched fairly quickly.
I didn't see it's final landing, but it sure looked like it fell over in the water. But the video cut off.
"Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched," Musk wrote, latter adding: "We may use it for an internal SpaceX mission."
I'm pretty neutral on Musk. I admire a lot of what he's done, and even how he does some things. But, he's also a showmen and certainly likes to bend the truth at times. How he can make that determination from a video is beyond me. Nor would I guess he is actually qualified to make that decision. If they are only willing to use if for internal SpaceX missions, then he's certainly not confident about it.
You aren't addressing the facts that A: it's unmanned
So any unmanned vehicle cannot crash?
B: it's a husk of a completed mission being recollected for recycling
Is it supposed to be reusable? It was my understanding that it is. But it certainly is not after landing in saltwater, and it will be damaged beyond repair after falling over. Do they break these down and separate the various materials for recycling? What about the composite and electrical components? As far as I know, the only way these get recycled is if they can use them again.
So no, it's really nothing like a crash or "ditching" as it landed exactly where it was supposed to given that it had lost the stabilizer to maintain vertical landing orientation, which is entirely optional and bonus.
This is exactly what ditching is. It failed to land as hoped for and went into a safe failure mode by ditching into the water. In doing so essentially destroying any possibility of being reused.
Just because it wasn't a catastrophic failure, or one that caused death or injury, doesn't mean it didn't crash. The idea of ditching is to not cause unnecessary casualties. This is exactly what it did.
C: it was malfunctioning and D: this is the planned programmed behavior in a fault event.
AKA ditching.
It didn't though, it landed fairly softly in the water and so is reusable.
That's news to me. As far as I understand once they land in saltwater, they are no longer usable. Electronics don't hold up well once exposed to saltwater and the effort to recondition would not be worth the risk or the potentially reduced usability. Corrosion is also a structural issue.
With the Falcon9 water landing, there was not much risk to the craft. It's just harder to collect.
From this link:A Falcon 9 first stage is too fragile to just let fall into the water. Unlike the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters, which are massive steel tubes, a Falcon 9 is a thin-walled aluminum tube which can't survive falling over into water, and probably wouldn't survive extended wave action even if you gently lowered it in to the water on its side.
It turns out that the only way to recover a Falcon 9 first stage intact is to gently land it right-side-up on landing legs, either on land with a boostback burn, or out in the ocean on a barge.
From your link: " pilots Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles glided the plane to a ditching in the Hudson River"
The definition of "ditching" from the Wikipedia entry for water landing: The phrase "water landing" is also used as a euphemism for crash-landing into water an aircraft not designed for the purpose, an event formally termed ditching
the Falcon 9 appearing to regain control before making an unplanned landing in the water
Just like with passenger airplanes, a "water landing" is known as a crash.
I can't wait to get a hold of some of this stuff. Just think of all of the applications. I'm going to compress it, remove the wheels from my kids skateboard and attach it to the bottom to make the first real hover-board. It should make jet packs a reality too. We shouldn't need as much thrust since it will only be needed for directional control. And just think of the applications for cars. using it to repel some of the mass away from the road will make the car more fuel efficient. And if traction is lost, you can simply pump the liquid to the top of the car to regain traction. I feel like it's the 1950's all over again. Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners, robot butlers, weather control and glass dome houses are coming. I'm sure this will make fusion viable in just 20 years too.
In this day and age? Actually, I'm sure people would expect to be able to get that quality.
So you believe that are becoming more gullible than they used to be? Maybe it comes in waves. When I was young it seemed like people were more trusting. As I got older it seemed that people became more skeptical/cynical. I know that my teenager is a lot more gullible than I was at any age after 9 or 10 years of age. So perhaps that is the case.
Granted, I think that we were all a lot happier back in the days when the government lied to us and we believed it. So maybe there's something to being overly trusting.
Tell that to my wife. She salivates every time the Pixel 3 commercials come on. To hear her tell it a wider selfie camera is the only thing standing between us and a life of complete fulfillment.
I'm not sure if I should be jealous of you or feel sorry for you.
I'm going to start coding with a stick writing in the sand, it's much safer than what Silicon Valley does with it.
So you're leaving silicon valley to go to a silicon beach? I don't know which is scarier, a spectre or a hurricane.
Information sharing website Quora has announced a data breach
TFS says it's an information sharing site.
Hasn't MX Player been doing this for several years? The version I used last certainly did. Or is this "new" because a streaming service is doing it?
Actually, the dark side of the moon gets more sunlight than the side that faces Earth.
Then why is it dark?
Because the Pink Floyd album The Dark Side of the Moon was extremely popular.
The robots, which look like a cross between a miniature Zamboni and a motorized wheel chair,
I wonder how may people will get confused and try to use them as a motorized wheel chair.